I agree with you up to a point. But the assertion that businesses don't want to rock the bureaucratic boat is not correct all the time.
True, liberal businesses in general are afraid to challenge their bureacrat masters, as proved by prop 90 in California.
On the other hand, businesses fought hard for Measure 37 in Oregon, which passed.
Challenging bureaucratic decrees under DQA will probably be left to foundations and think tanks.
I believe the Competitive Enterprise Institute is involved on several DQA challenges. Also a few corporations with money and legal departments are involved.
And I wouldn't count on congress going to bat for aggrieved citizens. It will be up to the courts to wrestle with the bureaucrats.
I still say DQA is a good piece of legislation and should be used agaist the federal fascist bureaucracy. There are several very tough sections in it that can bulldoze junk science bureaucratic rules.
We know there's a lot of deep ecology nonsense in environmental rules.
OMB states that all agencies that sponser peer reviews must be "transparent."
That means the peer reviewers must be technical experts in the field. Also, the reviewers must disclose prior technical/policy positions on the issues, and they must disclose to agencies their sources of personal and institutional funding (private or public sector). And finally, peer reviews must be conducted in an open and rigorous manner.
The analyses must be reproducible, OMB says. 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.
DQA is another tool we need to start using.
This one.