E-Government Act of 2002

• Author: William Funk - Jeffrey S. Lubbers
• Pages: 471-510

471

E-GOVERNMENT ACTOF 2002

8

E-Government

Act of 2002

471

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 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:

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:

The E-Government Act of 2002 (H.R. 2458/S. 803) was signed by Presi-

dent 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 ad-

ministrative lawyers are those that require:

•Public Information. To the extent practicable, agencies must provide

a website that includes all “information about that agency” required

1Pub. 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

472 E-GOVERNMENT ACTOF 2002

8

to be published in the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)

and (2).1

•Electronic Submission. To the extent practicable, agencies must ac-

cept electronically those submissions made in rulemaking under 5

U.S.C. § 553(c).2

•Electronic Dockets. To the extent practicable, agencies must have an

Internet-accessible rulemaking docket that includes all public com-

ments and other materials that by agency rule or practice are in-

cluded in the agency docket, whether or not electronically submitted.3

•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 technol-

ogy, and that “includes any information in an identifiable form per-

mitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual, if

identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting re-

quirements imposed on, 10 or more persons, other than” federal agen-

cies or employees.4 It should be noted here that a number of agencies

are also required by a recent appropriations act to do a special pri-

vacy 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.”5

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 cross-

agency initiatives such as E-Rulemaking, Geospatial One-Stop, E-Records

Management, E-Authentication (especially E-Signatures) and Disaster Man-

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.”).

2Pub. L. No 107-347 § 206(c).

3Id. at § 206(d). This has now been realized through www.regualtions.gov.

4Id. at § 208.

5Consolidated 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).

473

E-GOVERNMENT ACTOF 2002

8

agement; FirstGov (now USA.gov); and enterprise architecture). And it au-

thorizes funds for these activities.

The 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

•Improve access for people with and without computers

Title I and much of Title II of this lengthy Act, covering the above e-

government 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 pro-

vision of technologies that improve or accelerate their work. Under these

provisions, the executive branch is supposed to ensure, consistent with appli-

cable 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 govern-

ment.

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 authori-

zation of appropriations and effective dates. Title V contains a series of sec-

tions devoted to Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency.

Legislative History:

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 Pro-

curement Policy on September 18, 2002. The Subcommittee held hearings

on October 1, 2002. The bill was forwarded by the Subcommittee to the full