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 2:30 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 reactions to and comments on the Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), which was formally published in the Federal Register on February 

13, 2012. The meeting took 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 address 
the 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 compensation, 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.