Misplaced Pages

Data Quality Act

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
US federal law on improving civil service information

The Information Quality Act (IQA) or Data Quality Act (DQA), passed through the United States Congress in Section 515 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554 (text) (PDF)). Because the Act was a two-sentence rider in a spending bill, it had no name given in the actual legislation. The Government Accountability Office uses the name "Information Quality Act".

IQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies". Other federal agencies are also required to publish their own guidelines for information quality and peer review agendas.

Text of the IQA

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 Sec. 515 reads:

(a) In General. – The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(b) Content of Guidelines. – The guidelines under subsection (a) shall –

(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply –
(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);
(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and
(C) report periodically to the Director –
(i) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy of information disseminated by the agency; and
(ii) how such complaints were handled by the agency.

Guidelines developed pursuant to IQA

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (October 2014)

OMB guidelines

Guidelines developed by agencies pursuant to IQA and OMB guidelines

Criticism

The Data Quality Act has been criticized as providing a vehicle for special interest groups to challenge regulations on the grounds of not meeting information quality requirements. However, others view unchecked data and lack of peer-review as a tool of political corruption leading to the imposition of arbitrary and capricious regulations. The "driving force behind the IQA", Jim Tozzi, said "there’s no doubt that we were funded by industry" and they wanted the IQA to be used as a tool to challenge government information. However, it does not confer any right to judicial review if people have sought to change information and been unsuccessful in convincing the agency (see below).

Information Quality Act failing as a basis for law suits

The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to prevent dissemination of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s "Climate Action Report 2002" published May 2002, claiming the research did not meet requirements of the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA), which came into effect in October 2002. The case was dismissed in November 2003.

In 2004, a multi-party dispute regarding the management of the Missouri River led to a case in which the District Court declared that "the IQA directs the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to issue guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the agency, the plain language of the legislation fails to define these terms. 44 U.S.C. § 3516. Moreover, the history of the legislation fails to provide any indication as to the scope of these terms. Absent any "meaningful standard" against which to evaluate the agency's discretion, the Court finds that Congress did not intend the IQA to provide a private cause of action, and therefore Blaske Marine Plaintiffs' IQA claim fails."

Four days after this judgement the Department of Justice reiterated that "The language of the IQA reflects Congress's intent that any challenges to the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies should take place in administrative proceedings before federal agencies and not in the courts. The first and only court to address this issue determined that the IQA does not provide for a private cause of action.”.

This statement was made in a brief that successfully asked for the dismissal of a lawsuit lodged by the Salt Institute (a salt-producers' association) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the Department of Health and Human Services in federal court using the Information Quality Act. The suit alleged that federal scientists lacked evidence that salt was harmful to health but was dismissed by a trial and appellate court. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) which is part of the US National Institutes of Health claimed that the food industry is adding too much salt to foods. The motion to dismiss was granted "because the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, there is no private right of action under the Information Quality Act, and the NHLBI's actions regarding the DASH-Sodium Trial data are not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act."

In July 2019, the Department of Justice maintained that there was "no basis" for lawsuits based on the Information Quality Act. Protect Democracy Project Inc. and the Brennan Center for Justice had filed a suit demanding the U. S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security correct a report linking immigration with terrorism. The report remained online, unchanged.

External links

Commentary

References

  1. ^ "Agency Information Quality Guidelines". Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved 3 October 2014 – via National Archives.
  2. Simpson, Michael (2011), "Quality Data Act (Information Quality Act (IQA))", in Jordan, David Alan (ed.), Free Course Book for Course 3: Statutory Law and Intelligence
  3. U.S. Government Printing Office. "Information Quality Act". Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 7 January 2013.
  4. ^ Mooney, Chris (August 28, 2005), Thanks to a little-known piece of legislation, scientists at the EPA and other agencies find their work questioned not only by industry, but by their own government, Interrogations, Boston Globe, retrieved May 5, 2014
  5. Campbell Meshkin, Catherine (December 2010). "Unchecked Data: A Tool for Political Corruption?". Engage. 11 (3).
  6. "Massachusetts case may give new teeth to the Information Quality Act : Sunlight Foundation". sunlightfoundation.com. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
  7. U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002 (PDF), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, U.S., May 2002
  8. Horner, Christopher C. (February 9, 2003), CEI's Petition Against Further Dissemination Of EPA's "Climate Action Report 2002", Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), retrieved May 5, 2014
  9. Agree to dismissal: Competitive Enterprise Institute (plaintiff) v. George Walker Bush et al (defendants) (PDF), District of Columbia: United States District Court, November 4, 2003, retrieved May 6, 2014
  10. "In re Operation of the Missouri River System Litigation, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1145 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
  11. "Salt Institute v. Thompson, 345 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2004)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
  12. "Salt Institute v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2021-03-05.
  13. Ellison, Sarah (February 25, 2005), Despite Big Health Concerns, Food Industry Can't Shake Salt: Scientists Struggle to Find An Acceptable Substitute; Diners Are Hooked, Too, Wall Street Journal, retrieved May 5, 2014
  14. "Salt Institute v. Thompson, 345 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2004)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
  15. "DOJ Looks To Nix Suit Over 'Inaccurate' Terrorism Report - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
  16. "Wayback Machine" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 December 2019. Retrieved 2022-02-13.
Categories: