Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

So will this also do away with patent protection and trade marks?

Patents and Copyrights are literally in the constitution (the IP Clause). Trademarks are protected under state and federal law. The US Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency and could be affected if Chevron is overturned but patent protection itself isn’t going anywhere.

Congress's power to grant patents and copyrights is in the constitution. But Congress has to pass legislation to do it, just like it has to do when it is setting up administrative agencies. The PTO has rule making authority just like most administrative agencies, and they get Chevron deference just like them. So if Chevron is overruled, it will give courts more power to second-guess PTO's rules and may lead to less (or more) patent protection depending on the political whims of the judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.

Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.

Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario. Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Cost of doing business, and privilege of an expert who will keep you from destroying your own industry.

If this is such a wonderful idea, why don't all businesses have a full-time government apparatchik?

We should be able to delete posts like yours that assume a premise that does not exist. Lies mess up all discussion.

[Anonymous]

Regulations are liability protection by specifying the minimum requirements to comply with a law. Most regulatory agencies are friendly to the industry they regulate because interest groups and friendly Members of the House and Senate make it so.

Whatever companies save by negating regulations, they will spend much more on attorneys and end up with uncertain and changing requirements dictated by various court cases. There won’t be no rules. There will be a jumble of case-by-case rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regulations are liability protection by specifying the minimum requirements to comply with a law. Most regulatory agencies are friendly to the industry they regulate because interest groups and friendly Members of the House and Senate make it so.

Whatever companies save by negating regulations, they will spend much more on attorneys and end up with uncertain and changing requirements dictated by various court cases. There won’t be no rules. There will be a jumble of case-by-case rules.

It certainly is a boon for class action tort lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.

Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.

Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario. Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.

You’ve lost the plot. Agencies are not the legislative branch. If Congress isn’t funding something it is not the role of the agencies to step in and create a funding mechanism—or, more accurately, the courts should NOT be giving deference to the agencies just because Congress didn’t fund something.

If Congress wants something funded the CONGRESS will fund it. It is not for the agencies to usurp that role for themselves. And the agencies should receive zero deference when they do. You are literally making the case for killing off Chevron, a doctrine that might have done some good had agencies been willing to check themselves.

It really doesn’t matter how noble your intent is. Every tyrant in history thought their cause was just. Your language alone proves what a mess the regulatory state has become. “We must do something draconian because Congress is refusing to act.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.

Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.

Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario. Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.

You’ve lost the plot. Agencies are not the legislative branch. If Congress isn’t funding something it is not the role of the agencies to step in and create a funding mechanism—or, more accurately, the courts should NOT be giving deference to the agencies just because Congress didn’t fund something.

If Congress wants something funded the CONGRESS will fund it. It is not for the agencies to usurp that role for themselves. And the agencies should receive zero deference when they do. You are literally making the case for killing off Chevron, a doctrine that might have done some good had agencies been willing to check themselves.

It really doesn’t matter how noble your intent is. Every tyrant in history thought their cause was just. Your language alone proves what a mess the regulatory state has become. “We must do something draconian because Congress is refusing to act.”

And what shall we do when Republicans in Congress refuse to govern? What then? What shall we do when their worldview exists in opposition to reality and is also so shortsighted as to guarantee some kind of collapse later? Just whistle?

[Anonymous]

It’s a fun workaround.
Refuse to do uphold your end of the constitutional bargain.
Point back at unfunded agencies trying to function within a dysfunctional system created by republicans.

[Anonymous]

Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.

Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.

Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario. Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.

You’ve lost the plot. Agencies are not the legislative branch. If Congress isn’t funding something it is not the role of the agencies to step in and create a funding mechanism—or, more accurately, the courts should NOT be giving deference to the agencies just because Congress didn’t fund something.

If Congress wants something funded the CONGRESS will fund it. It is not for the agencies to usurp that role for themselves. And the agencies should receive zero deference when they do. You are literally making the case for killing off Chevron, a doctrine that might have done some good had agencies been willing to check themselves.

It really doesn’t matter how noble your intent is. Every tyrant in history thought their cause was just. Your language alone proves what a mess the regulatory state has become. “We must do something draconian because Congress is refusing to act.”

The fees usually by the "user" in lieu of having it be a general government obligation.
The fines are meant to try to gain compliance as compliance is usually cheaper than the fines.

This has been the normal practice, well, since people started baying for drivers licenses and building permits 100+ and more years ago.

Or are you suggesting that the average taxpayer should also be subsidizing building permits and drivers licenses for all? Even if doesn't own or drive a car, or doesn't own or build buildings? (just by way of example)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.

Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.

Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario. Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.

You’ve lost the plot. Agencies are not the legislative branch. If Congress isn’t funding something it is not the role of the agencies to step in and create a funding mechanism—or, more accurately, the courts should NOT be giving deference to the agencies just because Congress didn’t fund something.

If Congress wants something funded the CONGRESS will fund it. It is not for the agencies to usurp that role for themselves. And the agencies should receive zero deference when they do. You are literally making the case for killing off Chevron, a doctrine that might have done some good had agencies been willing to check themselves.

It really doesn’t matter how noble your intent is. Every tyrant in history thought their cause was just. Your language alone proves what a mess the regulatory state has become. “We must do something draconian because Congress is refusing to act.”

And what shall we do when Republicans in Congress refuse to govern? What then? What shall we do when their worldview exists in opposition to reality and is also so shortsighted as to guarantee some kind of collapse later? Just whistle?

Go through the political process of winning the votes you need to accomplish your political goals. “We need to ignore democracy to save the world” is the rallying cry of every tyrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.

So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.

Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.

Congress passed a law and if they want it enforced, they need to fund it.

The issue here is that if the agency doesn't respond in a draconian way, in 2-3 years, the industry won't be viable anymore because the region will be very fished and the species won't be available for capture and consumption. It is a classic 'cut off your nose to spite your face' scenario. Way back when, Arthur Treachers used icelandic cod for their fish. The industry overfished and the arthur treacher product declined significantly because it was to expensive to continue to use icelandic cod, so they switched to an inferior species.

Have you hear of Icelandic Cod or Arthur Treachers anymore?

Me neither.

You’ve lost the plot. Agencies are not the legislative branch. If Congress isn’t funding something it is not the role of the agencies to step in and create a funding mechanism—or, more accurately, the courts should NOT be giving deference to the agencies just because Congress didn’t fund something.

If Congress wants something funded the CONGRESS will fund it. It is not for the agencies to usurp that role for themselves. And the agencies should receive zero deference when they do. You are literally making the case for killing off Chevron, a doctrine that might have done some good had agencies been willing to check themselves.

It really doesn’t matter how noble your intent is. Every tyrant in history thought their cause was just. Your language alone proves what a mess the regulatory state has become. “We must do something draconian because Congress is refusing to act.”

The fees usually by the "user" in lieu of having it be a general government obligation.
The fines are meant to try to gain compliance as compliance is usually cheaper than the fines.

This has been the normal practice, well, since people started baying for drivers licenses and building permits 100+ and more years ago.

Or are you suggesting that the average taxpayer should also be subsidizing building permits and drivers licenses for all? Even if doesn't own or drive a car, or doesn't own or build buildings? (just by way of example)

Go back and re-read the 10th Amendment. The federal government is one of limited powers, which have been specifically delegated to it by the people. All other powers rest with the states. The states can do almost whatever they want when it comes to building permit and driver’s license fees. Why do you think that is applicable here is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

I can't wait until lawyers have to make decisions on the safety and efficacy of our medicine that require PhD level understanding of drug safety, biostatistics, clinical science, biochemistry, drug metabolism, immunology, genetics, veterinarian medicine, among a plethora of other technical knowledge. Lol, ask a lawyer how many hours they've spent in lab handling and working with something like a CRISPR gene editor. We are going to rely on a bunch of no knowledge legal buffoons that have zero background in engineering or science to make absolutely critical decisions that could impact the safety of the entire world around us.


The nightmare scenarios have no limits. Imagine lawyers and judges getting it wrong for something like crop biotechnology that proposed gene editing to make more disease resistant plants. Oopssie, they idiot lawyers and judges with no scientific knowledge end up allowing a company to let a gene modified organism out into the wild and it causes a gene drive that ends up wiping out all native species and ends up failing as a crop. It would be a catastrophe for food supplies or for so many other plants. So many other nightmare scenarios can happen where you approve some kind of genetic medicine that gets into the wild and spreads throughout the propulsion on the planet because some idiot judge or lawyer that approved the product had zero technical expertise to even be able to adequate evaluate the risks for biocontaiment.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is literally how we get Children of Men in real life. A gene therapy that can replicate gets out because some idiot had the idea that it would be great to treat a disease, a stupid judge with no scientific education allows it to proceed, and the therapy ends up being shed into the wild where it ends up having unforeseen consequences like making people sterile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

Uh, do you know the professions and expertise of our elected officials?

Do you want Jim Jordan writing water policy?
Or Matt Gaetz crafting regulation for particulates in fertilizer?
Or Marge Greene opining on the gauge width electric charging tubes?