Adoption of Recommendation, 81-83 [2010-32985]
Download as PDF
81
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 76, No. 1
Monday, January 3, 2011
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF
THE UNITED STATES
Adoption of Recommendation
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Administrative Conference of
the United States.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Administrative
Conference of the United States adopted
the attached recommendation at its
Fifty-third Plenary Session. The
recommendation addresses issues
relating to Federal agency procedures
regarding consultation with State and
local governments and for considering
State interests in rulemakings that may
result in the preemption of State law.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emily F. Schleicher, Designated Federal
Officer, Administrative Conference of
the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120
20th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20036; Telephone 202–480–2080.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Administrative Conference of the
United States was established by the
Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C.
591–596. The Conference studies the
efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the
administrative procedures used by
Federal agencies in carrying out
administrative programs, and makes
recommendations for improvements to
the agencies, collectively or
individually, and to the President,
Congress, and the Judicial Conference of
the United States (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). At
its Fifty-third Plenary Session, held
December 9 and 10, 2010, the Assembly
of the Administrative Conference of the
United States adopted the attached
recommendation. For further
information about the Conference and
its activities, see https://www.acus.gov.
Recommendation 2010–1, ‘‘Agency
Procedures for Considering Preemption
of State Law,’’ addresses issues relating
to agency procedures for complying
with Federal requirements regarding
consultation with State and local
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
governments and for considering State
interests in rulemakings that may result
in the preemption of State law. The goal
of the recommendation is not to favor or
disfavor preemption, but to improve
agency procedures in potentially
preemptive rulemakings. The
recommendation reiterates a previous
Conference recommendation that
Congress clearly state its preemptive
intent in the text of the statutes it
charges Federal agencies with
implementing. It recommends that
agencies formulate appropriate internal
procedures to ensure consultation with
representatives of State interests and to
ensure that agencies evaluate the
authority and basis asserted in support
of a preemptive rulemaking. It seeks to
increase transparency regarding internal
agency policies and recommends ways
to improve external mechanisms for
enforcing the applicable Federal
requirements.
The full text of the recommendation
is set out in the Appendix below. The
recommendation will be transmitted to
affected agencies and to appropriate
committees of the United States
Congress. The Administrative
Conference has advisory powers only,
and the decision on whether to
implement the recommendation must be
made by the affected agencies or by
Congress.
The Administrative Conference
ceased operations in 1995 due to
termination of funding, but was reestablished in 2010, and the Council of
the revived Administrative Conference
held its first meeting in August 2010.
The December 2010 Plenary Session
was the first held after the resumption
of operations. Recommendations and
statements of the Administrative
Conference are published in full text in
the Federal Register. The research
report on which Recommendation
2010–1 is based and a complete listing
of past recommendations and
statements are available at https://
www.acus.gov.
The transcript of the Plenary Session
is available for public inspection at the
Conference’s offices at 1120 20th Street,
NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 591–96.
PO 00000
Dated: December 27, 2010.
Jonathan R. Siegel,
Director of Research and Policy.
Appendix—Recommendations of the
Administrative Conference of the
United States
Recommendation 2010–1, Agency
Procedures for Considering Preemption of
State Law (Adopted December 9, 2010)
Preamble
Presidents Reagan and Clinton both issued
executive orders mandating executive branch
agencies,1 and urging independent agencies,2
to take certain measures to ensure proper
respect for principles of federalism.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ issued
by President Clinton on August 4, 1999 (the
‘‘Order’’),3 is still in effect today, and is an
amended version of President Reagan’s
Executive Order on Federalism, Executive
Order 12612.4 The Order identifies
federalism principles that bear consideration
in policymaking and specifies procedures for
intergovernmental consultation, emphasizing
consultations with State and local
governments and enhanced sensitivity to
their concerns. The Order requires agencies
to have ‘‘an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ 5 The Order requires agencies
to ‘‘provide all affected State and local
officials notice and an opportunity for
appropriate participation in the proceedings’’
whenever an agency proposes to preempt
State law through adjudication or
rulemaking.6 It establishes specific
procedures for ‘‘any regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts
State law,’’ 7 requiring agencies to consult
with State and local officials ‘‘early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation,’’ 8 and to prepare a federalism
impact statement (‘‘FIS’’).9
1 Exec.
Order No. 13,132, § 1(c).
at § 9.
3 Exec. Order No. 13,132, 3 CFR 206 (2000),
reprinted in 3 U.S.C. 301 (2006).
4 President Reagan’s Executive Order on
Federalism adopted, nearly verbatim, ACUS
recommendations. Compare Exec. Order No.
12,612, 3 CFR 252, §§ 4(d) & (e) (1988), reprinted
in 5 U.S.C. 601 (1994), with Administrative
Conference of the United States, Recommendation
No. 84–5, Preemption of State Regulation by
Federal Agencies ¶¶ 4, 5 (1984).
5 Exec. Order No. 13,132, § 6(a). The consultation
process must involve ‘‘elected officials of State and
local governments or their representative national
organizations.’’ Id. at §§ 1(d), 6(a).
6 Id. at § 4(e).
7 Id. at § 6(c).
8 Id. at § 6(c)(1).
9 Id. at § 6(c)(2) (requiring a FIS for any regulation
‘‘that has federalism implications and that preempts
2 Id.
Continued
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
82
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Individual agencies are responsible for
implementing Executive Order 13132, and
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’), located within the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’), has issued
procedural guidelines on ‘‘what agencies
should do to comply with the Order and how
they should document that compliance to
OMB.’’ 10 These Federalism Guidelines
provide that each agency and department
should designate a federalism official
charged with: (1) Ensuring that the agency
considers federalism principles in its
development of regulatory and legislative
policies with federalism implications; (2)
ensuring that the agency has an accountable
process for meaningful and timely
intergovernmental consultation in the
development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications; and (3) providing
certification of compliance to OMB. The
federalism official must submit to OMB ‘‘a
description of the agency’s consultation
process,’’ 11 that ‘‘indicate[s] how the agency
identifies those policies with federalism
implications and the procedures the agency
will use to ensure meaningful and timely
consultation with affected State and local
officials.’’ 12 For any draft final regulation
with federalism implications submitted for
OIRA review under Executive Order 12866,
the federalism official must certify that the
requirements of Executive Order 13132
concerning both the evaluation of federalism
policies and consultation have been met in
a meaningful and timely manner.13
President Obama’s official policy on
preemption, articulated in a May 20, 2009
presidential ‘‘Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies’’
(‘‘Preemption Memorandum’’), provides that
‘‘[p]reemption of State law by executive
departments and agencies should be
undertaken only with full consideration of
the legitimate prerogatives of the States and
with a sufficient legal basis for
preemption.’’ 14 It specifically admonishes
department and agency heads to cease the
practice of including preemption statements
in the preamble to a regulation without
including it in the codified regulation. And
it further directs agencies to include
preemption provisions in codified
regulations only to the extent ‘‘justified under
legal principles governing preemption,
including the principles outlined in
State law’’); id. at § 1(a) (defining ‘‘federalism
implications’’).
10 Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, Director,
Office of Mgmt. & Budget, to the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, and Independent
Regulatory Agencies, Guidance for Implementing
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ (Oct. 28, 1999), at 2,
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/m00–/02.pdf
(last visited October 29, 2010) (‘‘Federalism
Guidelines’’).
11 Exec. Order No. 13,132, § 6(a); Federalism
Guidelines 2.
12 Federalism Guidelines 4–5.
13 Exec. Order No. 13,132, § 8(a).
14 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and agencies (May 20, 2009), 74 FR
24,693, 24,693–94 (May 22, 2009), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2009–05–22/pdf/
E9–12250.pdf#page=1 (last visited October 29,
2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Executive Order 13132.’’ Finally, the
Preemption Memorandum requests that
agencies conduct a 10-year retrospective
review of regulations including preemption
statements, whether in the preamble or the
codified regulation, ‘‘in order to decide
whether such statements or provisions are
justified under applicable legal principles
governing preemption.’’
An empirical evaluation of agency
practices reveals that compliance with the
preemption provisions of Executive Order
13132 has been inconsistent, although
President Obama’s Preemption Memorandum
has effectuated a meaningful shift in
preemption policies within a number of
agencies. This evaluation was based on
statistical analysis of agency rulemaking
practices, on particular examples of agency
rulemakings, on recent interviews with
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (‘‘NHTSA’’), Food and
Drug Administration (‘‘FDA’’), Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (‘‘OCC’’),
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(‘‘CPSC’’), Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’),
and Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’), and on consideration of legislative
changes to statutes relevant to agency
preemption and an independent review of
the agencies’ respective rulemaking dockets
and intervention in litigation.
There appears to be consensus that the
requirements of the preemption provisions of
Executive Order 13132—including
consultation with the States and the
requirement for ‘‘federalism impact
statements’’—are sound. But compliance with
these provisions has been inconsistent, and
difficulties have persisted across
administrations of both political parties. A
1999 GAO Report identified only five rules—
out of a total of 11,000 issued from April
1996 to December 1998 15—that included a
federalism impact assessment.16 Case studies
of particular rulemaking proceedings have
revealed failures to comply with Executive
Order 13132.17 In August 2010, reflecting
15 Executive Order 12612 was in effect during this
time period.
16 U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/T–GGD–
99–93, Implementation of Executive Order 12612 in
the Rulemaking Process 1 (1999). The exact number
of federalism impact assessments during this period
is in some doubt but appears to be quite small. See
Nina A. Mendelson, Chevron and Preemption, 102
Mich. L. Rev. 737, 784 n.192 (2004) (reporting
identification of 9 federalism impact assessments
from the fourth quarter of 1998); see also id at 783–
84 (demonstrating that federalism impact
statements are relatively rare and of ‘‘poor quality’’).
Of course, many rules do not require a federalism
impact assessment. The number of rules that should
have included one is unknown, but the very small
number that did suggests that agencies were ‘‘not
implementing the order as vigorously as they
could.’’ GAO report, supra, at 13.
17 See Catherine M. Sharkey, Federalism
Accountability: ‘‘Agency Forcing’’ Measures, 58
Duke L.J. 2125, 2131–439 (2009) (analyzing several
rulemaking proceedings in which an agency’s
notice of proposed rulemaking stated that a rule
would have no federalism impact, but in which the
agency stated that the final rule had preemptive
effect, in some cases without preparing a federalism
impact statement or consulting with state officials);
see also Nina A. Mendelson, A Presumption
Against Agency Preemption, 102 Nw. L. Rev. 695,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
continued concern with agency practices in
this area, the ABA House of Delegates
adopted a recommendation developed by the
ABA Task Force on Federal Preemption of
State Tort Laws, aimed at improving
compliance with the preemption provisions
of Executive Order 13132.18
This Administrative Conference
Recommendation is intended to improve
agency procedures for implementing the
preemption provisions of Executive Order
13132 and to increase transparency regarding
internal agency policies and external
enforcement mechanisms designed to ensure
compliance with those provisions. The goal
is not to favor or disfavor preemption, but to
improve agency procedures in potentially
preemptive rulemakings. The
Recommendation is also intended to
facilitate Federal agency consultation with
State representatives, such as the ‘‘Big
Seven,’’ a group of nonpartisan, non-profit
organizations composed of State and local
government officials,19 and, conversely, to
facilitate State officials’ awareness of and
responsiveness to, opportunities to consult
with Federal officials and to comment in
regulatory proceedings that may have
preemptive effect. Improved communication
on preemption issues would result if State
and local government officials or their
representative organizations availed
themselves of opportunities to become aware
of whether Federal agencies are engaging in
potentially preemptive rulemaking
proceedings, for example, by monitoring the
Federal Register or using relevant Internet
dashboards, such as are available at https://
www.reginfo.gov. Agencies can ensure that
these tools are optimally useful to State
representatives by clearly posting relevant
information on their individual Web sites
and providing appropriate information for
inclusion in the semiannual Unified Agenda.
Finally, this Recommendation is aimed at
both executive branch and independent
agencies that engage in preemptive
rulemaking, with the recognition that the
executive directives described above bind the
former and urge voluntarily compliance by
the latter.
The Conference recognizes the danger of
encumbering the rulemaking process with
too many formal requirements. Therefore, in
crafting this Recommendation, the
Conference has remained mindful of the
continuing validity of its previous
719 (2008) (reporting results from a further, 2006
study of preemptive rules, which disclosed that, out
of six preemptive rulemakings studied, only three
contained federalism impact analysis, and only one
of the analyses ‘‘went beyond stating either that the
agency concluded that it possessed statutory
authority to preempt or that the document had been
made available for comment, including to state
officials’’).
18 American Bar Association House of Delegates,
Resolution 117, available at https://
www.abanow.org/2010/07/am-2010-117/ (last
visited Nov. 2, 2010).
19 The Big Seven include the Council of State
Governments, the National Governors Association,
the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and
the International City/County Management
Association.
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices
Recommendation aimed at reducing
‘‘ossification’’ of the regulatory process.20 The
Conference recognizes, however, that certain
principles, including those embodied in the
preemption provisions of Executive Order
13132, are sufficiently important to warrant
systematic consideration by agencies
engaging in rulemaking. The following
Recommendation has accordingly been
structured both to encourage compliance
with existing executive directives and
increase the efficiency of internal agency
processes designed to ensure such
compliance.
Recommendation
1. The Conference reiterates its previous,
related recommendation that ‘‘Congress
should address foreseeable preemption issues
clearly and explicitly when it enacts a statute
affecting regulation or deregulation of an area
of conduct.’’ 21
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Internal Procedures for Compliance With the
Preemption Provisions of Executive Order
13132
2. Agencies that engage in rulemaking
proceedings that may have preemptive effect
on State law should have internal written
guidance to ensure compliance with the
preemption provisions of Executive Order
13132, which should describe:
a. How the agency determines the need for
any preemption;
b. How the agency consults with State and
local officials concerning preemption; and
c. How the agency otherwise ensures
compliance with the preemption provisions
of Executive Order 13132.
3. Agencies should post their internal
guidance for compliance with the
preemption provisions of Executive Order
13132 on the Internet or otherwise make
publicly available the information contained
therein.
4. Agencies should have an oversight
procedure to improve agency procedures for
implementing the preemption provisions of
Executive Order 13132. This procedure
should include an internal process for
evaluating the authority and basis asserted in
support of a preemptive rulemaking. The
agency should provide a reasoned basis, with
such evidence as may be appropriate, that
supports its preemption conclusion.
Updated Policies To Ensure Timely
Consultation With State and Local Interests
Concerning Preemption
5. Agencies should have a consultation
process that contains elements such as the
following:
a. Agencies should use an updated contact
list for representatives of State interests,
including but not limited to the ‘‘Big Seven.’’
The Administrative Conference will maintain
such a list for use by agencies.
b. Agencies should maintain some form of
regularized personal contact in order to build
relationships with representatives of State
interests.
20 Administrative Conference of the United
States, Recommendation No. 93–4, Improving the
Environment for Agency Rulemaking (1993).
21 Administrative Conference of the United
States, Recommendation No. 84–5, Preemption of
State Regulation by Federal Agencies (1984).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
c. Agencies should disclose to the public
when they meet with the representatives of
State interests in the course of rulemaking
proceedings that may preempt State law. The
disclosure should include the identity of the
organization(s) or institution(s) that
participate and the subject matter of the
discussion.
d. Agencies should reach out to
appropriate State and local officials early in
the process when they are considering
preemptive rules. Such outreach should, to
the extent practicable, precede issuance of
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
6. Agencies should establish contact with
organizations and State and local regulatory
bodies and officials that have relevant
substantive expertise or jurisdiction.
7. Agencies should adopt, as one
component of their notice practice, a
procedure for notifying State attorneys
general when they are considering rules that
may have preemptive effect. This may be
achieved via direct communication with
State attorneys general and by contacting an
appropriate representative organization such
as, for example, the National Association of
Attorneys General.
Actions by OIRA/OMB To Improve the
Process
8. OIRA/OMB should request agencies to
post on their open government Web sites a
summary of the agencies’ responses to the
directive contained in the Preemption
Memorandum to conduct a 10-year
retrospective review of preemptive
rulemaking.
9. OIRA/OMB should update its
Federalism Guidelines with respect to
preemption.
10. OIRA should include reference to
Executive Order 13132 in Circular A–4.22
[FR Doc. 2010–32985 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6110–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0041]
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.;
Availability of Petition and
Environmental Assessment for
Determination of Nonregulated Status
for Corn Genetically Engineered To
Produce Male Sterile/Female Inbred
Plants
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: We are advising the public
that the Animal and Plant Health
22 Office of Info. & Regulatory Affairs, Circular A–
4 on Regulatory Analysis (2003), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/
regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf (last visited October
15, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
83
Inspection Service has received a
petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Inc., seeking a
determination of nonregulated status for
corn designated as DP–32138–1, which
has been genetically engineered to
produce male sterile/female inbred
plants for the generation of hybrid corn
seed that is non-transgenic. The petition
has been submitted in accordance with
our regulations concerning the
introduction of certain genetically
engineered organisms and products. In
accordance with those regulations, we
are soliciting comments on whether this
genetically engineered corn is likely to
pose a plant pest risk. We are also
making available for public comment an
environmental assessment for the
proposed determination of nonregulated
status.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before March 4,
2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2010-0041 to submit or view comments
and to view supporting and related
materials available electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send one copy of your comment
to Docket No. APHIS–2010–0041,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–
2010–0041.
Reading Room: You may read any
comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading
room is located in room 1141 of the
USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Rick Coker, Regulatory Analyst,
Biotechnology Regulatory Services,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–
5720, e-mail:
richard.s.coker@aphis.usda.gov. To
obtain copies of the petition, draft
environmental assessment, or plant pest
risk assessment, contact Ms. Cindy Eck
E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM
03JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81-83]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32985]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 /
Notices
[[Page 81]]
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
Adoption of Recommendation
AGENCY: Administrative Conference of the United States.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administrative Conference of the United States adopted the
attached recommendation at its Fifty-third Plenary Session. The
recommendation addresses issues relating to Federal agency procedures
regarding consultation with State and local governments and for
considering State interests in rulemakings that may result in the
preemption of State law.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily F. Schleicher, Designated
Federal Officer, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite
706 South, 1120 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-
480-2080.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrative Conference of the United
States was established by the Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C.
591-596. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness
of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies in carrying
out administrative programs, and makes recommendations for improvements
to the agencies, collectively or individually, and to the President,
Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States (5 U.S.C.
594(1)). At its Fifty-third Plenary Session, held December 9 and 10,
2010, the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United
States adopted the attached recommendation. For further information
about the Conference and its activities, see https://www.acus.gov.
Recommendation 2010-1, ``Agency Procedures for Considering
Preemption of State Law,'' addresses issues relating to agency
procedures for complying with Federal requirements regarding
consultation with State and local governments and for considering State
interests in rulemakings that may result in the preemption of State
law. The goal of the recommendation is not to favor or disfavor
preemption, but to improve agency procedures in potentially preemptive
rulemakings. The recommendation reiterates a previous Conference
recommendation that Congress clearly state its preemptive intent in the
text of the statutes it charges Federal agencies with implementing. It
recommends that agencies formulate appropriate internal procedures to
ensure consultation with representatives of State interests and to
ensure that agencies evaluate the authority and basis asserted in
support of a preemptive rulemaking. It seeks to increase transparency
regarding internal agency policies and recommends ways to improve
external mechanisms for enforcing the applicable Federal requirements.
The full text of the recommendation is set out in the Appendix
below. The recommendation will be transmitted to affected agencies and
to appropriate committees of the United States Congress. The
Administrative Conference has advisory powers only, and the decision on
whether to implement the recommendation must be made by the affected
agencies or by Congress.
The Administrative Conference ceased operations in 1995 due to
termination of funding, but was re-established in 2010, and the Council
of the revived Administrative Conference held its first meeting in
August 2010. The December 2010 Plenary Session was the first held after
the resumption of operations. Recommendations and statements of the
Administrative Conference are published in full text in the Federal
Register. The research report on which Recommendation 2010-1 is based
and a complete listing of past recommendations and statements are
available at https://www.acus.gov.
The transcript of the Plenary Session is available for public
inspection at the Conference's offices at 1120 20th Street, NW., Suite
706 South, Washington, DC.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 591-96.
Dated: December 27, 2010.
Jonathan R. Siegel,
Director of Research and Policy.
Appendix--Recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the
United States
Recommendation 2010-1, Agency Procedures for Considering Preemption of
State Law (Adopted December 9, 2010)
Preamble
Presidents Reagan and Clinton both issued executive orders
mandating executive branch agencies,\1\ and urging independent
agencies,\2\ to take certain measures to ensure proper respect for
principles of federalism. Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,''
issued by President Clinton on August 4, 1999 (the ``Order''),\3\ is
still in effect today, and is an amended version of President
Reagan's Executive Order on Federalism, Executive Order 12612.\4\
The Order identifies federalism principles that bear consideration
in policymaking and specifies procedures for intergovernmental
consultation, emphasizing consultations with State and local
governments and enhanced sensitivity to their concerns. The Order
requires agencies to have ``an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' \5\ The Order requires agencies to ``provide all
affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for
appropriate participation in the proceedings'' whenever an agency
proposes to preempt State law through adjudication or rulemaking.\6\
It establishes specific procedures for ``any regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law,'' \7\ requiring
agencies to consult with State and local officials ``early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation,'' \8\ and to prepare
a federalism impact statement (``FIS'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order No. 13,132, Sec. 1(c).
\2\ Id. at Sec. 9.
\3\ Exec. Order No. 13,132, 3 CFR 206 (2000), reprinted in 3
U.S.C. 301 (2006).
\4\ President Reagan's Executive Order on Federalism adopted,
nearly verbatim, ACUS recommendations. Compare Exec. Order No.
12,612, 3 CFR 252, Sec. Sec. 4(d) & (e) (1988), reprinted in 5
U.S.C. 601 (1994), with Administrative Conference of the United
States, Recommendation No. 84-5, Preemption of State Regulation by
Federal Agencies ]] 4, 5 (1984).
\5\ Exec. Order No. 13,132, Sec. 6(a). The consultation process
must involve ``elected officials of State and local governments or
their representative national organizations.'' Id. at Sec. Sec.
1(d), 6(a).
\6\ Id. at Sec. 4(e).
\7\ Id. at Sec. 6(c).
\8\ Id. at Sec. 6(c)(1).
\9\ Id. at Sec. 6(c)(2) (requiring a FIS for any regulation
``that has federalism implications and that preempts State law'');
id. at Sec. 1(a) (defining ``federalism implications'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82]]
Individual agencies are responsible for implementing Executive
Order 13132, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(``OIRA''), located within the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB''), has issued procedural guidelines on ``what agencies
should do to comply with the Order and how they should document that
compliance to OMB.'' \10\ These Federalism Guidelines provide that
each agency and department should designate a federalism official
charged with: (1) Ensuring that the agency considers federalism
principles in its development of regulatory and legislative policies
with federalism implications; (2) ensuring that the agency has an
accountable process for meaningful and timely intergovernmental
consultation in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications; and (3) providing certification of
compliance to OMB. The federalism official must submit to OMB ``a
description of the agency's consultation process,'' \11\ that
``indicate[s] how the agency identifies those policies with
federalism implications and the procedures the agency will use to
ensure meaningful and timely consultation with affected State and
local officials.'' \12\ For any draft final regulation with
federalism implications submitted for OIRA review under Executive
Order 12866, the federalism official must certify that the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 concerning both the evaluation
of federalism policies and consultation have been met in a
meaningful and timely manner.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Mgmt. &
Budget, to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and
Independent Regulatory Agencies, Guidance for Implementing E.O.
13132, ``Federalism'' (Oct. 28, 1999), at 2, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/m00-/02.pdf (last visited October 29, 2010) (``Federalism Guidelines'').
\11\ Exec. Order No. 13,132, Sec. 6(a); Federalism Guidelines
2.
\12\ Federalism Guidelines 4-5.
\13\ Exec. Order No. 13,132, Sec. 8(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama's official policy on preemption, articulated in
a May 20, 2009 presidential ``Memorandum for Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies'' (``Preemption Memorandum''), provides
that ``[p]reemption of State law by executive departments and
agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the
legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal
basis for preemption.'' \14\ It specifically admonishes department
and agency heads to cease the practice of including preemption
statements in the preamble to a regulation without including it in
the codified regulation. And it further directs agencies to include
preemption provisions in codified regulations only to the extent
``justified under legal principles governing preemption, including
the principles outlined in Executive Order 13132.'' Finally, the
Preemption Memorandum requests that agencies conduct a 10-year
retrospective review of regulations including preemption statements,
whether in the preamble or the codified regulation, ``in order to
decide whether such statements or provisions are justified under
applicable legal principles governing preemption.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
agencies (May 20, 2009), 74 FR 24,693, 24,693-94 (May 22, 2009),
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-05-22/pdf/E9-12250.pdf#page=1 (last visited October 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An empirical evaluation of agency practices reveals that
compliance with the preemption provisions of Executive Order 13132
has been inconsistent, although President Obama's Preemption
Memorandum has effectuated a meaningful shift in preemption policies
within a number of agencies. This evaluation was based on
statistical analysis of agency rulemaking practices, on particular
examples of agency rulemakings, on recent interviews with officials
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA''),
Food and Drug Administration (``FDA''), Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency (``OCC''), Consumer Product Safety Commission
(``CPSC''), Federal Trade Commission (``FTC''), and Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), and on consideration of legislative
changes to statutes relevant to agency preemption and an independent
review of the agencies' respective rulemaking dockets and
intervention in litigation.
There appears to be consensus that the requirements of the
preemption provisions of Executive Order 13132--including
consultation with the States and the requirement for ``federalism
impact statements''--are sound. But compliance with these provisions
has been inconsistent, and difficulties have persisted across
administrations of both political parties. A 1999 GAO Report
identified only five rules--out of a total of 11,000 issued from
April 1996 to December 1998 \15\--that included a federalism impact
assessment.\16\ Case studies of particular rulemaking proceedings
have revealed failures to comply with Executive Order 13132.\17\ In
August 2010, reflecting continued concern with agency practices in
this area, the ABA House of Delegates adopted a recommendation
developed by the ABA Task Force on Federal Preemption of State Tort
Laws, aimed at improving compliance with the preemption provisions
of Executive Order 13132.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Executive Order 12612 was in effect during this time
period.
\16\ U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/T-GGD-99-93,
Implementation of Executive Order 12612 in the Rulemaking Process 1
(1999). The exact number of federalism impact assessments during
this period is in some doubt but appears to be quite small. See Nina
A. Mendelson, Chevron and Preemption, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 737, 784
n.192 (2004) (reporting identification of 9 federalism impact
assessments from the fourth quarter of 1998); see also id at 783-84
(demonstrating that federalism impact statements are relatively rare
and of ``poor quality''). Of course, many rules do not require a
federalism impact assessment. The number of rules that should have
included one is unknown, but the very small number that did suggests
that agencies were ``not implementing the order as vigorously as
they could.'' GAO report, supra, at 13.
\17\ See Catherine M. Sharkey, Federalism Accountability:
``Agency Forcing'' Measures, 58 Duke L.J. 2125, 2131-439 (2009)
(analyzing several rulemaking proceedings in which an agency's
notice of proposed rulemaking stated that a rule would have no
federalism impact, but in which the agency stated that the final
rule had preemptive effect, in some cases without preparing a
federalism impact statement or consulting with state officials); see
also Nina A. Mendelson, A Presumption Against Agency Preemption, 102
Nw. L. Rev. 695, 719 (2008) (reporting results from a further, 2006
study of preemptive rules, which disclosed that, out of six
preemptive rulemakings studied, only three contained federalism
impact analysis, and only one of the analyses ``went beyond stating
either that the agency concluded that it possessed statutory
authority to preempt or that the document had been made available
for comment, including to state officials'').
\18\ American Bar Association House of Delegates, Resolution
117, available at https://www.abanow.org/2010/07/am-2010-117/ (last
visited Nov. 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Administrative Conference Recommendation is intended to
improve agency procedures for implementing the preemption provisions
of Executive Order 13132 and to increase transparency regarding
internal agency policies and external enforcement mechanisms
designed to ensure compliance with those provisions. The goal is not
to favor or disfavor preemption, but to improve agency procedures in
potentially preemptive rulemakings. The Recommendation is also
intended to facilitate Federal agency consultation with State
representatives, such as the ``Big Seven,'' a group of nonpartisan,
non-profit organizations composed of State and local government
officials,\19\ and, conversely, to facilitate State officials'
awareness of and responsiveness to, opportunities to consult with
Federal officials and to comment in regulatory proceedings that may
have preemptive effect. Improved communication on preemption issues
would result if State and local government officials or their
representative organizations availed themselves of opportunities to
become aware of whether Federal agencies are engaging in potentially
preemptive rulemaking proceedings, for example, by monitoring the
Federal Register or using relevant Internet dashboards, such as are
available at https://www.reginfo.gov. Agencies can ensure that these
tools are optimally useful to State representatives by clearly
posting relevant information on their individual Web sites and
providing appropriate information for inclusion in the semiannual
Unified Agenda. Finally, this Recommendation is aimed at both
executive branch and independent agencies that engage in preemptive
rulemaking, with the recognition that the executive directives
described above bind the former and urge voluntarily compliance by
the latter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Big Seven include the Council of State Governments, the
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the International
City/County Management Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conference recognizes the danger of encumbering the
rulemaking process with too many formal requirements. Therefore, in
crafting this Recommendation, the Conference has remained mindful of
the continuing validity of its previous
[[Page 83]]
Recommendation aimed at reducing ``ossification'' of the regulatory
process.\20\ The Conference recognizes, however, that certain
principles, including those embodied in the preemption provisions of
Executive Order 13132, are sufficiently important to warrant
systematic consideration by agencies engaging in rulemaking. The
following Recommendation has accordingly been structured both to
encourage compliance with existing executive directives and increase
the efficiency of internal agency processes designed to ensure such
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Administrative Conference of the United States,
Recommendation No. 93-4, Improving the Environment for Agency
Rulemaking (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation
1. The Conference reiterates its previous, related
recommendation that ``Congress should address foreseeable preemption
issues clearly and explicitly when it enacts a statute affecting
regulation or deregulation of an area of conduct.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Administrative Conference of the United States,
Recommendation No. 84-5, Preemption of State Regulation by Federal
Agencies (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Procedures for Compliance With the Preemption Provisions
of Executive Order 13132
2. Agencies that engage in rulemaking proceedings that may have
preemptive effect on State law should have internal written guidance
to ensure compliance with the preemption provisions of Executive
Order 13132, which should describe:
a. How the agency determines the need for any preemption;
b. How the agency consults with State and local officials
concerning preemption; and
c. How the agency otherwise ensures compliance with the
preemption provisions of Executive Order 13132.
3. Agencies should post their internal guidance for compliance
with the preemption provisions of Executive Order 13132 on the
Internet or otherwise make publicly available the information
contained therein.
4. Agencies should have an oversight procedure to improve agency
procedures for implementing the preemption provisions of Executive
Order 13132. This procedure should include an internal process for
evaluating the authority and basis asserted in support of a
preemptive rulemaking. The agency should provide a reasoned basis,
with such evidence as may be appropriate, that supports its
preemption conclusion.
Updated Policies To Ensure Timely Consultation With State and Local
Interests Concerning Preemption
5. Agencies should have a consultation process that contains
elements such as the following:
a. Agencies should use an updated contact list for
representatives of State interests, including but not limited to the
``Big Seven.'' The Administrative Conference will maintain such a
list for use by agencies.
b. Agencies should maintain some form of regularized personal
contact in order to build relationships with representatives of
State interests.
c. Agencies should disclose to the public when they meet with
the representatives of State interests in the course of rulemaking
proceedings that may preempt State law. The disclosure should
include the identity of the organization(s) or institution(s) that
participate and the subject matter of the discussion.
d. Agencies should reach out to appropriate State and local
officials early in the process when they are considering preemptive
rules. Such outreach should, to the extent practicable, precede
issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking.
6. Agencies should establish contact with organizations and
State and local regulatory bodies and officials that have relevant
substantive expertise or jurisdiction.
7. Agencies should adopt, as one component of their notice
practice, a procedure for notifying State attorneys general when
they are considering rules that may have preemptive effect. This may
be achieved via direct communication with State attorneys general
and by contacting an appropriate representative organization such
as, for example, the National Association of Attorneys General.
Actions by OIRA/OMB To Improve the Process
8. OIRA/OMB should request agencies to post on their open
government Web sites a summary of the agencies' responses to the
directive contained in the Preemption Memorandum to conduct a 10-
year retrospective review of preemptive rulemaking.
9. OIRA/OMB should update its Federalism Guidelines with respect
to preemption.
10. OIRA should include reference to Executive Order 13132 in
Circular A-4.\22\
\22\ Office of Info. & Regulatory Affairs, Circular A-4 on
Regulatory Analysis (2003), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf
(last visited October 15, 2010).
[FR Doc. 2010-32985 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6110-01-P