Technical corrections only. The diff primarily updates the legislative status, indicating the bill's referral to the Senate and adding the name of the House Clerk. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
GOOD Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Comer, James [R-KY-1]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 4, 2025
Bottom line
The 'GOOD Act' aims to significantly enhance transparency and public access to federal agency guidance by centralizing its publication and ensuring historical records are preserved.
What it actually does
This Act, known as the 'GOOD Act,' mandates that all federal agencies publish new guidance documents on the date of issuance and existing guidance documents within 180 days of enactment. These documents must be published in a single, centralized online location designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with agencies providing prominent hyperlinks. The bill also requires that rescinded guidance documents be maintained online, clearly marked with their status and the reason for rescission.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that increased transparency of agency guidance documents is crucial for public accountability, allowing regulated entities and the public to understand the policies and interpretations that affect them, thereby reducing regulatory uncertainty and promoting fairness in government interactions.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill's broad definition of 'guidance document' could create an overwhelming administrative burden for agencies, potentially chilling informal communication or requiring the publication of internal, non-binding materials not intended for public consumption, thus hindering efficient agency operations.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Guidance Out Of Darkness Act' or the 'GOOD Act,' providing a concise and memorable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
A clear and memorable short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill more identifiable and its purpose more easily communicated.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short title provisions as they are standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None apparent.
Section 2
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms, including 'agency' (referencing 5 U.S.C. 551), 'Director' (referring to the Director of OMB), and 'guidance document.' The definition of 'guidance document' is particularly broad, encompassing any agency statement of general applicability that does not have the force of law but sets forth policy or interpretation, explicitly including various forms like memoranda, letters, blog posts, and speeches. It also mandates that the term be construed broadly.
Section 3
Mandatory Publication Requirements
This section mandates that federal agencies publish all new guidance documents on the date of their issuance. Additionally, it requires agencies to publish all existing guidance documents that are in effect as of the Act's enactment date within 180 days. These publications must comply with the specific requirements outlined in Section 4 regarding their location and organization.
Section 4
Centralized Online Repository
This section requires all guidance documents to be published in a single, centralized location on an internet website designated by the Director of OMB. Agencies must also provide a prominently displayed hyperlink on their own websites leading to this central repository. The documents within this repository must be categorized as 'guidance documents' and further subcategorized as appropriate. The Director of OMB is mandated to designate this central website within 90 days of the Act's enactment.
Section 5
Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
This section clarifies that if a guidance document, or any information within it, is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)), then that document or information is not subject to the publication requirements of this Act.
Section 6
Archiving Rescinded Guidance
This section requires agencies to maintain rescinded guidance documents at the central online location. When a document is rescinded, the agency must indicate that it is rescinded, the date of rescission, and, if applicable, the case number of any court order that led to the rescission.
Section 7
Impact on Validity and Congressional Review
This section clarifies two important points: (a) noncompliance with the Act's publication requirements does not affect the validity of any guidance document, and (b) the Act does not alter whether a guidance document is subject to congressional review under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act).
Section 8
Compliance Report by Comptroller General
This section mandates that the Comptroller General submit a report to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, not later than 5 years after the Act's enactment, detailing agency compliance with its provisions.
States that the term 'guidance document' 'shall be construed broadly to effectuate the purpose and intent of this Act' and 'shall not be limited to the items described in subparagraph (A)(ii).'
Section 2(3)(B)
Why it matters:While rules of construction are standard, this particular phrasing significantly expands the potential scope of the Act, making it more impactful than a simple list of examples. It could be seen as a deliberate attempt to prevent agencies from narrowly interpreting the definition.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad construction is necessary to prevent agencies from finding loopholes to avoid publishing certain types of guidance, ensuring the Act's transparency goals are fully realized.
Case against: Opponents might contend that such an open-ended definition creates ambiguity and could lead to agencies being forced to publish internal, preliminary, or informal communications never intended for public consumption, imposing an excessive burden.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands the universe of documents subject to publication significantly, beyond explicit examples, increasing the volume of information available to the public.
Explicitly states that 'noncompliance with any provision of this Act affects or otherwise impacts the validity of any guidance document.'
Section 7(a)
Why it matters:This provision is crucial because it limits the legal recourse for non-publication. It ensures that an agency's failure to publish guidance as required does not automatically invalidate the guidance itself, which could otherwise lead to significant legal challenges and regulatory uncertainty. It's a standard legislative practice to prevent unintended legal chaos.
Case for: Supporters argue this prevents the Act from being used to overturn agency actions on procedural grounds related to publication, ensuring the underlying policy remains valid even if administrative steps are missed. This protects regulatory stability.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision weakens the enforcement mechanism of the Act, as agencies face no direct legal penalty (invalidation of guidance) for failing to comply, potentially reducing the incentive for strict adherence.
Estimated impact: Prevents legal challenges to agency guidance based solely on non-publication under this Act, maintaining the legal force of guidance regardless of its transparency status.