[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61946-61947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Office of
Special Counsel (OSC)
AGENCY: Office of Special Counsel
ACTION: Final Agency Guidelines
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) published a
Federal Register (FR) notice on April 30, 2002, inviting public comment
on its draft report to OMB with proposed OSC guidelines for ensuring
and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of
certain information disseminated to the public (``information quality
guidelines''). 67 FR 21316. This notice describes comments received,
and announces the availability of OSC's final information quality
guidelines.
DATES: Final OSC information quality guidelines become effective on
October 2, 2002
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharyn Danch, by mail (Planning and
Advice Division, Office of Special Counsel, 1730 M Street, NW., (Suite
201), Washington, DC 20036-4505), or electronic mail ([email protected]). OSC's final information quality guidelines are
available on the agency Web site (http://www.osc.gov, at the ``Reading
Room'' link).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB guidelines, issued to Federal agencies
under section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763), provide
that each agency should: (1) develop information resources management
procedures and issue agency guidelines to ensure the quality,
objectivity, utility and integrity of information disseminated by the
agency to the public; (2) establish administrative mechanisms for
affected persons to seek and obtain the correction of disseminated
information that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines; and
(3) report annually to OMB on requests for correction received by the
agency and the resolution of those requests. OMB advises agencies to
use common sense in adapting its guidelines to information disseminated
to the public, taking into account the nature and importance of the
information involved. Finally, OMB encourages agencies to incorporate
standards and procedures required by its guidelines into existing
agency information management and administrative practices, under
applicable laws and OMB circulars.
On April 30, 2002, pursuant to the OMB guidelines, OSC published
its draft report to OMB with proposed OSC information quality
guidelines, and invited public comment on or before June 1, 2002. OSC
received one response, from the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
(CRE), on May 30th, 2002. On June 6, 2002, OMB gave agencies an
extension of time (to August 1, 2002) in which to submit their reports
with proposed guidelines to OMB, and suggested that agencies consider
extending the public comment period on their guidelines. 67 FR 40755.
On July 8, 2002, OSC published a notice extending the public comment
period to July 10, 2002. 67 FR 45168. A second response, received from
Citizens for Sensible Safeguards (CSS) on June 14, 2002, was deemed to
have been received during the comment period, as
[[Page 61947]]
extended. OSC carefully considered both responses received.
CRE advised OSC that its response (entitled ``Proposed CRE Generic
Comments to all Federal Agencies Related to Data Quality Guidelines'')
consisted of generic comments, provided to all Federal agencies on
cross-cutting issues that might apply to draft guidelines of only some
agencies. OSC reviewed the CRE comments, and identified two that might
apply to its proposed guidelines.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Six of CRE's 16 numbered comments (nos. 5, 11, 12, 14, 15,
16) addressed matters not applicable to information disseminated by
OSC and, therefore, not addressed by its guidelines. Other comments
(nos. 7, 8, and 9), critical of guidelines issued by some agencies,
did not apply to OSC because its guidelines met or exceeded the
standard(s) suggested by CRE. Several comments (nos. 2, 10, and 13,
and discussion referring to no. 1) indicated dissatisfaction with
definitions used in the OMB guidelines issued to agencies. OSC has
decided to keep any definitions taken from the OMB guidelines, until
such time as OMB may revise its guidelines to amend the definitions
in question. As noted by CRE in its comments, ``[a]ll agency
guidelines are required to comply with the requirements set forth by
OMB in their interagency February 22\nd\ Final Guidelines.
(statutory citations omitted).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under comment (1), CRE asserted that neither OMB nor Federal
agencies have the authority to exempt types and categories of
information from their guidelines. CRE maintained that the OMB
guidelines improperly limited the relevant statutory language requiring
that guidelines apply to ``information...disseminated by Federal
agencies,'' by including certain exemptions in the definition of
``dissemination.''\2\ CRE stated that ``any information that an agency
has in fact made public'' must be covered. OSC's proposed guidelines
incorporated the OMB definition of ``dissemination'' with the included
exemptions. OSC believes that no change should be made in its
guidelines until such time as OMB may revise its guidelines to amend
the definition and exemptions in question.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``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.'' 67
FR 8452, 8460 (Feb. 22, 2002).
\3\ See last sentence of fn. 1, above. OSC's proposed guidelines
did not add exemptions to those defined by OMB. Those parts of CRE
comments (1), (3), and (4) that addressed agency guidelines defining
other exemptions did not apply to OSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under comment (6), CRE stated that in determining who may file an
administrative complaint requesting correction of disseminated
information, agencies should use a broad definition of ``affected
persons,'' noting with favor the definition OMB used in its guidelines
to agencies.\4\ While the draft report to OMB described specific target
audiences for information disseminated by OSC,\5\ a description of
``affected persons'' was not included in the agency's proposed
guidelines. OSC agrees that such a description should appear in the
guidelines. Part IV.C. of OSC's guidelines, therefore, now describes,
by reference to the target audiences described in its initial report to
OMB and in OMB's guidelines for Federal agencies, affected persons who
can file an administrative request for correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OMB defined affected persons as ``people who may benefit or
be harmed by the disseminated information ... includ[ing] persons
who are seeking to address information about themselves as well as
persons who use information. (citation omitted).''
\5\ ``Primary target audiences ... are current and former
federal government employees, applicants for federal employment,
employee representatives, and state and local government employees
(i.e., persons affected by or interested in the laws and regulations
enforced by OSC).'' 67 FR 21317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment received from CSS also consisted of generic, non-agency
specific comments. OSC reviewed all the comments and determined that no
changes to its proposed guidelines were needed. One or more of the
following factors applied to each comment: (1) OSC guidelines met or
exceeded the standards suggested by CSS; (2) the comment concerned a
type of information not disseminated by OSC; or (3) the proposed OSC
guidelines adopted or mirrored provisions in OMB's guidance to Federal
agencies.
After review of the public responses received, OSC sent its report
and proposed information quality guidelines for OMB review and comment
on August 1, 2002, and for final review on September 17, 2002. Pursuant
to OMB's review and further guidance to Federal agencies, OSC revised
its proposed guidelines to: (1) clarify that OSC press releases
typically contain information about matters not covered under OMB's
guidelines, and (2) conform times for responses to requestors seeking
corrections of information, and appealing OSC decisions on those
requests, from 30 to 60 days.
OSC's final information quality guidelines and September 17, 2002,
report to OMB are available, upon publication of this notice, on the
agency's Web site, (http://www.osc.gov at the ``Reading Room'' link).
Dated: September 26, 2002.
Elaine D. Kaplan,
Special Counsel.
[FR Doc. 02-25041 Filed 10-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7405-01-M