Overview
Title
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 "Information Quality Assurance Act" is a plan to make sure that when the government makes new rules, they use the best and most correct information from scientists and experts. It also wants to make sure that this information is easy for people to see and understand online, unless there is a good reason it has to be kept secret.
Summary AI
H. R. 7219, titled the "Information Quality Assurance Act of 2024," aims to ensure that federal agencies use the best available scientific, technical, and data-driven information when developing rules and guidance. The bill requires the Director to update guidelines for federal agencies to enhance the quality and reliability of information they use, and make these updated guidelines available online. It mandates that agencies also make their data models and methodologies publicly accessible, with certain exceptions for information that cannot be disclosed by law. Additionally, if an agency can't disclose certain information, they must explain why and describe efforts to improve access to such information.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The "Information Quality Assurance Act of 2024" is a legislative proposal aimed at enhancing the reliability of information used by Federal agencies in rulemaking and public guidance. This bill mandates that Federal agencies update their guidelines to ensure they are utilizing the best available scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and statistical information. Aimed at boosting transparency, the bill also requires that such guidelines be made publicly available and prescribes mechanisms for correcting any inaccuracies in influential information.
General Summary
At its core, the bill seeks to ensure that the foundations upon which Federal regulations and guidance are built are of the highest quality. It proposes that within a year of enactment, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Federal agencies must refresh guidelines that enhance information quality. Federal agencies are to publicly disclose models, methodologies, or sources of information used in rulemaking or public guidance unless prohibited by law. This inclusivity aims at bolstering public trust in Federal decisions by making the processes and data used more transparent and accessible.
Significant Issues
One of the primary issues discussed in relation to the bill is the ambiguity in critical definitions such as "influential information or evidence" and "best reasonably available information." These terms are somewhat vague, potentially leading to varied interpretations by different agencies. Another issue concerns the practicalities of updating these guidelines within the proposed timeline of one year, as agencies may face resource constraints that challenge implementation.
Making information available as an "open Government data asset" could impose a financial burden on agencies that may not have the necessary infrastructure or resources. Furthermore, the exception clause that allows withholding information due to existing statutes lacks a clear framework to balance transparency with legal restrictions, which could lead to discrepancies in implementation.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this bill could enhance transparency and trust in Federal decisions by allowing more insight into the data and methodologies agencies rely on for rulemaking. By mandating the quality assurance of information, it could improve the effectiveness of policies and regulations that affect everyday life. However, if interpretations of vague terms lead to inconsistency, it could instead foster confusion rather than clarity.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal agencies are among the primary stakeholders that would be directly affected by this bill. The requirement to update guidelines and make data available transparently could improve their accountability. However, without additional support and resources, the implementation might strain smaller agencies or those unprepared for this shift, potentially affecting their operational efficiency.
For the industries regulated by Federal agencies, clearer regulations based on higher quality information could mean more predictability and stability in compliance requirements. However, the costs associated with the potential need for additional resources to meet these new standards could be challenging for some stakeholders, depending on their industry's nature and the agency’s role.
In summary, while the "Information Quality Assurance Act of 2024" aims to improve the quality and transparency of information used in Federal rulemaking, several issues need addressing to ensure its effective implementation. Adequate resources and clear guidelines are imperative to avoid inconsistencies and ensure that all stakeholders benefit equally from this legislative effort.
Issues
The definition and criteria for 'influential information or evidence' and 'best reasonably available information' (Sections 2 and 3522) are vague and may lead to inconsistent application across Federal agencies, impacting the quality and objectivity of information used in rulemaking.
The requirements for making information available as 'open Government data asset' (Section 3522(c)(3)) could incur significant costs for agencies lacking resources or technology, leading to possible wasted spending if not managed effectively.
The mandate for updating guidelines within one year (Sections 2 and 3522(b)) might be overly optimistic without additional resources, potentially leading to non-compliance and inadequate implementation.
The exception clause for withholding certain information 'based on existing statutes' (Sections 2 and 3522(c)(2)) lacks guidance on balancing transparency with legal restrictions, which could challenge agencies and raise concerns about accountability.
The lack of specified criteria for involving public and Federal agencies in updating guidelines (Section 2) might lead to biased or limited representation, raising fairness and ethical concerns.
The administrative mechanisms for correcting information (Section 3522(b)(3)) lack detailed standardization and clarity, leading to potential inconsistencies and lack of trust in the process for addressing misinformation.
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 act states that this law is officially called the “Information Quality Assurance Act of 2024.”
2. Information Quality Assurance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Information Quality Assurance section of the bill proposes that within one year, the Director must update guidelines to help Federal agencies ensure the quality and integrity of important information used for creating rules and guidance. The updated guidelines must be made publicly available and allow for corrections if inaccurate information is identified, while providing transparency on the sources and models used in rulemaking, with necessary exceptions for privacy and legal constraints.
3522. Information Quality Assurance. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines requirements for the Director to update information quality guidelines for Federal agencies within a year of the enactment of a new law. It emphasizes ensuring the quality of information used in federal rulemaking, mandates public disclosure of related data, and sets clear guidelines for correcting any inaccurate influential information or evidence.