49718 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies 

AGENCY: Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Final guidelines, with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These guidelines implement 

section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–554). 

Section 515 directs the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to issue 

government-wide guidelines that 

‘‘provide policy and procedural 

guidance to Federal agencies for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of 

information (including statistical 

information) disseminated by Federal 

agencies.’’ Within one year after OMB 

issues these guidelines, agencies must 

issue their own implementing 

guidelines that include ‘‘administrative 

mechanisms allowing affected persons 

to seek and obtain correction of 

information maintained and 

disseminated by the agency’’ that does 

not comply with the OMB guidelines. 

OMB is also requesting additional 

comment for 30 days on the ‘‘capable of 

being substantially reproduced’’ 

standard (paragraphs V.3.B, V.9, and 

V.10) which is issued on an interim 

final basis. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2001. 

Comment Date: Comments on the 

‘‘capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ standard in paragraphs 

V.3.B, V.9, and V.10 must be submitted 

by October 29, 2001. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments to 

Brooke J. Dickson of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. Comments can 

also be e-mailed to 

informationquality@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brooke J. Dickson, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503. Telephone (202) 395–3785. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In section 

515(a) of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–554; 

H.R. 5658), Congress directed the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

issue, by September 30, 2001, 

government-wide guidelines that 

‘‘provide policy and procedural 

guidance to Federal agencies for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of 

information (including statistical 

information) disseminated by Federal 

agencies * * *.’’ Section 515(b) goes on 

to state that the OMB guidelines shall: 

‘‘(1) apply to the sharing by Federal 

agencies of, and access to, information 

disseminated by Federal agencies; and 

‘‘(2) require that each Federal agency 

to which the guidelines apply— 

‘‘(A) issue guidelines ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information 

(including statistical information) 

disseminated by the agency, by not later 

than 1 year after the date of issuance of 

the guidelines under subsection (a); 

‘‘(B) establish administrative 

mechanisms allowing affected persons 

to seek and obtain correction of 

information maintained and 

disseminated by the agency that does 

not comply with the guidelines issued 

under subsection (a); and 

‘‘(C) report periodically to the 

Director— 

‘‘(i) the number and nature of 

complaints received by the agency 

regarding the accuracy of information 

disseminated by the agency; and 

‘‘(ii) how such complaints were 

handled by the agency.’’ 

These guidelines are to be issued 

‘‘under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516’’ of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 

pursuant to section 3503 of that Act, the 

authorities of the OMB Director are 

carried out by the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. 

Background 

The focus of section 515 is on the 

Federal Government’s information 

dissemination activities. Indeed, Federal 

agencies have disseminated information 

to the public for decades. Until recently, 

agencies have disseminated information 

principally by making paper copies of 

documents available to the public. In 

recent years, however, Federal 

information dissemination has grown 

due to the advent of the Internet, which 

has ushered in a revolution in 

communications. 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 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35) (the PRA). In 

addition, the Executive Branch’s strong 

support for information dissemination is 

reflected in the dissemination 

provisions of OMB Circular A–130, 

‘‘Management of Federal Information 

Resources,’’ as well as in the provisions 

in OMB Circular A–110, ‘‘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 54926; October 8, 1999). 

Section 515 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.’’ Before an agency collects 

information from 10 or more persons, 

the agency must seek public comment 

‘‘to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected.’’ The agency then must obtain 

OMB approval that is based upon an 

evaluation of the agency’s need for the 

information, the ‘‘practical utility’’ of 

the information to be collected, and the 

minimization of burden that would be 

imposed on the public in responding to 

the collection. 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 515, 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 

2000 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 49719 

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. 

Underlying Principles 

In accordance with section 515, 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 515 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 1996 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.S.C. 300g– 

1(b)(3)(A), an agency is directed, ‘‘to the 

degree that an Agency action is based on 

science,’’ to use ‘‘(i) the best available, 

peer-reviewed science and supporting 

studies conducted in accordance with 

sound and objective scientific practices; 

and (ii) data collected by accepted 

methods or best available methods (if 

the reliability of the method and the 

nature of the decision justifies use of the 

data).’’ We also note that the OMB 

guidelines call for an additional level of 

quality ‘‘in those situations involving 

influential scientific or statistical 

information.’’ The additional level of 

quality concerns a standard of care for 

scientific or statistical analytical results, 

a ‘‘capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ standard that is discussed 

below. 

We further note that in the 1996 

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. Under 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

1(b)(3)(B), the agency is directed, ‘‘to 

ensure that the presentation of 

information [risk] effects is 

comprehensive, informative, and 

understandable.’’ The agency is further 

directed, ‘‘in a document made available 

to the public in support of a regulation 

[to] specify, to the extent practicable— 

(i) each population addressed by any 

estimate [of applicable risk effects]; (ii) 

the expected risk or central estimate of 

risk for the specific populations 

[affected]; (iii) each appropriate upperbound or lower-bound estimate of risk; 

(iv) each significant uncertainty 

identified in the process of the 

assessment of [risk] effects and the 

studies that would assist in resolving 

the uncertainty; and (v) peer-reviewed 

studies known to the [agency] that 

support, are directly relevant to, or fail 

to support any estimate of [risk] effects 

and the methodology used to reconcile 

inconsistencies in the scientific data.’’ 

We urge each agency in developing its 

guidelines to evaluate whether adopting 

or adapting these basic Congressional 

standards would be appropriate for 

judging the quality of disseminated 

scientific or statistical information. 

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–130, 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. 

Summary of OMB Guidelines 

These guidelines apply to Federal 

agencies subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

Agencies are directed to develop 

information resources management 

49720 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 

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 515 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. 

‘‘Utility’’ refers to the usefulness of the 

information to the intended users. 

‘‘Objectivity’’ focuses on whether the 

disseminated information is being 

presented in an accurate, clear, 

complete, and unbiased manner, and as 

a matter of substance, is accurate, 

reliable, and unbiased. ‘‘Integrity’’ refers 

to security—the protection of 

information from unauthorized access 

or revision, to ensure that the 

information is not compromised 

through corruption or falsification. OMB 

modeled the definitions of 

‘‘information,’’ ‘‘government 

information,’’ ‘‘information 

dissemination product,’’ and 

‘‘dissemination’’ on the longstanding 

definitions of those terms in OMB 

Circular A–130, 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, 

2002), 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, 2004) 

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. 

Public Comments and OMB Response 

Section 515(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, 2001 (66 

FR 34489) providing a public comment 

period of 45 days. OMB received a total 

of 100 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 515, 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. 

While this has been the position of 

previous policies which these 

guidelines are not intended to modify or 

replace (see, e.g., section __.36(d) in 

OMB Circular A–110), we believe the 

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 49721 

plain meaning and intent of section 515 

covers the larger government 

information universe. 

Based on the public comments 

received, these guidelines allow 

agencies to determine the appropriate 

level of correction for a complaint 

received. Several comments suggested 

that agencies use disclaimers to 

distinguish the status of information, a 

practice that agencies should consider 

adopting as they consider their 

information holdings. 

OMB received detailed discussion on 

the requirement that agencies develop 

administrative mechanisms allowing for 

affected persons to ‘‘seek and obtain 

correction of information that does not 

comply with OMB’s guidelines.’’ 

Members of the scientific community 

expressed strong concerns about the 

possibility of a Federal agency that 

would ‘‘correct’’ scientific information 

without carrying out the scientific 

analysis to support the correction. 

Comments from all fields suggested in 

various ways that challenging 

individuals should be ‘‘required to 

openly state his/her relationship with 

the data/information (familiarity/ 

expertise) and provide information [as] 

to his/her interest in it.’’ 

Comments also pointed out great 

potential for abuse of this process. As 

one association summarized, ‘‘This 

could be seen to provide grounds for 

interested parties to demand access to 

underlying data, to compel the 

government to replicate research 

findings (at great expense and with 

unnecessary delay), or in other ways 

impede, discredit, harass or stymie 

research.’’ For example, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) explained that 

they receive numerous complaints from 

the public when they miss a weather 

forecast. ‘‘Does this mean that the NWS 

[National Weather Service] could be 

requested to change a forecast after the 

fact? Or could someone with an 

economic interest challenge official 

observational data which could affect 

the value of an insurance payment?’’ 

asks NOAA. 

Overall, OMB does not envision 

administrative mechanisms that would 

burden agencies with frivolous claims. 

Instead, the correction process should 

serve to address the genuine and valid 

needs of the agency and its constituents 

without disrupting agency processes. 

Agencies, in making their determination 

of whether or not to correct information, 

may reject claims made in bad faith or 

without justification, and are required to 

undertake only the degree of correction 

that they conclude is appropriate for the 

nature and timeliness of the information 

involved, and explain such practices in 

their annual fiscal year reports to OMB. 

Numerous comments provided 

language to clarify or limit the term, 

‘‘affected persons.’’ One academic 

institution suggested that the term, 

‘‘affected persons,’’ reflects a criterion of 

‘‘direct measurable impact with 

significant personal consequence.’’ 

Other academic institutions suggested 

that ‘‘affected persons should not be 

permitted to challenge the substance of 

information without showing that a 

qualified scientist has found fault with 

its quality or integrity.’’ Similarly, some 

comments argued that the ability to 

correct scientific information should be 

limited only to other scientists. Several 

associations suggested that OMB 

identify the types of information that 

could be challenged rather than to focus 

on the characteristics of a ‘‘legitimate’’ 

challenger. OMB considered these 

comments at length. Our conclusion is 

that ‘‘affected persons’’ are people who 

may benefit or be harmed by the 

disseminated information. This includes 

persons who are seeking to address 

information about themselves as well as 

persons who use information. However, 

each agency should consider how 

persons (which includes groups, 

organizations and corporations, as 

defined by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act) will be affected by the agency’s 

information. Agencies should address 

the issue of ‘‘affected persons’’ in 

consultation with their constituents 

through the public comment process 

that agencies will provide after drafting 

their proposed guidelines and before 

submitting them for OMB review. 

These guidelines require that an 

agency official be designated to receive 

and resolve complaints regarding 

information that does not comply with 

either the OMB guidelines or the 

agency’s guidelines. In the proposed 

guidelines, we required, with a limited 

exception, that the Chief Information 

Officer (CIO) of the agency have this 

responsibility. Of the government 

agencies that commented on this 

provision, many pointed to their 

specific agency practices on information 

quality and their designation of a 

‘‘quality official’’ who was not 

necessarily working under the agency 

CIO. Recognizing that some agencies 

may have specific officials in place to 

address quality issues, the final 

guidelines allow agencies to designate 

an appropriate official. Agencies may 

also designate multiple officials, i.e., 

based on the needs of individual agency 

components, as long as there is a single 

official with these overall 

responsibilities designated at the agency 

level. The authorized official also needs 

to consult with the CIO on quality 

matters pertaining to information 

disseminated by the agency. 

Agencies need to respond to 

complaints in a manner appropriate to 

the nature and extent of the complaint. 

Examples of appropriate responses, as 

suggested by comments, include 

personal contacts via letter or telephone, 

form letters, press releases or mass 

mailings that correct a widely 

disseminated error or address a 

frequently raised complaint. Agencies 

may want to utilize other methods of 

response under existing agency 

practices. For example, for agencies 

with a high volume of complaints, it is 

acceptable for the agency to describe a 

sample of those complaints in the 

annual fiscal year report to OMB. For 

categories of inconsequential or trivial 

complaints identified in the agency 

guidelines, an agency may decide that 

no response is necessary. Agencies 

should describe to OMB as part of the 

annual fiscal year report the chosen 

response mechanisms and how they are 

working. 

Definitions and Other Terms. Section 

515 denotes four substantive terms 

regarding information disseminated by 

Federal agencies: quality, utility, 

objectivity, and integrity. We have 

defined ‘‘quality’’ as an encompassing 

term. The organizations and individuals 

that submitted comments did not object 

to having ‘‘quality’’ defined as an 

encompassing term, but suggested that 

we should discuss each term separately. 

The principles laid out in the proposed 

guidelines, stated one comment, create 

‘‘subjective definitions’’ of the four 

terms. This comment warned OMB that 

‘‘subjective definitions of quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity could 

cause agencies to delay data release or 

disregard data for fear of challenge.’’ 

Other comments expressed similar 

views, or as one association observed, 

‘‘Science does not recognize a sliding 

scale of quality.’’ 

These guidelines reflect OMB’s 

determination that ‘‘quality,’’ ‘‘utility,’’ 

‘‘objectivity,’’ and ‘‘integrity’’ are closely 

interrelated concepts in the context of 

these guidelines. Collectively, these 

terms address the following three 

aspects of the information that is to be 

disseminated: whether the information 

is useful to the intended users of the 

information; whether the disseminated 

information is being presented in an 

accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased 

manner in both presentation and as a 

characteristic that should be inherent to 

quality information; and whether the 

information has been protected from 

unauthorized access or revision. 

49722 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 

Some comments stated that OMB was 

‘‘exceeding the statutory mandate’’ and 

going beyond ‘‘Congressional intent’’ in 

specifying scientific and statistical 

information in these guidelines. Others 

felt that we should simply acknowledge 

that the scientific and statistical 

communities already have practices and 

standards for their information, rather 

than create another set of standards for 

these information types. OMB does not 

agree with those comments that said the 

proposed guidelines went beyond the 

statute in covering statistical and 

scientific information. Section 515 

expressly states that its scope includes 

statistical information. Moreover, 

section 515 has no exclusion for 

scientific information, and in many 

respects it is very similar to (and 

overlaps with) statistical information. 

OMB, however, does appreciate the 

concerns that the comments raised 

about the guidelines not creating 

another set of standards for statistical 

and scientific information. Our 

guidelines do not seek to impose new 

standards on these communities, but to 

reiterate the standards that are already 

held in those communities. 

Recognizing public interest in 

medical and public health information, 

we have specifically added a provision 

stating, ‘‘Agencies shall adopt specific 

standards of quality that are appropriate 

for the various categories of information 

they disseminate.’’ For example, OMB 

encourages agencies, in crafting their 

agency-specific guidelines, to promote 

objectivity in information quality in 

ways that protect the confidentiality of 

research subjects and encourage public 

participation in research. These 

concerns are particularly salient in 

medical and public health research. 

A number of comments regarded our 

discussion of ensuring that scientific 

information be ‘‘substantially 

reproducible’’ as requiring agencies to 

replicate original data and to perform 

independent analysis upon all scientific 

information disseminated by the agency. 

We have responded to these concerns in 

a number of ways. First, we make it 

clear that what we now refer to as the 

‘‘capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ standard applies to 

analytical results that are disseminated, 

and does not apply to the original or 

supporting data. Thus, replication of 

original data is not required. Second, 

the ‘‘capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ standard is applicable only 

to ‘‘influential’’ scientific and statistical 

information as defined in the 

guidelines. Third, the guidelines call for 

the agency to determine that 

‘‘influential’’ analytical results be 

capable of being substantially 

reproducible by independent analysis. 

We intend this standard to say that, if 

appropriately qualified persons used the 

same or a similar methodology, they 

would be expected to achieve similar 

findings and results. 

Based on the concerns expressed in 

the comments, we expanded upon our 

discussion of ‘‘capable of being 

substantially reproduced’’ in our 

definition of ‘‘objective,’’ and added two 

explanatory definitions. We state, in 

paragraphs V.3.B, V.9, and V.10: 

In addition, ‘‘objectivity’’ involves a 

focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and 

unbiased information. In a scientific or 

statistical context, the original or 

supporting data shall be generated, and 

the analytical results shall be 

developed, using sound statistical and 

research methods. 

i. If the results have been subject to 

formal, independent, external peer 

review, the information can generally be 

considered of acceptable objectivity. 

ii. In those situations involving 

influential scientific or statistical 

information, the results must be capable 

of being substantially reproduced, if the 

original or supporting data are 

independently analyzed using the same 

models. Reproducibility does not mean 

that the original or supporting data have 

to be capable of being replicated 

through new experiments, samples or 

tests. 

iii. Making the data and models 

publicly available will assist in 

determining whether analytical results 

are capable of being substantially 

reproduced. However, these guidelines 

do not alter the otherwise applicable 

standards and procedures for 

determining when and how information 

is disclosed. Thus, the objectivity 

standard does not override other 

compelling interests, such as privacy, 

trade secret, and other confidentiality 

protections. 

‘‘Influential’’ when used in the phrase 

‘‘influential scientific or statistical 

information’’ means the agency expects 

that information in the form of 

analytical results will likely have an 

important effect on the development of 

domestic or international government or 

private sector policies or will likely 

have important consequences for 

specific technologies, substances, 

products or firms. 

‘‘Capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ means that independent 

reanalysis of the original or supporting 

data using the same methods would 

generate similar analytical results, 

subject to an acceptable degree of 

imprecision. 

As a general matter, in the scientific 

and research context, we regard 

technical information that has been 

subjected to formal, independent, 

external peer review as presumptively 

objective. An example of a formal 

independent external peer review is the 

review process used by scientific 

journals. However, depending on the 

nature and timeliness of the information 

involved, an agency may decide that 

peer review is not necessary or 

appropriate. On the other hand, in those 

situations involving influential 

scientific or statistical information, the 

substantial reproducibility standard is 

added as a quality standard above and 

beyond some peer review quality 

standards. In the definition of 

‘‘influential,’’ when used in the phrase 

‘‘influential scientific or statistical 

information,’’ we note that the manner 

in which people perceive the scientific 

or statistical information can have 

important consequences for specific 

policies, technologies, substances, 

products, and firms. 

Based on concerns with the 

‘‘substantially reproducible’’ standard, a 

number of comments suggested that 

OMB should repropose this standard for 

additional public comment, rather than 

going final at this time. While, in 

deference to the statutory deadline, 

OMB is issuing the ‘‘capable of being 

substantially reproduced’’ standard 

(paragraphs V.3.B, V.9, and V.10), OMB 

is doing so on an interim final basis. We 

specifically request public comments on 

this standard by October 29, 2001. In 

addition, OMB wants to stress that the 

guidelines published today should be 

understood as a beginning of an 

evolutionary process that will include 

draft agency guidelines, public 

comment, final agency guidelines, 

development of experience with OMB 

and agency guidelines, and continued 

refinement of both OMB and agency 

guidelines. 

OMB modeled the draft definitions of 

‘‘information,’’ ‘‘government 

information,’’ ‘‘information 

dissemination product,’’ and 

‘‘dissemination’’ on the longstanding 

definitions of those terms in OMB 

Circular A–130, but tailored them to fit 

into the context of these guidelines. 

Information that is disseminated on 

behalf of an agency (through a contract 

or a grant) is considered to be sponsored 

by the agency and is subject to these 

guidelines. Consistent with the PRA 

concept of agency ‘‘sponsorship’’ of a 

collection of information, information is 

considered to be disseminated on behalf 

of an agency by a contractor or grantee 

if the dissemination is done at the 

agency’s specific request or with the 

agency’s specific approval. See 5 CFR 

1320.3(d). Finally, it should be noted 

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 49723 

that these guidelines focus primarily on 

the dissemination of substantive 

information (i.e. reports, studies, 

summaries) rather than information 

pertaining to basic agency operations. 

We have clarified two terms for the 

final guidelines. The proposed 

guidelines included ‘‘opinions’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘information.’’ We agree 

with comments that indicated agencies 

should not be accountable for correcting 

someone’s opinion, but in the agency’s 

presentation of the information, it 

should be clear that what is being 

offered is someone’s opinion rather than 

facts or the agency’s views. ‘‘Opinion’’ 

has therefore been removed from the 

definition of ‘‘information’’ in the final 

guidelines. The definition for 

‘‘dissemination’’ was also revised after 

discussions with two Federal agencies 

that correspond frequently with 

individual members of the public 

regarding their participation in the 

agency’s programs. In addition, in the 

definition of ‘‘dissemination,’’ we 

changed the exclusion for ‘‘judicial 

process’’ to ‘‘adjudicative process’’ to 

make it clear that these guidelines do 

not apply to the issuance of agency 

adjudicative decisions. 

Reporting Requirements. Agencies 

have two reporting requirements. The 

first report, taking effect no later than 

one year after the issuance of these OMB 

guidelines, 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 these OMB guidelines. 

During the year that agencies have to 

complete their agency guidelines, 

agencies must publish the draft reports 

in the Federal Register for a period of 

public comment, and no later than nine 

months after the issuance of OMB’s 

guidelines, submit their draft reports to 

OMB for review. Upon completion of 

OMB’s review, final agency guidelines 

must be published in the Federal 

Register and made available through the 

agency website. The entire process must 

be completed by no later than one year 

after the issuance of the OMB guidance 

(no later than October 1, 2002). 

The second report is an annual fiscal 

year report to OMB (to be first submitted 

on January 1, 2004) providing 

information 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. Regarding 

the proposed guidelines, we received 

detailed comments on the required 

report to OMB describing the number 

and nature of complaints received by 

the agency and how such complaints 

were resolved. Two Federal agencies 

stated that it would be burdensome to 

report to OMB on every single 

complaint they received and responded 

to, particularly because many of the 

complaints may be received in phone 

calls and given informal responses that 

address the callers’ concerns. 

Recognizing that agencies may deal with 

large volumes of complaints on 

particular types of information 

disseminated by the agency, OMB’s 

guidelines allow the agency to provide 

qualitative and/or quantitative 

descriptions of complaints received and 

how they were resolved (or not). OMB 

also recognizes that a large number of 

comments about a specific document 

may only demonstrate that the 

information is controversial, not that its 

quality is flawed. 

In conclusion, issuance of these final 

guidelines meets the statutory 

requirement that section 515 imposed 

on OMB. As we stated earlier in this 

preamble, and in connection with the 

proposed guidelines, OMB has sought in 

developing these guidelines to make 

them flexible enough so that Federal 

agencies can apply them in a common 

sense, workable, and appropriately 

tailored manner to the wide variety of 

dissemination activities that the Federal 

Government undertakes. In addition, in 

drafting guidelines that will apply on a 

government-wide basis, OMB has been 

sensitive to the problem of unintended 

consequences and has tried to anticipate 

and address issues that could arise 

during the implementation of these 

guidelines. In this respect, the public 

and agency comments that we received 

on the proposed guidelines were very 

helpful and are greatly appreciated. As 

we explained above, we made a number 

of revisions to the guidelines to address 

the concerns raised in the comments, 

and we also believe that these and other 

concerns can be addressed as well in the 

implementing guidelines that each 

agency will develop in the coming 

months. In addition, OMB is issuing the 

‘‘capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ standard (paragraphs 

V.3.B, V.9, and V.10) on an interim final 

basis. We specifically request public 

comments on this standard over the 

next 30 days. 

Moreover, over time as the agencies 

and the public gain further experience 

with the OMB guidelines, we would 

appreciate receiving any suggestions for 

how OMB could improve them. Just as 

OMB requested public comment before 

issuing these final guidelines, OMB will 

refine these guidelines as experience 

develops and further public comment is 

obtained. 

Dated: September 24, 2001. 

John D. Graham, 

Administrator, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies 

I. OMB Responsibilities 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for FY2001 (Public Law 106–554) 

directs the Office of Management and 

Budget to issue government-wide 

guidelines that provide policy and 

procedural guidance to Federal agencies 

for ensuring and maximizing the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of information, including statistical 

information, disseminated by Federal 

agencies. 

II. Agency Responsibilities 

Section 515 directs agencies subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3502(a)) to— 

1. Issue their own information quality 

guidelines ensuring and maximizing the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of information, including statistical 

information, disseminated by the agency 

no later than one year after the date of 

issuance of the OMB guidelines; 

2. Establish administrative 

mechanisms allowing affected persons 

to seek and obtain correction of 

information maintained and 

disseminated by the agency that does 

not comply with these OMB guidelines; 

and 

3. Report to the Director of OMB the 

number and nature of complaints 

received by the agency regarding agency 

compliance with these OMB guidelines 

concerning the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information and 

how such complaints were resolved. 

III. Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies 

1. Overall, agencies shall adopt a 

basic standard of quality (including 

objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a 

performance goal and should take 

appropriate steps to incorporate 

information quality criteria into agency 

information dissemination practices. 

Quality is to be ensured and established 

at levels appropriate to the nature and 

timeliness of the information to be 

disseminated. Agencies shall adopt 

specific standards of quality that are 

appropriate for the various categories of 

information they disseminate. 

2. As a matter of good and effective 

agency information resources 

49724 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 

management, agencies shall develop a 

process for reviewing the quality 

(including the objectivity, utility, and 

integrity) of information before it is 

disseminated. Agencies shall treat 

information quality as integral to every 

step of an agency’s development of 

information, including creation, 

collection, maintenance, and 

dissemination. This process shall enable 

the agency to substantiate the quality of 

the information it has disseminated 

through documentation or other means 

appropriate to the information. 

3. To facilitate citizen review, 

agencies shall establish administrative 

mechanisms allowing affected persons 

to seek and obtain, where appropriate, 

timely correction of information 

maintained and disseminated by the 

agency that does not comply with OMB 

or agency guidelines. These 

administrative mechanisms shall be 

flexible, appropriate to the nature and 

timeliness of the disseminated 

information, and incorporated into 

agency information resources 

management and administrative 

practices. 

4. The agency’s pre-dissemination 

review, under paragraph III.2, shall 

apply to information that the agency 

first disseminates on or after October 1, 

2002. The agency’s administrative 

mechanisms, under paragraph III.3, 

shall apply to information that the 

agency disseminates on or after October 

1, 2002, regardless of when the agency 

first disseminated the information. 

IV. Agency Reporting Requirements 

1. Agencies must designate the Chief 

Information Officer or another official to 

be responsible for agency compliance 

with these guidelines. 

2. The agency shall respond to 

complaints in a manner appropriate to 

the nature and extent of the complaint. 

Examples of appropriate responses 

include personal contacts via letter or 

telephone, form letters, press releases or 

mass mailings that correct a widely 

disseminated error or address a 

frequently raised complaint. 

3. Each agency must prepare a draft 

report, no later than April 1, 2002, 

providing the agency’s information 

quality guidelines and explaining how 

such guidelines will ensure and 

maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information, 

including statistical information, 

disseminated by the agency. This report 

must also detail the administrative 

mechanisms developed by that agency 

to allow affected persons to seek and 

obtain appropriate correction of 

information maintained and 

disseminated by the agency that does 

not comply with the OMB or the agency 

guidelines. 

4. The agency must publish a notice 

of availability of this draft report in the 

Federal Register, and post this report on 

the agency’s website, to provide an 

opportunity for public comment. 

5. Upon consideration of public 

comment and after appropriate revision, 

the agency must submit this draft report 

to OMB for review regarding 

consistency with these OMB guidelines 

no later than July 1, 2002. Upon 

completion of that OMB review and 

completion of this report, agencies must 

publish notice of the availability of this 

report in the Federal Register, and post 

this report on the agency’s web site no 

later than October 1, 2002. 

6. On an annual fiscal-year basis, each 

agency must submit a report to the 

Director of OMB providing information 

(both quantitative and qualitative, 

where appropriate) on the number and 

nature of complaints received by the 

agency regarding agency compliance 

with these OMB guidelines and how 

such complaints were resolved. 

Agencies must submit these reports no 

later than January 1 of each following 

year, with the first report due January 1, 

2004. 

V. Definitions 

1. ‘‘Quality’’ is an encompassing term 

comprising 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 the 

agency disseminates to the public, the 

agency needs to consider the uses of the 

information not only from the 

perspective of the agency but also from 

the perspective of the public. As a 

result, when reproducibility and 

transparency of information are relevant 

for assessing the information’s 

usefulness from the public’s 

perspective, the agency must take care 

to ensure that reproducibility and 

transparency have been addressed in its 

review of the information. 

3. ‘‘Objectivity’’ involves two distinct 

elements, presentation and substance. 

A. ‘‘Objectivity’’ includes whether 

disseminated information is being 

presented in an accurate, 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, the agency needs to identify the 

sources of the disseminated information 

(to the extent possible, consistent with 

confidentiality protections) and, in a 

scientific or statistical context, the 

supporting data and models, so that the 

public can assess for itself whether there 

may be some reason to question the 

objectivity of the sources. Where 

appropriate, supporting data should 

have full, accurate, transparent 

documentation, and error sources 

affecting data quality should be 

identified and disclosed to users. 

B. In addition, ‘‘objectivity’’ involves 

a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, 

and unbiased information. In a scientific 

or statistical context, the original or 

supporting data shall be generated, and 

the analytical results shall be 

developed, using sound statistical and 

research methods. 

i. If the results have been subject to 

formal, independent, external peer 

review, the information can generally be 

considered of acceptable objectivity. 

ii. In those situations involving 

influential scientific or statistical 

information, the results must be capable 

of being substantially reproduced, if the 

original or supporting data are 

independently analyzed using the same 

models. Reproducibility does not mean 

that the original or supporting data have 

to be capable of being replicated 

through new experiments, samples or 

tests. 

iii. Making the data and models 

publicly available will assist in 

determining whether analytical results 

are capable of being substantially 

reproduced. However, these guidelines 

do not alter the otherwise applicable 

standards and procedures for 

determining when and how information 

is disclosed. Thus, the objectivity 

standard does not override other 

compelling interests, such as privacy, 

trade secret, and other confidentiality 

protections. 

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 the agency’s 

presentation makes it clear that what is 

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2001 / Notices 49725 

being offered is someone’s opinion 

rather than fact or the agency’s 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 book, 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) (definition of ‘‘Conduct or 

Sponsor’’). Dissemination does not 

include distribution limited to 

government employees or agency 

contractors or grantees; intra- or interagency 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 or 

statistical information’’ means the 

agency expects that information in the 

form of analytical results will likely 

have an important effect on the 

development of domestic or 

international government or private 

sector policies or will likely have 

important consequences for specific 

technologies, substances, products or 

firms. 

10. ‘‘Capable of being substantially 

reproduced’’ means that independent 

reanalysis of the original or supporting 

data using the same methods would 

generate similar analytical results, 

subject to an acceptable degree of 

imprecision. 

[FR Doc. 01–24172 Filed 9–27–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Submission of Information Collection 

for OMB Review; Comment Request; 

Disclosure to Participants 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of request for extension 

of OMB approval. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) is requesting that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) extend approval, under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, of a 

collection of information in its 

regulation on Disclosure to Participants 

(29 CFR Part 4011) (OMB control 

number 1212–0050). This notice 

informs the public of the PBGC’s request 

and solicits public comment on the 

collection of information. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by October 29, 2001. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

mailed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC 

20503. Copies of the request for 

extension (including the collection of 

information) may be obtained without 

charge by writing to or visiting the 

PBGC’s Communications and Public 

Affairs Department, suite 240, 1200 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005– 

4026, or calling 202–326–4040. (TTY 

and TDD users may call 800–877–8339 

and request connection to 202–326– 

4040). The regulation on Disclosure to 

Participants can be accessed on the 

PBGC’s Web site at http:// 

www.pbgc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion, Attorney, Office of 

the General Counsel, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202– 

326–4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800– 

877–8339 and request connection to 

202–326–4024). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

4011 of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 requires 

plan administrators of certain 

underfunded single-employer pension 

plans to provide an annual notice to 

plan participants and beneficiaries of 

the plan’s funding status and the limits 

on the PBGC’s guarantee. 

The PBGC’s regulation implementing 

this provision (29 CFR Part 4011) 

prescribes which plans are subject to the 

notice requirement, who is entitled to 

receive the notice, and the time, form, 

and manner of issuance of the notice. 

The notice provides recipients with 

meaningful, understandable, and timely 

information that will help them become 

better informed about their plans and 

assist them in their financial planning. 

The collection of information under 

the regulation has been approved by 

OMB under control number 1212–0050 

(expires October 31, 2001). The PBGC is 

requesting that OMB extend its approval 

for three years. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The PBGC estimates that an average of 

3,331 plans per year will respond to this 

collection of information. The PBGC 

further estimates that the average annual 

burden of this collection of information 

is 2.13 hours and $107 per plan, with an 

average total annual burden of 7,102 

hours and $355,200. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

September, 2001. 

Stuart A. Sirkin, 

Director, Corporate Policy and Research 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 01–24372 Filed 9–27–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Submission of Information Collection 

for OMB Review; Comment Request; 

Liability for Termination of SingleEmployer Plans 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of request for extension 

of OMB approval. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) is requesting that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) extend approval, under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, of a 

collection of information in its 

regulation on Employer Liability (29 

CFR Part 4062) (OMB control number 

1212–0017). This notice informs the 

public of the PBGC’s request and solicits 

public comment on the collection of 

information. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by October 29, 2001. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

mailed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC 

20503. Copies of the request for 

extension (including the collection of 

information) may be obtained without 

charge by writing to or visiting the 

PBGC’s Communications and Public 

Affairs Department, suite 240, 1200 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005– 

4026, or calling 202–326–4040. (TTY 

and TDD users may call 800–877–8339 

and request connection to 202–326– 

4040). The regulation on Employer 

Liability can be accessed on the PBGC’s 

Web site at http://www.pbgc.gov.