Overview
Title
To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of scientific data, incident data, or other pertinent data relied on by an agency to justify a rule.
ELI5 AI
The "Show Me the Science Act" says that when a government agency wants to make a new rule, they have to share the important scientific information they used to decide on that rule. But, if telling people about this data could be dangerous, the agency can keep it secret, as long as they explain why.
Summary AI
H.R. 9249, known as the “Show Me the Science Act,” aims to change title 5 of the United States Code by requiring federal agencies to publish scientific or other important data they use to justify new rules. This requirement helps promote transparency, except in cases where an agency head, without delegating this responsibility, decides that releasing the data could harm public safety or security. In such cases, the agency must notify and explain their decision to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and share this explanation in the Federal Register while considering safety and privacy. The bill also assigns the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs the task of guiding and monitoring compliance with this requirement.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The bill in question, known as the "Show Me the Science Act," aims to amend title 5 of the United States Code. Its primary goal is to require federal agencies to publish the scientific data, incident data, or other pertinent data that they rely on to justify new rules. This publication is intended to enhance transparency in government regulatory processes. However, exceptions are allowed if publishing the data is deemed to impede public safety or security. In such cases, the agency leader must provide a justification for withholding the data and ensure that this decision is made public through the Federal Register. The bill also tasks the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with creating compliance guidelines and monitoring agency adherence.
Key Issues
One of the significant issues is the lack of definition for terms such as "incident data" and "other pertinent data." This ambiguity may lead to inconsistent application and varied interpretations across different agencies, potentially complicating efforts to ensure transparency.
Furthermore, the bill allows agency heads to make unilateral decisions to withhold data under safety and security grounds. Critics may argue that this provision lacks sufficient checks and balances, which could undermine accountability if not properly monitored.
The bill also raises concerns about the timing and accessibility of the required publications in the Federal Register when data is withheld. Without clear guidelines, there might be delays or accessibility issues, making it difficult for the public to access crucial information.
Additionally, the terms "commonly accepted in the scientific community" and "sufficient quality" related to scientific data are not explicitly defined, creating room for subjective interpretations that could challenge consistent enforcement.
Lastly, the bill does not clarify the consequences for non-compliance by agencies, which might limit the effectiveness of the new requirements.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, the bill represents a positive step towards greater governmental transparency. By mandating the publication of data used in rulemaking, it allows citizens and stakeholders to understand the evidence behind government regulations. This could lead to increased public trust in governmental decisions and regulatory processes.
However, exceptions based on security reasons could limit public access to certain data. If not appropriately checked, this could sometimes erode trust, especially if the public perceives data withholding as unjustified.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For government agencies, this bill could increase administrative burdens as they work to compile, publish, and possibly defend the data underlying their regulations. Agencies could be wary of the challenges in determining what constitutes sufficient data quality or data that's "commonly accepted" in the scientific community.
Stakeholders such as researchers, advocacy groups, and industry professionals might view the bill favorably because it can provide access to valuable data that was previously inaccessible. This transparency can aid in research, support advocacy efforts, and help industries better navigate compliance issues.
Conversely, industries that consider some data proprietary or sensitive could be affected if such data falls within the scope of publication requirements without a clear provision to protect business interests.
Overall, while the bill aims to promote openness in government, its success in enhancing transparency depends on how well the issues identified are addressed, particularly the need for precise guidelines and robust oversight mechanisms.
Issues
Section 2: The potential ambiguity in the definitions of 'incident data' and 'other pertinent data' may lead to varied interpretations and inconsistent applications across agencies, affecting transparency.
Section 2: The authority granted to agency heads to decide unilaterally not to publish certain data on public safety or security grounds may lack adequate checks and balances, potentially undermining accountability.
Section 2: There is a lack of detailed requirements for the timing and accessibility of publications in the Federal Register when data publication is exempted for safety and security reasons, which could hinder public access to important information.
Section 2: Terms like 'commonly accepted in the scientific community' and 'sufficient quality' are not concretely defined, potentially leading to subjective interpretations and enforcement challenges.
Section 2: The bill does not specify consequences or enforcement mechanisms for agencies failing to comply with the guidance issued by the Administrator, which may reduce the effectiveness of the requirement.
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 gives it the official name, which is the "Show Me the Science Act."
2. Rulemaking requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill changes the rules so that when a new government rule is published, it must include the scientific or other important data that supports it. However, if sharing the data would put public safety or security at risk, the agency's leader can choose not to publish it, but they must explain why to another government office and the public, balancing safety and privacy needs.