Information Quality Act

• Author: William Funk - Jeffrey S. Lubbers
• Pages: 797-873

797

INFORMATION QUALITY ACT

16

797

Information

Quality

Act

Citations:

44 U.S.C. § 3516 note (2012); enacted December 21, 2000, by Pub. L.

No. 106-554 § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153.

Lead Agency:

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regula-

tory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, (202) 395-4852;

e-mail: informationquality@omb.eop.gov; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

inforeg/infopoltech.html.

Overview:

The Information Quality Act (IQA), also frequently termed the Data

Quality Act, mandates the establishment of guidelines “ensuring and maxi-

mizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (includ-

ing statistical information) disseminated” by agencies. The IQA consists of a

two-sentence appropriations rider to the Treasury and General Government

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. No. 106-554) and amends

the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3520. The

amendment directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue

policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies that are subject to the

PRA. The IQA requires OMB to guide agencies (1) in issuing their own data

quality guidelines to regulate agency use and dissemination of information;

(2) in developing administrative mechanisms so that affected parties may

seek correction of information that does not comply with information quality

guidelines; and (3) in making periodic reports to OMB on the number, na-

ture, and resolution of any complaints the agencies receive concerning their

failure to comply with either OMB or agency-specific information quality

guidelines.

798 INFORMATION QUALITY ACT

16

OMB published proposed guidelines pursuant to the IQA in the Federal

Register on June 28, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 34,489). Following public com-

ment, OMB published interim final guidelines on September 28, 2001 (66

Fed. Reg. 49,718), and then finalized guidelines, after additional public com-

ment, on February 22, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 8452). The guidelines are repro-

duced in Appendix 2 of this chapter and are available online at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/

reproducible2.pdf.On October 1, 2002, the OMB guidelines went into effect,

thus requiring agencies to issue, by the same date, their own guidelines de-

tailing their agency-specific information quality standards and outlining ad-

ministrative mechanisms for affected parties to challenge the quality of

agency-disseminated information. Any information disseminated by agencies

on or after October 1, 2002, is subject to the OMB and agency-specific infor-

mation quality guidelines. Agency-specific guidelines may be found on the

agency websites, in the Federal Register, or on the OMB website at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_agency_info_quality_links.

Information Quality Guidelines. The IQA aims to regulate “the sharing

by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal

agencies.” The OMB guidelines define “information” as “any communication

or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form,

including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual

forms” (§ V.5). This definition includes information posted on an agency web

page, but excludes hyperlinks to information disseminated by sources outside

the agency. Similarly, if an agency presents information in a manner clearly

indicating that the information reflects an opinion, not a fact or an agency

view, the information is not subject to the same information quality standards.

The guidelines define “dissemination” as “agency initiated or sponsored distri-

bution of information to the public” (§ V.8). The guidelines exclude from the

definition of dissemination any distribution that is limited to “government

employees or agency contractors or grantees; intra- or inter-agency use or shar-

ing of government information; and responses to requests for agency records

under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory

Committee Act or other similar law.” Further excluded are “correspondence

with individuals or persons, press releases, archival records, public filings,

[and] subpoenas or adjudicative processes” (§ V.8).

The IQA addresses the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of

agency information. The OMB guidelines provide definitions for these terms.

“Quality” encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity. (§ V.1) “Utility”

contemplates the usefulness of information for both the agency and the pub-

lic such that “when transparency of information is relevant for assessing the

799

INFORMATION QUALITY ACT

16

information’s usefulness from the public’s perspective, the agency must take

care to ensure that transparency has been addressed in its review of the infor-

mation.”(§ V.2) “Integrity” refers to the safeguarding of information fr om

unauthorized access or revision. (§ V.4) “Objectivity” focuses on whether

information is not only substantively accurate, clear and complete, but also

presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner (§§ V.3.a-b).

To satisfy the presentation prong of the objectivity requirement, agencies

must present information in context, which may—depending on the sort of

information—require providing additional information, sources, supporting

data, models, sources of errors and documentation. The substantive objectiv-

ity prong requires that scientific, financial, or statistical information be based

on original and supporting data and analytic results produced using “sound

statistical and research methods” (§ V.3.b).

The guidelines provide that information presumptively satisfies the sub-

stantive objectivity requirement if the relevant data and analytic results have

undergone formal, independent, external peer review (§ V.3.b.i). A presump-

tion of objectivity is rebuttable if a petitioner persuasively demonstrates a

lack of objectivity. If peer review is agency-sponsored, certain transparency

requirements are triggered to ensure the peer review is adequate. Agency-

sponsored peer reviews must be open and rigorous, and peer reviewers must

be selected primarily on the basis of necessary technical expertise, disclose to

agencies any prior positions they may have taken on pertinent issues, and

reveal sources of personal and institutional funding.

The objectivity standard—that information be “reproducible” to prove

transparency—is more particular for information that falls into the category

of not simply ordinary but “influential” information (§ V.3.b.ii.B). Informa-

tion is influential if “the agency can reasonably determine that dissemination

of the information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on

important public policies or important private sector decisions” (§ V.9). Each

agency may separately define “influential” to accord with “the nature and

multiplicity of issues for which the agency is responsible” (§ V.9). Agencies

should consult with relevant scientific and technical communities on the fea-

sibility of making certain categories of data subject to the reproducibility

standard (§ V.3.b.ii.A). Reproducibility in the analytic analysis context de-

mands that “independent analysis of the original or supporting data using

identical methods would generate similar analytic results, subject to an ac-

ceptable degree of imprecision or error” (§ V.10). The acceptable degree of

imprecision changes to reflect the impacts the information may have. The

reproducibility standard for other categories of data is set forth by individual