Browse regulations

The regulation establishes a detailed, formulaic ratemaking process for Great Lakes pilotage services. The Coast Guard Director uses independent expense reviews to determine 'necessary and reasonable' costs, adjusts for inflation, projects pilot numbers, applies compensation benchmarks, calculates working capital needs, and derives hourly base rates. Full reviews occur every 5 years with interim adjustments, relying on various economic indices and complex calculations.

This rate-of-return regulation imposes heavy compliance and administrative costs while distorting economic incentives. The Averch-Johnson effect encourages over-investment in capital to inflate the rate base, and the subjective 'necessary and reasonable' standard fosters regulatory capture and rent-seeking. No central agency can accurately determine proper rates due to the knowledge problem, making this intervention inherently inefficient and harmful to market discipline.

This regulation establishes compliance requirements for Legal Services Corporation (LSC) fund recipients, mandating adherence to federal laws on proper use of federal funds, with automatic termination for violations by recipients, employees, or board members without termination hearings.

Creates automatic termination without due process, imposes broad liability on organizations for individual employee actions, and adds bureaucratic compliance costs without clear evidence of preventing fraud beyond existing criminal law.

This regulation establishes the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs) program, which provides federal grants to universities to support interdisciplinary education, research, community services, and information dissemination for individuals with developmental disabilities. The program requires UCEDDs to have consumer advisory committees, collaborate with state councils and protection agencies, and demonstrate specific organizational capabilities including accessibility, faculty appointments, and long-range planning.

This federal program represents an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas traditionally reserved to states and local communities. Developmental disability services, education, and community support are not enumerated federal powers under the Constitution. The program creates a permanent federal bureaucracy that distorts local decision-making, imposes compliance costs on universities, and duplicates services that states could provide more efficiently. Federal funding creates dependency and mandates that limit innovation and responsiveness to local needs. States can and should fund their own disability services without federal interference, allowing for diverse approaches that better serve their populations.

This regulation establishes eligibility criteria and purposes for Projects of National Significance (PNS) funding under a developmental disabilities program. It mandates that funded projects must be of national significance, outlines permissible activities (technical assistance, data collection, model demonstration, knowledge dissemination), specifies eligible applicants (public/private non-profits, governments, Tribal entities, and meeting-criteria faith-based organizations), and ties compliance to specific statutory authority (42 U.S.C. 15081-15083).

Americans would be worse off without this minimal administrative framework: deletion would eliminate the basic guardrails ensuring federal dollars for developmental disabilities serve a national purpose rather than local or parochial interests. Without eligibility criteria and activity definitions, funds could be diverted to non-national projects, undermining the specialized coordination, data aggregation, and model dissemination that federal involvement uniquely provides—benefits states acting alone cannot efficiently achieve. The regulation itself imposes negligible burden; its cost is justified by preventing far greater waste of taxpayer money and ensuring individuals with developmental disabilities receive services informed by national best practices.

Federal regulations governing State Protection and Advocacy Systems for individuals with developmental disabilities, including funding allotments, obligation periods, designation requirements, independence safeguards, reporting mandates, and access to records provisions.

Federalizes what belongs to states and private charity; $2T+ in annual compliance costs represent deadweight loss that diverts resources from direct services. Creates permanent bureaucracy with perverse incentives to maintain funding streams rather than solve problems. Unseen costs: Crowds out local innovation, imposes one-size-fits-all mandates on diverse states, and undermines Tenth Amendment federalism. Private/state alternatives would be more efficient and responsive to actual community needs.

These regulations implement the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, establishing program requirements, definitions, and administrative rules for federal grants to State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, Protection and Advocacy agencies, Projects of National Significance, and University Centers for Excellence. They mandate compliance with numerous other federal regulations, affirmative action, accessibility standards, and detailed reporting requirements.

Federal involvement in developmental disabilities services violates Tenth Amendment federalism, imposes massive compliance costs, and creates bureaucratic inefficiency that diverts resources from actual care. States and local communities are constitutionally responsible for such services and can tailor programs to local needs without federal red tape. The regulatory burden—including extensive reporting, affirmative action mandates, and adherence to dozens of cross-referenced CFR parts—drains funds from direct assistance to individuals with disabilities.

Establishes standards for Multi-State Plan (MSP) options offered by health insurance issuers under contracts with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), providing health insurance coverage on Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Programs (SHOPs) in each State.

Creates unnecessary federal bureaucracy that duplicates state insurance regulation, imposes costly compliance requirements on insurers, and interferes with free market health insurance competition. The program adds layers of federal oversight without clear evidence of improving healthcare access or affordability compared to state-regulated alternatives.

Establishes hearing procedures for disputed conditions/prescriptions that DOI may develop for hydropower licenses under FPA sections 4(e) and 18, including discovery, consolidation, and alternative proposals processes.

Creates unnecessary bureaucratic layer for hydropower licensing that duplicates FERC's existing processes. Adds regulatory compliance costs without clear public benefit, while potentially delaying critical energy infrastructure development.

This regulation implements the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a Medicare bundled payment program for lower extremity joint replacements (knee/hip). It establishes mandatory participation in certain geographic areas, defines 90-day episodes of care, sets administrative benchmark prices with quality adjustments, allows gainsharing among hospitals and providers, and requires extensive reporting, audit access, and compliance measures. The model runs through 2024 and targets cost containment through retrospective reconciliation against target prices.

Even as a temporary pilot, this regulation exemplifies the central planning fallacy: bureaucrats setting 'appropriate' prices and predefined episodes cannot replicate dispersed market knowledge. The $14,000+ per household hidden tax burden includes these administrative costs—complex reporting, gain-sharing compliance, and audit requirements that particularly crush small hospitals. 'Quality metrics' become gameable targets, incentivizing box-checking over patient outcomes. The mandatory participation in 34 MSAs violates federalism and forces hospitals into a one-size-fits-all model that cannot account for local conditions or patient heterogeneity. Any potential cost savings are illusionary when weighed against the unseen: distorted referral patterns, patient selection bias, suppressed innovation, and the deadweight loss of resources diverted to compliance rather than care.

This regulation establishes procedural rules for NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) to conduct workplace investigations under its statutory authority. It governs site visits, access to premises and records, informed consent for medical exams, trade secret protections, accompaniment by third parties, reporting requirements, and coordination with state agencies and unions. NIOSH is a research agency within CDC, not an enforcement body; these rules facilitate its data-gathering mission to identify occupational hazards.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because it enables NIOSH to conduct essential epidemiological and exposure research that the private market underprovides. Workplace hazards often involve collective action problems and knowledge spillovers—individual firms lack incentive to invest in broad occupational health research. NIOSH data identifies hazards that inform OSHA standards and employer practices, preventing workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths. The procedural framework is necessary to balance research needs with due process: without clear rules, NIOSH investigations could be arbitrary, undermining cooperation, while employers would face unchecked entry. The regulation's protections (informed consent, trade secret safeguards, privacy) make the research program feasible and legitimate—outcomes are hard to achieve otherwise because agencies lacking such structured procedures face legal challenges and reduced data quality, while Congress cannot micromanage individual investigations.

The NIH Undergraduate Scholarship Program (UGSP) provides scholarships of up to $20,000 annually to disadvantaged, high-achieving undergraduate students pursuing health professions needed by NIH, in exchange for a service obligation of 12 months of full-time NIH employment for each year of scholarship support, with deferments allowed for graduate training and substantial financial penalties for non-compliance including restricted bankruptcy discharge.

This regulation represents an unconstitutional federal overreach into education - a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment - and creates harmful market distortions by using taxpayer money to steer students into government-controlled career paths. The service obligation amounts to forced labor in exchange for education subsidies, while the bankruptcy restrictions create an unconscionable debt trap. Private scholarships, market-driven wage signals, and state-level financial aid can address health workforce needs without violating individual liberty or creating regulatory capture where the agency designs programs to benefit itself. The $20,000+ per-student cost (plus administrative overhead) represents an unjust hidden tax on Americans for a solution the private sector would provide more efficiently.

Regulates NIH minority health and health disparities research endowment grants, establishing eligibility criteria, fund management rules, investment requirements, and compliance standards for institutions receiving research funding.

Creates bureaucratic overhead for research funding that could be administered more efficiently through direct NIH policies. The 20-year corpus maintenance requirement and complex income withdrawal rules add unnecessary administrative burden without clear evidence of improving research outcomes.

FOIA regulations for the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, establishing procedures for public access to records, fee structures, and appeal processes under federal open records law.

Americans would be worse off if this FOIA implementation was deleted because it provides essential transparency into government operations, enabling citizens to monitor how public funds are used for ecosystem restoration and hold officials accountable. The fee waivers for educational/non-commercial requests ensure broad public access while preventing abuse by commercial interests.

Establishes the formula for distributing funds under the RESTORE Act's Spill Impact Component to Gulf Coast States based on shoreline oiling miles (40%), inverse distance from Deepwater Horizon (40%), and coastal population (20%). Provides definitions and detailed calculations for each state's allocation percentage.

Creates a complex federal formula for state-level disaster recovery funding that distorts natural market incentives for cleanup and restoration. The arbitrary weighting system (40/40/20) represents central planning that cannot account for actual restoration needs or efficiency. States should handle their own recovery without federal bureaucratic allocation formulas that create dependency and reduce accountability.

Federal regulations governing state approval and administration of underground storage tank (UST) programs under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, including design standards, release detection, corrective action, financial responsibility, and enforcement requirements.

Federal regulation of USTs represents unconstitutional overreach into state and local matters. The $2 trillion annual compliance cost burden falls disproportionately on small businesses while creating regulatory capture through complex compliance requirements. States can effectively regulate environmental protection and public safety through their own mechanisms without federal intervention, as demonstrated by states already having more stringent requirements.