"The law was written by Congress, but it was very vague. OMB put the meat on the bone, so they are reluctant to admit there are any problems" says Sean Moulton, senior policy analyst with OMB Watch, a non-profit organization that monitors the OMB. "The new law is a tool for them to be involved with agencies and influence their actions. OMB is a White House office. It's problematic to have a political office overly involved in the regulatory process."

The Data Quality Act was added as a brief rider to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, and took effect in October 2002. It directed the OMB to instruct federal agencies on setting standards for the quality of scientific and statistical information they use and distribute. It also required agencies to accept and review challenges to their data.

OMB Watch has found that in its report to Congress, OMB significantly undercounted the number of challenges made under the law, and understated the extent to which industries are challenging information that affects their business interests.

In one case, the Animal Health Institute, a trade organization for companies in the animal health and pharmaceutical industry, challenged data from the Centers for Disease Control showing that use of a particular antibiotic in poultry leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food.

This resistance makes it more difficult to treat people sickened by bacteria from eating undercooked poultry. The AHI alleged that the Center's recommendations were based on flawed data, and tried to have them removed from the Center's materials.

OMB reported to Congress that there have been no slowdowns in the regulatory process as a result of the law. However, it did not ask federal agencies the amount of time or money they are spending on implementation, or for input on how the law is affecting the speed with which agencies make and implement regulations.

Industries are also trying to use the law to block distribution of information. Although so far no such challenges have succeeded, the attempts suggest how the law could chill even intra-agency information disseminations.

For instance, a timber industry coalition has repeatedly challenged U.S. Forest Service data on the Northern Goshawk. The service considers the bird a "sensitive species," a designation that limits logging and other activities in its habitat. Industry's petitions sought to "correct" the data by having the agency withdraw entire documents or whole sections of documents--in effect "de-publishing" information.

"'Don't correct, just withdraw'," says OMB Watch analyst Cheryl Gregory, describing industry's tactics for changing the Forest Service's rules. "That would open the entire area to logging."

Moulton is most concerned that Congress is not getting the information it needs to assess the impact of the Data Quality Act on public health and the environment. "We want the General Accountability Office to do an independent study, to find out what the true impact of the law has been. OMB is too close to give an objective report."

###

TAKE ACTION
Tell Congress to investigate the Data Quality Act.