The following guidelines describe IMLS's policy for ensuring the quality of information that it disseminates to the public and sets forth the administrative procedure by which an affected person may obtain correction of disseminated information. The agency has adopted a basic standard of quality including objectivity, utility, and integrity as a performance goal for all information that it disseminates.
As a matter of good and effective agency information resources management, IMLS reviews the quality including the objectivity, utility, and integrity of information before it is disseminated. Information quality is integral to every step of IMLS' development of information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination.
IMLS substantiates the quality of the information it has disseminated through documentation or other means appropriate to the information. Generally, the office disseminating the information, such as the Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, or the Offices of Museum and Library Services, will be responsible for reviewing the quality of information before dissemination, with appropriate oversight by IMLS' Director or the Director's designees.
The originating offices will use internal peer reviews and other review mechanisms to ensure that disseminated information meets quality standards including objectivity, utility, and integrity in both presentation and substance. Each office is responsible for ensuring that the pre-dissemination review is performed and documented at a level appropriate for the type of information disseminated.
To facilitate citizen review, affected persons may seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information maintained and disseminated by IMLS that does not comply with OMB 67 Fed.
The request should clearly identify the information asserted to be incorrect, including the name of the publication or other source of information, the date of issuance, and a detailed description of the information to be corrected.
The request should state specifically why the information should be corrected for failure to comply with OMB or IMLS guidelines and should suggest specific changes. The request should include the requester's name, mailing address, fax number, email address, and telephone number. M April 24, available at: www. Memorandum No. M Dec. One of the advantages of tiered access is that data users, who wish to conduct activities with a statistical purpose, do not need to obtain special authorization to access versions of the data in the least restricted tiers, enabling them to conduct research while maintaining protection requirements.
Holdren, Office of Sci. You are here Home. Request for Correction. General Exemptions Except for those categories of information exempted see below , this Guidance applies to all information disseminated by DOJ, and DOJ-initiated or sponsored dissemination of information by DOJ grantees, contractors, or cooperators on or after October 1, , regardless of when the information was first disseminated.
During the reviews, consider the level of quality for each type of product it disseminates, based on the utility, objectivity, and integrity of the information. Utility refers to the how users might use the data, whether for its intended use or other purposes. Objectivity refers to whether the disseminated information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased as a matter of presentation and substance.
Peer Review of Influential Information. When influential information that has been peer reviewed changes significantly e. Information Protection. While prioritizing increased access to data and analytical frameworks used to generate information, ensure compliance with statutory, regulatory, and Department policy requirements for protections of data security, privacy and confidentiality, proprietary data, and the confidentiality of business, law enforcement, and national security information.
Ensure that all interests in privacy and confidentiality are protected, and any disclosure of personally identifiable information PII takes place pursuant to applicable statutory, regulatory, and Department policy requirements.
Options for Wider Access. Explore methods that provide wider access to datasets while reducing the risk of improper disclosures of PII. Tiered access [3] offers promising ways to make data widely available while applying protections for security, privacy, confidentiality, and ensuring appropriate access and use.
Statistical Information. Engage in statistical activities [4] that are transparent and based on sound statistical methods. Transparency is a broad concept, which can include a clear description of the methods, data sources, assumptions, outcomes, limitations, and related information to permit a data user to understand how the statistical information product was designed or produced.
Sound statistical activities and methods generate information data and analysis for a statistical purpose [5] that is accurate, reliable, and unbiased. Procedures to promote sound statistical activities and methods will cover the planning of statistical data systems, the collection of statistical data, and the processing of statistical data including analysis.
Transparency refers to a clear description of the methods, data sources, assumptions, outcomes, limitations, and related information to permit a data user to understand how the statistical information was designed or produced. The Internet has enabled Federal agencies to disseminate an ever-increasing amount of information.
Congress has strongly encouraged the Executive Branch's dissemination efforts in statutes that include particular dissemination activities and in the government-wide dissemination provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 44 U. In addition, the Executive Branch's strong support for information dissemination is reflected in the dissemination provisions of OMB Circular A, "Management of Federal Information Resources," as well as in the provisions in OMB Circular A, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations," related to a Freedom of Information Act request for research data relating to published research findings produced under an award that were used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law 64 FR ; October 8, Section builds upon the existing agency responsibility to ensure information quality.
According to the PRA, agency Chief Information Officers CIOs must manage information resources to "improve the integrity, quality, and utility of information to all users within and outside the agency, including capabilities for ensuring dissemination of public information, public access to government information, and protections for privacy and security.
The CIO must certify to OMB that the agency, "to the maximum extent practicable, uses information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality. In developing these guidelines to implement section , OMB recognized that Federal agencies disseminate many types of information in many different ways. A few examples can only begin to describe the breadth of information disseminated by the Federal government.
Agencies disseminate statistical information, such as the aggregated information from the Census and the monthly and quarterly economic reports issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Agencies disseminate information that aids members of the public in their daily activities, such as the National Weather Service's weather reports and the FAA's air travel advisories. Agencies disseminate information about health, safety, and environmental risks and information that they collect from regulated entities, such as EPA's dissemination of Toxic Release Inventory information. Agencies also disseminate technical information that they create or obtain in the course of developing regulations, often involving scientific, engineering, and economic analysis.
Agencies disseminate information when they issue reports and studies. Moreover, agencies provide the public with basic descriptions of agency authorities, activities and programs, along with the contact information for the public to interact with and access that information or those services. In accordance with section , OMB has designed the guidelines to help agencies ensure and maximize the quality, utility, objectivity and integrity of the information that they disseminate meaning to share with, or give access to, the public.
It is crucial that information Federal agencies disseminate meets these guidelines. In this respect, the fact that the Internet enables agencies to communicate information quickly and easily to a wide audience not only offers great benefits to society, but also increases the potential harm that can result from the dissemination of information that does not meet basic information quality guidelines. Recognizing the wide variety of information Federal agencies disseminate and the wide variety of dissemination practices that agencies have, OMB developed the guidelines with several principles in mind.
First, OMB designed the guidelines to apply to a wide variety of government information dissemination activities that may range in importance and scope. OMB also designed the guidelines to be generic enough to fit all media, be they printed, electronic, or in other form. OMB sought to avoid the problems that would be inherent in developing detailed, prescriptive, "one-size-fits-all" government-wide guidelines that would artificially require different types of dissemination activities to be treated in the same manner.
Through this flexibility, each agency will be able to incorporate the requirements of these OMB guidelines into the agency's own information resource management and administrative practices.
Second, OMB designed the guidelines so that agencies will meet basic information quality standards. Given the administrative mechanisms required by section as well as the standards set forth in the PRA, it is clear that agencies should not disseminate substantive information that does not meet a basic level of quality. We recognize that some government information may need to meet higher or more specific information quality standards than those that would apply to other types of government information.
The more important the information, the higher the quality standards to which it should be held, for example, in those situations involving "influential scientific or statistical information" a phrased defined in these guidelines. The guidelines recognize, however, that information quality comes at a cost. Accordingly, the agencies should weigh the costs for example, including costs attributable to agency processing effort, respondent burden, maintenance of needed privacy, and assurances of suitable confidentiality and the benefits of higher information quality in the development of information, and the level of quality to which the information disseminated will be held.
More specifically, the OMB guidelines state that "agencies shall have a basic standard of quality including objectivity, utility, and integrity as a performance goal We note, in the scientific context, that in the Congress, for health decisions under the Safe Drinking Water Act, has already adopted a basic standard of quality for the use of science in agency decisionmaking.
Under 42 U. We further note that in the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act the Congress adopted a basic quality standard for the dissemination of public information about risks of adverse health effects.
Third, OMB designed the proposed guidelines so that agencies can apply them in a common-sense and workable manner. It is important that these guidelines do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens that would inhibit agencies from continuing to take advantage of the Internet and other technologies to disseminate information that can be of great benefit and value to the public. In this regard, OMB encourages agencies to incorporate the standards and procedures required by these guidelines into their existing information resources management and administrative practices rather than create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory processes.
The primary example of this is that the guidelines recognize that, in accordance with OMB Circular A, agencies already have in place well-established information quality standards and administrative mechanisms that allow persons to seek and obtain correction of information that is maintained and disseminated by the agency.
Under the OMB guidelines, agencies need only ensure that their own guidelines are consistent with these OMB guidelines, and then ensure that their administrative mechanisms satisfy the standards and procedural requirements in the new agency guidelines. Similarly, agencies may rely on their implementation of the Federal Government's computer security laws formerly, the Computer Security Act, and now the computer security provisions of the PRA to establish appropriate security safeguards for ensuring the "integrity" of the information that the agencies disseminate.
Agencies are directed to develop information resources management procedures for reviewing and substantiating by documentation or other means selected by the agency the quality including the objectivity, utility, and integrity of information before it is disseminated.
In addition, agencies are to establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines. Consistent with the underlying principles described above, these guidelines stress the importance of having agencies apply these standards and develop their administrative mechanisms so they can be implemented in a common sense and workable manner.
Moreover, agencies must apply these standards flexibly, and in a manner appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information to be disseminated, and incorporate them into existing agency information resources management and administrative practices.
Section denotes four substantive terms regarding information disseminated by Federal agencies: quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity. It is not always clear how each substantive term relates -- or how the four terms in aggregate relate -- to the widely divergent types of information that agencies disseminate. The guidelines provide definitions that attempt to establish a clear meaning so that both the agency and the public can readily judge whether a particular type of information to be disseminated does or does not meet these attributes.
In the guidelines, OMB defines "quality" as the encompassing term, of which "utility," "objectivity," and "integrity" are the constituents. OMB modeled the definitions of "information," "government information," "information dissemination product," and "dissemination" on the longstanding definitions of those terms in OMB Circular A, but tailored them to fit into the context of these guidelines.
In addition, agencies have two reporting requirements. The first report, implemented no later than one year after the issuance of these OMB guidelines no later than October 1, , must provide the agency'S information quality guidelines that describe administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB and agency guidelines.
The second report is an annual fiscal year report to OMB to be first submitted on January 1, providing information both quantitative and qualitative, where appropriate on the number, nature, and resolution of complaints received by the agency regarding its perceived or confirmed failure to comply with these OMB and agency guidelines.
Section a required OMB to provide the public and the Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on these guidelines. OMB worked with Federal agencies, through a working group and through an inter-agency comment process, in the development of the proposed guidelines.
The proposed guidelines were published in the Federal Register on June 28, 66 Fed. OMB received a total of comments from academic institutions 36 , Federal agencies 26 , individual members of the public 7 , associations affiliated with academia 5 , associations affiliated with medical, social science or science interests 15 , associations affiliated with Federal Government interests 4 , and associations affiliated with industry interests 7.
General Concerns. Many comments expressed support for the idea of government-wide quality standards for information disseminated by Federal agencies. Comments also expressed support for OMB's commitment to creating flexible general guidelines and to minimizing the administrative costs and burdens that these guidelines will impose.
The majority of comments focused on two aspects of the proposed guidelines: suggestions for placing limitations on the administrative correction mechanisms requirements of the statute; and the need to clarify specific definitions and other terms found in the guidelines. Many comments raised questions and concerns about how these guidelines interact with existing statutes and policies, including the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Government Performance and Results Act. We have attempted to draft these guidelines in a way that addresses the requirements of section , but does not impose a completely new and untried set of standards upon Federal agencies.
We encourage agencies to consider the effect of relevant existing statutes and policies in the development of their own guidelines. Administrative Mechanisms. These guidelines require agencies to establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB guidelines.
Many comments suggested that limits be imposed on the types of information that should be subject to these guidelines, in particular, information that is disseminated by agency libraries. OMB agrees that archival information disseminated by Federal agency libraries for example, Internet distribution of published articles should not be covered by these guidelines, given that libraries do not endorse the information that they disseminate.
Moreover, an agency's dissemination of public filings for example, corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission is not covered by these guidelines.
In each of these situations, the agencies have not authored these documents and have not adopted them as representing the agencies' views. By disseminating these materials, the agencies are simply ensuring that the public can have quicker and easier access to materials that are publicly available. In developing its implementing guidelines, and in accordance with the criteria set forth in these guidelines, each agency should evaluate and identify the types of information that it disseminates that will be subject to its guidelines.
In addition, comments also raised the concern that the guidelines would apply to "preliminary" information, and they recommended that the guidelines exclude such information. OMB appreciates the concerns that these comments have raised. However, OMB does not believe that an exclusion for "preliminary" information is necessary or appropriate. It is still important that the quality of preliminary information be ensured and that preliminary information be subject to the administrative complaint-and-correction process.
A few comments stated that affected information should be limited to information used in agency rulemaking.
0コメント