U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE (MD)

For updates or revisions to policies contained in this MD that were issued after the MD was signed, 

please see the Yellow Announcement to Management Directive index (YA-to-MD index).

MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM DT-16-25

Volume 3,

Part 1:

Information Management

Publications, Mail, and Information Disclosure

Approved By: Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director for Operations

Date Approved: June 28, 2016

Expiration Date: June 28, 2021

Issuing Office: Office of the Chief Information Officer

Customer Service Division

Contact Name: Margie Janney

301-415-7245

Kimyata MorganButler

301-415-0733

Fajr Majeed

301-415-6736

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Management Directive (MD) 3.17, NRC Information Quality Program,” is revised to—

• Incorporate current policy, standards, and procedures, including the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Memoranda M-10-22, “Guidance for Online Use of 

Web Measurement and Customization Technologies,” and M-10-23, “Guidance for 

Agency Use of Third-Party Websites and Applications.”

• Incorporate the recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General Record, 

“Audit of NRC’s Process for Ensuring Integrity in Scientific Research” (OIG-15-A-08).

• Reflect the April 2013 reorganization of the Office of Information Services and the 

subsequent retitling of the office to the Office of the Chief Information Officer in 

November 2015.

• Reflect changes resulting from the merger of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards and the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs.

• Reflect changes to the tables. The tables formerly in Exhibit 1 have been moved to 

Exhibit 2: Table 1, “NRC Information Products – Information Subject to NRC 

Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking Correction,” and Table 2, 

“Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction.” The information in the previous Exhibit 2 has been eliminated. 

The current version of the “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” has 

been incorporated by reference (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005).
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Incorporate Exhibit 4, contents of Memorandum to Office Director Responsible for 

Creation of Product That May Qualify as Influential Scientific Information or Highly 

Influential Scientific Assessment.

• Introduce the internal NRC Information Quality Web site. The Web site also includes a 

variety of resources and aids to assist employees engaging in the Information Quality 

Program, including guidelines, exhibits, a template for the Annual Surveys of ISI and 

HISA, and Information Quality reports.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. POLICY..............................................................................................................................3

II. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................3

III. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY...........3

A. Executive Director for Operations (EDO) ......................................................................3

B. Inspector General (IG)..................................................................................................4

C. Chief Information Officer (CIO) .....................................................................................4

D. Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and Regional Counsels......................................4

E. Director, Office of Administration (ADM) .......................................................................4

F. Office Directors and Regional Administrators ...............................................................4

G. Directors of Offices in Possession of Scientific Information Products 

(Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office of New Reactors (NRO), Office of 

Nuclear Material and Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Office of Nuclear 

Security and Incident Response (NSIR), and Regional Administrators 

with Program Responsibilities)......................................................................................4

H. Information Quality Coordinator (IQC) ..........................................................................5

I. Information Office Coordinator (IOC) ............................................................................5

J. Peer Review Coordinator (PRC)...................................................................................6

IV. APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................6

V. DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK ..................................................................................................6

VI. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................6
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 3

I. POLICY

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the quality of all 

information it relies on for making decisions or disseminates to the public. NRC’s policies 

and practices are designed to ensure that the appropriate level of quality commensurate 

with the nature of the information is established and maintained. Thus, the most influential 

scientific, financial, and statistical data are subject to the most rigorous quality standards. 

NRC will correct information that does not meet its standards and the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB’s) guidelines on the basis of the significance and the impact of the 

correction. The NRC also ensures that all influential scientific information (ISI) and highly 

influential scientific assessments (HISA) that the agency intends to disseminate are subject 

to appropriate peer review, consistent with OMB guidelines.

II. OBJECTIVES 

— Conform to the NRC “Information Quality Guidelines” (67 Federal Register (FR) 61695), 

October 1, 2002, and OMB’s “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, 

Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” 

(67 FR 8452). 

— Ensure disseminated information meets the information quality criteria for utility, integrity, 

and objectivity as described in the information quality standards found in this handbook. 

— Impose the highest level of quality on influential scientific, financial, or statistical 

information. 

— Ensure Information Correction Requests (ICRs) from the public receive appropriate 

consideration. 

— Ensure that peer review is conducted on all influential scientific information and highly 

influential scientific assessment that the agency intends to disseminate, as defined and 

described in the peer review guidelines found in this handbook.

III. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 

A. Executive Director for Operations (EDO) 

1. Provides oversight of the NRC Information Quality Program. 

2. Performs functions assigned to the “head of agency” by the OMB “Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” (70 FR 2664). 

3. Approves office’s designation of information as ISI or as a HISA that must be peer 

reviewed in accordance with the OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review and directs the most appropriate office to conduct the peer review. 
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 4

B. Inspector General (IG) 

Conducts audits and investigations as warranted concerning the Information Quality 

Program.

C. Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

1. Oversees NRC information management programs. 

2. Ensures that the NRC Information Quality Program is consistent with Federal 

statutes and OMB guidance. 

3. Ensures that a program to address ICRs is effectively implemented throughout NRC. 

4. Appoints the NRC Information Quality Coordinator (IQC). 

5. Provides automated data processing assistance, including continuing development, 

enhancement, and modification of a tracking system to monitor correction requests. 

6. Directs the agency’s program to comply with the OMB Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review. 

D. Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and Regional Counsels 

1. Provide legal opinions and advice related to the NRC Information Quality Program. 

2. Review substantive ICR denials to ensure there is no legal objection to the denial. 

E. Director, Office of Administration (ADM)

Forwards allegations of research misconduct concerning NRC grantees or contractors 

conducting research using Federal funds to the Office of the Inspector General.

F. Office Directors and Regional Administrators 

1. Ensure employees are aware of and follow the NRC’s policies in the NRC 

Information Quality Program. 

2. Appoint an Information Office Coordinator (IOC) to facilitate the review of requests 

for correction and be responsible for the management of the program within the 

office or region. 

G. Directors of Offices in Possession of Scientific Information Products (Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), 

Office of New Reactors (NRO), Office of Nuclear Material and Safety and 

Safeguards (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), and 

Regional Administrators with Program Responsibilities)

1. Appoint a Peer Review Coordinator and ensure office has guidance on peer review 

that aligns with MD 3.17.
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 5

2. Review scientific information products generated by the individual office intended to 

be disseminated to the public to determine if they could potentially qualify as ISI or 

as a HISA. 

3. Inform other NRC office directors and regional administrators when they receive 

scientific information products that the information could possibly qualify as ISI or as 

a HISA that would have to be peer reviewed in accordance with the OMB Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. 

4. Evaluate the scientific information products to determine if the information qualifies 

as ISI or as a HISA per MD 3.17 that should be peer reviewed.

5. Provide the list of information products reviewed in the office’s response to the 

annual survey of products that may qualify for peer review to OCIO. Identify those 

information products that the office determines qualify for peer review, provide 

information to document how the information product qualifies, and identify the most 

appropriate office to conduct the peer review.

6. Conduct peer review of scientific information products that constitute ISI or a HISA. 

7. Assist other offices conducting peer reviews with preparing the peer review plan and 

conducting the peer review, as appropriate. 

H. Information Quality Coordinator (IQC) 

1. Manages the ICR review and appeal process of the NRC Information Quality Program. 

2. Maintains the official ICR files and public Web sites for ICRs and peer reviews. 

3. Prepares the annual report to OMB and other necessary reports to keep 

management abreast of the status and issues relating to ICR reviews. 

4. Assesses the consistency of decisions to correct or not to correct information. 

5. Independently assesses each decision to correct information for its impact on other 

agency processes and activities. 

6. Coordinates the agency’s efforts to comply with OMB’s Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review. 

7. Identifies the number and nature of ICRs received and their resolution, including an 

explanation of decisions to deny or limit corrective actions, and provides the 

information to OMB in the NRC’s annual fiscal year report.

I. Information Office Coordinator (IOC) 

1. Facilitates and evaluates ICR requests for correction and appeals with the support of 

knowledgeable management and staff in the office or region where the IOC is assigned. 

2. Forwards initial review documents with findings and appeals from the ICR to the IQC. 
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 6

J. Peer Review Coordinator (PRC) 

1. Serves as the office contact for responding to the annual survey to identify 

information products that may qualify for peer review in accordance with OMB’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. 

2. Serves as the principal contact for the semi-annual update to the Peer Review Agenda. 

3. Serves as the principal contact for updates to a Peer Review Plan. 

IV. APPLICABILITY 

The provisions of this directive and handbook apply to and must be followed by all NRC 

employees and NRC contractors.

V. DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK 

Handbook 3.17 contains detailed procedures on the NRC Information Quality Program. 

VI. REFERENCES 

Code of Federal Regulations

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)—

48 CFR Part 1, “Federal Acquisition Regulations System.” 

48 CFR, Chapter 20, “NRC Acquisition Regulations System.”

Office of the Federal Register

Federal Policy on Research Misconduct (65 FR 76260), December 6, 2000, at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/pdf/00-30852.pdf. 

NRC Information Quality Guidelines (67 FR 61968), October 1, 2002, at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-10-01/html/02-24944.html. 

Office of Management and Budget 

“Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” (70 FR 2664), January 14, 2005, at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-01-14/pdf/05-769.pdf.

“Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (67 FR 8452), February 22, 2002, at 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 7

Office of Management and Budget Memoranda

M-10-22, “Guidance for Online Use of Web Measurement and Customization 

Technologies,” June 25, 2010, at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-

22.pdf.

M-10-23, “Guidance for Agency Use of Third-Party Websites and Applications,” 

June 25, 2010, at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-

23.pdf.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Documents 

NRC Information Notice No. 89-39, “List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement 

or Non-Procurement Programs,” April 5, 1989 (ML031180796).

NRC Management Directives—

3.4, “Release of Information to the Public.”

12.5, “NRC Cybersecurity Program.”

NRC Policy for Handling, Marking, and Protecting Sensitive Unclassified 

Non-Safeguards Information (ML052990146).

NUREG-Series Publications

NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission” (ML042820192).

NUREG/BR-0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook” 

(ML050190193).

United States Code 

Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804 et seq.).

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

Freedom of Information Act of 1966, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3502(1)). 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a).

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, 

Section 515(a)).
MD 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 8

Web Sites, Other—

NRC Information Quality Guidelines: 

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

Submit a Request for an Appeal: 

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

NRC Customer Service Catalog: 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/ois/CScatalog/catalog.html. 

NRC Information Quality Internal Web Site:

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/ois/CScatalog/customerservicecatalogs/informationmanagement/quality/information-quality.html.

The National Academies Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and 

Conflicts of Interest: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi_form-0.pdf.

The NRC’s Plain Language Action Plan, Reports, and News: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/open/plain-writing/nrc-plan-rpts-news.html.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK (DH)

For updates or revisions to policies contained in this MD that were issued after the MD was signed, 

please see the Yellow Announcement to Management Directive index (YA-to-MD index).

DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM DT-16-25

Volume 3,

Part 1:

Information Management

Publications, Mail, and Information Disclosure

Approved By: Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director for Operations

Date Approved: June 28, 2016

Expiration Date: June 28, 2021

Issuing Office: Office of the Chief Information Officer

Customer Service Division

Contact Name: Margie Janney

301-415-7245

Kimyata MorganButler

301-415-0733

Fajr Majeed

301-415-6736

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Management Directive (MD) 3.17, NRC Information Quality Program,” is revised to—

• Incorporate current policy, standards, and procedures, including the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Memoranda M-10-22, “Guidance for Online Use of 

Web Measurement and Customization Technologies,” and M-10-23, “Guidance for 

Agency Use of Third-Party Websites and Applications.”

• Incorporate the recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General Record, 

“Audit of NRC’s Process for Ensuring Integrity in Scientific Research” (OIG-15-A-08).

• Reflect the April 2013 reorganization of the Office of Information Services and the 

subsequent retitling of the office to the Office of the Chief Information Officer in 

November 2015.

• Reflect changes resulting from the merger of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards and the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs.

• Reflect changes to the tables. The tables formerly in Exhibit 1 have been moved to 

Exhibit 2: Table 1, “NRC Information Products – Information Subject to NRC 

Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking Correction,” and Table 2, 

“Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction.” The information in the previous Exhibit 2 has been eliminated. 

The current version of the “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review” has 

been incorporated by reference (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005).
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Incorporate Exhibit 4, contents of Memorandum to Office Director Responsible for 

Creation of Product That May Qualify as Influential Scientific Information or Highly 

Influential Scientific Assessment.

• Introduce the internal NRC Information Quality Web site. The Web site also includes a 

variety of resources and aids to assist employees engaging in the Information Quality 

Program, including guidelines, exhibits, a template for the Annual Surveys of ISI and 

HISA, and Information Quality reports.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. NRC INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES ..................................................................3

A. Introduction...................................................................................................................3

B. NRC Information Quality Guidelines .............................................................................3

C. Scope of Information Subject to These Guidelines .......................................................4

D. NRC Quality Standards ................................................................................................5

E. NRC Policy on Research Misconduct ...........................................................................9

II. NRC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO SUBMIT A REQUEST 

FOR CORRECTION OF INFORMATION.........................................................................12

A. Correction Process .....................................................................................................12

B. Information Quality Coordinator (IQC) Actions............................................................13

C. Office Processing Actions...........................................................................................14

D. NRC Receipt and Review of Appeals to ICR Decisions ..............................................14

E. Responding to the Requester .....................................................................................15

F. Follow-up Actions .......................................................................................................15

G. Annual Reporting Requirement...................................................................................15

III. NRC GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE OMB FINAL INFORMATION QUALITY 

BULLETIN FOR PEER REVIEW .....................................................................................16

A. Identification of Scientific Information Subject to Office of Management 

and Budget Peer Review Guidelines ..........................................................................16

B. Peer Review Plan .......................................................................................................20

C. Conduct of Peer Reviews ...........................................................................................21

D. Administrative Record Certification.............................................................................25

E. Alternative Procedures To Comply With Peer Review Requirements in 

the OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review .......................................26

F. Waivers and Deferrals of Certain Requirements.........................................................26

G. Exemptions.................................................................................................................26
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 3

H. Annual Report ............................................................................................................27

IV. ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................28

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 Overview of the Quality Products .......................................................................30

Exhibit 2 NRC Information Products: Information Subject to or Exempt from 

the Guidelines to the Public Seeking Correction ................................................33

Exhibit 3 NRC Flowchart: Peer Review Identification Process ..........................................49

Exhibit 4 Contents of Memorandum to the Office Director Responsible for 

Creation of a Product That May Qualify as Influential Scientific 

Information or Highly Influential Scientific Assessment ......................................50

I. NRC INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES

A. Introduction 

On February 22, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published 

“Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (67 Federal Register (FR) 8452) 

(“OMB Information Quality Guidelines”), in accordance with Section 515 of the Treasury 

and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; 

H.R. 5658). The OMB Information Quality Guidelines require that Federal agencies 

develop procedures for reviewing and substantiating the quality of information before it is 

disseminated by the agency to the public. The NRC originally published its Information 

Quality Guidelines on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61965) (“NRC Information Quality 

Guidelines”). The scope of information covered by the guidelines includes the 

applicability of the guidelines to proposed rulemaking and other public comment 

processes, procedures for the waiver of standards in urgent conditions, NRC quality 

standards, and NRC’s administrative process for the public to seek correction of 

information. A discussion of the NRC Information Quality Guidelines follows. 

B. NRC Information Quality Guidelines 

NRC is committed to ensuring the quality of all information that it relies on or 

disseminates. For purposes of these guidelines, “Dissemination” refers to NRC-initiated 

or sponsored distribution of information to the public. Consistent with OMB guidance, 

“NRC-sponsored” information includes information disseminated to the public by a 

third-party (e.g., a contractor) either at the direction of the NRC, or where the NRC has 

the authority to review and approve the information before its dissemination. It does not 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 4

include information that is solely funded by the NRC and disseminated at the discretion 

of the third-party. NRC’s policies and practices are designed to ensure that the agency 

establishes and maintains an appropriate level of quality commensurate with the nature 

of the information. Thus, the most influential scientific, financial, and statistical data are 

subject to the most rigorous quality standards. NRC will correct information that does not 

meet its guidelines or the OMB Information Quality Guidelines based on the significance 

and impact of the correction. The NRC Information Quality Guidelines are general 

statements of agency policy and are not legally binding on the agency or on affected 

persons. 

C. Scope of Information Subject to These Guidelines 

1. The agency’s information quality reviews will apply to NRC information that is 

publicly disseminated for the first time on or after October 1, 2002. The fact that an 

information product is already on NRC’s Web site or in the Public Document Room 

before October 1, 2002, and is still maintained by NRC (e.g., in NRC’s files, in 

publications that NRC continues to distribute on its Web site) does not make the 

information subject to these guidelines or to the request for correction process 

because it falls within the “archival records" exemption identified in Exhibit 1 of this 

handbook. This information would be subject to the correction and appeal process 

discussed in Section II of this handbook should the information be challenged and 

the complainant can demonstrate that the challenged data, which is publicly 

available through agency Web sites or other means, serves agency program 

responsibilities and is relied upon by the public as official Government data. 

Additionally, if specific information has previously been disseminated and is not 

covered by these guidelines, that information may still be subject to the NRC 

Information Quality Guidelines during a post October 1, 2002, dissemination of the 

information in which NRC either adopts, endorses, or uses the information to 

formulate or support a regulation, guidance, or other agency decision or position. 

2. Because of the importance of openness and transparency, NRC routinely makes 

available to the public the majority of its regulatory documents, information about its

decisionmaking processes, and the standards used to analyze information submitted 

by the regulated community. The OMB Information Quality Guidelines require NRC 

to apply information quality standards only to a subset of this information; however, 

NRC is committed to ensuring the quality of all of the information it disseminates, 

whether or not it is specifically covered by these guidelines. In addition, NRC has 

many existing processes by which the public may comment on agency information. 

The agency will continue to use these processes to respond to comments and 

requests, regardless of whether they are specifically covered by these guidelines. 

(a) Information Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines 

These guidelines apply to print and electronic versions of agency information. For 

a comprehensive listing of the types of NRC information covered by the 

guidelines, see Exhibit 2, “NRC Information Products,” Table 1, “Information 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 5

Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking 

Correction,” of this handbook. 

(b) Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines 

On the basis of the OMB guidelines, a comprehensive listing of the types of 

NRC information exempt from the guidelines can be found in Exhibit 2, 

“NRC Information Products,” Table 2, “Information Exempt from NRC Information 

Quality Guidelines and from the Public Seeking Correction,” of this handbook. 

(c) Applicability to Proposed Rulemaking and Other Public Comment Processes 

The correction and appeal process that will address data quality challenges does 

not apply to information disseminated by NRC through a comprehensive public 

comment process; for example, proposed rules, regulatory analyses, requests for 

comments on information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

environmental impact statements, and other documents for which NRC solicits 

public comment by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. Persons 

questioning the quality of information disseminated in those documents, or 

documents referenced or relied upon in those documents, must submit comments 

as directed in the notice requesting public comment on the given document. NRC 

will use its existing processes for responding to public comments to address a

request for correction and will describe the actions it has taken with regard to the 

request in the final agency rule, regulatory analysis, or other final action. An 

additional complaint and appeal process for information that is already subject to a 

public comment process would be inappropriate and unfair to other public 

commenters who submit timely comments. 

(d) Waiver of Standards Under Urgent Conditions 

The NRC’s information quality standards may be temporarily waived for 

information that is disseminated in urgent situations. NRC will consider “urgent 

situations” to include emergency conditions at licensed facilities, as well as 

imminent or credible threats to the public health and safety, the common defense 

and security, including homeland security, the environment, and other situations 

deemed to be urgent conditions on a case-by-case basis. The quality of this 

information should be reviewed as soon as practicable once the urgent 

conditions necessitating the waiver have ended.

D. NRC Quality Standards 

1. Information that NRC relies on or disseminates must meet both the NRC Information 

Quality Standards and OMB Information Quality Guidelines, in order to ensure and 

maximize information quality. These information quality standards also apply to the 

creation, collection, acquisition, and maintenance of information by NRC. NRC will 

ensure that its draft information collection packages submitted for OMB approval will 

result in the information being collected, maintained, and used in a manner that is 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 6

consistent with NRC and OMB Information Quality Guidelines. Agency policies and 

procedures will ensure that NRC meets and maintains these standards. 

2. NRC has set information quality as a measure of agency performance. NRC will 

meet the information quality criteria for utility, integrity, and objectivity, as defined in 

the OMB and NRC Information Quality Guidelines, available at the internal NRC 

Information Quality Web site. The standards in this section expound on how NRC will 

apply the OMB criteria in its regulatory environment. The degree of rigor of the 

pre-dissemination reviews will be commensurate with the nature and significance of 

the information. NRC Information Quality Web site is available at 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/ois/CScatalog/customerservicecatalogs/informationmanagement/quality/information-quality.html.

3. NRC will impose the highest level of quality on influential scientific, financial, or 

statistical information, which the agency defines as information that forms the 

technical basis for a substantive rulemaking that has substantial impact on an 

industry. The NRC may also deem other types of information as “influential” as 

authorized by OMB guidelines on a case-by-case basis. In determining what 

constitutes influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, NRC considers 

two principal factors:

(a) The information must have a clear and substantial impact that has a high 

probability of occurring. 

(b) The information must impact regulatory decisions affecting a broad class of applicants 

or licensees. Although information contained in a regulatory decision for an individual 

applicant or licensee may have substantial impact, it is limited in its breadth, therefore 

will not be deemed “influential” for the purposes of these guidelines. 

4. NRC applies the most rigorous procedures to ensure the quality of “influential” 

information. The reproducibility of original and supporting data for influential scientific, 

financial, or statistical information will be consistent with commonly accepted scientific, 

financial, or statistical standards. When reproducibility is not achievable through public 

access because of confidentiality protection or compelling interests, analytical results 

will receive especially rigorous reviews. NRC will describe the specific reviews, as well 

as the specific data sources, quantitative methods, and assumptions used. 

5. The following provides a definition of the elements of information quality (utility, 

integrity, and objectivity) and a description of how NRC ensures information quality. 

(a) Utility is the usefulness of the information to its intended users. To ensure 

information utility, NRC will—

(i) Adhere to NRC policy on the dissemination of information to the public, which 

clearly specifies what is to be made available to the public and when it should be 

available for public release. See Management Directive (MD) 3.4, “Release of 

Information to the Public.”
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 7

(ii) Make information associated with the agency regulatory processes and 

decisions public unless release is restricted. Examples where public release 

of information may be restricted include regulatory processes or decisions 

that contain classified national security information, Safeguards Information, 

sensitive unclassified non-Safeguards Information, proprietary information, 

sensitive homeland security information, or other information that is protected 

from disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

(iii) Use feedback mechanisms on the NRC’s Web site to request public 

comments on what information NRC disseminates and how it is disseminated. 

(iv) Request public comments on individual documents and hold public meetings, 

as appropriate, to solicit public comments. 

(v) Assist the public in quickly and conveniently locating the information they are 

seeking through the NRC’s Public Document Room, or Web site. 

(b) Integrity is the security of information from unauthorized access or revision to 

ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification. 

To ensure information integrity, NRC will adhere to agency policies for personnel 

security, computer security, information security, and records management, 

which include the following key components: 

(i) NRC electronic systems are required to protect information integrity to 

prevent inadvertent or deliberate alteration and ensure appropriate access 

controls in accordance with MD 12.5, “NRC Cybersecurity Program.” 

(ii) Computer and personnel security policies ensure that employees and 

contractors who have access to electronic information and associated 

computer systems are screened for trustworthiness and assigned the 

appropriate level of access. 

(iii) Records management policies require that agency records be properly 

maintained and protected. In particular, the NRC’s electronic records 

management system (i.e., the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS)) is designed to ensure that documents that 

are disseminated to the public are protected from alteration or falsification. 

(c) Objectivity involves two distinct elements, including presentation and substance. 

Information must be presented in a manner that is accurate, clear, complete, and 

unbiased. In addition, the substance of the information presented must be 

accurate, reliable, and unbiased. To ensure information objectivity, NRC will—

(i) Achieve accuracy and completeness in the following ways: 

• Provide formal review of and concurrence with all information 

disseminated, including rulemaking documents, inspection reports, 

technical reports, generic communications, and all other agency 

documents covered by these guidelines. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 8

• Encourage peer review of NRC scientific information products. The 

primary objective of the peer review is to judge the technical adequacy of 

the product and to bring the widest and best knowledge to bear on the 

quality of scientific information products. For most products, review by the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) or Advisory 

Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) constitutes a peer 

review for information quality purposes. 

• Adhere to Quality Management Control standards before disseminating 

information on the NRC’s public Web site. 

(ii) Ensure that information is reliable and unbiased in the following ways: 

• Apply sound statistical and research methods to generate data and 

analytical results for scientific and statistical information. 

• Use peer reviews for agency-sponsored or -developed influential scientific 

information. In accordance with OMB guidance, one acceptable method 

of peer review is the review of agency information by independent 

advisory committees, including ACRS and ACMUI, as appropriate. Where 

information has been subjected to formal, independent, external peer 

review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable 

objectivity. However, this presumption is rebuttable based on a 

persuasive showing in a particular instance. 

• Use reviews by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), 

as appropriate, for information and related analyses with generic 

implications. 

• Use reviews by Agreement States, as appropriate, for matters pertaining 

to the regulation of nuclear materials. 

• Provide opportunities for the public and States to comment on 

rulemakings, Commission policy statements, regulatory guides, and other 

information products, as appropriate. 

• Hold public meetings to seek public views and solicit public comments 

through the NRC’s public Web site and FRNs, as appropriate. 

• Comply with internal policy to ensure unbiased incident investigation team 

investigations. 

• Use reviews of proposed policy decisions by the Commission. 

(iii) Achieve transparency in the following ways: 

• Include in relevant agency information products descriptions of the data 

and methods used to develop the information product in a way that would 

make it possible for an independent, qualified individual or organization to 

reproduce the results. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 9

• Adhere to NRC policy and guidance overseeing the performance of 

regulatory analyses as provided in publicly available NUREG/BR-0058, 

Rev. 4, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission,” (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession Number ML042820192), and NUREG/BR-0184, 

“Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook” (ADAMS 

Accession Number ML050190193). NRC will perform regulatory analyses 

that assess uncertainty, in the context of quantifying risk, and 

communicate those findings to the public in a manner that meets the 

intent of the OMB referenced information quality standards. 

(iv) Achieve clarity in the following ways: 

• Adhere to the NRC’s Plain Language Action Plan, Reports, and News, 

in written and electronic products, available at http://www.nrc.go/publicinvolve/open/plain-writing/nrc-plan-rpts-news.html.

• Ensure that the analysis of technical information receives editorial review. 

• Respond to stakeholder comments on the clarity of proposed actions. 

• The Information Quality Coordinator (IQC) will identify the number and 

nature of information correction requests received and their resolution, 

including an explanation of decisions to deny or limit corrective actions in 

its annual fiscal year reports to OMB. 

E. NRC Policy on Research Misconduct

This section implements the NRC’s policy on research misconduct relating to the 

conduct and reporting of research results by research institutions to the NRC. 

“Research institution” includes any and all organizations using Federal funds for 

research (e.g., Intergovernmental Agency Agreement, DOE laboratory agreements, 

commercial contracts with universities and private companies, and financial assistance 

awards). This policy is adopted in accordance with the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy’s (OSTP) “Federal Policy on Research Misconduct” (65 FR 76260, 

December 6, 2000). OSTP requires all allegations of research misconduct are forwarded 

to the NRC and are investigated and adjudicated in a fair and timely manner either by 

the research institution or the agency. This policy does not supersede any other 

Government or institutional policies or procedures for addressing misconduct, nor does it 

limit or supersede any applicable criminal or civil law.

1. Research Misconduct Defined 

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in 

proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does 

not include honest error or differences of opinion.

(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 10

(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or 

changing or omitting data or results so that the research is not accurately 

represented in the research record.

(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or 

words without giving appropriate credit. 

2. Findings of Research Misconduct 

A finding of research misconduct requires that—

(a) There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research 

community. 

(b) The misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. 

(c) The allegation is proven by a preponderance of evidence. 

3. Responsibilities of the NRC and Research Institutions

(a) While Federal agencies have ultimate oversight authority for federally funded 

research, research institutions bear primary responsibility under the OSTP policy 

statement for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, 

investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have occurred in 

association with their own institution. At the NRC, the expectation is that research 

institutions will self-report allegations or findings of research misconduct by 

individuals performing research associated with its grant or contract. If substantiated, 

the NRC may take any applicable administrative action authorized by law, taking into 

consideration the factors listed in Section I.E.4 of this handbook.

(b) Notwithstanding this expectation placing primary reporting responsibility upon the 

research institution, the NRC may also compel the investigation and resolution of 

an allegation of research misconduct through the following means:

(i) Grants

• The terms and conditions of NRC grants require that any allegation of 

research misconduct be submitted to the grants officer identified within 

the grant. These terms and conditions place the primary responsibility to 

investigate these allegations with the research institution which submits 

its findings to the grants officer. The NRC should ensure that this 

submission includes the investigative report, a copy of the evidentiary 

record upon which the report was based, the research institution’s 

adjudicatory decision, and any corrective actions or recommendations 

taken or planned by the research institution. 

• The grants officer also must notify the OIG of such an allegation. The 

NRC may accept the research institution’s findings or proceed with its 

own investigation, conducted by the OIG under its authority to investigate 

fraud, waste, and abuse within NRC programs and activities.
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 11

(ii) Contracts

An allegation of research misconduct may be considered evidence of fraud or

an offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty,

constituting a cause for suspension under the Federal Acquisition Regulations

(FAR) in Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the CFR. The NRC Acquisition Regulations

in Chapter 20 of Title 48 of the CFR provide procedures for contracting 

officers who receive information which may be sufficient cause for

suspension. Contracting officers should follow such procedures when 

handling allegations of research misconduct, which include submitting a

statement of facts and recommended action to the appropriate director and,

where warranted, possible referral to the OIG for investigation. Where an

allegation of research misconduct is substantiated but does not result in a

formal suspension or debarment under the FAR, the agency may still take 

any appropriate lawful administrative action listed below in Section I.E.4(c) of 

this handbook based on the seriousness of the misconduct. 

4. Agency Administrative Actions

(a) While the NRC may choose to accept and rely on the findings of a research

institution that self-reports research misconduct, nothing precludes the NRC from 

proceeding with its own inquiry or investigation if the circumstances warrant, 

including when the NRC determines that the research institution is not prepared 

or is not capable of investigating the allegation in a manner that is fair, impartial, 

or timely, or where the NRC determines that its own involvement is needed to 

protect the public interest or public health and safety.

(b) Upon a substantiated finding of research misconduct, the NRC will determine an 

appropriate and lawful administrative action by considering the seriousness of 

the misconduct. Factors when making this determination include but are not 

limited to— 

(i) The degree to which the misconduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless;

(ii) Whether the misconduct was an isolated event or part of a pattern; and

(iii) The degree to which the misconduct had significant impact on the research 

record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions, or the public welfare.

(c) Administrative actions authorized by law may include, but are not limited to— 

(i) Letters of reprimand;

(ii) Imposition of a special certification or assurance requirement to ensure 

compliance with applicable regulations or terms of an award;

(iii) Suspension or termination of an active award, for which the research 

institution may be liable for repayment;
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 12

(iv) Suspension and debarment in accordance with applicable NRC and 

Governmentwide rules on suspension and debarment as described in 

Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 of Title 48 of the CFR, “Federal Acquisition 

Regulations System”; or

(v) Any other appropriate steps necessary to correct the research record.

(d) Any administrative actions imposed upon Government employees must comply 

with all relevant Federal personnel policies and laws.

5. Criminal or Civil Fraud Violations

Anyone who receives information that a criminal or civil fraud violation may have 

occurred must promptly refer the matter to the OIG.

II. NRC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO SUBMIT A REQUEST 

FOR CORRECTION OF INFORMATION 

The OMB Information Quality Guidelines require that Federal agencies establish 

administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of

information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with OMB or 

agency information quality guidelines. The NRC published its guidelines for the public to 

request correction of information in 67 FR 61698 on October 1, 2002. This part implements 

the NRC staff’s procedures for reviewing and responding to requests for correction of 

information that are received by the IQC as described on the public NRC Information Quality 

Web site, available at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/info-quality.html, and administrative 

appeal procedures when a requestor disagrees with the agency’s decision or corrective 

action.

A. Correction Process

1. The correction process is designed to address the genuine and valid needs of 

affected persons without disrupting agency operations. In determining whether to 

correct information, NRC may reject claims made in bad faith or without justification. 

NRC is required to undertake only the degree of correction that it concludes is 

appropriate for the nature and timeliness of the information involved. 

2. Subject to applicable laws, NRC’s corrective measures may include, without 

limitation, personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases, 

postings on the NRC’s Web site, correction in the next version of a document, or 

other appropriate methods that would give affected persons reasonable notice of any 

corrective actions made. 

3. It is NRC’s intent to make corrections within a reasonable time after the agency has 

made the determination that a correction is appropriate. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 13

4. NRC will continue to process any decision or document that has had a related 

information collection request (ICR) unless NRC decides that the information 

requires correction before the process may continue. 

5. NRC’s information correction process will be open to the public as a commitment to 

transparency and request responses will be made public through ADAMS, excluding 

the requester’s personal privacy information. 

B. Information Quality Coordinator (IQC) Actions 

1. When the IQC receives an ICR, the ICR will be marked with the date of receipt and 

assigned a sequential case number to be used as the reference in all matters about 

the ICR. 

(a) The IQC will perform an initial review to determine if the issue requires immediate 

action, particularly if it concerns an allegation or physical security.

(b) If immediate action is required, the IQC refers the ICR to the appropriate 

regulatory office (e.g., the Office of Enforcement or NSIR).

2. The IQC will perform an acceptance review within 5 calendar days that will include—

(a) Determining if the submitter of the ICR is an affected party;

(b) Determining if all the necessary information on which the correction review will be 

performed was included with the ICR; and

(c) Determining whether the ICR is more appropriately addressed through some 

other NRC administrative mechanism, such as the allegations program.

3. If the IQC determines that the ICR does meet the acceptance criteria, the requester 

will be informed that the ICR has been accepted and given the anticipated 

completion date. 

4. If the IQC determines that the ICR does not meet the acceptance criteria, the 

requester will be informed why the ICR was not accepted and how to appeal this 

decision. 

5. If the ICR is accepted, the IQC will assign the ICR to the Information Office 

Coordinator (IOC) in the office that is knowledgeable about the information in question. 

6. The IQC will respond to the requester within 45 calendar days of receipt by letter or 

e-mail, and the response will explain the findings of the review and any actions that 

NRC will take. 

7. The response will contain information on how the requester can appeal the agency’s 

decision. If the request requires more than 45 calendar days to resolve, the ICQ will 

inform the requester that more time is required, state the reason why, and include an 

estimated decision date. See appeal guidance, “How To Submit a Request for an 

Appeal,” available at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/info-quality/submit-appeal.html.
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 14

C. Office Processing Actions 

1. The Information Office Coordinator (IOC) should ensure that the appropriate 

management official at the branch chief or deputy division director level reviews the 

ICR for correctness. 

2. The assigned management official will review the ICR and make a determination 

whether there is an error that warrants correction. If so, the management official will 

determine appropriate action. The management official may consult with other 

Federal agencies or staff in making this determination. 

3. The assigned management official will consider, at a minimum, the following in 

making the determination: 

(a) The significance of the asserted error, 

(b) The benefits that are likely to be derived from such a correction,

(c) The costs of the correction and its impact on other agency processes and 

activities, and 

(d) The agency’s more pressing priorities and obligations. 

4. The assigned management official will provide a written determination (typically a 

memorandum) of whether there is an error to the IOC. This determination will include 

the following: 

(a) The justification for making a correction or not making a correction; 

(b) The corrective action already taken or to be taken, if any; 

(c) The schedule for future corrective actions, if any; and 

(d) The management official’s name, title, office, and date of determination. 

5. The IOC will provide the written determination to the IQC within 30 calendar days 

after the office’s receipt of the action from the IQC. 

D. NRC Receipt and Review of Appeals to ICR Decisions

1. Any NRC employee who receives an appeal to an ICR will forward it immediately to 

the IQC.

2. When the IQC receives an appeal, the IQC will mark the appeal with the date of 

receipt and assign a sequential case number to be used as the reference in all 

matters about the appeal ICR. 

3. The IQC will perform an acceptance review within 5 calendar days that will include—

(a) Determining if the submitter of the appeal is the original requester. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 15

(b) Determining if all the necessary information on which the appeal review will be 

performed was included with the ICR. 

4. If the IQC determines that the appeal does meet the acceptance criteria, the 

requester will be informed that the appeal has been accepted and the anticipated 

completion date. 

5. If the IQC determines that the appeal does not meet the acceptance criteria, the 

requester will be informed why the appeal was not accepted and given the 

anticipated completion date. 

6. If the appeal is accepted, the IQC will assign the appeal to the office that is 

knowledgeable of the information in question, typically the office that made the 

determination on the initial ICR.

7. The IOC will assign the appeal for evaluation to a management official, typically at 

the division director level, who is a member of the Senior Executive Service and who, 

in most cases, does not supervise the management official who was responsible for 

the initial response to the ICR. 

8. The management official will limit the appeal review to the basis of the appeal and 

may consult with other Federal agencies or NRC employees in responding to the 

appeal, as appropriate. 

9. The management official will determine whether a correction is warranted and, if so, 

what action will be taken and will provide that response to the IOC.

E. Responding to the Requester

1. The IQC will provide the response to the requester through a letter or e-mail within 

30 calendar days. The response will contain the management official’s 

determination. If the appeal requires more than 30 calendar days to resolve, the IQC 

will inform the requester that more time is required, state the reason why, and 

include an estimated decision date. 

2. If the decision on the initial ICR was overturned, the IQC will independently assess 

the decision to correct information for its impact on other agency processes and 

activities. 

F. Follow-up Actions 

If corrective actions are not completed at the time the response is sent to the requester, 

the IQC will track any necessary follow-up actions. 

G. Annual Reporting Requirement

NRC will identify the number and nature of ICRs received and their resolution, including 

an explanation of decisions to deny or limit corrective actions in its annual fiscal year 

reports to OMB by December 15 of each year. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 16

III. NRC GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE OMB FINAL INFORMATION QUALITY 

BULLETIN FOR PEER REVIEW 

A. Identification of Scientific Information Subject to Office of Management and 

Budget Peer Review Guidelines 

1. Introduction 

(a) On January 14, 2005, the OMB issued the “Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review” (70 FR 2664), hereafter referred to as the (“OMB bulletin”). The 

OMB bulletin requires that all agencies conduct a peer review of information that 

qualifies as “influential scientific information (ISI)” or as a “highly influential 

scientific assessment (HISA)” that the NRC intends to disseminate publicly.

(b) The OMB bulletin is “designed to realize the benefits of meaningful peer review 

of the most important science disseminated by the Federal Government” and 

applies only to information that meets the threshold of ISI or HISA, as defined in 

Section III.A.2, “Definitions,” of this handbook. The annual number of NRC 

products that could likely contain ISI or HISA is anticipated to be very low. As the 

OMB guidance is applied to the NRC, ISI or HISA likely would be associated with 

documents that form the technical basis for major guidance changes or rule 

changes, where there is a potential for policy changes that have a significant 

impact to the public or industry as described in Section III.A.2, “Definitions,” of 

this handbook. Because of the potential need to perform a peer review, it is 

important for staff that are involved in work that supports substantial changes to 

NRC guidance or rules to be aware of the OMB guidelines for quality peer review 

of scientific information so that such reviews can be accounted for in the 

schedules for those products. 

(c) Existing NRC peer review mechanisms, including review by the ACRS and 

ACMUI, satisfy the requirements of the OMB bulletin. In addition, because the 

peer review requirements in the OMB bulletin apply only to information that the 

NRC “disseminates,” NRC products listed in Exhibit 2, Table 2, as exempt from 

the NRC’s Information Quality Guidelines also are exempt from these peer 

review guidelines.

(d) NRC will post to its public Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/infoquality.html) an agenda of Peer Review Plans describing all planned and ongoing 

peer reviews of information products in development qualifying as ISI and as an 

HISA and that are expected to be disseminated to the public in draft or final form in 

the next 3 years. The agenda is to be updated at least semiannually. For each 

relevant peer review, NRC will prepare a Peer Review Plan and post the plan to its 

public Web site. The NRC will provide an annual report to OMB, due by December 

15 of each year or on the date that OMB requests the annual report. The report will 

contain a summary of the peer reviews conducted during the fiscal year.
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 17

2. Definitions

(a) “Scientific information” means factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical 

information, or scientific assessments related to such disciplines as the 

behavioral and social sciences, public health and medical sciences, life and earth 

sciences, engineering, or physical sciences. This definition includes any 

communication or representation of knowledge (e.g., facts or data, in any 

medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or 

audiovisual forms). This definition includes information that NRC disseminates 

from its Web page but does not include the provision of hyperlinks on a Web 

page to information that others disseminate. This definition excludes opinions 

where NRC’s presentation makes clear that an individual’s opinion, rather than a 

statement of fact or of the agency’s findings and conclusions, is being offered. 

(b) “Influential scientific information” (ISI) means scientific information for which the 

NRC reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial 

impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. 

(i) NRC interprets “influential information,” in accordance with the internal 

NRC Information Quality Guidelines and OMB bulletin as information that 

forms the technical basis for a substantive rulemaking that has substantial 

impact on an industry. 

(ii) Scientific information forming the technical basis for regulatory action 

deemed to be a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act 

(5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) presumptively constitutes ISI, unless noted as exempt 

in Exhibit 2. Examples of this information could be NUREGs or other 

supporting NRC scientific reports that support these rules.

(iii) On a case-by-case, NRC may deem other scientific information to be 

“influential,” based on the following factors:

• The scientific information is contained in a product that is not exempt from 

the Information Quality Guidelines (i.e., it is not in a product listed in 

Exhibit 2, Table 2).

• The information must have a clear and substantial impact that has a high 

probability of occurring.

• The information must impact regulatory decisions affecting a broad class 

of applicants or licensees or the public. (Although information contained 

in a regulatory decision for an individual applicant or licensee, and the 

local population, may have substantial impact, it is limited in its breadth, 

therefore will not be deemed “influential” for the purposes of these 

guidelines.) 

• Technical basis documents for generic communications, rulemakings, or 

other regulatory actions that could be considered “significant” are 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 18

considered within the scope of NRC scientific products that would be 

subject to OMB guidance on peer review.

(c) A “scientific assessment” is one type of scientific information and means an 

evaluation of a body of scientific or technical knowledge, which typically 

synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models, assumptions, and/or applies 

best professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in the available information. 

These assessments include, but are not limited to, state-of-science reports; 

technology assessments; weight-of-evidence analyses; meta-analyses; health, 

safety, or ecological risk assessments; toxicological characterizations of 

substances; integrated assessment models; hazard determinations; or exposure 

assessments. These assessments are often communicated by NRC through 

NUREGs, generic communications, and other means. NRC may sponsor or 

develop scientific assessments to support rulemakings, policy statements, or 

other regulatory decisions.

(d) NRC defines a “highly influential scientific assessment” (HISA) as follows:

(i) A scientific assessment used as the basis of a rulemaking or regulatory action 

that NRC determines could have a potential impact of more than $500 million 

in any single year on either the public or private sector. 

(ii) In accordance with OMB guidelines, in cases where the NRC determines the 

potential impact of the rulemaking or regulatory action is less than $500 

million, an assessment still can be considered HISA if it represents a “novel, 

controversial, or precedent-setting approach, or has significant interagency 

interest,” either because of the information in the assessment or the way the 

assessment was performed. At the NRC, only scientific assessments of the 

utmost significance are expected to constitute HISA under this alternative 

approach.

3. Initiation of the Annual Survey 

(a) Before the initiation of each annual survey, the IQC will ensure involved NRC 

staff (typically the offices’ Peer Review Coordinators) and management discuss 

the requirements and responsibilities associated with the identification and 

reporting of ISI and HISA.

(b) The Chief Information Officer (CIO), on or before September 1 of each year, will 

survey NRC offices to determine if those offices are working on projects that will 

likely disseminate scientific information within the next 3 years that could qualify as 

ISI or as an HISA. 

(c) A flow chart, Peer Review Identification Process, summarizing the annual 

process for identifying scientific information that may qualify for peer review 

through the OMB bulletin is shown in Exhibit 3 and on the internal NRC 

Information Quality Web Site. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 19

4. Office Actions in Response to the Annual Survey

(a) Identification of Potential Information Products

The Offices of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR), Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), New Reactors (NRO), 

Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), or any other office involved in 

the development of scientific information will review their activities to determine if 

any of those activities could result in information products that potentially qualify 

as ISI or as an HISA. For NRC offices, this typically includes only major NRC 

activities such as “substantive” rulemakings and Generic Communications. If 

necessary, the information products produced by RES are referred to the lead 

office that sponsored or requested the products. 

(b) Evaluation of Impact

RES, NRR, NMSS, NRO, or NSIR will evaluate the potential impact of 

information products identified as potentially qualifying as ISI or as a HISA and 

thus necessitating a peer review of the product.

5. Office Coordination 

If RES, NRR, NMSS, NRO, or NSIR identifies an information product that the office 

believes may qualify as ISI or as an HISA, the office director will inform the office 

responsible for creation of the information product and will provide to that office 

director the explanatory information listed in Exhibit 4 for each product.

6. Office Response

RES, NRR, NMSS, NRO, and NSIR will provide the CIO the results of their annual 

survey, using a template provided by OCIO, listing the products reviewed for 

potential ISI or HISA information. The response will include a determination, for each 

listed product, whether the office judged the product likely to be ISI or HISA. For 

templates, exhibits, and other information, see the internal NRC Information Quality 

Web Site.

7. OCIO Evaluation of the Adequacy of an Office Response 

The CIO will review each office’s response to the survey for completeness and clarity 

to ensure that the Agency standards for proper identification of ISI and HISA are 

being met. In addition, for any information product recommended for designation as 

either ISI or as an HISA, the OCIO will review the information provided, as required 

in Section III.A.6 of this handbook, to determine if it provides an adequate basis for

the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) to determine if a peer review is required. 

8. Formal Designation as “Influential Scientific Information” or as a “Highly Influential 

Scientific Assessment” 

(a) The CIO, on the basis of an office response to the survey, will submit a report to 

the EDO before November 1 of each year listing the date of the annual meeting 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 20

with staff and management on the program (discussed in Section III.A.3(a) of this 

handbook), listing all products reviewed for potential ISI or HISA information, and 

recommending those information products that the agency identified that qualify 

as ISI or as a HISA. This report will be coordinated with the offices responsible 

for the information products. 

(b) The EDO will approve or disapprove the recommendation and provide the 

decision to the CIO before December 1 of each year. 

9. Posting Peer Review on the NRC Public Web Site 

On the basis of the EDO action, the IQC will prepare and post an agenda (i.e., a list) 

of planned and ongoing peer reviews, if any, to the NRC public Web site. Where no 

peer reviews have been identified, a notice will be made on the public Web site. The 

IQC will include contact information to allow interested members of the public to 

provide comments on the adequacy of individual peer review plans.

10. Semi-annual Update of the Peer Review Agenda 

The CIO contacts offices semiannually to update the status of the peer review 

agenda. If any information products are added, dropped, or changed from influential 

to highly influential or vice versa, OCIO will obtain the EDO’s approval before 

changing the Web site. 

B. Peer Review Plan 

The Peer Review Plan will include the following:

1. Responsibility 

Once the EDO provides a decision, the CIO will request each office responsible for a 

qualifying information product to prepare a Peer Review Plan. The office assigned 

responsibility for conducting the peer review will, within 120 days of the approval by 

the EDO of an information product as either ISI or as a HISA, prepare a Peer Review 

Plan, and provide it to the IQC for posting on the public Peer Review Web site. 

2. Contents of a Peer Review Plan 

(a) Include a beginning paragraph containing the title, subject, and purpose of the 

planned report, as well as an agency contact to whom inquiries may be directed 

to learn the specifics of the plan. 

(b) Indicate the type of information product (ISI or a HISA).

(c) Describe the timing of the review (including deferrals).

(d) Describe whether the review will be conducted through a panel or individual 

letters (or whether an alternative procedure will be employed). 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 21

(e) Describe whether there will be opportunities for the public to comment on the 

work product to be peer reviewed and, if so, how and when these opportunities 

will be provided.

(f) Describe whether the agency will provide significant and relevant public 

comments to the peer reviewers before they conduct their review.

(g) Describe the anticipated number of reviewers (e.g., 3 or fewer, 4 to 10, or more 

than 10).

(h) Give a succinct description of the primary disciplines or expertise needed in the 

review.

(i) Describe whether reviewers will be selected by a designated outside 

organization.

(j) Describe whether the public, including scientific or professional societies, will be 

asked to nominate potential peer reviewers. 

(k) Provide other information that OMB may request be included in a particular 

year’s annual report, as communicated by OCIO in the annual survey.

C. Conduct of Peer Reviews 

Peer reviews of ISI must meet the requirements in Section III.C.1 of this handbook. Peer 

reviews of HISA must meet the requirements in Section III.C.1 and the additional 

requirements in Section III.C.2 of this handbook. For most products, an ACRS or ACMUI 

review constitutes a peer review for information quality purposes.

1. Influential Scientific Information 

For scientific information the EDO approves as ISI, the office director responsible for 

that information will ensure a peer review is conducted in accordance with 

requirements set forth in Section II of the OMB bulletin, which is summarized in this 

section of the handbook. Agencies are given broad discretion in determining what 

type of peer review is appropriate and what procedures should be employed to select 

appropriate reviewers. Any peer review for ISI must adhere to the guidance found in 

Section II of the OMB bulletin and specific NRC guidance that is set forth below. 

(a) Peer Review Mechanisms (OMB Bulletin Section II.4)

(i) Can range from a review from one or more subject matter experts to panels 

such as ACRS or ACMUI. 

(ii) Considerations in selecting a peer review mechanism: 

• Novelty and complexity of the information to be reviewed,

• Importance of the information to the decisionmaking, 

• The extent of prior peer reviews, 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 22

• Expected benefits and costs of review, and

• Transparency. 

(b) Scope of Peer Reviewer Charge: The review will be solely of scientific and 

technical matters; policy determinations are left for the agency (OMB Bulletin 

Section II.1).

(c) Informing Peer Reviewers of Applicable Federal Information Quality Standards: 

Access, objectivity, reproducibility, and other quality standards in accordance 

with Federal laws governing information access and quality (OMB Bulletin 

Section II.1). 

(d) Adequacy of Prior Peer Reviews (OMB Bulletin Section II.2). 

(i) No further peer review is required if prior peer reviews are adequate. 

Publication in a referenced scientific journal may mean that adequate peer 

review has been performed. The agency must determine if a peer review is 

adequate. 

(ii) In determining whether further peer review is required, consider—

• Novelty and complexity of the information to be reviewed. 

• Importance of the information to the decisionmaking. 

• The extent of prior peer reviews. 

• Expected benefits and costs of the review. 

(iii) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) principal findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations are generally presumed to be adequately peer reviewed. 

(e) Selection of Reviewers (OMB Bulletin Section II.3 and Supplementary Information)

(i) Expertise (OMB Bulletin Section II.3.a and Supplementary Information) 

• Reviewers must represent a necessary spectrum of knowledge where 

information spans a variety of scientific disciplines.

• Consider requesting that the public, including scientific and professional 

societies, nominate potential reviewers.

(ii) Balance (OMB Bulletin Section II.3.a and Supplementary Information) 

• Represent diversity of scientific perspectives relevant to the information.

• NAS policy on committee composition is a useful guide 

(http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi_form-0.pdf). 

(iii) Independence (OMB Bulletin Section II.3.c) 

• The reviewer should not be involved in producing the scientific information. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 23

• Careful evaluation is required for Government-funded scientists and —

may differ for grantees vs. contractors. (Grantees are considered more 

independent than contractors unless the contractor is used only to 

perform a peer review).

(iv) Repeated use of the same reviewers on multiple assessments needs to be 

avoided unless it is essential and reviewers cannot be obtained elsewhere.

(v) Conflict of Interest (OMB Bulletin Section II.3.b) 

• Ensure that financial arrangements and organizational relationships do 

not impair the individual’s objectivity or create an unfair competitive 

advantage for a person or an organization. 

• Federal employees who serve as peer reviewers must comply with 

Federal ethics requirements. 

• Adapt NAS policy for committee selection with respect to evaluating 

conflicts for potential non-Federal Government peer reviewers. 

(f) Public Participation (See OMB bulletin discussion on public participation.)

(i) Public comment is encouraged but not required for the peer review of ISI. 

(ii) Public comment can be obtained through a variety of means. 

(iii) Clearly specify the time period allowed for public comment. 

(g) Transparency (OMB Bulletin Section II.5, Peer Review Report) 

(i) Peer reviewers will prepare a report that describes the nature of their review, 

findings, and conclusions and will include—

• A verbatim copy of each reviewer’s comments (either with or without 

attribution) or represent the views of the group as a whole, including any 

disparate and dissenting views; and

• The names of reviewers and their organizational affiliations. Reviewers 

will be notified in advance about the extent of disclosure and attribution 

planned by the agency. Public attribution of specific reviewer comments is 

not mandated. Before public disclosure of this information, consult with 

the NRC FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. 

(ii) The peer review report should be—

• Posted to the agency public Web site, and 

• Discussed in the statement of consideration of any related rulemaking 

and included in the administrative record of the agency. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 24

(h) Release of Proprietary and Other Sensitive Information to Peer Reviewers. 

Consult the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) if there is a need to disclose 

“proprietary” confidential commercial or financial information or intellectual 

property, or other sensitive unclassified information, to the peer reviewers. The 

specific arrangements will depend on whether the peer reviewers are NRC 

employees, NRC consultants, other Federal employees, or NRC contractors. 

(i) Outside Management of Peer Review. 

NRC may commission independent entities to manage the peer review process, 

including selection of peer reviewers, in accordance with the OMB bulletin. 

2. Highly Influential Scientific Assessment 

For that scientific information that the EDO has approved as HISA, the office director 

responsible for that information will conduct a peer review in accordance with 

requirements set forth in Section III of the OMB bulletin. Section III of the OMB 

bulletin states that all the guidelines in Section II related to ISI (described in the 

preceding Subsection C.1) will be met for a peer review of a HISA, in addition to the 

guidelines set forth in Section III. Section III should be consulted regarding additional 

guidelines, the highlights of which are set forth below. 

(a) Selection of Peer Reviewers – Independence

(i) NRC employees are not permitted to serve as peer reviewers for HISA. 

However, this prohibition does not preclude Special Government Employees, 

including members of the ACRS or ACMUI, from serving as peer reviewers. 

Additionally, as discussed in Section III.C of the OMB bulletin, the NAS 

criteria for evaluating use of “employees of sponsors” serves as an additional 

exception to this prohibition. 

(ii) Refer to Section III.C of the OMB bulletin for more information on this 

exception. 

(b) Peer Review Access to Information 

Agencies are to provide peer reviewers access to sufficient information, including 

background information about key studies and models, to enable them to 

understand the data, analytic procedures, and assumptions used to support the 

key findings or conclusions of the draft scientific assessment. Consult OGC if 

there is a need to disclose “proprietary” confidential commercial or financial 

information or intellectual property, or other sensitive unclassified information to 

the peer reviewers. 

(c) Public Participation 

(i) Where feasible and appropriate, the draft scientific assessment being peer 

reviewed will be made available to the public for comment at the same time it 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 25

is submitted to the peer reviewers, or during the time the peer review is being 

conducted. 

(ii) Public comment can be made by oral presentation or in writing before the 

peer reviewers. 

(iii) Peer reviewers, whenever practicable, are to be provided access to public 

comments on the draft scientific assessment. 

(iv) Time limits on public participation will be clearly specified.

(d) Transparency: Peer Review Report 

A Peer Review Report will be prepared and include—

(i) Information required in Section III.C.1(g) of this handbook (these 

requirements are derived from OMB Bulletin Section II.5), 

(ii) The charge (i.e., instructions) given the peer reviewers, and 

(iii) Short paragraph on both the credentials and relevant experiences of each 

peer reviewer. Before public disclosure of this information, consult with the 

NRC FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. 

(iv) NRC written response to the peer review explaining—

• NRC agreement or disagreement with the views expressed in the report,

• The actions NRC has undertaken or will undertake in response to the 

report, and

• The reasons NRC believes those actions satisfy the key concerns stated 

in the report. 

(v) The Peer Review Report will be disseminated on the NRC’s Web site with the 

related material specified in OMB Bulletin Section II.5. 

(e) Independent Management of the Peer Review Process (Optional)

NRC has the option to commission independent entities to manage the peer 

review process, including the selection of peer reviewers. 

D. Administrative Record Certification 

When NRC relies on ISI or a HISA to support a regulatory action, the NRC IQC will maintain 

an administrative record for that action, including a certification. The IQC will include a 

statement that explains how the agency has complied with the requirements of the OMB 

bulletin and the applicable information quality guidelines, along with relevant materials. 

This certification also will be maintained in the administrative record for the action. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 26

E. Alternative Procedures To Comply With Peer Review Requirements in the 

OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

In accordance with Section IV of the OMB Bulletin, the following alternatives are 

available: 

1. Rely on the principal findings, conclusions, and recommendations of a report 

produced by NAS. 

2. Commission NAS to peer review an agency’s draft scientific information. 

3. Employ an alternative scientific procedure or process that ensures the agency’s 

scientific information satisfies applicable information quality standards. The 

alternative procedure(s) may be applied to a designated report or group of reports. 

F. Waivers and Deferrals of Certain Requirements 

The OMB bulletin provides for waivers and deferrals of the requirements in Sections II 

and III of the bulletin as follows: 

1. Deferral of peer review is allowed — usually because of the need to comply with 

legal deadlines. 

2. Waiver of the requirements is allowed in some instances (see OMB Bulletin 

Section VIII). 

3. Deferrals and waivers must have a compelling rationale and be made by the 

agency head. 

4. OMB bulletin notes deferrals and waivers should seldom be warranted. 

G. Exemptions 

NRC does not need to have a peer review conducted on an information product that is 

exempt from the application of Sections II and III of the OMB bulletin. To be exempt, an 

information product should qualify by one of the exemptions set forth in OMB Bulletin 

Section IX summarized below: 

1. Related to certain national security, foreign affairs, or negotiations involving 

international treaties and trade where compliance with the OMB bulletin would 

interfere with the need for secrecy or promptness. 

2. Information disseminated in the course of an individual agency adjudication or permit 

proceeding unless the agency determines that peer review is practical and appropriate 

and that the influential dissemination is scientifically or technically novel or likely to 

have precedent-setting influence on future adjudications and/or permit proceedings. 

(a) A health or safety dissemination where NRC determines that the dissemination is 

time-sensitive. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 27

(b) An agency regulatory impact analysis or regulatory flexibility analysis, except for 

underlying data and analytical models. 

(c) Routine statistical information released by Federal statistical agencies and 

analyses of these data to compute standard indicators and trends. 

(d) Accounting, budget, actuarial, and financial information, including that which is 

generated or used by agencies that focus on interest rates, banking, currency, 

securities, commodities, futures, or taxes. 

(e) Information disseminated in connection with routine rules that materially alter 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof. 

(f) Information products exempted by the NRC Information Quality Guidelines. 

H. Annual Report 

1. Responsibility for Preparing the Annual Report 

The CIO will prepare the NRC Annual Report required by Section VI of the 

guidelines.

2. Contents of the Annual Report 

The report will consist of a summary of the peer reviews conducted by the agency 

during the fiscal year, including the following: 

(a) The number of peer reviews conducted subject to the OMB bulletin (i.e., for ISI 

and HISAs); 

(b) The number of times alternative procedures were invoked; 

(c) The number of times waivers or deferrals were invoked (and in the case of 

deferrals, the length of time elapsed between the deferral and the peer review); 

(d) Any decision to appoint a reviewer based on any exception to the applicable 

independence or conflict-of-interest standards of the OMB bulletin, including 

determinations by the Executive Director for Operations based on OMB Bulletin, 

Section III(3)(c); 

(e) The number of peer review panels that were conducted in public (e.g., advisory 

committee meetings open to the public) and the number that allowed public 

comment;

(f) The number of public comments provided on the agency’s Peer Review Plans; and 

(g) The numbers of peer reviewers that the agency used that were recommended by 

professional societies. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 28

3. Submission of the Annual Report 

The CIO will submit the NRC Annual Report to the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by December 15 of each year or the date 

that OMB requests the annual report.

IV. ACRONYMS

ACMUI Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

CIO Chief Information Officer

CRGR Committee to Review Generic Requirements

EA environmental assessment

EDO Executive Director for Operations

EIS environmental impact statement

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FRN Federal Register notice

HQ headquarters

HISA highly influential scientific assessment

ICR information collection request

IOC Information Office Coordinator

IQC Information Quality Coordinator

ISI influential scientific information

MC manual chapter

MD management directive

MOU memorandum of understanding

NMED Nuclear Materials Event Database

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NOED notice of enforcement discretion

NRO Office of New Reactors

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 29

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPA Office of Public Affairs

PM project manager

QC quality control

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

RIS regulatory issue summary

ROP reactor oversight process

SDLCM systems development and life cycle management

SER safety evaluation report
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 30

Exhibit 1 Overview of the Quality Products

NRC has long been committed to ensuring the quality of the information that it makes publicly 

available. Existing policies and practices ensure that NRC’s publicly available information 

reflects a level of quality commensurate with the nature of the information. The NRC uses a 

graduated approach to ensuring information quality — the more influential the information, the 

more robust the quality standards used — with the most influential scientific, financial, and 

statistical data being subject to the most rigorous quality standards. 

For example, NRC quality control practices include—

1. The appropriate level of management review and approval as part of the 

concurrence process, 

2. Internal peer review groups like the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, 

3. Public comment on NRC policy before it is finalized, 

4. Participation of the public and affected parties in meetings, both with the employees 

and the Commission, 

5. Early and substantial feedback from the Agreement States, 

6. Independent peer review of research products, 

7. Independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and 

the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI), and 

8. Review by the Commission. 

(a) NRC information subject to these Information Quality Guidelines includes, but is 

not limited to, documents pertaining to rulemakings, inspections of regulated 

facilities, regulatory guides, findings of the reactor oversight process (ROP), 

generic communications, and technical reports (e.g., NUREGs). Table 1 lists 

information that is subject to the guidelines and NRC quality processes that 

currently exist for ensuring quality. 

(b) There are several types of NRC-initiated or -sponsored information that are not 

subject to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB’s) or the NRC’s 

Information Quality Guidelines. The guidelines apply only to information 

“disseminated” to the public, and OMB says that “dissemination” does not 

include—

(i) Adjudicative process, public filings, or subpoenas; 

(ii) Distribution limited to Government employees or agency contractors or 

grantees;

(iii) Intra- or interagency use or sharing of Government information;
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 31

(iv) Responses to requests for agency records in accordance with the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

or similar law;

(v) Correspondence with individuals or persons; 

(vi) Press release; and 

(vii) Archival records. 

In addition, the information quality standards may be waived temporarily for information 

disseminated in urgent situations. NRC will consider the following as urgent situations: emergency 

conditions at licensed facilities and imminent or credible threats to the public health and safety, the 

environment, and the common defense and security, including homeland security. 

It should be recognized that just because OMB and NRC do not apply their guidelines to a 

particular NRC information product does not mean that NRC is any less committed to the quality 

of its information, whether “disseminated” or not. Indeed, NRC will ensure the level of quality 

appropriate to each kind of information it generates. Therefore, in effect, the primary difference 

is that information subject to the guidelines will also be subject to correction through the special 

administrative mechanism called for by OMB’s guidelines and the NRC’s conforming guidelines, 

whereas information not subject to the guidelines will not be subject to correction through this 

special administrative mechanism. 

Consistent with OMB’s definition of “dissemination” and the types of agency-initiated or agencysponsored information considered exempt from these guidelines, the NRC has made the 

following determinations: 

1. The “adjudication” exemption will encompass only actions actually being adjudicated. 

2. Intra-agency use includes all Office of the Secretary (SECY) papers since these 

documents are primarily for the use of agency decisionmakers and in many cases 

are made public as a matter of Commission policy. 

3. NRC information products that contain trade secrets, intellectual property, 

unclassified Safeguards Information, classified national security information, 

proprietary information, restricted data, sensitive homeland security information 

or other information withholdable under a statue or an executive order. 

4. NRC information products that are nonscientific/nonstatistical general, procedural, or 

organizational information are not covered by the guidelines (e.g., 10 CFR Part 2 and 

the fee rule). 

5. NRC correspondence with individuals or persons, including correspondence to 

members of Congress are not covered by the guidelines. 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 32

Table 2 lists information that is not subject to the guidelines, the reasons why it is not, and the 

NRC quality processes that currently exist. Because this information is not “disseminated,” the 

information products in Table 2 are also exempt from the peer review requirements in Section III 

of this handbook. It should be understood that while the table indicates a class of information 

that is not covered by the guidelines, there may be limited circumstances where information 

within that class would be subject to these guidelines. 

OMB guidelines require that agencies review information to assure its quality before being 

disseminated. The current NRC quality practices and processes are considered to meet this 

“pre-dissemination” review. These NRC quality reviews would apply to agency information 

publicly disseminated for the first time on or after October 1, 2002. Information that was already 

on NRC's Web site or in the Public Document Room need not go through a special NRC quality 

review. All information subject to these guidelines and disseminated on or after October 1, 2002, 

is subject to the administrative process for correction regardless of when the information was 

first disseminated.
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 33

Exhibit 2 NRC Information Products: Information Subject to or Exempt from the 

Guidelines to the Public Seeking Correction

Table 1: Information Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking 

Correction

Information Product

Existing Guidance 

Documents/Processes that 

Pertain to Quality of Data

Existing Required Data 

Quality Reviews

The Way the 

Public Can 

Request a 

Correction

Rulemaking-Published 

proposed and final 

rules and final policy 

statements, including 

supporting documents 

(except those of a 

nonscientific/

nonstatistical, general, 

procedural, or 

organizational nature)

Management Directive (MD) 

6.3, "The Rulemaking 

Process"

NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 6, 

"US NRC Regulations 

Handbook"

NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, 

"Regulatory Analysis 

Guidelines of the U.S. NRC"

MD 3.54, "NRC Collections 

of Information and Reports 

Management"

Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.).

NRR Office Instructions

ACRS/ACMUI/ CRGR 

Charter

EDO/ACRS Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU)

Office Concurrence

Executive Director for 

Operations (EDO) 

Concurrence

Reactor: Advisory Committee 

on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS)/Committee to Review 

Generic Requirements 

(CRGR)

Waste/ Decommissioning

Medical: Advisory Committee 

on the Medical uses of 

Isotopes (ACMUI) 

Materials: Agreement State 

Coordination

Public 

comment on 

all Proposed 

Rules and 

Advance 

Notice of 

Proposed 

Rulemaking

Generic 

Communications, 

including Bulletins, 

Generic Letters, 

Information Notices, 

Regulatory Issue 

Summaries (RISs)

ACRS/ACGR Charters

EDO/ACRS MOU

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Inspection Manual

Division Concurrence

Reactor: ACRS/CRGR

Waste/Decommissioning

Medical: ACMUI

Materials: Agreement States

NRC 

Information 

Change 

Request 

Public Web 

page
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 34

Table 1: Information Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking 

Correction

Information Product

Existing Guidance 

Documents/Processes that 

Pertain to Quality of Data

Existing Required Data 

Quality Reviews

The Way the 

Public Can 

Request a 

Correction

Regulatory Actions not 

Subject to 

Adjudication (notice of 

enforcement discretion 

(NOEDs), Exemptions, 

and Reliefs)

Enforcement Manual

Project Manager (PM) 

Handbook

Division or Branch 

Concurrence

NRC 

Information 

Change 

Request 

Public Web 

page

Safety Evaluation 

Report (Licensing and 

Non-Licensing) 

(e.g., approves a 

topical report) and 

generic environmental 

assessment 

(EA)/environmental 

impact statement (EIS)

PM Handbook

NRR and NRO Office 

Instructions

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Standard Review Plans

Division or Branch 

Concurrence

Public 

comment for 

EIS and 

certification 

of 

compliance 

SERs for 

spent fuel 

casks

Licenses and 

Certificates, 

Amendments, 

Renewals, Transfers, 

Exemptions

NRR and NRO Office 

Instruction

PM Handbook

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

NUREG-1556, 

“Consolidated Guidance 

About Materials Licenses” 

Branch/Division/Office 

Concurrence

NRC 

Information 

Change 

Request 

Public Web 

Site

Licensing EIS and 

EAs

NUREGs for EAs/EISs

PM Handbook

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Branch/Division/Office 

Concurrence

Public 

comment on 

all proposed 

EISs and 

EAs
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 35

Table 1: Information Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking 

Correction

Information Product

Existing Guidance 

Documents/Processes that 

Pertain to Quality of Data

Existing Required Data 

Quality Reviews

The Way the 

Public Can 

Request a 

Correction

Generic 

Environmental Impact 

Statements

MD 3.7, “NUREG-Series 

Publications” 

ACRS Charter

EDO/ACRS MOU

10 CFR Part 51, 

“Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic 

Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions”

Publications Review

ACRS

Office/Division Review

Public 

comment

Guidance for 

licensees including 

Regulatory Guides, 

Standard Format and 

Content Guides, 

Branch Technical 

Positions

ACRS/ACMUI/

CRGR Charters

EDO/ACRS MOU

NUREG on Standard Format 

and Content for Regulatory 

Guides. 

MD 6.6, “Regulatory Guides”

Reactor: Office Concurrence, 

ACRS, CRGR

Waste/ Decommissioning: 

Office or Division 

concurrence

Medical: ACMUI

Materials: Division 

concurrence

Public 

comment

Reactor Oversight 

Process Findings 

NRC Inspection Manual, 

Manual Chapter 0609, 

“Significance Determination 

Process”

Risk Significance 

Determination

Regional Concurrence Licensee 

comment

Inspection Reports 

and Technical Reports

Inspection Manual Regional Branch or HQ 

Branch Concurrence

Licensee exit 

meeting

Publicly Accessible 

Databases

(e.g., Daily Plant 

Status) 

Compliance with SDLCM

Data Entry Quality 

Assurance

Sponsor QC NRC 

Information 

change 

Request 

Public 

Webpage
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 36

Table 1: Information Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking 

Correction

Information Product

Existing Guidance 

Documents/Processes that 

Pertain to Quality of Data

Existing Required Data 

Quality Reviews

The Way the 

Public Can 

Request a 

Correction

NUREGs/CRs 

(Employees Technical 

and Contractor)

MD 3.7, “NUREG-Series 

Publications” 

ACRS Charter

EDO/ACRS MOU

RES Office Instructions

Publications Review

ACRS

CRGR

Office or Division review

Peer Review (some)

Varies with 

importance of 

topic and end 

use

NUREGs intended for 

the general public

MD 3.7, “NUREG-Series 

Publications” 

Publications Review

OPA Office

Office/Division Review

NRC 

Information 

Change 

Request 

Public Web 

site

Communications with 

standard-setting 

organizations

MD 6.5, "NRC Participation 

in the Development and Use 

of Consensus Standards"

NRC 

Information 

Change 

Request 

Public Web 

site

Web page content 

other than documents

Web Management Controls Review by Sponsor

Web Liaison

Sensitivity Reviews

Publications Employees 

(Web, Editors, Graphics)

Contact page 

owner as 

noted on 

Web site
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 37

Table 1: Information Subject to NRC Information Quality Guidelines and to the Public Seeking 

Correction

Information Product

Existing Guidance 

Documents/Processes that 

Pertain to Quality of Data

Existing Required Data 

Quality Reviews

The Way the 

Public Can 

Request a 

Correction

Legend

ACMUI - Advisory Committee on the Medical 

Uses of Isotopes

ACRS - Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards

ADAMS – Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CIO – Chief Information Officer

CRGR - Committee to Review Generic 

Requirements

EA - Environmental Assessment

EDO - Executive Director for Operations

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

FOIA – Freedom of Information Act

FRN – Federal Register notice

HISA – Highly Influential Scientific Assessment 

ICR – Information Collection Request

IOC – Information Office Coordinator

IQC – Information Quality Coordinator

ISI – Influential Scientific Information

MD - Management Directive

MOU - Memorandum of Understanding

NMED - Nuclear Materials Event Database

NMSS - Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards 

NOED - Notice of Enforcement Discretion

NRO - Office of New Reactors

NRR - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

OMB - Office of Management and Budget

OPA - Office of Public Affairs

PM - project manager

RES - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

RIS - Regulatory Issue Summary

ROP - Reactor Oversight Process

SDLCM - systems development and life cycle 

management

SER - Safety Evaluation Report
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 38

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Correspondence:

Correspondence 

to licensees, 

public, individual 

members of 

Congress, States, 

petitioners, 

contractors

Correspondence 

with individuals 

or persons

MD 3.57, 

“Correspondence 

Management” 

ADAMS

Internal Commission 

Procedures

Project Manager 

Handbook

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Branch/Division/

Office/EDO/

Commission 

Concurrence

No

Confirmatory 

Action Letters

Correspondence Inspection Manual

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Division/Office 

concurrence

No

Preliminary 

Notifications

Nonroutine 

safety related 

information

Inspection Manual Office 

concurrence

No
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 39

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Non-scientific and/or Non-statistical Procedures:

Reports to 

Congress or 

letters to 

Congressional 

Committees 

(includes 

President’s 

Budget to 

Congress, 

Performance and 

Accountability 

Report, Strategic 

Plan, Information 

Digest)

Correspondence 

with individuals 

or persons

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

MD 3.57, 

“Correspondence 

Management”

ADAMS

Internal Commission 

Procedures

Office/EDO/

Commission 

Concurrence

No

Published 

nonscientific/ 

nonstatistical, 

general, or 

procedural 

proposed and 

final rules and 

final 

Parts 2, 170, and 

171)

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

MD 6.3,"The 

Rulemaking Process"

NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 

6, "US NRC 

Regulations Handbook"

NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 

4, "Regulatory Analysis 

Guidelines of the U.S. 

NRC"

MD 3.54, "NRC 

Collections of 

Information and 

Reports Management"

Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.)

Office 

Concurrence

EDO 

Concurrence

Yes

Public comment 

on all proposed 

rules
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 40

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

E-gov 

applications, 

including forms, 

how to file, fee 

information

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

MD 3.55, “Forms 

Management Program” 

Branch/Division/

Office 

Concurrence

No

Federal Register

Notices 

(themselves), 

including FONSIs 

and General 

Notices

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

Project Manager 

Handbook

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Project Manager/

Branch/Division/

Office/EDO/

Commission

concurrence

Yes

NRC contact 

listed in the 

Federal 

Register notice

Organizational 

information, 

including 

organization 

charts, 

descriptions of 

laws and 

regulations that 

underpin agency 

activities, 

biographies, 

phone directories

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

MD Volume 9, “NRC 

Organization and 

Functions”

MD Volume 10, 

“Personnel 

Management”

Branch/Division/

Office 

Concurrence

No

Federal employee 

pay, benefits, 

employment 

opportunities and 

the like

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

OPM Regulations

MD Volume 9, “NRC 

Organization and 

Functions”

MD Volume 10, 

“Personnel 

Management”

EDO 

Concurrence for 

Management 

Directives

No
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 41

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Public Meeting 

Notices

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

MD 3.5, "Attendance at 

NRC Staff-Sponsored 

Meetings"

Project Manager 

Handbook

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Project Manager No

CRGR Meeting 

Notices and 

Minutes

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

CRGR Charter CRGR No

Full Written 

Explanation and 

Certification of 

Closed 

Commission 

Meetings

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

Government in the 

Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552b

OGC No

Speeches, 

Testimony, 

Q & A, and 

Presentations

Nonscientific/

nonstatistical 

general, 

procedural, or 

organizational

Internal Commission 

Procedures

Division/

Office/EDO/

Commission 

concurrence

No
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 42

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Interagency Use and Shared Government Information:

Interagency 

agreements and 

interagency 

MOUs

Interagency use MD 11.1, “NRC 

Acquisition of Supplies 

and Services”

MD 11.7, “NRC 

Procedures for 

Placement and 

Monitoring of Work 

With the U.S. 

Department of Energy 

(DOE)” 

MD 11.8, “NRC 

Procedures for 

Placement and 

Monitoring of Work 

With Other Federal 

Agencies Other Than 

the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE)”

Office/

Commission

Concurrence

No

Reports to other 

agencies, 

including e.g., 

Small Business 

Regulatory 

Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

Report to OMB, 

Report on 

Information 

Collection Budget 

to OMB

Interagency use NUREG/BR-0053, 

Rev. 6, "U.S. NRC 

Regulations Handbook"

MD 3.54, “NRC 

Information Collections 

Program” 

Branch/Division/

Office 

Concurrence

No

Internal 

Memoranda

Intra-agency use MD 3.57, 

“Correspondence 

Management”

ADAMS

Branch/Division/

Office 

Concurrence

No
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 43

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Internal NRC 

Policy and 

Procedures, 

including e.g., 

Management 

Directives, 

Internal 

Commission 

Procedures, 

Office Instructions 

and Procedures, 

Inspection 

Procedures, 

Enforcement 

Manual, PM 

Handbook, 

Decommissioning 

PM Handbook

Intra-agency use MD 1.1, “NRC 

Management Directives 

System”

Division Director 

or Office Director 

Concurrence

MD review 

process

No

Research 

Information 

Letters (RILs)

Intra-agency use RES Office Instruction Office 

Concurrence

No

SECY Papers Intra-agency use Internal Commission 

Procedures

MD 3.57 

“Correspondence 

Management”

NRR Office Instructions 

EDO 

Concurrence

No

Staff 

Requirements 

Memoranda 

(SRMs)

Intra-agency use Internal Commission 

Procedures

Commission 

concurrence

No

Commission 

Voting Records 

(CVRs)

Intra-agency use Internal Commission 

Procedures

Commission 

concurrence

No
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 44

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Commission 

Action 

Memoranda 

(COMs)

Intra-agency use Internal Commission 

Procedures

Commission 

concurrence

No

Individual 

Commissioner 

Vote Sheets on 

SECY Papers, 

COMs

Intra-agency use Internal Commission 

Procedures

Commissioner 

concurrence

No

International 

Agreements and 

supporting 

information

(bilateral and 

multilateral)

and technical 

information 

supplied to others 

as part of 

international 

agreements

Interagency 

(with State 

Department)

MD 5.13, “NRC 

International Activities 

Practices and 

Procedures”

Office/

Commission 

Concurrence

No

An international 

agreement is a 

legally binding 

document that 

cannot be 

changed unless 

agreed to and 

authorized by 

both parties.

Integrated 

Materials 

Performance 

Evaluation 

Program (IMPEP) 

and Review of 

New Agreement 

Requests

Interagency use 

(with States)

MD 5.6, “Integrated 

Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program 

(IMPEP)”

MD 5.10, “Formal 

Qualifications for 

IMPEP Team 

Members” 

MD 9.15, “Organization 

and Functions of State 

and Tribal Programs” 

IMPEP Board

Office/

Commission 

concurrence

States may 

comment, but 

not public

New Agreement 

Requests 

published for 

public comment
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 45

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Standard Review 

Plan

Intra-agency use Generally become 

NUREGs

Branch/Division/

Office 

concurrence

Some are 

published for 

public comment

NUREGs 

intended for 

internal use, e.g., 

NUREG/ 

BR-0053, Rev. 6, 

"US NRC 

Regulations 

Handbook"

Intra-agency 

use, frequently 

procedural

MD 3.7, “NUREGSeries Publications”Branch/Division/

Office 

concurrence

No

FOIA or Privacy Act Requests:

Response to 

FOIA or Privacy 

Act Requests

Responses to 

requests made 

by FOIA, 

Privacy Act, 

FACA or similar 

laws

10 CFR Part 9, “Public 

Records”

MD 3.1, “Freedom of 

Information Act

MD 3.2, “Privacy Act” 

Division/Office 

Concurrence

No

Grantees or Contractors:

Procurement 

solicitations

Distribution 

limited to 

agency 

contractors or 

grantees

MD 11.1, “NRC 

Acquisition of Supplies 

and Services” 

FAR 5.201

Contract Officer Yes

Records:

Commission 

History (Books)

Archival External Peer 

Review

Publisher Review

No
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 46

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Agency Press Releases:

Press Releases Press Release MD 5.5, "Public Affairs 

Program"

OPA/Chairman No

NMSS Licensee 

Newsletter, MOX 

Newsletter, etc.

Press Release NUREG/Staff Report Section 

concurrence

No

Opinions:

Papers, Journal 

Articles

Opinions MD 3.9, “NRC Staff and 

Contractor Speeches, 

Presentations, Papers, 

and Journal Articles on 

Regulatory and 

Technical Subjects”

NRR Office Instructions

Project Manager 

Handbook

Branch/Division/

Office/EDO 

concurrence

No

Adjudicative and Allegations Process:

Orders Adjudicative 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and 

Procedure”

Office/EDO/

Commission 

concurrence

Opportunity for 

hearing; 

emergency 

public safety 

information 

exemption

Demand or 

Request for 

Information

Adjudicative 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and 

Procedure”

Division/Office/

EDO 

concurrence

CRGR

Yes

Licensee can 

correct 

information in 

response

Notice of Violation Adjudicative Enforcement Manual Branch/Division 

concurrence

Licensee 

response can 

correct and exit 

meeting
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 47

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Adjudicatory 

Documents, 

including 

Licensing Board 

Notifications

Adjudicative Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Division 

concurrence

ASLBP/SECY 

review

No

2.206 Director 

Decision and 

Petition Status 

Reports

Adjudicative MD 8.11, “Review 

Process for 10 CFR 

2.206 Petitions” 

NRR Office Instructions

Licensing Assistant 

Handbook

Office 

concurrence

No 

MD now 

provides for 

issuance of 

proposed 

decision

Information neither Initiated nor Sponsored by NRC:

Petitions (2.206 

petitions and 

rulemaking 

petitions)

Correspondence 

with individuals 

or persons not 

originated or 

sponsored by 

the agency

10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and 

Procedure”

(none) Rulemaking 

petitions are 

published for 

comment

License 

Applications or 

other information 

provided by 

licensees 

(includes Topical 

Reports and 

Event Reports)

Correspondence 

with individuals 

or persons not 

originated or 

sponsored by 

the agency

10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and 

Procedure”

(none) Public can 

request hearing 

on application

Comments, 

including 

rulemaking 

comments and all 

other comments

Correspondence 

with individuals 

or persons not 

originated or 

sponsored by 

the agency

10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and 

Procedure”

(none) Further 

comments from 

public
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 48

Table 2: Information Exempt from NRC Information Quality Guidelines and from the Public 

Seeking Correction 

Information 

Product Exemption

Guidance Documents, 

Processes

(Name/number)

Existing 

Required Predissemination 

Reviews

Existing Way 

Public Can 

Request 

Correction

Compilation:

NRC portion of 

the Unified 

Agenda of 

Federal 

Regulatory and 

Deregulatory 

Actions

Compilation Public Law 96-354, 

Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.

Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Branch 

concurrence

Yes

Issued for 

public comment

NRC Rules and 

Regulations 

(based on public 

documents; this is 

a compilation of 

all rules)

Compilation MD 6.3, “The 

Rulemaking Process”

Administrative 

Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.)

Concurrence No

Legend

ACMUI - Advisory Committee on the Medical 

Uses of Isotopes

ACRS - Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards

ADAMS - Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System

ASLBP - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

COM - Commission action memorandum

CRGR - Committee to Review Generic 

Requirements

CVR - Commission voting record 

NMED - Nuclear Materials Event Database

NMSS - Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards

NOED - notice of enforcement discretion

NRR - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

MOX - mixed oxide

OGC - Office of the General Counsel

OMB - Office of Management and Budget

OPA - Office of Public Affairs

OPM - Office of Personnel Management

PM - project manager

Q&A - questions and answers
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 49

Exhibit 3 NRC Flowchart: Peer Review Identification Process
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 50

Exhibit 4 Contents of Memorandum to the Office Director Responsible for Creation 

of a Product That May Qualify as Influential Scientific Information or Highly 

Influential Scientific Assessment

If RES, NRR, NMSS, NRO, or NSIR identifies an information product that the office believes 

may qualify as ISI or as an HISA, the office director will inform the office responsible for creation 

of the information product and will provide that office director with the explanatory information 

listed below for each product:

1. A description of the scientific information product (e.g., NUREG or other research 

reports, other NRC report or product).

2. The date when the scientific information is expected to be disseminated.

3. The anticipated guidance, rulemaking or other regulatory action for which the 

scientific information will form the technical basis.

4. The projected timeframe during which the proposed guidance, rulemaking, or other 

regulatory action will be issued.

5. The industry or class of licensees or applicants that will be affected.

6. A description of the nature of the impact on the affected industry or class of 

applicants or licensees, as follows:

(c) The anticipated increase in costs or reduction in costs (e.g., benefits) to the 

affected industry, applicants, or licensees,

(d) The anticipated increase in costs or reduction in costs (e.g., benefits) to other 

private sector activities and the general public.

(e) The highest financial costs or benefits that may occur in a single year, and

(f) A brief paragraph which describes why the impact meets above definition of ISI 

or HISA.

7. The type of peer review, if any, that was already performed on the scientific 

information products,

8. If the scientific information only qualifies as ISI, the response to the office director 

should state why the information does not also qualify as an HISA.

9. If the scientific information product constitutes as an HISA, provide the following 

additional information:

(a) Whether there could be a financial impact that would exceed $500 million in any 

single year on either the public or private sector, or

(b) Whether the guidance, rulemaking, or other regulatory action is based on an 

assessment that represents or does not represent a novel, controversial, or 

precedent-setting approach, or has significant interagency interest, either 
DH 3.17 NRC INFORMATION QUALITY PROGRAM Date Approved: 06/28/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 51

because of the information in the assessment or the way the assessment was 

performed.

10. The NRC office that will be responsible for the peer review.

11. An estimate of the resources required to conduct the peer review, including NRC 

employees’ resources and contractor resources.

12. Special circumstances, if any, the agency should consider that may merit deferral of 

the peer review or waiver of the requirement for a peer review. (See Section IV.A.4(f) 

of this handbook and OMB Bulletin, Section VIII.)

13. Scientific information products that may qualify for peer review but are exempt by the 

OMB Bulletin or the NRC Information Quality Guidelines. (See Section IV.A.4(g) of 

this handbook and OMB Bulletin, Section IX.)