The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released a report (available from OpenCRS.org) on e-rulemaking, which it defines as "the term used to describe the use of information technology (IT) to facilitate a range of activities related to the process of developing regulations." CRS specialist Curtis Copeland discusses a recent history of e-rulemaking and challenges the executive branch faces in implementing and expanding e-rulemaking.

The report also extensively discusses Regulations.gov, a federally-run website where the public can search for rules and supporting information and submit comments.

Anyone who has used Regulations.gov knows it can be frustrating. Sometimes finding a proposed rule and commenting on it is simple. Other times, even if you know exactly what you are looking for, you can become lost in the volumes of information provided through the database.

CRS conducted tests to judge the ease of navigability on the site. A description of one test is similar to the experiences of many users of Regulations.gov:

CRS also attempted to locate information on an EPA rule changing the emission standards for mercury. Using the "Search Documents" function, identifying EPA, using the "Subject" category, and putting "mercury" in the associated box led to a list of possible dockets, the first of which was for a January 2004 proposed rule.131 The docket contained a total of 6,902 documents across 277 pages of material. No index was provided, and the contents were not organized by type of document (e.g., agency generated documents versus public comments) or chronologically.

The report includes an astute observation from Professor Richard Parker, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law and an expert in regulatory issues: "too much information — badly disorganized — is not much better than too little."

As Reg•Watch blogged this morning, the Environmental Protection Agency is all talk when it comes to enforcement of environmental regulations. A new report from U.S. PIRG titled Troubled Waters highlights the deficiencies in EPA's enforcement of Clean Water Act regulations.

Facilities that want to discharge pollutants into navigable waterways must first receive a permit from EPA. EPA uses the permit system to limit discharges and to monitor the polluting activity of the facilities.

The report finds, "Nationally, more than 3600 major facilities (57%) exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005." Furthermore, the violations tend to be significant: "Major facilities exceeding their Clean Water Act permits, on average, exceeded their permit limits by 263%, or nearly four times the allowed amount."

One problem the report cites is poor enforcement during the Bush administration. President Bush has consistently pushed budgets which slash the agency's enforcement funding. Whether it's due to a lack of funding or a lack of interest, EPA has underwhelmed in enforcing the Clean Water Act:

In 2007, the EPA Office of Inspector General reviewed 56 major facilities in long-term significant non-compliance with Clean Water Act NPDES permits between July 2002 and June 2005. The Inspector General found that EPA and states did not take suitable enforcement actions to address all of the violations at 21 of the facilities and took no enforcement actions at eight of the facilities. At 35 of the facilities reviewed, none of the enforcement actions that the Inspector General's office could assess were taken in a timely manner, leading facilities to continue to violate their permits for extended periods of time.

As Reg•Watch mentioned earlier, officials claim the agency is focusing on polluters who leave a "big environmental footprint" and on "chronic offenders who are out of compliance." Too bad they're all talk.