Peer review of administrative rules, comments to proposed statements of scope, and review of proposed groundwater enforcement standards. (FE)

The bill provides that an agency that receives a valid request for peer review of a proposed rule may not continue promulgating the proposed rule until the peer review process is complete. Under the bill, the external peer review process must be completed within six months from the date on which the request for peer review was submitted, except that the deadline for completion may be extended by an additional six months if the initial six months is determined to not be feasible. In addition, the bill requires peer review questions and protocols to be approved prior to use in the peer review process by the agency and any parties requesting the peer review.

Under the bill, an agency that receives a valid request for peer review of a rule must contract with the National Academy of Sciences, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, or any similar independent scientific entity, or with a group of independent scientists of comparable stature and qualifications, to conduct an external peer review of the studies or scientific or technical data, the methods, or the findings, conclusions, or assumptions that the agency used in developing the rule.

Under the bill, a peer reviewer must have expertise in the subject matter of the rule being reviewed. The bill prohibits all of the following people from acting as peer reviewers: a party requesting the peer review, an employee of the agency or of a requesting party, or the spouse or family member of an employee of the agency or of a requesting party; an interested party or an employee of an interested party; a person who is conducting research that is funded by the agency or by a requesting party; or a person who participated in the development of any study or technical or scientific data being reviewed.

Under the bill, once the peer review process is complete, the peer review panel must prepare a final written report that provides one of two conclusions: 1) the rule is scientifically defensible; or 2) the rule is not scientifically defensible, does not comply with state or federal law, or would be scientifically defensible if the agency made certain modifications to the rule. If the peer review panel concludes that a proposed rule is scientifically defensible, the agency may continue to promulgate the proposed rule. If the peer review panel concludes that a proposed rule is not scientifically defensible, does not comply with state or federal law, or would be scientifically defensible if the agency made certain modifications to the proposed rule, the agency must modify the proposed rule as necessary, in cooperation and agreement with the party that requested the peer review, before continuing to promulgate the proposed rule. If the peer review panel concludes that a rule that has been published in the administrative code is not scientifically defensible, does not comply with state or federal law, or would be scientifically defensible if the agency made certain modifications to the code, the agency must initiate the rulemaking process to make necessary modifications to the code.

Under the bill, if the peer review panel concludes that a rule is scientifically defensible, the costs of the peer review process must be paid by the party that submitted the request for peer review. If the peer review panel concludes that a rule is not scientifically defensible, does not comply with state or federal law, or would be scientifically defensible if certain modifications were made, the agency must pay for the costs of the peer review process.

Soliciting comments on scope statements The bill also requires an agency, before submitting a statement of scope of a proposed rule to the Department of Administration and to the governor, to solicit and consider comments on the statement of scope from persons who may be regulated under the proposed rule. For rules that will be based on or rely on scientific studies, scientific or technical data, scientific methods, or other similar scientific information, the promulgating agency must incorporate comments into the statement of scope, if the comments are scientifically valid, are supported by relevant industries, and recommend changes that will ensure compliance with relevant state law and will ensure the accuracy, integrity, objectivity, or consistency of data that will be used to promulgate the rule.

Notice and review of proposed groundwater standards Under current law, the Department of Health Services develops recommendations for groundwater enforcement standards for certain substances of public health concern. The Department of Natural Resources incorporates these recommendations into its rules relating to groundwater enforcement standards.

This bill requires DHS, before submitting to DNR a recommended enforcement standard for a substance identified as a public health concern, to provide public notice of the proposed recommendation and the studies or scientific or technical data, the methodologies, and the findings, conclusions, and assumptions that DHS used in developing the recommended enforcement standard.

The bill also provides that if, before DHS submits a recommendation for a groundwater enforcement standard to DNR, an interested party objects to the recommendation based on a failure to comply with state groundwater laws or based on the accuracy, integrity, objectivity, or consistency of the data used to develop the recommendation, DHS must convene a working group to review the recommendation. The working group must consist of the interested party objecting to the recommendation, four members from statewide agriculture associations, one member from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, and one member from DNR. If there is a consensus by the working group that changes are needed to ensure compliance with state groundwater laws or to ensure the accuracy, integrity, objectivity, or consistency of the data used to develop the recommendation, DHS must modify the recommendation accordingly before submitting the recommendation to DNR.