Author's Keywords: Data Quality Act, Information Quality Act, health regulations, environmental regulations	Convention Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p212079_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Caress, Stanley. "The Federal Data Quality Act?s Impact on the Environmental Health Regulatory Process" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Aug 30, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2008-04-11 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p212079_index.html>

Caress, S. M. (2007, Aug) "The Federal Data Quality Act?s Impact on the Environmental Health Regulatory Process" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association Online <PDF> Retrieved 2008-04-11 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p212079_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: The little-known Data Quality Act, passed by Congress in 2000, may have had a noticeable impact on the creation and implementation of federal regulations. This act, which makes it far easier to question scientific evidence used to justify regulations, has altered the regulatory process in several key ways. First, it has created new but vague standards for the acceptability of scientific research used as the basis for federal regulations. Each federal agency is now required to establish its own standards that could be used for evaluating the quality of the data it used to justify a new regulation. Second, it allows any party to challenge the credibility of the scientific evidence used to justify a regulation. Third, it has shifted authority for rule-making away from federal agencies and to the federal courts. And finally, it has made the entire regulatory process more cumbersome and subject to lengthy delays. The DQA allows industry-sponsored studies to be used to counter the findings of peer-reviewed scientific research. Additionally, it gives the federal courts final authority to determine if scientific evidence is credible and sufficient enough to warrant new federal rules, a power previously held exclusively by government agencies. Supporters claim that the DQA insures that government action is based on solid and reliable science. Critics, however, charge that this act exploits the fundamental uncertainty found in all scientific research and is a callous attempt to prevent the creation of needed health and environmental protections. At a minimum, this act will produce additional costs associated with challenges to regulations; it will lengthen the time necessary for the establishment of regulations by adding several new potential obstacles; and if used to its fullest extent, it can be a powerful tool to hinder the development of a broad range of government regulations. Since the Data Quality Act (DQA) took effect there have been 39 (32 by regulated industries) challenges to federal regulations. Lawsuits under the DQA have been filed by industry groups against the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. EPA, and several other federal agencies. Many of these cases have required some modification to issued regulations. Additionally, an examination of federal consumer safety and health spending on regulatory activity suggests that the DQA may have had a significant impact on federal regulations. Since the establishment and implementation of the required agency standards increases in regulatory spending outlays appear to have dropped. This may suggest that the act has had a negative impact on regulatory activity, but it is too early to suggest a causal connection.

Information as Lobbying, or Lobbying as Information? Argument Quality, Group Credibility, and Heuristic Processing in Congress

Public Participation and Bureaucratic Decision-Making: Citizen Groups and the Environmental Protection Agency