Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 68557 

studies and reports. Some of these 

studies and reports are required only 

once for each loan application; others 

must be submitted periodically until the 

loan is completely repaid. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 14 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Businesses or other for 

profits; not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

680. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 6. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 65,673. 

Copies of this information collection, 

and related form and instructions, can 

be obtained from Joyce McNeil, Program 

Development and Regulatory Analysis, 

at (202) 720–0812. FAX: (202) 720–8435. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated: November 29, 2007. 

James Andrew, 

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–23561 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Information Quality Guidelines 

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights. 

ACTION: Final Information Quality 

Guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) directed Federal 

agencies to make available on their Web 

sites guidelines that ensure and 

maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information 

(including statistical information) they 

disseminate. Federal agencies should 

also make available on their Web sites 

administrative mechanisms that allow 

affected persons to seek and obtain 

correction of information that the 

agency maintains and disseminated that 

does not comply with the guidelines. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

(Commission) now publishes the 

following guidelines covering predissemination information quality 

control and an administrative 

mechanism for requests for correction of 

information the Commission publicly 

disseminates. These guidelines were 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 24, 2006 at 71 FR 41762 and 

provided that the Commission would 

receive public comments through 

August 23, 2006 to be considered in the 

formulation of these final guidelines. No 

comments were received. OMB 

provided the Commission with 

suggested revisions, which the 

Commission used in preparing these 

final guidelines. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact David P. Blackwood, Esq., 

General Counsel, United States 

Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth 

Street, NW., Suite 620, Washington, DC 

20425, (202) 376–8351; Facsimile: (202) 

376–1163. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

response to the draft guidelines, the 

Commission received suggested 

revisions from OMB. The Commission 

changed the draft guidelines to address 

these suggestions as follows: 

1. Commission-sponsored testimony 

of Commission officials is now subject 

to the guidelines if it contains 

information not previously 

disseminated by the agency. 

2. Statements reasonably expected to 

become the subject of litigation or other 

dispute resolution proceedings are now 

not automatically outside the scope of 

the guidelines. 

3. Petitions for correction of 

information must now describe the 

specific corrective action sought. 

4. The Commission’s corrective 

actions may now take a number of forms 

and not simply the issuance of an errata 

page. 

5. Postings of the quality information 

requests to the Commission’s Web site 

now include: a copy of the requests to 

seek and obtain correction of 

information, the Commission’s formal 

response(s), and any communications 

regarding appeals. 

All other OMB suggested changes that 

were accepted by the Commission were 

non-substantive (i.e., typographical or 

grammatical) in nature. 

The Commission also substituted the 

e-mail address provided in Section 

VII.02(c) of the draft guidelines with 

qualityinfo@usccr.gov and corrected 

section references to Administrative 

Instruction 1–6, National Project 

Development and Implementation. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

summary, the Commission proposes to 

issue these guidelines pursuant to 

Section 515 of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. 3502(1), et seq.). 

Dated: November 29, 2007. 

David P. Blackwood, 

General Counsel, United States Commission 

on Civil Rights. 

Section I. The U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights’ Mission and Mandate 

.01 The Commission is an 

independent, bipartisan, fact-finding 

Federal agency of the executive branch 

established under the Civil Rights Act of 

1957 to monitor and report on the status 

of civil rights in the nation. As the 

nation’s conscience on matters of civil 

rights, the Commission strives to keep 

the President, Congress, and the public 

informed about civil rights issues that 

deserve concerted attention. 

.02 The Commission is mandated to: 

(a) Investigate complaints alleging 

that citizens are being deprived of their 

right to vote by reason of their race, 

color, religion, sex, age, disability, or 

national origin, or by reason of 

fraudulent practices; 

(b) Study and collect information 

relating to discrimination or a denial of 

equal protection of the laws under the 

Constitution because of race, color, 

religion, sex, age, disability, or national 

origin, or in the administration of 

justice; 

(c) Appraise Federal laws and policies 

with respect to discrimination or denial 

of equal protection of the laws because 

of race, color, religion, sex, age, 

disability, or national origin, or in the 

administration of justice; 

(d) Serve as a national clearinghouse 

for information in respect to 

discrimination or denial of equal 

protection of the laws because of race, 

color, religion, sex, age, disability, or 

national origin; 

(e) Submit reports, findings, and 

recommendations to the President and 

Congress; 

(f) Issue public service 

announcements to discourage 

discrimination or denial of equal 

protection of the laws. 

.03 The Commission’s National 

Office is in Washington, DC. Its six 

Regional Offices are located throughout 

the nation: 

(a) The Eastern Regional Office, 

Washington, DC; 

(b) Southern Regional Office, Atlanta, 

Georgia; 

(c) Midwestern Office, Chicago, 

Illinois; 

(d) Central Regional Office, Kansas 

City, Kansas; 

(e) Rocky Mountain Office, Denver, 

Colorado; and 

(f) Western Regional Office, Los 

Angeles, California. 

.04 State Advisory Committees 

(SACs) are established in each State and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

68558 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 

in Washington, DC. SACs advise the 

Commission on matters pertaining to 

discrimination or denials of equal 

protection of the laws because of race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

disability, or in the administration of 

justice. They also assist the Commission 

in its statutory obligation to serve as a 

national clearinghouse for information 

on those subjects. SACs present advice 

to the Commission in a variety of forms, 

including formal fact-finding reports 

and briefing memoranda. 

Section II. The Office of Management 

and Budget Governmentwide Guideline 

.01 Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriation Act 

for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554) 

directs OMB to issue to Federal agencies 

subject to the Paper Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 3502(1) et seq.) 

governmentwide guidelines that provide 

policy and procedural guidance for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of the 

information (including statistical 

information) that they disseminate. 

Specifically, the OMB guidelines direct 

agencies to: 

(a) Issue their own guidelines, 

consistent with governmentwide 

guidelines, to ensure and maximize the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of information (including statistical 

information) the agency disseminates; 

(b) Establish administrative 

mechanisms allowing affected persons 

to seek and obtain correction of 

information the agency maintains and 

disseminates that does not comply with 

OMB guidelines; and 

(c) Report annually to the OMB 

Director the number and nature of 

complaints the agency received 

regarding compliance with OMB 

guidelines on quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information and 

how such complaints were resolved. 

.02 The OMB guidelines offer three 

underlying principles. Agencies should 

ensure that the guidelines: 

(a) Are sufficiently flexible to be 

applied to a wide variety of information 

activities that range in importance and 

scope, and to fit all forms of media; 

(b) Meet basic information quality 

standards, although some information 

may require higher or more specific 

standards. Agencies should weigh the 

costs and benefits of higher information 

quality in the context of their mission, 

budget constraints, and timeliness in 

dissemination; and 

(c) Are applied in a common-sensical 

and workable manner. Agencies should 

incorporate quality information 

guideline standards and procedures into 

exisiting processes and procedures. 

Application of these guidelines should 

not impose unnecessary administrative 

burdens. 

Section III. The Commission’s Existing 

Policies and Procedures that Ensure 

and Maximize Information Quality 

.01 The Commission disseminates 

information on civil rights through: 

(a) Reports to Congress and the 

President, including an annual report on 

civil rights enforcement as required by 

statute and other reports as considered 

appropriate; 

(b) Program activities, such as 

hearings, briefings, conferences, and 

consultations; and 

(c) Provision of civil rights 

information to the public through its 

clearinghouse function. 

.02 In order to ensure the accuracy 

and the impartiality of the information 

it provides, the Commission has in 

place various mechanisms to correct the 

information it disseminates. OMB’s 

Information Quality Guidelines urge 

agencies to integrate into existing 

guidelines for dissemination of 

information the standards for 

information quality embodied in the 

Data Quality Act. The Commission shall 

improve the quality of the information 

it disseminates as it seeks to achieve the 

strategic goals of its mission while 

adhering to budget and resource 

priorities. 

.03 The mechanisms the 

Commission uses to ensure information 

quality are: 

(a) Defame and Degrade Review. 

Commission regulations provide 

procedural guidelines when statements 

made at Commission hearings or in 

reports will defame, degrade or 

incriminate persons or institutions. 

A statement defames and degrades if 

its probable effect is to damage the 

person or institution criticized in 

reputation, business, or otherwise. In 

determining whether damage is likely to 

result, it is necessary to consider the 

substance of the allegations, all the 

circumstances surrounding it, and the 

community perception and reaction that 

is likely to result. All this must all be 

considered in light of the applicable 

legal standards governing defamation of 

public versus private persons and 

entities. 

When in advance of a hearing the 

Commission determines that certain 

evidence may tend to defame, degrade, 

or incriminate any person at any 

hearing, it shall receive such evidence 

or testimony, or a summary of such 

evidence or testimony in executive 

session. The Commission affords such 

persons defamed, degraded, or 

incriminated by such evidence or 

testimony an opportunity to appear and 

be heard in executive session with a 

reasonable number of additional 

witnesses they request, before deciding 

to use such evidence or testimony. If the 

Commission decides to make this 

information public, it will give the 

person the opportunity to appear as a 

voluntary witness or submit a sworn 

statement. Procedures for addressing 

evidence presented at a hearing that 

may tend to defame, degrade, or 

incriminate any person are specified at 

45 CFR 702.11. 

If a Commission report tends to 

defame, degrade, or incriminate any 

person, the report or relevant portions 

thereof shall be delivered to such person 

at least thirty (30) days before the report 

is published to allow such person the 

opportunity to make a timely verified 

answer to the report, or relevant 

portions thereof. Administrative 

Instruction 7–1, Procedures for 

Providing an Opportunity for Response 

to Persons Criticized by Commission 

Publications and Audiovisual Products, 

at section 6 provides that whenever a 

publication, other than a statutory 

report, contains material that tends to 

defame and degrade, such person must 

be provided a full and fair opportunity 

to respond to such material. Section 7 

of Administrative Instruction 7–1 

provides for a defame and degrade 

review of State Advisory Committee 

reports. Section 8 of Administrative 

Instruction 7–1 provides for a defame 

and degrade review of the Civil Rights 

Journal. 

(b) Legal Sufficiency Review. 

Administrative Instruction 1–6, 

National Project Development and 

Implementation, at section 16 provides 

for legal sufficiency review by the Office 

of General Counsel of draft reports and 

national office publications that are 

provided to the public. The purpose of 

the legal sufficiency review is to ensure 

the adequate interpretation and citation 

of legal materials and compliance with 

statutory requirements. SAC reports also 

will be subject to a legal sufficiency 

review. 

(c) Editorial Policy Review. 

Administrative Instruction 1–6, 

National Project Development and 

Implementation, at section 15 provides 

that the Staff Director will appoint 

members of an editorial policy board to 

review draft national reports to 

determine the adequacy and accuracy of 

the substantive information in the draft 

document (for example, conceptual 

soundness, adherence to Commission 

policy, quality of research, 

argumentation, and documentation of 

major points). The project staff revises 

the draft document in accordance with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 68559 

the editorial board comments. The 

appropriate office director apprises the 

Staff Director by memorandum of areas 

upon which agreement was not reached 

and changes were not made. Once the 

substantive changes are made, the new 

material must be submitted for an 

expedited legal sufficiency review. 

The Regional Directors are 

responsible for ensuring that such 

reports are unbiased, methodologically 

sound, well written, appropriately 

organized, and properly formatted. 

SACs are ultimately responsible for the 

substance of their reports and 

memoranda. A report is forwarded to 

the Staff Director following formal 

approval from the appropriate State 

Advisory Committee. 

(d) Affected Agency Review. 

Administrative Instruction 1–6, 

National Project Development and 

Implementation, at section 17 provides 

that after completing any revisions 

occasioned by legal and editorial 

reviews, the director of the appropriate 

office sends the sections of the draft 

report that pertain to a government 

agency to the affected agency for review 

and comment on the accuracy of the 

material contained therein. The 

Commission’s draft findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations are 

not submitted to the affected agency. 

Nongovernmental organizations receive 

pertinent material for review where 

appropriate. Upon receipt of comments, 

the project staff prepares the appropriate 

revisions. SAC reports also are subject 

to an affected agency review. 

.04 Information Technology and 

Systems Management. Administrative 

Instruction 4–18, Information 

Technology and Systems Management, 

provides guidance for the appropriate 

management of information technology 

resources and systems throughout their 

life cycle, in accordance with federal 

regulations, policies and guidelines. It 

also provides for the establishment and 

maintenance of a strategic information 

resources management planning process 

that includes: 

(a) An up-to-date five-year plan that 

has, among others, document linkages 

between mission needs and information 

technology capabilities; and 

(b) An up-to-date security and disaster 

preparedness plan for information 

systems that provides adequate 

assurances of the availability, 

confidentiality and integrity of the 

information systems. 

.05 The Staff Director is the Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) of the agency 

and has primary responsibility for 

managing the Commission’s information 

resources. The Deputy CIO will manage 

the Commission’s security systems and 

procedures, and monitor Commission 

compliance with appropriate federal 

policies, principles, standards, 

guidelines, rules, and administrative 

instructions. 

.06 Data Collection from the Public. 

(a) Administrative Instruction 1–6, 

National Project Development and 

Implementation, at section 9 provides 

that the Chief of the Administrative 

Services and Clearinghouse Division 

(ASCD) is the Commission’s designated 

paperwork reduction officer, and as 

such, is responsible for reviewing 

proposed data collection procedures as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1980. It provides that when 

collecting information from ten or more 

persons or organizations, the 

Commission must receive prior 

approval from OMB. The appropriate 

documents are submitted to the ASCD 

Chief at least fifty (50) days before the 

anticipated administration of a 

questionnaire or interview schedule. 

(b) The Civil Rights Commission 

Amendments Act of 1994, Public Law 

103–419, 108 Stat. 4338, at 42 U.S.C. 

1975a(e) provides that the Commission 

may issue subpoenas for the attendance 

of witnesses and the production of 

written or other matter in a hearing 

approved by the Commission. In 

addition, the Commission may use 

depositions and written interrogatories 

to obtain information and testimony 

about matters that are the subject of a 

Commission hearing or report. 

Further, data also are collected at 

briefings, conferences, hearings, and 

during consultation and interviews by 

staff. Staff shall submit the 

Commission’s Privacy Act notice to 

potential data sources at these prior to 

collecting the data. 

Section IV. Scope and Applicability of 

the Commission’s Quality Information 

Guidelines 

.01 Consistent with OMB guidance, 

the definitions of information and 

dissemination set the scope and 

applicability of the Commission’s 

quality information guidelines. For the 

purposes of these guidelines, 

information means any communication 

or representation of facts or data, in any 

medium or form, including textual, 

numerical, graphic, cartographic, 

narrative, or audiovisual forms. This 

definition includes information that the 

Commission disseminates from a Web 

page, but does not include the provision 

of hyperlinks to information that others 

disseminate. 

.02 This definition of information 

does not include: 

(a) Opinions or policies, where the 

presentation makes clear that the 

statements are subjective opinions, 

rather than facts. Underlying 

information upon which the opinion or 

policy is based may be subject to these 

guidelines only if the Commission 

publishes that information; 

(b) Information originated by and 

attributed to non-Commission sources, 

provided the Commission does not 

expressly rely upon it. Examples 

include non-U.S. government 

information reported and duly 

attributed in materials the Commission 

prepared and disseminated, hyperlinks 

on the Commission’s Web site to 

information that others disseminate, and 

reports of advisory committees 

published on the Commission’s Web 

site that are not explicitly endorsed by 

the Commission; 

(c) Statements relating solely to the 

Commission’s internal personnel rules 

and practices and other materials 

produced for the Commission’s 

employees, contractors, or agents; 

(d) Descriptions of the Commission, 

its responsibilities, and organizational 

components; 

(e) Statements, the modification of 

which might cause harm to the national 

security, including harm to the national 

defense or foreign relations of the 

United States; 

(f) Statements of Commission policy; 

however, any underlying information 

the Commission published upon which 

a statement is based may be subjected to 

these guidelines; 

(g) Testimony or comments of 

Commission officials before courts, 

administrative bodies, Congress, or the 

media, unless such testimony contains 

new, substantive information not 

previously disseminated; 

(h) Investigatory material compiled 

pursuant to U.S. law or for law 

enforcement purposes in the United 

States; or 

.03 Dissemination means 

Commission initiated or sponsored 

distribution of information to the public 

(see 5 CFR 1320.3(d) ‘‘Conduct or 

Sponsor’’). 

.04 This definition of dissemination 

does not include distributions of 

information or other materials that are: 

(a) Produced in response to requests 

for Commission records under the 

Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy 

Act, the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, or similar law; or 

(b) Archival records, public filings, 

responses to subpoena or compulsory 

document productions, or documents 

prepared and released in the context of 

adjudicative processes. These guidelines 

do not impose any additional 

requirements on the Commission during 

adjudicative proceedings and do not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

68560 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 

provide parties to such adjudicative 

proceedings any additional rights of 

challenge or appeal; and 

(c) Limited to Commission employees 

or Commission contractors or grantees, 

as well as intra- or inter-agency use or 

sharing of government information. 

.05 Consistent with OMB guidance, 

the Commission’s guidelines apply to 

any covered information the 

Commission disseminated on or after 

October 1, 2002. The Commission’s 

administrative mechanism shall apply 

to information that it disseminates on or 

after October 1, 2002, regardless of 

when it first disseminated the 

information. 

Section V. The Commission’s 

Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing Information Quality 

.01 In accordance with OMB 

guidelines, quality encompasses utility, 

objectivity, and integrity. These four 

statutory terms sometimes are 

collectively referred to as quality. The 

Commission shall adopt a basic 

standard of quality and take appropriate 

steps to ensure that all offices in the 

National Office and each Regional 

Office incorporate quality criteria into 

its information dissemination practices. 

.02 Utility of Information 

(a) Utility means the usefulness of the 

disseminated information to its 

intended users, including the public. 

The Commission is committed to 

disseminating quality information. Basic 

to achieving utility is an understanding 

of what information is needed as the 

Commission seeks to fulfill its mission 

and mandate. The Commission shall 

identify civil rights issues in which 

there is a critical need for information 

and shall develop and implement plans 

to provide such information. 

(b) The Commission shall assess the 

utility of the information it will produce 

from original research and secondary 

analysis of existing data. It shall also 

assess the utility of the information it 

disseminates that is provided by or 

obtained from outside sources and 

which it adopts, endorses, or uses. 

(c) When reproducibility and 

transparency of information are 

essential for determining information 

utility, the Commission shall ensure the 

reproducibility and transparency of the 

research design and analytic methods. 

In this context, reproducibility means 

that the information is capable of being 

reproduced, subject to an acceptable 

degree of imprecision. 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. 

(d) In order to enhance further the 

utility of information, the Commission 

shall ensure that the information it will 

disseminate is clearly written in plain 

English, grammatically correct, and free 

of spelling or typographical errors. 

Where appropriate, the Commission 

shall include contact information for 

intended users and the public who may 

wish to obtain supplementary 

information, seek further elucidation, or 

provide comments. 

.03 Objectivity of Information 

Objectivity concerns substance and 

presentation of disseminated 

information. Substance focuses on 

whether the content of the disseminated 

information is accurate, reliable, 

unbiased, and balanced. Presentation 

concerns whether the disseminated 

information is presented in an accurate, 

clear, complete, and unbiased manner. 

The Commission is committed to 

disseminating information that reflects 

these two elements. 

(a) In the course of fulfilling its 

mission and mandate, the Commission 

conducts social science studies and 

evaluates federal civil rights 

enforcement programs, reports on 

findings and conclusions, and makes 

recommendations. The Commission 

strives for a research process that 

embodies methodological and statistical 

rigor, intellectual honesty in analysis, 

and presentation of findings and 

conclusions in full and proper context 

in order to achieve accurate, reliable, 

and unbiased reports. In this respect, 

the Commission’s Administrative 

Instruction 1–6, National Project 

Development and Implementation at 

sections 7 and 8 is instructive. 

Consistent with it, the Commission shall 

ensure that the program office primarily 

responsible for reports: 

(1) Develops methodologically strong 

and practically feasible research designs 

capable of judging the issues addressed; 

(2) Makes explicit the assumptions 

underlying research efforts; 

(3) Conducts thorough review of the 

literature representing a wide range of 

perspectives on the subject of study or 

evaluation; 

(4) Uses appropriate and sound 

research methods to gather information; 

(5) Uses appropriate and sound 

statistical techniques to analyze 

collected information; 

(6) Ensures that the analysis is 

unbiased; 

(7) Presents disseminated information 

within a full and proper context, 

including supporting data as 

appropriate; 

(8) Identifies data sources (to the 

extent possible, consistent with 

confidentiality protections); and 

(9) Specifies limitations of the study 

or evaluation, including error sources 

that affect data quality. 

The Staff Director is responsible for 

reviewing national office project designs 

and proposals to ensure that they reflect 

objectivity and balance. The Staff 

Director also reviews State Advisory 

Committee reports for balance and 

objectivity. 

.04 In conducting social science 

studies and evaluation of federal civil 

rights enforcement programs, the 

Commission may combine original 

research with secondary analysis of 

existing data or may rely solely on the 

latter. The sources of existing data may 

be other federal government agencies, 

advisory committees, or other 

organizations and individuals. The 

Commission expects that these entities 

will subject information they submit to 

adequate quality control measures. Prior 

to using existing data from outside 

sources, the responsible program office 

shall review and verify the data as 

necessary and appropriate. Data 

collected at briefings may be verified by 

requiring the outside sources to submit 

testimony upon oath or affirmation. 

Being subject to these guidelines does 

not necessarily mean that the material 

the Commission publishes is a policy 

statement of the United States 

government. 

.05 When the responsible program 

office determines that the information it 

will disseminate is influential social 

science, financial, legal, or statistical 

information, it shall take extra care to 

include a high degree of transparency 

about data and research methods to 

meet OMB’s requirement for the 

reproducibility of such information. In 

this context, influential means that such 

information will have or does have a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies pertaining to 

civil rights issues or important private 

sector decisions that have civil rights 

implications. A high degree of 

transparency for disseminated 

information here means that the 

methodology used to derive the results 

is readily understandable to persons 

experienced in the appropriate field of 

study. In determining the appropriate 

level of transparency, the responsible 

program office will consider the types of 

data that can be practically subjected to 

a reproducibility requirement given 

ethical, feasibility, confidentiality, and 

national security constraints. In making 

this determination, the responsible 

program office will hold analytical 

results to an even higher standard than 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 68561 

original data. It is important that 

analytic results have a high degree of 

transparency regarding: 

(a) The source of the data used; 

(b) The various assumptions 

employed; 

(c) The analytic methods applied; and 

(d) The statistical procedures 

employed. 

.06 The Commission may contract, 

from time to time, with organizations or 

individuals to conduct research and 

analysis in support of its mission and 

mandate, but Commission policy does 

not influence their results. The 

responsible program office that 

disseminates contractor-prepared 

information will maintain records on 

data sources, data collection methods, 

and statistical techniques used in 

analysis, and retain all data and 

documents employed in preparing 

contractor reports. The Commission 

expects that contractors will adhere to 

research standards set forth in section 

V.03 and .04 above. When the Lead 

Office anticipates that the contractorprepared information it will disseminate 

is influential social science, financial, or 

statistical information, it will ensure 

that the contractor adheres to section 

V.05 above. 

.07 The clearance process 

contributes in important ways to the 

objectivity of disseminated information. 

The Commission’s Administrative 

Instruction 1–6, National Project 

Development and Implementation, at 

sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 provides 

a rigorous, multi-phased quality control 

clearance. Where appropriate, the 

Commission will seek substantive input 

from other government agencies, 

nongovernment organizations, scholars, 

and the public. The Commission also 

will determine if peer review is 

appropriate and, if necessary, the Lead 

Office will coordinate such review; 

.08 Public dissemination of hardbound information and all information 

published in final form on the 

Commisson’s Web site at http:// 

www.usccr.gov shall occur only after 

clearances are obtained from the Office 

of the Staff Director, and, if appropriate, 

with the approval of the Commissioners. 

.09 These guidelines focus on 

procedures for the dissemination of 

information, as those terms are defined 

herein. Accordingly, procedures 

specifically applicable to forms of 

communication outside the scope of 

these guidelines, such as those for 

correspondence, press releases, or to 

other federal employees, among others, 

are not included. 

.10 Integrity of Information 

(a) Integrity refers to security, that is, 

the protection of information from 

unauthorized access or revision in order 

to ensure that it is not compromised 

through corruption or falsification. 

Information technology is essential to 

the Commission as it seeks to fulfill its 

mission and mandate. A critical 

component of information integrity is 

protecting information technology 

systems from unauthorized access that 

could compromise information stored 

therein. 

.11 Consistent with Administrative 

Instruction 4–18, Information 

Technology and Systems Management, 

the Commission shall ensure that ASCD 

coordinates and works with all offices 

in the National Office, the Regional 

Offices, and SACs to guarantee the 

integrity of information residing in its 

technology systems. 

.12 To assist in fulfilling its mission, 

the Commission’s Office of Civil Rights 

Evaluation and Office of General 

Counsel conduct studies on issues with 

civil rights implications. They may 

collect information for analysis and/or 

obtain existing information from other 

sources. These program offices shall 

protect such information from 

unauthorized, unanticipated, or 

unintentional modification. They shall 

use appropriate controls to safeguard 

draft reports and confidential 

information, such as interrogatory 

responses, from improper 

dissemination. 

Section VI. Administrative Procedures 

for Pre-Dissemination Review 

.01 Each Commission’s program 

office in the National Office and each 

Regional Office shall incorporate OMB 

and Commission information quality 

principles into their existing predissemination review procedures as 

appropriate. 

Section VII. Administrative Mechanism 

for Correction of Information 

.01 The Commission shall allow any 

affected person to request the correction 

of Commission-disseminated 

information that does not comply with 

applicable OMB and Commission 

information quality guidelines. An 

affected person is an individual or an 

entity that may use, benefit from, or be 

harmed by the disseminated 

information at issue. 

.02 Information Correction Requests 

(a) In the Commission’s correction 

request process the burden of proof rests 

with the requester. An affected person 

who believes that information the 

Commission disseminates does not 

adhere to the information quality 

guidelines of OMB or the Commission, 

and who would like to request 

correction of specific information, needs 

to submit a Petition for Correction with 

the following information. 

(1) Name, mailing address, e-mail 

address, telephone number, and 

organizational affiliation (if any) of the 

individual or organization submitting a 

petition; 

(2) Detailed description of the 

information the requester believes does 

not comply with the Commission’s 

guidelines, including the exact name of 

the report or publication, the date, and 

a description of the specific item in 

question; 

(3) Description of the requester’s 

interest in the information and how the 

requester is affected by the information 

in question; 

(4) Description of reason(s) that the 

information should be corrected, 

including the elements of the 

information quality guidelines that were 

not followed; and 

(5) The specific corrective action 

sought, including (if applicable) 

temporary corrective action pending full 

resolution of the complaint. 

(b) The Petition for Correction should 

be sent to the Deputy Chief Information 

Officer (DCIO) for Information 

Management at the following address: 

Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425. 

(c) Alternatively, requesters may 

submit an e-mail request to the 

following address: 

qualityinfo@usccr.gov. Requesters 

should indicate that they are submitting 

an Information Quality Request in the 

subject line of the e-mail. 

.03 The DCIO will review the 

request and determine whether it 

contains all the information required for 

a Petition. If the request is unclear or 

incomplete, he/she will seek 

clarification from the requester. 

.04 If the request is complete, the 

DCIO will forward it to the appropriate 

program office(s) for a response. The 

responsible office(s) will determine 

whether a correction is warranted, and 

if so, what corrective action it will take. 

The answer will take into consideration 

the importance of the information 

involved, the magnitude of the error, 

and the cost of undertaking the 

correction. 

.05 The Commission is not required 

to change the content or status of 

information simply based on the receipt 

of a Petition for Correction. The 

Commission may reject a request that 

appears to be made in bad faith or 

without justification, and is only 

required to undertake the degree of 

correction that is appropriate for the 

nature and timeliness of the information 

involved. In addition, the Commission 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

68562 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 

need not respond to requests involving 

information not covered by the 

information quality guidelines. 

.06 The Commission will respond to 

all Petitions for Correction within sixty 

(60) calendar days of the receipt of the 

request by the DCIO, unless there is a 

reasonable basis for an extension. The 

requester will be told of the right to 

appeal the decision. 

.07 Appeal 

(a) If the requester is not satisfied with 

the Commission’s decision on the 

request, he/she may appeal to the 

Commission’s CIO within thirty (30) 

calendar days of the receipt of the 

Commission’s decision. This 

administrative appeal must include a 

copy of the initial request, a copy of the 

Commission’s decision, and a written 

narrative explaining why the requester 

believes the Commission’s decision was 

inadequate, incomplete, or in error. 

(b) This appeal will be sent to the 

Commission’s CIO at the following 

address: The Chief Information Officer, 

Staff Director’s Office, RE: Information 

Quality Appeal, Room 700, 624 Ninth 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425. 

(c) All appeals will be impartially 

reviewed by parties other than those 

who prepared the Commission’s 

decision. The Commission will respond 

to all appeals within sixty (60) calendar 

days of the CIO’s receipt of the appeal. 

(d) If the appropriate Commission 

official, whether at the initial or appeal 

stage, decides that the requester is 

correct and the information should be 

corrected, he/she will notify the Staff 

Director who will instruct the official to 

take appropriate corrective actions. 

Appropriate corrective actions may take 

a number of forms, including (but not 

limited to): Errata pages, personal 

contacts via letter or telephone, form 

letters, press releases or postings on the 

Commission’s Web site. Corrective 

measures, where appropriate, should be 

designed to provide reasonable notice to 

affected persons of such correction.The 

Commission will also post information 

quality correction requests to its Web 

site. The specific information will 

include a copy of each correction 

request, the Commission’s formal 

response(s), and any communications 

regarding appeals. 

[FR Doc. E7–23526 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4295. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 2, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated 

a sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on brake rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation 

of Five–Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 72 FR 

35968 (July 2, 2007) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). Based on an adequate 

response from the domestic interested 

party and an inadequate response from 

the respondent interested party, the 

Department is conducting an expedited 

sunset review to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping order 

would lead to the continuation or 

recurrence of dumping, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations. See 

Memorandum to the International Trade 

Commission regarding, ‘‘Expedited 

Sunset Review of the AD/CVD Order 

Initiated in July 2007,’’ dated August 21, 

2007. On November 5, 2007, the 

Department published a notice 

extending the time limit for the 

completion of the final results of this 

review by 30 days until November 29, 

2007. See Brake Rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 

FR 62430 (November 5, 2007). 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

In accordance with section 

751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department 

may extend the 120–day time period for 

making its determination by not more 

than 90 days, if it determines that a 

review is extraordinarily complicated. 

As set forth in section 751(c)(5)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the Department may treat a 

sunset review as extraordinarily 

complicated if there are a large number 

of issues, as is the case in this 

proceeding. In particular, this sunset 

review involves complicated issues 

pertaining to adequacy of responses, 

related party status, and interested party 

status. Therefore, the Department has 

determined, pursuant to section 

751(c)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, that the 

second sunset review of brake rotors 

from the PRC is extraordinarily 

complicated, as the Department must 

consider numerous arguments presented 

in the domestic interested party’s and 

the U.S. importer’s August 1, 2007, 

substantive response and each parties’

August 6, 2007, rebuttals to the 

substantive responses. Based on the 

timing of the case, the final results of 

this expedited sunset review cannot be 

completed within the statutory time 

limit of 120 days. Accordingly, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for the completion of the final results by 

an additional 32 days, from the 

November 29, 2007, extended deadline, 

to no later than December 31, 2007, in 

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: November 29, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–23574 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–822 

Notice of Amended Final Results in 

Accordance With Court Decision: 

Helical Spring Lock Washers from the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2007. 

SUMMARY: On July 16, 2007, the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) affirmed the decision of the 

U.S. Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) to sustain the Department of 

Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) remand 

redetermination in the tenth 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on helical 

spring lock washers from the People’s 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES