SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. OJP (DOJ) 1540 AG ORDER NO. 3322

- 2012 ; RIN1121

- AA77 77 FR 7559 ( FEBRUARY 13, 2012 ) **DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR**

**STATE CAPITAL COUNSEL SYSTEMS**
**MEETING SUMMARY** RE: MEETING WITH SENATE STAFF DATE/TIME OF MEETING: MARCH 1, 2012 2:3 0 PM

–3 :00 PM PLACE OF MEETING: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RFK BUILDING (By Conference Call) ATTENDEES: FROM SENATOR LEAHY ’S STAFF : 

### Noah Bookbinder, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee staff Liz Aloi, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee staff FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE : Lamar Baker , Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy Caroline Nguyen, Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General , Office of Legal Policy Brette Steele, Counsel, Office of Legal Policy Mark Agrast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The members of Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee staff requested a meeting with the Department of Justice to discuss their reacti ons to and comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( S NPRM), which was formally published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2012

. The meeting too k place via conference call. The Department explained that this meeting, in accordance with policy, was to be a listening session only. The Department stated that it welcomed comments to the SNPRM, would carefully consider all submissions, and was continuing to consider comments it had received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM ) that was formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011

. The representatives from Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee staff explained that they generally understood the contemplated changes identified in the SNPRM but that they had two questions. The representatives observed that although Senator Leahy had previously commented that the third option under the Competency Standards is too vague, the SNPRM did not explicitly addressthe issue . They asked whether the SNPRM’s silence on this point should be understood as a

rejection of Senator Leahy’s comments or as an indication that the Department was still considering his comments . The Department responded that it has been considering, and would continue to consider, all the comments it received in response to the proposed rulemaking but that commenters should feel free to reemphasize particular comments if they wished

. The representatives also noted that Senator Leahy had previously requested that the Department incorporate all relevant provisions of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) into the second option under the Competency Standards. They observed that two of the provisions , involving a requirement of two attorneys and standards for comp ensation, had not been included. The Department pointed out the provisions of the proposed rule that address compensation separately and encouraged Senator Leahy to submit comments if he believed that the two identified provisions bear on competence and in fact should be incorporated into the second option. The meeting ended with the representatives reiterating that their reaction to the contemplated changes was positive overall.