Information Quality Act: Expanded Oversight and Clearer Guidance by the Office of Management and Budget Could Improve Agencies' Implementation of the Act
Released: 2006-09-18T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

OMB Took Steps to Implement IQA, but IQA Guidelines and Information for Many Agencies Are Not Available or Easily Accessible

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.

OMB’s OIRA Set Up Framework for IQA Implementation

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.

OIRA Focused Its Efforts on Cabinet-Level and Regulatory Agencies

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.”

Accessing Agencies’ Web Site IQA Information Is Difficult

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.

From Fiscal Years 2003 to 2004, Three Agencies Reclassified Correction Requests to Concentrate on Substantive Matters

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.

Agencies Changed Simple Requests More Often Than Substantive Requests or Appeals during 2 Years

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.

Impact of IQA on Agencies Could Not Be Determined

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.

Agencies Treated Most IQA Rulemaking-Related Requests as Comments to Proposed Rules

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Scope and Methodology

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.

Independent Agencies Where Web Sites Were Checked for IQA Guidelines

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?

Organizations That Filed IQA Correction Requests during Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004

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.

Appendix IV