Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Agriculture, 60346-60349 [2019-24082]
Download as PDF
60346
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 217
Friday, November 8, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
5 CFR Part 8301
[Docket No. USDA–2019–0005]
RIN 3209–AA48
Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (‘‘USDA’’ or ‘‘Department’’),
with the concurrence of the U.S. Office
of Government Ethics (OGE), is issuing
this proposed rule for attorneys of
USDA’s Office of the General Counsel
(OGC). This proposed rule further
supplements the Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch (OGE Standards) issued by OGE
by revising USDA’s existing
supplemental regulation concerning the
outside practice of law by USDA OGC
attorneys. The current regulation
requires OGC attorneys to obtain written
approval before engaging in the outside
practice of law. To more fully address
ethical issues unique to OGC attorneys,
the proposed revision retains this prior
approval requirement and imposes
additional restrictions on the outside
practice of law, subject to certain
exceptions.
SUMMARY:
The comment period will be
open for 45 calendar days. Written
comments are invited and must be
received on or before December 23,
2019.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. USDA–2019–
0005 or the Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) 3209–AA48, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
• Email: FederalRegisterComments@
usda.gov. Include Docket No. USDA–
2019–0005 or RIN number 3209–AA48
in the subject line of the message.
• Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier:
Office of the Executive Secretary, USDA
Whitten Federal Building Room 116–A,
1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number RIN number for this
rulemaking. In general, all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov. In
addition, comments will be available for
public inspection and copying at Room
347–W, J.L. Whitten Federal Building,
1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can
make an appointment to inspect the
documents by telephoning (202) 720–
2251.
All comments, including attachments
and other supporting materials, will
become part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. Sensitive
personal information, such as account
numbers or social security numbers,
should not be included. Comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying
or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stuart Bender, Director of the Office of
Ethics, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
at (202) 720–2251, Stuart.Bender@
usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 7, 1992, OGE published
the OGE Standards. See 57 FR 35006–
35067, as corrected at 57 FR 48557, 57
FR 52483, and 60 FR 51167. The OGE
Standards, codified at 5 CFR part 2635,
effective February 3, 1993, established
uniform standards of ethical conduct
that apply to all executive branch
personnel.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.105,
executive branch agencies are
authorized to publish, with the
concurrence of OGE, agency-specific
supplemental regulations that are
deemed necessary to properly
implement their respective ethics
programs. On March 24, 2000, USDA,
with OGE’s concurrence, published in
the Federal Register an interim final
rule to establish the USDA
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Supplemental Ethics Regulations. 65 FR
15825. The regulation was finalized on
October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58635). USDA,
with OGE’s concurrence, now proposes
to amend the USDA Supplemental
Ethics Regulations as they relate to OGC
attorneys that engage in the outside
practice of law.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Section 8301.105 Additional Rules for
Attorneys in the Office of the General
Counsel
Summary
USDA can, and does, take actions
every day that affect enterprises as
diverse as farm and ranch production,
food safety inspections and the grading
of commodities, environmental
protection and forest land use, import
and export of agricultural products,
grocery retailers and supplemental
nutrition assistance programs, the
national school lunch program, soil
conservation, wildfire control, rural
development and infrastructure
rebuilding, and promoting the
expansion of foreign markets for
agricultural commodity exports. In view
of the pervasiveness and variety of
USDA-regulated and USDA-affected
businesses and organizations in the
United States, there is a significant risk
that OGC attorneys engaged in the
outside practice of law may increasingly
confront actual or apparent conflicts of
interest. USDA therefore proposes to
update § 8301.105, which currently
requires prior approval for the outside
practice of law, to include certain
additional restrictions and
accompanying exceptions.
Because OGC engages in a wide range
of litigation, enforcement, transactional,
advisory and regulatory functions across
the Department and the nation’s
agriculture sector, strengthening the
requirements for compliance with
ethical restrictions is necessary to
ensure that a reasonable person will not
question the integrity of the OGC
attorneys who play an essential role in
the Department’s programs and
operations. OGC would be hindered in
fulfilling its mission if members of the
public did not have confidence in the
ability of its attorneys to act impartially
while performing their official duties.
Analysis of the Regulation
Paragraph (a) requires OGC attorneys
to obtain prior written approval before
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
engaging in the ‘‘outside practice of
law,’’ as it is defined in that paragraph.
OGC attorneys must obtain the approval
in accordance with the existing
procedures described in § 8301.102(c)
and the standard for approval in
paragraph (b).
Paragraph (b) sets out the standard to
be applied in reviewing requests for
prior approval for the outside practice of
law. Approval will be granted unless it
is determined that the outside practice
of law is expected to involve conduct
prohibited by statute, Federal
regulations, including the OGE
Standards, or paragraph (c) of this
supplemental regulation. This standard
is consistent with the standard for
approval in § 8301.102(d).
Paragraph (c)(1) prohibits OGC
attorneys from engaging in the outside
practice of law where the activity, in
fact or in appearance, may require the
assertion of a legal position that
conflicts with the interests of the
Department. OGC attorneys are also
prohibited from engaging in any outside
law practice that might require the
interpretation of a statute, regulation, or
rule administered or issued by the
Department. Attorneys in OGC are also
prohibited from engaging in any outside
practice of law where a supervisory
attorney determines that such outside
practice of law would conflict with the
employee’s official duties or create the
appearance of a loss of the attorney’s
impartiality as prohibited by 5 CFR
2635.802. Further, as prohibited by 18
U.S.C. 205, OGC attorneys may not act
as an agent or attorney in any matter in
which the U.S. Government is a party or
has a direct and substantial interest.
Paragraph (c)(2) enunciates certain
exceptions from the prohibitions listed
in paragraph (c)(1). Paragraph (c)(3)
outlines the procedures for the use of
those exceptions.
Asserting Contrary Legal Positions
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) is consistent with
the rules of professional conduct
governing the attorney-client
relationship. Precluding any outside law
practice that may require the assertion
of legal positions adverse to the
Department derives from the unique and
sensitive relationship between an
attorney and a client, which for OGC
attorneys is USDA.
Moreover, the Department has a
legitimate interest in maintaining the
consistency and credibility of the
Department’s positions before the
Federal courts. For the most part, the
representational bans contained in 18
U.S.C. 203 and 205 would preclude
outside practice by OGC attorneys in the
Federal courts because nondiversity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
cases within Federal court jurisdiction
generally involve controversies in
which the United States is a party or has
a direct and substantial interest.
However, cases may arise involving the
interpretation or application of Federal
statutes or regulations that do not
necessarily implicate the direct and
substantial interests of the United
States.
As a consequence, OGC attorneys
representing private clients might
appear in front of the same judges before
whom they appear in their official
capacities and argue different
interpretations of Federal statutes or
regulations. Depending upon the
visibility of the issues and any attendant
controversy, asserting conflicting legal
positions may diminish the
persuasiveness of the advocate, erode
judicial confidence in the integrity of
the Department’s attorneys, and
undermine the credibility of both
clients. Section 8301.105(c)(1)(i) is
intended, therefore, to safeguard the
interests of the Department as the
primary client to which the attorney
employee owes a professional
responsibility.
Concededly, while representing a
private client, an OGC attorney might
take legal positions on a myriad of
issues not directly related to Federal
interests or agency programs—such as
jurisdiction, service of process,
standing, evidence, or statutory
construction—that differ from those the
attorney might have asserted while
acting in a Government capacity. The
section is not intended to proscribe
instances of outside practice merely
because such issues would have been
handled differently if the matters arose
in the prosecution or defense of an
agency case. Generally, advocacy with
respect to ancillary issues unrelated to
substantive legal positions or agency
administered statutes would be unlikely
to have an impact sufficiently adverse to
agency interest to be proscribed by the
regulation.
Interpreting Department of Agriculture
Administered Statutes
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is intended to
effectuate the prohibition on the use of
public office for private gain, to
preclude inconsistent legal positions on
core issues affecting the interests of the
Department, and to protect the public
interest by preventing any public
perception that an attorney’s
employment with the Department
signifies extraordinary competency on
agency related issues, or that an OGC
attorney’s interpretation implicitly is
sanctioned or approved by the
Department. For the most part, outside
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60347
practice involving agency-administered
statutes would be precluded as a
conflicting activity. If the subject matter
of the proposed representation and the
assigned duties of the attorney correlate,
the outside activity potentially would
require, under the standards set forth in
5 CFR 2635.402 and 2635.502, the
employee’s disqualification from
matters so central or critical to the
performance of the employee’s official
duties that the employee’s ability to
perform the duties of the employee’s
position would be materially impaired.
Similarly, representation on matters
involving the application of agency
statutes may implicate direct and
substantial interests of the United
States, thus contravening the
representational bans in 18 U.S.C. 203
and 205.
Although the regulation to some
extent covers areas that are subject to
existing prohibitions, paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) reaches situations not
specifically addressed in the existing
standards. Absent the prohibition
contained in this section, an OGC
attorney principally engaged in advising
a USDA Mission Area or Secretarial
Staff Office conceivably could obtain
outside employment advising, as
opposed to representing, a private client
on areas of agency law to which the
attorney is not assigned. In these
circumstances, there is considerable risk
that the outside legal employment
position held by the individual may
convey an impression of
authoritativeness or access to nonpublic information or agency experts
that may not necessarily be warranted.
Moreover, private clients, and those
aware of the OGC attorney’s
involvement, may assume incorrectly
that the attorney’s interpretation has
been vetted through the Department and
is effectively a Departmental
interpretation as well. Rendering legal
services that may require the
interpretation of any statute, regulation,
or rule administered or issued by the
Department creates an appearance that
the employee has used the employee’s
official position to obtain an outside
business opportunity. Further, if
counsel were engaged in the outside law
practice that involved Department
statutes, the potential risk for asserting
legal positions adverse to the interests of
the Department would be heightened.
Similarly, as established at 5 CFR
2635.802(b), it would undermine the
effectiveness of the attorney and the
attorney’s duty of loyalty to the
Department in those situations where a
supervisory attorney determined that
the outside practice of law would create
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
60348
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
a conflict of interest, or the appearance
of a loss of impartiality, requiring the
attorney’s disqualification from matters
central to the attorney’s performance of
his official duties. In such situations,
the attorney’s duty of loyalty to the
Department as the attorney’s primary
client must take first priority.
Acting as an Agent
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) highlights the
proscription in 18 U.S.C. 205 barring
employees from acting as an agent or
attorney in any matter in which the
United States Government is a party or
where the Government has a direct and
substantial interest.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Exceptions
Paragraph (c)(2) provides exceptions
to the prohibitions set forth in
paragraph (c)(1). Consistent with the
exceptions to the representational bans
contained in 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205,
nothing in this regulation precludes
representation, if approved in advance
by the appropriate official or supervisor,
that is: (1) Rendered, with or without
compensation, to specified relatives or
an estate for which an employee serves
as a fiduciary; or (2) provided, without
compensation, to an employee subject to
disciplinary, loyalty, or other personnel
administration proceedings; or (3)
rendered, without compensation to a
voluntary employee nonprofit
organization or group (such as child
care centers, recreational associations,
professional organizations, credit
unions or other similar groups) before
the U.S. Government under certain
circumstances (18 U.S.C. 205 restricts
employees from representing an
employee organization or group in
claims against the Government, in
seeking grants, contracts or funds from
the Government, or in a judicial or
administrative proceeding where the
organization or group is a party).
Moreover, paragraph (c)(2)(iv) makes
explicit that neither the ban on asserting
contrary positions nor the prohibition
on interpreting agency statutes is
intended to proscribe the giving of
testimony under oath. In order to take
advantage of the exceptions to 18 U.S.C.
203 and 205 for representing family
members or an estate, both statutes
expressly require the approval of the
Government official responsible for the
employee’s appointment. See 18 U.S.C.
203(d) and 205(e). To take advantage of
the other exceptions set forth in
paragraph (c)(2), the employee’s
supervisor must determine that the
representations are not ‘‘inconsistent
with the faithful performance of [the
employee’s] duties.’’ See 18 U.S.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
205(d). These approval procedures are
detailed in paragraph (c)(3).
Pro Bono
Paragraph (d) permits attorneys in
OGC, subject to the restrictions in
paragraph (c)(1), to provide outside pro
bono legal services to organizations or
individuals through a non-profit
organization, without obtaining prior
written approval. For example,
Department attorneys may provide legal
services pro bono publico in areas such
as drafting wills or powers of attorney,
assisting the preparation of domestic
violence protective orders, and
landlord-tenant disputes. These pro
bono activities can generally be
undertaken without detriment to the
Department’s interests, provided that
the employee adheres to the limitations
of this rule. The Department encourages
such volunteer legal activities, if not
inconsistent with this supplemental
regulation and the laws and regulations
described above. Attorneys in the OGC
who have questions about whether a
specific pro bono legal service would
comply with the limitations of this rule
are encouraged to seek advance
guidance from USDA’s Office of Ethics.
Matters of Regulatory Procedure
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (the RFA), requires
each agency to consider the potential
impact of its regulations on small
entities, including small businesses,
small governmental units, and small
not-for-profit organizations, unless the
head of the agency certifies that the
rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Secretary
of Agriculture so certifies. The rule does
not impose any obligations or standards
of conduct for purposes of analysis
under the RFA, and it therefore does not
give rise to a regulatory compliance
burden for small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Department has determined that
this rule does not impose any new
recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure
requirements on members of the public
that would be collections of information
requiring approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 8301
Conflict of interests, Government
employees.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department is proposing
to amend 5 CFR part 8301 as follows:
PART 8301—SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT
FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
1. The authority citation for part 8301
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. App.;
E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp.,
p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR
42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR
2635.105, 2635.403, 2635.502 and 2635.803.
2. Revise § 8301.105 to read as
follows:
■
§ 8301.105 Additional rules for attorneys in
the Office of the General Counsel.
(a) Additional rules for attorneys in
the Office of the General Counsel
regarding the outside practice of law.
Any attorney serving within the Office
of the General Counsel shall obtain
written approval, in accordance with
the procedures set forth in § 8301.102(c)
and the standard for approval set forth
in paragraph (b) of this section, before
engaging in the outside practice of law,
whether compensated or not. For
purposes of this section the ‘‘outside
practice of law’’ means those activities
requiring professional licensure by a
state bar as an attorney and include, but
are not limited to, providing legal
advice to a client, drafting legal
documents, and representing clients in
legal negotiations or litigation.
(b) Standard for approval. Approval
shall be granted by the agency designee
unless it is determined that the outside
practice of law is expected to involve
conduct prohibited by statute or Federal
regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635,
or paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Prohibited outside practice of law
applicable to attorneys in the Office of
the General Counsel—(1) General
prohibitions. An employee who serves
as an attorney within the Office of the
General Counsel shall not engage in any
outside practice of law that might
require the attorney to:
(i) Assert a legal position that is or
appears to be in conflict with the
interests of the Department of
Agriculture, the client to which the
attorney owes a professional
responsibility; or
(ii) Interpret any statute, regulation, or
rule administered or issued by the
Department of Agriculture, or where a
supervisory attorney determines that the
outside practice of law would conflict
with the employee’s official duties or
create the appearance of a loss of the
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
attorney’s impartiality, as prohibited by
5 CFR 2635.802; or
(iii) Act as an agent or attorney in any
matter in which the U.S. Government is
a party or has a direct and substantial
interest, as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 205.
(2) Exceptions. Nothing in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section prevents an
attorney in the Office of the General
Counsel from:
(i) Acting, with or without
compensation, as an agent or attorney
for, or otherwise representing, the
employee’s parents, spouse, child, or
any other person for whom, or for any
estate for which, the employee is
serving as guardian, executor,
administrator, trustee, or other personal
fiduciary to the extent permitted by 18
U.S.C. 203(d) and 205(e), or from
providing advice or counsel to such
persons or estates; or
(ii) Acting, without compensation, as
an agent or attorney for, or otherwise
representing, any person who is the
subject of disciplinary, loyalty, or other
personnel administration proceedings in
connection with those proceedings, or
from providing uncompensated advice
and counsel to such person to the extent
permitted by 18 U.S.C. 205; or
(iii) Acting, without compensation, as
an agent or attorney for, or otherwise
representing any cooperative, voluntary,
professional, recreational, or similar
organization or group not established or
operated for profit, if a majority of the
organization’s or group’s members are
current employees of the United States
or the District of Columbia, or their
spouses or dependent children. As
limited by 18 U.S.C. 205(d), this
exception is not permitted for any
representation with respect to a matter
which involves prosecuting a claim
against the United States under 18
U.S.C. 205(a)(1) or (b)(1), or involves a
judicial or administrative proceeding
where the organization or group is a
party, or involves a grant, contract, or
other agreement providing for the
disbursement of Federal funds to the
organization or group; or
(iv) Giving testimony under oath or
from making statements required to be
made under penalty for perjury or
contempt.
(3) Specific approval procedures for
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (i) The
exceptions to 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205
described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section do not apply unless the
employee obtained the prior approval of
the Government official responsible for
the appointment of the employee to a
Federal position.
(ii) The exception to 18 U.S.C. 205
described in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and
(iii) of this section does not apply unless
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Nov 07, 2019
Jkt 250001
the employee has obtained the prior
approval of a supervisory official who
has authority to determine whether the
employee’s proposed representation is
consistent with the faithful performance
of the employee’s duties.
(d) Pro bono activity. Subject to
compliance with paragraph (c) of this
section, attorneys within the Office of
the General Counsel are permitted to
provide outside pro bono legal services
(without compensation other than
reimbursement of expenses) to
organizations or individuals through a
non-profit organization, without
obtaining prior written approval in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in § 8301.102(c).
Stephen Alexander Vaden,
General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
In concurrence:
Emory A. Rounds, III,
Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
[FR Doc. 2019–24082 Filed 11–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–90–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0882; Product
Identifier 2018–SW–113–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C,
AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1
helicopters. This proposed AD would
require inspecting the attachment
screws of each main gearbox (MGB)
suspension bar rear attachment fitting,
and depending on the outcome,
applying a sealing compound,
performing further inspections, and
replacing affected parts. This proposed
AD is prompted by reports of an
elongated attachment screw and loss of
tightening torque of the nut. The actions
of this proposed AD are intended to
address an unsafe condition on these
products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by January 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60349
• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Send comments to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the
‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–
0882; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this proposed
AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
For service information identified in
this proposed rule, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax
(972) 641–3775; or at https://
www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/
technical-support.html. You may review
the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy, Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
Matt
Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone (817) 222–5110; email
matthew.fuller@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. The FAA also
invites comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result
from adopting the proposals in this
document. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments,
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60346-60349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24082]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60346]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
5 CFR Part 8301
[Docket No. USDA-2019-0005]
RIN 3209-AA48
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Department of Agriculture
AGENCY: Department of Agriculture, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'' or
``Department''), with the concurrence of the U.S. Office of Government
Ethics (OGE), is issuing this proposed rule for attorneys of USDA's
Office of the General Counsel (OGC). This proposed rule further
supplements the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch (OGE Standards) issued by OGE by revising USDA's
existing supplemental regulation concerning the outside practice of law
by USDA OGC attorneys. The current regulation requires OGC attorneys to
obtain written approval before engaging in the outside practice of law.
To more fully address ethical issues unique to OGC attorneys, the
proposed revision retains this prior approval requirement and imposes
additional restrictions on the outside practice of law, subject to
certain exceptions.
DATES: The comment period will be open for 45 calendar days. Written
comments are invited and must be received on or before December 23,
2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. USDA-2019-
0005 or the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 3209-AA48, by any of
the following methods:
Electronic: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket
No. USDA-2019-0005 or RIN number 3209-AA48 in the subject line of the
message.
Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Office of the Executive
Secretary, USDA Whitten Federal Building Room 116-A, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number RIN number for this rulemaking. In general, all comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and
copying at Room 347-W, J.L. Whitten Federal Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment
to inspect the documents by telephoning (202) 720-2251.
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials,
will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure.
Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social
security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited
to remove any identifying or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart Bender, Director of the Office
of Ethics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at (202) 720-2251,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 7, 1992, OGE published the OGE Standards. See 57 FR
35006-35067, as corrected at 57 FR 48557, 57 FR 52483, and 60 FR 51167.
The OGE Standards, codified at 5 CFR part 2635, effective February 3,
1993, established uniform standards of ethical conduct that apply to
all executive branch personnel.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.105, executive branch agencies are
authorized to publish, with the concurrence of OGE, agency-specific
supplemental regulations that are deemed necessary to properly
implement their respective ethics programs. On March 24, 2000, USDA,
with OGE's concurrence, published in the Federal Register an interim
final rule to establish the USDA Supplemental Ethics Regulations. 65 FR
15825. The regulation was finalized on October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58635).
USDA, with OGE's concurrence, now proposes to amend the USDA
Supplemental Ethics Regulations as they relate to OGC attorneys that
engage in the outside practice of law.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Section 8301.105 Additional Rules for Attorneys in the Office of the
General Counsel
Summary
USDA can, and does, take actions every day that affect enterprises
as diverse as farm and ranch production, food safety inspections and
the grading of commodities, environmental protection and forest land
use, import and export of agricultural products, grocery retailers and
supplemental nutrition assistance programs, the national school lunch
program, soil conservation, wildfire control, rural development and
infrastructure rebuilding, and promoting the expansion of foreign
markets for agricultural commodity exports. In view of the
pervasiveness and variety of USDA-regulated and USDA-affected
businesses and organizations in the United States, there is a
significant risk that OGC attorneys engaged in the outside practice of
law may increasingly confront actual or apparent conflicts of interest.
USDA therefore proposes to update Sec. 8301.105, which currently
requires prior approval for the outside practice of law, to include
certain additional restrictions and accompanying exceptions.
Because OGC engages in a wide range of litigation, enforcement,
transactional, advisory and regulatory functions across the Department
and the nation's agriculture sector, strengthening the requirements for
compliance with ethical restrictions is necessary to ensure that a
reasonable person will not question the integrity of the OGC attorneys
who play an essential role in the Department's programs and operations.
OGC would be hindered in fulfilling its mission if members of the
public did not have confidence in the ability of its attorneys to act
impartially while performing their official duties.
Analysis of the Regulation
Paragraph (a) requires OGC attorneys to obtain prior written
approval before
[[Page 60347]]
engaging in the ``outside practice of law,'' as it is defined in that
paragraph. OGC attorneys must obtain the approval in accordance with
the existing procedures described in Sec. 8301.102(c) and the standard
for approval in paragraph (b).
Paragraph (b) sets out the standard to be applied in reviewing
requests for prior approval for the outside practice of law. Approval
will be granted unless it is determined that the outside practice of
law is expected to involve conduct prohibited by statute, Federal
regulations, including the OGE Standards, or paragraph (c) of this
supplemental regulation. This standard is consistent with the standard
for approval in Sec. 8301.102(d).
Paragraph (c)(1) prohibits OGC attorneys from engaging in the
outside practice of law where the activity, in fact or in appearance,
may require the assertion of a legal position that conflicts with the
interests of the Department. OGC attorneys are also prohibited from
engaging in any outside law practice that might require the
interpretation of a statute, regulation, or rule administered or issued
by the Department. Attorneys in OGC are also prohibited from engaging
in any outside practice of law where a supervisory attorney determines
that such outside practice of law would conflict with the employee's
official duties or create the appearance of a loss of the attorney's
impartiality as prohibited by 5 CFR 2635.802. Further, as prohibited by
18 U.S.C. 205, OGC attorneys may not act as an agent or attorney in any
matter in which the U.S. Government is a party or has a direct and
substantial interest. Paragraph (c)(2) enunciates certain exceptions
from the prohibitions listed in paragraph (c)(1). Paragraph (c)(3)
outlines the procedures for the use of those exceptions.
Asserting Contrary Legal Positions
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) is consistent with the rules of professional
conduct governing the attorney-client relationship. Precluding any
outside law practice that may require the assertion of legal positions
adverse to the Department derives from the unique and sensitive
relationship between an attorney and a client, which for OGC attorneys
is USDA.
Moreover, the Department has a legitimate interest in maintaining
the consistency and credibility of the Department's positions before
the Federal courts. For the most part, the representational bans
contained in 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205 would preclude outside practice by
OGC attorneys in the Federal courts because nondiversity cases within
Federal court jurisdiction generally involve controversies in which the
United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.
However, cases may arise involving the interpretation or application of
Federal statutes or regulations that do not necessarily implicate the
direct and substantial interests of the United States.
As a consequence, OGC attorneys representing private clients might
appear in front of the same judges before whom they appear in their
official capacities and argue different interpretations of Federal
statutes or regulations. Depending upon the visibility of the issues
and any attendant controversy, asserting conflicting legal positions
may diminish the persuasiveness of the advocate, erode judicial
confidence in the integrity of the Department's attorneys, and
undermine the credibility of both clients. Section 8301.105(c)(1)(i) is
intended, therefore, to safeguard the interests of the Department as
the primary client to which the attorney employee owes a professional
responsibility.
Concededly, while representing a private client, an OGC attorney
might take legal positions on a myriad of issues not directly related
to Federal interests or agency programs--such as jurisdiction, service
of process, standing, evidence, or statutory construction--that differ
from those the attorney might have asserted while acting in a
Government capacity. The section is not intended to proscribe instances
of outside practice merely because such issues would have been handled
differently if the matters arose in the prosecution or defense of an
agency case. Generally, advocacy with respect to ancillary issues
unrelated to substantive legal positions or agency administered
statutes would be unlikely to have an impact sufficiently adverse to
agency interest to be proscribed by the regulation.
Interpreting Department of Agriculture Administered Statutes
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is intended to effectuate the prohibition on
the use of public office for private gain, to preclude inconsistent
legal positions on core issues affecting the interests of the
Department, and to protect the public interest by preventing any public
perception that an attorney's employment with the Department signifies
extraordinary competency on agency related issues, or that an OGC
attorney's interpretation implicitly is sanctioned or approved by the
Department. For the most part, outside practice involving agency-
administered statutes would be precluded as a conflicting activity. If
the subject matter of the proposed representation and the assigned
duties of the attorney correlate, the outside activity potentially
would require, under the standards set forth in 5 CFR 2635.402 and
2635.502, the employee's disqualification from matters so central or
critical to the performance of the employee's official duties that the
employee's ability to perform the duties of the employee's position
would be materially impaired. Similarly, representation on matters
involving the application of agency statutes may implicate direct and
substantial interests of the United States, thus contravening the
representational bans in 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205.
Although the regulation to some extent covers areas that are
subject to existing prohibitions, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) reaches
situations not specifically addressed in the existing standards. Absent
the prohibition contained in this section, an OGC attorney principally
engaged in advising a USDA Mission Area or Secretarial Staff Office
conceivably could obtain outside employment advising, as opposed to
representing, a private client on areas of agency law to which the
attorney is not assigned. In these circumstances, there is considerable
risk that the outside legal employment position held by the individual
may convey an impression of authoritativeness or access to non-public
information or agency experts that may not necessarily be warranted.
Moreover, private clients, and those aware of the OGC attorney's
involvement, may assume incorrectly that the attorney's interpretation
has been vetted through the Department and is effectively a
Departmental interpretation as well. Rendering legal services that may
require the interpretation of any statute, regulation, or rule
administered or issued by the Department creates an appearance that the
employee has used the employee's official position to obtain an outside
business opportunity. Further, if counsel were engaged in the outside
law practice that involved Department statutes, the potential risk for
asserting legal positions adverse to the interests of the Department
would be heightened. Similarly, as established at 5 CFR 2635.802(b), it
would undermine the effectiveness of the attorney and the attorney's
duty of loyalty to the Department in those situations where a
supervisory attorney determined that the outside practice of law would
create
[[Page 60348]]
a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality,
requiring the attorney's disqualification from matters central to the
attorney's performance of his official duties. In such situations, the
attorney's duty of loyalty to the Department as the attorney's primary
client must take first priority.
Acting as an Agent
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) highlights the proscription in 18 U.S.C. 205
barring employees from acting as an agent or attorney in any matter in
which the United States Government is a party or where the Government
has a direct and substantial interest.
Exceptions
Paragraph (c)(2) provides exceptions to the prohibitions set forth
in paragraph (c)(1). Consistent with the exceptions to the
representational bans contained in 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205, nothing in
this regulation precludes representation, if approved in advance by the
appropriate official or supervisor, that is: (1) Rendered, with or
without compensation, to specified relatives or an estate for which an
employee serves as a fiduciary; or (2) provided, without compensation,
to an employee subject to disciplinary, loyalty, or other personnel
administration proceedings; or (3) rendered, without compensation to a
voluntary employee nonprofit organization or group (such as child care
centers, recreational associations, professional organizations, credit
unions or other similar groups) before the U.S. Government under
certain circumstances (18 U.S.C. 205 restricts employees from
representing an employee organization or group in claims against the
Government, in seeking grants, contracts or funds from the Government,
or in a judicial or administrative proceeding where the organization or
group is a party). Moreover, paragraph (c)(2)(iv) makes explicit that
neither the ban on asserting contrary positions nor the prohibition on
interpreting agency statutes is intended to proscribe the giving of
testimony under oath. In order to take advantage of the exceptions to
18 U.S.C. 203 and 205 for representing family members or an estate,
both statutes expressly require the approval of the Government official
responsible for the employee's appointment. See 18 U.S.C. 203(d) and
205(e). To take advantage of the other exceptions set forth in
paragraph (c)(2), the employee's supervisor must determine that the
representations are not ``inconsistent with the faithful performance of
[the employee's] duties.'' See 18 U.S.C. 205(d). These approval
procedures are detailed in paragraph (c)(3).
Pro Bono
Paragraph (d) permits attorneys in OGC, subject to the restrictions
in paragraph (c)(1), to provide outside pro bono legal services to
organizations or individuals through a non-profit organization, without
obtaining prior written approval. For example, Department attorneys may
provide legal services pro bono publico in areas such as drafting wills
or powers of attorney, assisting the preparation of domestic violence
protective orders, and landlord-tenant disputes. These pro bono
activities can generally be undertaken without detriment to the
Department's interests, provided that the employee adheres to the
limitations of this rule. The Department encourages such volunteer
legal activities, if not inconsistent with this supplemental regulation
and the laws and regulations described above. Attorneys in the OGC who
have questions about whether a specific pro bono legal service would
comply with the limitations of this rule are encouraged to seek advance
guidance from USDA's Office of Ethics.
Matters of Regulatory Procedure
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (the
RFA), requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its
regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small
governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations, unless the
head of the agency certifies that the rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Secretary of Agriculture so certifies. The rule does not impose any
obligations or standards of conduct for purposes of analysis under the
RFA, and it therefore does not give rise to a regulatory compliance
burden for small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Department has determined that this rule does not impose any
new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on members of
the public that would be collections of information requiring approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 8301
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department is
proposing to amend 5 CFR part 8301 as follows:
PART 8301--SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 8301 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. App.; E.O. 12674, 54 FR
15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR
42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.403, 2635.502
and 2635.803.
0
2. Revise Sec. 8301.105 to read as follows:
Sec. 8301.105 Additional rules for attorneys in the Office of the
General Counsel.
(a) Additional rules for attorneys in the Office of the General
Counsel regarding the outside practice of law. Any attorney serving
within the Office of the General Counsel shall obtain written approval,
in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 8301.102(c) and
the standard for approval set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
before engaging in the outside practice of law, whether compensated or
not. For purposes of this section the ``outside practice of law'' means
those activities requiring professional licensure by a state bar as an
attorney and include, but are not limited to, providing legal advice to
a client, drafting legal documents, and representing clients in legal
negotiations or litigation.
(b) Standard for approval. Approval shall be granted by the agency
designee unless it is determined that the outside practice of law is
expected to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal
regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635, or paragraph (c) of this
section.
(c) Prohibited outside practice of law applicable to attorneys in
the Office of the General Counsel--(1) General prohibitions. An
employee who serves as an attorney within the Office of the General
Counsel shall not engage in any outside practice of law that might
require the attorney to:
(i) Assert a legal position that is or appears to be in conflict
with the interests of the Department of Agriculture, the client to
which the attorney owes a professional responsibility; or
(ii) Interpret any statute, regulation, or rule administered or
issued by the Department of Agriculture, or where a supervisory
attorney determines that the outside practice of law would conflict
with the employee's official duties or create the appearance of a loss
of the
[[Page 60349]]
attorney's impartiality, as prohibited by 5 CFR 2635.802; or
(iii) Act as an agent or attorney in any matter in which the U.S.
Government is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, as
prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 205.
(2) Exceptions. Nothing in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
prevents an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel from:
(i) Acting, with or without compensation, as an agent or attorney
for, or otherwise representing, the employee's parents, spouse, child,
or any other person for whom, or for any estate for which, the employee
is serving as guardian, executor, administrator, trustee, or other
personal fiduciary to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. 203(d) and
205(e), or from providing advice or counsel to such persons or estates;
or
(ii) Acting, without compensation, as an agent or attorney for, or
otherwise representing, any person who is the subject of disciplinary,
loyalty, or other personnel administration proceedings in connection
with those proceedings, or from providing uncompensated advice and
counsel to such person to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. 205; or
(iii) Acting, without compensation, as an agent or attorney for, or
otherwise representing any cooperative, voluntary, professional,
recreational, or similar organization or group not established or
operated for profit, if a majority of the organization's or group's
members are current employees of the United States or the District of
Columbia, or their spouses or dependent children. As limited by 18
U.S.C. 205(d), this exception is not permitted for any representation
with respect to a matter which involves prosecuting a claim against the
United States under 18 U.S.C. 205(a)(1) or (b)(1), or involves a
judicial or administrative proceeding where the organization or group
is a party, or involves a grant, contract, or other agreement providing
for the disbursement of Federal funds to the organization or group; or
(iv) Giving testimony under oath or from making statements required
to be made under penalty for perjury or contempt.
(3) Specific approval procedures for paragraph (c)(2) of this
section. (i) The exceptions to 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205 described in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section do not apply unless the employee
obtained the prior approval of the Government official responsible for
the appointment of the employee to a Federal position.
(ii) The exception to 18 U.S.C. 205 described in paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section does not apply unless the employee
has obtained the prior approval of a supervisory official who has
authority to determine whether the employee's proposed representation
is consistent with the faithful performance of the employee's duties.
(d) Pro bono activity. Subject to compliance with paragraph (c) of
this section, attorneys within the Office of the General Counsel are
permitted to provide outside pro bono legal services (without
compensation other than reimbursement of expenses) to organizations or
individuals through a non-profit organization, without obtaining prior
written approval in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec.
8301.102(c).
Stephen Alexander Vaden,
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In concurrence:
Emory A. Rounds, III,
Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
[FR Doc. 2019-24082 Filed 11-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-90-P