Latest news with #CodeofFederalRegulations
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
FMCSA streamlines regulations on truck routing, civil penalties
WASHINGTON — The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is making changes to two truck safety regulations to eliminate potential red tape and improve consistency and clarity for the industry. In a final rule that takes effect on Friday, FMCSA is repealing for-hire motor carrier routing regulations as they relate to serving municipalities and unincorporated communities, according to a notice posted on Tuesday. 'The purpose of this final rule is to remove an outdated regulation … as it no longer accurately reflects the agency's current statutory authority,' FMCSA stated. The motor carrier routing regulation authorizes freight carriers and freight forwarders to serve points within the commercial zones and territorial limits of municipalities and unincorporated communities. However, federal law does not authorize FMCSA to include routing limitations when granting operating authority to U.S.-domiciled motor carriers, the agency stated, which makes the motor carrier routing regulation obsolete. 'This final rule will remove the obsolete regulation thereby streamlining the CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] and eliminating a source of possible confusion for stakeholders.' Final rules issued by FMCSA are routinely preceded by a notice-and-comment period. That will not happen in this case, because 'retaining regulations that are unlawful is plainly contrary to the public interest,' the notice states. 'Agencies thus have ample cause and the legal authority to immediately repeal unlawful regulations. Furthermore, notice-and-comment proceedings are unnecessary where repeal is based purely on legal analysis. For these reasons, FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary.' In another final rule posted on Tuesday, a civil penalties schedule update, FMCSA is amending its regulations to remove the reference to rules under the Transportation Department's 'Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Program' from the agency's civil penalty schedule. 'Instead, the civil penalty schedule will refer solely to the part of the Code of Federal Regulations where this program is incorporated' into the regulations, FMCSA stated. 'Because the rule does not impose any new material requirements or increase compliance obligations, it is issued without prior notice and opportunity for comment.' The agency explained that removing the reference to DOT's drug and alcohol testing procedures will not affect FMCSA's enforcement programs because any recordkeeping violations relating to testing for controlled substances and alcohol would be cited under a different part of the CFR. 'The amendment made in this final rule serves to remove an erroneous reference and to improve clarity for stakeholders,' FMCSA stated. 'It is technical in nature and does not impose any new material requirements or increase compliance obligations.' FMCSA unveils 18 proposed rule changes DOT takes heat for drug testing certification delays Lawmakers look at expanding FMCSA's power to rein in cargo theft Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher. The post FMCSA streamlines regulations on truck routing, civil penalties appeared first on FreightWaves.
American Military News
19-05-2025
- Business
- American Military News
Trump reverses major Biden regulations, bans on home appliances
President Donald Trump's Department of Energy announced 'slashes' to 47 government regulations on Monday, including major reversals on former President Joe Biden's ban on gas stoves and standards for other household appliances. In a Monday press release, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it had implemented the 'first step' as part of the 'largest deregulatory effort in history' by 'proposing the elimination or reduction of 47 regulations that are driving up costs and lowering quality of life for the American people.' The Department of Energy added that once the regulations are eliminated or reduced, the Trump administration's actions are expected to save American citizens roughly $11 billion while eliminating over 125,000 words from the Code of Federal Regulations. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, the Department of Energy tweeted, 'Today, the DOE launched the LARGEST one-day deregulatory action in U.S. history — smashing all records. We slashed the red tape, eliminating 47 regulations. NEVER have so many harmful regulations been removed in ONE SINGLE DAY.' Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright also released a statement on X, saying, 'The government's purpose is to serve the American people, not limit freedom and dictate choices.' Wright added that the 47 deregulatory actions will ultimately 'strengthen' the choice and freedom of the American people. The Trump administration's actions included cutting dozens of regulations that were imposed by the Biden-Harris administration on household appliances, such as gas stoves, dryers, clothes washers, dishwashers, microwaves, dehumidifiers, shower heads, and faucets. READ MORE: No 'mass loan forgiveness,' Trump admin says in major Biden reversal 'It should not be the government's place to decide what kind of appliances you or your restaurants or your businesses can buy,' Wright told The Washington Free Beacon. 'Everybody wants clean air and wants to lower their energy costs and run their factories good as they can. The big hand of government doesn't actually help that process at all.' Wright added, 'We will look for every way we can to protect freedom of the American worker and pursue President Trump's agenda, get rid of the nonsense, bring back common sense, make life more affordable, and opportunities greater.' The Washington Free Beacon reported that under former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm's leadership, the Biden administration implemented dozens of regulations on home appliances as part of the administration's effort to shift Americans away from natural gas and increase the use of electric appliances. In Monday's press release, Wright said that while it would typically take the Department of Energy years to 'remove just a handful of regulations,' the president's administration has 'assembled a team working around the clock to reduce costs and deliver results for the American people in just over 110 days.'
New York Post
14-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump strikes a righteous blow against the feds' rabid criminal code
After mountain runner Michelino Sunseri ascended and descended Grand Teton in record time last fall, his corporate sponsor, The North Face, heralded his achievement as 'an impossible dream — come true.' Then came the nightmare: Federal prosecutors charged Sunseri with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail for using a trail that the National Park Service described as closed, although it had never bothered to clearly inform the public of that designation. Sunseri unwittingly violated one of the myriad federal regulations that carry criminal penalties — a body of law so vast and obscure that no one knows exactly how many offenses it includes. Advertisement An executive order that President Donald Trump issued last week aims to ameliorate the injustices caused by the proliferation of such agency-defined crimes, which turn the rule of law into a cruel joke. The Code of Federal Regulations 'contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages — far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand,' Trump's order notes. 'Worse, many [regulations] carry potential criminal penalties for violations.' Advertisement How many? As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and co-author Janie Nitze note in their 2024 book on 'the human toll of too much law,' even experts cannot say for sure, although 'estimates suggest that at least 300,000 federal agency regulations carry criminal sanctions today.' At the federal level, in other words, regulatory crimes outnumber statutory crimes — another uncertain tally — by a factor of roughly 60 to 1. Since the latter category has exploded during the last century, that is no small feat, but it is what you might expect when unaccountable bureaucrats are free to invent crimes. Advertisement 'Many of these regulatory crimes are 'strict liability' offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime,' Trump notes. 'This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it.' Trump said prosecutors generally should eschew criminal charges for regulatory violations based on strict liability and focus on cases where the evidence suggests the defendant knowingly broke the rules. Trump also instructed federal agencies to 'explicitly describe' conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations, and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes. Advertisement Given the enormous volume and range of federal regulations, that last requirement is a tall order. But if the agencies that issue those regulations cannot specify all of the violations that can trigger criminal penalties, what hope does the average American have? Those penalties may not be readily apparent, because 'you need to consult at least two provisions of law to identify regulatory crimes,' GianCarlo Canaparo, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained in Senate testimony this month. A regulation that says 'Swiss cheese must have holes throughout the cheese,' for example, says nothing about criminal prosecution, which is authorized by a separate provision of the US Code. Canaparo noted other examples gathered by Mike Chase, author of the comical yet accurate book 'How to Become a Federal Criminal.' It is a federal crime, for instance, 'to sell a tufted mattress unless you have burned 9 cigarettes on the tufted part of it,' 'to submit a design to the Federal Duck Stamp contest if your design does not primarily feature 'eligible waterfowl,'' and 'to sell a small ball across state lines unless it is marked with a warning that says, 'this toy is a small ball.'' Advertisement Getting a handle on this bewildering situation will require more than prosecutorial restraint, a matter of discretion that is subject to change at any time. Canaparo argues that Congress should eliminate 'excess federal crimes,' add mens rea ('guilty mind') requirements to provisions that lack them, and recognize a defense for people who did not realize their conduct was unlawful. As he notes, rampant overcriminalization makes a mockery of the old adage that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Joke
After mountain runner Michelino Sunseri ascended and descended Grand Teton in record time last fall, his corporate sponsor, The North Face, heralded his achievement as "an impossible dream—come true." Then came the nightmare: Federal prosecutors charged Sunseri with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail for using a trail that the National Park Service described as closed, although it had never bothered to clearly inform the public of that designation. Sunseri unwittingly violated one of the myriad federal regulations that carry criminal penalties—a body of law so vast and obscure that no one knows exactly how many offenses it includes. An executive order that President Donald Trump issued last week aims to ameliorate the injustices caused by the proliferation of such agency-defined crimes, which turn the rule of law into a cruel joke. The Code of Federal Regulations "contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages—far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand," Trump's order notes. "Worse, many [regulations] carry potential criminal penalties for violations." How many? As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and co-author Janie Nitze note in their 2024 book on "the human toll of too much law," even experts cannot say for sure, although "estimates suggest that at least 300,000 federal agency regulations carry criminal sanctions today." At the federal level, in other words, regulatory crimes outnumber statutory crimes—another uncertain tally—by a factor of roughly 60 to 1. Since the latter category has exploded during the last century, that is no small feat, but it is what you might expect when unaccountable bureaucrats are free to invent crimes. "Many of these regulatory crimes are 'strict liability' offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime," Trump notes. "This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it." Trump said prosecutors generally should eschew criminal charges for regulatory violations based on strict liability and focus on cases where the evidence suggests the defendant knowingly broke the rules. Trump also instructed federal agencies to "explicitly describe" conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes. Given the enormous volume and range of federal regulations, that last requirement is a tall order. But if the agencies that issue those regulations cannot specify all of the violations that can trigger criminal penalties, what hope does the average American have? Those penalties may not be readily apparent, because "you need to consult at least two provisions of law to identify regulatory crimes," GianCarlo Canaparo, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained in Senate testimony this month. A regulation that says "Swiss cheese must have holes throughout the cheese," for example, says nothing about criminal prosecution, which is authorized by a separate provision of the U.S. Code. Canaparo noted other examples gathered by Mike Chase, author of the comical yet accurate book How to Become a Federal Criminal. It is a federal crime, for instance, "to sell a tufted mattress unless you have burned 9 cigarettes on the tufted part of it," "to submit a design to the Federal Duck Stamp contest if your design does not primarily feature 'eligible waterfowl,'" and "to sell a small ball across state lines unless it is marked with a warning that says, 'this toy is a small ball.'" Getting a handle on this bewildering situation will require more than prosecutorial restraint, a matter of discretion that is subject to change at any time. Canaparo argues that Congress should eliminate "excess federal crimes," add mens rea ("guilty mind") requirements to provisions that lack them, and recognize a defense for people who did not realize their conduct was unlawful. As he notes, rampant overcriminalization makes a mockery of the old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." © Copyright Creators Syndicate Inc. The post The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Joke appeared first on
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Activist' judges keep trying to curb Trump's agenda – here's how he could push back
President Donald Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges for blocking key executive orders in his second term, accusing so-called "activist" judges of overstepping their authority and blocking him from delivering on some of his top policy priorities. Some of Trump's most sweeping executive orders and actions have been blocked or paused by federal courts to allow for a full hearing on the merits. But the system of checks and balances also means these rulings can be reviewed – either through appeals to the Supreme Court or by Congress, which has the power to pass laws or expand certain executive branch authorities. It's all part of an expressly designed system of government that affords each branch, including the presidency, plenty of options for review. The Framers "made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king– the president included – and not just in name only," U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia said in a ruling earlier this year. But that's not to say Trump is without options. Here's how he could seek to push back against the wave of court actions. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court Read On The Fox News App Since taking office, Trump's executive orders have been challenged by hundreds of lawsuits in federal court, though not all have been successful, and some remain in the earlier stages of review. Plaintiffs have sought to block the dismantling of certain federal agencies, to restore board heads and inspectors general fired by Trump, and to restrict the access of Elon Musk's government efficiency agency, DOGE, among other things. But like the groups filing the lawsuits, the Trump administration also has the ability to appeal any lower court decisions it views as unfavorable or going beyond the scope of the federal court. In the interim, it can seek an emergency stay to restore the executive order until the case can be heard on its merits. The Supreme Court has agreed to do so in several major cases. It sided with Trump in removing two federal board members he had fired earlier this year, and which a lower court had reversed. Last week, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that paused Trump's ban on transgender military members from taking effect – allowing his order and related policies to proceed, at least for now. Boasberg Grills Doj Over Remarks From Trump And Noem, Floats Moving Migrants To Gitmo In Action-packed Hearing The Trump administration can seek more lasting change by working with the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to codify its biggest policy priorities, shielding the level of review currently afforded to the courts in the absence of any legislation. According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president's executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress. Plaintiffs in federal court have alleged that Trump's recent executive actions are beyond the scope of what has been authorized by Congress – and, in the absence of clearly written laws, federal judges do have broad authority to interpret the lawfulness of the executive's actions. Critics of the courts have pushed for Congress to curtail this power – either by stripping the funding for federal courts, impeaching judges or eliminating judicial seats, among other things. "When federal judges take off their judicial robes and climb into the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches from the Article III project," Mike Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, or A3P, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And when the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy, it loses everything," Davis said. But these steps are highly controversial, and it's unclear if they could garner the broad support needed from both the House and Senate. Here's Why Dozens Of Lawsuits Seeking To Quash Trump's Early Actions As President Are Failing Options available to the White House are more limited by the Constitution. The president can appoint federal judges, but he cannot fire them. The executive branch is also responsible for enforcing court rulings and may either slow-roll or de-prioritize decisions the president disagrees with. Meanwhile, Trump allies have also sought to push back on the power of the courts in other, more unorthodox ways. The America First Legal Foundation, a pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller in between Trump's first and second terms, filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, earlier this month. The lawsuit accuses both parties of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of the "core functions" of the judiciary – and which they argue should put them under the thumb of the executive branch. "An American president is not a king – not even an 'elected' one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute," Howell said in a case involving the reinstatement of two fired federal board members earlier this article source: 'Activist' judges keep trying to curb Trump's agenda – here's how he could push back
