Browse regulations

This regulation from the early 1970s establishes procedural rules for making various federal tax elections, including DISC (Domestic International Sales Corporation) elections, net lease determinations, and depreciation elections under the ADR system. It specifies filing deadlines (many long-passed, e.g., March 9, 1972), consent requirements, and revocation procedures. The regulation is heavily procedural, dealing with election mechanics rather than substantive tax policy.

This regulation is obsolete and creates needless compliance costs. All key deadlines (1971-1973) have long passed, making it a 'zombie rule' that serves no current purpose. Keeping it violates rule of law principles by maintaining a confusing, impossible-to-navigate labyrinth of deadwood. Taxpayers and professionals waste resources to confirm irrelevance. The underlying statutory provisions have likely been superseded or repealed; retaining archaic procedural rules adds zero value but inflates the CFR's 185,000-page burden.

This regulation governs obsolete tax credit election procedures for the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, specifying how prior elections from 1972 apply to additional investment tax credits for public utility property. It sets a June 28, 1975 deadline for taxpayers to make certain elections and contains detailed rules for calculating credits as if the 1975 Act had not been enacted.

These rules apply to taxable years ending over 50 years ago, with filing deadlines that expired in 1975. Maintaining this obsolete regulation creates unnecessary complexity in the Code of Federal Regulations without serving any current purpose, imposing compliance burdens on the IRS to preserve dead letter rules and confusing researchers with anachronistic provisions. The regulation provides zero benefit to any living American and represents pure regulatory bloat that should be expunged to reduce clutter and improve the accessibility of active regulations.

Regulation provides detailed rules for computing foreign base company income of controlled foreign corporations, determining which income is currently subject to U.S. taxation under Subpart F. It defines categories (passive holding, sales, services, shipping, oil income), establishes de minimis (5% or $1M) and full inclusion (70%) thresholds, allows a high-tax exception (90% of max U.S. rate), includes anti-abuse aggregation, and specifies deduction allocation and character rules.

The regulation imposes massive compliance costs that distort international business decisions, create barriers for smaller firms, and contribute to an incomprehensible tax code. Its complexity undermines rule of law and the hidden tax burden outweighs any revenue protection benefits.

Federal housing assistance program for Native Americans providing grants for repair, renovation, replacement, or new construction of substandard housing for neediest families with no other resources, administered by Bureau of Indian Affairs through tribal or regional offices.

Federal housing assistance for Native Americans creates dependency on government, distorts housing markets on reservations, and violates principles of self-reliance and private property. The program's means-testing and categorical restrictions create perverse incentives and bureaucratic barriers that prevent market-based solutions from emerging. States and tribes should handle housing assistance through their own programs without federal intervention.

Regulation establishes BIA procedures for granting rights-of-way across tribal lands, individually owned Indian lands, and BIA lands. It requires BIA approval, detailed applications, bonds/insurance, fair market compensation, and incorporates tribal law while deferring to tribal decisions. Includes exemptions for service lines and certain Federal Power Act projects.

Necessary to fulfill federal trust responsibility for fragmented trust land ownership and protect vulnerable Indian landowners from exploitation, while the regulation explicitly defers to tribal sovereignty and includes narrow scope with multiple exemptions that limit federal overreach.

Federal regulations establishing procedures and criteria for determining whether petitioning groups qualify as federally recognized Indian tribes, including documentation requirements, community standards, and political authority tests established since 1994.

Creates an expansive federal bureaucracy that determines tribal legitimacy through complex documentation requirements, effectively replacing traditional self-governance with federal oversight. The regulations impose significant compliance costs on indigenous communities and create a centralized approval process that contradicts principles of limited government and local autonomy.

This regulation establishes procedures for the Department of the Interior to conduct federal elections for federally recognized tribes when required by statute or tribal governing documents to adopt, amend, or revoke governing documents or charters. It covers voter eligibility, election administration, ballot procedures, and technical assistance requirements.

This regulation represents federal overreach into tribal self-governance, creating costly bureaucratic procedures for elections that tribes could conduct independently. The complex administrative framework, mandated voter registration systems, and federal election oversight impose unnecessary compliance burdens on tribes while potentially undermining tribal sovereignty. The $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance cost burden suggests even seemingly targeted regulations like this create disproportionate administrative overhead that could be eliminated by allowing tribes to manage their own electoral processes according to their own traditions and governing documents.

Federal program mandating GSE funds to states for affordable housing for very low-income households, with formula allocations, complex eligibility rules, and extensive administrative requirements.

Tenth Amendment violation federalizing local housing policy; creates heavy compliance costs and market distortions; private and state solutions more efficient; unseen economic burdens outweigh benefits.

HUD's FOIA procedures and rules for responding to legal demands, establishing timelines, fee structures, and appeal rights for public record requests and subpoena compliance.

Deleting these regulations would undermine FOIA's transparency goals by allowing arbitrary, inconsistent handling of requests. The procedural framework ensures timely, fair access to government records through mandatory timelines, clear fees, and appeal processes that prevent bureaucratic obstruction. Without formal rules, HUD could evade disclosure, reduce accountability, and create apatchwork of practices that would be harder for citizens to navigate, ultimately shielding agency actions from public scrutiny.

Regulation prescribes detailed federal requirements for procurement of engineering and design services for highway projects funded by Federal-aid Highway Program, mandating qualifications-based selection (Brooks Act), complex cost accounting standards, conflict of interest rules, DBE preferences, and extensive state agency paperwork and approval processes.

Imposes massive compliance costs on small engineering firms and state agencies while suppressing price competition through mandated qualifications-based selection. Federal micromanagement violates Tenth Amendment federalism, raising barriers to entry and protecting incumbent firms. The unseen costs—reduced competition, higher project prices, bureaucratic overhead, and stifled innovation in procurement—far outweigh any marginal quality benefits.

This regulation provides a federal loan guarantee for Jordan, pledging up to $1.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds to ensure repayment of Jordanian government debt securities, with detailed procedures for compensation claims and arbitration for disputes.

This creates moral hazard by having U.S. taxpayers guarantee foreign government debt, exposing American citizens to billions in potential losses for obligations that should remain between Jordan and its creditors. It distorts international capital markets, encourages fiscal irresponsibility in recipient countries, and represents unconstitutional foreign aid through backdoor financial mechanisms rather than direct congressional appropriation.

This regulation prescribes the procedures and standard terms for up to $1 billion in loan guarantees issued by USAID to support Ukraine's borrowing, pledging the full faith and credit of the United States to guarantee 100% of principal and interest on eligible notes issued by Ukraine between April 2015 and May 2015.

This loan guarantee program transfers private credit risk to U.S. taxpayers, violating limited government principles and distorting market discipline. By guaranteeing 100% of principal and interest, it creates moral hazard, encourages reckless lending to foreign governments, and forces American households to subsidize bondholders who would otherwise price Ukraine's actual credit risk. Such foreign aid should be transparently funded through direct appropriations, not opaque contingent liabilities that expose taxpayers to unbounded obligations without consent. The program also exemplifies regulatory overreach, using USAID's development mandate for geopolitical objectives rather than economic development, and represents the type of mission creep that expands federal power far beyond constitutional bounds.

Sets procedures for appointing U.S. Foreign Service Officers and specialists, including citizenship and age requirements, testing (FSOT), evaluation (QEP), oral assessment (FSOA), background checks, medical exams, suitability reviews, and appointment limits. Includes veterans' preference and worldwide availability mandates.

Deletion would eliminate essential vetting and standards for diplomatic representatives, risking national security, intelligence leaks, and incompetent foreign representation that directly harms American interests abroad.

Establishes current good manufacturing practices and preventive controls for animal food facilities, requiring hazard analysis, preventive controls, monitoring, training, and recordkeeping, with exemptions for very small businesses, farms, and certain low-risk activities.

The compliance burden—including hazard analysis, preventive controls, and extensive recordkeeping—imposes significant costs on businesses, particularly small operations, and exceeds the benefits given existing state oversight and private safety mechanisms. The knowledge problem prevents effective one-size-fits-all mandates, while regulatory costs reduce competition and raise prices for consumers.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulations establishing current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) for food processing facilities, including hazard analysis, preventive controls, employee training, and facility requirements to prevent contamination and ensure food safety.

Americans would be worse off without these regulations as they prevent foodborne illness outbreaks that cause thousands of hospitalizations and deaths annually. The costs of food poisoning, product recalls, and loss of consumer confidence far exceed compliance costs, and the regulatory framework provides a science-based standard that protects public health while allowing businesses to operate safely.