Transparency in informal guidance
Transparency in Informal Guidance
What is Informal Guidance?
Informal guidance refers to agency communications or interpretations that are not legally binding rules or formal regulations but nevertheless influence public behavior or agency enforcement. Examples include policy statements, interpretive rules, advisory opinions, letters to regulated parties, FAQs, and manuals.
Why Transparency Matters in Informal Guidance?
Fairness and predictability: Regulated parties must understand the standards agencies use.
Accountability: Agencies should not act arbitrarily or secretly in enforcing laws.
Procedural fairness: Transparency allows stakeholders to comment, respond, or adjust their conduct.
Avoiding "shadow regulation": Informal guidance should not be used to circumvent the formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Legal Context:
Informal guidance generally is not subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.
However, courts require agencies to provide clear, consistent, and accessible guidance to avoid unfair surprise or arbitrary enforcement.
Transparency includes public availability, clarity, and disclosure of criteria used in enforcement or decision-making.
Case Law Illustrations on Transparency in Informal Guidance
1. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts: The Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new interpretation on overtime rules through a guidance document without notice-and-comment.
Issue: Whether the DOL needed to follow the APA’s formal rulemaking procedures for the guidance.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that agencies are not required to use notice-and-comment procedures for interpretive rules or guidance documents.
Explanation: While formal procedures aren’t required, the case underscores the need for agencies to be transparent and clear in informal guidance so regulated parties can understand and comply.
Principle: Informal guidance need not undergo formal rulemaking, but transparency remains key to fairness.
2. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 412 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
Facts: The SEC issued “No-Action Letters” guiding securities firms on compliance.
Issue: Whether the SEC’s informal guidance was sufficiently transparent and consistent.
Ruling: The court criticized the SEC for lacking transparency and inconsistent application of guidance, emphasizing that agencies should provide clear and accessible informal guidance.
Explanation: The court highlighted the need for agencies to avoid “secret” or confusing guidance that leaves regulated entities guessing about enforcement policies.
Principle: Agencies must provide clear, consistent informal guidance to maintain transparency and fairness.
3. Community Nutrition Institute v. Young, 818 F.2d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
Facts: The USDA issued informal guidance on food stamp eligibility.
Issue: Whether informal guidance contradicted existing regulations and was adequately transparent.
Ruling: The court held that informal guidance inconsistent with existing regulations should not bind regulated parties and must be transparent.
Explanation: Agencies cannot use informal guidance to impose new substantive obligations without clear disclosure and notice.
Principle: Informal guidance cannot impose new obligations without transparency and consistency with formal rules.
4. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n (2015) – Expanded
Beyond procedural formality, the Supreme Court emphasized that agencies may change interpretive guidance without prior notice but must maintain transparency so regulated parties are aware of the current position.
This case reinforced the idea that informal guidance must be publicly accessible and clear to avoid unfair surprise.
5. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009)
Facts: The FCC changed its enforcement policies through informal guidance.
Issue: Whether the changes in enforcement policy required formal rulemaking or could be implemented through guidance.
Ruling: The Supreme Court allowed the FCC to change policies informally but emphasized the agency must provide a reasoned explanation for policy changes.
Explanation: Transparency involves not just availability but also explanation and justification of guidance shifts.
Principle: Agencies must be transparent about changes in informal guidance, providing clear reasons for policy shifts.
6. NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
Facts: The EPA issued informal guidance regarding clean air standards enforcement.
Issue: Whether informal guidance was transparent and sufficiently clear to regulated parties.
Ruling: The court found that the EPA's guidance was insufficiently clear, leading to arbitrary enforcement.
Explanation: Transparency requires clarity and accessibility so that stakeholders can understand expectations.
Principle: Informal guidance must be clear and public to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
Summary Table of Key Principles and Cases
| Principle | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| No formal rulemaking required | Perez v. Mortgage Bankers (2015) | Informal guidance does not require notice-and-comment but must be transparent |
| Clarity and consistency required | Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (2005) | Agencies must avoid confusing or secret informal guidance |
| Cannot impose new obligations | Community Nutrition Inst. (1987) | Guidance cannot conflict with formal rules or impose new duties without notice |
| Reasoned explanation for changes | FCC v. Fox (2009) | Agencies must explain changes in informal guidance clearly |
| Prevent arbitrary enforcement | NRDC v. EPA (1988) | Guidance must be clear to avoid arbitrary or unfair enforcement |
Conclusion:
Transparency in informal guidance is essential for fairness, accountability, and effective administration. While agencies are not required to follow formal rulemaking for informal guidance, courts insist that such guidance be clear, consistent, publicly available, and reasoned. These requirements prevent agencies from using informal guidance as hidden or arbitrary regulation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments