AB 987

Peer review of administrative rules

This bill creates an external peer review process for administrative rules.

Under the bill, an interested party may request an external peer review of a

proposed rule at any time before the proposed rule is submitted to the governor for

review. An interested party is any person who will be regulated under the proposed

rule or any person whose client, member, or customer will be regulated under the

proposed rule. The bill also provides that the Joint Committee for Review of

Administrative Rules may request an external peer review of a proposed rule or of

any agency rule that has been published in the administrative code. Under the bill,

if an agency receives a valid request for peer review of a proposed rule or of a rule that

has been published in the code, the agency must initiate the external peer review

process. A request for peer review may be made only for rules that are based on or

that rely on scientific studies, scientific or technical data, scientific methods, or other

similar scientific information. A request is valid if it objects to specific studies or

scientific or technical data, specific methods, or specific findings, conclusions, or

assumptions that the agency used in developing the rule.

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