OMB published its final government-wide IQA guidelines in the Federal Register inFebruary 2002. The proposed peer review bulletin said information is "relevant toregulatory policies" if it "might be used by local, state, regional, federal and/or internationalregulatory bodies." Review of Especially Significant Regulatory Information

The proposed bulletin indicated that regulatory information should be considered "especiallysignificant" (and therefore subject to more specific peer review requirements) if (a) the agencyintends to disseminate it in support of an economically significant regulatory action (e.g., with a$100 million annual impact on the economy), (30) (b) its dissemination would otherwise have a clear and substantialeffect on important public policies or important private sector decisions (with an impact of $100million in any year), or (c) OMB determines it is of "significant interagency interest" or "is relevantto an Administration policy priority." Other Provisions

The proposed bulletin also contained several other peer review requirements or provisions,including the following:
Agencies that are likely to disseminate "significant" or "especially significant"regulatory information were required to supplement or amend their information quality guidelinesto incorporate the requirements of the proposed peer review bulletin for "significant" and "especiallysignificant" information. OMB also said it would clarify that the bulletin did not apply to productsreleased by government-funded scientists that were not represented as the views of the agencysupporting the research. OMB's Revised Peer Review Bulletin

The comments that OMB received on the proposed bulletin led the office to release what itdescribed as a "substantially revised" bulletin in April 2004. (53) 
In structure, the revised peer review bulletin was similar to the proposed bulletin in that itstill essentially required agencies to take three actions (to the extent permitted by law):
have a peer review conducted on all "influential scientific information" thatthe agency intends to disseminate, 
have all "highly influential scientific assessments" peer reviewed according tomore specific and demanding standards, and 
indicate what "influential" and "highly influential" information the agencyplans to peer review in the future. When Peer Review Is Required. Other Requirements. Alternative Procedures. OMB Authority. However, some commenters believed the changeshad weakened the bulletin to such an extent that they withdrew their initial support, while othersbelieved the changes had not gone far enough. OMB retained too much control over federal peer review practices (e.g., indetermining when certain information requires a more rigorous peer review and in approvingalternative peer review plans), and recommends that some of those responsibilities be given to theNational Academy of Sciences. (63) For example, AAAS:
questioned why OMB said scientists seeking an exemption to the peer reviewrequirements for information produced by government-funded scientists were only "advised" toinclude a disclaimer rather than required to do so;
suggested that agencies be required to make public the criteria for determiningwhen outside entities would be commissioned to select peer reviewers or manage the peer reviewprocess, and how these entities would be selected and overseen by the agencies; and 
endorsed the idea of an interagency working group on peer review, andrecommended that the group be required to report to the public annually on its deliberations andfindings, and to conduct studies and hold meetings regarding the impact of the guidelines on scienceand the quality of the information produced. OMB said that it had made "minor revisions" to the April version of the bulletin that were"responsive to the public's comments."
In September 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposedbulletin on "Peer Review and Information Quality" in the Federal Register that sought to establisha process by which all "significant regulatory information" would be peer reviewed. The scope ofthe proposed bulletin was very broad, covering virtually all agencies and defining regulatoryinformation as "any scientific or technical study that ... might be used by local, state, regional, federaland/or international regulatory bodies." Such information would be subject to peer review if theagency could determine that it could have a "clear and substantial impact on important publicpolicies or important private sector decisions" when disseminated. The proposed bulletin placedadditional peer review requirements on "especially significant regulatory information," and saidagencies were required to notify OMB in advance of any studies that might require peer review andhow any such reviews would be conducted.
The proposed bulletin aroused controversy, with some observers expressing concern that itcould create a centralized peer review system within OMB that would be vulnerable to politicalmanipulation or control by regulated entities. OMB received nearly 200 comments on the proposal,and published a "substantially revised" peer review bulletin in April 2004 that was broader in scopethan the proposed bulletin in that it applied to "influential scientific information" (which includes,but is not limited to, regulatory information) and "highly influential scientific assessments." However, agencies were given substantial discretion to decide whether information is "influential"and therefore requires a peer review. The revised bulletin also allowed agencies to use the NationalAcademy of Sciences for peer reviews or to use other procedures that had been approved by OMB. It also provided exemptions for certain classes of information, such as information related to nationalsecurity, products by government-funded scientists that are not represented as views of a federalagency, and routine statistical information. However, OMB retained significant authority to decidewhen information is "highly influential" (and, therefore, requires more specific peer reviewprocedures) and to approve alternative peer review procedures.
OMB received more than 50 comments on the revised peer review bulletin, many of whichwere supportive of the changes made to the proposal. However, some commenters believed thechanges did not go far enough, while others believed that OMB had significantly weakened thebulletin. In January 2005, OMB published a final version of the bulletin with what it described as"minor revisions" to the version published in April 2004 (e.g., requiring agencies to disclose theidentities of peer reviewers and to prepare an annual report on their peer review activities). Anumber of issues regarding the implementation of the bulletin remain unclear (e.g., how muchdiscretion agencies will be given to decide when and what kind of peer review is required). Thisreport will be updated when any further revisions to the bulletin are published or other significantevents occur.