Interesting. Thanks for the background and links. So this is how federal agencies that report to the executive branch legislate. I had always wondered what the actual process was.
There is a semantic difference between a law i.e. something passed by Congress and signed by the president versus a regulation promulgated by a regulatory body. That regulatory body dervies it's power to regulate from law. But in a purely technical sense it is not a law.
Executive Orders do not have the force of law. They are essentially suggestions. Federal agencies try to follow them, but Executive Orders can’t supersede actual laws.
This analysis makes sense only if you believe the President can do whatever he wants in an executive order. Of course, he can't. Executive orders have only the flexibility allowed by Congress. You've read the text of the order, but not the laws its based on, and those laws contradict your analysis.
Re: 4(c) Executive orders creating causes of action is a very hairy topic. In theory, executive orders are instructions by the President to the bureaucracy to guide the executive's exercise of discretion delegated by Congress. They are not laws and generally are not construed to affect the rights of third parties by creating causes of action.
Re: 4(b), every action of the executive is subject to the availability of appropriations.
An EO is not going to change precedent or case law about what is considered a restraint of trade by the supreme court. Executive orders are instructions by the President to the executive branch, not to the legislature or courts.
reply