It would apply equally to major and minor rules. The amendment is so poorly written it raises concerns over judicial review. The amendment does not limit the judicial reviewability of the peer review process, which considering the vast scope of the amendment would inevitably mean a flood of new litigation for federal agencies. This is not defined and presumably would supercede or at least add additional decisional criteria to existing statutes, which means the amendment could override laws from the Clean Air Act to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The requirements would create conflicts with existing peer review practices.
Many agencies already have peer review processes.
If it didn't override the existing agency practices, then it would likely be duplicative or just plain unnecessary. The Pambo amendment is unclear how it would work. Something so broad as the Pombo amendment, which touches on everything from military procurement to controls on hazardous pollution, should be fully debated and discussed as a separate matter on its own merits. No one knows its effect or even why it is being offered. OMB Watch strongly opposes the use of appropriations bills to circumvent the legislative process and urges opposition to this attempt.