FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W108074679> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W108074679 abstract "This working paper explains in detail how the Information Quality Act and implementing guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget provide a procedural law mechanism to ensure the objectivity, quality, utility, integrity and reproducibility of highly influential scientific assessments developed by federal agencies and third parties, which agencies in turn “disseminate” as support for major agency regulations. OMB’s guidelines, which are binding on all federal agencies, inter alia impose rigorous, uniform, peer-review process standards that govern agency peer-reviewer selection and retention practices. The guidelines also govern agencies’ public disclosure obligations with respect to the data, computational and computer program inputs, assumptions, and applications that are incorporated into the assessments. In addition, OMB’s guidelines require federal agencies to provide adequate administrative review mechanisms to ensure that affected persons can seek correction of agency-disseminated HISAs that agencies failed to adequately validate. Given the highly technical and specialized nature and characteristics of HISAs and the data on which they are based, the IQA and OMB’s IQA guidelines anticipate that specialized review procedures separate and apart from ordinary APA notice-and-comment procedures, must be utilized under certain circumstances. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)’s 2009 Clean Air Act Section 202(a) Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Endangerment Findings and the decision-making process that led to the Findings, offer an ideal case study in how the IQA applies in the rulemaking context and how agencies can contravene the law. EPA’s review of climate-science assessments disseminated in support of the Endangerment Findings were subject to four distinct IQA legal obligations, none of which EPA satisfied. These obligations related to: EPA-developed and peer-reviewed HISAs; third-party-developed and peer-reviewed HISAs; EPA’s peer review of the Technical Support Document accompanying the Endangerment Findings that summarized and synthesized the numerous HISAs supporting them into a new HISA; and EPA’s improper treatment of IQA stakeholder requests for correction. EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) failed to ensure that the peer reviews of the HISAs satisfied the IQA’s most rigorous peer-reviewer independence, conflict-of-interest, and panel-balance standards. As the working paper explains, businesses and other stakeholders unsuccessfully sought correction of the faulty peer review processes employed to validate the scientific assessments supporting the Endangerment Findings, and reconsideration of the Findings themselves. Such final agency action potentially gives rise to legal challenges of EPA’s failure to comply with the IQA’s peer-review standards and its denial of specialized review of technical correction requests outside of the routine rulemaking process. A review of similar past legal actions filed by aggrieved regulatory stakeholders reflects that federal courts have been generally skeptical of IQA “private rights of action.” Those complaints foundered on plaintiffs’ standing to sue, as well as their assertion of a “positive” right to properly peer-reviewed government information. This working paper proposes an alternative approach to judicial enforcement of the IQA, one which addresses past lawsuits’ shortcomings. It explains this alternative approach in the context of a challenge to EPA’s and NOAA’s noncompliance with the IQA in its actions leading up to EPA’s GHG Endangerment Findings. The suit would seek to enjoin EPA’s use of all EPA, NOAA, and other agency-developed, improperly peer reviewed HISAs supporting the Findings, as well as the regulations they have spawned, until those HISAs have been peer reviewed once again in conformance with such IQA standards." @default.
• W108074679 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W108074679 creator A5068731286 @default.
• W108074679 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W108074679 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W108074679 title "Revitalizing the Information Quality Act as a Procedural Cure for Unsound Regulatory Science: A Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Case Study" @default.
• W108074679 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2561619" @default.
• W108074679 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W108074679 type Work @default.
• W108074679 sameAs 108074679 @default.
• W108074679 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W108074679 countsByYear W1080746792016 @default.
• W108074679 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W108074679 hasAuthorship W108074679A5068731286 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C2778917124 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C2781019588 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C47737302 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W108074679 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C111472728 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C138885662 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C142724271 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C144133560 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C17744445 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C18903297 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C199539241 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C2778917124 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C2779530757 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C2781019588 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C3116431 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C47737302 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C71924100 @default.
• W108074679 hasConceptScore W108074679C86803240 @default.
• W108074679 hasLocation W1080746791 @default.
• W108074679 hasOpenAccess W108074679 @default.
• W108074679 hasPrimaryLocation W1080746791 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W104311290 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W1978396853 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W1980222351 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W2065179030 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W2189551099 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W2264207656 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W2952840080 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W3124499316 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W2892308444 @default.
• W108074679 hasRelatedWork W298890481 @default.
• W108074679 isParatext "false" @default.
• W108074679 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W108074679 magId "108074679" @default.
• W108074679 workType "article" @default.