Extensions granted In response to the extremely short public comment period most agencies were offering on their draft data quality guidelines, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a broad-based coalition of organizations representing health, safety, civil rights, and environmental concerns, sent a letter to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator John Graham requesting an extension to the deadline for filing comments on federal agency data quality guidelines. Similar letters were sent to several key agencies requesting that they extend they public comment periods. After some deliberation OIRA extended the deadline for agencies to submit their final guidelines to OMB for review and approval by 30 days, from July 1, 2002 to August 1, 2002. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) still intends to hold firm to the October 1, 2002 deadline for agencies to implement the guidelines. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) also wrote OMB regarding an extension on comments. Lieberman also made the point that agencies should have until at least January, if not February, 2003. This is because the statute gives agencies one year after OMB publishes final guidelines to finalize their guideline. The OMB guidelines were published on Sept. 28, 2001, on an "interim final" basis and then significantly revised on January 3, 2002 as final guidelines. That version had errors and corrections that required it to be republished twice, withthe last one on February 22, 2002. OMB has not responded to Lieberman's point. OMB left extension of public comment period entirely up to the individual agencies, most of which took at least some advantage of the opportunity. Most agencies offered extensions ranging from 2 weeks to the full 30 days Public comments are filtering into the agencies as many rushed to meet the original deadline. Those agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with online dockets of the public comments being submitted offer an interesting insight into the debate that is raging around the issue of data quality guidelines. Industry Comments Some of the most extensive sets of comments being submitted to various agencies are, not surprisingly, from the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. The CRE submitted to all federal agencies a 26 page long set of generic comments covering 16 major points. The full list of major issues the CRE raised in its generic comments are as follows:

• Exemptions from Applicability of the Data Quality Guidelines – requesting that no information or methods of dissemination be exempted from the data quality guidelines
• Retroactive Application of the Data Quality Guidelines – pressing agencies to apply the guidelines to all information disseminated on or after the October 1 implementation deadline regardless of when the information was first disseminated
• Individual Agency Guidelines Must Comply with OMB’s Interagency Guidelines: and There Are No Case-By-Case Exemptions From Applicability Of The Guidelines – Demanding that all information be covered and that the guidelines be recognized as legally binding
• Inclusion of Rulemaking Information in the Data Quality Act Petition Process – stating that agencies should not exclude information handled under rulemaking
• Third-Party Submissions of Data to An Agency – asserting that all information submitted to agencies which is made public should be subject to the data quality guidelines
• Definition of “Affected Persons”/Definition of a “Person” – pushing for broad definitions
• Deadline for Deciding a Petition – advocating short restrictive deadlines for agency responses
• Who Decides the Initial Petition? – noting that a specific individual or office should be noted as responsible
• Who Decides Appeals? – urging that appeals be specifically handled independent of the original disseminator
• Must the Agency Correct Information When It Agrees with a Petition? – again pressing that the guidelines be binding and that agencies be required to act
• What is the Standard for Rebutting the Presumption of Objectivity Resulting from Peer Review? – asking agencies to specify requirements in proving that information is not objective
• How is “Influential Information” Defined? – calling on agencies to issue a specific but broad definition
• What is “Objective” and “Unbiased” Information on Risks to Human Health, Safety and the Environment? – urging that agencies also describe how they will ensure that assumptions, inferences and uncertainty factors in risk assessments meet data quality standards
• Application of the SDWA Health Risk Assessment Standards – requests that SDWA standards be adopted rather than adapted
• Robustness Checks for CBI – requesting that robustness check of Confidential Business Information (CBI) be subject to the guidelines
• Use of Third-Party Proprietary Models – recommending that agencies adopt a prohibition against proprietary third party models

The overarching effect of the CRE comments is clearly to make the data quality guidelines apply to as much as possible and to be as binding as possible. The CRE decried the exemptions of certain types of information and dissemination from the data quality guidelines comments. OMB established numerous exemptions in the guidelines it provided agencies. Several agencies expanded on these exemptions in their draft guidelines. The CRE takes issue with the method that several agencies have proposed to reduce duplicative efforts by excluding information handled under rulemaking processes from consideration under data quality act, since procedures exist within the rulemaking process to handle these issues. The CRE also complains that agencies are indicating that the guidelines are not legally binding. The CRE rates the agency guidelines as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” on 14 major points. It is interesting, and more than a bit telling, that on 6 of these 14 points no agency has drafted its guidelines in agreement with CRE’s point of view. According to the CRE’s generic comments, there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of “unsatisfactory examples” among the data quality guideline drafts. Other Comments Several public interest groups, including NRDC, have submitted comments to several agencies, particularly to EPA. OMB Watch is also drafting both generic comments, which will be submitted on behalf of various public interest groups concerned with data quality guidelines, and specific analysis and comments for selected agencies. It is probably not that surprising that the generic comments, based strongly on the basic sensible principles developed by members of Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, run in almost direct opposition to those submitted by the CRE. The comments support and encourage agency efforts to minimize the coverage of the guidelines and to avoid establishing extensive new procedures that would be burdensome to agencies. In the general comments public interest groups urge agencies to:

• Include statements explaining the agency’s commitment to, and the usefulness of, public dissemination of information
• Explain that “data quality” is only one factor to consider (along with budget constraints, importance of information, timeliness of information, etc.) and that it should not supercede the agency’s primary mission
• Clearly state that the data quality guidelines are not legally binding on agencies
• Expand and detail the types of information and dissemination exempt
• Develop an administrative mechanism that places the burden of proof on the requestor, accepts only data corrections, and minimizes the undue burden on the agencies by eliminating duplicative requests including those more appropriately handled through other processes such as rulemaking
• Limit reconsideration to showing due diligence in the initial consideration of a request
• Resist efforts to develop too stringent requirements on risk analysis and to only consider adaptation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) principles
• Limit the requirement for peer review and when used strive for balanced panels free of conflicts of interest and require reporting of those conflicts that are unavoidable
• Define “influential” information narrowly, employing a high threshold for coverage
• Establish a running public docket of requests and changes
• Clearly state that the data quality guidelines do not apply to third party information.