Department of Commerce Year-End Revised Information Quality Report FY 2005

Department of Commerce Year-End Revised

Information Quality Report FY 2005

I.Cover Sheet: Requests for Correction Received FY 2005

Department Name: Department of Commerce

Period Covered: 10/1/04 through 9/30/05

Web page location of agency information quality correspondence: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/index.htm

II.If you received correction requests or appeals and did not provide a final response in FY03 or FY04, please list those correction requests below and provide a detailed summary in section III of this template.

III. Templates:

Department of Commerce - NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Request for Correction: Oceana

• Agency Receiving Correction Request: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

• Requestor: Dr. Michael Hirshfield, Vice-President for North American Oceans and Chief Scientist Oceana, a Public Interest Group

• Date Received: The request for correction is dated August 4, 2005 and it was logged in by the appropriate NOAA IQ officer on August 9, 2005. The request was received by mail.

• Summary of Request: Oceana requested correction of information contained in 17 separate Biological Opinions, prepared pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Atlantic Ocean fisheries that have interactions with sea turtles. The Biological Opinions in question were first disseminated between 1999 and 2004. Oceana stated that NMFS “disseminated information concerning the population status, fisheries impacts, permissible incidental take of sea turtles (due to interaction with fishing gear), and jeopardy status of loggerhead and other sea turtles in numerous biological opinions,” including 17 biological opinions specified in the request for correction. According to Oceana, the Biological Opinions contain inaccuracies resulting from the agency’s “failure to use the best available methods for collecting data on sea turtles and its failure to use the best available science to determine jeopardy and incidental take limits” for sea turtles.

• Description of Requested Correction: Oceana combined its request for correction with a petition for rulemaking that asked the agency to take the following steps:

1. Acquire adequate population data for all ESA-listed sea turtles. Oceana petitioned the agency to conduct population level and life stage assessments using techniques such as in-water trawl or aerial surveys to adequately characterize sea turtle populations.

2. Acquire adequate take and mortality data for sea turtles through the use of at-sea observers. Oceana alleged that the data used by NMFS to determine whether fishing activities will jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtle populations, which currently comes from the logbooks of fishing vessels and estimates from a small number of observers, are subject to multiple biases. Oceana petitioned the agency to increase the number of observers placed on fishing vessels in Atlantic Ocean fisheries.

3. Establish an adequate standardized method for making jeopardy determinations. Oceana petitioned the agency to provide a rational basis for its incidental take limits to demonstrate that sea turtle “takes” in federally managed fisheries do not jeopardize loggerhead populations or other sea turtle populations. “Take” is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2005).

Oceana requested correction of the information contained in “numerous documents” based on the “inadequacies and inaccuracies” identified in the petition for rulemaking.

• Influential: ____Yes ____ No __X__ Undetermined

The agency did not reach the question of whether this request for correction involved influential information as that term is defined under the NOAA Information Quality Guidelines because it was determined that the request was not a “proper request” under the NOAA Information Quality Guidelines.

• First Agency Response: ____ in progress __X__ completed [if completed, provide date of response]

The agency’s response was completed on October 3, 2005.

• Resolution: The agency concluded that the request for correction “does not meet the minimum requirements for a proper request as specified in NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines…” The agency informed Oceana that “the request for correction fails to comply with two requirements specified in the NOAA Guidelines. In particular, an initial request for correction must include: (1) an accurate citation to or description of the particular information disseminated which is the subject of the request, and (2) a specific statement of how the information at issue fails to comply with the applicable guidelines and why the requester believes the information is not correct.”

The petition for rulemaking was forwarded to the appropriate office within NMFS and addressed by the agency in a separate letter. The agency also published a notice of decision in the Federal Register on December 1, 2005, announcing that it had denied the petition for rulemaking. See 70 FR 72099.

• Judicial Review: _X__none ____yes ______ in progress [if there has been any judicial review associated with this request or appeal please provide a description of actions and outcomes].

• Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ____ completed [date of response][provide: date of appeal request (both the date on the letterhead and the date it was logged in by the appropriate IQ officer)]

• Summary of Request for Reconsideration: [describe in a few sentences, using excerpts from the request where appropriate, why petitioner believes original response to be insufficient, and any substantial new information provided] NA

• Type of Appeal Process Used: [describe in a few sentences; identify the mechanism used to reach the decision, e.g., senior official review or oversight panel from within the same agency] NA

• Appeal Resolution: [describe in a few sentences, quoting the response where appropriate, how the agency resolved the appeal, and categorize the correction as: initial decision upheld; or information corrected per request; or offered a different correction; or other – describe] NA

Department of Commerce - NOAA National Weather Service Request for Correction: Doehnert

• Agency Receiving Correction Request: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS)

• Requestor: Mr. Mark Doehnert (no affiliation stated)

• Date Received: Initial letter dated 1/3/05; stamped in 1/11/05; supplemental letter dated: 2/9/05; stamped in: Not available.

• Summary of Request: Initial letter: This was a "request for NOAA to include the time that the forecast is prepared or the time of the observations used to make the forecast on its local Washington DC and Baltimore voice recorded weather forecasts."

Supplemental letter: cites an additional example

• Description of Requested Correction: The requester asked that NOAA "include the time that the forecast is prepared or the time of the observations used to make the forecast on its local Washington DC and Baltimore voice recorded weather forecasts." [quotation from request for correction]

• Influential: ____Yes ____ No __X__ Undetermined

The agency did not reach the question of whether this request for correction involved influential information as that term is defined under the NOAA Information Quality Guidelines because it was determined that the request was not a “proper request” under the NOAA Information Quality Guidelines.

• First Agency Response: ____ in progress __X__ completed

Extension letter: 2/28/05; decision letter: 4/14/05.

• Resolution: The request was denied because NOAA is [language below is quoted from response]:...in the process of automating distribution and delivery of our forecasts as much as possible to make sure the latest information is always readily available. Technicians at the Baltimore-Washington Weather Forecast Office (WFO) in Sterling, Virginia, are working on a system that will connect the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards program to the telephone recording to achieve consistent, reliable service. This new process should be in place by summer.

In the meantime, you can be sure the WFO staff are making every effort to keep the telephone recording up to date with the latest forecast. You might find it easier to monitor the latest forecast and weather conditions by listening to NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards. Receivers are available at most radio stores and via Internet web sites. More information about this service is available at: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/lwx/nwr/nwr.htm Or, if you have Internet access, you could keep up with local forecasts through the http://www.weather.gov web site, or directly at: http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/forecasts/zone/va/vaz054.txt

• Judicial Review: __X__none ____yes ______ in progress

• Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ____ completed

• Summary of Request for Reconsideration: NA

• Type of Appeal Process Used: NA

• Appeal Resolution: NA