THE REGULATORY PROCESS
Chapter 17
Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards
The Legal Environment of Business, 12th Edition
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
“The rise of the administration bodies probably has been
the most significant legal trend of the last century and
perhaps more values today are affected by their decisions
than by those of all the courts. . . . They have become a
veritable fourth branch of the government. . . .”
~Supreme Court in F.T.C. v. Ruberoid Company (1952)
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER ISSUES

The development of administrative agencies

Powers delegated to agencies by Congress

Legislative

Investigative

Adjudicatory

Enforcement

See Exhibits 17.1 and 17.2

Judicial review of an agency’s actions or decisions
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
o
The first federal agency: The Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC,1887)
o
In the early 1900s: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
o
1930s: The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
o
1960s & 1970s: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
o
Few new agencies since then, but roles of some have greatly
expanded.
o
Agency: Tool for local, state & federal regulatory functions
o
See Exhibit 17.1
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CREATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

Congress gives an agency power & authority through
legislative delegation

Congress delegates power to the agency to perform the
regulatory purpose

Congressional statute delegates powers to the agency
through an enabling statute

Agencies are created to have expertise and supervision
over special problems about which Congress is
concerned

If voters/businesses unhappy with regs., can pressure
their representatives in Congress to make changes
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Administrative law consists of legal rules that define authority &
structure of an agency

Sources include


Enabling statutes of administrative agencies

Administrative Procedures Act (APA, 1946)

Rules issued by administrative agencies

Court Decisions: Review validity of agency actions
The structure of administrative law itself is created by the APA

Defines procedural rules and formalities for federal agencies

An agency must abide by APA requirements

Congress may impose different requirements than the APA
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATORY POWERS
o
Legislative (or Rulemaking)
o
Investigative
o
Adjudicatory
o
Enforcement
o
Virtually all powers of the 3 branches of the
government are incorporated into an agency
o
See Exhibit 17.2
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
RULEMAKING
o
o
o
o
o
Formal rules and regulations
Policy guidance documents – Assist those regulated on how to comply
with the law
Substantive or Legislative Rules
• Same force as statutes of Congress
• Agency usually must give public notice of these types of rules and
give parties opportunity for written comment
Interpretative Rules
• Statements issued by an agency to provide guidance regarding
interpretation of a substantive rule or a statute
• These rules may be created without public notice
Procedural Rules
• Rules that outline the method of agency operation
• Procedures used to deal with the public regarding enforcement,
investigation & adjudicatory review
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
RULEMAKING PROCEDURE
o
Proposed rule drafted by the agency staff
o
Internal review of the rule
o
Rules approved by the head of the agency for public consideration
o
Publishing of the proposed rules in the Federal Register
o
Interested parties may submit written comments to agency
o
After public comment period (60-90 days), agency reviews
comments and finalizes the rule
o
Once agency issues final rule, it may be appealed through agency,
then to the U.S. Court of Appeals
o
Courts will respect rule as long as it is reasonable under language
of Congressional statute
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
CHEVRON V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
o
o
o
o
o
o
Clean Air Act requires states with “nonattainment” (dirty
air) areas to create permit program. Program regulates
“new or modified major stationary sources” of air pollution.
EPA regs. state a plant with multiple sources of pollution
are treated as one source of pollution. This is the “Bubble
Concept” – it’s as if multiple sources are under a “bubble.”
The whole “bubble” is measured (rather than each source)
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged
EPA’s “Bubble Rule.” Said rule was inconsistent with
Clean Air Act
Court of Appeals overturned the EPA regulation
Decision was appealed
(Continued)
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
CHEVRON V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
o
o
o
o
o
o
HELD: Reversed. Regulation is appropriate.
Two questions are asked:
• 1. Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue?
• 2. If statute is silent or ambiguous re: an issue, was the agency’s
answer based on permissible construction of the statute?
Agencies are allowed to fill gaps left by Congress. Unless agency
decisions are “arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary” to statute,
regulations will be given controlling weight
Legislative delegation may be implicit or explicit – often implicit.
Courts usually defer to administrative interpretations.
Question here is not whether the “Bubble Concept” is inappropriate.
Question is if Administrator’s view is appropriate and reasonable
regarding the Bubble Program
EPA’s use of the concept is reasonable policy for it to make. The
Bubble Program stays!.
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CYBER LAW
“DO OLD REGULATIONS APPLY TO NEW FORMS OF
COMPETITION?”

Problems with regulating technology related to the
Internet

If a new technology is not covered in a regulation that
governs existing competitors, are the new competitors
covered?

Existing firms want new competitors subject to the
same rules

Problem: If the way the regulations are written does
not envision new inventions – are they really covered
under the regs?
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ENFORCING RULES

Gathering of information and investigating violations

Broad investigative powers of agencies through

Monitoring and self-reporting by business


Direct observation by agency


Business may be concerned with 5th Amendment violations re: self
incrimination (see following slide)
See Dow Chemical v. U.S. (within text)
Agency obtains information through subpoena
power

Directs person receiving subpoena to appear and testify or to
produce documents
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
INVESTIGATIVE POWERS

Information about compliance with federal laws is
obtained in three basic ways:

Regulated businesses are required to self-report.

Direct observation determines if a business is
following the law.

Agency subpoena power is used to require a
business to produce documents.
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ENFORCEMENT POWER
o
o
o
o
Agencies have an array of enforcement tools in civil and criminal
penalties, plus the use of injunctions
Possible sanctions
•
Prohibitions, requirements, limitations
•
Withholding of relief; penalties & fines
•
Destruction, taking, seizing, withholding of property
•
Assessment of damages, reimbursements, restitution, compensation,
costs, charges or fees
•
Requirement, revocation, suspension of license
Informal procedures (i.e. tests, inspections, permits, negotiations,
advice, settlements)
vs.
Formal procedures (i.e. adjudicatory hearings and possible
litigation)
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
BLACK BEAUTY COAL CO. V. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector Franklin entered mine in
Indiana – Operated by Black Beauty. He smelled burning coal; asked miners about it

Company assigned Hammond to escort Franklin. One miner said he had smelled about
30 minutes before.

Investigation continued; nothing specific found.

Franklin proceeded and found place where conveyor belt dumped coal on another belt.
Rip in guard sheet. Pile of coal 2’ x 2’ x 5’ was packed around transfer spot.

Franklin thought it had begun to burn.

Hammond said he would have someone fix the problem.

Franklin said shut down belts.

Hammond refused – he didn’t see evidence of fire.

Franklin issued citation for “high negligence.”

MSHA send Black Beauty a proposed penalty assessment.

Black Beauty rejected proposal. Chose to contest the matter with and administrative law
judge (ALJ).

ALJ agreed with the MSHA and imposed $70,000 fine due to “high negligence”.

Black Beauty petitioned court for review of ALJ decision.
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
BLACK BEAUTY COAL CO. V. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

§75.400 prohibits accumulations of coal dust, but not mere spillages.

Accumulation: “reasonably prudent person, familiar with the mining
industry . . . would have recognized the hazardous condition. . . .”

ALJ found none of evidence explained the smell of burning coal that
occurred 30 minutes before Franklin’s arrival.

“High Negligence” finding based on:


(1) Black Beauty had been cited for several past accumulations of violations
(included belt line accumulations);

(2) Burning smell existed for significant time period;

(3) Villain “should have . . . seen and noted” coal turning in the tail roller; and

(4) Vogel & others did not alert management after noticing burning smell.
HELD: Petition for review denied.
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS

Formal agency process under APA rules

Similar to those followed in a trial

Business must respond to complaint that alleges violation of
agency regulation

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presides

ALJ is a civil service employee who is usually an attorney

Witnesses may be cross examined

Less formal than a court trial

Hearing must meet due process guarantees of the Constitution

However, there is no right to trial by jury

See Exhibit 17.3
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
APA sets out procedural requirements for court review
 Jurisdiction is needed by the court to hear the case
 Action must be reviewable by the courts
 Sometimes review is prohibited by statute, i.e. Dept. of
Veterans Affairs actions regarding benefits for
veterans, their dependents or survivors
 A party must have standing to seek court review of an
agency action
 See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (within text)
 The agency action must be final to warrant judicial review
under the ripeness doctrine
 Parties must complete all agency appeals before turning
to the courts under the exhaustion doctrine

©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
SUMMERS V. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE





The Forest Service Decision Making and Appeals Reform Act of
1992 requires the Forest Service to establish notice, comment &
appeals process for “proposed actions of the Forest Service
regarding projects and activities of land and resource management
plant.”
Certain procedures would not be applied to projects Forest Service
considered excluded from requirements to file an environmental
impact statement (EIS), such as salvage-timber sales of 250 acres
or less.
After forest fire in 2002, Forest Service approved salvage sale of
burned timber on 238 acres. Did not prepare an EIS or provide
formal notice of sale.
Earth Island challenged the sale. District court ordered the sale
stopped. Appeals court agreed with injunction against the sale.
Government asked for review of whether Earth Island could
challenge the Forest Service regulations at issue.
(Continued)
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
SUMMERS V. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE

HELD: Reversed.

Courts cannot challenge the Forest Service’s regulations
under this instance.

Courts should not oversee legislative or executive. action
that significantly alters the allocation of power away from
the democratic form of government.

In addition, there is an issue of standing.

Plaintiff must show that he has standing and has suffered
“injury in fact”.

Plaintiff was not subject to governmental action, which
makes the plaintiff’s case more difficult.
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
REVIEWABILITY


Review Prohibited by Statute
• Congress may specify in the
statute which court has
jurisdiction for review.
• Can prohibit certain judicial
review.
Review of Substantive
Determination
 Usually the courts yield to
an agency’s judgment
unless decisions are
arbitrary, capricious, or an
abuse of discretion or
rulemaking is vague or
unduly burdensome on
business.


Review of Statutory
Interpretation
 Courts determine if the
agency has gone beyond
Congressional authority.
Review of Procedural
Requirements
 Courts will ensure that an
agency has not acted
unfairly or disregarded
procedures (has not
violated “procedural fair
play”).
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CASE
LONE MOUNTAIN PROCESSING V. SECRETARY OF LABOR





Lone Mountain, a mining firm, cited for regulatory violations; was
mailed “notices of contest;” did not respond; did not challenge notices
or respond within 30 days.
MSHA sent delinquency notices. Later Lone Mountain filed motions to
reopen civil penalties from the final order. Agency denied motion
because company “failed to establish good cause” for reopening the
matter. Lone Mountain appealed.
HELD: Court granted petition for review. Remanded the order to the
Commission to reopen its final order.
Commission has much discretion to “reopen” final orders. Lone
Mountain said Commission “abused its discretion” by departing from
its own precedent without explanation.
Agency did not mention/discuss prior orders of leniency in reopening
their final orders. Commission must give reasoned analysis indicting
that prior policies had been changed. Failing to supply this analysis
renders agency’s actions “arbitrary and capricious.”
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CONTROLS ON AGENCIES


Direct Controls
 Congressional budget process
 Agency Appropriations & Reporting Requirements
 Cost-Benefit and Risk Analysis
 Example: Office of Management and Budget may send
proposed regulation back to agency if scientific, technical and
economic information standards are not met
 Presidential Executive Orders instructing tasks to be
undertaken by agencies
 Example: Pres. Johnson’s order to agencies re: affirmative
action programs
Indirect Controls
 Freedom of Information Act
 Privacy Act
 Government in the Sunshine Act
©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.