Guidelines issued by the U.S. EPA on October 1 should improve the quality of the science disseminated by the agency and the data and analyses used to support rulemakings. Developed to comply with the Data Quality Act, which Congress approved in the waning days of the Clinton administration, the guidelines will allow outside groups to legally challenge any information distributed by the federal government at any stage of development, including when the information is in draft form. The new guidance leaves business advocates cheering and environmentalists jeering, because they both predict the guidelines could delay controversial actions at EPA.

High-profile projects at EPA, including its long-awaited dioxin report, perchlorate toxicological review, and policy decisions on human testing are likely to face challenges under the new act because they discount contradictory but scientifically valid data or analyses, predicts Jim Tozzia, founder of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, a group funded by business and trade associations.

Passed without any hearings as an amendment to an appropriations bill, the Data Quality Act tells all federal agencies to issue guidelines that ensure and maximize “the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” the government disseminates. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) introduced the bill, saying she wanted to ensure that information on agency Web sites was accurate, objective, and useful. In January, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) took the first step of implementing the law by releasing guidelines explaining how the agencies must comply with the act.

OMB’s guidelines emphasize independent peer review as one way to demonstrate objectivity. But “influential information”—analyses and information likely to affect important public policies—is to be held to a higher standard. The analyses must be reproducible, OMB wrote. This means federal agencies must reveal the assumptions and equations used to develop an analysis. They must also provide all of the uncertainties associated with underlying risk assessments and name the studies that might dispel the uncertainties. In short, qualified outside parties should be able to obtain the same answer as the government, says OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator John Graham.

OMB called on agencies to make it easier for the public to challenge data or analysis at any point in the rulemaking process, even when rulemakings are issued as drafts. What makes this different from the public comment input the government usually receives is that groups can immediately seek judicial review of their complaint if the agency disagrees, even before the rule is final, say a number of attorneys specializing in regulatory law.

Additional rule challenges could affect state programs as well. Many states develop programs based on EPA’s draft rules and guidelines. If the draft is challenged, state programs won’t be enacted until after a final rule is issued, business groups say.

Business interests are eager to challenge EPA under the “new law. This act has enormous implications,” says William Kovacs, vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Critics can legally challenge rules based on the assumptions used in the analytical models for pinpointing what the pollution control levels should be, or for determining the overall control strategy, says Kovacs.

Environmentalists and some researchers say they are concerned the guidance could affect EPA’s ability to make decisions, especially those based on fairly new or controversial research. The Data Quality Act is largely aimed at EPA, because its regulations are often based on emerging science and can have a major impact, asserts Alan Morrison, co-founder of the Public Citizen Litigation Group. It imposes sweeping responsibilities on EPA for ensuring data quality apparently without any additional funding, he adds. “As staffing goes down and more work goes to outside contractors, it becomes more difficult for the agency,” adds Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University.

Others assert the act will only burden agencies that put out bad data. “If the data and analysis are good, you’re just fine,” says Tozzia. EPA’s guidelines can be found at: (http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html). –REBECCA RENNER