The Information Quality Act: OMB's Guidance and Initial Implementation

Publication Date: August 2004

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Media, telecommunications, and information

Type:

Abstract:

The Information Quality Act (IQA), sometimes referred to as the Data Quality Act, was enacted in December 2000 as Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554). The act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to federal agencies designed to ensure the "quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information disseminated to the public. It also required agencies to issue their own information quality guidelines, and to establish administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agencies that does not comply with the OMB guidance. Although some observers said the IQA would improve the quality of agency science and regulation, others viewed the act as a tool by which regulated parties could slow or even stop new health, safety, and environmental standards.

Because of the scant legislative history of the IQA and its lack of detail, OMB's guidance interpreting key provisions in the act has a major effect on its implementation. In those guidelines, OMB noted that the act applies to virtually all federal agencies and established the broad scope of the guidelines by defining "information" as "any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form." Similarly, the guidelines define "dissemination" as any "agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public." OMB indicated that "quality" encompasses elements of utility, objectivity, and integrity, and said agencies can generally presume that data are "objective" if they have been subject to an independent peer review process.

In April 2004, OMB provided Congress with a report on the implementation of the IQA during FY2003. The report said the agencies received only about 35 substantive correction requests during the year, and said it was "premature to make broad statements about both the impact of the correction request process and the overall responsiveness of the agencies." Many other correction requests listed in the report were on minor issues or involved matters that had been dealt with before the IQA was enacted. OMB indicated that the correction requests came from all segments of society, and said there was no evidence that the IQA had affected the pace of rulemaking. However, OMB Watch (a public interest group) said OMB's report was "seriously flawed" in that it understated the number of correction requests and did not disclose that nearly three-quarters of the requests were from industry.

A major test of the IQA's effectiveness is whether agencies' denials of correction requests are subject to judicial review. In June 2004, a U.S. District Court ruled that the act does not permit judicial review regarding agencies' compliance with its provisions, and the Department of Justice issued a brief stating that the IQA does not permit judicial review. Comments from OMB, OMB Watch, and others suggest several possible areas for improvement of the IQA's implementation.

This report will be updated in the event of significant developments in the administration, judicial interpretation, or legislative oversight of the IQA.