The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly claimed that it has the authority to unilaterally garnish the wages of individuals who have been accused of violating its rules.
According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order."
The notice went on to say that the EPA had fast-tracked the new rule, enabling it to take effect September 2 unless the agency receives enough adverse public comments by August 1. The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a "significant regulatory action."
The EPA has claimed this new authority by citing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which gives all federal agencies the power to conduct administrative wage garnishment, provided that the agency allows for hearings at which debtors can challenge the amount or the terms of a repayment schedule.
In response to the report, an EPA spokeswoman also pointed to a Department of Treasury rule from 2011 outlining debt collection for various agencies, including the EPA.
"Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG) would apply only after EPA attempts to collect delinquent debts and after Treasury attempts to collect delinquent debts through other means," the spokeswoman told FoxNews.com. The spokeswoman added that the agency would provide notice "prior to any action," giving the debtor the opportunity to "review, contest or enter into a repayment agreement."
The plan has drawn protests from conservatives, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who told The Washington Times, "The EPA has a history of overreaching its authority. It seems like once again the EPA is trying to take power it doesn’t have away from American citizens.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation claimed that the rule gives the EPA "unbridled discretion" over the process of challenging fines. David Addington, group vice president for research at Heritage, told the Times that the rule not only puts the burden of proof on the debtor, rather than the agency, but also allows the EPA to decide whether a debtor even gets a chance to present a defense before picking whomever it chooses to serve as a hearing officer.
The amount of money the EPA has collected in fines has increased steadily since President Obama took office. In 2012, the agency took in $252 million in fines, up from just $96 million in 2009.
Remember Obama didn't like the US Constitution because it outlined what a government couldn't do to the citizens but not what the government could do. Well just as always he has found another way around that.
Earl
[This message has been edited by aqua-man (edited 07-11-2014).]
EPA is a child of NIXON has been staffed by GOP idiots far too long I am not the least surprised by their actions
but our rightwing shows their true agenda by calling for the EPA destruction as massive pollution will quickly follow
So you're complaining about the EPA being a Nixon-era GOP organization, AND complaining that conservatives call for abolishing it. You're pissed it was created and pissed if it's disbanded. What would it take to please you - other than the death of anyone more conservative than you?
Yes they need to go, totally scrap it and build a new program. It was a good idea, and heck we do need something like what it's original concept was. There are many organizations that were founded on legitimate needs and purpose that have been basterdized by the power hungry and corrupt.
not if you have a turbo E-85 makes real power at hi- boost and is cheap
Not in mine. I am sure there are some examples one could come up with where an engine would perform better but I am willing to bet it would not even be a measurable percentage of cars in use today.
Ethanol is the worst thing to happen for just about everybody. It took my Formula from being a mid 20's average to 18 mpg and worse than getting crappy mileage is the loss of power. Same with my Chrysler turbo but not as bad.
Following the revelation that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to garnish wages without a court order to collect non-tax debts (i.e. misused grant funds, unrepaid loans or “fines, penalties or fees assessed by federal agencies”), the EPA has sought to defend its proposed rules.
The agency cites The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) as its authority for these rules and called it proposed rule “noncontroversial.” It is curious that the agency tucked these rules into the Federal Register as everyone was headed out for the July 4th vacation.
In a Politico story, part of defense offered by EPA was that it had to put these rules forward as “the same Treasury guidelines apply to all federal agencies that refer delinquent non-tax debts to Treasury for Collection.” This is not reassuring. If correct, this means we can soon expect similar rules to garnish wages without a court order from other agencies that have the power to fine citizens. Are such rules in the pipeline for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the Bureau of Land Management?
No matter what the EPA says, it is just wrong for an agency to allege violations, impose fines and then garnish wages without a court order. The whole process is stacked against citizens and ripe for abuse. There are, however, a variety of simple fixes: •First, Congress could use its power of the purse and simply prohibit the use of any funds for garnishing wages without a court order as regards fines or penalties imposed by an agency. Given EPA’s warning that other agencies are likely to follow, it could be widely applied. •Second, Congress could overturn the EPA regulation or the underlying 1998 Treasury regulation.
o It could do so by adding due process requirements to the DCIA, crafting procedures that would not be so stilted in favor of the agency.
o More directly, it could simply require that, in the case of fines or penalties, an agency obtain a court order for wage garnishment.
o It could even amend the DCIA to limit garnishment to non-regulatory debts.
There are other possible fixes, but the point is this: This is a problem that Congress should be easily able to analyze and fix in a bipartisan manner.
An EPA spokesperson tried to assuage fears stating that, before wages could be garnished for fines, alleged violators are given prior notice and the opportunity to “review, contest or enter into a payment agreement.”
When one reads regulations’ fine print that opportunity is not so encouraging. Under EPA’s proposed system, the agency gets to unilaterally decide whether there is an oral hearing or whether it will decide the case based on the paper record. If there is an oral hearing, EPA has unbridled discretion to choose where. So, if you are from Alaska for example, the EPA could decide the oral hearing for your alleged violations will be in Washington DC. Tough luck.
Also, according to EPA’s proposed system, when you arrive your hearing official will be someone picked by the very agency that has sought to impose the fine. EPA gets to designate any individual the agency considers “qualified” for that job. Could EPA’s view of “qualified” include the official who imposed the fines in the first place? Who knows? Finally the standards basically put the burden of proving one’s self innocent on the citizen. While most see this as ridiculously stacked, this is the EPA’s notion of“adopting hearing procedures that … provide due process.”
There is no reason to tolerate this behavior. It is regulators gone wild and should be nipped in the bud.
I don't like this statement in particular: “the same Treasury guidelines apply to all federal agencies that refer delinquent non-tax debts to Treasury for Collection.”
