Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interagency Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACUS regulation committee advances guidance urging written interagency agreements and public repositories
Summary
The Administrative Conference of the United States' Committee on Regulation reviewed and edited draft recommendations urging agencies with overlapping regulatory responsibilities to use written agreements, to designate officials to manage implementation, and to make agreements publicly available via centralized repositories; several wording edits and a plan to resolve one outstanding item by email were approved by consensus.
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) Committee on Regulation met on Friday to review and refine draft recommendations that would encourage agencies with overlapping or closely related regulatory responsibilities to enter into written agreements, clarify roles, and make those agreements publicly accessible.
The committee advanced ten draft recommendations, endorsing principles that include requiring that agreements define goals and authorities, delineate responsibilities, establish information‑sharing protocols where statutory limits allow, provide dispute‑resolution procedures and performance metrics, and identify an official responsible for managing implementation. Blaine, the meeting’s presenter, summarized the study informing the recommendations, saying the work “found a set of these publicly available agreements” and stressing that “what’s really important is...pre‑work or understanding things that are ahead of time,” including agencies’ missions and statutory limits on information sharing.
Committee members debated and refined the text. On Recommendation 3 — involving officials with relevant decision‑making authority and legal and subject‑matter expertise — a member asked whether references to officials responsible for information management and budget planning meant agency officials; the committee confirmed the phrase refers to officials at the signatory agencies and accepted a drafting change to add the word “their.” On Recommendation 4, members voted by consensus to insert the word “relevant” before “mission” when describing what each signatory agency should state in an agreement.
On implementation oversight, the committee agreed to revise Recommendation 5 to direct agencies to “designate an official with primary responsibility for managing and monitoring the implementation of the agreement.” Committee members discussed whether to require a specific review cadence for agreements and declined to set a one‑size‑fits‑all frequency, instead leaving periodic review to agency judgment while noting the anchoring value of a presumptive review interval for some agreements.
Members also wrestled with language about organizational structures in multi‑agency agreements. The draft’s reference to an “organizational relationship” prompted concern that the phrasing was unnecessarily wordy or unclear; after discussion the committee removed that phrase and retained the core direction that agreements should delineate clear roles and responsibilities and, where appropriate, identify a lead, co‑leads, or a coordinating group to support effective coordination.
A central theme of the discussion was public access. Recommendation 9 proposed that agencies make agreements and associated materials publicly available unless disclosure would harm sensitive or legally protected interests such as national security or law‑enforcement functions. Committee members emphasized practical difficulty locating many existing agreements online and asked whether the guidance should specify placement on agency websites. Participants agreed to combine Recommendations 9 and 10 into a single recommendation that would both require public availability (subject to legal limits) and call for a centralized, user‑friendly repository on agency websites. Members also flagged an existing ACUS recommendation on proactive disclosure of agency legal materials and asked staff to ensure consistency between the two products.
Throughout the session speakers raised repeated practical concerns: statutory limits on information sharing can constrain what agencies may publish; sunsets can be useful but create renewal timing problems; and line‑level staff responsible for day‑to‑day coordination need clarity on responsibilities. The presenter recommended that agreements explicitly address these points and that agencies include performance metrics and review mechanisms so that agreements do not become outdated.
The committee handled most edits by consensus on the spot and agreed to resolve the single remaining drafting issue by email. The session concluded with members thanking staff and the consultant and adjourning until the follow‑up email process resolves the final item.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the agreed edits (including adding “relevant” to Recommendation 4, refining Recommendation 5’s implementation wording, deleting the “organizational relationship” phrase, and merging Recommendations 9 and 10 into a combined public‑access/repository recommendation) and circulate a revised draft for finalization via email.
