Overview
Title
An Act To ensure that Federal agencies rely on the best reasonably available scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical information and evidence to develop, issue or inform the public of the nature and bases of Federal agency rules and guidance, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that government agencies use the best and most accurate information when they make new rules, and it says they have to fix any mistakes and share their info with the public, unless the law says they can't.
Summary AI
H.R. 7219, known as the "Information Quality Assurance Act," seeks to ensure that federal agencies use the best available scientific, technical, and statistical data when creating rules and guidance for the public. The Act mandates that agencies update their information quality guidelines, provide public access to the data they use, and correct any incorrect information. The bill emphasizes transparency and aims to improve the quality and reliability of government information shared with the public while setting exceptions for information that cannot be disclosed due to legal restrictions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled "Information Quality Assurance Act" is designed to improve the quality and transparency of information used by federal agencies when developing rules and guidelines. The intention is to ensure that the most accurate and reliable scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical data are applied in creating federal regulations and informing the public. By updating existing guidelines and enhancing public access to information, the bill aims to foster better decision-making within government agencies.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several notable issues that merit discussion. Firstly, while it mandates significant updates to information quality guidelines, it does not allocate additional funds to support these activities. This lack of financial support could strain agency resources and affect the implementation of the intended improvements. Another issue revolves around the complex language used, particularly concerning terms like "influential information or evidence." Such language can lead to differing interpretations across agencies, potentially resulting in inconsistent applications.
Further concerns arise from the bill's public disclosure provisions. The bill allows agencies to withhold information that is prohibited from public release under any statute, but it does not specify which statutes apply or how to resolve potential conflicts. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent practices and reduced transparency. Moreover, the term "critical factual material" lacks a precise definition, which means agencies might interpret it differently, leading to confusion and varied disclosure standards.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill seeks to enhance public trust in federal agencies by ensuring decisions are based on high-quality data. Improved transparency and accessibility to information could strengthen public oversight of agency actions, assuming implementation is both consistent and effective. However, the complex language and exceptions to disclosure may dilute these potential benefits, as the public could find it challenging to navigate the information provided or know when and how data might be withheld.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal agencies, the bill could introduce new compliance requirements, likely adding to workload and operational challenges, especially in the absence of additional funding. Agencies might face pressure to balance these mandates with existing responsibilities, potentially affecting efficiency. On the other hand, interest groups and stakeholders working with federal agencies might benefit from the increased transparency if the guidelines are implemented as intended, enabling more informed engagement with agency rulemaking processes.
Furthermore, legal and policy analysts may find opportunities in interpreting and advising on the implementation of the bill’s provisions. Yet, given the vague terms and lack of clear procedural guidance, they might also confront challenges in ensuring consistent and reasonable applications of the guidelines.
In conclusion, while the "Information Quality Assurance Act" has the potential to enhance the reliability and transparency of federal agency actions, its effectiveness highly depends on clear definitions, adequate funding, and straightforward implementation guidance. Its impacts will vary significantly depending on how these elements are addressed and operationalized by involved federal bodies.
Issues
The bill mandates that Federal agencies update guidelines for maximizing the quality and integrity of influential information or evidence without allocating additional funds for these activities (Section 2). This could result in resource strains and potentially ineffective implementation, raising political and financial concerns.
The language used in the bill, especially in the definition and application of 'influential information or evidence', is complex and could lead to subjective interpretations by agency heads (Section 3522). This might result in inconsistent practices across different agencies, affecting legal transparency and public trust.
The bill's exception clause for public disclosure allows agencies to withhold information prohibited under any statute without specifying those statutes or the process for resolving conflicts (Section 3522). This could create legal ambiguities and opportunities for misuse, impacting transparency and accountability.
The term 'critical factual material' is not clearly defined, which leaves room for interpretation and inconsistency in disclosure practices among agencies (Section 3522). This could hinder public understanding and engagement, presenting ethical concerns.
The bill directs Federal agencies to publish guidelines on websites, which could imply unestimated administrative costs (Section 3522). Without budget considerations, this could lead to financial inefficiencies or additional resource demands on agencies.
The lack of clear mechanisms for oversight and accountability in implementing the updated guidelines could lead to inconsistent applications across different agencies (Section 3522). This represents a governance issue as it might not effectively address the intended goals of information quality assurance.
Public access to rulemaking dockets and administrative records is mandated without clear instructions on stakeholder engagement in updating guidelines (Section 2). This could result in ambiguity about public and Federal agency involvement, affecting the political significance of the bill.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states the short title, which is "Information Quality Assurance Act."
2. Information Quality Assurance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Information Quality Assurance" section updates guidelines to ensure federal agencies use reliable and accurate information when developing rules and public guidance. It requires public disclosure of scientific and statistical data used, with exceptions for confidential information, and mandates that agencies provide explanations and efforts to improve access if information cannot be disclosed.
3522. Information Quality Assurance. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines requirements for updating guidelines under the Information Quality Assurance Act to ensure the accuracy and transparency of important information used by federal agencies. It mandates public disclosure of information sources, except when prohibited by law, and requires these updates to be made available online, while also defining key terms related to the guidelines.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act simply gives it a name, stating that it can be referred to as the "Information Quality Assurance Act."
2. Information Quality Assurance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the Information Quality Assurance requirements for federal agencies. It mandates updating guidelines to ensure that high-quality information is used in making rules and guidance, and it requires public disclosure of critical factual material within rulemaking processes, while considering legal and cost constraints. Additionally, it specifies no new rights for judicial review or additional funding for implementation.
3522. Information Quality Assurance. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Information Quality Assurance Act requires the Director to update guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of information used by federal agencies when creating rules. Within a year, agencies must update and publish their guidelines, make critical information publicly available except where prohibited, and ensure mechanisms for correcting inaccurate information are accessible.