51060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 

seeks a modification of the existing 

standard: (1) As it pertains to a 

secondary escapeway/raisebore from the 

C Bed to the Lower Quartzite area; (2) 

The secondary escapeway/raisebore 

from the C Bed to the Lower Quartzite 

area is 42 inches in diameter and steelencased. The escapeway/raisebore from 

the C Bed to the Lower Quartzite area 

is equipped with a ladder and secure 

landings at least every 30 feet, in 

conformance with 30 CFR 57.11025. 

The secondary escapeway/raisebore 

from the C Bed to the Lower Quartzite 

area consists of two sections. The first 

section is 114 feet, and the second 

section is 317 feet. The first section 

begins at the C Bed and ends at the 

Upper C Bed. The second section begins 

at the Upper C Bed and ends at the 

Lower Quartzite area. Refer to 

Attachments A and B for diagrams of 

the area in question; (3) The mine 

proposes an alternative method of 

compliance with the existing standard, 

by installation of a leaky feeder 

communication system in the steelencased secondary escapeway. The 

alternative method provides mines in 

the escapeway with continuous 

communication with the surface and 

will allow for notification that 

personnel are in the raise and on their 

way out. The leaky feeder system will 

be protected from damage due to steel 

encasement of the escapeway/raisebore. 

The steel encasement of the escapeway/ 

raisebore will also prevent exposure to 

falling rock in the secondary escapeway 

to miners. The landings spaced at a 

maximum of 30 foot intervals are 

configured to provide protection to 

resting miners from falling down the 

escapeway; (4) In the alternative to 

compliance with the existing standard, 

the petitioner proposes to: (a) Install a 

leaky feeder communication cable in the 

secondary escapeway/raisebore from the 

C Bed to the Lower Quartzite area; (b) 

install radio boxes in the secondary 

escapeway/raisebore from the C Bed to 

the Lower Quartzite area. The radio 

boxes will each contain: (i) A radio; (ii) 

A charging station for the radio; and (iii) 

An extra battery for the radio; (c) within 

45 days after the proposed decision and 

order becomes final, the petitioner will 

submit proposed revisions to the escape 

and evacuation plan as required in 30 

CFR 57.11053; and (d) with 60 days 

after the proposed decision and order 

becomes final, the petitioner will submit 

proposed revisions of its approved 30 

CFR part 48 training plan to the Metal/ 

Nonmetal Safety and Health District 

Manager. In addition to the 

requirements specified, these proposed 

revisions will specify initial and 

refresher training regarding the terms 

and conditions stated in the proposed 

decision and order. The petitioner 

asserts that the proposed alternative 

method will at all times guarantee no 

less than the same measure of protection 

afforded by the existing standard. 

Docket Number: M–2011–006–M. 

Petitioner: Degerstrom Ventures, 3268 

Blackfoot River Road, Soda Springs, 

Idaho 83276. 

Mine: Enoch Valley Mine and South 

Rasmussen Mine, MSHA Mine I.D. No. 

10–01702, located in Caribou County, 

Idaho. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

56.9300(a) (Berms or guardrails). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit the haul road to be 

used without berms or guardrails being 

provided or maintained on the banks of 

the roadway where a drop-off exists of 

sufficient grade or depth to cause a 

vehicle to overturn or endanger persons 

in equipment. The petitioner asserts that 

the addition of berms or guardrails to 

the haul road will add a substantial 

hazard to the safety of the haul trucks 

and will expose the operators of the 

trucks to an unnecessary, unsafe 

condition. The petitioner states that: (1) 

Its predecessor, Dravo Soda Springs, has 

previously obtained similar 

modification of 30 CFR 56.9300(a) on 

two previous occasions relating to other 

sections of the same roadway that 

applies to 8.6 miles of haul road covered 

by previous decision and orders as well 

as a new 3.1 mile section of roadway; 

and (2) The modification is needed 

because the mining operation is 

expected to be extended to a new site 

in the same vicinity, known as the 

Blackfoot Bridge Mine. The Record of 

Decision for the new proposed Blackfoot 

Bridge Mine was filed June 17, 2011, 

and will be covered under the same 

mine identification number as the 

Enoch Valley Mine and South 

Rasmussen Mine. The petitioner asserts 

that the use of berms or guardrails on 

the haul road will add a hazard to the 

safety of the haul trucks and will expose 

the operators of the trucks to unsafe 

conditions. 

Dated: August 12, 2011. 

Patricia W. Silvey, 

Certifying Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20978 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

AGENCY: Marine Mammal Commission. 

ACTION: Final guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The Marine Mammal 

Commission adopts these guidelines to 

ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of 

information disseminated by the agency 

in accordance with the directive issued 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (67 FR 8452–8460), pursuant to 

section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael L. Gosliner, General Counsel, 

Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 

East-West Highway, Room 700, 

Bethesda MD 20814; telephone: (301) 

504–0087; fax: (301) 504–0099 

Background 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106– 

554) directs the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to issue governmentwide guidelines that ‘‘provide policy 

and procedural guidance to federal 

agencies for ensuring and maximizing 

the quality, objectivity, utility and 

integrity of information (including 

statistical information) disseminated by 

federal agencies.’’ Pursuant to this 

directive, OMB issued guidelines on 22 

February 2002 (67 FR 8452–8460) that 

direct each federal agency to (1) Issue its 

own guidelines ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information 

disseminated by the agency; (2) 

establish administrative mechanisms to 

allow affected persons to seek and 

obtain correction of information that 

does not comply with the OMB 

guidelines or the agency’s guidelines, 

and (3) report periodically to the 

director of OMB on the number and 

nature of complaints received by the 

agency regarding the accuracy of 

information disseminated by the agency 

and how such complaints were handled 

by the agency. 

The Marine Mammal Commission 

was established under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

provide independent oversight of the 

marine mammal conservation policies 

and programs being carried out by 

federal agencies. The Commission is 

charged with developing, reviewing, 

and making recommendations on 

domestic and international actions and 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 51061 

policies of all federal agencies with 

respect to marine mammal protection 

and conservation and with carrying out 

a research program. In carrying out its 

mission, the Commission develops and 

disseminates scientific and other 

information and reviews information 

provided by other federal agencies. 

To comply with the OMB directive, 

the Marine Mammal Commission 

published proposed agency guidelines 

on 27 June 2011 (76 FR 37376) intended 

to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of 

information that is disseminated by the 

agency. The Commission solicited 

comments on the proposed guidelines 

and received one set of comments. 

Those comments are summarized, and 

the Commission’s responses are 

provided, in the subsequent discussion. 

Comments and Responses 

The only comments on the 

Commission’s proposed guidelines were 

submitted by the Center for Regulatory 

Effectiveness. The Center commended 

the Commission on its proposed 

guidelines and advocated that final 

guidelines be published as soon as 

possible. The Center also recommended 

that the proposed guidelines be 

amended in certain respects before they 

are finalized—first, by revising when 

requests for correction would not be 

considered, and second, by providing 

fixed and definite dates for taking action 

on requests for correction. 

In the section concerning the 

administrative process for correction of 

information, the Commission identified 

five criteria under which a request for 

correction would not be considered. 

Included in these criteria were instances 

in which the ‘‘the [requested] correction 

would serve no useful purpose’’ and 

when the request is deemed ‘‘to be 

duplicative, repetitious, or frivolous.’’ 

The commenter thought that these 

criteria should be deleted because they 

are beyond the Commission’s authority 

and because they may be subject to 

administrative abuse. The commenter 

did not believe that the Information 

Quality Act allowed the Commission 

the latitude to decide when corrections 

would be useful or when requests are 

frivolous or do not warrant a response. 

The Commission believes that these 

exceptions are consistent with the 

guidelines for ensuring and maximizing 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of information disseminated by 

federal agencies published by OMB on 

22 February 2002. Those guidelines 

state that— 

Overall, OMB does not envision 

administrative mechanisms that would 

burden agencies with frivolous claims. 

Instead, the correction process should serve 

to address the genuine and valid needs of the 

agency and its constituents without 

disrupting agency processes. Agencies, in 

making their determination of whether or not 

to correct information, may reject claims 

made in bad faith or without justification, 

and are required to undertake only the degree 

of correction that they conclude is 

appropriate for the nature and timeliness of 

the information involved, and explain such 

practices in their annual fiscal year reports to 

OMB. 

Furthermore, these exceptions are 

consistent with similar exceptions 

included in the guidelines adopted by 

other agencies. For example, guidelines 

published by the National Science 

Foundation specify that the agency 

‘‘may reject claims made in bad faith, or 

without justification. The Foundation 

need not respond substantively to such 

requests, nor to frivolous, repetitive, or 

stale requests.* * *’’ Guidelines 

published by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration explain 

that a request for consideration will not 

be considered if it concerns 

‘‘disseminated information the 

correction of which would serve no 

useful purpose [such as when the 

information is not valid, used, or useful 

after a stated short period of time]’’ and 

that ‘‘requests that are duplicative, 

repetitious, or frivolous may be 

rejected.’’ In addressing similar 

comments, the Council on 

Environmental Quality amended its 

proposed guidelines to provide that the 

agency’s ‘‘response will be proportional 

to the nature or the request’’ and that it 

‘‘will generally not substantively 

respond to a request that is duplicative 

of an earlier request.’’ 

The Commission does not share the 

commenter’s concern that these 

exceptions are subject to abuse. 

Consistent with the guidance from 

OMB, the Commission would report on 

all requests for correction received 

during the fiscal year and explain its 

practices for responding to such 

requests, including those that fit within 

the scope of any of the exceptions. In 

addition, the Commission did not 

intend that it would simply ignore, 

without explanation, any request that it 

determined fell within any of the 

exceptions. Rather, the responsible 

official would return the request to the 

person who submitted it, indicating that 

further action would not be taken and 

identifying the exception on which the 

determination was based. Clarifying 

language to that effect has been added 

to the final guidelines. 

The Center also advocated that the 

Commission delete the proposed 

exception concerning information 

disseminated in the course of a 

rulemaking or similar administrative 

process that includes an opportunity for 

public comment and a mechanism to 

dispute or challenge the information in 

question. For the most part, the 

Commission is not a regulatory agency. 

Rather, it provides recommendations 

concerning regulatory needs to other 

agencies, which are responsible under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 

other statutes for adopting and 

implementing such regulations. As 

such, there would be very few instances 

when this exception would be 

applicable. As such, the Commission 

has decided to delete the proposed 

exception. 

The Center also submitted comments 

on two timing provisions included in 

the proposed guidelines. The proposed 

guidelines specified that ‘‘[w]ithin 60 

days of the receipt of a properly filed 

request, the Commission will provide a 

final decision on the request or a 

statement of the status of the request 

and an estimated decision date.’’ The 

provision concerning the consideration 

of an appeal of an initial determination 

also would have provided the 

Commission some flexibility as to when 

it responded. Under the proposed 

guidelines, the official responsible for 

considering an appeal would provide a 

decision to the requester, ‘‘usually 

within 60 calendar days of receipt of the 

appeal.’’ The Center believes that the 

Commission’s guidelines should 

guarantee action on a request for 

correction or an appeal by a specific 

date. The commenter thought that the 

flexibility for responding contained in 

the proposed guidelines would give the 

Commission the ‘‘discretion to extend 

forever any final action’’ and was 

contrary to the requirement of the 

Information Quality Act that requesters 

be able to ‘‘seek and obtain’’ correction 

of information that does not comply 

with the Act or the Commission’s 

guidelines. The Center recommended 

that the Commission establish a strict 

60-day time limit for initial decisions 

and a 30-day time limit for decisions on 

appeals. 

By including some degree of 

flexibility in the draft guidelines as to 

when it responds to initial requests and 

appeals, the Commission did not intend 

to suggest that it could extend action 

indefinitely. In most instances, the 

Commission believes that it will be able 

to respond to requests and appeals 

within the timeframes specified in the 

proposed guidelines—60 days for initial 

requests and 60 days for appeals. In any 

case in which the initial decision is 

extended beyond 60 days, the 

Commission would specify an estimated 

response date. The Commission 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 

continues to believe that some 

flexibility is appropriate to allow the 

Commission time to consider and 

respond to complex requests or to 

follow the review procedures set forth 

in the guidelines, which may include 

review by members of the Commission’s 

Committee of Scientific Advisors on 

Marine Mammals, who serve on a parttime basis, or by outside experts. To 

provide a thorough and objective review 

of information correction requests, there 

may be instances when more time is 

needed, particularly if the review 

requires specialized scientific 

knowledge and/or is pending when 

those with the necessary expertise are 

not available (e.g., during a researcher’s 

field season). The situation may be 

exacerbated in the case of appeals, 

because the pool of potential reviewers 

would be further limited because the 

responsible official would need to be 

someone not materially involved in 

reviewing the initial request. 

Because of these considerations, the 

Commission declines to adopt the 

commenter’s request that strict 

deadlines be established in all cases. 

Nevertheless, the Commission has 

amended the guidelines in several ways 

to address the Center’s concerns. The 

guidelines have been revised to indicate 

that the Commission’s goal is to provide 

a decision on each request for correction 

within 60 days. In the event that 

resolving a request requires more time, 

the Commission will notify the 

requester, explaining the reasons that 

more time is needed and providing an 

estimated decision date. Similar notice 

and explanation requirements have been 

added to the appeals section of the 

guidelines. 

Definitions 

The following definitions, which are 

consistent with the definitions included 

in the directive published by OMB on 

22 February 2002, are used in and apply 

to the Marine Mammal Commission’s 

guidelines— 

1. ‘‘Affected’’ persons are those who 

use, may benefit from, or may be 

harmed by the disseminated 

information. 

2. ‘‘Dissemination’’ means agencyinitiated or sponsored distribution of 

information to the public. 

Dissemination does not include the 

distribution of information limited to 

government employees or agency 

contractors or grantees; intra- or interagency use of or sharing of government 

information; and responses to requests 

for agency records under the Freedom of 

Information Act, the Privacy Act, the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, or 

other similar law. This definition also 

does not include distribution limited to 

correspondence with individuals or 

persons, press releases, archival records, 

public filings, subpoenas, or 

adjudicative processes. 

3. ‘‘Influential,’’ when used in the 

phrase ‘‘influential scientific, financial, 

or statistical information,’’ means that 

the agency can reasonably determine 

that dissemination of the information 

will have or does have a clear and 

substantial impact on important public 

policy and private sector decisions. 

4. ‘‘Information’’ means any 

communication or representation of 

facts or data in any medium or form 

including textual, numerical, 

cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual. 

5. ‘‘Integrity’’ refers to security—the 

protection of information from 

unauthorized access or revision—to 

ensure that the information is not 

compromised through corruption or 

falsification. 

6. ‘‘Objectivity’’ is a measure of 

whether disseminated information is 

accurate, reliable, and unbiased and 

whether that information is presented in 

an accurate, clear, complete, and 

unbiased manner. 

7. ‘‘Person’’ means an individual, 

partnership, association, corporation, 

business trust, or legal representative, 

an organized group of individuals, a 

regional, national, state, territorial, 

tribal, or local government or branch, or 

a political subdivision of a state, 

territory, tribal, or local government, or 

a branch of a political subdivision, or an 

international organization. 

8. ‘‘Quality’’ encompasses the 

‘‘utility,’’ ‘‘objectivity,’’ and ‘‘integrity’’ 

of disseminated information. Thus, the 

government-wide guidelines and the 

Commission’s guidelines may refer to 

these statutory terms collectively as 

‘‘quality.’’ 

9. ‘‘Reproducibility’’ means that the 

information is capable of being 

substantially reproduced, subject to an 

acceptable degree of imprecision. For 

information judged to be more or less 

influential, the degree of imprecision 

that is tolerated will be reduced or 

increased accordingly. With respect to 

analytic results, ‘‘capable of being 

substantially reproduced’’ means that 

independent analysis of the original or 

supporting data using identical methods 

would generate similar analytic results, 

subject to an acceptable degree of 

imprecision or error. 

10. ‘‘Transparency’’ refers to a clear 

description of the methods, data 

sources, assumptions, outcomes, and 

related information that will allow a 

data user to understand how the 

information product was designed or 

produced. 

11. ‘‘Utility’’ refers to the usefulness 

of the information to the Commission, 

other federal agencies, and other 

intended users, including the public. 

Scope of the Guidelines 

Information Disseminated and 

Covered by These Guidelines: Subject to 

the exceptions noted below, all 

information disseminated by the agency 

is subject to these guidelines. This 

includes Commission reports and 

recommendations provided to other 

agencies, and postings to the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Information Not Covered by These 

Guidelines: The following information 

and communications are not covered by 

the applicable data quality requirements 

and not subject to these guidelines— 

• Information for which distribution 

is intended to be limited to government 

employees or agency contractors or 

grantees. 

• Information for which distribution 

or sharing is intended to be limited to 

intra- or inter-agency use. 

• Responses to requests for agency 

records under the Freedom of 

Information Act, the Privacy Act, the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, or 

other similar law. 

• Information relating solely to 

correspondence with individuals or 

persons. 

• Press releases, fact sheets, press 

conferences, or similar communications 

in any medium that announce, support 

the announcement of, or give public 

notice of information that the 

Commission has disseminated 

elsewhere. 

• Archival records, including library 

holdings. 

• Archival information disseminated 

by the Commission before October 1, 

2002, and still maintained as archival 

material. 

• Public filings. 

• Subpoenas. 

• Information limited to adjudicative 

processes, such as pleadings, including 

information developed during the 

conduct of any criminal or civil action 

or administrative enforcement action, 

investigation, or audit against specific 

parties, or information distributed in 

documents limited to administrative 

action determining the rights and 

liabilities of specific parties under 

applicable statutes and regulations. 

• Solicitations (e.g., program 

announcements and requests for 

proposals). 

• Hyperlinks to information that 

another person disseminates, as well as 

paper-based information from other 

sources referenced, but not approved or 

endorsed by the Commission. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 51063 

• Policy manuals and management 

information produced for the internal 

management and operations of the 

Commission and not primarily intended 

for public dissemination. 

• Information presented to Congress 

as part of legislative or oversight 

processes, such as testimony of 

Commission officials, and information 

or drafting assistance provided to 

Congress in connection with proposed 

or pending legislation, that is not 

simultaneously disseminated to the 

public. (However, information that 

would otherwise be covered by 

applicable guidelines is not exempted 

from compliance merely because it is 

also presented to Congress.) 

• Documents not authored by the 

Commission and not intended to 

represent the Commission’s views, 

including information authored and 

distributed by Commission grantees, as 

long as the documents are not 

disseminated by the Commission (see 

definition of ‘‘dissemination’’). 

• Research data, findings, reports and 

other materials published or otherwise 

distributed by employees or by 

Commission contractors or grantees that 

are identified as not representing the 

Commission’s views. 

• Opinions where the presentation 

makes it clear that what is being offered 

is not the official view of the 

Commission. 

Information Quality Standards and PreDissemination Review 

The Marine Mammal Commission 

remains committed to ensuring the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of the information it disseminates. To 

meet this objective, the Commission has 

established various pre-dissemination 

review procedures. The applicable 

review procedures vary depending on 

the type of information being 

disseminated and the extent to which 

such information is considered 

influential. 

All reports disseminated by the 

Commission undergo multiple levels of 

review by knowledgeable individuals 

prior to publication to ensure that the 

information each report contains is of a 

high quality and supports the 

conclusions reached. In addition to the 

report drafters, reviewers generally 

include other staff members, members 

of the Commission’s Committee of 

Scientific Advisors on Marine 

Mammals, and the Commissioners. 

When appropriate, Commission reports 

also are provided to other agencies, 

experts outside the federal government, 

and stakeholders in the relevant issue 

for review prior to publication. 

Section 203 (c) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1403(c)) 

requires the Commission to consult with 

its Committee of Scientific Advisors on 

Marine Mammals ‘‘on all studies and 

recommendations which it may propose 

to make or has made, on research 

programs conducted or proposed to be 

conducted [by the Commission], and on 

all applications for scientific permits.’’ 

The Committee of Scientific Advisors 

consists of nine scientists 

‘‘knowledgeable in marine ecology and 

marine mammal affairs’’ appointed by 

the Chairman of the Commission after 

consulting with the Chairman of the 

Council on Environmental Quality, the 

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 

the Director of the National Science 

Foundation, and the Chairman of the 

National Academy of Sciences. This 

appointment process helps to ensure 

that the Commission has ready access to 

a panel of knowledgeable experts in 

matters related to marine mammals and 

marine science, including members 

from the academic community and 

elsewhere outside of government. By 

submitting all agency recommendations 

and research programs to the Committee 

for review prior to adoption or 

dissemination, the Commission not only 

obtains policy advice, but has, in 

essence, a standing peer-review body to 

vet the quality of the information on 

which Commission recommendations 

are based before it is disseminated. 

Information posted on the 

Commission’s Web site consists largely 

of Commission reports and 

recommendations. These documents 

already have been subjected to extensive 

review prior to being disseminated. 

Other information also may be posted 

on the Web site, including information 

on marine mammal species and issues 

of special concern. As with other 

materials disseminated by the 

Commission, and as appropriate, such 

information is vetted by Commission 

staff, members of the Committee of 

Scientific Advisors on Marine 

Mammals, the Commissioners, and 

outside experts prior to posting. 

In exigent circumstances (e.g., when 

responding to emergencies such as oil 

spills or unusual mortality events that 

pose a risk to natural resources), it may 

not be possible for the Commission to 

provide full review of information prior 

to dissemination. In such cases, the 

Commissioners, the Commission’s 

Executive Director, or the Commission’s 

General Counsel may waive temporarily 

the information quality standards 

applicable to the dissemination of 

information. To the extent practicable, 

the Commission will provide public 

notice of any such waiver, explaining 

the reason for the waiver, identifying 

the official responsible for issuing the 

waiver, and indicating the expected 

duration of the waiver. To the extent 

practicable, full review of information 

disseminated under a waiver will be 

conducted after release of that 

information and revisions will be made 

as appropriate. 

Information Integrity 

The Commission maintains and posts 

material to its Web site through a 

contract. The contractor is responsible 

for, and has instituted safeguards and 

security measures to protect, the 

integrity of the information that it posts 

to the Commission’s Web site. 

Administrative Process for Correction 

of Information 

Overview: Any affected person (see 

definition above) may request, where 

appropriate, timely correction of 

disseminated information that does not 

comply with applicable information 

quality guidelines. The burden of proof 

is on the requester to show both the 

necessity for and type of correction 

sought. 

Procedures for Submission of Initial 

Requests for Correction: An initial 

request for correction of disseminated 

information must be made in writing 

and submitted to: General Counsel, 

Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 

East-West Highway, Room 700, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, and marked to 

indicate that it is an information 

correction request. Any request for 

correction must include— 

1. A description of the facts or data 

the requester seeks to have corrected; 

2. An explanation of how the 

requester is an affected person with 

respect to the disputed facts or data; 

3. The factual basis for believing the 

facts or data sought to be corrected are 

inconsistent with Commission or OMB 

information guidelines; 

4. A proposed resolution, including 

the factual basis for believing the facts 

or data in the requester’s proposed 

resolution are correct; 

5. The consequences of not adopting 

the proposed resolution; and 

6. The requester’s contact 

information, including name, address, 

daytime Telephone number, and e-mail 

address. 

No initial request for correction will be 

considered under these procedures if 

the request concerns— 

1. A matter not involving information 

as defined in these guidelines; 

2. Information that has not been 

disseminated as defined in these 

guidelines; 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 

3. Disseminated information, the 

correction of which would serve no 

useful purpose; or 

4. Requests that are deemed to be 

duplicative, repetitious, or frivolous. 

If the Commission determines that any 

of these exceptions apply, the 

responsible official will return the 

request to the person who submitted it, 

indicating that further action on the 

request will not be taken, identifying the 

applicable exception or exceptions, and 

explaining the basis for applying each of 

those exceptions in that particular 

instance. 

The Commission’s goal is to provide 

a final decision on every properly filed 

request for correction within 60 days of 

receipt. If a request requires more than 

60 days to resolve, the Commission will 

advise the requester that more time is 

needed, along with an explanation of 

the reason or reasons that more time is 

needed and an estimated decision date. 

Action by the Responsible Official on 

Initial Requests for Correction: Upon 

receipt of a properly filed request, the 

responsible official will make a 

preliminary determination as to whether 

the request reasonably demonstrates, on 

the strength of the assertions made in 

the request alone, and assuming they are 

true and correct, that the information 

disseminated was based on a 

misapplication or non-application of the 

Commission’s applicable information 

quality standards. The responsible 

official will communicate his or her 

initial determination concerning the 

sufficiency of a request, and otherwise 

specify the status of the request to the 

requester, usually within 30 days of 

receipt. A final determination that a 

request does not state a proper claim 

will be communicated, along with an 

explanation of the deficiencies, to the 

requester, usually within 60 days of 

receipt. The requester may correct the 

deficiencies, otherwise amend, and 

resubmit the request. 

If the responsible official 

preliminarily determines that a properly 

filed request indicates that there may be 

a valid claim, the Commission will 

institute an objective review process to 

investigate and analyze relevant 

material in a manner consistent with 

established internal procedures to 

determine whether the disseminated 

information complies with the 

Commission’s information quality 

standards. During such a review the 

Commission may consult with members 

of its Committee of Scientific Advisors 

on Marine Mammals or outside experts 

to obtain their views on the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of the 

disputed information. After considering 

the record as a whole, the responsible 

official will make an initial decision as 

to whether the information should be 

corrected and what, if any, corrective 

action should be taken. At its discretion, 

the Commission may provide the 

requester with an opportunity to discuss 

the request with the responsible official 

or other reviewers. 

If the Commission determines that 

corrective action is appropriate, 

corrective measures may be taken 

through a number of forms, including, 

but not limited to, personal contacts via 

letter or telephone, form letters, press 

releases, postings on an appropriate 

Web site, or withdrawal or amendment 

of the information in question. The form 

of corrective action will be determined 

by the nature and timeliness of the 

information involved and such factors 

as the significance of the error, the use 

or anticipated use of the information, 

and the magnitude of the error. 

The responsible official will 

communicate his or her decision or 

indicate the status of the request to the 

requester, usually within 60 days of 

receipt of the request. That 

communication will specify the 

agency’s initial decision, the basis for 

that decision, and whether, and, if so, 

what corrective action has been or will 

be taken. In addition, an initial decision 

will indicate the name and title of the 

official responsible for making the 

decision, a notice that the requester may 

appeal an initial denial within 30 days 

of that denial, and the name and title of 

the official to whom an appeal may be 

submitted. An initial denial will become 

a final agency decision if no appeal is 

filed within 30 days of that denial. 

Appeal From an Initial Denial: An 

appeal of an initial denial must be filed 

within 30 days of the date of the initial 

decision. Any such appeal must be in 

writing and addressed to the official 

identified in the initial decision. An 

appeal of an initial denial must include: 

1. The requester’s name, current home 

or business address, and telephone 

number or e-mail address (in order to 

ensure timely communication); 

2. A copy of the original request and 

any correspondence regarding the initial 

denial; and 

3. A statement of the reasons why the 

requester believes the initial denial to be 

in error. 

The official responsible for 

considering an appeal will be a 

Commissioner or a senior staff member 

who was not materially involved in 

reviewing the initial request or in 

making the initial decision. A decision 

concerning the appeal will be based on 

the entirety of the information in the 

appeal record. Generally, no 

opportunity for a personal appearance, 

oral argument, or hearing concerning 

the appeal will be provided; however, at 

his or her discretion, the official 

responsible for considering the appeal 

may discuss the request with the 

appellant. The official responsible for 

considering the appeal will make every 

effort to make and communicate his or 

her decision to the requester within 60 

calendar days of receipt of the appeal. 

In the event that more time is needed, 

the responsible official will inform the 

appellant and provide an explanation of 

the reason or reasons that more time is 

needed, along with an estimated 

decision date. 

Reporting Requirements 

The Commission will submit an 

annual report to OMB by 1 January of 

each year specifying the number and 

type of correction requests received 

during the previous year and how any 

such requests were resolved. These 

reports will explain the Commission’s 

practices for responding to such 

requests, including those that fit within 

the scope of any of the exceptions under 

which a request was not considered. 

The Commission will submit its initial 

report in the first reporting cycle 

following adoption of final guidelines. 

Dated: August 11, 2011. 

Timothy J. Ragen, 

Executive Director, Marine Mammal 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20915 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

National Science Board; Sunshine Act 

Meetings; Notice 

The National Science Board (NSB) 

Committee on Audit and Oversight and 

the NSB Committee on Strategy and 

Budget, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 

CFR part 614), the National Science 

Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

1862n–5), and the Government in the 

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby 

gives notice in regard to the scheduling 

of meetings for the transaction of NSB 

business and other matters specified, as 

follows: 

DATE AND TIME: Monday, August 29, 

2011 at 4 p.m.–5 p.m., E.D.T. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Review, discussion 

and recommendation of the NSF FY 

2013 budget. 

STATUS: Closed. 

This meeting will be held by 

teleconference originating at the 

National Science Board Office, National 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES