Transparency in regulatory guidance
🔹 1. Introduction
Regulatory guidance refers to statements issued by administrative agencies to explain how they interpret or plan to enforce laws and regulations. Unlike formal rules, guidance documents:
Are typically non-binding
Do not go through public notice-and-comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Are used to clarify obligations, fill in technical details, or signal enforcement priorities
However, transparency is critical because guidance documents can function like binding law in practice, especially when regulated parties feel compelled to follow them to avoid penalties.
🔹 2. Legal Issues Involving Regulatory Guidance
Is the guidance binding in effect?
Did the agency bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking?
Was the guidance clearly published or was it applied secretly?
Does the guidance create new legal obligations?
Can courts review informal guidance?
Transparency is key because opaque guidance can undermine:
Due process
Fair notice
Public participation
Accountability
🔹 3. Landmark Case Law on Transparency in Regulatory Guidance
✅ 1. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Facts:
The EPA issued a guidance document interpreting provisions of the Clean Air Act without formal rulemaking.
Issue:
Was the guidance actually a legislative rule that required public notice-and-comment?
Judgment:
The D.C. Circuit held that the document had binding effect in practice and thus required APA rulemaking.
Significance:
Substance over label: Courts look at how a document functions, not how it’s described.
Warned agencies that guidance cannot be used to evade transparency and APA requirements if it has binding effect.
✅ 2. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)
Facts:
Customs Service issued classification rulings without formal procedures. The agency claimed these deserved Chevron deference.
Issue:
Should informal guidance get strong judicial deference?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court said no Chevron deference, but allowed for Skidmore deference based on the guidance’s persuasiveness.
Significance:
Reduced power of non-transparent, informal interpretations.
Encouraged agencies to use formal, participatory processes for binding rules.
✅ 3. Syncor International Corp. v. Shalala, 127 F.3d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
Facts:
The FDA issued guidance that effectively changed how certain drugs were regulated, without going through rulemaking.
Issue:
Was the guidance legally binding, and thus subject to notice-and-comment?
Judgment:
The court found that the FDA’s guidance substantively changed existing law and therefore required APA compliance.
Significance:
Reinforced that substantive policy shifts must be done transparently.
Agencies can’t disguise lawmaking as mere “guidance.”
✅ 4. General Electric Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
Facts:
EPA issued a guidance manual affecting how it evaluated cleanup sites under Superfund law.
Issue:
Was this manual a rule subject to APA procedures?
Judgment:
The court ruled the guidance was non-binding and merely interpretive. But it emphasized that agencies must not coerce compliance through informal documents.
Significance:
Even when documents are not “rules,” coercive application without transparency can make them unlawful.
Agencies must clearly communicate the non-binding nature of guidance.
✅ 5. Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
Facts:
EPA published a technical guidance for air quality modeling, impacting state air quality implementation plans.
Issue:
Could states challenge EPA’s use of unpublished, informal guidance?
Judgment:
The court found that guidance lacking transparency and public availability couldn’t be the basis for enforcement or compliance actions.
Significance:
Agencies must ensure guidance is publicly accessible.
Secret or internal policies cannot be used to enforce regulatory compliance.
✅ 6. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
Facts:
The Department of Labor changed its interpretation of a wage rule without public comment.
Issue:
Did the agency have to use notice-and-comment to revise its guidance?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court said no, rejecting the D.C. Circuit’s "Paralyzed Veterans Doctrine." However, it noted that frequent or inconsistent changes in guidance can undermine legal certainty.
Significance:
Agencies can revise interpretive guidance without notice-and-comment, but must do so openly and consistently.
Still affirms the importance of transparency and predictability.
🔹 4. Key Legal Takeaways
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Form vs. Function | Courts look at the practical effect of a document, not just its label. |
| Binding Effect Requires Rulemaking | If guidance has legal or coercive effect, it must follow APA rules. |
| Transparency Requirement | Guidance must be publicly available and understandable. |
| Deference Based on Process | Informal guidance gets less judicial deference than formal rules. |
| Skidmore vs. Chevron Deference | Informal guidance may earn Skidmore respect if it is persuasive. |
| No Secret Law | Agencies cannot enforce unpublished or internal policies. |
🔹 5. Conclusion
Transparency in regulatory guidance is essential to maintain the legitimacy of agency rulemaking. Courts have consistently held that:
Agencies must not disguise binding rules as informal guidance,
Regulated entities deserve clear notice of their obligations, and
The public must be able to understand and access the policies that affect them.
While agencies are allowed to issue guidance to explain complex rules or offer enforcement discretion, they must do so openly, clearly, and without coercion—or risk having that guidance struck down in court.
RELATED Blog
0 comments