EPA Reviews TRI Burden Reduction Comments

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to review the hundreds of comments it received on burden reduction proposals for the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program. EPA outlined the proposed changes in a 2003 white paper in Phase II of the TRI Stakeholder Dialogue.

read in full

Leading Scientists Say Bush Administration Suppresses, Distorts Facts

More than 60 distinguished scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, blasted the Bush administration last week for suppressing and distorting scientific information that does not support its predetermined agenda.

read in full

EPA Cancels Early TRI Release

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has apparently abandoned plans to provide an early release of the 2001 Toxic Release Inventory, as OMB Watch reported in a previous Watcher article.

read in full

OMB Watch Urges EPA to Abandon TRI Burden Reduction Options

OMB Watch recently submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency concerning its Stakeholder Dialogue Phase II white paper that focuses on burden reduction options for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. OMB Watch strongly opposes the options proposed in EPA’s White Paper.

read in full

Lawmakers Accuse USDA of Misleading Public on Mad Cow

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) understated the risks of mad cow disease and misled the public, according to a bipartisan investigation by the House Government Reform Committee. At issue is whether the cow that recently tested positive for the disease in Washington state was a “downer,” meaning that it was unable to walk. Contrary to the USDA’s contention, three eyewitnesses say that the cow was able to walk and did not appear to be sick at all.

read in full

Administration Asks Manufacturers for Regulatory Hit List

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), headed by John Graham, is soliciting recommendations for regulatory revisions that would reduce costs for the U.S. manufacturing sector, brazenly putting special interests over the public interest.

read in full

Data Quality Lawsuit Filed Against the Department of Education

The College Sports Council (CSC) contends a report issued by the Secretary’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics violates the data quality guidelines, according to a lawsuit filed against the Department of Education. CSC claims that the report is statistically flawed and does not meet the requirement for pre-dissemination review. The lawsuit names Secretary of Education Roderick Paige and the Department of Education’s (ED) Chief Information Office William Leidinger as defendants in the case.

read in full

Environmental Group Submits Data Quality Challenge

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) submitted a data quality challenge to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on December 22, 2003, one of the few challenges submitted by a nonprofit. The request challenges the 2003 FDA Consumption Advisory for mercury.

read in full

EPA Receives Another Perchlorate Data Quality Challenge

The Perchlorate Study Group (PSG) submitted a data quality request for correction to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) December 3, 2003, challenging a number of documents used to assess implications of perchlorate ingestion. This is the third challenge EPA received on perchlorate. Perchlorate is a chemical found in rocket fuel and has contaminated drinking water near Department of Defense (DoD) sites in at least 22 states. Request for Reconsideration

read in full

Pressure Continues to Mount Against OMB's Peer Review Plan

Many recent news stories and editorial pieces from around the country are critical of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) draft bulletin on peer review, thereby maintaining pressure on the agency to either drastically alter the policy proposal or withdraw it entirely. OMB’s Data Quality Guidelines, the information policies that the peer review bulletin builds upon, received little media criticism or even attention during development. However, the peer review bulletin seems to be garnering much more interest, in part because so many scientists are rejecting this “scientific” policy.

read in full

Pages