Talk:Code of Federal Regulations

Untitled

There's a good, concise description, with references, of how agency rules are created on my Government Publications & Legal Documents page. Look for Code of Federal Regulations under Index of Government Publications and Legal Documents. I don't want to spam the actual article myself, but other editors should feel free to put the CFR information from my webpage in the Wikipedia article if a link to my webpage is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Executive (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue of manuals

Section "Effect of administrative law", the fourth and final paragraph begins with "Despite the informality of such manuals". The problem is "manuals" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Two levels in the hierarchy of the law are discussed in the article, the USC and the CFR with the former being superior to the latter. The introduction of the term "manuals" infers a third level in the hierarchy. My understanding that such a level exists (e.g. USPTO publishes the Manual of Patent Examiner Procedure, MPEP., and as explained in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Manual_of_Patent_Examining_Procedure, it is separate from and inferior to USC and CFR). It seems that this is an example of that to which "such manuals" is referring. This being the case, a clear explanation of the use and authority of "manuals" in the legal system should be added to this article. Thisisdavid (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because User:Voidxor did a really incompetent edit on 7 December 2011 that deleted the preceding paragraph (drafted by me) which explained what the hell those manuals are. I'll put it back. Thanks for catching that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Incompetence is defined as lacking ability to successfully complete a task. I will gladly fix any coherence problems, but not by reinstating unsubstantiated weasel words. If you draw issue other editors' work, kindly notify them instead of indiscriminately criticizing it. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pulling the remaining sentence altogether. What you've created is a incoherent non sequitur that has been further wrecked by other editors and is now factually incorrect.

If you don't understand why that sentence standing by itself is incoherent, I suggest rereading my prior text which you deleted, which explained the issue already. The underlying problem is that those manuals BY DEFINITION are not promulgated through the APA process and are not part of the CFR. If you don't understand what's wrong with that (or what's the structural problem with administrative law in general and why it's so controversial), then you need remedial courses in political science, political philosophy, and American government. (Most community colleges offer such courses.) I don't have time to teach a nonlawyer basic concepts which any first-year law student understands by their sixth week of law school. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Title 47 scope

Hi friends -- I apologize that I don't know much about editing Wikipedia, but there is something that should be updated regarding Title 47.

The article has: Title 47: Telecommunication (also known as the "FCC Rules", administered by the Federal Communications Commission).

However, Title 47 also has rules from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Security Council, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

For the contents of Title 47, see http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title47/47tab_02.tpl.

173.10.74.81 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How's this? We probably don't want a huge amount of detail on this set of one-liners, but Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations probably could use an overhaul to incorporate the regulations promugated by the other agencies: the Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Security Council, National Telecommunications and Information Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. TJRC (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Issa material

The article was modified by [1] to add the following material in the history section.

"On March 11, 2014, Rep. Darrell Issa introduced the Federal Register Modernization Act (H.R. 4195; 113th Congress), a bill that would revise requirements for the filing of documents with the Office of the Federal Register for inclusion in the Federal Register and for the publication of the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the changed publication requirement in which the Code of Federal Regulations would be available online but would not be required to be printed."

My problem with this is that it is only a House resolution and presumably has not been passed into law. On top of that what is the notability of the material?... Why would the reader want to know this...

Secondarily, this material needs to be from secondary not primary sources.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

I propose reverting article in the next 15 days. Thanks Risk Engineer (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for asking all your questions. Here are a few points.

First, the bill is a "bill" not a "resolution". Resolutions, unless they are joint resolutions, are only passed by one chamber (House or Senate) and never become law. A bill must be passed by both chambers and signed into law by the president in order to become law. This bill was passed in the House. Whether the Senate will get to it before year's end remains an open question.

Second, who knows why a reader might want to know! People want to know all sorts of things. I felt that this was relevant information for the article. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the committee responsible for oversight and making changes in the government. If Congress is considering making changes to how the Code of Federal Regulations is being published, don't you think some people might care? The American Association of Law Libraries strongly opposes the bill and thinks it undermines citizens' right to be informed. (This is cited on the bill page). Clearly they care.

Third, why remove the material? It's not like the article is too long or has too much information. Very little history is provided about the CFR - I don't see how it hurts to add a little more. In general, I'm always in favor of including information, instead of removing it.

Fourth, I'm aware of Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources. I like to use the summaries from the Congressional Research Service for legislation because it removes bias. People can't accuse me (or others) of writing biased (for or against) summaries of legislation if a neutral government (public domain) source wrote the summary instead. Several secondary sources are cited on the bill's article page.

Finally, in light of your concerns, I'll add a little bit more to this article about the bill to better demonstrate notability and include some secondary sources. Hopefully that will be better.

Again, thanks for mentioning your concerns. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The bill has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. Only a small fraction of all bills in Congress make it that far through the process. Two thoughts: 1) I might not be divining your thinking well, Risk Engineer, but calling this discussion "Issa material" suggests that it was mention of the bill's author that piqued your interest. He's a polarizing figure, and the article would be just as informative without naming him. Would it help to remove that detail? 2) If the bill dies, I'd say it's not important enough to keep in the article after that time. I'd offer a friendly amendment to your proposal: revert (or amend) in light of what happens or doesn't happen on passage of the bill or its death the end of the 113th Congress (early Jan. 2015). JimHarperDC (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)