Tozzi Response

(1) The Data Quality Act Is A Result Of OMB's Failure To Comply With Numerous Congressional Directives.
Not withstanding press reports to the contrary, the Data Quality Act has its origins in the amendments to the Paperwork Reduction of 1995, at which time the Congress directed OMB to issue guidelines regarding the dissemination of information. OMB failed to comply with this directive and similar directives in 1998,1999 and 2000; culminating in Congressional action in 2000. Interestingly, Congress conducted extensive hearings in 1995, which often does not make it into press accounts which allege the Act was passed with no hearings or debate.

(2) Reyes Syndrome Rule Was Withdrawn >From OMB Review By The Secretary Of HHS
The assertion that Jim Tozzi rejected the proposed Reyes Syndrome labeling is completely inaccurate. The facts are, as demonstrated in the record, as follows:

(1) Sept 20 1982     The Secretary of HHS sent a proposed labeling regulation to OMB.

(2) Nov 8 1982     The American Academy of Pediatrics announces"
"Labeling aspirin-containing preparations as contraindicted in the treatment of influenza or chicken pox should be delayed until more conclusive evidence of the association of aspirin administration and Reye's Syndrome is shown by further investigation."

(3) Nov 18 1982    The Secretary of HHS withdrew the rule from OMB review.
The record clearly demonstrates that Tozzi did not delay the implementation of the review for years.

(3) EPA Science Advisory Panel Concludes That All Studies On Atrazine Were Flawed

EPA convened an outside panel of experts to review the studies performed by industry and academia on atrazine. The panel, comprised solely of experts with no ties to the industry, concluded that "all of the field studies reviewed had serious design or methodological flaws that limit their usefulness in evaluating hypotheses related to the effects of atrazine exposure on anuran developmental responses".

EPA reached a similar conclusion months before the Advisory reached its decision. In summary, the Data Quality Act imposes no more stringent standards for review than normally employed by scientists; it does however, when a petition is filed, require that such standards be utilized in a transparent manner.