Several legislative initiatives enacted during the past decade have emphasized the potential of IT to improve the federal government’s performance. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to “promote the use of information technology to improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs, including through dissemination of public information and the reduction of information collection burdens on the public.” The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (known as the Clinger-Cohen Act) also requires the OMB Director to “promote and be responsible for improving the acquisition, use, and disposal of information technology by the Federal Government to improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs, including through dissemination of public information and the reduction of information collection burdens on the public.” Additionally, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires the OMB Director to ensure that federal agencies “provide for the option of electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper” by October 2003. GPEA’s full implementation will give individuals and organizations the option to submit information or transact business with agencies electronically. Executive branch initiatives have also encouraged the use of IT in the federal government. For example, in September 1993, the National Performance Review (later the National Partnership for Reinventing Government) announced a set of recommendations that were intended to improve government by reengineering through the use of information technology. Those recommendations included the development of integrated electronic access to government information and service; the creation of a national environmental data index; and the use of IT and other techniques “to increase opportunities for early, frequent, and interactive public participation during the rulemaking process and to increase program evaluation efforts.” In July 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13011 on “Federal Information Technology,” which, among other things, established a Chief Information Officers Council (CIO Council) as the principle interagency forum to improve agency information resource management and to “share experiences, ideas, and promising practices.” A December 17, 1999, presidential memorandum on electronic government noted that “as public awareness and Internet usage increase, the demand for online Government interaction and simplified, standardized ways to access Government information and services becomes increasingly important” and directed federal agencies to take steps to address that growing demand. Additionally, this directive called for the establishment of a “one stop” gateway to government information available on the Internet. The federal government has taken some steps to establish electronic gateways that provide one-stop access to information from a variety of agencies, including regulatory agencies. For example, the “FirstGov” Web site (www.firstgov.gov), which was launched on September 22, 2000, provides links to all on-line federal resources—from applying for student loans to tracking Social Security benefits. Also, the U.S. Business Advisor site (www.business.gov) provides businesses with one-stop access to federal information on such topics as taxes, international trade, financial assistance, and laws and regulations. The laws and regulations link allows users to connect with the Federal Register, the United States Code, and compilations of laws and regulations affecting small businesses. The U.S. Business Advisor site was created by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the National Performance Review, and an interagency task force and is maintained and funded by SBA. In our report issued last year, we identified a number of examples of how federal agencies were using IT to facilitate public participation in rulemaking. Although all of the departments and agencies we contacted were developing some type of IT-based participation vehicles, officials and staff in those agencies questioned the need for standardization of those practices across agencies. They said that agencies need to be able to design their procedures to fit their particular circumstances, and that standardization would require scarce agency resources. However, agency officials and staff were supportive of efforts to better coordinate the use of those participation mechanisms to avoid each agency’s reinventing the wheel. OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which was created by the PRA of 1980, is responsible for providing guidance and oversight for both IT and regulatory issues. The OIRA Administrator sits on the CIO Council, which is chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management. Executive Order 12866 identifies OIRA as “the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues” and makes the office responsible for coordinating agencies’ regulatory missions. The executive order also established a Regulatory Working Group that is chaired by the OIRA Administrator and is comprised of representatives of the heads of each agency with significant domestic regulatory responsibilities. The order also says that the Regulatory Working Group “shall serve as a forum to assist agencies in identifying and analyzing important regulatory issues,” including “the development of innovative regulatory techniques.” OIRA has taken some steps to encourage the use of IT specifically to improve regulatory management in federal agencies. For example, in April 2000, the OIRA Administrator launched an initiative focusing on using IT to improve the quality of the information that the government collects, while minimizing the burden. The initiative began with a public forum that featured senior officials from a number of federal regulatory agencies presenting information on their agencies’ initiatives, followed by a series of roundtable discussions. Additionally, OIRA and OMB have provided guidance to agencies on a variety of information policy issues, including the implementation of GPEA, privacy, and data exchanges with the states. The guidance applies to regulatory management as well as other agency functions. The objectives of our review were to identify (1) examples of how federal agencies are using IT innovatively, either individually or in collaboration with other agencies or levels of government, to facilitate regulatory management; (2) examples of how state regulatory agencies are using IT innovatively to facilitate regulatory management; (3) IT applications that representatives of nongovernmental organizations believe could be more widely used by federal regulatory agencies; and (4) what officials and staff in federal and state regulatory agencies and nongovernmental organizations believe are the key factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption and diffusion of IT applications in regulatory management. We focused our efforts regarding the first objective on the Departments of Agriculture (USDA); Labor (DOL); Health and Human Services (HHS); and Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We selected these agencies because they are primarily responsible for federal health, safety, and environmental regulations that have been the target of reform initiatives. In each agency, we identified the IT and regulatory management officials and staff to interview, either through our designated liaisons or through publications that featured relevant IT applications, including the agencies’ Web sites and agency documents. We asked each of these officials and staff to identify IT-based regulatory management applications that they considered innovative. We did not attempt to define the word “innovative” but made it clear that the application should not simply be that the agency had a page on the Web. We also obtained information on the agencies’ innovative or “best practice” uses of IT in regulatory management from individuals and groups focusing on regulatory reform, including the Regulatory Working Group, the Council for Excellence in Government, and academics. In each agency, we asked a series of structured questions that were keyed to our reporting objectives. For each of the federal IT-based regulatory management applications that the agencies or others identified, we conducted a structured, follow-up interview that was designed to obtain more detailed information from relevant agency officials. Specifically, we asked, among other things, for a detailed description of the innovation and for information on the regulatory purpose(s), status, scope, and results of the IT-based application. Additionally, we asked about lessons learned, including obstacles and facilitators to development. We also reviewed information on the innovations on agencies’ Web sites and other relevant documents. In some cases, the innovations we identified were primarily located in one part of the agency. For example, in HHS, the innovations identified for this study were primarily in the Department’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, in some instances, we selected certain innovations for presentation in this report from a longer list of suggestions that was provided by the agency. For example, FDA officials provided a list of more than a dozen applications that they considered innovative. Working with FDA officials, we selected applications for inclusion in this report that represented different types of functions. For the second objective, we interviewed officials from organizations representing state governments (e.g., the National Governors Association and the Environmental Council of the States) to identify promising regulatory IT applications at the state level. Again, we allowed these organizations to define the word innovative. We also identified state IT applications in the regulatory arena that other organizations (e.g., the Council for Excellence in Government and the National Association of State Information Resource Executives) or publications identified as examples of best practices. For each of the identified state IT-based applications, we talked to officials or staff in the state agencies involved in the development and/or implementation of the application and reviewed information on the agencies’ Web sites. For the third objective, we interviewed representatives of business associations, consumer advocacy groups, and academic centers that deal with regulatory reform issues. Although we recognize that there are numerous organizations that are interested in regulatory issues, we judgmentally selected these nongovernmental organizations to contact because they have been actively involved in recent regulatory reform initiatives and represent alternative perspectives on regulatory reform. We contacted the following organizations: the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, OMB Watch, Information Renaissance, the American Bar Association, the Heritage Foundation, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, American University’s Washington College of Law, and Washington University’s Center for the Study of American Business.