U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 515 OF THE TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 

By notice published in the Federal Register, 67 FR 8452, dated February 22, 2002, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) directed Federal agencies to issue and implement guidelines to 

ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of Government information 

disseminated to the public. The Department of the Interior is issuing these Information Quality 

Guidelines in order to: 1) ensure high quality information is generated, used, and disseminated at 

the Department of the Interior; and 2) comply with this direction. This document is the basis for 

Departmental policy. Bureaus and appropriate offices have published their final guidance prior 

to the statutory compliance date. For further information, contact the Chief Information Officer, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202-208-6051. Fax: 202-

501-2360. 

I. Background. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, its offices, its eight component bureaus and the National 

Invasive Species Council (Department) disseminate a wide variety of information to the public 

regarding the nation’s Federal lands, national parks and wildlife refuges, natural resources, 

geography, hydrology, and wildlife and fisheries. Information may pertain to organization, 

management, program services, products, research, statistics, policy regulations, and general 

reference information. The Department has evaluated and identified the types of information it 

disseminates subject to these guidelines. 

II. Information Quality Standards. 

All information disseminated by the Department must comply with basic standards of quality to 

ensure and maximize its objectivity, utility, and integrity. The Department will ensure that 

information disseminated will be developed from reliable methods and data sources and will 

otherwise ensure information quality at each stage of information development. The 

Department’s methods for producing quality information will be made transparent, to the 

maximum extent practicable, through accurate documentation, use of appropriate internal and 

external review procedures, consultation with experts and users, and verification of its quality. 

The Department will also inform users about corrections and revisions. Information released by 

the Department will be developed only from reliable data sources based on accepted practices 

and policies, utilizing accepted methods for information collection and verification. It will be 

reproducible to the extent possible. Influential information will be produced with a high degree 

of transparency about data and methods. 

1 
Analytic results shall generally require sufficient transparency about data and methodology that 

an independent reanalysis could be undertaken by a qualified member of the public resulting in 

substantially the same results. 

 1. The Department will keep the public informed by publishing timely information about 

information quality on designated web pages. Specifically, the Department will establish an 

information quality site on its website. The purpose of the information quality site is to inform

the public about the Department’s information quality practices and procedures. The 

information quality site will include, at a minimum, access to the Department’s information 

quality guidelines and a reader-friendly explanation of the Department’s procedures regarding 

requests for correction, including an explanation of how a person may file a request and 

subsequently, if necessary, an administrative appeal of the response to the request for correction. 

 The information quality site may contain other types of information, such as a description of 

significant corrections that the Department has made as a result of the correction procedures. 

The Department will determine the content of this information page based on its mission, 

activities subject to the guidelines, and the expected level of interest by the public.

2. Making data and methodology publicly available will assist in determining whether 

analytic results are reproducible. However, the objectivity standard does not override other 

compelling interests such as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality 

protections established by law. 

3. In situations where the public will not be provided full access to the data or 

methodology, the Department shall apply and document especially rigorous robustness checks. 

In all cases, Departmental guidelines require a disclosure of the specific data sources used and 

the specific quantitative methods and assumptions employed. 

4. The Department develops some of the information it disseminates through scientific 

activities conducted by personnel in consultation with and under contract to the Department. In 

instances in which Department personnel have developed the disseminated information, that 

information will be developed under strict scientific standards that ensure its quality and 

integrity. The Department shall also apply its information quality standards to non-Departmental 

parties who are developing scientific and technical information on its behalf. 

With respect to influential scientific information disseminated by the Department, regarding 

analysis of risks to human health, safety, and the environment, the Department will ensure to the 

extent practicable, the objectivity of this information by adapting the quality principles found in 

the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. The Department will: 

(a) Use the best available science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with 

sound and objective scientific practices, including peer-reviewed studies where available. 

(b) Use data collected by standard and accepted methods or best available methods (if the 

reliability of the method and the nature of the decision justifies the use of the data). 

2 
(c) In the dissemination of influential scientific information about risks, ensure that the 

 presentation of information is as comprehensive as possible, informative, and 

understandable. In a document made available to the public, specify, to the extent 

practicable: 

 (i) Each population addressed by any estimate of applicable effects 

 (ii) The expected risk or central estimate of risk for the specific populations affected 

 (iii) Each appropriate upper bound or lower-bound estimate of risk 

 (iv) Each significant uncertainty identified in the process of the risk assessment and 

studies that would assist in reducing the uncertainty 

 (v) Any additional studies, including peer-reviewed studies, known to the Department 

that support, are directly relevant to, or fail to support the findings of the 

assessment and the methodology used to reconcile inconsistencies in the scientific 

data. 

5. In the case of rulemakings and other public comment procedures, where the agency 

disseminates a study, analysis, or other information prior to the final Departmental action or 

information dissemination, requests for correction will be considered prior to the final agency 

action or information dissemination in those cases where the agency has determined that an 

earlier response would not unduly delay issuance of the agency action or information product 

and the complainant has shown a reasonable likelihood of suffering actual harm from the 

agency’s dissemination if the agency does not resolve the complaint prior to the final agency 

action or information product. 

Before disseminating information to members of the public, the originating office within the 

Department must ensure that the information is consistent with the OMB, Departmental, and 

bureau or office guidelines and must determine that the information is of adequate quality for 

dissemination and maintain an administrative record of review procedures. If the information is 

influential, the Department will provide for more rigorous review of the conclusions than the 

review performed by the originating office. Each Department component must identify for the 

Department’s Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget a designated official who is 

 accountable for information quality. 

The information quality definitions published by OMB as set forth in Section IV below are 

adopted by the Department as its performance standard for Information Quality.

III. Information Quality Challenge and Review Procedures. 

Due to mission-related information differences, the Department’s bureaus, offices, and the 

National Invasive Species Council may vary in implementation approaches to information quality 

challenges and review procedures. However, the Department hereby adopts and includes in 

Departmental policy the basic guidance published by OMB in the Federal Register 67 FR 8452, 

February 22. 

3 
The OMB guidelines require that, after October 1, 2002, affected persons may seek and obtain, 

where appropriate, correction of disseminated information that does not comply with the OMB, 

Departmental, or bureau guidelines. As a responsible agency, the Department must provide 

procedures to review and correct disseminated information. Each bureau or office of the 

Department which disseminates information has established a system for receiving, tracking and 

responding to complaints in accordance with this direction. As a part of this process, web sites 

have been provided as a means for affected persons to challenge the quality of disseminated 

information. Bureaus and offices have also provided postal addresses of appropriate officials to 

contact through the mail to challenge the quality of disseminated information. 

A challenge to the quality of disseminated information must contain the following information: 

1. Specific reference to the information being challenged 

2. A statement specifying why the complainant believes the information fails to satisfy

the standards in the Departmental or OMB guidelines 

3. How a complainant is affected by the challenged information. The complainant may 

include suggestions for correcting the challenged information, but that is not mandatory. 

4. The name and address of response of the person filing the complaint. This information 

is used at the complainant’s request for the purpose of responding to the challenge initiated by the 

individual. 

Upon receiving a complaint, the Department will have 10 business days in which to notify the 

complainant of receipt. The Department shall also notify its component which disseminated the 

challenged information of the receipt of the complaint. The Department will have 60 calendar 

days from receipt to evaluate whether the complaint is substantiated by analysis of all information 

available to the appropriate program or office. After 60 calendar days, if the Department 

determines that the complaint is without merit, the complainant will be so notified. After 60 

calendar days, the Department determines that the complaint has merit, it shall so notify the 

complainant, the appropriate program or office, and it shall take reasonable steps to withdraw the 

information from the public domain and from any decision making process in which it is being 

used. If the Department determines that it will correct challenged information, it will notify the 

complainant of its intent and the corrective steps it proposes. The Department may determine the 

schedule and procedure for correcting challenged information, but may not disseminate the 

challenged information in any form until it has been corrected. Upon redisseminating corrected 

information, the Department will provide the complainant with a copy of the corrected 

information. 

If a complainant does not receive the notices within the time frame described above, or wishes to 

appeal a determination of merit, or wishes to appeal the proposed correction of information, the 

complainant may appeal to the Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget (PMB), or

other designated official. PMB may intervene on behalf of the complainant to maintain the 

complaint-resolution process. If PMB determines that an appeal of a determination of merit or 

the proposed correction of information has merit, the affected bureau or office will be notified. 

4 
The challenged information will be withdrawn, to the extent practicable, from the public domain 

and will not be used in any Departmental, bureau, or office decision making process until it is 

corrected. 

If a second identical complaint or very similar complaint is received before the end of the 60 

calendar day period complaint-resolution process, the second complaint will be resolved on the 

same schedule as the first complaint. Within 10 business days, the complainant will be notified 

of receipt of the complaint, the fact that an identical complaint has also been received, and the 

status of the complaint-resolution process on the first complaint. If an identical complaint is 

received after the close of the 60 calendar day complaint resolution process, within 10 business 

days the Department will notify the complainant of receipt of the complaint, the fact that an 

identical complaint has been received and resolved, and a copy of the corrected information. 

With regard to challenges of information received by the Inspector General (OIG), The Inspector 

General Act of 1978 (IG Act), as amended will apply. The OIG will be under the general 

supervision of the Departmental guidelines, but shall not report to or be subject to supervision by 

the Department. The Assistant Inspector for the OIG component (Audits, Investigations or 

Program Integrity) will be responsible for reviewing information to be disseminated to the public. 

 The OIG CIO will receive, by mail or through the OIG web site, the original complaint/challenge 

of information, and will forward it to the Executive Assistant for the Inspector General to log in 

the correspondence. The complaint will be forwarded to the originating component responsible 

for the questioned information. The Assistant Inspector General for the respective component 

will be responsible for notifying the complainant of receipt of the original complaint within10 

business days, evaluating and responding to the complaint within 60 calendar days from receipt 

and for reporting to the Assistant Inspector General for Management and Policy a determination 

on how the original complaint will be addressed. The Assistant Inspector General for 

Management and Policy will make determinations on appeals and compile the data for the annual 

reporting requirement. An informational copy of any responses to appeals will be provided to the 

CIO and AS/PMB. 

The Department conducts a substantial amount of business through processes which involve a 

structured opportunity for public review and comment on proposed documents prior to their 

issuance in final form. These activities include but are not limited to, rulemakings and analyses 

conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . In these instances, requests 

made under these Information Quality Guidelines for corrections of information in draft 

documents will be treated as a comment on the draft document and the response will be included 

in the final document. In the cases where a request pertains to a final document under the 

timetable for the foundation document (unless it would be more timely and efficient to conduct a 

separate review and conclusion), the Department’s disseminating bureau or office and the NISC 

will first determine whether the request pertains to an issue discussed in the draft document upon 

which the requester could have commented. If the bureau or office determines that the requester 

had the opportunity to comment on the issue at the draft stage and failed to do so, it may consider 

the request to have no merit. If information which did not appear in the draft document is the 

5 
subject of a request for correction, the bureau will consider that request. If the bureau determines 

that the information does not comply with the guidelines issued by the Department, bureau, office, 

or OMB, such that the non-compliance with the guidelines presents significant new circumstances 

or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its 

impacts, the bureau will use existing mechanisms to remedy the situation, such as reproposing a 

rule or supplementing a NEPA analysis. 

The Department’s bureaus, offices, and the NISC shall submit a report for each fiscal year not later 

than November 30 to the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). OCIO staff will 

consolidate Departmental, bureau, office, and NISC input and submit it in the Department’s 

annual report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, no later than January 1 annually. 

IV. Exemptions - Information Specifically Not Subject to these Information Quality Guidelines 

1. Press Releases - These Information Quality Guidelines do not apply to press releases, fact 

sheets, press conferences or similar communications in any medium that announce, support the 

announcement, or give public notice of information DOI has disseminated elsewhere. 

2. Public Filings - Information in public filings to the Department (such as public comments 

received by the Department in rulemaking proceedings), except where the Department distributes 

information submitted by a third party in a manner that suggests that the Department endorses or 

adopts the information, or indicates in its distribution that it is using or proposing to use the 

information to formulate or support a regulation, guidance, or other Departmental decision or 

position. 

3. Exclusion for Agency Employed Scientist, Grantee, or Contractor - Dissemination of 

information by an agency-employed scientist, grantee, or contractor is not subject to the 

guidelines, in those situations in which they publish and communicate their research findings in 

the same manner as their academic colleagues, therefore not implying official Departmental 

endorsement of their views or findings. 

4. Testimony and Other Submissions to Congress. Information presented or submitted to 

Congress which is simultaneously disseminated or previously disseminated to the public is exempt 

from these Information Quality Guidelines. 

5. Inadvertent or Unauthorized Disclosure of Information intended Only for Inter-agency and 

Intra-agency Use or Communication. Documents in working form which are generated in dayto-day internal conduct of government business are exempt from these Information Quality 

Guidelines. 

6. Correspondence with Individuals. An exchange of information between two individuals is not 

considered to be a dissemination. 

6 
7. Records Covered by Other Laws. Responses to requests for Departmental records under the 

Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or similar 

laws are not included in these Information Quality Guidelines. 

8. Archived Records and Information Disseminated Prior to October 1, 2002. Archived records 

of information disseminated and subsequently archived are exempt from the Guidelines. Note: 

Information disseminated prior to October 1, 2002, but not archived and which is still being used 

in a decision making process is not exempt from these Information Quality Guidelines.

9. Adjudicative Proceedings. Information contained in subpoenas or documents intended to be 

limited to adjudicative proceedings, including DOI adjudicatory orders, opinions, amicus and other 

briefs are exempt from these guidelines. 

Effective Date: As provided in OMB’s guidelines, these Guidelines apply only to information 

disseminated on or after October 1, 2002, regardless of when the information was first 

disseminated, with the exception described in Section IV (8). 

V. Third Party Information Under the Information Quality Guidelines. 

If the Department relies upon technical, scientific, or economic information submitted or 

developed by a third party, that information is subject to the appropriate standards of objectivity 

and utility. The standards of these Information Quality Guidelines apply not only to information 

that the Department generates, but also to information which can be verified that other parties 

provide to the Department, if the Department disseminates or relies upon this information. In 

instances where the information is relied upon but is not verifiable, the source must be made 

transparent to the public, and such original information will not be subject to these Information 

Quality Guidelines. 

Departmental personnel who conduct scientific activities shall be held accountable for the integrity 

of the information they collect and analyze, and the conclusions they present.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act.

Departmental components will make use of OMB’s Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance 

process to help improve the quality of information that DOI collects and disseminates to the 

public. All proposed collections of information that are disseminated to the public should 

demonstrate in their PRA clearance submissions to OMB that the proposed collection of 

information will result in information that will be collected, maintained, and used in a way 

consistent with Departmental and OMB Information Quality Guidelines. 

7 
VII. Definitions.

Definitions published by OMB are incorporated into Departmental policy, and are considered to be 

the performance standard for Information Quality. 

1. Quality is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity. 

Therefore, the Information Quality Guidelines sometimes refer to these four statutory terms 

collectively as quality. 

2. Utility refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the 

public. In assessing the usefulness of information that the Department disseminates to the public, 

the agency needs to reconsider the uses the information not only from perspective of the 

Department but also from the perspective of the public. As a result, when transparency of 

information is relevant for assessing the information’s usefulness from the public’s perspective, 

the Department must take care to ensure that transparency has been addressed in its review of the 

information. 

3. Objectivity involves two distinct elements: presentations and substance: 

 (a) Objectivity includes whether disseminated information is being presented in an 

accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner. This involves whether the information is 

presented within a proper context. Sometimes, in disseminating certain types of information to the 

public, other information must also be disseminated in order to ensure an accurate, clear, complete, 

and unbiased presentation. Also, the Department, its bureaus, and the NISC need to identify the 

sources of the disseminated information (to the extent possible, consistent with confidentiality 

protections) and, in a specific, financial, or statistical context, the supporting data and models, so 

that the public can assess for itself whether there may be some reason to question the objectivity of 

the sources. Where appropriate, transparent documentation, and error sources affecting data 

quality should be identified and disclosed to users. 

(b) In addition, objectivity involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased 

information. In a scientific, financial, or statistical context, the original and supporting data shall 

be generated, and the analytic results shall be developed, using sound statistical and research 

methods. 

(i) If data and analytic results have been subjected to formal, independent, external 

 peer review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable objectivity. 

However, this presumption is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing by the petitioner in a 

particular instance. If peer review is employed to help satisfy the objectivity standard, the review 

process employed shall meet the general criteria for competent and credible peer review 

recommended by OMB-OIRA to the President’s Management Council (9/20/01) 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/oira_review-process.html), namely, “that (a) peer 

reviewers be selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, (b) peer reviewers be 

expected to disclose to the Department prior technical/policy positions they may have taken on the 

8 
issues at hand, (c) peer reviewers be expected to disclose to the Department their sources of 

personal and institutional funding (private or public sector) and (d) peer reviews be conducted in 

an open and vigorous manner.” 

(ii) If the Department is responsible for disseminating influential scientific, 

financial, or statistical information, Departmental guidelines shall include a high 

degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility of 

such information by qualified third parties. 

Original and supporting data must be subject to commonly accepted, scientific, financial, or 

statistical standards related thereto. However, Departmental Information Quality Guidelines shall 

not require that all disseminated data be subjected to a reproducibility requirement. The 

Department may identify, in consultation with the relevant scientific and technical communities, 

those particular types of data that can practically be subjected to a reproducibility requirement, 

given ethical, feasibility, or confidentiality constraints. It is understood that reproducibility of data 

is an indication of transparency about research design and methods and thus a replication exercise 

(i.e. a new experiment, test of sample) shall not be required prior to each dissemination. 

With regard to analytical results related thereto, Department Information Quality Guidelines shall 

generally require sufficient transparency about data and methods that an independent reanalysis 

could be undertaken by a qualified member of the public. These transparency standards apply to 

Departmental analysis of data from a single study as well as to analyses that combine information 

from multiple studies. 

Making the data and methods publicly available will assist in determining whether analytic results 

are reproducible. However, the objectivity standard does not override other compelling interests 

such as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections. 

In situations where public access to methods and data cannot occur due to other compelling 

interests the Department, its bureaus and offices, and the NISC shall apply especially rigorous 

robustness checks to analytical results. The nature of these checks shall be documented. The 

Department shall require in all cases the disclosure of the nature of the specific data bases used and 

the specific quantitative methods and assumptions that have been employed. Each bureau and 

office of the Department and the NISC may define the nature of its checks for robustness and the 

level of detail for their documentation, in ways appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity 

of issues for which the bureau or office is responsible. 

With regard to analysis of risks to human health, safety and the environment maintained or 

disseminated by the Department, the bureaus shall, as provided in Section II(4), adapt the quality 

principles applied by Congress to risk information used and disseminated pursuant to the Safe 

Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A) & (B)). Bureaus 

responsible for dissemination of vital health and medical information shall interpret the 

reproducibility and peer-review standards in a manner appropriate to assuring the timely flow of 

9 
vital information from DOI or its components to medical providers patients, health agencies, and 

the public. Information quality standards may be waived temporarily by bureaus or components 

under urgent situations (e.g., imminent threats to public health or homeland security) in 

accordance with the latitude specified in bureau-specific guidelines. 

4. Integrity refers to the protection of the information from unauthorized access or 

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

5. Information means any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or 

data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or 

audiovisual forms. This definition includes information that the Department disseminates from a 

web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks to information that others disseminate. 

This definition does not include opinions where Departmental presentation makes it clear that what 

is being offered is someone’s opinion rather than fact or the Department’s views. 

6. Government information means information created, collected, processed, 

disseminated, or disposed of by or for the Federal Government. 

7. Information dissemination product means any book, paper, map, machine-readable 

material, audiovisual production, CD-ROM, electronic document, web page, or other documentary 

material, regardless of physical form or characteristic, the Department disseminates to the public. 

8. Dissemination means Department-initiated or sponsored distribution of information to 

the public (see 5 CFR 1320.3(d) (definition of “Conduct or Sponsor”). Dissemination does not 

include distribution limited to: government employees or Department contractors or grantees; 

intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information; and responses to requests for 

agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act or other similar law. This definition also does not include distribution limited to: 

correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases, archival records, public filings, 

subpoenas or adjudicative processes. 

9. Influential, when used in the phrase “influential scientific, financial, or statistical 

information” means that the Department can reasonably determine that dissemination of the 

information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or 

important private sector decisions. The Department, including all offices and bureaus and the 

NISC, is authorized to define “influential” in ways appropriate for it, given the nature and 

multiplicity of issues for which the bureau or component is responsible. 

10. Reproducible means that the information is capable of being substantially reproduced, 

subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision. For information judged to have more (less) 

important impacts, the degree of imprecision that is tolerated is reduced (increased). If bureaus or 

components apply the reproducibility test to specific types of original or supporting data, the 

associated guidelines shall provide relevant definitions of reproducibility (e.g. standards for 

10 
replication of laboratory data). With respect to analytic results, capable of being substantially

reproduced means that independent analysis of the original or supporting data using identical 

methods would demonstrate whether similar analytic results, subject to an acceptable degree of 

imprecision or error, could be generated. 

V. Legal Effect.

These guidelines are intended only to improve the internal management of the Department, 

relating to information quality. Nothing in these Information Quality Guidelines is intended to 

create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party 

against the United States, its agencies, its offices, or any other person. 

 

11 
12