Accessible Version

INFORMATION 

QUALITY ACT

Actions Needed to 

Improve Transparency 

and Reporting of 

Correction Requests

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2015

GAO-16-110

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-110, a report to 

congressional requesters

December 2015

INFORMATION QUALITY ACT

Actions Needed to Improve Transparency and 

Reporting of Correction Requests

Why GAO Did This Study

IQA, passed in fiscal year 2001, 

required OMB to issue governmentwide guidelines by the end of that fiscal 

year to ensure the quality of 

information disseminated by federal 

agencies. OMB issued guidance to 

agencies to clarify how agencies were 

to satisfy the law and otherwise 

implement IQA. The guidance required 

agencies to develop and post IQA 

guidelines and related information on 

their websites. GAO reported in 2006 

that expanded oversight and clearer 

guidance by OMB could improve 

agencies’ implementation of IQA. GAO 

was asked to conduct an updated 

study on IQA. This report (1) identifies 

the number, source, and final 

disposition of IQA correction requests 

received by the 24 Chief Financial 

Officers (CFO) Act and other agencies 

for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 and 

(2) assesses the extent to which the 24 

CFO Act and other agencies that 

received correction requests made IQA 

information publicly available, among 

other objectives. GAO obtained data 

on IQA guidelines and other IQArelated information from the 24 CFO 

Act agencies and 6 additional agencies 

that reported receiving IQA correction 

requests for fiscal years 2010 through 

2014. GAO also reviewed agency 

websites and interviewed OMB and 

agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB (1) 

consolidate and centralize on its 

website a summary of IQA correction 

requests, (2) work with DOD and FHFA 

to help ensure they post required IQA 

administrative mechanisms and 

guidance online, and (3) provide 

additional guidance to help improve the 

transparency and usability of IQA 

websites to ensure the public can 

easily find and access online 

information. OMB agreed with these 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Of the 30 agencies in GAO’s review, 16 reported on their respective websites 

receiving a total of 87 Information Quality Act (IQA) correction requests from 

fiscal years 2010 through 2014, while 14 agencies did not post any requests 

during this time. Three agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Interior—

reported receiving 61 of the 87 requests. Agencies are required to post all IQA 

correspondence, including a copy of each correction request and the agencies’ 

formal response on their websites. However, 8 agencies who reported receiving 

IQA correction requests did not post on their website the same number of IQA 

correction requests that they reported to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). In most cases, agencies indicated that the discrepancies were due to the 

time frames for posting information to their respective websites. OMB officials 

said they are communicating with agencies to address these discrepancies. GAO 

found that trade associations and advocacy organizations (50 of 87) submitted 

the most IQA correction requests, followed by private citizens (16), and 

businesses (13). GAO also found that IQA correction requests either (1) 

questioned agencies’ use of or agencies’ interpretation of data used or (2) cited 

administrative errors. For example, a trade association questioned the accuracy 

of data used in public service advertising on childhood lead poisoning prevention. 

Agencies did not make the requested corrections in 59 of the 87 IQA correction 

requests. IQA is one of several processes available to the public for requesting 

corrections of agency information. In one-fourth (15 of 59) of the requests where 

agencies determined that no change should be made, agencies addressed those 

requests through an administrative mechanism other than the dedicated IQA 

request for correction process. 

OMB posts IQA information online, including links to agency-specific IQA 

guidelines; however, there is no central location on OMB’s website where a user 

could access all IQA data, making specific IQA data more difficult to find and 

hindering transparency of the process. Twenty-eight of the 30 agencies in GAO’s 

review posted the required IQA information online as of November 2015. The 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) posted IQA information did not include the 

administrative mechanisms needed to submit a correction request to the agency 

as required. The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) online information 

did not include its required IQA guidance. Without this information, the public 

may be unaware of the steps the agencies would take upon receiving a 

correction request, or even how to submit a correction request. OMB staff stated 

they would work with the agencies to improve the information on their websites, 

but as of December 2015, they had not completed that process. Ensuring that 

online content is accurate is one of the guidelines for federal digital services. 

These guidelines are aimed at helping federal agencies improve their 

communications and interactions with customers through websites. GAO found 

at least five agencies did not include any information regarding correction 

requests and other agencies’ posts included outdated information or contained 

broken hyperlinks. The Department of Energy’s web page includes a link to its 

IQA processes but as of November 2015 the page to submit correction requests 

online was under construction. OMB requires agencies to post information quality 

correspondence on agency websites to increase the transparency of the process 

but has not provided specific guidance to agencies for posting accessible, useroriented information, including specific time frames for posting information, 

explanations of and links to other available correction processes, and other 

suggestions for improving website usability. Providing such guidance will help 

increase transparency and allow the public to view all IQA related information 

including correction requests, appeal requests, and agency responses to those 

requests. 

View GAO-16-110. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 

or goldenkoffr@gao.gov
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Background 4

Most Agencies in Our Review Reported Receiving Relatively Few IQA 

Correction Requests; the Majority of Requests Questioned Data Use 

and Resulted in No Corrections 8

OMB and Agencies’ IQA Guidelines and Related Information Is 

Generally Available Online, but Usability Varied 21

Selected Agencies Have Processes in Place to Implement IQA 

and Officials Reported Challenges and Benefits 30

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II: Organizations That Filed Information Quality Act Correction Requests during Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2014 40

Appendix III: Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 43

GAO Contact 43

Staff Acknowledgments 43

Tables

Table 1: Information Quality Act Correction Requests as Reported on 

Agencies’ Websites for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 (as of 

November 2015) 9

Table 2: Discrepancies Identified Between Agencies’ Posted Website 

Correction Request Data and Correction Request Data Agencies 

Reported Receiving to the Office of Management and Budget 

for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 11

Table 3: GAO Analysis of Distribution of Information Quality Act 

Requests by Category of Requester, Fiscal Years 2010 through 

201414

Table 4: GAO Analysis of Agencies’ Responses to Information Quality 

Act Correction Requests Posted on Their Websites for Fiscal 

Years 2010 through 2014 17

Organizations That Filed Information Quality Act Correction Requests 

during Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 40

Contents
Figures

Page ii GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Figure 1: The Office of Management and Budget Provides Links to 

Agency-Specific Information Quality Act Guidelines and 

Reports to Congress 22

Figure 2: Department of Labor’s Information Quality Website Includes 

Component Points of Contact as of November 2015 25

Figure 3: Department of Homeland Security Includes a Broken 

Hyperlink to Transportation Security Administration as of 

November 2015 27

Figure 4: Department of Energy’s Online IQA Correction Request Link 

Is Unavailable as of November 2015 28

Abbreviations

CFO chief financial officer

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IQA Information Quality Act

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

USDA Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 21, 2015

The Honorable Robert Portman

Chairman

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable John Cornyn

United States Senate

Federal agencies publicly disseminate a wide range of information that is 

critical to government, businesses, and individuals. The open and efficient 

exchange of scientific and technical government information, subject to 

applicable national security controls and the proprietary rights of others, 

helps to foster excellence in scientific research and the effective use of 

federal research and developmental funds. Given the widespread use of 

federal information by the public and private sectors, it is important that 

this information be accurate.

The Information Quality Act (IQA or the Act)—section 515 of the Treasury 

and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001—

required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue 

government-wide guidelines to ensure and maximize “the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical 

information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”

1 On February 22, 2002, 

OMB finalized the government-wide guidelines.2In addition, IQA required 

agencies to issue their own guidelines, set up administrative mechanisms to 

allow affected parties to seek the correction of information they 

considered erroneous, and report periodically to OMB information on the 

number of IQA correction requests and how the agencies addressed 

 

1Consolidated Appropriations – Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763A153 to 2763A-154 (2000) (44 U.S.C. § 3516 note). The law is also referred to as the Data Quality 

Act.

2

67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002).

Letter
them.

Page 2 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

3

In keeping with the goal of improving the quality of government 

information, on December 16, 2004, OMB issued the Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review which required executive agencies to 

ensure that all “influential scientific information” they disseminated after 

June 16, 2005, was reviewed by independent subject matter experts.4

We reported in 2006 that although OMB had taken steps to implement IQA, IQA 

guidelines and information for many agencies were neither available nor easily 

accessible.5 Thus, we concluded that users of information from these 

agencies may not have known whether agencies had guidelines or known 

how to request correction of agency information.

You requested that we conduct an updated study on IQA and agency 

implementation of the Act. This report (1) identifies the number, source, 

and final disposition of IQA correction requests received by the 24 Chief 

Financial Officer (CFO) Act and other agencies for fiscal years 2010 

through 2014; (2) assesses the extent to which the 24 CFO Act and other 

agencies that received correction requests made IQA information publicly 

 

3

IQA § (b)(2). Agencies subject to the Information Quality Act are those subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and include executive departments; military departments; independent regulatory 

agencies; government corporations; government-controlled corporations; or other 

establishments in the executive branch, including the Executive Office of the President. 

The act specifically excludes the Federal Election Commission; GAO; and federal 

government-owned contractor-operated facilities, including laboratories engaged in 

national defense research and production activities, as well as the District of Columbia 

and territorial governments. 44 U.S.C. § 3502(1).

4

Peer review is a procedure used to help ensure that the quality of published information meets the 

standards of the scientific and technical community and, similar to IQA, is a mechanism 

the public may use to correct agency information (through public comment). It involves the 

review of a draft product for quality by specialists in the field who were not involved in 

producing the draft. Office of Management and Budget, Issuance of OMB’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, M-05-03 (Dec. 16, 2004).

5GAO, Information Quality Act: Expanded Oversight and Clearer Guidance by the Office of 

Management and Budget Could Improve Agencies’ Implementation of the Act, 

GAO-06-765 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 2006).
available; and (3) identifies how selected agencies have implemented 

IQA.

Page 3 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

6

To address the first objective, we searched the websites of the 24 CFO Act 

agencies and identified those that had posted correction requests and 

responses online for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. We selected 2014 

as an ending point for a 5-year analysis because 2014 was the most 

recent fiscal year of data available. To identify other agencies that had

received correction requests during the same time frame, we reviewed 

IQA data reported by agencies in OMB’s annual reports to Congress.7 We 

reviewed relevant OMB and agency documents, including IQA guidelines and 

agencies’ annual reports to OMB, examined requests and appeals to correct 

agency information, and reviewed OMB’s and agencies’ websites. To 

supplement the documentary evidence obtained, we interviewed agency 

officials responsible for IQA in their respective agencies. We also 

interviewed current and former OMB staff to provide additional context on 

IQA. During the course of our review, we compared agency IQA data 

posted on their websites with IQA data agencies reported to OMB and 

identified discrepancies. We discussed the discrepancies with OMB staff 

and agency officials and included their responses in the report. We 

determined that OMB and agency data were sufficiently reliable to 

provide a general indication of the numbers of correction requests 

received. Although agencies have other processes to correct agency 

disseminated information, we evaluated only information related to the 

IQA correction process.

To address the second objective, we conducted an analysis of the 

websites of the 24 CFO Act agencies, as well as the other 6 agencies 

 

6The 24 agencies identified in the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended (31 

U.S.C. § 901(b)), are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs, as well as the Agency for International Development, Environmental 

Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, and Social Security 

Administration.

7We identified six agencies outside of the 24 CFO Act agencies—Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal 

Reserve Board, Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy—as having posted IQA correction requests during fiscal years 2010 

through 2014 on their agency websites and reporting the requests to OMB. 
identified in objective one as having received IQA correction requests 

during our selected time frame. We reviewed agency websites using 

internal site search engines to determine whether they had posted 

required IQA information online. We compared the information found on 

the websites to IQA requirements in OMB guidance to agencies on 

posting IQA documents. We also used OMB’s Open Government 

Directive in assessing IQA documents.

Page 4 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

8 To identify IQA processes and 

challenges agencies face in implementing IQA, we selected a non-generalizable 

sample of six agencies—the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Health and Human Services, Interior, and Transportation, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency—to obtain illustrative examples of how 

they approached and implemented IQA. We selected these agencies 

based in part on the number (both high and low to include a range) of IQA 

correction requests the agencies had received from fiscal years 2010 

through 2014. We also included one agency (Department of 

Transportation) based on the relatively high number of peer reviews 

conducted during the same time frame. We interviewed OMB and agency 

officials responsible for addressing IQA correction requests to gather their 

perceptions on the overall IQA process. For a more detailed description of 

our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 to December 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

IQA establishes a process that allows the public to help ensure the quality 

of information disseminated by federal agencies.9IQA consists of two major 

 

8Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, Memorandum M-10-06 

(Dec. 8, 2009) and Executive Office of the President of the United States, “Digital 

Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, 

accessed on November 25, 2015,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html

9Other correction processes include notice-and-comment under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and OMB’s peer review process.

Background
elements. The first element of IQA required OMB to develop and issue 

government-wide guidelines by the end of fiscal year 2001. These 

guidelines were to provide policies and procedures for federal agencies to 

use for “ensuring and maximizing quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of information (including statistical information),” that they disseminate.

Page 5 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

10

The second element required covered federal agencies to develop IQA guidelines 

by the end of fiscal year 2002. These guidelines were to establish administrative 

mechanisms allowing “affected persons to seek and obtain correction of 

information maintained and disseminated” by the agencies.11 The 

guidelines were to also require agencies to periodically report to the Director of 

OMB on the number and nature of IQA complaints and how such complaints 

were handled.12

IQA builds on previous federal efforts to improve the quality of information, 

including OMB Circular A-130 and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 

as amended. OMB Circular A-130 establishes a policy for the 

management of federal information resources.13 Two of the purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act were to improve quality and use of federal 

information and provide for the dissemination of public information in a 

manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public and 

makes effective use of information technology.14

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) develops and 

oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in the areas of 

information technology, privacy, and statistics. In this capacity, OIRA 

developed the government-wide IQA guidelines and helped agencies to 

meet the Act’s requirement that the agencies develop their own 

guidelines. OMB issued guidance to agencies to clarify how agencies 

were to satisfy the law and otherwise implement IQA. The guidance 

required agencies to develop and post IQA guidelines and related 

information on their websites. An October 2002 OMB memorandum 

describing the implementation of IQA guidelines noted that it represented 

 

10IQA § (a).

11IQA § (b)(2)(B).

12IQA § (b)(2)(C).

13Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information Resources, Circular A130 (Nov. 28, 2000).

14See 44 U.S.C. § 3506.
the first time that the executive branch has developed a government-wide 

set of information quality guidelines, including agency-specific guidelines 

tailored to each agency’s unique programs and information.

Page 6 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

15 Agencies’

guidelines, which were to follow OMB’s model, were to include administrative 

mechanisms that allow “affected persons” to request correction of information 

that they did not consider correct.16

We reported in August 2006 that expanded oversight and clearer guidance by 

OMB could improve agencies’ implementation of the Act.

17 We found that OMB 

had issued government-wide guidelines that were the basis for other 

agencies’ own IQA guidelines. We also reported that OMB required 

agencies to post guidelines and other IQA information to their websites 

and required agencies to provide information to OMB on the number and 

nature of correction requests they received and how such correction 

requests were resolved. We found that 14 of the 15 cabinet agencies, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 4 other independent 

agencies we reviewed had developed IQA guidelines and posted them on 

their websites. Of these 19 cabinet and independent agencies with 

guidelines, we found that 4 had information quality links on their home 

pages while other agencies’ IQA information was difficult to locate online. 

Moreover, 44 of 86 additional independent agencies that we examined 

had not posted their guidelines and may not have had them in place at 

the time. Consequently, users of information from those agencies may not 

have known whether agencies had guidelines or how to request 

correction of agency information. OMB also had not clarified guidance to 

agencies about posting IQA-related information, including guidelines to 

make that information more accessible.

 

15Office of Management and Budget, Executive Branch Implementation of the Information Quality 

Law, Memorandum for the President’s Management Council (Oct. 4, 2002).

16In responding to comments on the proposed guidelines, OMB stated that each agency should 

consider how persons (which include groups, organizations and corporations, as defined 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act) will be affected by the agency’s information. Agencies 

should address the issue of “affected persons” in consultation with their constituents 

through the public comment process that agencies will provide after drafting their 

proposed guidelines and before submitting them for OMB review. See Office of 

Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, accessed on 

November 5, 2015, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_final_information_quality_guidelines/

17GAO-06-765.
We also found in our 2006 report that in fiscal year 2003, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and two other agencies used IQA to 

address flood insurance rate maps, website addresses, photo captions, 

and other administrative matters.

Page 7 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

18 However, in fiscal year 2004, these 

agencies changed their classification of these requests from being IQA requests. 

Instead they processed them using other administrative processes that 

were in place prior to IQA implementation. As a result, we found that the 

total number of all IQA requests dropped from more than 24,000 in fiscal 

year 2003 to 62 in fiscal year 2004. We recommended that OMB (1) 

identify agencies without IQA guidelines and work with them to develop 

and implement IQA requirements and (2) clarify guidance to agencies on 

improving the public’s access to online IQA information. In response to 

our report, OMB stated it would work with agencies as they develop and 

implement information quality measures and would also continue to work 

with agencies to improve their dissemination of IQA information. Further, 

in December 2009, OMB, in an executive memorandum to heads of

executive departments and agencies, issued an Open Government 

Directive (1) establishing deadlines for action that, among other things, 

encouraged agencies to advance their open government initiatives 

(including IQA) ahead of those deadlines and (2) calling for each agency 

to take prompt steps to expand access to information by making it 

available online in open formats.19

 

18GAO-06-765.

19Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, Memorandum M-10-06 (Dec. 

8, 2009).
Page 8 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

According to IQA information posted on the 30 agency websites in our 

review, 16 agencies reported receiving 87 IQA correction requests from 

fiscal years 2010 through 2014 (see table 1). The other 14 agencies in 

our review did not post any IQA correction requests during the period. 

Agencies reported receiving the highest number of correction requests 

(26) in fiscal year 2010, with the lowest number (13) coming in fiscal year 

2014. Several agencies, including the Departments of Education, Housing 

and Urban Development, and Labor, the Federal Reserve Board, and the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, reported receiving 1 correction 

request during the 5-year period.

Three agencies— the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

and Interior (Interior) and EPA—received 70 percent (61 of 87) of the 

correction requests during fiscal years 2010 through 2014. These three 

agencies were also the only ones that reported receiving IQA correction 

requests during each of the 5 fiscal years. For the entire period, Interior 

received the highest number of correction requests (26), followed by EPA 

(21), and HHS (14).

Most Agencies in Our 

Review Reported 

Receiving Relatively 

Few IQA Correction 

Requests; the Majority 

of Requests Questioned 

Data Use and 

Resulted in No 

Corrections

Agencies’ Websites Show 

a Total of 87 IQA 

Correction Requests from 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 

2014
Table 1: Information Quality Act Correction Requests as Reported on Agencies’ Websites for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 

Page 9 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

(as of November 2015)

Agency

Fiscal year 

2010

Fiscal year 

2011

Fiscal year 

2012

Fiscal year 

2013

Fiscal year 

2014 Total

1 Consumer Product Safety Commission 0 0 0 1 1 2

2 Department of Agriculture 2 0 0 1 0 3

3 Department of Commerce 1 4 2 0 1 8

4 Department of Education 0 1 0 0 0 1

5 Department of Health and Human Services 2 3 2 3 4 14

6 Department of Housing and Urban Development 1 0 0 0 0 1

7 Department of Interior 3 6 6 9 2 26

8 Department of Labor 1 0 0 0 0 1

9 Environmental Protection Agency 11 1 4 2 3 21

10 Federal Communications Commission 3 1 0 0 0 4

11 Federal Housing Finance Agency 0 0 1 0 0 1

12 Federal Reserve Board 1 0 0 0 0 1

13 General Services Administration 0 0 0 0 1 1

14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1 0 0 0 0 1

15 Office of Management and Budget 0 0 0 1 0 1

16 Office of Science and Technology Policy 0 0 0 0 1 1

Totals by Fiscal Year 26 16 15 17 13 87

Source: GAO analysis of selected agency website information. | GAO-16-110

Note: The Office of Management and Budget, when reporting on government-wide information quality 

guidelines, has cautioned readers against drawing any conclusions about trends or year-to-year 

comparisons of IQA correction requests due to the evolving nature of agency procedures for 

classifying correction requests, and because new regulations and agency policy decisions can affect 

the volume of requests received in any given year.

IQA officials at several agencies told us that they receive relatively few 

IQA requests and provided a number of reasons. For example, EPA 

officials stated that the quality of data EPA disseminates is currently more 

robust due to the consideration of the diversity of viewpoints provided by 

the public and EPA’s opportunity to review pertinent information that may 

not have been previously considered during the pre-dissemination 

process. Department of Commerce (Commerce) officials attributed their 

agency’s low number of IQA requests to the fact that the agency has few 

highly influential scientific assessment projects and that most of its 

research is relatively noncontroversial, with the exception of research 

related to climate change. HHS officials said that it is not surprising that 

IQA administrative corrective mechanisms are not resulting in a large 

number of IQA correction requests because many correction requests are 

for minor edits to agency information. A former OIRA administrator opined 
that when several federal courts held that the IQA is not subject to judicial 

review, most of the momentum behind IQA was lost, and that, as a result 

of these rulings, outside parties do not submit very many IQA correction 

requests.

In August 2004, the OIRA Administrator issued a memorandum to the 

President’s Management Council directing that agencies post all 

information quality correspondence, including a copy of each correction 

request, the agency’s formal response(s), and any communications 

regarding appeals on agency web pages to increase the transparency of 

the process. The memorandum also directed agencies to provide a few 

sentences describing the request and any subsequent responses. Finally, 

the memorandum stated that agencies also needed to establish 

processes for updating their information quality web pages regularly.

Page 10 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

20 In 

addition to posting copies of the IQA correction requests on their websites, 

agencies are required to report the number and nature of correction requests the 

agency receives to the Director of OMB and how such requests were 

resolved.21 OMB has provided a summary of this agency-reported IQA data

since its implementation in annual reports to Congress since 2003.22

We found discrepancies between the IQA data we found on agency websites and 

the IQA data reported to OMB by agencies.23 Eight agencies who reported 

receiving IQA correction requests did not post on their website the same number 

of IQA correction requests that they reported to OMB. In most instances where 

we identified discrepancies, the number of IQA correction requests agencies 

posted on their websites was lower than the number of IQA correction 

requests they reported to OMB. Table 2 provides specific numbers of 

 

20Office of Management and Budget, Posting of Information Quality Correction Requests and 

Responses, Memorandum for the President’s Management Council (Aug. 30, 2004).

21IQA § (b)(C).

22Annually, OMB issues a report to Congress on the costs and benefits of federal regulations. 

OMB includes in this report an update on the implementation of OMB’s information quality 

initiatives and provides a summary of the number of and current status of correction 

requests received in the year. See 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_reports_congress.

23We analyzed IQA data included in OMB’s annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 2010 

through 2013. OMB provided us with draft IQA data for fiscal year 2014 as of August 2015 

because the data have not yet been finalized or officially reported in OMB’s annual report 

to Congress. As of November 2015, OMB did not have any updates to these data. 
discrepancies in IQA correction requests received for fiscal years 2010 

through 2014.

Table 2: Discrepancies Identified Between Agencies’ Posted Website Correction Request Data and Correction Request Data 

Page 11 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Agencies Reported Receiving to the Office of Management and Budget for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 

No. Agencya

Information Quality Act (IQA) 

data posted on agency 

websites 

IQA data reported to the 

Office of Management and 

Budget by agencies Discrepancies

1 Department of Agriculture 3 8 5

2 Department of Commerce 8 7 1

3 Department of Interior 26 27 1

4 Department of Labor 1 3 2

5 Department of Transportationb0 1 1

6 Environmental Protection Agency 21 22 1

7 Federal Housing Finance Agency 1 2 1

8 National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

1 3 2

Source: GAO analysis of selected agency IQA website data and OMB IQA data included in its annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. OMB provided us with draft IQA data for fiscal 

year 2014 as of August 2015 because the data have not been finalized or officially reported in OMB’s annual report to Congress. As of November 2015, OMB did not have any updates to these data.| 

GAO-16-110

aIn addition to the 16 agencies we identified as having posted IQA correction requests on their 

websites (table 1), the Department of Transportation reported to OMB that they received one IQA 

correction request during fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

bAs of November 2015, OMB had not received an IQA data report for fiscal year 2014 from the 

agency. The number in the table reflects data from fiscal years 2010 through 2013.

One CFO Act agency, the Department of Transportation, reported to 

OMB that it had received an IQA correction request, but did not post the 

IQA correction request on its website as of November 2015. As stated 

earlier, OMB guidance requires agencies to post correction requests and 

agency responses on their websites. OMB staff told us that they issue an 

annual data call to agencies requesting information on IQA correction 

requests received. According to OMB, agencies are expected to 

accurately report their IQA activities, including the number of requests 

received. OMB staff stated that if there are discrepancies between what 

OMB received from agencies and what the agencies post on their 

websites, then there is a miscount or a disconnect on the agency side. 

Although OMB’s guidance is not prescriptive on the time frames for 

agencies to post this information, it states that agencies need to establish 

“processes for updating their information quality web pages on a regular 
basis.”

Page 12 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

24 OMB staff told us that some agencies posted correction requests and 

responses online soon after sending out the agency responses. For 

example, HHS officials told us that they post correction requests soon 

after they are received and do not wait until a response is prepared. 

According to OMB staff, other agencies waited until the end of the fiscal 

year to post all relevant documents at the same time. In addition, they told 

us that agencies often have changes in the staff assigned to report IQA 

data to OMB that may contribute to late postings, and although the data 

are eventually posted online, they are sometimes provided months after 

the request was received and responded to.

Agency officials from the six agencies that we selected for further review 

offered various explanations concerning their data discrepancies, 

including the time frames for online postings of IQA data.25 For example, 

officials from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that the agency does 

not specify time frames for posting correction requests. However, USDA 

officials stated that, in response to our inquiries, moving forward the agency

will require its component agencies and staff offices to post all correction 

requests and their responses to their component agency’s website no 

later than 60 days after the correction requests are received. USDA 

officials stated that each component agency maintains its own website 

and updates it accordingly. Since we initially contacted USDA concerning 

the data discrepancies, USDA officials have informed us that the Food 

and Nutrition Service and Rural Development component agencies have 

updated their websites to reflect the number of correction requests 

received. In addition, the officials stated that the Forest Service, the Office 

of the Inspector General, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service are in the process of making the necessary updates to their 

websites.

Officials from EPA stated that their discrepancy we identified was a result 

of a joint correction request sent to both OMB and EPA where OMB 

served as the lead agency. Thus, OMB posted the correction request on 

its website rather than EPA, but EPA included the correction request in its 

 

24Office of Management and Budget, Posting of Information Quality Correction Requests and 

Responses, Memorandum (Aug. 30, 2004).

25We did not contact the other agencies—the Department of Labor, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency, or National Aeronautics and Space Administration—about their data discrepancies as 

they were not selected for further review.
total IQA request number for fiscal year 2013 to OMB. Interior officials 

told us that they have not designated specific time frames for posting 

correction requests online. They explained, however, that one of their 

component agencies recently split into two separate agencies and as a 

result, one of these agencies is in the process of developing its own 

information quality program. According to agency officials, this component 

agency received and responded to a 2014 IQA correction request, but as 

of October 2015 had not posted the information on its website. Interior 

officials stated they expected the data discrepancy issue we identified to 

be resolved by the end of this fiscal year. OMB staff agreed that agencies 

sometimes have challenges in accurately and timely reporting and 

posting IQA corrections requests received and that they are 

communicating with agencies to address any discrepancies.

A 2009 OMB memorandum on open government states that, the “timely 

publication of information is an essential component of transparency.”

Page 13 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

26

The memorandum adds that “delays should not be viewed as an inevitable and 

insurmountable consequence of high demand.” However, the memo does not 

provide guidance on what is considered timely publication. We found that 

3 of the 9 agencies that reported fiscal year 2014 correction requests to 

OMB had not posted IQA correction requests and responses a year or 

more after the end of the fiscal year.27 Timely reporting of IQA data would 

increase the transparency of the process and allow the public to view all current 

correction requests, agency responses to those requests, and any appeals. Doing 

so would also allow the public to track the status of correction requests that 

may be of particular interest.

In our review of the written correction requests received by the agencies, 

we found that most requesters who submitted IQA correction requests 

self-identified as part of the submission process. As shown in table 3, we 

found that during fiscal years 2010 through 2014, 58 percent (50 of 87) of 

 

26Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, Memorandum M-10-06 (Dec. 

8, 2009).

27These three agencies are Department of Agriculture, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The other six agencies that reported to the 

Office of Management and Budget that they had received an IQA correction request(s)

during fiscal year 2014 are: Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Health 

and Human Services, Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, General 

Services Administration, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Sources of IQA Correction 

Requests Varied
the correction requests originated from trade associations and advocacy 

organizations. Trade associations that submitted correction requests 

represented several different types of industries including, for example, 

the Western Energy Alliance which represents more than 450 companies 

engaged in exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the West, 

and the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association whose membership 

is composed of shellfish growers in California, Oregon, Washington, 

Alaska and Hawaii. Advocacy organizations represented several different 

interests, including the San Juan Citizens Alliance, which is concerned 

with public land issues, and the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, 

whose mission is to create a healthy, more livable region by, among other 

things, promoting bicycling for fun, fitness, and affordable transportation. 

Private citizens submitted the next largest number of correction requests 

at 18 percent (16 of 87). We found that each of the 4 IQA correction 

requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission 

originated from private citizens. Businesses, such as electricity producer 

PacifiCorp, submitted 15 percent (13) of the IQA correction requests. 

Local governments, such as California’s County of Siskiyou Board of 

Supervisors submitted 7 percent (6) of the correction requests. Each of 

the 6 IQA correction requests submitted by local governments was 

directed to Interior.

Table 3: GAO Analysis of Distribution of Information Quality Act Requests by 

Page 14 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Category of Requester, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 

Source of requesta Number Percentage

Trade association/advocacy organization 50 58

Private citizen 16 18

Business 13 15

Local governmentsb6 7

Unknown 2 2

Total 87 100

Source: GAO analysis of IQA correction requests found on agency websites. | GAO-16-110

aIn the correction requests that we analyzed, the majority of requesters self-identified as one of the 

types of requesters listed in the table above. In the cases where no description was included in the 

correction request, we conducted an Internet search using the requester’s name to determine the 

type of requester basing our decision on the descriptions listed on the entity’s website.

bThis category also included cases where more than one local government joined together to submit 

a correction request.

There were 68 different requesters among the 87 IQA correction requests 

received during fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Although the majority of 

requesters submitted 1 request, several submitted more. Of those 

requesters submitting multiple requests, 6 submitted requests to more 
than one agency. For example, Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility, an advocacy organization, submitted 6 correction requests 

in total: 2 to EPA, 1 to Commerce, 1 to the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), 1 to the General Services Administration, and 1 to 

Interior during fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

We analyzed each of the 87 IQA correction requests posted on agencies’

websites and categorized the requests into two categories—data and 

administrative.

Page 15 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

28 The majority of correction requests received by the 16 

agencies during fiscal years 2010 through 2014 (66 of 87 requests, or 

about 76 percent) questioned either agencies’ use of underlying data or 

agencies’ interpretation of the data. The following IQA requests received 

by agencies from fiscal years 2010 through 2014 illustrate the diversity of 

IQA correction requests involving data.

· On November 12, 2013, an advocacy organization stated that CPSC 

disseminated a product recall announcement based on inaccurate 

data; specifically claims of defects in design, warnings, and 

instructions. Among other things, the requester asked that CPSC 

disclose the statistical and scientific metrics used to determine that 

the subject posed “a very serious hazard.” On March 13, 2014, CPSC 

stated that the nature of the correction request was the subject of an 

ongoing adjudicative proceeding. Thus, CPSC made no corrections.

· On June 11, 2010, a trade association sent a correction request to 

both EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) on, among other things the accuracy of data used in a public 

service advertising on childhood lead poisoning prevention. It 

requested that both agencies withdraw their participation in and 

sponsorship of the advertisements. On December 30, 2011, EPA and 

HUD issued a joint response letter stating that the quality of the 

information included in the childhood lead prevention advertisements 

was thoroughly reviewed. Thus, neither agency made corrections.

We found that some IQA correction requests (18 of 87 or 21 percent) 

were administrative in nature. Examples of these correction requests 

 

28Three IQA correction requests, two submitted to the Department of Commerce and one to the 

Department of Agriculture, lacked enough details for us to characterize the subject or 

nature of those requests. 

The Majority of IQA 

Correction Requests 

Questioned Agencies’ Use 

of Data
include, among other things, typographical changes or other text revisions 

to update agency documents and websites.

Page 16 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

29

· On December 23, 2010, a private citizen submitted a correction request 

identifying patent images that he believed to be incorrectly labeled 

with another patent number in an online database. He requested that 

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office within the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) correct the images. On January 6, 2011, that 

office stated the requested correction had been made in full, and that 

the correct patent had been rescanned and reloaded to the database.

· On November 14, 2011, a business submitted a correction that 

identified two errors—a typographical error and the omission of 

information to a Final Rule published in the Federal Register—and 

requested that EPA make corrections to both. On February 14, 2012 

EPA agreed with the typographical error and stated that a data table 

was inadvertently removed from the published information. EPA 

stated that it was preparing a regulatory fix intended to reinstate the 

portions of the table that were inadvertently removed from the final 

rule.

Of the 87 IQA correction requests agencies received, agencies 

determined in 59 cases (68 percent) that the request did not warrant any 

change to the original document or data in question (see table 4).30

Agencies made full corrections in 11 cases and made partial corrections 

for 15 of the IQA correction requests received. Two correction requests 

were still pending as of November 2015.

 

29Other examples of administrative correction requests include one that questioned an agency’s 

reference to only one organization in an area where several organizations provide service 

(agency made full correction and stated in their response letter that they would include 

other organizations) and a request for removal of a press release from an agency website 

(no corrections made).

30The majority of agencies did not state on their IQA websites whether or not a correction 

had been made as a result of the request. Therefore, we assessed each correction 

request and agency response to determine the final outcome. Based on our analysis, 

agencies’ responses stated clearly when no correction would be made. In some cases, 

specifically the responses that we categorized as a partial correction, agencies took some 

action to clarify information that was being questioned by the requester. For example, an 

agency may have added additional titles to its appendix or more clearly worded a specific 

sentence. In those cases, we considered a partial correction to have occurred. However, 

in these cases, the underlying data in question was typically not corrected or altered. 

Agencies Determined No 

Corrections Were 

Warranted for the Majority 

of IQA Correction 

Requests
Table 4: GAO Analysis of Agencies’ Responses to Information Quality Act Correction Requests Posted on Their Websites for 

Page 17 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 

No. Agency 

Total correction 

requests 

Fully 

corrected

Partially 

correcteda

No 

correction Pending

1 Department of Interior 26 1 7 18 0

2 Environmental Protection Agency 21 1 3 16 1

3 Department of Health and Human Services 14 3 5 6 0

4 Department of Commerce 8 2 0 6 0

5 Federal Communications Commission 4 0 0 4 0

6 Department of Agriculture 3 1 0 1 1

7 Consumer Product Safety Commission 2 0 0 2 0

8 Department of Education 1 0 0 1 0

9 Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

1 0 0 1 0

10 Department of Labor 1 1 0 0 0

11 Federal Housing Finance Agency 1 1 0 0 0

12 Federal Reserve Board 1 0 0 1 0

13 General Service Administration 1 0 0 1 0

14 National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

1 1 0 0 0

15 Office of Management and Budget 1 0 0 1 0

16 Office of Science and Technology Policy 1 0 0 1 0

Total 87 11 15 59 2

Source: GAO analysis of agency responses to correction requests found on selected agency websites. | GAO-16-110

aReflects instances where agencies stated they would make some corrective action, for example 

adding clarifying language, but not fully incorporate requested changes.

The IQA correction mechanism includes procedures for requesters to 

appeal initial agency decisions. During fiscal years 2010 through 2014, 

requesters appealed agency decisions in 19 IQA cases. IQA guidelines 

allow requestors to file for reconsideration if they disagree with an 

agency’s initial response. Of the 19 appealed cases, agencies made no 

corrections to 15, rejected 1 because the appeal was not submitted within 

the specified time frame, dismissed 1 as it was withdrawn by the 

requester, and had not made final decisions in the last 2 cases as of 

November 2015.
IQA is one of several processes available to the public for requesting 

corrections of agency information. In addition to IQA, other administrative 

mechanisms for correcting information available to the public include 

notice-and-comment rulemaking and peer reviews. We previously 

reported in 2006 that some agencies had the flexibility to respond to 

correction requests through various processes, because those processes 

were in place prior to IQA.

Page 18 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

31 For example, we reported that the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency no longer classified requests to correct flood 

insurance rate maps as IQA requests. Instead, the agency addressed flood 

insurance rate map correction requests by using a correction process it had 

implemented prior to the enactment of IQA.32

In this review, we found that one-fourth (15 of 59) of the IQA correction requests 

that resulted in no corrections were processed through an administrative 

mechanism other than the dedicated IQA request for correction process. 

According to OMB staff, agencies may respond to correction requests 

through the applicable administrative process. For example, agencies 

may process correction requests using notice-and-comment for 

rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act in instances where 

the request concerns a proposed rule and the comment process is still 

open.33 Processing such requests under IQA, as we reported in 2006, could 

impact rulemaking outside of the rulemaking process by affecting when or if an 

agency initiates a rulemaking.34 The following is an example of an agency 

response to a correction request submitted under IQA that the agency determined 

should be addressed through the rulemaking process:

 

31GAO-06-765.

32In 2006, we also reported that two other agencies—the Department of Labor’s Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration and the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration—had made similar changes to how it classified correction requests. 

These agencies had other correction mechanisms already in place prior to IQA. 

GAO-06-765.

33The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) established broadly applicable requirements for 

informal rulemaking, also known as notice-and-comment rulemaking. Among other things, 

the APA generally requires that agencies publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register. After giving the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed 

regulation by providing “written data, views, or arguments,” and after considering the 

public comments received, the agency may then publish the final regulation. 5 U.S.C. §§ 

553, 553(c).

34GAO-06-765.

Processes Other than IQA 

are Available to the Public 

to Request Corrections of 

Agency Information
· On July 1, 2010, a non-profit organization submitted a request to EPA to 

“rescind and correct online and printed information regarding alleged 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions resulting from ‘beneficial use’ of 

coal combustion waste products.” On February 16, 2011, EPA 

responded that many of the specific documents in question served as 

background technical support materials for EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking to address the risks from the disposal of coal combustion 

residuals generated by electric utilities and independent power 

producers. As a result, the agency would address the issues of the 

correction request through the rulemaking process for the rule.

The peer review process allows the public an opportunity to provide 

comments and to question an agency’s use of data before it actually 

disseminates the information.

Page 19 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

35 The following is an example of an agency 

response to a correction request submitted under IQA that EPA determined 

should be addressed through public comments during the peer review process.

· On August 20, 2010, EPA received a correction request from a private 

citizen requesting EPA to, among other things, correct information 

used to develop the Draft Benthic Total Maximum Daily Load 

Development for Accotink Creek, Virginia. On November 15, 2010, 

EPA responded that the public comment response process would be 

used to address the concerns outlined in the correction request. EPA 

stated that all public comments would be considered during the 

revision of the draft document. EPA also stated that to “avoid 

duplicate actions that would interfere with the ongoing Total Maximum 

Daily Load Development process, we will not use the EPA Information 

Quality Guidelines Request for Correction process to respond” to the 

correction request.

The public may not be aware of the different administrative processes 

agencies have available to address correction requests submitted under 

IQA. As a result, agencies’ IQA staff may be tasked with responding to a 

number of correction requests outside of the dedicated IQA request for 

correction process. Including explanations and links on agencies’ IQA 

websites to other available correction processes that might be more 

appropriate to the public’s needs could help increase efficiencies for all 

available information correction processes. Although OMB staff told us 

 

35Office of Manaqement and Budget, Issuance of OMB’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review, M-05-03 (Dec. 16, 2004).
that agencies should, in their response to public correction requests, state 

whether those agencies plan to address the requests through other 

administrative processes, current OMB IQA guidance does not address 

this issue. However, we found that at least one agency has included in its 

online IQA guidance information for submitting correction requests 

outside of IQA. EPA included additional information on its IQA web page 

that informs the public on how to report and correct EPA website data 

errors as well as how to seek correction on information for which EPA has 

sought public comment.

Agencies cited other reasons for not addressing a number of correction 

requests submitted under IQA. These included requests related to cases 

under litigation, requests too broad in nature (not specific), and requests 

the agencies deemed to lack merit. In addition, agencies did not 

recognize correction requests where the data in question were contained 

in a document not subject to IQA (such as a press release or a document 

not created by the agency). Specific examples follow.

· In 2011, a private citizen requested the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which operates within 

Commerce, to modify information about the location where Tropical 

Storm Kirsten made landfall in 1966 in Mexico. NOAA responded that 

the information in question was not subject to the requirements of IQA 

as the data were considered to be archival (data disseminated by 

NOAA before October 1, 2002, are considered to be archival 

information).

· On March 30, 2011, an advocacy organization submitted a request to 

the National Park Service, which operates within Interior, to correct 

information that the requestor deemed as “unfounded scientific 

conclusions” in a report on allegations of scientific misconduct at Point 

Reyes National Seashore. On June 6, 2011, Interior responded that 

the document in question was a report of an investigation undertaken 

by the Office of the Solicitor. The investigation looked to resolve 

allegations of scientific misconduct on the part of employees. Also, the 

“report was generated as part of the adjudicative process of this 

personnel matter; it is not subject to review under the IQA.”

Page 20 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
Page 21 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

OMB staff told us they rely heavily on their own website to disseminate 

IQA, OMB-specific, and government-wide guidance. OMB’s information 

quality website includes guidelines from OMB that describe its policy for 

ensuring the quality of information that it disseminates to the public. The 

guidelines also establish the administrative procedure by which an 

affected person may obtain correction of information disseminated by 

OMB. In addition, OMB includes links the public and other interested 

parties can use to locate individual agency information quality guidelines, 

government-wide information quality guidelines, and OMB’s annual 

reports to Congress. OMB’s reports to Congress, included on a separate 

OMB web page from IQA guidelines, include brief updates on agency 

reporting under the government-wide information quality guidelines.

As we previously stated, agencies are required by IQA to report to OMB 

annually on the number and type of correction requests received, as well 

as their respective responses.36 Although not required, since 2003 OMB has 

published agency-reported IQA data from the previous fiscal year in an annual 

report to Congress. OMB also makes this information available on its 

website but the data are dispersed across multiple web pages which 

could make the information hard to find and could contribute to user 

confusion. For example, OMB provides links to the annual reports on its 

website where the public and interested parties may access the 

information (see figure 1). However, there is no central location on OMB’s 

website where the IQA data are located, for example, in a table or some 

other format by year or agency. Instead, interested parties would need to 

go to each separate annual report link, search for IQA data, collect the 

data, and create their own table to review IQA data government-wide 

from year to year.

 

36IQA § (b)(2)(C).

OMB and Agencies’

IQA Guidelines and 

Related Information Is 

Generally Available 

Online, but Usability 

Varied

OMB Makes IQA 

Information, Including 

Agency-Reported Data, 

Publicly Available; 

However Data Are Not 

Centrally Located
Figure 1: The Office of Management and Budget Provides Links to Agency-Specific Information Quality Act Guidelines and 

Page 22 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Reports to Congress
Enabling the public to better access information is one of the principles of 

the President’s digital government strategy. According to the strategy, the 

federal government must fundamentally shift how it thinks about digital 

information. To drive this shift, agencies must, among other things, be 

customer-centric to focus on customer needs.

Page 23 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

37 This means that quality 

information should be accessible, current, and accurate at any time. Federal 

digital services guidelines direct agencies to publish digital information so 

that it is easy to find and access. These guidelines are aimed at helping 

federal agencies improve their communications and interactions with 

customers through websites.38 Although OMB has made government-wide 

IQA data available in its reports to Congress, finding and compiling such 

information may take several steps, potentially making it more difficult to access 

and find, thus hindering transparency. OMB officials acknowledged that 

consolidating and centralizing IQA information on OMB’s website could 

improve transparency and access to its IQA data.

 

37Executive Office of the President of the United States, Digital Government: Building a 21st 

Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, accessed on November 25, 2015.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html

38These guidelines replace previous federal website best practices from the General Services 

Administration’s old website, Howto.gov, which has been replaced by DigitalGov.gov. For prior 

GAO reports using Howto.gov best practices, see GAO, Recovery Act: Grant 

Implementation Experiences Offer Lessons for Accountability and Transparency, 

GAO-14-219 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2014), GAO, Managing for Results: Leading 

Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance.gov, GAO-13-517 

(Washington, D.C.; June 6, 2013), and GAO, IRS Website: Long-Term Strategy Needed 

to Improve Interactive Services, GAO-13-435 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2013). 
In addition to posting correction requests and agency responses on 

agency websites, agencies are required by IQA to post their IQA 

guidelines and administrative mechanisms by which affected persons 

could petition for correction of inaccurate agency information.

Page 24 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

39 Twentyeight of 30 agencies posted the required IQA documents online as of November 

2015.40 However, the Department of Defense did not include administrative 

mechanisms on its website. In addition, we were unable to find the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency’s IQA guidelines anywhere on its website.41 OMB 

concurred with our review of these agencies’ IQA information and told us it 

would work with the agencies to improve the information provided on their 

websites, but as of December 2015, they had not completed that process. Until 

that step occurs, the public may be unaware of the steps the agencies 

would take upon receiving a correction request, or even how to submit a 

correction request.

In addition to the required IQA information, some agencies’ websites 

included additional features that reflect customer-centric leading web 

practices identified by the President’s digital government strategy such as 

posting IQA information on a single website to ease accessibility and 

identifying points of contact online.42 For example, the Department of Labor’s 

website includes points of contact at its 21 component agencies. Such 

information enables the interested public with questions regarding IQA to more 

easily identify agency officials (see figure 2).

 

39Agency administrative mechanisms may outline, among other things, how to submit a request, 

what should be included in the request and the amount of time an agency will take to send 

out an initial response (for example, an acknowledgment of receipt letter).

40The 30 agencies include the 24 CFO Act agencies and 6 additional agencies who posted IQA 

correction requests on their websites—Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal 

Communications Commission, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal Reserve Board, 

Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

41While we were unable to find the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s IQA guidelines 

online, OMB stated that agencies are not required to promulgate their own guidelines—

they are permitted to adopt OMB guidelines, though this should be clearly noted on their 

IQA website.

42According to the President’s digital government strategy, a “customer-centric” approach 

influences how the government creates, manages, and presents data through websites, 

mobile applications, raw data sets, and other modes of delivery, and allows customers to 

shape, share and consume information, whenever and however they want it. In this 

example, a customer-centric principle makes content more accurate and understandable 

by maintaining plain language and content freshness standards and offer easy paths for 

feedback to ensure the government continually improves service delivery.

Agencies Posted Required 

IQA Guidelines and Data 

Online as of November 

2015 but the Usability 

Could Be Improved
Figure 2: Department of Labor’s Information Quality Website Includes Component Points of Contact as of November 2015

Page 25 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

OMB’s guidance on posting IQA correction requests states that agencies 

need to establish processes for updating their information quality web 

pages on a regular basis but does not define regular basis. We identified 

agency websites where information was outdated or web links were 

broken. Specifically, 9 of 30 agencies posted either outdated information 
or included broken hyperlinks (see figures 3 and 4). Consequently, the 

public may be unable to access these agencies’ IQA guidelines and 

correction requests. Ensuring that online content is accurate is one of the 

guidelines for federal digital services. Easy access to current guidance 

could also facilitate opportunities for affected parties and stakeholders to 

provide feedback on those documents.

Page 26 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
Figure 3: Department of Homeland Security Includes a Broken Hyperlink to Transportation Security Administration as of 

Page 27 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

November 2015
Figure 4: Department of Energy’s Online IQA Correction Request Link Is Unavailable as of November 2015

Page 28 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
We identified five agencies that did not include on their websites any 

information about IQA correction requests. As a result, it is not clear by 

reviewing these agencies’ websites whether or not the agencies had 

received such requests during fiscal years 2010 through 2014. 

Specifically, we could not identify any language stating whether or not the 

Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, and Transportation, 

and the Office of Personnel Management had received correction 

requests as of November 2015. In addition, we found that as of 

November 2015:

· The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website included links to 

the IQA correction requests the agency had received. However, there 

was no text indicating whether or not the agency had received IQA 

corrections requests for years where no correction requests were 

posted or whether that information was simply missing.

· The Department of Agriculture’s website included links to IQA data 

reports for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, but had no information 

regarding fiscal year 2014.

Page 29 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

43

· The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s website did not 

include IQA data reports for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

· The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s website did not include IQA 

information for fiscal year 2014.

As noted earlier, OMB’s guidance states that agencies also need to 

establish processes for regularly updating their information quality 

websites. However OMB staff told us that if an agency has not received 

any IQA requests in a given fiscal year, they are not required to report 

that information on their websites. Without that acknowledgement 

however, it may be unclear to the public whether an agency has received 

IQA correction requests but has not posted them or whether the agency 

 

43According to Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials and OMB staff, USDA does not post 

its annual IQA reports summarizing the correction requests on its website until OMB reviews the 

requests and permits the agency to do so. According to the USDA officials, as of 

September 2015, the agency had not received approval from OMB to post fiscal years 

2013 or 2014 annual IQA reports. However, in November 2015, USDA received approval, 

and has posted its fiscal year 2013 annual report on its website. According to the USDA 

officials, the agency is waiting on approval from OMB to post its fiscal year 2014 annual 

report and plans to post the information within 24 hours of receiving approval. 
has in fact not received any requests. OMB staff agreed that clearly 

stating whether or not agencies had received IQA correction requests 

could improve the transparency of IQA. Even when agencies posted IQA 

information on their website as OMB required, such information is 

sometimes outdated making it difficult for users to know whether agencies 

have received correction requests or how to request correction of agency 

information. OMB staff acknowledged that additional OMB guidance that 

specifies time frames for agencies to post information on IQA requests 

received, requires explanations and links to other agency information 

correction processes, and provides suggestions for improving the 

usability of agency websites would be useful.

Agency officials at six selected agencies—the Departments of Agriculture 

(USDA), Commerce, Health and Human Services (HHS), Interior, and 

Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—took a 

range of actions as part of their efforts to implement the IQA correction 

process and to better track and address correction requests received, 

such as the following examples.

Page 30 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

44

· According to EPA officials, EPA’s centralized IQA process has provided 

greater oversight on correction requests from receipt to final response. EPA 

has developed internal process maps that outline the steps needed to address 

correction requests. Once EPA receives a correction request, EPA 

officials enter the request into a tracking database. Then, an 

acknowledgement receipt is dispersed. EPA officials then identify who 

within the agency is responsible for the information in question, and 

forward the request to the appropriate program office or region that 

schedules scoping meetings to review the request and draft a 

response. In the meantime, EPA notifies OMB of the correction 

request.

· The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also has a 

centralized IQA correction process. The agency’s Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Office of the 

Secretary manages and coordinates the IQA process and administers 

the HHS information quality website and is the agency’s point of 

 

44As mentioned previously, we selected six agencies for additional study. These six 

agencies represent a large portion of IQA correction requests received and also utilized 

different approaches for implementing IQA.

Selected Agencies 

Have Processes in 

Place to Implement 

IQA and Officials 

Reported Challenges 

and Benefits
contact with OMB. The HHS component or office within HHS that 

originated the challenged information is responsible for developing 

and sending the agency’s response.

· Interior’s IQA correction process is decentralized. Within each of 

Interior’s component agencies, Bureau Information Quality 

Coordinators address IQA correction requests and coordinate with 

Interior’s Information Quality Coordinator on the response.

Officials from 3 of the 6 selected agencies also reported challenges in 

implementing IQA. Department of Transportation officials told us it has 

been a challenge to retain IQA institutional knowledge amidst staff 

turnover. EPA and Interior officials both stated that allocating the 

necessary time to properly respond to IQA correction requests was 

challenging. For example, EPA officials said that the amount of time it 

takes to respond to a correction request can take an appreciable part of a 

full-time employee’s efforts during busy periods. EPA officials said 

additional review time and attention are required because responses to 

corrections must be reviewed through EPA’s internal processes for 

concurrence, as well as with OMB. Interior officials also told us they 

spend a considerable amount of time addressing the often complex 

and/or lengthy IQA requests as well as obtaining the necessary reviews 

and concurrence of the agency response.

We found that agency responses to IQA requests and an appeal have 

taken 2 years or longer to resolve. Although both EPA and Interior 

officials cited time spent in addressing correction requests to be a 

challenge, neither agency was able to provide estimates of agency or 

employee hours spent in the process. Further, none of our selected 

agencies had information about the actual workload or the number of staff 

days for responding to IQA correction requests. As a result, the impact of 

the IQA correction process on the selected agencies could not be 

accurately measured because the agencies do not have mechanisms in 

place to track the effects of implementing IQA. We previously reported 

that agency IQA officials believe addressing IQA requests is considered 

to be part of their agencies’ day-to-day business, and because of the 

multifaceted nature of some requests, allocating time and resources on 

Page 31 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
specific issues or linking work exclusively to IQA requests would be 

difficult.

Page 32 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

45

According to OMB staff, there is not a specific amount of time that is considered 

too long for agency responses to correction requests. They explained that IQA 

correction requests may take a long time for some agencies due to the 

extensive review that is required to make a final agency decision. OMB 

staff stated that they did not want to be prescriptive in IQA guidance by 

adding administrative time requirements to an agency specific process. 

The officials added that taking a long time to respond to an IQA correction 

request was not necessarily a bad thing. It may indicate an extensive and 

comprehensive review by the agency and discussion of the information in 

question.

Officials at our selected agencies told us they believe IQA has improved 

the quality of data disseminated by their agencies. For example, EPA 

officials told us that the quality of data disseminated by EPA is more 

robust due to the consideration of the diversity of viewpoints provided by 

the public, and the agency’s opportunity to review pertinent information 

that may not have been obtained by EPA. Interior officials reported to us 

that the IQA and peer review standards have greatly assisted in the 

dissemination of quality information. They stated that their guidelines give 

“teeth” to the objectives and requirements of quality information. 

According to HHS officials, the IQA process has proved to be a useful 

mechanism for the public to raise issues of concern to federal agencies 

that publicly disseminate information. OMB staff told us that the IQA 

process has improved agency information quality policies even though 

the correction request metrics may not show it. They explained that while 

it’s important for IQA correction numbers to be seen by the public, it is 

also important that the public is aware that these numbers are only a 

small piece of the benefits of IQA. IQA guidelines and peer reviews are all 

about pre-dissemination review, transparency, and ensuring that only 

information with good quality is released by agencies.

IQA allows businesses, trade associations, advocacy organizations, the 

public, and others to submit requests to agencies to make corrections to 

agency disseminated information. Some of the 30 agencies in our review 

 

45GAO-06-765.

Conclusions
reported receiving relatively few IQA requests from fiscal years 2010 

through 2014. Agencies determined that the majority of correction 

requests received did not warrant any changes. Processes other than 

IQA are available to request corrections of agency information and 

agencies addressed a number of correction requests through 

administrative mechanisms other than the dedicated IQA request for 

correction process.

Agencies in our review have developed their own guidelines and 

administrative mechanisms for implementing IQA. OMB and agencies rely 

on their websites to disseminate guidance and also provide information 

regarding results of correction requests. However, we found that OMB 

had not consolidated all IQA data in one centralized location on its 

website. We also found instances where IQA required information was 

missing from agency websites or where information was outdated or 

incomplete. To be effective, guidance documents should be accessible to 

their intended audiences and corrective processes should be transparent. 

This is consistent with guidelines for federal digital services. OMB has the 

opportunity to build on its efforts to improve the transparency of the IQA 

process. For example, by consolidating summaries of agency IQA 

information, working with agencies to ensure all IQA requirements are 

met, and providing additional guidance about posting accessible, useroriented information on agency websites, OMB could help increase the 

public’s access to and confidence in that information, thereby helping to 

further the goal of disseminating quality information.

To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including 

implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access 

to IQA information on agency websites, we recommend that the Director 

of OMB take the following actions:

· Consolidate and centralize on OMB’s IQA guidance website a 

government-wide summary of requests for correction submitted under 

the IQA.

· Work with the Department of Defense and the Federal Housing 

Finance Agency to help ensure that they post their IQA administrative 

mechanisms and IQA guidance online.

· Provide additional guidance for agencies to help improve the 

transparency and usability of their IQA websites to help ensure the 

public can easily find and access online information about agency IQA 

Page 33 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
implementation. Such guidance should include

· specific time frames for agencies to post information on the IQA 

correction requests they have received, including making it clear 

when agencies have not received IQA requests;

· instructions for agencies to include a statement on their IQA 

websites that the agencies may address correction requests 

through other administrative processes;

· instructions for agencies to include, when responding to correction 

requests, whether those agencies plan to address the request 

through another administrative processes, and if so, which 

process they will use; and

· suggestions for improving usability of agencies’ websites including 

fixing broken links.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget. In oral comments received on December 1, 

2015, OMB staff discussed our findings, conclusions, and draft 

recommendations. They provided technical comments, which are 

incorporated into the report where appropriate. In response to this 

discussion, we made minor revisions to the draft and recommendation 

language to more accurately reflect the role of agencies in responding to 

correction requests along with OMB’s role in overseeing these activities. 

The OMB staff stated they agreed with our modified recommendations.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Director of OMB and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at www.gao.gov.

Page 34 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at 202-512-2757 or GoldenkoffR@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

Robert Goldenkoff

Director

Strategic Issues

Page 35 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

The objectives of this study were to (1) identify the number, source, and 

final disposition of IQA correction requests received by the 24 Chief 

Financial Officer (CFO) Act and other agencies for fiscal years 2010 

through 2014; (2) assess the extent to which the 24 CFO Act and other 

agencies that received correction requests made IQA information publicly 

available; and (3) identify how selected agencies have implemented IQA.

To address the first objective, we searched the websites of the 24 Chief 

Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies and identified 10 of these that had 

posted correction requests and responses online for fiscal years 2010 

through 2014.

Page 36 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

1 We selected 2014 as an ending point for a 5-year analysis 

because 2014 was the most recent, complete fiscal year of data available. To 

identify other agencies that had received correction requests during the same 

time frame, we reviewed the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

annual reports to Congress for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013 

and identified those agencies outside of the 24 CFO Act agencies that 

reported receiving Information Quality Act (IQA) correction requests. OMB 

provided us with agency-reported data for fiscal year 2014 because the 

report to Congress had not yet been issued. From this, we identified an 

additional 6 non-CFO Act agencies that posted IQA correction requests 

and responses on their websites—the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Housing 

Finance Agency, Federal Reserve Board, Office of Management and 

Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.2 We reviewed 

relevant OMB and agency documents, including IQA guidelines and agencies’

annual reports to OMB, examined requests and appeals to correct agency 

information, and reviewed OMB’s and agencies’ websites. To supplement the 

documentary evidence obtained, we interviewed agency officials 

responsible for IQA in their respective agencies. We also interviewed 

current and former OMB staff to provide additional context on IQA. During 

 

1The 24 agencies identified in the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended (31 

U.S.C. § 901(b)), are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, 

Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the 

Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well 

as the Agency for International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, General 

Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 

Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, and Social Security Administration.

2We also identified that the Department of Transportation, a CFO Act agency, reported 

receiving a correction request to OMB but did not post the correction request on their 

agency website.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

the course of our review, we compared agency IQA data posted on their 

websites with IQA data agencies reported to OMB and identified 

discrepancies. We discussed the discrepancies with OMB staff and 

agency officials and included their responses within the report. We 

determined that OMB and agency data were sufficiently reliable to 

provide a general indication of the numbers of correction requests 

received. Although agencies have other processes to correct agency 

disseminated information, we evaluated only information related to the 

IQA correction mechanism.

We assessed relevant agency IQA documents—including guidelines, 

requests and appeals, agency decisions, and related documents—found 

on the 16 agency websites that posted correction requests during our 

identified time frame. To supplement and verify the accuracy and 

completeness of this information, we interviewed OMB IQA staff. 

Moreover, to better understand specific aspects of IQA requests and how 

agencies addressed them, as well as to illustrate specific points, we 

reviewed in detail all of the correction requests posted on agency 

websites to the extent such information was available online. Two 

analysts independently assessed each agency’s correction request and 

final agency response to determine requester type, request category, 

agency response and justification for response, and resolved all 

discrepancies. To categorize the sources of the requests by type of entity, 

such as business, trade association, or advocacy organization, we relied 

on information and descriptions the requester provided in the correction 

requests. Specifically, the majority of requesters self-identified as one of 

the following types of requesters—trade association/advocacy 

organization, business, private citizen, local government, or anonymous—

in their correction requests to the agencies. However, when such 

information was not available, we searched the requester’s name online 

and used the descriptions found therein to make our determination as to 

the type of entity. To determine the final disposition of IQA requests and 

any appeals, we reviewed related agency documents, including interim 

agency correspondence, to determine whether or not the agency 

committed to make a correction(s) in response to the request. We 

determined a correction was a partial correction if the agency made at 

least one change based on the request, for example adding clarifying 

language or additional references.

To address the second objective, we conducted an analysis of the 24 

CFO Act agencies’ websites, as well as the six other agencies identified 

in objective one as having received IQA correction requests during our 

selected timeframe, using internal site search engines and search terms, 

Page 37 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

such as “information quality,” “correction request,” and “IQA guidelines,”

to determine whether they had IQA guidelines and other IQA information 

online. We identified and used IQA search terms and steps to review and 

find information on agency publicly available web pages consistent with 

best practices guidance for search engine optimization from 

digitalgov.gov’s website.

Page 38 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

3 We also used OMB’s Open Government Directive 

in assessing IQA guidance documents.4 We compared the information found 

on the websites to IQA requirements outlined in OMB guidance to agencies on 

posting IQA documents. We also reviewed other OMB and relevant government 

guidance on design features to make government-wide information and 

data accessible. When we found instances where agencies had not 

posted the required guidelines or administrative mechanisms, we 

contacted OMB staff for verification.

To identify IQA processes and challenges agencies face in implementing 

IQA, we selected a non-generalizable sample of six agencies -– the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, 

Interior, and Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency -–

to obtain illustrative examples of how they approached and implemented 

IQA. We selected these agencies based in part on the number (both high 

and low to include a range) of IQA correction requests the agencies had 

received from fiscal years 2010 through 2014. We also included one 

agency (Department of Transportation) based on the relatively high 

number of peer reviews conducted during the same time frame. We 

interviewed OMB and agency officials responsible for addressing IQA 

correction requests to gather their perceptions on the overall IQA 

process.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 to December 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

 

3Digitalgov.gov is a website supported by the Office of Citizen Services and Innovative 

Technologies in the General Services Administration to help agencies working on providing 

digital services and information for the public build a 21st century digital government.

4Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, Memorandum M-10-06 (Dec. 8, 

2009) and Executive Office of the President of the United States, Digital Government: 

Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, accessed on 

November 25, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digitalgovernment/digital-government.html
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objective.

Page 39 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act
Appendix II: Organizations That Filed 

Information Quality Act Correction Requests 

during Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014

Organizations That Filed Information Quality Act Correction Requests during Fiscal 

Page 40 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Years 2010 through 2014

Federal agency receiving 

request and filer

Trade 

association/ 

advocacy 

organization Business

Consumer 

Product Safety 

Commission

Cause of Action Yes No

Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility

Yes No

Department of 

Agriculture

Recreation Outdoors Coalition Yes No

R Calf USA Yes No

Department of 

Commerce

IEEE Yes No

Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility

Yes No

Department of 

Education

The Association of Proprietary 

Colleges

Yes No

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services

American Progressive Bag 

Alliance

Yes No

American Suntanning 

Association

Yes No

Capital Strategy Consultants, 

Inc.

No Yes

Center for Regulatory 

Effectiveness (2)

Yes No

Chesapeake Energy 

Corporation

No Yes

International Premium Cigar 

and Pipe Retailers

 Association

Yes No

Health and Safety Institute No Yes

Heritage Foundation Yes No

Lorillard Tobacco Company No Yes

Styrene Information and 

Research Center (2)

Yes No

Washington Area Bicyclist 

Association

Yes No

Department of 

Housing and 

Urban 

Development

American Coatings 

Association

Yes No

Department of 

Interior

Cascabel Working Group Yes No

Cause of Action Yes No

Citizens for Balanced Use Yes No

Appendix II: Organizations That Filed 

Information Quality Act Correction Requests 

during Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014
Appendix II: Organizations That Filed 

Information Quality Act Correction Requests 

during Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014

Page 41 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Federal agency receiving 

request and filer

Trade 

association/ 

advocacy 

organization Business

Council for Endangered 

Species Reliability Act and

 California Association for 

Recreational Fishing

Yes No

New Albertson’s No Yes

PacifiCorp No Yes

Pacific Coast Shellfish 

Growers Association

Yes No

Pavement Coatings 

Technology Council (2)

Yes No

Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility

Yes No

Sage Grouse Coalition Yes No

San Juan Citizens Alliance Yes No

Save our Seashore Yes No

SunZia Southwest 

Transmission Project

No Yes

United States Association of 

Reptile Keepers and Pet 

Industry Joint Advisory Council

Yes No

Western Energy Alliance (2) Yes No

Department of 

Labor

Salem Glass Company No Yes

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency

American Coatings 

Association

Yes No

American Chemistry Council 

(2)

Yes No

Artisan EHS Consulting, LLC No Yes

Association of Battery 

Recyclers

Yes No

Center for Biological Diversity Yes No

The Competitive Enterprise 

Institute and ActionAid USA

Yes No

Halogenated Solvents Industry 

Alliance, Inc.

Yes No

International Platinum Group 

Metals Association

Yes No

The Methanol Institute Yes No

Organic Arsenical Products 

Task Force and Wood 

Preservative Science Council

Yes No
Appendix II: Organizations That Filed 

Information Quality Act Correction Requests 

during Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014

Page 42 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Federal agency receiving 

request and filer

Trade 

association/ 

advocacy 

organization Business

Pavement Coatings 

Technology Council

Yes No

Peabody Energy Company Yes

Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility 

(2)

Yes No

Troy Chemical Corporation No Yes

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

(2)

Yes No

Walter Coke, Inc. No Yes

W.R. Grace & Co. Conn. No Yes

Federal Reserve 

Board

Center for Regulatory 

Effectiveness

Yes No

General Services 

Administration

Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility

Yes No

Office of 

Management and 

Budget

America’s Natural Gas 

Alliance, the American 

Chemistry Council, the 

American Petroleum Institute, 

the National Association of 

Home Builders, the National 

Association of Manufacturers, 

the Portland Cement 

Association, and the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce

Yes No

Office of Science 

and Technology 

Policy

Competitive Enterprise 

Institute

Yes No

Source: GAO analysis of agency correction requests posted on agency websites. | GAO-16-110

Note: We are not including correction requests from private citizens, local governments, or 

anonymous in this appendix. As a result, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Housing 

Finance Agency, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are not listed here.
Appendix III: Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Clifton G. Douglas, Jr. (Assistant 

Director), Dewi Djunaidy (Analyst-in-Charge), Joseph Fread, Lisette 

Baylor, Michele Fejfar, Ellen Grady, Farrah Graham, Andrea Levine, and 

Stewart Small made key contributions to this report.

Page 43 GAO-16-110 Information Quality Act

Appendix III: Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451121)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.