Lstd300 Administrative Law And Policy Assessment Answers

3)Identify the key actors involved.

4) Explain the role of special interest,(to include the media)in garning support for SB11.

5) Determine special interests influence in outcome of SB11.

6) Interpret how results may have differed without special interest involvment and spin. Support paper with a minimum of five scholarly resources in addition to text. Addition to those specified resources, othe approprate scholarly resources, including older article.may be included. Paper should demonstrate thouhtful consideration ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thouhts and insights relationing directly to th topic. 

Answer:

Brief overview of SB 11:

In an exertion to justify the process of adjudication, permit appeals were created to streamline the decision-making system with Department of Environmental Quality. Two bills were introduced by the legislation to cut down the conflict of interest between the boards. Senate bill 11 and senate bill 21 was introduced by Utah legislature and both the bills were passed by the Utah Senate during the year 2012 on January 25. The Utah House of Representatives passed the Senate Bill 11 with the favourable vote of 21-4 on February 1, 2012 (Ballesteros, 2015). The governor on March 22, 2012 signed the Senate Bill 11. Both the bill SB 11 and SB 21 were passed by the representatives of Utah House of Representatives with a favourable vote of 47-18 and came into law on March 23, 2012.

Depiction of chain of events leading to the development of SB 11:

SB-11 authorizes record adjudicative review of DEQ environmental permit decision by utilising the appellate-type process format instead of the formal trail type evidentiary hearing which is mandated by the Utah Administrative Procedural Act (UAPA).   

The SB 11 was developed by UAPA hearing procedures, which continued to remain applicable on the proceedings of DEQ, and did not had the involvement of issuance or denial of environmental permits for civil enforcement proceedings (Santos & Menjivar, 2014). The main reason the behind the adoption of the SB 11 is to implement administrative process of review, which is identical to the presently utilized procedure applied by the US environmental protection agency.

The major reason behind the adoption of SB 11 is the review of state environmental permits that is codified under Part 124 of the CFR (Congress, 2015). The part 124 is applicable to all the permit agency of the EPA decision based on the federal level. Instead of indulging in trail type of evidentiary hearing, the federal system implements an on the record view of the agency decision while granting the challenges permitted under SB 11. The procedure of review under SB 11 is limited to the administrative record with very few opportunity of gathering supplementary evidences. EPA, just like the state of Utah makes the use of administrative hearing for adjudicating the review of certain kinds of environmental permits (Stotsky, 2016). The development of SB 11 is most notably to employ the EPA in the larger parts since the early United States court of Utah discharges the authorization under the clean water act. It is noteworthy to denote that the appeals to the interpretation of the CWA requires necessary formal evidences for hearing under the federal administrative procedure act.

Identification of the involvement of key factors:

In the early years of 1980 it was apparent that the formal trail type of adjudicative hearings were identified as inefficient and were not necessary in the legal procedure for reviewing the environmental permits (Hale, 2017). EPA commenced the procedure of modifying the process of adjudicative hearing rules by shifting away from the formal trial type evidentiary hearing. This was done to make the procedure of adjudication more efficient. Identically, the opinions of the two federal appellate courts raised the question concerning the validity of the earlier decisions, which mandated the formal procedure of evidentiary hearings.

The same was stated in the case of Chem. Waste Mgmt. v. United States where congress did not expressed its intention of public hearing stated under section 404 of trial type hearing. For instance in the case of chemical waste management it was found that D.C circuit would approve the procedural rules which was adopted by the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  so that it can authorise the procedure of administrative hearing (Legislature, 2015). In addition to this, several key factors were identified where it was found that the appellate court specifically cited the seacoast and marathon oil decision. The appellate tribunal also stated its intention in the process of formal adjudication since the presumption would arrogate the court in introducing its own expertise to bear the resolution depicted in the statute of the congress.

Explanation to the role of special interest in support of SB 11:

The recent trend was far away from the formal adjudication hearings for the federal environmental permits continuing from the 1990 to 1995 (Dodge, 2014). As published by the federal agencies The SB 11 plays an important role in reviewing and eliminating the obsolete or burdensome rules. In response to this, during December 11, 1996 the federal register was published by the federal agencies, which outlined the rules, projected regulations proposed in the national pollutant discharge elimination systems. Apart from this, SB 11 plays a vital role in determining the procedural rules, which is required in hearing the trial type review of CWA permits.

SB 11 acts as a major contributor of the revised permits in order to review the permit appeals laid down by the EPA to replace the evidentiary hearing procedures. EPA had justified the actions by referring to the formal evidences through directly appealing to the environmental appeals. One of the primary arguments concerning the implementation of SB 11 was the experience of EPA in the process of evidentiary hearing procedure (Burden et al., 2016). It was found that there were significant amount of delay in the issuance of permits without any notable cause. EPA has preserved the process primarily due to the concerns relating to the legality of the adopting less formal procedures.

Determining the special interest influencing the outcome of SB 11:

During the year 2000, EPA finalised the new administrative procedure of adjudication, which was, codified under 40 CFR part 124. This helped in adoption of single set of procedural rules for all the environmental permits by reviewing in lieu of the formal trial type, which was evident during the procedure of evidentiary herring (Matthew McCathran et al., 2015). As stated in the preamble associated with the final rule that several environmental boards consist of the individuals who by state statute represents a specific constituency impacted by a programme being overlooked by the board. The influence of special interest as stated in the Utah law helps in development and retaining of formal process of adjudications proceeding which was necessarily required under CWA section 402 (a).

The outcomes of the special interest 11 is influenced due to the process of reliable public interest. Therefore, EPA is currently considered as one for the adoption of the proposed rule, which helps in eliminating the hearing procedures. The federal model of the record review proceedings which SB 11 intends to emulate by helping in permitting the review challenges. This inefficiently caused several delays (Perry & Larson, 2017). It is noteworthy to denote that instead of adopting the on the record review procedure for environmental permits implementing the SB 11 has resulted in better front up challenges in meeting the challenges of drafting and effectual review.

Interpretation of results without the involvement of special interest involvement:

The two new DEQ statutes, which was passed by the Utah general session during 2012, holds the intention of improving the competence and usefulness of the DEQ division (Dodge, 2014). SB 11 was designed following the adjudication process of reviewing environmental permits. Utah made the adoption of similar process, which was promulgated by EPA so that it can improve the adjudication process of permit review. The ideas were transformed to dramatically improve the procedure of rulemaking and policy functions of DEQ division boards.

Reference:

Ballesteros, R. A. (2015). Arizona's Senate Bill 1070: Understanding the Judicial Process, Constitutionality, Future and Effects of the Law.

Burden, C. B., Birken, A. S., Carricaburu, J. P., Jones, K. K., Derrick, V. N., Downhour, P., ... & Whittier, N. R. (2016). Groundwater conditions in Utah, spring of 2016 (No. 57). Utah Department of Natural Resources.

Campbell, Kim, Cade Charlton, John Maynes, and Richard West. "Utah." Journal of Education Finance 39, no. 3 (2014): 283-286.

Dodge, Y. (2014). Department of Mathematics and Statistics Utah State University. Statistical Data Analysis and Inference, 113.

Hale, K. (2017). Returning to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the 2000 Utah State Legislature. Hinckley Journal of Politics, 7.

Legislature, M. (2015). Senate Bill 2868.

Matthew McCathran, J. D., Anderson, B., Hermitte, S. M., & Aff, M. P. (2015). Groundwater Production Monitoring in the State of Texas.

Perry, S. C., & Larson, R. L. (2017). Key Texas Senate and House water committee chairmen discuss water issues of the 85th Legislature. Texas Water Journal, 8(1), 13-17.

Santos, C., & Menjivar, C. (2014). Youths’ perspective on Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona: The socio-emotional effects of immigration policy. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 7(2).

Stotsky, S. (2016). Michigan Senate Bill 826: Replace Common Core with pre-2011 Massachusetts Standards. Nonpartisan Education Review, 12(2).