[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47829-47832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18459]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


Information Quality Guidelines Pursuant to Section 515 of the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Request for Comments on Proposed Guidelines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A notice published by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) in the Federal Register directed Federal agencies to issue and 
implement guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 
utility, and integrity of Government information disseminated to the 
public. We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSM), are issuing these proposed Information Quality Guidelines in 
order to comply with the OMB requirement.

DATES: To ensure consideration of any comments you may have on the 
proposed guidelines, your comments must be received on or before August 
21, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand carry comments to the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 101, 
1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-
mail comments to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Donald Griffith, Deputy Chief 
Information Officer, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, on 202-208-2916, or via e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    A notice published by OMB in the Federal Register, dated January 3, 
2002 (67 FR 369), and reissued February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8451), directed 
Federal agencies to issue and implement guidelines to ensure and 
maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of Government 
information disseminated to the public. On May 24, 2002, the Department 
of the Interior published a Federal Register notice providing the web 
site where Departmental Information Quality Guidelines may be reviewed, 
and directing its offices and bureaus to publish by July 1, 2002, a 
notice of availability of their own Guidelines in the Federal Register 
for public comment. We are issuing these proposed Information Quality 
Guidelines in order to comply with this direction.
    OSM, which includes Headquarters, three Regional Offices, and ten 
Field Offices, disseminates a wide variety of information to the public 
regarding the nation's surface coal mining and reclamation activities 
on Federal, tribal or other lands within states which may include state 
or privately-owned lands. The disseminated information includes 
organizational and management information, programs and services 
products, research and statistical reports, policy and regulatory 
information, and general reference material. We will evaluate and 
identify the types of information that we disseminate that will be 
subject to these guidelines, once finalized.

II. Information Quality Standards

    To the greatest extent practicable and appropriate, information we 
disseminate is internally reviewed for quality--including objectivity, 
utility, and integrity--before such information is disseminated.
    1. Information we disseminate to the public is normally subject to 
one or more levels of internal staff, or supervisory review for quality 
before we disseminate the information.
    2. The number of levels of internal quality review applied in a 
particular case depends on the nature, scope, and purpose of the 
information to be disseminated. For example, routine reports that may 
be prepared by staff about the agency's activities or operations may be 
subject to one or two levels of staff or supervisory review for

[[Page 47830]]

basic accuracy and completeness before such reports are released to the 
general public. Additional levels of internal review, supplementation, 
clarification, or approval by our management may be appropriate, 
however, to the extent such a report may be intended as the basis for 
more complicated budgeting decisions or legislative reporting purposes 
(e.g., to satisfy a need for greater statistical detail or 
explanation).
    We have adopted the information quality definitions published by 
OMB. They are set forth in IV. below.

III. Information Quality Procedures

    While we may vary in our implementation approaches, the basic 
guidance published by OMB on January 3, 2002, re-issued February 22, 
2002, and adopted by the Department in the Federal Register, dated May 
24, 2002, is included in our policy and will apply to our dissemination 
of information.
    The OMB guidelines mandate that, after October 2, 2002, affected 
persons may seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of 
disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB or 
Department guidelines. As a responsible bureau, we will by that date 
provide procedures to review and correct disseminated information and 
will establish a system for tracking and responding to complaints in 
accordance with this direction. As a part of this process, we will 
provide on our Web site (http://www.osmre.gov) a means for affected 
persons to challenge the quality of disseminated information. We will 
also provide addresses of appropriate officials to contact through the 
mail to challenge the quality of disseminated information.
    If you want to challenge the quality of our disseminated 
information, please provide the following information: the name and 
address of the person filing the complaint; specific reference to the 
information being challenged; a statement of why the complainant 
believes the information fails to satisfy the standards in the OSM or 
OMB guidelines; and how the complainant is affected by the challenged 
information. The complainant may include suggestions for correcting the 
challenged information, but that is not mandatory.
    Once we receive a complaint, we will have 5 business days to notify 
the complainant of receipt. We will also notify the program area that 
disseminated the challenged information of the receipt of the 
complaint. We will have 45 business days from receipt to evaluate 
whether the complaint is accurate based on an analysis of all 
information available to the appropriate program or office. If, within 
the 45 business-day period, we determine that the complaint is without 
merit, we will notify the complainant. If, within the 45 business-day 
period, we determine that the complaint has merit, we will notify the 
complainant and the appropriate program or office. We will take 
reasonable steps to withdraw the information from the public domain and 
from any decision-making process in which it is being used. If we 
decide to correct the challenged information, we will notify the 
complainant of our intent and make the correction. We will determine 
the schedule and procedure for correcting challenged information, but 
will not disseminate the challenged information in any form until we 
make the appropriate corrections. We will provide the complainant with 
a copy of the corrected information once completed.
    If a complainant does not receive the notices within the time frame 
described above, or wishes to appeal a determination of merit, or 
wishes to appeal the proposed correction of information, the 
complainant may appeal to our Chief Information Officer (CIO). The CIO 
may intervene on behalf of the complainant to maintain the complaint-
resolution process. If the CIO determines that an appeal of a 
determination of merit or the proposed correction of information has 
merit, our appropriate program office will be notified. We will 
withdraw the challenged information from the public domain, to the 
extent practicable, and will not use the information in any of our 
decision-making process until we correct it.
    If we receive a second complaint before we issue the 45 business-
day notice for an overlapping complaint under review, we will treat it 
with simultaneous consideration. We will notify the second complainant 
within 5 business days that an analysis is in progress and will provide 
its status. We will combine the earlier and later complaints and issue 
a combined 45 business-day notice.
    If we receive the second complaint on the same subject after we 
have issued a 45 business-day notice, we will conduct a new and 
separate review.
    We conduct a substantial amount of business following the public 
review and comment on proposed documents prior to their issuance in 
final form. These activities include rulemakings and analyses conducted 
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other authorities. For 
the purposes of the Information Quality Guidelines covered by this 
notice, we will treat requests we receive for corrections of 
information in draft documents as comments on the draft documents. 
Response to comments will be included in the final document. When we 
receive requests for corrections of information in a final document, we 
will first determine whether the request pertains to an issue discussed 
in the draft document upon which the requester could have commented. If 
we determine that the requester had the opportunity to comment on the 
issue at the draft stage and failed to do so, we may consider the 
request to have no merit. If information that did not appear in the 
draft document is the subject of a request for correction, we will 
consider that request. If we determine that the information does not 
comply with OMB or our guidelines, such that the non-compliance with 
the guidelines presents significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action 
or its impacts, OSM will use existing mechanisms to remedy the 
situation, such as reproposing a rule or supplementing published 
analysis.
    We will submit a report for each fiscal year to the Department of 
the Interior's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) not later 
than November 30 of each year. The report will identify the number, 
nature, and resolution of complaints received. the OCIO staff will 
consolidate all bureau reports into a Departmental annual report and 
submit to the Director of OMB no later than January 1, annually.

IV. Definitions

    1. Quality is an encompassing term that includes utility, 
objectivity, and integrity. Therefore, the guidelines sometimes refer 
to these four statutory terms collectively as quality.
    2. Utility refers to the usefulness of the information to its 
intended users, including the public. In assessing the usefulness of 
information that we disseminate to the public, we need to reconsider 
the uses of the information not only from our perspective, but also 
from the perspective of the public. As a result, when transparency of 
information is relevant for assessing the information's usefulness from 
the public's perspective, we will take care to address that 
transparency in our review of the information.
    3. Objectivity involves two distinct elements: presentations and 
substance.
    (a) Objectivity includes whether we disseminate information in an 
accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner.

[[Page 47831]]

This involves whether the information is presented within a proper 
context. Sometimes, in disseminating certain types of information to 
the public, other information must also be disseminated in order to 
ensure an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased presentation. Also, 
we will identify the sources of the disseminated information (to the 
extent possible, consistent with confidentiality protections) and 
include it in a specific financial, or statistical context so that the 
public can assess for itself whether there may be some reason to 
question the objectivity of the sources. Where appropriate, we will 
identify transparent documentation and error sources affecting data 
quality.
    (b) In addition, objectivity involves a focus on ensuring accurate, 
reliable, and unbiased information. In a scientific financial, or 
statistical context, we will analyze the original and supporting data 
and develop our results using sound statistical and research methods.
    (1) If data and analytic results have been subjected to formal, 
independent, external peer review, we will generally presume that the 
information is of acceptable objectivity. However, a complainant may 
rebut this presumption based on a persuasive showing in a particular 
instance. If we use peer review to help satisfy the objectivity 
standard, the review process employed shall meet the general criteria 
for competent and credible peer review recommended by OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to the President's Management 
Council (9/20/01) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/oira_review-process.html). OIRA recommends ``that (a) peer reviewers be selected 
primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (b) peer 
reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies prior technical/policy 
positions they may have taken on the issues at hand, (c) peer reviewers 
be expected to disclose to agencies their sources of personal and 
institutional funding (private or public sector), and (d) peer reviews 
be conducted in an open and rigorous manner.''
    (2) Since we are responsible for disseminating influential 
scientific, financial, and statistical information, we will include a 
high degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate the 
reproducibility (the ability to reproduce the results) of such 
information by qualified third parties.
    With regard to original and supporting related data, we will not 
require that all disseminated data be subjected to a reproducibility 
requirement. We may identify, in consultation with the relevant 
scientific and technical communities, those particular types of data 
that can practically be subjected to a reproducibility requirement, 
given ethical, feasibility, or confidentiality constraints. It is 
understood that reproducibility of data is an indication of 
transparency about research design and methods and thus a replication 
exercise (i.e. a new experiment, test of sample) that will not be 
required prior to each release of information.
    With regard to analytical results, we will generally require 
sufficient transparency about data and methods that a qualified member 
of the public could undertake an independent reanalysis. These 
transparency standards apply to our analysis of data from a single 
study as well as to analyses that combine information from multiple 
studies.
    Making the data and methods publicly available will assist us in 
determining whether analytic results are reproducible. However, the 
objectivity standard does not override other compelling interests such 
as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other 
confidentiality protections.
    In situations where public access to data and methods will not 
occur due to other compelling interests, we will apply especially 
rigorous checks to analytical results and documents what checks were 
undertaken. We will, however, disclose the specific data sources used, 
and the specific quantitative methods and assumptions we employed. We 
will define type of checks, and the level of detail for documentation, 
given the nature and complexity of the issues.
    Since we are responsible for dissemination of some types of health 
and public safety information, we will interpret the reproducibility 
and peer-review standards in a manner appropriate to assuring the 
timely flow of vital information from us to appropriate government 
agencies and the public. We may temporarily waive information from us 
to appropriate government agencies and the public. We may temporarily 
waive information quality standards under urgent situations (e.g., 
imminent threats to public health or homeland security) in accordance 
with the latitude that may be specified in the Department guidelines.
    4. Integrity refers to the security of information--protection of 
the information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that 
the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification.
    5. Information means any communication or representation of 
knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form, including 
textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual 
forms. This definition includes information that an agency disseminates 
from a web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks to 
information that others disseminate. This definition does not include 
opinions, where our presentation makes it clear that what is being 
offered is someone's opinion rather than fact or our views.
    6. Government information means information created, collected, 
processed, disseminated, or disposed of by or for the Federal 
Government.
    7. Information dissemination product means any books, paper, map, 
machine-readable material, audiovisual production, or other documentary 
material, regardless of physical form or characteristic, an agency 
disseminates to the public. This definition includes any electronic 
document, CD-ROM, or web page.
    8. Dissemination means agency initiated or sponsored distribution 
of information to the public [see 5 CFR 1320.3(d) for definition of 
``conduct or sponsor'']. Dissemination does not include distribution 
limited to government employees or agency contractors or grantees; 
intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information; and 
responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of 
Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or 
other similar law. This definition also does not include distribution 
limited to correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases, 
archival records, public filings, subpoenas or adjudicative processes.
    9. Influential, when used in the phrase ``influential scientific, 
financial, or statistical information,'' means that we can reasonably 
determine that dissemination of the information will have or does have 
a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or 
important private sector decisions. We are authorized to define 
``influential'' in ways appropriate for us, given the nature and 
multiplicity of issues for which we are responsible.
    10. Reproducible means that the information is capable of being 
substantially reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of 
impression. For information judged to have more (less) important 
impacts, the degree of imprecision that is tolerated is reduced 
(increased). If we apply the reproducibility test to specific types of 
original or supporting data, the associated guidelines will provide 
relevant definitions of reproducibility

[[Page 47832]]

(e.g., standards for replication of laboratory data). With respect to 
analytic results, capable of being substantially reproduced means that 
independent analysis of the original or supporting data using identical 
methods would demonstrate whether similar analytic results, subject to 
an acceptable degree of imprecision or error, could be generated.

V. Legal Effect

    These guidelines are intended only to improve the internal 
management of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
relating to information quality. Nothing in these guidelines is 
intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, 
enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its 
agencies, its offices, or any other person.

    Dated: June 25, 2002.
Jeffrey D. Jarrett,
Director.
[FR Doc. 02-18459 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M