I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 574
To require peer review of scientific data used in support of Federal
regulations, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 4, 1999
Mr. POMBO (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. NORWOOD, and Mr. COBURN)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the com-
mittee concerned
A BILL
To require peer review of scientific data used in support
of Federal regulations, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Science Integrity Act’’.
SEC. 2. PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 2001,
the head of each Federal department or agency which
issues or may issue regulations supported by scientific
data shall issue regulations under this section establishing
procedures to ensure that the acquisition, interpretation,
incorporation, and application of all such scientific data
is subject to peer review by at least 2 but not more than
5 individuals from the list created pursuant to subsection
(b).
(b) LIST OF PEER REVIEWERS.—The head of each
Federal department or agency which issues or may issue
regulations supported by scientific data shall create, using
the Federal Register, scientific and commercial journals,
the National Academy of Sciences, and other similar re-
sources, a list of individuals who are qualified and willing
to perform peer review functions for the department or
agency. Such list shall include only individuals who—
(1) by virtue of advanced education, training, or
avocational, academic, commercial, research, or
other experience, are competent to review the appro-
priateness of any scientific methodology supporting
regulations that the department or agency may
issue, the validity of any conclusions drawn from the
supporting data, and the competency of the research
or preparation of the scientific data; and
(2) are not otherwise employed by or under con-
tract with the department or agency.
(c) SELECTION OF PEER REVIEWERS.—The head of
each department or agency shall select individuals from
the list created pursuant to subsection (b) to peer review
each proposed regulation of the department or agency that
is supported by scientific data. No individual shall be se-
lected who—
(1) has actively participated in advocating or
opposing the issuance of the proposed regulation;
(2) has a direct financial interest in the pro-
posed regulation; or
(3) is employed by or related to any person hav-
ing a direct financial interest in the proposed regula-
tion.
(d) PROVISION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA TO PEER RE-
VIEWERS.—Peer reviewers selected under subsection (c)
shall be provided with all scientific data used in support
of the proposed regulation, and any other related data re-
quested by the peer reviewer that is reasonably available
to the department or agency.
(e) EXPENSES.—Peer reviewers selected under sub-
section (c) shall be reimbursed by the department or agen-
cy for expenses directly incurred in performing the peer
review, but shall not otherwise be compensated for per-
forming the peer review.
(f) AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.—Upon re-
ceipt of all peer review reports for a proposed regulation,
the head of a department or agency shall publish in the
Federal Register a notice of the availability of those re-
ports, and the scientific data reviewed therein, for public
comment. The department or agency shall make such re-
ports and scientific data readily available upon request
and shall receive public comment thereon for a period of
60 days after the publication of notice in the Federal Reg-
ister.
(g) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—Within 30 days after
the completion of a public comment period described in
subsection (f), the head of a department or agency shall
transmit to the Congress—
(1) each peer review report;
(2) all scientific data used in support of the
proposed regulation or requested by a peer reviewer;
(3) the response of the head of the department
or agency to points of disagreement, if any, among
the peer reviewers; and
(4) all public comments received.
The proposed regulation may not be issued in final form
until 30 days after the transmittal under this subsection.
(h) FINAL ISSUANCE.—The publication of a final reg-
ulation peer reviewed under this section shall include a
summary of the related peer review reports and any points
of disagreement among the peer reviewers, and the re-
sponse of the head of the department or agency to the
peer review reports.
(i) EMERGENCY EXCEPTION.—Regulations issued
under subsection (a) shall include provisions that permit
the issuance of regulations supported by scientific data in
emergency circumstances without peer review, on the con-
dition that peer review be completed within 90 days after
such issuance.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF PEER REVIEW.
For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘peer review’’
means identifying technical or scientific deficiencies of a
proposal, assessing whether the methodology and analysis
supporting a proposal conform to the standards of the aca-
demic and scientific community, and determining whether
a proposal is supported by sufficient credible evidence.
Æ