►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
to
the
thank
you
welcome
to
the
committee
on
rule
making
and
today
we'll
be
focusing
on
a
report
on
regulatory
enforcement
manuals
report
and
recommendation
on
the
two.
But
as
a
start
to
the
meeting,
we'll
have
Alexandra
call
the
rolls.
B
Thank
you
so
much
and
I
am
Alexandra
sibo
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me
I'm
very
pleased
to
be
Aika
staff
Council
for
this
project.
It's
been
a
wonderful
experience,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
calling
two
roles.
The
first
roll
call
will
be
for
members
of
the
committee
on
rulemaking.
If
you
could
please
go
ahead
and
unmute
yourself.
Let
us
know
that
you're
here
and
then
please
remute
yourself.
A
B
B
Afternoon,
thank
you.
Peter
curti.la,
okay,.
D
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
Are
there
any
other
members
of
the
administrative
conference
or
any
other
alternates
who
are
present
at
this
time?
Who
did
not
hear
their
name
called
Miriam
Vincent
I
just
joined?
Thank
you
so
much
Miriam,
it's
nice
to
see
you
any
other
members
of
the
administrative
conference
or
alternates
of
such
members.
B
J
Thank
you,
Alexandra,
and
let
me
say
that
as
chair
of
the
administrative
conference
and
on
behalf
of
all
of
us
at
acos,
welcome
to
this
the
first
fall
meeting
of
the
regular
rulemaking
Committee
in
2022..
Thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
for
being
here,
members
of
the
committee
and
other
ages,
members,
and
if
we
have
any
public
members,
welcome
to.
D
J
Let
me
start
by
forwarding
a
very
special
thank
you
to
to
Alexandra
for
all
of
her
her
work
on
on
setting
up
this
meeting
and
as
project
deaf
Council
and
to
other
staff
at
Aces
who
who
also
worked
on
things,
a
very
special
thank
you
to
our
committee,
chairperson
for
Cal
Ross,
for
agreeing
to
take
on
this
responsibility,
and
this
is
his
first
meeting.
So
we
look
forward
to
to
sharing
that
with
him
and
thank
him
for
his
service.
J
Also,
a
very
special
thank
you
to
the
project
consultant,
our
our
former
now
former
our
Williams
fellow
Jordan,
Perkins,
Jordan
I,
think
it
was
a
very
insightful
and
interestingly
handled
treatment
of
an
important
topic.
So
I
look
forward
to
your
presentation
and
to
the
the
committee
discussion.
So
with
with
that,
let
me
turn
things
over
to
Patrol.
A
Thank
you
so
much
chairman
for
us
and
thanks
for
joining
us
at
this
meeting
and
sharing
those
opening
remarks
with
us
now.
Just
a
few
meeting
notes
an
overview
for
our
meeting.
Please
note
that
only
acos
members,
which
includes
government
members,
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
whether
or
not
on
the
committee
and
their
designated
alternates,
have
full
speaking
privileges.
A
To
avoid
background
noise,
though
I'd
ask
that
you
keep
your
microphone
on
mute
and
either
use
zoom's
hand,
raise
feature
or
add
a
comment
in
the
chat
feature
if
you'd
like
to
speak,
I'll
then
call
on
you
and
you
can
unmute
yourself.
Please
then
re-mute
yourself
when
you're
done.
I'd
also
ask
that
aikis
members
and
their
designated
alternate
to
use
a
webcam
to
facilitate
conversations.
I
appreciate
all
of
you
there
on
webcam
right
now,
with
respect
to
attendees
other
than
make
us
members
and
alternates
participate.
A
Participation
requires
a
unanimous
consent
of
the
committee
members
time
permitting.
I'll
call
I'll,
consider
calling
on
such
attendees
at
appropriate
points,
and
we're
presume
that
committee
members
consent
absent
their
racing,
an
objection
if
any
such
participant
would
like
to
speak.
Please
so
indicate
in
the
chat
feature
or
by
using
zoom's
hand,
raise
feature
and
wait
to
speak
until
I
call
on
you.
A
You
can
then
unmute
yourself
and
please
re-mute
yourself
when
you're
done
speaking
for
all
participants,
please
use
the
chat
feature
only
to
indicate
that
you'd
like
to
speak
or
for
committee
members
and
their
alternates
to
vote
when
asked.
Please
do
not
hold
any
sidebar
discussions
or
put
substantive
comments
in
the
chat
feature.
Only
members
of
the
rulemaking
committee,
including
government
members
and
designated
alternates
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
have
a
vote.
Please
do
not
vote
unless
you're
a
member
of
the
committee.
A
We
have
a
list
of
committee
members
in
case
you're
unsure.
So
let
me
turn
it
over
to
Jordan
Perkins,
who
will
present
on
his
report
with
respect
to
regulatory
enforcement.
Manuals
he'll
provide
that
overview
of
the
report,
including
some
of
the
research
that
underpins
the
bases
for
the
recommendations
and
and
some
comments
on
the
suggested
recommendations.
K
Thank
you
very
much.
I
will
try
to
keep
my
comments
brief.
The
empirical
studies
behind
this
report
was
an
attempt
to
gain
a
fuller
understanding
of
agency
enforcement
practices
and
particularly
of
the
staff
manuals
and
related
guidance
documents
which
serve
and
control
the
activities
of
line
staff
involved
and
Regulatory
enforcement.
K
I
was
particularly
interested
in
the
extent
to
which
the
contents
of
enforcement
manuals
are
of
interest
to
the
general
public
and
whether
these
materials
are
readily
available
either
through
public
availability
of
the
manuals
themselves
or
through
other
forms
of
publicly
available
regulatory
guidance.
Regulatory
enforcement,
as
you
know,
encompasses
a
large
range
of
activities,
audits,
site
inspections,
investigations,
any
kind
of
negotiations
with
a
regulated
entity
over
remediating
violations
discovered
before
the
Judiciary
stage.
K
K
The
information
was
valuable
in
getting
a
general
understanding
of
the
enforcement
practices
of
these
agencies
and
how
enforcement
manuals
and
other
guidance
documents
shape.
The
behavior
of
enforcement
staff
I
also
found
that
enforcement
manuals
often
contain
a
range
of
other
materials,
particularly
in
the
public,
potentially
in
the
public
interest,
such
as
information
concerning
when
the
agency
should
put
out
press
releases
or
other
public
information
about
the
enforcement
matters.
How
members
of
the
public
can
bring
complaints
or
tips
to
the
agency.
K
The
agency's
understanding
of
which
materials
obtained
from
regulated
entities
are
to
be
treated
as
confidential
and
so
forth.
This
first
stage
of
the
research
provided
much
of
the
understanding
of
how
Agency
use
enforcement
manuals
in
the
extent
to
which
there
exists
a
public
interest
in
them.
I
also
spoke
with
attorneys
at
the
enforcement
divisions
and
General
counsel's
Offices
of
a
half
Dutch
of
a
half
dozen
agencies
about
their
enforcement
procedures.
K
Some
of
these
agency
and
public
agencies
had
publicly
available
manuals
and
I
was
able
to
discuss
with
these
agencies
held
manual
shape
enforcement
behavior
in
the
real
world,
and
some
agencies
did
not
with
the
second
group
of
agencies.
One
was
a
young
agency
which
was
in
the
process
of
developing
its
first
enforcement
manual
and
two
had
non-public
manuals.
Those
agencies
choose
to
instead
use
other
forms
of
regulatory
guidance
to
inform
the
public
and
regulated
entities.
K
My
report
also
discusses
some
of
the
legal
issues
related
to
the
public
availability
enforcement
manuals,
particularly
the
circumstances
in
which
agencies
may
be
required
to
make
their
manuals
available
on
the
freedom
information
act.
I
found
that,
while
there
may
be
circumstances
in
which
agencies
must
make
some
of
the
contents
of
their
manuals
publicly
available,
there
appears
to
be
a
fairly
large
realm
of
agency
discretion
to
publish
or
not
publish
staff
manuals.
Many
of
my
recommendations
were
thus
concerned
with
winning
the
calls
and
benefits
public
availability.
K
As
my
report
emphasizes,
the
assessment
of
calls
and
benefits
will
differ
from
agency
to
agency,
given
to
diverse
missions
and
practices
of
federal
agencies.
On
the
call
side,
the
agency
has
legitimate
concerns
and
not
keeping
its
hands
in
ways
that
might
allow
Bad
actors
for
a
detection
of
regulatory
violations
and
the
foia
case
law
respects
the
agency's
strong
interest
in
protecting
the
secrecy
of
investigative
techniques.
K
We're
going
to
make
a
great
deal
of
time
and
energy
away
from
the
agency's
attorneys
and
agencies
may
decide
it's
not
worth
the
expense
compared
to
using
a
set
of
Staff
directives
or
other
more
basic
guidance
documents,
and
even
if
the
agency
decides
to
maintain
a
centralized
manual,
their
additional
costs
in
redacting,
non-public
information
and
ensuring
that
it's
up
to
date
and
clear
in
a
way
which
can
be
used
by
public
by
by
outside
entities.
K
Balance
against
these
costs
are
a
range
of
benefits,
primarily
related
to
the
transparency
that
enforcement
manuals
can
bring
to
agency
enforcement
activity.
My
report
stresses
that
there
are
multiple,
distinct
publics
each
which
each
with
different
interests
and
enhanced
understanding
of
agency
enforcement
policies
practices
as
a
few
examples,
regulated
entities
themselves
are
interested
in
health.
Sensitive
information
handed
over
enforcement
proceedings
will
be
protected
by
the
agency.
Workers
enter
injured
on
the
job
might
want
to
know
how
to
bring
complaints
to
the
agency
and
the
extent
to
which
the
complaints
will
be
kept
confidential.
K
I
stress
the
importance
of
public
availability
as
a
function
of
the
extent
to
which
all
relevant
information
is
provided
through
other
means,
such
as
policy
statements,
white
papers,
publicly
available
memoranda
from
agency
officials
and
the
like.
You
have
for
your
consideration,
a
set
of
recommendations
based
on
board
on
my
report.
Some
relate
to
the
threshold
question
of
when
agencies
are
develop.
Centralized
enforcement
manuals
to
collect
enforcement
related
guidance
into
a
single,
authoritative
source.
K
Other
components
of
the
draft
recommendation
deal
with
the
public
availability
of
enforcement,
the
public
availability
of
enforcement
manuals
and
the
extent
to
which
the
agency
may
wish
to
seek
feedback
from
regulated
entities
or
the
general
public
before
promulgating
or
significantly
revising
its
enforcement
annual
report.
Both
discusses
these
matters
in
some
detail
and
provides
references
to
past
August
recommendations
and
reports
which
deal
with
similar
matters
of
public
availability
and
the
solicitation
of
feedback
from
the
public
in
other
contexts.
K
With
that
I'll
hand,
things
back
to
patrol.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
Jordan.
So
in
terms
of
how
we'll
run
the
meeting
in
terms
of
examining
or
deliberating
on
the
recommendation
in
the
report,
I'll
first
ask
for
General
comments
on
the
on
the
report
and
the
recommendations
that
aren't
necessarily
specific
to
any
particular
recommendations
and
then
we'll
jump
into
the
recommendations,
one
by
one
and
then
we'll
return
at
the
end
to
the
preface
and
and
deliberate
about
the
preface
and
offer
any
suggestions
for
revisions
or
development.
A
Etc
I
will
say
that
we've
gotten
one
comment:
Richard
Pierce,
with
respect
to
recommendation
to
be
that
will
it
will
will
share
and
and
to
liberate
upon
when
we
get
to
that
particular
recommendation.
I
intend
to
rely
extensively
on
Jordan
as
as
someone
who
will
respond
to
to
thoughts
and
feedback
on
particular
recommendations
and
proposed
changes
and
to
see
what
he
has
to
say
as
a
starting
point
and
then
we'll
open
up
the
deliberations
more
broadly
to
the
rest
of
the
committee
going
forward.
So
let
me
just
kind
I
start
by
asking.
L
Hi
and
thanks
Jordan
for
this
for
this
great
report,
one
question
I
had
is
whether
you
considered
talking
to
any
folks
who
use
enforcement
materials
outside
of
agencies.
I
mean
I,
understand
that
there
would
be
pra
requirements
and
limitations
on
such
interviews.
But
I
was
a
little
surprised
that
there
weren't
some
conversations.
L
I
mean
the
agency
officials
I'm
sure,
have
a
good
sense
of
how
their
manuals
are
used.
But
I
thought
that
some
of
that
perspective,
which
seemed
to
be
important
in
informing
the
recommendations,
might
be
beneficial.
K
So
when
we
were
planning
the
interviews
we
considered
interviewing
people
outside
the
agencies,
we
ended
up
not
doing
that.
I
did
find
that
agency
officials
we
spoke
with
tended
to
think
that
they
had
very
close
connections
to
sort
of
the
specialized
bars
that
they
dealt
with
most
commonly
from
regulated
entities
and
also
with
members
of
the
public.
So
it
seemed
that
they
had
a
pretty
good
sense
of
how
the
manuals
were
used
both
by
the
general
public
and
By
Radio
identities.
K
And
you
know
we
could
have
done
more
interviews
with
outside
entities
for
this
project,
but
we
chose
not
to
foreign.
A
Okay,
so
Alexandra
kind
of
share
the
screen
with
the
recommendations
so
that
we
can
start
to
examine
them
one
by
one.
Thank
you,
Alexandra.
A
A
Okay,
why
don't
we
scroll
down
then
to
the
second
recommendation
and
we'll
just
kind
of
take
this
letter
by
letter?
Any
comments
or
suggestions
with
respect
to
2A.
A
Well
then,
let's
turn
to
2B
and
just
give
Richard
Pierce
an
opportunity.
Oh
I'm.
Sorry
Adam!
Yes,
is
this
with
respect
to
a
it.
G
Is
I
am
and
I'm
sorry
I
was
a
little
slow
on
the
trigger
with
no
worries
the
raised
hand
I'm
just
curious
about
the
very,
very
last
sub
clause
in
that
one,
the
manual
the
part
about
the
disclaimer
I'm,
just
curious
where
that
came
from
and
and
how,
how
the
the
drafter
thought
about
phrasing
out
there,
because
it's
an
interesting
caveat.
A
K
M
M
A
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
2B
then
and
have
I
guess:
Committee
Member,
Richard,
Pierce
or
David
pritzker.
I'm.
Sorry,
is
this
with
respect
to
2A
my
comment.
E
Pertains
to
2A,
okay,
before
my
retirement
from
Aika
staff,
I
had
the
opportunity
to
spend
half
a
year
in
the
ombudsman's
office
of
one
of
the
Regulatory
Agencies
and
one
of
the
issues
that
came
up.
It
was
not
about
an
enforcement
manual,
but
about
agency
guidance,
and
there
were
people
from
the
general
public
among
the
regulated
Industries
that
were
asking
whether
they
could
rely
on
the
guidance,
because
evidently
they
had
experienced
situations
where
they
had
relied
on
the
guidance
and
then
the
actual
enforcement
was
kind
of
different.
E
So
my
quick,
that's
what
my
preface
for
asking
the
question,
which
is
to
what
extent
are
these
documents?
Could
they
be
regarded
as
guidance
on
enforcement
and
to
what
extent,
if
any,
where
these
are
made
available
to
the
public
and
the
public
rely
on
that
as
guidance.
K
So
this
came
up
in
a
couple
of
ways,
primarily
in
the
legal
research
on
the
on
the
foia
issues.
K
There
are
ways
that
enforcement
manuals
can
be
binding,
so
there's
case
law
where
the
enforcement
manual
sort
of
promulgates
For,
the
First
Time,
some
kind
of
finding
standard,
there's
old
case
law
from
the
1990s
on
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration,
where
they
basically
promulgated
for
the
first
time,
a
mandatory
minimum
sentence
for
revocations
of
Pilots
licenses
and
their
enforcement
manual,
and
this
was
created
as
sort
of
a
bind
by
the
court
as
a
binding
standard
that
should
have
been
promulgated
through
notice
and
comment
and
therefore
it
could
not
be
applied
against
the
entity
in
that
case.
K
So
there
are
situations
in
which
the
agency
does
put
something
in
enforcement
manuals.
The
court
will
say
actually
this.
This
is
a
binding
standard
and
the
agency
cannot
rely
on
it
unless
it
goes
through
notice
and
comments.
Another
way
this
sometimes
occurs
is
there
is
case
law.
K
I
remember
a
case
with
the
nuclear
Regulatory
Commission,
in
which
the
agency
is
seeking
our
deference
for
an
interpretation
of
its
regulation
and
the
court
looks
at
the
enforcement
manual
and
says
actually
what
you're
advancing
for
this
court
is
sort
of
it's
in
contradiction
to
what
what
the
enforcement
manual
says.
So
the
the
court
will
rely
on
the
enforcement
manual
and
refusing
to
Grant
the
agency
hour
difference
for
contrary
interpretation
of
law,
so
there
are
way
I
mean
I.
K
Think
generally,
these
are
guidance
documents,
they're
not
binding,
but
there
are
ways
in
which
it
can,
in
a
concrete
situation,
become
an
issue
of
you
know
whether
this
can
be
taken
as
binding
or
not
in
court.
I
K
So
my
understanding
of
of
what
we
were
doing
with
Jeremy
and
when
he
discussed
two
a
is
sort
of
rest
that
implicit
in
that
you
know
it.
The
manual
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
use
of
other
agency
officials
is
sort
of
the
statement
in
the
manual
works
that
this
is
not
binding.
This
is
not
you
know.
K
These
are
not
rules,
no
one,
including
the
agency
officials
themselves,
can
rely
on
this,
but
you
know
whether
it
should
be
made
more
explicit,
I
guess
to
the
to
your
and
your
judgment.
M
Of
the
committee
I
think
one
option
might
also
be
in
C,
where
it
talks
about
describing
the
Manual's
legal
effect.
So
perhaps
that's
a
useful
location
for
it
as
well.
H
Yeah
hi,
thank
you,
I
think
David's
raising
an
excellent
point
and
I'm
wondering
if,
if
folks
have
coordinated
this
document,
this
recommendation
with
acus's
previous
work
on
guidance
documents,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
whatever
we
recommend
here
ought
to
be
consistent
with
whatever
disclaimer
recommendations
we
made
in
that
document.
K
So
I've
referenced,
I've
read
those
in
my
report
and
I
made
an
effort
to
keep
my
recommendations
consistent
with
the
the
guidance
the
staff
at
Acres
involved
in
drafting
the
recommendation
itself
might
want
to
speak
to
this
as
well.
M
Sure,
yes,
we
did
carefully
go
through
those
recommendations.
We
were
also
careful,
at
least
in
creating
a
first
draft
of
this,
not
to
Simply
restate
the
recommendations.
M
Relevant
here
as
well,
we
did
include
a
paragraph
in
the
Preamble
which
says
this
Builds
on
previous
guidance
recommendations
which
hopefully
cues
readers
in
to
look
at
those.
But
if
any
points
bear
reiteration
in
this
recommendation,
that's
certainly
doable.
A
David
is
that
responsive
to
your
question,
do
you
have
recommendations
for
amended
language,
or
do
you
want
to
wait
to
our
discussion
of
of
2C.
E
If
other
others
we're
at
the
same
concern,
maybe
adding
a
couple
of
words
at
the
end
of
two
C's
and
legal
effect
in
including
the
the
extent
to
which
the
content
of
the
enforcement
manual
may
be
relied
upon.
So
something
like
that.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
so
well
thanks
Alexandra
for
putting
that
in
there,
and
we
could
discuss
it
further
when
we
get
to
to
see
it
to
see
if
there's
any
additional
change
in
language
or
if
people
agree
with
that
change
in
language.
A
Yes,
Nina
sorry
I
saw
a
thumb
up,
I
didn't
know
that
was
agreeing
or
hey
I'm.
Sorry,
yes,
Nina.
H
D
H
Looking
quickly
at
recommendation,
2017-5-
and
it
does
seem
like
recommendation-
three-
might
be
a
useful
cross
recommendations.
Three
and
three
might
be
a
useful,
a
useful
cross-reference
here.
H
I
I,
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
shouldn't
use
the
same,
where
applicable,
where
it
isn't
always
I
recognize
why
we
shouldn't
use
relevant
language
that
we
already
drafted
for
guidance
documents
here.
I
think
that
would
just
avoid
confusion
rather
than
trying
to
you
know,
reinvent
the
wheel.
A
And
so
so,
perhaps
using
the
parallel
language
from
that
from
the
acus
guidance
document
recommendation
in
this
particular
report
and
that
would
fall
under
2A.
Do
you
is
that
right,
Nina.
H
H
A
Okay,
so
we'll
have
the
staff,
you
know,
look
to
the
guidance
document
from
2017.
Is
that
correct
or
2018
2017,
ouch
and
sorry
Nina
cut
you.
E
Before
we
leave
this
I'm
just
note
that
a
addresses
the
agency,
employees
and
I
was
thinking
in
my
comments
about
information
communicated,
regulated
public.
A
So,
to
the
extent
whose
name
is.
A
F
I
guess
maybe
I've
lost
a
little
track
of
exactly
what's
going
on
here,
but
I
was
are
convinced
by
Jeremy's
suggestion
that
to
see
was
the
right
place
to
put
this
kind
of
qualification
in
I.
Don't
know
how
much
to
put
in
it
I
think
it's
hard.
I
worry
a
little
bit
about
David
pritzker's
suggestion!
That's
in
there
because
legal
effect
it
could
there's
a
lot
of
different
variables
and
Alliance.
D
F
Of
them,
and
so
I
kind
of
worry
about
putting
too
much
in
here
but
I
said
I
guess
maybe
I'm
making
two
points.
I
think
that
these
qualifications
about
the
legal
effect
of
the
guidance,
which
is
where
David
pritzker
got
us
going
legal
effect
of
these
enforcement
annuals,
an
extent
to
which
there
are
all
kinds
of
guidance
there
I
feel
like
2C
is
the
place
that
that's
most
appropriately
lodged,
whereas
2A
is
really
about
who,
within
the
agency,
this
is
responsible
for
that's
the
first
point.
F
The
second
point
is
I
I,
guess
it
makes
me
a
little
nervous.
Maybe
we
can
refer
to.
It
makes
sense
as
Nina's
suggestion
to
refer
to
language
that
we've
other
acos
has
already
already
adopted
on
the
qualifications
and
sort
of
boilerplate
on
guidance.
I
worry
a
little
bit
about
the
addition
we
have
in
there
now,
just
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
complicated
issues
here.
Okay,.
A
So
I
mean
just
speaking
for
myself
now:
I
agree
that
assessing
Reliance
and
binding
effect
is
better
placing
to
see,
and
perhaps
you
know
we
can
either
modify
or
or
add
the
disclaimer
to
2C,
as
opposed
to
2A.
A
But
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
is
broad
agreement.
If
there's
any
objections
to
that,
we'll
I
guess
and
the
staff
will
make
those
changes
and
perhaps
bring
in
the
language
of
the
2017-5
report
to
make
sure
it's
in
accordance
with
prior
recommendations
and
that
we're
not
adding
you
know,
ambiguity
or
complexity
to
the
actual
recommendation
or
problems
from
the
recommendation.
But
does
anybody
object
to
this.
E
Is
not
an
objection
but
but
just
a
suggestion
based
on
and
something
that
was
just
said
change,
including
in
my
proposed
language,
for
C
through
the
word
and.
A
Any
other
comments
or
objections
again
we'll
get
the
new
language
for
the
next
Edition
and
we
could
explore
or
deliberate
about
it
then,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
on
board
with.
You
know,
at
least
the
efforts
to
make
the
amendment.
D
A
So
without
further
comment,
we'll
move
on
to
2B
and
along
last
turn
to
Richard
Pierce
to
his
the
language
for
his
amendment
is
in
there.
A
A
N
Thanks
Patrol
I,
I
I
think
the
rationale
is
pretty
simple:
I,
just
like
every
agency
should
acknowledge
the
reality.
N
There's
always
a
risk
that
somebody
involved
in
the
enforcement
process
will
overstep
boundaries
and
and
that
every
agency
should
have
some
mechanism
in
place,
at
least
in
the
form
of
a
person
or
an
office
to
whom
you
can
complain
when
you
think
that's
happening
yeah,
and
the
only
thing
is
the
other
point
I'd
make
is
I
should
have
said
investigation
or
other
enforcement
action
rather
than
just
investigation
in
terms
of
the
the
wording.
But
that's
just
my
reasons
for
proposing
this.
A
Oh
sorry,
Jordan
do
you
want
to
respond
to
the
proposed
change
as
a
starting
point
and
then
opening
up
to
the
rest
of
the
committee.
K
So
I
think
most
of
these
recommendations
in
a
through.
However
far
this
goes
were
based
on
my
study
of
existing
manuals
and
sort
of
taking
best
practices
from
what
I
saw
in
existing
manuals.
So
all
I
can
really
speak
to
is
that
I
didn't
see
that
included,
which
is
why
it
wasn't
in
the
sort
of
initial
list,
but
that
certainly
doesn't
mean
that
it
shouldn't
be.
We
can
also
you
know,
advise
agencies
and
matters
and
best
practices
that
maybe
you
know,
aren't
in
the
data
set
that
I
work
with.
A
Okay,
if
there
are
no
objections
to
the
new
proposed
language,
we
will
we'll
add
it
to
the
tentative
report
and
you
know,
discuss
it
further
after
further
thought
in
the
next
meeting.
A
Okay,
so,
let's
now
move
over
to
so
I
I.
Are
there
any
other
comments
on
the
original
2C,
which
might
now
be
to
be
I?
Think
we've
fleshed
out
that
argument,
but
I
want
to
make
sure,
before
moving
on
to
D,
that
there
aren't
any
other
thoughts
or
suggestions
on
that
that
that
is
now
the
clause
or
the
Clause
that
says
describing
the
Manual's
purpose,
scope,
organization,
legal
effect
and
the
extent
to
which
the
enforcement
manuals
contents
may
be
relied
upon.
A
F
Kevin,
sorry,
yes,
sir
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
say,
I'll
be
interested
to
see
what
the
language
that's
inserted.
There
I'm
still
a
little
bit
troubled
by
the
idea
that,
in
addition
to
specifying
its
legal
effect,
there
will
be
a
specification
of
the
accentuates
the
manuals
contents
may
be
relied
upon.
I
think
that
that's
a
hard
question,
which
is
it's
there
in
part
to
be
reliable
on.
We
know
that
right,
even
if
it
doesn't
have
binding
and
legal
effect,
I
mean
that's
kind
of
that.
F
So
I
kind
of
worry
about
how
an
agency
would
manage
that
question
by
if
they
say
it's
there
to
be
relied
upon,
you
know
in
what
sense
practical
effects
it
just
it
gets
into
a
bunch
of
things.
So
I
guess
I'm
saying
maybe
once
we
see
the
revision,
I
might
object
to
it.
I
I
have
some
concerns,
I'm
just
racing
now:
okay,
but
but
but
maybe
we
can
deal
with
that
next
meeting.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
Kevin
Constantine,.
C
I
just
want
to
share
my
agreement
with
Kevin
on
that
that
phrase
I
wasn't
sure
practically
how
an
agency
would
Implement
that
so
again,
just
another
voice.
Concern
on
that
language,
thanks
Kevin,
okay,.
A
K
So
I
was
going
to
say
the
draft
report
tried
to
be
careful
and
stipulating
when
we
were
talking
about
Reliance
in
terms
of
internal
administrative
law,
so
standards
that
are
binding
on
the
agency
only
because
of
internal
internal
procedures
and
standards
which
are
sort
of
imposed
on
the
agency
judicially
in
court.
So
maybe,
when
we
ultimately
revise
this,
we
could
keep
in
mind
sort
of
you
know:
external
versus
internal
binding
effect
to
make
that
clearer
got
it.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
start
to
describe
the
provision
in
accordance
with
the
letters
that
are
on
the
screen,
so
not
to
confuse
anything
so
we're
going
to
turn
to
what's
on
the
screen
as
1C
to
see.
If
there
are
any
comments
on
one
c,
as
listed
here.
D
D
A
Okay,
without
any
comments,
we'll
move
on
to
1D
any
thoughts
or
comments
on
when
d
or
2D
excuse
me,
2D.
D
F
Yeah,
this
is
really
a
stylistic
and
maybe
consistency
point
which
is
2E
has
an
any
it
says,
describe
it
any
procedures
and
also
2f,
also
says
any
procedures.
I
propose
striking
both
enemies
to
make
them
consistent
with
the
rest
of
them,
which
is
good,
for
instance,
2G,
says
describe
procedures,
I
could
imagine
sorting
in
any
there,
but
I
think
it's
better
without
the
any
in
both
of
them.
Yep.
D
D
O
So
this
may
sort
of
be
included
within
the
concept,
but
I
think
one
thing.
One
area
where
there's
often
a
lack
of
transparency
for
regulated
parties
is
how
enforcement
authorities
within
an
agency
assess
penalties
or
acute
or
choose
the
extent
to
which
they'll
recommend
penalties
within
a
particular
statutory
range.
They
often
have
criteria
that
are
similar
to
what
we
might
think
of
as
sentencing
guidelines,
but
there's
often
a
lot
of
sort
of
uncertainty
and
arbitrariness
as
to
how
how
that
process
plays
out
so
I
thought
this
was.
O
This
was
an
area
where
you
might
make
a
an
edit,
such
as
to
classify
the
severity
of
alleged
violations,
comma
recommend
or
assess
penalties
or
other
remedies,
comma
and,
and
then
the
remainder
of
it.
A
Jordan,
do
you
have
any
thoughts
in
response
to
Tom's
proposed
amendment.
K
Not
on
the
language
so
much,
but
I
think
the
general
idea
might
make
sense
as
a
matter
of
best
practices.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
agencies
did
use
either
hypothetical
situations
or
examples
from
actual
cases
that
they
had
processed
in
the
past,
in
order
to
sort
of
provide
some
some
rough
guidelines
for
how
this,
how
the
sentencing
guides
were
were
applied
in
specific
cases
and
that's
something
that
the
agencies
in
my
interviews
stressed,
seem
to
be
very,
very
important
to
regulated
entities
that
okay,
we
had
a
situation.
K
A
fact
pattern
exactly
like
yours,
and
this
is
what
we
did
in
that.
So
something
like
that
might
make
sense
in
the
recommendation.
A
A
A
All
right,
so
we
will
work
with
those
revisions
and
and
update
to
us
for
the
next
draft
2G
any
comments
or
suggestions
with
respect
to
2G.
A
A
C
We're
adjusting
when
and
how
agency
personally
publicly
disclose
information
I
just
wasn't
sure
I
defer
to
others.
Is
there
any
concern
about
here?
I
may
not
need
to
worry
about
it
because
they're
talking
about
publicly
disclosing
information,
but
situations
with
whistleblowers
or
folks
going
outside
the
agency
process
to
disclose
concerns
about
enforcement.
Proceeding
when
I
read
this,
that's
what
I
was
hesitating
because
we
sort
of
have
in
there.
You
know
publicly
disclosing
information
cabinet
within
sort
of
like
a
press
release.
I
just
was
a
little
worried,
though.
C
If
there
may
be
concerns
about
people
saying
you
know,
I
legitimately
want
to
disclose
this
publicly.
You
know
in
another
air,
you
know
through
other
means,
so
I'm
thinking
about
protecting
whistleblowers
here
so
I'm.
Just
throwing
that
out
to
see
if
other
folks
have
thoughts-
and
you
don't
have
to
be
so
Michelle
a
formal.
My
first
name
is
actually
Peter.
Oh
Peter,
I'm.
Sorry,
yeah,
no
worries
not
a
big
deal.
A
Yeah,
okay
and
so
Peter
kind
of
coming
back
to
you
before
you
move
on.
Would
that
be
a
suggestion
to
remove
the
example
of
press
release
so
that
the
thought
is
that
that's
not
sort
of
perhaps
the
primary
method
by
which
we
might
think
about
releasing
or
disclosing
public
publicly.
C
Yeah
I'm
not
so
worried
about
the
the
phrase
public
disc,
the
press,
release
and
I
defer
to
other
folks
from
agencies.
Is
there?
Are
we
comfortable
with
this,
or
would
there
be
some
sort
of
disclaimer?
This
does
not
apply
to
you
know
other
forms
of
appropriate
forms
of
public
disclosure
disclosure
or
something
along
the
lines.
This
is
not
intended
to
impact
whistleblowing
again.
Maybe
I'm
worrying
about
something
I
don't
need
to
so
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
what
other
folks
have
to
say
about
that.
A
I'll
turn
it
to
you
Adam
after
we
work
through
if
anybody
has
anything
to
say
response
to
Peter
any
sort
of
responses
with
respect
to
and
we're
discussing
2J
in
any
concerns
that
come
up
with
respect
to
publicly
disclosed
information,
including
from
Jordan.
In
your
conversations
with
agency
Personnel,
whether
they
raised
any
concerns
about
public
disclosure.
K
C
Actually,
that's
a
great
idea:
yeah
Jordan,
I'm
sure
you'll
see
it
much
more
articulately
than
me,
but
I
think
somewhere
that
the
manuals
include
language
addressing
list
of
blower
protections
or
something
along
the
that.
A
Line,
that's
a
great
idea:
okay,
so
we'll
put
a
placeholder
for
a
recommendation
with
respect
with
respect
to
whistleblowers
without
sort
of
going
through
the
process
of
constructing
it.
On
the
Fly.
G
Thanks,
my
comment
was
actually
for
the
one
one
hire
on
the
list:
two
I,
the
one
that's
listed
as
explaining
procedures
for
handling
legal,
protected
records
or
information.
I.
Think
that's
a
good
inclusion
and
my
point
is
very
pedantic.
G
It's
just
that
we
might
want
to
go
one
step
further,
because
this
this
2i
sort
of
presumes
that
materials
are
are
legally
protected
and
what
we
might
want
to
add
is
is
something
at
the
end
saying
I
guess
maybe
the
best
way
to
put
it
would
be
explaining
procedures
for
handling
legally
protected
records
or
information
comma
or
determining
whether
information
is
subject
to
any
such
protections.
G
Just
by
way
background
I
mean
when
I
was
in
private
practice.
Often
I
was
sub
submitting
material
to
agencies
that
was
subject
to
protections
and
then
again
sometimes
I
was
on
the
foia
side
of
things
trying
to
get
information
out
of
the
agencies.
A
Right
Jordan:
do
you
have
any
response
to
that
suggestion.
K
I
have
sort
of
no
criticism,
but
no
I
think
it's
I
I'm
wondering
if
there
are
situations
from
my
from
my
sort
of
study
of
manuals,
where
the
agency
discusses
handling
information
that
is
not
specifically
or
is
not
sort
of
very
clearly
legally
protected.
Where
it's
you
know
dealing
with
confidential
information
or
information.
The
agency
has
that
is
sensitive,
but
not
necessarily
legally
protected.
So
I
think
Adam's
recommendation
sort
of
partially
deals
with
that
issue
and
might
be
you
know
a
good
addition.
Okay,.
I
Picking
up
on
Adam's
point
I
just
think
would
be
more
logical
to
deal
with
it
to
say
explaining
procedures
for
determining
whether
records
or
information
are
legally
protected
and
then
comma
and
procedures
for
handling
such
information
procedure.
Such
informational
records,
okay,.
A
Did
you
catch
Alexandra
or
could
you
do
you
need
Bill
to
repeat
some
of
those.
I
It's
just
it's
just
flipping
the
two
concepts.
First,
you
determine
whether
they're
they're
protected,
and
then
you
decide
what
how
to
protect
them.
Okay,.
A
A
A
So
let
me
slow
down.
So
let
me
kind
of
go
back
so
to
I
any
other
comments
on
2i.
D
F
Just
take
a
look
here,
a
little
more
about
what
would
be
interesting.
It's
2m
is
describing
criteria
and
procedures
for
formally
initiating
a
judicativity,
but
that
include
how
the
agency
makes
choices
about
which
forum
and
which
form
to
proceed
or
is
this?
Is
it
more
kind
of
mechanical
the
the
procedures
they
formally
go
through
before
proceeding
in
one
form
or
another
I
wasn't
sure
about
the
scope,
foreign.
K
So
my
report
addressed
both
issues,
so
both
the
siding,
whether
the
agency
should
you
know,
move
to
adjudication
based
on
a
certain
level
of
information,
evidence,
they've,
uncovered
and
sort
of
you
know
what
that
should
look
like
in
terms
of
if
they
have
discretion
on
proceeding
for
an
alj
or
another
Forum.
K
M
Yeah
I
think
it
was
drafted
broadly
to
include
both
issues.
F
You
know
describing
Criterion
procedures
for
formally
or
and
selection
between
the
various
for
us,
something
that
would
have
a
kind
of
that
would
add
the
idea
of
criteria
or
criteria
for
selection.
I.
Think
that's
the
is
that
worth
being
describe
criteria
for
selection
criteria,
for
choice
between
formally
initiating
adjudicative
or
judicial
proceedings
and
procedures.
You
know
my
draft
along
on
the
Fly
is
not
doing
very
well
at
all,
but
you
get
the
idea
that
something
about
the
selection.
F
D
F
This
is
a
little
awkward,
maybe
I'll
put
my
hand
down
my
I'll
mute
myself
and
someone
else
have
a
good
idea.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
so
we're
working
on
sort
of
amendments
to
to
Michael.
P
I
I
just
wonder
whether
here
it's
a
mistake
to
start
listing
possible
enforcement
actions,
because
it's
a
much
longer
list
than
this
I
mean
it
might
be
a
warning
letter.
It
might
be
a
private
meeting,
it
might
be
a
ticket
with
a
minimal
fine
and
no
procedures
and
whether
just
one
wants
to
State
more
generally
describing
criteria
for
the
selection
among
all
enforcement
Alternatives,
or
something
like
that.
A
L
So
I'm
wondering
if
the
because
I
I
viewed
M
as
being
about
formal,
adjudicative
or
judicial
proceedings,
and
it
strikes
me
that
it
it
seems
appropriate
to
to
list
that
separately
right.
There
might
be
other
informal
ways
of
resolving
the
dispute,
but
maybe
those
informal
ways
would
be
better
put
in
like
in
with
the
discussion
in
the
prior
paragraph,
for
example
on
negotiating
settlements.
L
You
know
for
informally,
adjudicating
or
negotiating
settlements,
something
to
that
effect,
because
I
I
do
think
it's
a
it's
a
different
sort
of
ball
game
when
you're
talking
about
initiating
formal
proceedings
right
and
then
in
in
paragraph
M,
well,
I
think
we've
got
I,
think
we've
gotten
to
where
I
was
going
to
suggest
we
head,
which
was
sort
of
talking
about
criteria
for
selection,
first
and
procedures.
Second,
okay,.
P
Totally
fine
with
me,
but
if
you're
gonna
do
that,
then
I
think
you
at
least
add
to
am
the
possibility
of
a
criminal
referral
to
doj,
because
that's
a
third
entry
in
that
category
of
formal
adjudications
is.
L
A
K
So
I
think
Emily's
suggestion
makes
sense
and
that
the
Universe
of
l
and
m
taken
together
is
supposed
to
be
about
procedures
and
for
about
guidelines
and
enforcement
manuals
for
first
deciding
what
kind
of
of
remedial
action
to
take
based
on
sort
of
the
evidence
and
covered?
Are
we
going
to
take
informal
adjudication?
A
Because
going
back
to
your
point,
Michael,
you
said
Prosecuting
cases
is
not
clear.
Is
there
an
amendment
that.
P
A
So
would
you
suggest
formally
initiating
a
Judiciary
judicial
proceedings
and
referring.
P
A
Any
thoughts
on
that
Amendment
by
Michael
or
the
prior
amendments
by
Emily.
D
A
So
we
have
this:
the
the
foundation
for
changes
that
the
committee
will
make
with
respect
to
the
staff
will
make
with
respect
to
those
two
recommendations.
A
A
A
Seems
straightforward:
okay,
now
we're
moving
on
to
the
next
section
on
managing
enforcement
manuals,
any
comments
or
suggestions
with
respect
to
recommendation
number
four.
D
F
We
need
to
say
it's
like
current
this
in
the
first
sentence
of
reflective,
current
policies
and
and
I
don't
know
and
law
I
was
worried,
like
once.
We
refer
to
whistleblower
regimes
above
right.
That's
not
just
a
matter
of
current
policy
for
the
agency,
that's
going
to
be
evolving
judicial
doctrine
and
everything
so
there's
a
kind
of
broader
unless
it's
it
could
be
in
the
next
sentence
and
I
haven't
gotten
there,
but
but
whether
there's
a
kind
of
current
policy,
we
want
them
to
update
them
generally,
including
as
to
current
policy.
F
D
K
I
think
it
makes
sense,
I
mean
there
are
definitely
scenarios
where
agencies,
let
their
enforcement
manuals,
get
a
bit
behind
legal
changes,
either
statutory
or
in
the
case
at
all.
So
it
might
make
sense
to
clarify
that
suggested.
Yeah.
P
A
All
right
so
I'll
reserve
my
comments
in
terms
of
with
respect
to
the
capacity
to
update
and
what
that
might
mean
for
disseminating
enforcement
manuals
to
the
next
section.
But
are
the
other
comments
on
the
fourth
recommendation?.
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
to
recommendation
number
five
and
I
guess
we'll
just
treat
this
as
a
whole,
rather
than
going
through
a
b
and
c
yes,
Michael.
P
A
A
Seems
to
read
a
bit
better,
any
other
any
thoughts
on
that
Amendment
or
objections
to
it.
D
A
I
guess
we
would
keep
the
colon
right
after
it
part
I,
think
or
is
that
still
there
that's
still
there,
okay,
any
other
thoughts
or
suggestions.
I
A
So
I
guess
we're
ready
to
move
on
to
recommendation
number
six
in
the
third
part:
disseminating
enforcement
manuals.
A
So
the
first
recommendation
number
six:
are
there
any
comments
or
suggestions.
I
It
seemed
to
say
that
you
shouldn't
get
it
in
paper
and
I.
I
would
I
mean
I'm
still
a
paper
person,
maybe
some
other
people
are
too
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
this
should
be
in
addition
to
on
paper
in
some
way,
but
that's
the
way
it
reads
now.
I
read
it
as
saying
this
is
the
only
way
you
do
it.
A
A
So,
okay,
so
in
terms
of
I'll,
come
to
you
Peter
in
one
second
sure,
so
thinking
about
sort
of
what
the
change
in
language
would
be
should
make
enforcement
manuals
available
on.
K
K
K
Sorry,
it
took
me
a
while
to
figure
out
the
Embrace
feature,
so
I
I
guess
before
we
decide
what
to
do
with
this,
just
as
sort
of
a
background.
I
wanted
to
speak
to
what
I
think
this
is
doing
in
the
recommendation
in
that
as
a
matter
of
best
practices.
There
are
a
lot
of
agencies
like
the
IRS
Internal
Revenue
manual,
that
has
an
online
version
of
manual
that
has
a
lot
of
metadata
involved
in
terms
of
you
know,
who's
responsible
for
doing
what
that's
very
useful.
K
That
really
can't
be
included
into
a
print
manual
and
also
situations
in
which,
well,
most
of
the
time,
it's
easier
to
keep
the
electronic
Edition
up
to
date
so,
rather
than
printing
a
whole
new
copy
of
the
manual
every
few
weeks
or
every
few
months.
So
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
part
is
say
that
there's
sort
of
a
matter
of
best
practices
in
which
you
can
keep
an
electronic
version
of
the
manual
that
can
do
things
that
a
print
edition
cannot
right.
K
A
Thank
you
Jordan,
so
it
seems
like
at
least
when
disrupt
the
purpose
that
you're
with
respect
to
this
section,
because
it
it's
it's.
It's
still
pointing
to
the
important
of
importance
of
of
keeping
an
electronic
format
which
is
much
more
easily
revisable
and
searchable
as
well.
A
A
Is
that
is
that
a
right
assessment
Jordan
or
do
you
think
they
at
least
might
and.
K
I
A
D
C
Yeah
I'm,
just
mindful
of
the
executive
order
on
Equity,
accessibility
and
I'm,
wondering
if
we
should
include
language
either
in
six
I'm
more
mindful
of
six
or
seven
language.
That
agencies
should
give
particular
consideration
to
making
manuals
accessible
to
traditionally
underrepresented,
underrepresented
groups
or
populations.
A
Okay
and
that
way,
yeah,
okay,
great.
C
C
A
On
or
objections
to,
Peter's
Amendment.
I
Yeah
I
think
it
should
go
in
seven,
not
in
a
six,
because
six
is
all
about
what
what
is
the,
how
you
have
the
enforcement
manual
and
seven
is
about
making
it
available
to
the
public,
and
so
I
think
you
know
I
think
it
goes
more
makes
more
sense
in
in
seven.
A
All
right
so
comments
on
seven,
including
Peter's
amendment,
to
seven.
A
If
an
agency
doesn't
have
the
resources
to
keep
manuals
up
to
date,
should
they
produce
enforcement,
or
should
they
produce
and
disseminate
enforcement
manuals
at
all
and
the
story
that
I
have
is
of
the
FTC
having
a
1971
enforcement
manual
and
keeping
it
around
and
realizing
that
it's
completely
out
of
date,
so
they're
just
you
know,
get
rid
of
it
all
together,
as
identified
in
your
report
and
it's
kind
of
a
cautionary
tale
about
sort
of
keeping
enforcement
manuals
at
all
when
you
can't
keep
them
up
to
date.
A
I
just
want
to
get
Jordan's
thoughts
and
reactions
to
to
that
concern.
K
So,
if
you're
speaking
to
the
distinction
between,
if
you
have
a
manual
that's
out
of
date,
keeping
it
internal
versus
maybe
publicly
available,
I
think
what
I
had
in
mind
in
the
report
is.
K
If
the
manual
is
out
of
date,
like
the
FTC
manual,
was
FDC
officials
have
a
much
better
idea
of
what
supplemental
guidance
documents
have
been
issued
to
modify
the
manual
of
the
general
public
in
so
the
the
potential
to
mislead
the
general
public
is
much
greater
while,
if
it's
just
inter-agency,
everyone
in
the
enforcement
division
will
presumably
know
that
there
are
these
three
important
guidance
documents.
That's
that
substantially
modify
what's
in
the
manual.
K
So
when
I
spoke
to
FTC
staff,
they
said
that
you
know
they
still
use
the
manual
for
some
purposes,
even
though
they
knew
that
it
was
badly
out
of
date
and
that's
good
mislead
the
public,
because
there
are
certain
things,
such
as
the
way
it
handled
confidential
information
that
we're
still,
you
know
very
useful
as
a
form
of
internal
guidance.
A
P
I
I
I
would
say,
agencies
should
make
entire
or
portions
of
enforcement
manuals
publicly
available.
I
mean
we
recognize
that
there
are
aspects
of
enforcement
manuals,
that
we
don't
want
to
be
made
public
and
shouldn't
be
made
public
and
but
I
don't
want
to
make
it
sort
of
an
All
or
Nothing
type
of
thing.
Okay,.
A
Yeah,
that's
a
good
point
in
your
experience
in
terms
of
your
research.
Are
there
examples
Jordan
of
agencies
making
manuals
partially
available?
A
K
You
know
like,
like
a
confidential
document
that
you
get
from
the
government
or
something
the
other
thing
that
they
can
do
is
they
can
have
two
different
manuals:
One
manual
that
contains
the
stuff
that's
fit
for
public
consumption
and
one
that's
just
you
know,
policies
and
procedures
for
things
like
how
do
we
detect
violations
that
should
not
be
made
public,
and
my
report
wanted
to
be
sensitive,
that
some
agencies
find
one
of
those
Alternatives
superior
to
the
other
and
to
leave
it
sort
of
the
agency
discretion
based
on
their
own
situation.
Okay,.
A
E
A
A
That
recommendation
is
directed
towards
enforcement
Personnel
rather
than
the
public.
Is
that
a
proper
characterization
of
recommendation?
Six
first
of
all,
and
do
you
agree
with
that
Amendment?
Secondly,
and
I'll
start
with
either
a
Jordan
and
then
move
to
Jeremy?
If
he
has
comments.
K
My
initial
thought
is
that
this
makes
sense
in
that
I.
Don't
know
of
an
example
where
the
agency
sort
of
promulgates
it's.
You
know
hot
off
the
presses
changes
to
the
manual
directly
on
the
public
website
as
opposed
to
putting
it
on
the
public
intranet
or
something
like
that.
So
I
think
this.
My
initial
Impressions
this
makes
sense.
D
A
All
right,
so
we
will
without
objections.
We
will
remove
the
language
or
public
website
from
recommendation
six
and
then,
with
respect
to
recommendation,
seven
Bill
suggested
the
amendment
or
portions
thereof.
Are
there
any
comments
or
suggestion
with
respect
to
that
Amendment
or
any
other
aspects
of
of
section
or
recommendation?
Seven
Michael
so
and
David
I'm?
Sorry,
is
that
a
new
hand
or
old
hand
David
pritzker?
P
So
a
kind
of
General
comment
in
a
specific
comment.
The
the
very
specific
comment
is
I
I'm,
not
sure
about
this
phrase:
improve
public
awareness,
often
compliance
with
relevant
policies.
I
mean
really
we're
talking
about
compliance
with
the
law.
I
mean
that's,
what's
being
enforced,
our
legal
requirements
and
the
reason
and
and
that's
the
ultimate
goal
here-
is
to
enable
enhance
and
improve
compliance
with
legal
requirements.
I'm
not
sure
what
the
relevant
policies
are.
Okay,.
A
So
the
amendment
to
relevant
policies
is
there
a
thought
process
or
or
a
reason
why
we
would
keep
relevant
policies
as
opposed
to
changing
it
to
legal
requirements.
I'll
start
with
you,
Jordan.
K
K
So,
insofar
as
the
the
enforcement
manual
sets
out
policies
for
how
the
agency
is
going
to
exercise
its
discretion
when
it
include,
you
know,
act
in
a
number
of
ways,
so
I
would
probably
have
policies
and
legal
requirements
instead
of
just
dropping
policies.
M
P
P
Okay,
the
the
broader
comment
is:
is
this
and
it's
somewhat
unformed
so
so
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
here
is,
as
some
of
you
know,
I'm
a
member
of
a
consultant's
group
for
a
separate
project
on
the
availability
of
agency
legal
materials,
right,
which
is
a
sweeping
term,
but
it
would
include
enforcement
manuals
and
and
we're
not
as
far
along
as
this
project
is
and-
and
this
is
one
of
many
acres
projects
recent
and
distant-
that
overlaps
with
ours
and
one
of
the
things
that
we're
doing
in
general
is
keeping
our
eye
on
the
other
Acres
projects
and
incorporating,
or
at
least
trying
to
be
consistent
with
prior
recommendations
and
and
so
on
and
and
there's
nothing
here.
P
That's
fundamentally
inconsistent
with
anything.
We've
been
saying
or
talking
about,
I
would
say
our
instincts,
our
Tendencies,
our
priors,
as
a
group
are
a
little
more
pro-disclosure
than
this
one
feels
and-
and
the
question
is
whether
in
the
Preamble
or
here
or
somewhere,
the
committee
wants
to
just
put
a
little
more
thumb
on
the
scale,
endorsing
the
benefits
of
of
disclosure
right,
so
that
it's
a
that's
a
broader
question.
It's
not
specifically
about
the
wording
of
seven,
but
you
know
it's
about
this
whole
section
on
on
dissemination.
P
The
tiny
thing
I
would
change
that
I
would
suggest.
That's
along
those
lines
is
changing
in
line
95
if
to
when
all
right,
publicly
available.
When
doing
so
right,
which
kind
of
confirms
this.
This
is
real.
It's
not
hypothetical!
It's
not
well
conceivably.
At
some
point
it
will
be,
but
there
is
a
category
where
really
it
is
worth
putting
these
up
and
you
should
you
should
do
it.
So
that's
the
only
really
concrete
proposed
line
making
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
larger
thing,
but
I
throw
it
out
for
this
committee's
consideration.
A
Okay,
so
that
would
be
kind
of
a
a
slight
change
in
the
language.
I
would
put
a
small
part
weight
of
the
thumb
on
the
scale
in
favor
of.
D
A
And
so
we'll
return
to
the
broader
point
that
you're
making
when
we
get
to
our
preface
after
working
through
the
recommendations,
but
I
will
keep
that
in
mind
as
a
starting
point
for
addressing
the
language
of
the
preface
in
terms
of
whether
we
want
to
put
the
thumb
on
the
scale
in
favor
of
disclosure
or
not
in
this
report.
Thank
you
Michael.
A
Any
other
comments
on
recommendation
number,
seven
or
any
feedback
or
thoughts
or
reactions
to
Michael's
proposed
amendment
shifting
if
to
win
now,
I
guess
I'll
start
with
Jordan.
K
I
have
no
complaints
about
the
machine.
Okay,.
A
A
Is
that
the
old
hand
mic,
or
is
that
a
new
one?
It's.
P
Just
eliminate
take
steps
to
agencies
should
provide
notice.
Okay,.
A
Got
it
so
Remus
and
ambiguity
as
to
what
those
steps
might
be,
so
any
reaction
to
the
change
Jordan
is
that
with
that
do
do
yeah.
D
A
I
A
So
that's
consistent
with
the
prior
recommendations,
any
comments
or
objections
to
that
language
and
it's
recommendation.
Eight.
D
A
D
A
Right
so
before
moving
on
to
the
preface
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone's
comments
have
been
addressed
on
any
of
the
recommendations,
so
I'll
open
it
up
to
all
the
recommendations.
Yes,
David.
E
A
A
All
right,
so,
let's
scroll
back
up
to
the
preface
I,
don't
know
if
it's
possible
to
get
the
entire
Preface
on
the
screen
or
not,
but
I
guess
we
could
take
a
paragraph
by
paragraph
instead.
So
why
don't
we
just
kind
of
take
some
time
to
read
the
first
paragraph
of
the
preface
and
Michael
thoughts
on
where
your
presumption
of
disclosure
might
play
in
in
terms
of
the
language
of
the
preface?
A
That
would
be
helpful
thanks.
Bill
would
be
helpful
so
just
some
time
in
when
you
think
that
there
could
be
changes
in
language
or
addition
of
language
and
see
what
other
people
think
about
not
presumption
disclosure
but
thumb
on
the
scale
disclosure
idea.
A
A
A
So
this
may
be
relevant
to
Michael's
point
this
paragraph
with
respect
to
the
thumb
on
the
scale
disclosure
I'm
wondering
if,
if
it's
this
particular
paragraph
that
raises
concerns
his
concerns
about
where
the
weight
of
disclosure
and
withholding
lie
not
to
say
that
we
should
favor,
necessarily
one
or
the
other.
But
I
was
wondering
if
this
was
the
paragraph
that
from
which
his
perception
that
this
is
a
document
that
is
not
as
favorable
disclosure
as
a
report
that
he's
Consulting
on
right
now,.
P
Well,
I
I
a
couple
of
little
things
that
might
go
in
here.
For
example,
one
is
there's
the
compliance
with
relevant
policies,
Point
recurs
here,
but
that's
a
separate
thing.
It's
of.
P
So
one
of
the
things
we
made
the
decision
to
do
was
not
to
revisit
foia
exemptions
right,
take
the
foia
exemptions
as
a
given
right
and
not
sort
of
go
out
there
and
say:
okay,
we
got
a
amend,
552
B
and
that
that
was
sort
of
beyond
the
scope
and
too
big
a
thing
and
and
and
and
and
this
report
takes
the
same
approach
and
and
I
think
that
makes
sense,
one
might
say-
and
and
here's
where
they're
acknowledged
and
they're
totally
legit.
P
One
might
point
out
here
that
you
know
the
that
agencies
are
free
in
their
discretion
to
release
exempt
materials,
and
this
doesn't
say
that
indeed,
under
the
2016,
you
know,
there's
always
been
this
back
and
forth
about
the
presumption
of
disclosure
or
not
the
presumption
of
disclosure
under
foia,
but
it
got
written
into
the
law
in
2016.
P
P
The
other
thing
is
I.
Think
for
a
lot
of
this.
Maybe
less
enforcement
manuals
than
some
other
things,
but
also
enforcement
manuals
they're
useful,
not
just
to
directly
regulated
entities
but
they're,
useful
to
regulatory
beneficiaries,
they're
useful
to
citizens
who
care
about
public
policy
they're
useful
to
Watchdog
groups
that
want
to
know
how
agencies
are
spending
their
time
and
taxpayer
dollars.
P
This
is
written
with
a
at
least
an
implicit
focus
on
just
it's.
You
know
if,
if
you
have
to
comply,
if
you're
directly
regulated
these
will
be
handy,
though
maybe
a
little
too
handy.
So
we
got
to
be
careful
and
that's
that's
sort
of
I
think
there's
a
larger
audience
for
these.
As
for
many
agency,
legal
materials,
Beyond
just
directly
regulated
entities,
and
that
might
be
bad
Express
here.
A
Yeah
my
sense
from
your
report,
Jordan,
is
that
you
are
focusing
on
multiple
audiences.
Here
you
spoke
about
specialized
bar.
You
also
spoke
about.
You
know
the
broader
public
as
well
and
non-specialized
groups,
and
there
does
seem
to
be
a
concern
about
using
manuals
to
circumvent
the
law
for
sure
that
I
think
it's
reflected
in
your
report.
But
what
are
your
thoughts
in
response
to
to
Michael's
comments
in
terms
of
the
balance
or
the
you
know
how
we're
weighing
disclosure
versus
withholding
in
light
of
the
multiple
audiences.
K
So,
on
the
issue
of
you
know,
keeping
in
mind
the
multiple
audiences
I
I
fully
agree,
and
if
there
were
specific
language
that
he
thought
we
should
address,
I
would
be
interested
in
hearing
that
you
know
in
his
overall
in
his
overall
sort
of
General
comment
I.
He
is
right
that
I
tried
to
be
very
sort
of
cautious
in
writing.
This
report,
and
so
far
as
I,
did
speak
directly
with
agencies
agencies
who
had
made
what
they
believed
to
be
very
carefully
considered.
K
You
know
decisions
not
to
disclose,
and
you
know
the
report
was
written
with,
with
the
plans
of
not
sort
of
you
know,
stepping
on
the
toes
of
the
discretion
of
these
agencies.
But
it's
up
to
the
committee
whether
it
wants
to
be
sort
of
more
ambitious
than
the
current
language
reflects.
Q
I
find
myself
agreeing
with
the
comments
that
these
documents
are
very
helpful
to
more
than
just
the
regulated
parties
as
an
agency
that
doesn't
really
do
enforcement,
but
that
sees
a
lot
of
regulations.
Q
You
know
our
mission,
the
office
of
the
Federal
Register,
we
publish
on
behalf
of
the
federal
agencies,
and
so
there
are
clients,
if
you
will,
but
everybody
else
is
our
customer.
That's
how
we've
set
up
and
that's
why
we've
normalized
Federal
registered
documents
put
in
the
categories
require
the
Preamble
captions
set
up
the
CFR
so
that
all
the
titles
look
the
same,
no
matter
what
agency
is
publishing
for
the
most
part.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Michael
there's
Michael
yeah,
yes,
he
is,
but
but
we've
got
like
I've
got
like
five
screens
of
people,
so
I
had
to
scroll
through
to
find
him
waving.
So
yes,
so
yeah
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what
Michael
was
saying
about
disclosure
and
being
more
Pro
disclosure
than
less
disclosure.
Q
I
mean
there
are
parts
of
enforcement
documents
that
we
do
not
want
to
disclose.
But
those
are
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule.
I
think
is,
is
how
we
should
approach
this.
Thank.
A
You
so
in
terms
of
kind
of
trying
to
categorize
the
issues
here
so
there's
a
choice
to
create
an
enforcement
manual
always
goes
to
capacity
and
to
to
do
so
and
the
ability
to
update
it
and
then
there's
the
second
part
with
respect
to
disclosure.
Disclosing
enforcement
manual
once
made
to
the
public,
which
I
think
the
principal
concern
with
respect
to
disclosing
to
the
public
or
reasons
for
withholding,
would
be
concerns
about
circumvention
of
the
long
use
of
the
manual
to
circumvent
the
law.
A
I
wonder
Jordan
if
there
are
any
other
concerns
and
whether
those
concerns
can
be
addressed
in
in
full
through
a
you
know,
proposed
through
a
proposal
that
encourages
disclosure
with
the
idea
that
they
can
always
redact
the
information
that
the
agency
finds
with
be
at
risk
of
being
used
for
circumvention
purposes.
A
K
So
the
track
I
type
I
try
to
take
in
the
report
itself
is
I.
Do
try
to
recognize
the
diversity
of
Interest.
So
one
thing
that
came
up
in
my
interview
with
with
nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
officials
from
there
was
that
you
know
they
find
it
very
important
to
solicit
feedback
from
Native
American
tribes,
who
are
in
the
vicinity
of
nuclear
facilities
about
you
know
how
that
will
affect
tribal
lands,
and
you
have
this
kind
of
thing
throughout
the
regulatory
State,
what
you
might
call
sort
of
indirect
beneficiaries
of
Regulation
and
the
track.
K
My
report
tried
to
take
is
that
this
is
sort
of
a
subject
of
cost
benefit
analysis
and
that
it's
very
important
for
the
agency
to
take
into
account
what
these
sort
of
spillover
effects
on
groups
that
it
might
not
you
know
initially
have
in
mind,
are
in
terms
of
you
know.
You
know
I
I'm
curious
as
to
sort
of
what
parts
of
the
recommendation
either
the
Preamble
or
you
know
otherwise
would
need
to
be
changed
to
be
more
sensitive
to
these
concerns.
A
We
have
one
suggested
line
at
the
end
of
paragraph
three
agencies:
May
proactively,
disclose
materials
exempt
from
under
foia
Miriam
says:
that's
a
good
start
like
what
else
might
we
might?
We
add
Michael.
P
So
it's
a
totally
fair
question
and
you
began
our
turn
to
this
Preamble
with
your
totally
fair
nudge
to
me
to
come
up
with
some
languages.
We
went
along
and
I
realized
I've
fallen
down
on
that
job.
It's
partly
because
like
Miriam,
though
I'm
not
in
snowy
La,
the
way
she
is
I
I
I
have
not
focused
on
this
as
much
as
I
should
have,
for
which
I
apologize.
P
It's
my
fault,
but
what
what
I
would
suggest
and-
and
you
know,
and
drafting
on
the
Fly
is
always
risky
sure
what
I
would
suggest
I
know
there's
at
least
one
more
meeting
of
this
of
this
committee
on
this
proposal
right
between
now
and
then
I
speak
to
some
of
my
colleagues
on
our
group.
Okay,
and
we
talk
among
ourselves
and
if
there's
particular
language
we
we
can
come
up
with
that,
we
think
would
be
really
helpful.
P
We'll
circulate
it
well
in
advance
of
the
meeting
and
if
there's
not
we'll,
let
you
know
that
and-
and
we
probably
should
have
done
that
two
weeks
ago
and
I
apologize
for
that-
but
I
think
there's
still
time
in.
P
A
P
E
It
strikes
me
that,
since
the
preceding
sentences
are
all
about
what
the
exemptions
provide,
that
this
sentence,
tagged
on
to
the
end
is
a
quick
shift
of
gears
and
to
make
it
flow
more
smoothly.
I
would
suggest
putting,
however,
at
the
beginning
and
say,
however,
comma
agencies
may
proactively
choose
to
disclose
materials.
A
Yeah
I
think
it's
absolutely
right.
Okay,
so
this
language
that
we
have
here
is
very
tentative.
We're
gonna
have
Michael
discuss
with
this
group
any
thoughts
on
other
language,
but
this
could
at
least
give
us
a
starting
point
for
revising
the
Preamble,
or
at
least
this
part
of
the
Gamble.
E
The
final
sentence,
starting
on
line
33
as
a
syntax
problem
and
the
problem,
arises
at
the
end
where
it
says
different
among
programs.
My
suggestion
for
fixing
this
is
to
have
it
begin.
E
As
it
reads
in
offering
these
recommendations,
the
conference
recognizes
that
enforcement
manuals
may
not
be
appropriate
for
all
agencies
and
put
a
comment
in
there.
Given
differences
in
the
volume
and
complexity
of
documents
that
govern
their
enforcement
activities,
resources
available
to
agencies
and
the
differing
insert
the
word
differing
information
needs
for
persons
affected
by
or
interested
in
agency
enforcement
activity
all
right
and
end
the
sentence
there
yep.
A
Any
thoughts
on
David's,
Amendment
or
other
aspects
of
paragraph
four
of
the
preamble.
E
A
And
I'll
give
one
more
beat
of
the
heart
to
see
if
there
are
any
thoughts
on
the
overall
Preamble
as
written
right
now,
adjustments
will
be
made
to
the
cramble
and
to
the
recommendations
before
our
next
meeting,
but
before
ending
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
there
are
any
overriding
thoughts
on
the
Preamble
that
folks
have.
A
All
right,
okay,
sorry
I
have
to
pull
up
my
what
am
I
supposed
to
subdue
now
all
right
now,
okay,
I,
guess
I'm
supposed
to
tell
you
that
our
next
meeting
will
be
on
Tuesday
November
1st,
from
12
to
3
P.M
eastern
time
and
before
closing
the
meeting
I
wanted
to
see
if
chairman
voice
had
any
closing
remarks
for
the
committee.
J
Yes,
thank
you
very
much,
Patrol
and-
and
let
me
say
this
is
pretty
amazing,
your
first
time
out
to
do
11
recommendations
and
a
whole
Preamble
in
less
than
two
hours,
so
we
may
be
putting
you
as
in
as
chairman
of
all
five
of
our
committees,
if
you
can
do
this
regularly.
J
So
thank
thank
you
to
you
for
leading
us
through
a
very
methodical
and
thoughtly
process,
thanks
to
all
the
committee
members
for
for
your
input
and
thanks
again
to
Alexandra,
Jordan
and
and
Jeremy
for
all
the
work
they
put
into
the
recommendations
and
the
and
the
Preamble
and
the
report.
So
thanks.
Thanks
all
see
you
next
time
and
have
a
good
rest
of
the
afternoon.