Opinion ID: 987107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Exemption or Preemption

Text: Having rejected SHA's untenable interpretation of the PRA, we now consider the significance of applicable federal regulations because SHA's grievance hearing decisions are created pursuant to federal law. The applicable federal regulations do not exempt the unredacted grievance hearing decisions from disclosure under the PRA. Nor do the applicable regulations preempt the PRA under the supremacy clause of the federal constitution. The PRA thus applies to the unredacted grievance hearing decisions, which are public records, and mandates redaction and disclosure. Applicable federal regulations do not exempt the grievance hearing decisions from public disclosure. This inquiry is relevant because the PRA exempts from disclosure records that are protected by federal regulations. See Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Wash. State Office ofAtt'y Gen., 170 Wn.2d 418,439-40, 241 P.3d 1245 (2010); RCW 42.56.070. In this case, applicable federal regulations establish only procedural minimums, requiring each housing authority to provide redacted copies of prior decisions to assist tenants facing imminent adverse action-the regulations do not prohibit or otherwise regulate disclosure of public records. Specifically, 24 C.P.R. § 966.57(a) provides that each written hearing decision shall be sent to ... the PHA, and the PHA shall retain a copy of the decision in the tenant's folder and retain another copy with all names and identifying references deleted on file and made available for inspection by a prospective complainant, his representative, or the hearing panel or hearing officer. This regulation does not prohibit disclosure in any 23 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 way; it merely ensures a limited form of disclosure to a limited class of persons in order to promote fairness within each housing authority's grievance hearing process. In the context of cooperative federalism, this minimum requirement allows each state agency to conduct the rest of its disclosure practices in accordance with relevant state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(1)(C). In some states, disclosure of such materials might be entirely prohibited; in that case, the federal regulation ensures a certain type of disclosure to further the grievance hearing process while allowing the state agency to otherwise restrict access, thus causing a minimal intrusion upon state and local laws. By the same token, the regulation does not prevent SHA from disclosing grievance hearing documents in accordance with the PRA. HUD promulgated this regulation without commenting on its particular significance. See 40 Fed. Reg. 33,406, 33,406-08 (Aug. 7, 1975). In related contexts, however, HUD has made clear that it intends for state laws to generally govern disclosure and production of housing authority documents. See 56 Fed. Reg. 51,560, 51,566 (Oct. 11, 1991) (The statute and rule do not purport to establish a Federal privilege against discovery of directly relevant PHA documents .... However, the statute and rule also do not override other independently recognized privileges.); see also 53 Fed. Reg. 33,216, 33,281 (Aug. 30, 1988) (The rule does not disturb the PHA's right to deny production of privileged documents in accordance with State law . . . . At the same time, however, the rule does not establish ... any rules governing the circumstances in which a privilege arises. Rather, the rule defers to State law ... and therefore to State policy 24 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 underlying the grant or denial of a privilege.), withdrawn on other grounds, 53 Fed. Reg. 44,876 (Nov. 7, 1988). We have held that exemptions outside of the PRA must be explicit, and there is no explicit exemption here. See PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 262. Nor do the applicable federal regulations preempt the PRA. Federal preemption occurs only if ( 1) federal law expressly preempts state law, (2) Congress has occupied an entire field of regulation to the exclusion of any state laws, or (3) state law conflicts with federal law due to either impossibility of joint compliance or state law acting as an obstacle to accomplishment of a federal purpose. SeePA WS II, 125 Wn.2d at 265. In this case there is no express preemption, and given the nature of cooperative federalism, no field preemption either. There is also no conflict preemption, given that the applicable regulations do not prohibit disclosure of the unredacted grievance hearing decisions and the PRA does not act as an obstacle to any federal purpose. There is a strong presumption against finding that federal law has preempted state law. State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wn.2d 525, 546, 852 P.2d 1064 (1993). Further, 'the case for federal preemption becomes a less persuasive one' within a system of cooperative federalism, where 'coordinated state and federal efforts exist within a complementary administrative framework,' as in this case. State of Washington v. Bowen, 815 F .2d 549, 557 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting NY. Dep 't of Soc. Servs.v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 421, 93 S. Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1973)). The PRA applies to SHA's grievance hearing decisions. 25 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 In sum, SHA' s unredacted grievance hearing decisions are subject to disclosure under the PRA. The documents are public records that are subject to the PRA's redaction requirement. Applicable federal regulations neither exempt the documents from disclosure nor preempt the operation of the PRA. Thus, SHA is obligated to produce the grievance hearing decisions, redacted only to exclude personal information of welfare recipients for whom the documents are maintained.