Overview
Title
Processes and Procedures for Issuance and Use of Guidance Documents
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Justice has decided to stop using some complicated rules, from 2020, that said how they could use their guides. They found these rules were making things harder and not very helpful, so now they're making it simpler to give good advice.
Summary AI
The Department of Justice has finalized a rule that removes certain regulations related to guidance documents, which were introduced in 2020 following Executive Order 13891. This step follows President Biden's Executive Order 13992, which revoked the earlier order to allow more flexibility in agency guidance. The Department found the old regulations unnecessary and burdensome, as they discouraged helpful guidance and required additional resource allocation to determine if documents were subject to these regulations. The Attorney General has issued a new memorandum to address the development and use of guidance documents, reflecting these updated policies.
Abstract
This rule finalizes without change an interim final rule by which the Department of Justice ("Department") removed amendments to its regulations that were made during 2020 pursuant to the now-revoked Executive Order 13891, which had imposed limitations on the use of Department guidance documents in criminal and civil enforcement actions brought by the Department.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has finalized a rule that relates to guidance documents it uses in its work. This final decision follows an interim rule issued earlier and aligns with Executive Order 13992 initiated by President Biden. The aim is to provide DOJ with greater flexibility to address national priorities effectively.
One major change involves the removal of regulations put in place during 2020 under now-revoked Executive Order 13891. The DOJ found these regulations to be unnecessary and burdensome, primarily because they created extra work for DOJ staff in determining if agency documents fell under the scope of "guidance." This often deterred the creation of useful guidance for the public and added complexity to legal processes. After soliciting public comments on the interim rule, during which only two supportive comments were received, the DOJ confirmed its decision to remove these regulations without further changes.
The removal of these regulations could lead to a more streamlined approach in the development and issuance of guidance documents within the DOJ. For the public, especially those directly engaged with or affected by DOJ actions, this might translate to clearer and more accessible guidance on legal matters. However, for those who rely on strict regulatory frameworks, the absence of these might introduce concerns about consistency and oversight.
Significant issues with the document lie in its complexity and accessibility. Complex legal references, such as to specific Executive Orders and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts, might be challenging for the general audience to understand without additional background information or explanations. References to specific document numbers or parts of the Federal Register without context might also cause confusion, particularly for digital readers.
This rule does not seem to carry significant financial implications, as it is clarified under various regulatory acts that no additional costs or unfunded mandates are expected as a result. The revised approach can impact stakeholders differently; regulatory bodies within the DOJ might find increased efficiency and operational flexibility, while external stakeholders—lawyers, businesses, and public entities—might experience changes in how DOJ guidance impacts their operations.
Overall, this rule exemplifies a shift in federal administrative priorities, emphasizing the flexibility of regulatory agencies while attempting to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, albeit with the challenge of ensuring transparency and clear communication remains paramount.
Financial Assessment
The document in question deals primarily with the finalization of a rule regarding the issuance and use of guidance documents by the Department of Justice (DOJ). A key financial aspect addressed within this regulation is its alignment with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The rule explicitly mentions that it will not lead to additional expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, within a single year. This indicates the DOJ's intention to implement the rule without imposing significant financial burdens on smaller governmental entities or the private sector.
This aligns with one of the identified issues that the document does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or create undue financial obligations. The mention of $100 million or more serves as a threshold defined under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, ensuring that any potential financial impact is insubstantial enough not to necessitate additional measures under the act.
The absence of financial impact also implies that the regulation does not require major financial appropriations or reallocations within federal or state budgets. It avoids burdensome costs that would have been a concern if the regulation demanded such significant financial undertakings, which resonate with assurances that no wasteful spending arises from this action.
In summary, financial references in this document ensure transparency regarding financial impact or the lack thereof. By establishing that the implementation of this rule does not incur large expenditures, the Department of Justice aligns with federal guidelines designed to prevent unanticipated financial strain on smaller governmental bodies and private entities.
Issues
• The document uses complex legislative and regulatory references, such as Executive Orders and CFR parts, which might be difficult for a lay audience to understand without additional context or explanation.
• There are references to specific document numbers and page numbers (e.g., 'print page 6805'), which might not be clear to all readers, especially those accessing this document digitally or without the full context of the Federal Register.
• The document contains legal and regulatory terminology, such as 'agency management or personnel and is a rule of agency organization', which might benefit from simplification for broader comprehensibility.
• The supplementary information is lengthy and detailed, potentially overwhelming for audiences unfamiliar with regulatory procedures and government rulemaking processes.
• No potential issues relating to favoritism towards organizations or individuals were identified.
• No potential issues relating to wasteful spending were identified.