Information Quality Act: Expanded Oversight and Clearer Guidance by the Office of Management and Budget Could Improve Agencies' Implementation of the Act
Published: 2006-08-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The importance and widespread use of federal information makes its accuracy imperative. The Information Quality Act (IQA) required that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issue guidelines to ensure the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies by fiscal year 2003. GAO was asked to (1) assess OMB's role in helping agencies implement IQA; (2) identify the number, type, and source of IQA correction requests agencies received; and (3) examine if IQA has adversely affected agencies' overall operations and, in particular, rulemaking processes. In response, GAO interviewed OMB and agency officials and reviewed agency IQA guidelines, related documents, and Web sites.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OMB issued governmentwide guidelines that were the basis for other agencies' own IQA guidelines and required agencies to post guidelines and other IQA information to their Web sites. It also reviewed draft guidelines and undertook other efforts. OMB officials said that OMB primarily concentrated on cabinet-level and regulatory agencies, and 14 of the 15 cabinet-level agencies have guidelines. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not have department-level guidelines covering its 22 component agencies. Also, although the Environmental Protection Agency and 4 other independent agencies posted IQA guidelines and other information to their Web sites, 44 of 86 additional independent agencies that GAO examined have not posted their guidelines and may not have them in place. As a result, users of information from these agencies may not know whether agencies have guidelines or know how to request correction of agency information. OMB also has not clarified guidance to agencies about posting IQA-related information, including guidelines, to make that information more accessible. Of the 19 cabinet and independent agencies with guidelines, 4 had "information quality" links on their home pages, but others' IQA information online was difficult to locate. From fiscal years 2003 to 2004, three agencies shifted to using IQA to address substantive requests--those dealing with the underlying scientific, environmental, or other complex information--which declined from 42 to 38. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and two other agencies used IQA to address flood insurance rate maps, Web site addresses, photo captions, and other simple or administrative matters. But, in fiscal year 2004, these agencies changed their classification of these requests from being IQA requests and instead processed them using other correction mechanisms. As a result, the total number of all IQA requests dropped from over 24,000 in fiscal year 2003 to 62 in fiscal year 2004. Also, of the 80 substantive requests that agencies received during the 2-year period--over 50 percent of which came from businesses, trade groups, or other profit-oriented organizations--almost half (39) of the initial agency decisions of these 80 were appealed, with 8 appeals resulting in changes. The impact of IQA on agencies' operations could not be determined because neither agencies nor OMB have mechanisms to determine the costs or impacts of IQA on agency operations. However, GAO analysis of requests shows that agencies can take from a month to more than 2 years to resolve IQA requests on substantive matters. According to agency IQA officials, IQA duties were added into existing staff responsibilities and administering IQA requests has not been overly burdensome nor has it adversely affected agencies' operations, although there are no supporting data. But evidence suggests that certain program staff or units addressing IQA requests have seen their workloads increase without a related increase in resources. As for rulemaking, agencies addressed 16 correction requests related to rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, not IQA.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal agencies publicly disseminate a wide range of information that is  critical to government, business, and individuals.  For example, the open  and efficient exchange of scientific and technical government information,  subject to applicable national security controls and the proprietary rights  of others, fosters excellence in scientific research and effective use of  federal research and development funds.  Given the widespread use of  federal information by the public and private sectors, it is important that  this information be accurate.
The Information Quality Act (IQA)—section 515 of the Treasury and  General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001—required the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue governmentwide  guidelines to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and  integrity of information, including statistical information,” disseminated to  the public.  In addition, it required agencies to issue their own guidelines,  set up administrative mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek the  correction of information they considered erroneous, and report  periodically to OMB information about IQA complaints (requests to correct  agency information) and how the agencies addressed them.
In light of questions you raised about IQA information that OMB provided  to Congress in its April 2004 report, you requested that we examine the  implementation of IQA.  As agreed with your offices, we (1) assessed  OMB’s role in helping agencies to implement IQA; (2) identified the  number, type, and source of correction requests agencies received under  IQA for fiscal years 2003 and 2004; and (3) examined whether the  implementation of IQA has adversely affected agencies’ overall operations  in general and the rulemaking process in particular.
To address the first objective, we reviewed documents, including IQA  guidelines; contacted and interviewed OMB staff and officials as well as  IQA and other knowledgeable officials from 12 cabinet-level agencies and 5  independent agencies; and examined these agencies’ Web sites.  In  addition, we reviewed the Web sites of the other cabinet agencies and 86  other independent agencies.  To address the second objective, we reviewed  OMB and agency documents covering the 2-year period, including annual  reports submitted to OMB by agencies that received correction requests,  and interviewed OMB and agency officials from those agencies.  To address  the third objective, we reviewed relevant OMB and agency documents,  including IQA guidelines and agencies’ annual reports to OMB, examined  requests and appeals to correct agency information, studied OMB’s and  agencies’ Web sites, and interviewed OMB and agency IQA and other  knowledgeable officials.  We determined that OMB and agency IQA data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review and use in this  report.  Although agencies have other mechanisms to correct information,  we evaluated only information related to the IQA correction mechanism.   Appendix I provides additional details on our scope and methodology.  We  conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from March 2005 through July  2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: IQA consists of two major elements.  The first element of IQA required  OMB by the end of fiscal year 2001 to develop and issue guidelines that  provide policy and procedure guidance for federal agencies to use for  “ensuring and maximizing quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of  information, including statistical information,” that they disseminate.  The  second element required federal agencies covered by the Paperwork  Reduction Act to develop IQA guidelines by the end of fiscal year 2002,  establish administrative mechanisms allowing “affected persons” to seek  and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the  agencies, as well as periodically report to the Director of OMB about the  number and nature of IQA complaints and how they handled such  complaints.
IQA builds on previous federal efforts to improve the quality of  information, including OMB Circular A-130 and the Paperwork Reduction  Act of 1980, as amended.  For example, two of the purposes of the  Paperwork Reduction Act were to “improve quality and use of federal  information … and provide for the dissemination of public information …  in a manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public and  makes effective use of information technology.”  IQA requires, among other  things, that executive branch agencies manage their information resources  to “improve the integrity, quality, and utility of information to all users  within and outside an agency.”7, 8   OIRA, which develops and oversees the implementation of  governmentwide policies in the areas of information technology, privacy,  and statistics, had responsibility for developing the governmentwide IQA  guidelines and helping agencies to meet the act’s requirement that they  develop their own guidelines.  In an October 2002 memorandum describing  the implementation of IQA guidelines, OIRA’s then administrator stated he  considered the IQA guidelines a continuation of the executive branch’s  decades-long focus on improving the quality of information federal  agencies collect and disseminate.  The memorandum added that agencies’  implementation “of the Information Quality Law represented the first time  that the executive branch has developed a governmentwide set of  information quality guidelines, including agency-specific guidelines  tailored to each agency’s unique programs and information.”  Agencies’  guidelines, which were to follow OMB’s model, were to include  administrative mechanisms that allow “affected parties”—as defined by the  agencies—to request correction of information that they did not consider  correct.
44 U.S.C. § 3506(b)(1)(C).
No hearings or debates were held or committee reports filed before IQA was enacted as  part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
section_title: OMB Took Steps to Implement IQA, but IQA Guidelines and Information for Many Agencies Are Not Available or Easily Accessible
paragraphs: OMB set up a framework for federal agencies to follow in implementing  IQA, including providing assistance and direction to agencies in developing  agency IQA guidelines and requiring them to post IQA information on their  Web sites.  However, we were not able to locate any IQA information on  about half of the independent agencies’ Web sites that we examined, nor  could we find Federal Register notices about IQA guidelines for them.   According to OMB officials and OIRA’s then administrator, OIRA  concentrated its communication and other outreach efforts on cabinet- level and regulatory agencies.  In written comments on a draft of our  report, OIRA noted that in working with agencies to develop and  implement information quality measures, it will consider the needed  resources for and the potential benefits of such measures.  Further, in a  number of cases where IQA information was posted online, locating the  information was difficult.  Agency IQA officials with whom we met noted  that their IQA correction mechanism is a formal process and one of a  number of correction mechanisms available to the public for having  information errors corrected.
subsections: section_title: OMB’s OIRA Set Up Framework for IQA Implementation
paragraphs: OMB set up a framework for agencies to follow in implementing IQA and  provided assistance and direction to agencies in developing their  guidelines.  As required by IQA, OMB issued the basic set of  governmentwide IQA guidelines that agencies used as the basis for  developing their own guidelines.  These guidelines explained what agencies  were to do to help ensure the development and public dissemination of  quality information.  In developing these guidelines, OIRA espoused three  underlying principles that agencies were to reflect in their guidelines:  The guidelines are to apply to a wide variety of government information  dissemination activities that may vary in importance and scope.
Agencies are to meet basic information quality standards, noting that the  more important the information, “the higher the quality standards to  which it should be held,” but that “agencies should weigh the costs …  and the benefits of higher information quality in the development of  information.”
Agencies are to apply the guidelines in “a common-sense and workable  manner,” meaning that agency guidelines are not to “impose  unnecessary administrative burdens that would inhibit the agencies  from continuing to take advantage of the Internet and other  technologies to disseminate information that can be of great benefit and  value to the public.”
The guidelines, in elaborating on this last principle, explained that “OMB  encourages agencies to incorporate the standards and procedures required  by these guidelines into their existing … administrative practices rather  than create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory processes.”   The guidelines also noted that they were written to provide agencies with  flexibility as they developed their own guidelines.
Moreover, the guidelines defined four key concepts related to the  dissemination of information—quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity— and described how quality was the outcome of the other three components.   These guidelines further explained that agencies were to mirror these  principles and actions in establishing their own guidelines and to include  an administrative mechanism that data users who find mistakes in any  agency’s public data or information can use to petition for correction.  This  mechanism was to include an appeals process, which allows a petitioner to  request that an agency reconsider its initial decision about the correction  request.  The guidelines’ wording about the administrative correction  mechanism allowed agencies to avoid duplicating the public comment  process required by the rulemaking procedures under the Administrative  Procedure Act, in which interested persons are given the opportunity to  comment on proposed rules.
In addition to writing the governmentwide IQA guidelines, OIRA took other  steps to help agencies implement the principles and standards of IQA.  As  part of helping agencies to develop their guidelines, OIRA offered them  assistance, including outreach to agencies such as conducting workshops  on drafting guidelines, and reviewed their guidelines.  IQA officials from a  number of agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Justice, told  us they considered this assistance beneficial.  OIRA officials also issued  memorandums to clarify how agencies were to satisfy the law and  otherwise implement IQA, including requiring agencies to post IQA  guidelines and related information on their Web sites.  Further, OIRA put  in place the mechanism for agencies to provide OMB with their annual IQA  reports on their implementation of IQA, the number of IQA requests and  appeals, and their status.  According to OIRA staff and officials and agency  memorandums, OIRA monitored IQA correction requests received by  agencies and assisted them in developing their responses.  Agency officials  told us that OMB’s revisions consisted of comments that ranged from  editorial to significant and primarily involved IQA requests pertaining to  substantive issues.  For example, agency officials and OMB staff explained  that OMB at times asked for more detailed explanations, including  references to other relevant information, in agency responses to correction  requests.  According to these officials, OMB’s review did not cause changes  that would have substantially changed the agencies’ ultimate decision.  We  found no indication that OMB’s involvement substantially changed  agencies responses when we examined nine specific IQA requests from  four agencies.
As described in figure 1, agencies covered by IQA were to have their  guidelines and the correction and appeals mechanism in place by the start  of fiscal year 2003 (October 1, 2002).  The figure also shows that in April  2004, OMB reported to Congress in response to a mandate that OMB report  on the first year—fiscal year 2003—of the implementation of the act.  That  report included information about the characteristics of the correction  requests as well as the sources of the requests, and commented on a  number of common perceptions and concerns about the act.  OMB, of its  own volition, in December 2005, updated this information and included it in  a chapter in its report to Congress on the costs and benefits of federal  regulations.  In this report, OMB provided information on the  implementation of IQA in fiscal year 2004 and compared fiscal years 2003  and 2004 IQA information.
section_title: OIRA Focused Its Efforts on Cabinet-Level and Regulatory Agencies
paragraphs: According to OMB and OIRA staff and officials and OIRA’s then  administrator, OIRA concentrated its efforts to implement IQA on cabinet- level and regulatory agencies.  In addition to working with the cabinet  agencies to create IQA guidelines, OIRA staff stated they also focused their  attention on regulatory agencies and commissions, including EPA.  OIRA  did not clarify for many independent agencies—especially smaller,  nonregulatory ones—whether the law applied to them or generally follow  up with them to help them meet the act’s provisions.  By the fiscal year 2002  deadline, 14 of the 15 cabinet-level agencies had guidelines in place (see  table 1).  Further, following the flurry of activities to help agencies  develop their IQA guidelines by October 1, 2002, OIRA shifted its emphasis  away from helping agencies develop their IQA guidelines to helping  agencies that already had guidelines to address IQA correction requests.   According to OIRA staff, since November 2002 OIRA has not promulgated  additional guidance regarding the development of IQA guidelines to  agencies.
Only one cabinet-level agency, DHS, the newest and one of the largest  federal agencies, has no department-level IQA guidelines covering its 22  agencies, which issue a wide array of information used by the public.   Because DHS was not created until January 2003—after IQA was enacted  and IQA deadlines had passed—OMB began working with DHS officials to  develop department-level guidelines after the other cabinet-level and  independent agencies had their guidelines in place, according to OMB’s  April 2004 report to Congress.  As of March 2006, however, DHS did not  have its IQA guidelines in place and officials did not have a deadline for  establishing them.  Also, while 5 DHS component agencies had IQA  guidelines before they became part of DHS, the guidelines of 4 of the 5  component agencies—the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection,  FEMA, and Secret Service—are still linked to their previous parent  departments or otherwise have not been updated by DHS.  For example,  the IQA guidelines for the Coast Guard, which was previously part of the  Department of Transportation (DOT), instructed information users  submitting IQA requests to file via DOT’s Docket Management System, the  administrative mechanism that DOT directs the public to use to file  correction requests.  Additionally, FEMA has not updated its guidelines  since becoming part of DHS.  DHS officials told us that the component  agencies may update their guidelines after DHS has its departmentwide  guidelines in place.  Until that occurs, it is unclear what appeals process the  public would follow and how DHS agencies will make final decisions about  IQA correction requests.
Moreover, when we checked the Web sites of 91 independent agencies, we  did not find IQA guidelines posted on the Web sites of 44 of those agencies.   (See app. II for the list of independent agencies and the status of their  guidelines at the end of May 2006.)  These 44 commissions, agencies, and  other independent entities gave no indication of any IQA guidelines or IQA  reports, nor any mention of IQA on their Web sites or on OMB’s Web site of  agencies’ IQA guidelines.  We also could not find these agencies’ Federal  Register notices announcing the establishment of their IQA guidelines,  although OMB required these notices.  Also, OIRA staff did not have copies  of the guidelines and said that they had focused their attention on cabinet  agencies and regulatory agencies.  These 44 agencies represented a broad  spectrum of entities—including fact-finding agencies, such as the U.S. Civil  Rights Commission; research organizations, such as the Smithsonian  Institution; and others, such as the U.S. Trade and Development Agency— that produce a wide range of publicly disseminated information.  In  commenting on this report, the acting OIRA administrator noted that OIRA  will take into account the resources that would be needed and the potential  benefits that would be realized in working with agencies “to develop and  implement information quality measures.”
section_title: Accessing Agencies’ Web Site IQA Information Is Difficult
paragraphs: Even when agencies posted IQA information on their Web sites as OMB  required, such information was hard to access, making it difficult for  information users to know whether agencies have IQA guidelines or how to  request correction of agency information.  As part of the governmentwide  IQA guidelines, OIRA required agencies to post their draft agency-specific  IQA guidelines online by September 30, 2002, and to inform the public  about them and solicit comments.  However, we found it difficult to locate  IQA information on agency Web sites.  In addition to the difficulties of  trying to find whether the independent agencies’ Web sites contained IQA  guidelines, we had problems finding IQA guidelines on the Web sites of the  14 cabinet-level and 5 independent agencies that we knew had those  guidelines.  Of these 19 cabinet-level and independent agencies with IQA  guidelines that we reviewed, only 4 agencies—the Departments of  Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and the Interior—provided a direct IQA  “information quality” link on their home pages, which likely would be  relatively easy for the public to use to access IQA information.  In the case  of the 15 other agencies, we found that accessing IQA information on their  Web sites was difficult because these agencies provided no discernable link  to IQA information on their home pages; provided access to their  guidelines and other information through “contact us,” “policies,” or other  less-than-obvious links, such as “resources”; or required multiple searches  using various terms related to IQA, as was the case with the Department of  Defense and the Department of State.  Although OIRA directed agencies to  post IQA information online, OIRA’s guidance is not specific about how  agencies should provide access to online IQA information.  Moreover,  agency IQA officials told us that OMB did not provide guidance about  where to place IQA information on their Web sites or what kind of access— or transparency—to provide.  Agency IQA officials from a number of  agencies stated that access to their Web-based IQA information was not  “user-friendly” and said they were working to make IQA information more  transparent and easily accessible.
OMB is aware of the need to improve the public’s access to IQA  information.  In its April 2004 report to Congress, OIRA acknowledged the  need for agencies to improve the transparency of IQA information and  recommended that agencies include on their public Web sites IQA  correction requests, appeals, and agency responses to them, as well as the  agencies’ annual IQA reports to OMB.  OMB and OIRA subsequently  issued additional directives to facilitate the public’s ability to access  government information and the process to request correction of  erroneous public information.  For example, in August 2004, responding to  “inconsistent practices regarding the public availability of correspondence  regarding information quality requests,” OIRA’s administrator issued a  memorandum instructing each agency to post its IQA documents online by  December 1, 2004.
section_title: From Fiscal Years 2003 to 2004, Three Agencies Reclassified Correction Requests to Concentrate on Substantive Matters
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, three agencies shifted to using  IQA to address primarily substantive requests—those dealing with the  underlying scientific, environmental, or other complex information—which  declined from 42 to 38.  The total number of all IQA requests dropped from  over 24,000 in fiscal year 2003 to 62 in fiscal year 2004.  The overwhelming  cause for this decline was that in fiscal year 2004 FEMA no longer classified  requests to correct flood insurance rate maps as IQA requests or addressed  them through IQA.  The decline in the number of IQA requests does not  indicate that there was a corresponding decrease in agency workloads.
In fiscal year 2003, agencies reported having received over 24,600 IQA  correction requests, with FEMA’s 24,433 requests accounting for over 99  percent of the year’s total.  FEMA’s requests were all related to flood  insurance rate maps.  Eighteen other agencies accounted for the balance of  the year’s requests (183), 54 of which resulted in changes in information,  including clarifying language.  In fiscal year 2004, FEMA, with OMB’s  approval, no longer classified flood insurance rate map correction as IQA  requests.  Instead, FEMA addressed flood insurance rate map correction  requests by using a correction process it had implemented prior to the  enactment of IQA.  Largely as a result of this change and a similar change  by two other agencies—the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and  Health Administration (OSHA) and DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety  Administration—in fiscal year 2004, 15 agencies reported a total of 62 IQA  correction requests to OMB.  Of these, 26 requests resulted in changes.
As shown in table 2, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the number of  substantive requests declined in terms of their total numbers, decreasing  from 42 in fiscal year 2003 to 38 in fiscal year 2004.
As shown in table 2, during fiscal years 2003 and 2004, over half of the  substantive IQA correction requests originated from businesses, trade  groups, or other profit-oriented organizations, and over one-quarter were  generated by nonprofit or other advocacy organizations.  (For a list of these  requesters, see app. III.)  Substantive requests generated by individual  citizens declined from about 1 in 7 of substantive requests to about 1 in 10.
Substantive requests in fiscal year 2004 represented a greater proportion of  IQA correction requests than in fiscal year 2003, excluding FEMA flood  insurance rate map correction requests.  Out of 183 non-FEMA requests in  fiscal year 2003, 42—or almost one-fourth—were substantive in nature.   Addressing these substantive requests required considerably more time  and staff resources than simple or administrative requests.  OMB and  agency officials considered the other 141 requests—over three-fourths—to  be of a simple or administrative nature—for example, requests to correct  errors in photo captions, personal information, or Internet addresses.  Agencies were able to quickly correct these simple or administrative  requests—correcting 17 requests took 7 or fewer days from the date the  agencies received them.  In fiscal year 2004, of 62 total IQA requests, 38  requests—almost two-thirds—were considered to be substantive.  Table 3  shows the 80 substantive requests for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 by  category of petitioner, agency, and status of requests, as of May 2006.
One reason that substantive requests in fiscal year 2004 represented an  increased percentage of total IQA correction requests compared with fiscal  year 2003 is that in fiscal year 2004 some agencies decided to exclude  simple or administrative errors from IQA correction mechanisms.   Specifically, according to agency IQA documents and OMB’s December  2005 report, in fiscal 2004, FEMA, the Department of Justice, the Federal  Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and OSHA no longer classified and  addressed most simple or administrative types of errors as IQA correction  requests.  As a result, the majority of the correction requests that remained  to be processed through IQA were substantive requests.  For example, in  fiscal year 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS)  National Institutes of Health received a request related to information  about smokeless tobacco; EPA received a request challenging information  related to the water conservation benefits of water utility billing systems of  multifamily housing; and the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife  Service received a request that challenged information used to protect the  Florida panther.
We also found that no one agency dominated or accounted for the majority  of fiscal year 2004 requests.  In fact, in fiscal year 2004 the distribution of  requests was more broadly spread across agencies than in fiscal year 2003,  with EPA and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)  each reporting 12 correction requests, and HHS reporting 9 requests to  OMB.
A few agencies did not experience a decrease in the total number of IQA  requests because they did not shift simple requests away from IQA or  otherwise change how they processed such requests during the 2-year  period.  For example, according to OMB and NARA IQA documents,  NARA’s IQA requests—8 in fiscal 2003 and 12 in fiscal 2004—continued to  be simple in nature and came primarily from individuals in both years.  For  the same 2 years, EPA’s 25 requests and HHS’s 19 requests were nearly all  substantive and mainly came from businesses or profit-oriented  organizations as well as nonprofits or advocacy groups.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Changed Simple Requests More Often Than Substantive Requests or Appeals during 2 Years
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the simpler and more administrative the  initial request, the more likely an agency was to correct the information  without appeal.  For example, during the 2-year period, NARA corrected or  clarified information for 16 of the 20 IQA correction requests it received,  which were all considered to be simple in nature.  Conversely, the more  significant the correction request, the lower the likelihood of a change.   HHS, for example, addressed 19 IQA requests that were substantive but  changed information for only 5 based on the initial request or an appeal.   Regardless of the complexity of the request, agency IQA documents  showed that agencies addressed all requests filed during the 2-year period.
Substantial requests were less likely to result in an initial information  change but more likely to be appealed than simple or administrative  requests.  Few petitioners appealed agency decisions regarding simple or  administrative requests.  None of 131 “simple or administrative” fiscal year  2003 IQA requests from the Departments of Transportation, Labor, and the  Treasury and NARA was appealed.  By comparison, of the 80 substantive  requests over the 2-year period, petitioners appealed 39 (almost half) of the  agencies’ decisions.  Of the 39 requests that were appealed, 25 were denied  and 8 appeals resulted in information changes.
Table 4 shows the outcome or status of the appeals filed during fiscal years  2003 and 2004, as of the end of March 2006.  Two of the 39 appeals still  have outcomes pending after more than 2 years, demonstrating that  although the number of appeals may be considered small, the impact on  agency operations may be significant, depending on the complexity of the  specific issue.  For example, in table 4, the EPA appeal pending—filed by  the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in April 2005—affects 16 EPA databases  that deal with such issues as wastewater treatment and the  bioaccumulation of organic chemicals.  This case has been ongoing for  over 2 years, and could have effects on assessments regarding human  health risks, other environmental impacts, and cleanup decisions.   Also  listed in table 3 is another IQA appeal filed in October 2003 by a private  individual.  The initial request for correction was filed in January 2003  before the DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) challenging the  analytical basis for its “age 60 rule” that forces air carrier pilots out of  service at age 60.  FAA upheld its “age 60 rule” in September 2003, but the  complainant filed an appeal in October 2003 and filed additional  amendments thereafter.  The request was still pending at the time we  completed our study, more than 3-½ years after the initial IQA request was  made and almost 3 years after the appeal.
As for the source of appeals, businesses, trade groups, and other profit- oriented organizations filed more appeals than other types of organizations  or individuals.  Businesses and profit-oriented organizations accounted for  25 of the 39 appeals of IQA requests filed during fiscal years 2003 and 2004.   Of these 25 appeals, 4 resulted in changes.  Appeals from  advocacy/nonprofit groups resulted in 1 change from 5 appeals.  Appeals  from private citizens resulted in 3 changes from 7 appeals.  The most  appeals—25, or almost two-thirds of them—were filed with EPA, HHS, and  the Department of the Interior.  Those agencies also received nearly two- thirds of the requests that were classified as substantive.
section_title: Impact of IQA on Agencies Could Not Be Determined
paragraphs: The impact of IQA on agencies could not be determined because agencies  and OMB do not have mechanisms in place to track the effects of  implementing IQA.  Agencies and OMB do not capture IQA workloads or  cost data, nor do they track the impact of IQA requests or resulting  information changes.  However, evidence indicates that in at least some  cases, addressing IQA requests and appeals can take agencies 2 years or  longer to resolve and requires a wide range of staff, particularly if IQA  correction requests center on substantive matters.
More specifically, none of the agencies we visited had information about  the actual workload, the number of staff days, or other costs, with one  exception.  Agency IQA officials told us they do not collect such data.   They explained that their agencies did not capture specific workload or  cost data related to establishing IQA guidelines, nor do they track workload  or cost data involved in responding to IQA requests or have mechanisms to  measure any impact IQA information changes have on operations or the  quality of information.  Officials at two agencies—the National Aeronautics  and Space Administration and the Department of the Interior’s Fish and  Wildlife Service—considered developing systems to track IQA costs but did  not.  Fish and Wildlife Service officials told us they decided against  implementing an IQA cost tracking system because of the declining number  of requests they have received since fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and the high  cost and administrative complexities of setting up such a system.   Additionally, IQA officials told us that addressing IQA requests is  considered to be part of their agencies’ day-to-day business, and because of  the multifaceted nature of some requests, allocating time and resources to  one specific issue or linking work exclusively to IQA requests would be  difficult.  For example, Fish and Wildlife Service officials stated that when  agency biologists work on IQA requests, they are also frequently working  on broad biological, environmental, and related issues that go beyond a  given request and relate to other agency work, so it would be difficult to  allocate the biologists’ time among various codes.  In their view, selecting a  specific code would be somewhat arbitrary, and time or other codes would  not necessarily accurately reflect the cross-cutting nature of the biologists’  work.  Moreover, according to agency officials and OMB staff, neither the  agencies nor OMB have mechanisms in place to track the effects of  implementing the law.
Agency IQA officials and OIRA staff and officials told us that administering  IQA has not been overly burdensome and that it has not adversely affected  agencies’ overall operations to date.  Agencies IQA officials told us they  gave IQA responsibilities to various staff within their agencies—generally  in offices already responsible for information-related issues—and that no  staff are dedicated exclusively to administering IQA.  For example, most  agencies have folded responsibilities for IQA, including setting up  guidelines, into the office of the chief information officer or their public  affairs unit.  In addition, although they track the status of IQA correction  requests, they do not track changes resulting from IQA requests or appeals.
Although there is a lack of comprehensive IQA-related cost or resource  data, evidence suggests that certain program staff or units involved in  creating IQA guidelines, including the correction mechanism, and  addressing IQA correction requests have seen their workloads increase  without any corresponding increase in resources.  For example, officials at  the Fish and Wildlife Service, HHS’s National Institutes of Health, the  Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration, and the Department of Defense’s Army Corps of Engineers  estimate the costs of addressing IQA requests are “many thousands of  dollars” because of the number of high salary professional staff, such as  biologists, toxicologists, engineers, and managers, who review and respond  to substantive requests and appeals and the extensive time involved.   According to agency IQA officials and OMB staff, agencies did not receive  funds for IQA, and the act did not specify any funds for implementing IQA.   Moreover, our analysis of IQA requests shows that agencies have taken  from 1 month to more than 1 year to produce a final decision on  substantive IQA requests and appeals, while 2 appeals made during fiscal  years 2003 and 2004 are still ongoing after 2 years or longer.  However,  evidence does not exist showing the resources allotted to those appeals  over the 2-year period in question.  The following IQA requests illustrate  the length of time it can take to address an IQA correction, regardless of  the final outcome.
On March 10, 2004, a group of trade associations and organizations  primarily representing the residential and commercial properties sector  submitted an IQA request to EPA challenging the accuracy of an EPA  statement that water allocation (submetering) billing systems in  apartment buildings and other multifamily housing did not encourage  water conservation.  This statement was in a Federal Register notice  regarding the applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Act to submetered  properties.  The group did not consider the statement to be correct  regarding one type of allocation system in particular—Ratio Utility  Billing Systems.  According to EPA documents and officials, EPA’s  response to the request and subsequent appeal involved a number of  EPA staff, including senior executives, scientists, and others in the  Office of Water and other headquarters units.  The appeal itself was  reviewed by a three-member panel of senior executives.  EPA took a  total of almost 5 months (146 days) to respond to the initial correction  request, well over the 90-day goal stated in EPA’s IQA guidelines, and  almost 11 months (323 days) more to decide on the appeal, over three  times longer than the 90-day appeals goal in EPA’s guidelines, according  to our analysis of EPA IQA requests.  The nearly 15-month total response  time was not unusual compared to other EPA processing times for IQA  requests.  The lengthy response time was in part due to EPA waiting for  the completion of a related study—under way at the time of the  correction request—before making a final decision about revising its  submetering policy.  On September 28, 2005, EPA ultimately denied the  appeal and did not change its statement, citing the results of the study as  not showing that Ratio Utility Billing Systems encouraged water  conservation.
On May 4, 2004, a nonprofit organization representing public sector  employees involved in the environment and an individual federal  employee submitted an IQA request to the Fish and Wildlife Service  about alleged errors in agency documents, including the Multi-Species  Recovery Plan and the draft Landscape Conservation Strategy, which  are intended to protect the endangered Florida panther.  The request  and subsequent appeal involved previously identified errors in peer- reviewed research associated with the definition of panther habitat, as  well as estimates of panther population and models used to determine  strategies to help the panther species survive and recover in Florida.   Fish and Wildlife Service staff who evaluated and responded to the  initial request and to the appeal included senior executives, attorneys,  field biologists, and other professional staff from a number of offices  within headquarters, including the program offices, the Solicitor’s  Office, the External Affairs Office, and the Director’s Office, as well as  field offices in Vero Beach and Jacksonville, Florida, and the regional  office in Atlanta.  The administrative appeals panel for the correction  request consisted of executives from Fish and Wildlife Service  headquarters and its Northwest Regional Office and Interior’s U.S.  Geological Survey.  Although the service responded to the initial request  2 months after its receipt, it took more than 7-½ months (over 230  calendar days) to respond to the appeal.  While the initial response was  consistent with the Service’s 45-business day response time stated in the  guidelines, the appeal took over 6 months more than the guideline’s 15- business day appeal time frame, according to our analysis.  The nearly  300-day total response time was not unusual compared to other Fish and  Wildlife Service processing times for IQA requests.  On March 16, 2005,  the Fish and Wildlife Service suspended the draft conservation strategy  for the panther, corrected other key documents, posted notices on the  regional and Vero Beach agency field office Web sites about these  actions, and revised and published for public comment the panther  section of the agency’s recovery plan.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Treated Most IQA Rulemaking-Related Requests as Comments to Proposed Rules
paragraphs: According to OMB staff and agency IQA officials, IQA correction requests  have not adversely affected agency rulemaking procedures to date, partly  because agencies handled most IQA requests related to rulemaking as  public comments to proposed rules under the Administrative Procedure  Act rather than as IQA requests.  This approach, described in a number of  agencies’ IQA guidelines, including EPA’s and the Department of  Agriculture’s, was followed to avoid duplicating the rulemaking comment  process and diverting resources away from the rulemaking process.  It  should be recognized that IQA correction requests could affect rulemaking  outside of the formal rulemaking process.  For example, IQA correction  requests that are filed before an agency’s formal rulemaking process begins  could affect when or if an agency initiates a rulemaking.
We found 16 requests for corrections submitted during fiscal years 2003  and 2004 to be related to agency rulemaking.  According to our analysis of  IQA requests, annual IQA reports sent to OMB, and OMB’s own reports, and  as later confirmed by OMB, five agencies reported having received 16 IQA  requests related to rulemaking for the 2-year period.  These five agencies  were EPA, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture’s  Forest Service, the Department of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax  and Trade Bureau, and DOT.  These 16 requests—touching on a diverse  range of issues, such as air safety, alcohol, chemicals, and the  environment—accounted for almost 1 in 5 substantive requests for the 2  years.
The Fish and Wildlife Service received the largest number of  rulemaking-related IQA requests out of the 16 requests related to  regulations or rules during fiscal years 2003 and 2004.  Seven of the  Service’s 11 requests were related to proposed rulemaking.  These 7  requests represented 44 percent of all rulemaking-related IQA requests  received by all agencies during the 2 years.
The agencies treated 10 of the 16 requests that they received during the  2-year period as comments to proposed rules rather than processing  them as IQA requests, and the agencies so informed the IQA petitioner.   For example, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau  considered an IQA request regarding flavored malt beverages and  related proposals as comments to a proposed rule.  The bureau  informed the IQA petitioner that it was handling the request as a public  comment under the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act,  rather than as an IQA correction request.  Agencies similarly processed  the other nine requests related to regulations or rulemaking.
As for the other six IQA requests related to rulemaking or regulations,  agencies rejected two, are developing responses to two, and were—as  of the end of March 2006—awaiting additional information or court  decisions before responding to the remaining two.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OMB’s governmentwide IQA guidelines provide agencies with flexibility to  develop their own guidelines to suit their missions.  Having executive  branch agencies use the Internet to inform the public about the existence  of their IQA guidelines, including the IQA correction mechanism, is a step  toward improving the transparency of how agencies develop and  disseminate information and address information errors, as well as how  information users can seek correction of information.
Given the current status of IQA at agencies, OMB has before it additional  opportunities to build on its efforts in implementing IQA so far, a mission  on which it embarked a few years ago.  For example, it could draw from its  experience of working with cabinet and many independent agencies to put  additional agency-specific guidelines in place.  Likewise, OMB could apply  the knowledge from the lessons it and agencies have learned about posting  accessible, user-oriented information on agency Web sites.  By working  with agencies and tapping into public input, OMB could enhance agencies’  and the public’s involvement in promoting high-quality agency information  as well as increasing the public’s access to and confidence in that  information, thereby helping to further the goal of disseminating quality  information.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that all agencies covered by IQA fulfill their requirements,  including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier  public access to IQA information on agency Web sites, we recommend that  the Director of OMB take the following three actions:   work with DHS to help ensure it fulfills IQA requirements and set a  deadline for doing so;   identify other agencies that do not have IQA guidelines and work with  them to develop and implement IQA requirements; and  clarify guidance to agencies on improving the public’s access to online  IQA information, including suggestions about clearer linkages to that  information, where appropriate.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, the Acting Administrator of  OMB's OIRA responded to our recommendations.  Regarding our draft  report's recommendation to OMB to work with DHS and other agencies not  meeting IQA requirements, the Acting Administrator stated that OMB fully  supports our recommendation that DHS develop IQA guidelines and that  OMB would continue to work with DHS to that end.  In our draft report, we  had one recommendation for OMB to work with DHS and other agencies to  develop IQA guidelines.  Based on OIRA's comments, in our final report we  made two separate recommendations regarding DHS and the other  agencies developing IQA guidelines.  Further, we believe that as OIRA  continues to work with DHS—which has 22 component agencies—setting a  deadline for DHS to implement IQA guidelines is important.  As for the  other agencies (many of which are small) without IQA guidelines, OIRA  stated it would work with them as they develop and implement information  quality measures.  OIRA stated that in those efforts, it would consider the  resources that would be needed and the potential benefits that would be  achieved by having IQA guidelines in place.  Regarding our  recommendation about public access to online IQA information, OIRA  noted it shares GAO's interest in improving public access and will continue  to work with agencies to improve dissemination of IQA information.  OIRA  also provided separate technical corrections and suggestions to the draft of  our report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.  The written  comments are reprinted in appendix IV.
As agreed with your offices, unless you release its contents earlier, we plan  no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its date.  At that  time we will send copies to other interested congressional committees and  the Acting Administrator of OIRA.  This report will also be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me on (202) 512-6806 or by e-mail at farrellb@gao.gov.  Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were  Robert Goldenkoff, Assistant Director; Ernie Hazera, Assistant Director;  Andrea Levine; Keith Steck; and Margit Willems Whitaker.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) role in  implementing the Information Quality Act (IQA), we reviewed OMB’s IQA  documents, including memorandums sent to agencies, and interviewed  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) staff involved with  IQA.  In addition, we reviewed IQA documents—including guidelines,  requests and appeals, agency decisions, and related documents—and  interviewed IQA and other knowledgeable officials at the 17 federal  agencies identified in table 5.  While we reviewed IQA guidelines at all  cabinet-level agencies, we conducted interviews at 5 independent agencies  and 12 of the 15 federal cabinet agencies and at least one component of  each, as shown in table 5.
We selected these agencies to obtain a cross section of agencies that reflect  the diverse range of government activities.  We made our selection to cover  a wide range of criteria, including the organization’s size (number of  employees in fiscal year 2004); its mission (regulatory versus statistical, for  example); and the nature of issues covered by the agency—such as the  environment, health, and safety.  We discussed with agency officials the  development of their IQA guidelines, whether they had received requests  for correction of information and how they addressed them, and what role  OMB played in all of this.
To further evaluate OMB’s role in the implementation of IQA, we reviewed  OMB and agency IQA documents for all 15 cabinet agencies and the 5  independent agencies we contacted.  These documents included online  information, such as OMB memorandums and agency IQA guidelines,  related IQA information, and OMB and agency IQA Web sites.  Additionally,  we reviewed the Web sites of 86 other independent agencies, including  commissions, boards, and other entities, covered by the Paperwork  Reduction Act to determine whether they had IQA guidelines online, but  we did not survey them.  Further, we reviewed the Federal Register for  notices about these agencies’ IQA guidelines, as OMB required.  We did not  contact these 86 individual agencies or survey users of their Web sites, as  this was beyond the scope of our review.
Regarding the second objective of determining the number, type, and  source of IQA requests, including who submitted them, for fiscal years 2003  and 2004, we contacted agency IQA officials and OMB staff and obtained  relevant information from them.  We also reviewed OIRA’s two reports to  Congress to validate data collected through other sources.  To the extent  the information was available online, we reviewed IQA requests on agency  Web sites.  To supplement and verify the accuracy and completeness of this  information, we interviewed agency and OMB IQA staff and officials.  In  addition, to categorize the sources of the requests by type of entity, such as  business, trade group, or nonprofit advocacy organization, we relied on  information from the sources and agency descriptions. We made our  determination when information was contradictory or not available.   Moreover, to determine the final status of IQA requests and any appeals, we  reviewed related agency documents, including agency notification letters,  and spoke with agency IQA officials about their status.  We determined that  OMB and agency data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  review.  The results of our analysis differ from information in OMB’s two  reports to Congress discussing IQA because of (1) differences between  report information about IQA requests and information on agency Web  sites and (2) minor report errors, including errors reported by agencies to  OMB—such as IQA requests reported for calendar year 2003 instead of  fiscal year 2003—that OMB repeated.  In addition, we tracked the status of  appeals to the end of March 2006 to provide current information, going  beyond the end of fiscal year 2004, which is the date OMB used as the  cutoff for appeal information in its December 2005 report.
Regarding the third objective of examining whether the implementation of  IQA has adversely affected agencies’ or overall operations in general and  the rulemaking process in particular, we contacted agency IQA and other  knowledgeable officials and OMB staff.  We also attempted to determine  the resources that OMB and agencies committed to implementing IQA by  obtaining IQA cost and staff allocation data, but agency officials told us  they do not track such information, although the Department of Labor had  cost information on setting up a system on the status of IQA requests.  In  addition, we reviewed the annual IQA reports submitted to OMB by the  cabinet-level agencies and the 5 independent agencies with guidelines  where we conducted interviews.
Moreover, to better understand specific aspects of IQA requests and how  agencies addressed them, as well as to illustrate specific points, we  reviewed in detail selected IQA requests at four agencies—the  Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human  Services’ National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture’s  Forest Service, and the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife  Service.
Because OMB was still developing its IQA peer review policies at the time  of our review, we did not discuss with agency officials their plans for  carrying out these future requirements.  In addition, although agencies have  other mechanisms to correct information, we evaluated only the IQA  information correction mechanism.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., from March 2005 through July  2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Independent Agencies Where Web Sites Were Checked for IQA Guidelines
paragraphs: and on Web site?
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) 10 Armed Forces Retirement Home 11 Broadcasting Board of Governors 13 Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 14 Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation 15 Commission Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction 16 Commission on International Religious Freedom 17 Commission on Ocean Policy 18 Commodities Futures Trading Commission 19 Consumer Product Safety Commission 20 Corporation for National and Community Service 21 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 22 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 25 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 26 Export-Import Bank of the United States Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Continued From Previous Page) and on Web site?
Institute of Museum and Library Services 45 Merit Systems Protection Board 46 Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 49 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 50 National Archives and Records Administration 51 National Commission on Libraries and Information  52 National Capital Planning Commission 53 National Council on Disability 54 National Credit Union Administration 55 National Endowment for the Arts 56 National Endowment for the Humanities 57 National Indian Gaming Commission 58 National Labor Relations Board 61 National Transportation Safety Board 62 Northwest Power Planning Council 64 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 65 Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 66 Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 67 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight 68 Office of Government Ethics 69 Office of Personnel Management (Continued From Previous Page) and on Web site?
section_title: Organizations That Filed IQA Correction Requests during Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004
paragraphs: W.K. Olsen and Associates, LLC   Earth Island Institute, etc. (2)
Sierra Club, etc.
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness—same as      Department of Health and Human Services     filing   Alliance for the Wild Rockies   Competitive Enterprise Institute—same as Office     of Science and Technology Policy filing   Atlantic Salmon of Maine—same as Department     of the Interior filing   Associated Fisheries of Maine, Inc., etc.
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, et al.
Public Employees for Environmental     Responsibility   Public Interest Group (identity not provided)
National Wrestling Coaches Association, etc.
Department of Health and Human Services   Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, etc. (3)—     one same as Department of Agriculture filing   Animal Health Institute (2)
SafeBlood Technologies, etc.
Chemical Products Corporation (2)
Styrene Information and Research Center, Inc.
Salt Institute, etc.
McNeil Consumer and Specialty Products   National Legal and Policy Center   American Chemistry Council (2) (Continued From Previous Page)
Atlantic Salmon of Maine—same as Department     of Commerce filing   Chilton Ranch and Cattle Company   Public Employees for Environmental      Responsibility (2)
National Association of Home Builders   National Coalition for Asian Pacific American      Community Development   Diageo North America, Inc.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (2)
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers   McDowell Owings Engineering, Inc.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (Executive Office of the President)
Competitive Enterprise Institute—same as     Department of Commerce filing   Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, etc. (2)
Friends of Massachusetts Military Reservation   Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP   Geronimo Creek Observatory (4)
Perchlorate Study Group (Continued From Previous Page)
National Multi-Housing Council, etc.
National Paint and Coatings Association, etc.
National Association of Home Builders   NPC Services, Inc.
section_title: Appendix IV