1

Instructions for FY’12 Report pursuant to the 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

As you prepare your report, please ensure that your agency’s Peer Review Agenda (the Agenda) 

includes agency plans for the foreseeable future1

 and that each Agenda entry is up to date 

regarding both the timing of the review and whether the review has been completed. Agenda 

entries should be updated whenever new information becomes available; every six months is the 

minimum for updating the Agenda. 

Once a peer review has been completed (that is, the final product has been edited to reflect the 

reviewers’ comments), the Agenda entry should be updated to include a link to the peer review 

charge, the reviewers’ names, and the peer reviewers’ comments, as well as the final version of 

the product. For highly influential scientific assessments, the agency’s responses also should be 

posted. An example of good practice is the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service2

 agenda. 

Please use the attached template to record peer reviews conducted pursuant to the Bulletin 

between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012. This form has two parts: 1) A “departmentlevel summary,” which should aggregate information across all of the agencies/bureaus/offices in 

the department and 2) an “agency report” that should be completed by each agency within a 

department. A separate “agency report” should be completed for each agency that produces 

information subject to the Bulletin. Please make sure to report to us the current URLs for your 

peer review agenda – some agencies continue to submit URLs that no longer work. Also take 

this opportunity to ensure that your agency’s peer review agenda is up to date and all of the links 

on your agency’s peer review home page are working. 

For those agencies that do not have any peer reviews to report for this fiscal year, it is necessary 

to complete only the General Information component of the “agency report.” Agencies that are 

not part of departments do not have to complete the summary page; they should type “Not 

Applicable” on the “Department” line. 

To ensure consistency across agencies, please use the guidance below to determine which peer 

reviews were “conducted” during the last fiscal year, and thus should be reported. 

• Include peer reviews for which the peers have provided the agency with their (final) 

comments, regardless of whether the agency has: 

o completed its response to the reviewers, or 

o made the peer review comments public. 

• Exclude peer reviews: 

o for which the reviewers are still considering the information, 

o that are planned for the future, or 

o that were planned for the current fiscal year, but were not conducted. 

 

1 As stated in the November 28, 2005, memo from the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, the Agenda is not a six month forecast (i.e., it should not be limited to information 

(documents) that the agency plans to disseminate (or peer review) in the next six months). 

2 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/peer_review_agenda.shtml. 
2

Agencies that reported last year that they do not produce information subject to the 

Bulletin do not need to fill out a report this year unless the disclaimer no longer applies 

OR the link to your disclaimer has changed. Rather, those agencies should send an email 

to OMB_peer_review@omb.eop.gov with the agency’s current point of contact for the 

Bulletin and the current URL to the disclaimer. The agencies to which this applies are 

listed in Appendix K, part C of OMB’s Draft 2012 Report to Congress on the Costs and 

Benefits of Federal Regulations.3 The template for the appropriate disclaimer is shown 

below: 

“based on the review it has conducted, the [AGENCY] believes that it does not 

currently produce or sponsor the distribution of influential scientific information 

(including highly influential scientific assessments) within the definitions 

promulgated by OMB. As a result, at this time the [AGENCY] has no agenda of 

forthcoming influential scientific disseminations to post on its website in 

accordance with OMB's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.” 

 

Agencies not listed in Appendix K, part C should submit a report this year. Please send 

your draft Peer Review Bulletin Annual Report (Due January 18, 2013) to 

OMB_peer_review@omb.eop.gov. Please do not post your draft report on your webpage until OMB review is complete. Should you have any questions related to the Peer 

Review report, please contact Margo Schwab (202 395-5647) mschwab@omb.eop.gov or 

James Kim (202 395-3085) james_h_kim@omb.eop.gov. 

 

3

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/draft_2012_cost_benefit_report.pdf (page 155). 
3

Template for FY’12 Report pursuant to the 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

I. Summary Page for Department (if Applicable) 

Department _U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission______________________________________ 

Departmental Contact for Implementation of the Bulletin for Peer Review 

Name and title: Tremaine Donnell, Team Leader. Information Collections Team 

Email address: Tremaine.Donnell@nrc.gov

Phone number: 301-415-6258 

Provide the URL for Department’s portal for compliance with the Bulletin 

_http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/info-quality.html________ ** ensure link is working 

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on this URL are current? Y/N _Y_ 

Is this URL: 

A Department-wide Peer Review Agenda (Y/N) or Y 

A set of links to each agency (bureau or office’s) agenda (Y/N)?_N__ 

How would a member of the public locate this peer review portal if she/he did not have this 

URL? Check all that apply: 

A link from Department’s home page __X___ 

A link from Department’s Information Quality home page ___X___ 

Other means, e.g., a link from a science page (please describe) __________________ 

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’12 (see instructions for what should 

and should not be included here). 

Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly 

influential scientific assessments) ___0____ 

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___0___ 

 

Number of Waivers, Deferrals, Exemptions, or Alternative Procedures used: Total # __0__ 

Number of peer reviews that included at least one peer reviewer appointed pursuant to any exception 

to the applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the Bulletin, including 

determinations by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary pursuant to Section III (3) (c). 

Total # _0__ 

Number of peer review panels that held in conjunction with public meetings: Total # _0__ 

Number of public comments provided on the Department’s peer review plans during FY‘12, 

regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’12: Total # _0__ 
4

Template for FY’12 Report pursuant to the 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

II. Agency Report 

GENERAL INFORMAITON

Agency __U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission__ 

Agency Contact for Implementation of the Peer Review Bulletin 

Name and title: Tremaine Donnell, Team Leader, Information Collections Team 

Email address: Tremaine.Donnell@nrc.gov 

Phone number: 301-415-6258 

URL for Agency’s Peer Review Agenda 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/info-quality.html 

** ensure link is working 

What pathway(s) can a member of the public use to find the Agency’s peer review 

agenda if she/he did not have this URL? 

o Link from Departmental or Agency home page, X__ 

o Link from Agency Information Quality home page, __X__

o Link from science, research, or regulatory pages (please specify) 

____________ 

o Other (please describe) _____________ 

Does the agenda provide links to peer review reports for all completed peer reviews? 

__N/A________ 

Have you checked to make sure all of the information and links on the agency’s peer review home 

page to are current? Y/N __Y__

Continue to Next Page
5

INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEWS CONDUCTED

Number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin in FY’12. (see instructions for what 

should and should not be included here). 

Number of influential scientific information peer reviews (ISI) (not including highly 

influential scientific assessments) ___0_____ 

List the title of each ISI. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has 

been completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed NOTE: It is acceptable 

to provide a screen shot of your peer review agenda as an attachment. 

Number of highly influential scientific assessments (HISA) ___0____ 

List the title of each HISA. Indicate whether the Peer Review Report has 

been Completed (Y/N) add more lines as needed

Provide the titles of ISIs and HISIs for which Waivers (W), Deferrals (D), or Exemptions 

(E) were invoked or Alternative Procedures used (A). If deferral is marked, please 

indicate the duration of the deferral.

Title of Document Type of Document W, D, E, or A 

ISI or HISA (and duration)

Number of peer reviews that included at least one peer reviewer appointed pursuant to 

any exception to the applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the 

Bulletin, including determinations by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary pursuant to 

Section III (3) (c)? 

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments) __0__ 

List titles 
6

Number of HISAs __0___ 

List titles 

 

Number of peer review panels that held public meetings: 

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)___0___ 

Number of HISAs ___0____ 

Number of peer review panels that allowed public comment: 

Number of ISIs (not including highly influential scientific assessments)___0___ 

Number of HISAs ___0____ 

Number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans during FY’12, 

regardless of whether the peer review was actually completed during FY’12 ____0____ 

Number of times agency specifically solicited peer reviewer nominations from 

professional societies. ____0______ 

If such nominations were solicited, were any recommendations provided? Yes ___ No ___