[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68882-68885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28802]


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

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 2002

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: These final guidelines implement guidelines published by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Federal Register which 
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 
final Information Quality Guidelines in order to comply with the OMB 
requirement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Administration, Office of 
Surface Mining, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240. 
Telephone (202) 208-2961 or by e-mail to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    A notice published by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 
Federal Register, dated February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8452), 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 are issuing these final 
Information Quality Guidelines in order to comply with OMB and 
Department of the Interior direction. Draft Information Quality 
Guidelines were published in the Federal Register, on July 22, 2002 (67 
FR 47829). One comment was received from a public regulatory review 
group during the public comment period and was considered, and where 
applicable or appropriate, was incorporated into our final guidelines.
    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, program and service 
products, research and statistical reports, policy and regulatory 
information, and general reference material. We will evaluate and 
identify, prior to dissemination, the types of information subject to 
these guidelines.

II. Information Quality Standards

    OSM will make use of OMB's Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35) clearance process to help improve the quality of 
information that OSM collects and disseminates to the public. All such 
collections of information will demonstrate in their PRA clearance 
submissions to OMB that the information will be collected, maintained, 
and used in a way consistent with the DOI and OMB Quality Information 
Guidelines. As a matter of good and effective agency information 
resource management, we will develop a process for reviewing the 
quality (including utility and integrity) of collected information 
before it is disseminated to the public.
    Information we disseminate to the public is normally subject to one 
or more levels of internal staff, or supervisory review for quality 
before actual dissemination.
    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 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 that a report may be intended as the basis for 
more complicated budgeting decisions or legislative reporting (e.g. to 
satisfy a need for greater statistical detail or explanation).
    We have adopted the information quality definitions published by 
OMB and the Department of Interior. 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 February 22, 2002, (67 FR 8452) and 
adopted by the Department of the Interior in the Federal Register, 
dated May 24, 2002 (67 FR 36642) is included in our policy and will 
apply to our dissemination of information/

[[Page 68883]]

    The OMB guidelines require that after October 1, 2002, an affected 
person may seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of 
disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB or 
Department of the Interior guidelines. An affected person is an 
individual or an entity that may use, benefit from, or be harmed by the 
dissemination of information at issue. We have established a process 
for tracking and responding to complaints in accordance with this 
direction. As part of this process, our website (http://www.osmre.gov) 
is being provided as a means for an affected person to challenge the 
quality of disseminated information. Written comments may be addressed 
to the Division of Administration, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington DC 20240 or by email to [email protected].

A. How To Challenge Information Quality

    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 compliant; specific reference to the 
information being challenged; a statement of why you believe the 
information fails to satisfy the standards in the OSM, DOI or OMB 
guidelines; and how you are affected by the challenged information. You 
may include suggestions for correcting the challenged information, but 
it is not mandatory.

B. How We Will Process Complaints

    Once we receive a complaint, we will have 10 business days to 
notify you of receipt. We will also notify the program area that 
disseminated the challenged information of the receipt of the 
compliant. We will have 60 calendar days from receipt to evaluate 
whether the compliant is accurate based on an analysis of all 
information available to the appropriate program or office. If, within 
the 60-calendar-day period, we determine that the compliant is without 
merit, we will notify you. If, within the 60-calendar-day period, we 
determine that the compliant has merit, we will notify you 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 you 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 you with a copy of the corrected information once 
completed.

C. How To Appeal an Initial Decision or Lack of Action

    If you do not receive the notices within the timeframe described 
above, or if you wish to appeal a determination of merit, or wish to 
appeal the proposed correction of information, you may appeal to the 
Director of OSM or a delegated official. The Director may intervene on 
behalf of the complainant to maintain the compliant-resolution process. 
If the Director determines that an appeal of a determination has 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 practical, and will 
not use the information in any of our decision-making process until we 
correct it.

D. How We Handle Multiple Complaints

    If we receive a second complaint before we issue the 60-calendar-
day notice for an overlapping complaint under review, we will consider 
it at the same time. We will notify the second complainant within 10 
business days that an analysis is in progress and provide its status. 
We will combine the earlier and later complaints and issue a combined 
60-calendar-day notice.
    If we receive the second complaint on the same subject after we 
have issued a 60-calendar-day notice, we will conduct a new and 
separate review.

E. Commenting on Draft and Final Documents

    We conduct many activities by soliciting public review and comment 
on proposed documents before 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 
generally treat requests we receive for corrections of information in 
draft documents as comments on the draft document. We will respond to 
these comments in the final document.
    In the case of rulemakings and other public comment procedures, 
where we disseminate a study, analysis, or other information before the 
final agency action of information product, we will consider a request 
for correction before the final action or information product if we 
have determined that an earlier response would not unduly delay issuing 
the final action or information, and you have shown a reasonable 
likelihood of suffering actual harm if we do not resolve the complaint 
before the final action or information product dissemination.
    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 where 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 and that the non-compliance 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 re-proposed a rule or 
supplementing public analysis.

F. Annual Report on Complaints

    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.
    4. ``Objectivity'' includes whether we disseminate information in 
an accurate,

[[Page 68884]]

clear, complete, and unbiased manner. 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 pubic can assess 
whether there may be some reason to question the objectively of the 
sources. Where appropriate, we will identify transparent documentation 
and error sources affecting date quality.
    (b) In addition, ``objectively'' 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 analytical results have been subjected to formal, 
independent, external peer review, we will generally presume that the 
information is of acceptable objectively. 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 objectively 
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 (IORA) to the President's Management 
Council (9/20/01) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html#dq). OIRA recommends that: (i) Peer reviewers be 
selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (ii) 
peer reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies prior technical/
policy positions they may have taken on the issues at hand, (iii) peer 
reviewers be expected to disclose to agencies their sources of personal 
and institutional funding (private or public sector), and (iv) peer 
reviews be conducted in an open and rigorous manner.
    (2) Because 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 the 
information by qualified third parties. To be considered 
``influential,'' as that term is defined in item 9 below, information 
must constitute a principal basis for substantive policy positions 
adopted by OSM. It should also be noted that the ``influential'' 
definition applies to ``information'' itself, not to decisions that the 
information may support. Even if a decision or action by OSM is itself 
very important, a particular piece of information supporting it may or 
may not be ``influential'' as defined by these guidelines.
    Original and supporting data will be subject to commonly accepted 
scientific, financial, or statistical standards. 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 before each release of information.
    With regard to analytical results, we will generally require 
sufficient transparency about data and research methods that a 
qualified member of the public could undertake an independent re-
analysis. These transparency standards apply to our analysis of data 
from a single study as well as the analyses that combine information 
from multiple studies.
    Making the data and methods publicly available will assist us in 
determining whether analytical 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 document 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 the type of checks, and the level of detail for 
documentation given the nature and complexity of the issues. We will 
use or adapt the quality principles applied by Congress to risk 
information used and disseminated under the Safe Drinking Water 
Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A) and (B)).
    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 
appropriate government agencies and the public. We may also temporarily 
waive information quality standards under urgent situations (e.g., 
imminent threats to public health, the environment, the national 
economy, or homeland security) in accordance with the latitude 
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 response 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,

[[Page 68885]]

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 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 
imprecision.
    (a) For information judged to have more important impacts, the 
degree of imprecision that is tolerated is reduced.
    (b) For information judged to have less important impacts, the 
degree of imprecision that is tolerated is increased.
    (c) If we apply the reproducibility test to specific types of 
original supporting data as published by the DOI and OMB for Quality 
Information Guidelines, those guidelines will provide the relevant 
definitions of reproducibility (e.g., standards for replication of 
laboratory data).
    (d) With respect to analytical results, ``capable of being 
substantially reproduced'' means that independent analysis of the 
original or supporting data using identical methods would demonstrate 
whether similar analytical 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. These guidelines do not 
provide any right to judicial review.

    Dated: October 4, 2002.
Jeffrey D. Jarrett,
Director.
[FR Doc. 02-28802 Filed 11-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M