GREAT NEWS ON REGULATION FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

[endicom]

Power Line
John Hinderaker
Feb. 11, 2018

This is simply fantastic news:

The Trump administration has adopted new limits on the use of “guidance documents” that federal agencies have issued on almost every conceivable subject, an action that could have sweeping implications for the government’s ability to sue companies accused of violations.

Guidance documents offer the government’s interpretation of laws, and often when individuals or companies face accusations of legal violations, what they have really violated are the guidance documents. …

More... http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/great-news-on-regulation-from-the-trump-administration.php

[anubias]

[endicom]

This should help in allowing businesses to proceed with investments without the fear of being hamstrung by some apparatchik.

[Suppressed]

This should help in allowing businesses to proceed with investments without the fear of being hamstrung by some apparatchik.

Actually, there will be many projects obstructed by this, too.  Guidance often helps companies.

For example, in dealing with the EPA, where the regulations require cleanup of environmental problems, guidance can be used by companies to show that it's cleaning up naturally and doesn't require more expensive active remediation.

Some of those guidance documents...
Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites :
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/d9200.4-17.pdf

Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water (1998):
https://clu-in.org/download/remed/protocol.pdf

This article doesn't state what actual action was taken, but I sure hope it was done in a smart way!

[Emjay]

Actually, there will be many projects obstructed by this, too.  Guidance often helps companies.

For example, in dealing with the EPA, where the regulations require cleanup of environmental problems, guidance can be used by companies to show that it's cleaning up naturally and doesn't require more expensive active remediation.

Some of those guidance documents...
Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites :
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/d9200.4-17.pdf

Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water (1998):
https://clu-in.org/download/remed/protocol.pdf

This article doesn't state what actual action was taken, but I sure hope it was done in a smart way!

Yes but the Trump administration is working to reduce all those onerous regulations under the guise of environmental protection.

[Oceander]

Guidance from agencies can be extremely useful because it often indicates what positions the agencies will take in, for example, litigation under the statute itself, and avoiding litigation usually saves businesses a ton of money.  The same with non-regulation guidance from the IRS, which will sometimes contain safe harbors that taxpayers can rely on.  Again, that’s a big savings in time and money, particularly if compliance under the statute is onerous and the agency guidance provides shortcuts. 

Taking that guidance away in many cases can make things worse, not better, if all that’s left is a broad, ambiguous statute written by Congress.

[endicom]

Guidance from agencies can be extremely useful because it often indicates what positions the agencies will take in, for example, litigation under the statute itself, and avoiding litigation usually saves businesses a ton of money.  The same with non-regulation guidance from the IRS, which will sometimes contain safe harbors that taxpayers can rely on.  Again, that’s a big savings in time and money, particularly if compliance under the statute is onerous and the agency guidance provides shortcuts. 

Taking that guidance away in many cases can make things worse, not better, if all that’s left is a broad, ambiguous statute written by Congress.

We'll see how this is received by businesses.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Article wasn't this specific but they must be referring to the Chevron Doctrine.

https://lawblog.justia.com/2012/05/21/chevron-deference-your-guide-to-understanding-two-of-todays-scotus-decisions/



Chevron Deference Explained

Chevron deference is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable. The principle is named for the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which involved a dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Under Chevron, even if a court finds that another interpretation is reasonable, or even better than the agency’s interpretation, it must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.

Reasonableness in part turns on whether the statute unambiguously addresses the issue. If it does, then the unambiguous meaning controls. If the statute is ambiguous, then the court asks whether the agency’s interpretation of the ambiguous provision is based on a permissible construction of the statute. A permissible construction is one that is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” In other words, it is a very low threshold of deference.

Gorsuch hostility to it helped put him on the bench.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

News like this deserves a Trumpy Bear fix.

! No longer available

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

News like this deserves a Trumpy Bear fix.

! No longer available

Don't suppose you read my post.

Federal Bureaucrats going over the Courts with extra legal jurisdiction can be fixed by a jab at the Prez with a stuffed bear?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Don't suppose you read my post.

Yeah I did.  I don't really know much about stuff like "principle of administrative law," and I don't understand what "defer to interpretations of statutes" means, but I do know what "GREAT NEWS" means.

Great News is like the very best news if you want to make America Great.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Yeah I did.  I don't really know much about stuff like "principle of administrative law," and I don't understand what "defer to interpretations of statutes" means, but I do know what "GREAT NEWS" means.

Great News is like the very best news if you want to make America Great.

You don't know and you don't understand, but you just recently said all You Wanted was to be 'understood'.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Many of the Obama administration’s worst actions involved issuance of “guidance,” i.e., a left-wing interpretation of federal law that was often tendentious if not outright untenable. Nevertheless, most companies, universities, etc., were cowed into complying with Obama’s “guidances.” Glenn Reynolds offers the definitive commentary:  Good. “Guidance” is bullshit. Either do a rule making, or stay home.

Rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act requires following an actual process, with public comment and opportunity for appeal. Thus it is inconvenient for leftists. Issuing “guidance” is an inappropriate shortcut that generally just means implementing the administration’s political wish list.

This is another example of one of the Trump administration’s greatest virtues: restoration of the rule of law.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/great-news-on-regulation-from-the-trump-administration.php

[anubias]

We’re VERY happy about it here. 

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

We’re VERY happy about it here. 

 

 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

You don't know and you don't understand, but you just recently said all You Wanted was to be 'understood'.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I still don't think you understand.  Your densely legalistic response was undecipherable to me.  I'm sorry this seems to make you angry, but I'm OK with that.  I'm also sorry that Trumpy Bear made you angry, but he is the STORM!!!

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I still don't think you understand.  Your densely legalistic response was undecipherable to me.  I'm sorry this seems to make you angry, but I'm OK with that.  I'm also sorry that Trumpy Bear made you angry, but he is the STORM!!!

Don't tempt me to tell you what Kind of STORM Trumpy Bear is.

This is Supposed to be a forum for adult discussion.

If you can't be bothered to Find Out what the Issue IS before posting Teddy Bear rebuttals, the shortcoming is not mine.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

This is Supposed to be a forum for adult discussion.

I have personally waded through page after page of silly personal vendettas, off color jokes, and even straight up racism on this forum.  Granted I wrote most of it, but the point is actual adult discussion is pretty rare, and I, like 97.5% of America, have no interest in understanding and weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the Chevron Deference.   

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, or dismissive.  It is great that you understand it and want to talk with someone about it.  I got all I needed from the headline.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Once-Ler

Never imagined I'd go this far, but you are officially on Ignore.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

@Once-Ler

Never imagined I'd go this far, but you are officially on Ignore.

I hope tomorrow is a better day for you.