Browse regulations

This regulation establishes the rules for IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) federal grant awards to museums, including eligibility criteria, application procedures, compliance requirements, and definitions of what constitutes a museum. It incorporates OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR part 200) with IMLS-specific additions.

Federal funding of museums is constitutionally dubious (Tenth Amendment - not an enumerated power) and creates a costly bureaucratic apparatus that distorts the museum ecosystem. Taxpayer money should not be used for cultural institutions that have historically thrived on private philanthropy and local support. The regulatory burden attached to accepting federal funds falls disproportionately on smaller institutions, and central planning of cultural funding in Washington invites political capture and misallocation away from genuine market demand.

DHS incorporates OMB's Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200) on federal awards into its regulations, making it binding and allowing agency supplements.

Imposes a rigid, centralized compliance burden on DHS grant recipients, inflating administrative costs, advantaging large organizations, and supplanting flexible, context-sensitive rules that could be better tailored through agency discretion or negotiated agreements.

This regulation establishes Department of Labor policies for administering federal financial assistance, including prior approval requirements, questioned cost definitions, intellectual property licensing, accounting procedures, audit resolution processes, and appeal mechanisms. It supplements OMB guidance with specific DOL procedures for grant management and oversight.

This regulation creates extensive bureaucratic overhead that increases administrative costs for both government and recipients. The prior approval requirements, complex audit procedures, and mandatory open licensing impose significant compliance burdens without clear evidence of improving outcomes. These costs are largely unseen - the resources consumed by compliance could otherwise be used for actual program delivery, while the regulatory uncertainty discourages innovation and efficient operations.

This regulation implements Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, establishing rules for the disposition and use of equipment purchased with federal grant funds. Equipment vests in the purchasing criminal justice agency or nonprofit if they certify it will be used for criminal justice purposes; otherwise, title vests in the State office, which must first seek other criminal justice uses in the State before alternative use or disposal.

Deleting this would risk wasteful use of federal grant funds and equipment diversion from essential criminal justice purposes - a standard, low-cost condition on federal spending that ensures taxpayer money serves its intended public safety objectives.

This regulation incorporates OMB grant guidance (2 CFR part 200) into SBA rules, restricts pass-through entities and subawards to those expressly authorized by statute, imposes broad conflict of interest prohibitions on SBA award recipients and their personnel, establishes criteria for deviating from negotiated indirect cost rates, requires audited financial statements from non-federal entities not subject to the Single Audit Act, and references program-specific regulations for SBA grant programs.

The regulation imposes significant compliance burdens on small businesses and nonprofits, increasing administrative overhead and transaction costs. Restrictions on pass-through entities and subawards limit flexibility and partnership opportunities. Overly broad conflict of interest rules may prohibit legitimate business relationships. Indirect cost rate restrictions prevent efficient resource allocation based on local knowledge, creating a knowledge problem. These burdens disproportionately affect small entities, raising barriers to accessing SBA programs and diverting resources from core business activities.

This NARA/NHPRC regulation prohibits grant recipients from using federal funds for indirect costs, requiring instead that such costs be covered through cost sharing. It adopts OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 200 but makes an exception for indirect costs, and references other NARA grant administration rules in 36 CFR.

Creates unnecessary regulatory burden by diverging from standard OMB indirect cost policies, increasing compliance costs and administrative complexity—especially for small nonprofits and businesses. Restricting indirect cost recovery distorts incentives, reduces grant effectiveness, and disadvantages smaller entities with limited cost-sharing capacity. This internal funding preference does not require binding regulation and could be set through grant terms instead.

NSF's implementation of federal award financial reporting requirements, including the Award Cash Management Service (ACM$) and Program Income Worksheet for collecting award-level financial data from grant recipients

Federal cash management and financial reporting for research grants creates unnecessary bureaucratic overhead, distorts institutional priorities, and represents federal overreach into state/local research administration that should be handled at the institutional level without federal micromanagement

Mandates HUD to follow the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR part 200) for federal awards to non-federal entities, ensuring uniform administrative, cost, and audit requirements across agencies.

Deletion would fragment grant administration, forcing recipients to comply with HUD-specific rules in addition to uniform standards used elsewhere. This increases compliance costs, especially for small entities, and creates inconsistencies that undermine predictability. Uniformity requires a cross-agency mandate to prevent bureaucratic silos.

Requires the Social Security Administration to comply with 2 CFR part 200, which establishes uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards.

Imposes significant compliance costs on SSA and grant recipients without clear evidence that the standardized requirements are necessary for accountability; alternative oversight mechanisms could achieve the same objectives at lower cost and with less burden, especially on small entities. The regulation contributes to the $2 trillion regulatory burden and creates unnecessary knowability issues.

Incorporates OMB's Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200) for Corporation for National and Community Service award recipients, specifying award instruments, matching fund rules, fixed-amount subawards, and administrative cost limits for national service programs.

Imposes unnecessary compliance costs on nonprofits by extending federal grant bureaucracy to national service. Creates barriers for small organizations and represents federal overreach into civic sphere. The unseen cost is reduced participation due to administrative burden and complexity.

NASA's regulation implementing the Drug-Free Workplace Act for its grants and cooperative agreements, adopting OMB guidance with NASA-specific requirements, violation definitions, waiver authority, and flexibility for international obligations and debarred entities.

Standard implementation with minimal incremental burden, appropriate flexibility mechanisms, respects federalism and international obligations, and poses no significant market distortions relative to existing statutory framework.

EPA-specific supplement to OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200), governing grant administration including participant support costs (rebates for pollution control equipment), program income use, consultant salary caps, quality assurance requirements, and dispute resolution procedures.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance burdens on state and local governments, nonprofits, and other grant recipients—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers—while federalizing what should be state and local responsibilities. The participant support provisions create market distortions by picking winners in pollution control technology. The elaborate administrative requirements (quality assurance systems, procurement standards, detailed dispute processes) represent the bureaucratic accretion that Mises and Hayek warned against, expanding the administrative state rather than achieving outcomes more efficiently through state action or market mechanisms. The hidden tax of compliance violates the principle that laws must be knowable and concentrates disproportionate power in the EPA.

This regulation adopts OMB guidance on federal financial management and grants administration, giving regulatory effect to cost principles and audit requirements for Department of Commerce programs while supplementing OMB guidance as needed for departmental implementation.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because this regulation ensures proper stewardship of taxpayer funds, prevents waste/fraud/abuse in federal grants, and provides uniform accounting standards that protect both government and recipient accountability.

Establishes uniform administrative requirements for DOT federal grants, adopting OMB cost principles and audit requirements while centralizing oversight through DOT Headquarters

Creates unnecessary federal bureaucracy for grant administration that states could handle independently, imposing compliance costs without clear benefit. The extensive oversight structure and uniform requirements represent federal overreach into state/local grant management that should be decentralized.

The regulation incorporates the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) for Department of the Treasury grants, with specific exceptions for Low Income Taxpayer Clinic grantees. It allows LITCs to use attorney fee rates from 26 U.S.C. 7430 for taxpayer representation services provided by qualified representatives, and exempts client information held by LITC attorneys and tax practitioners from the general right of access under 2 CFR 200.337.

Deletion would strip critical confidentiality protections and limit LITCs' ability to attract qualified representatives, reducing access to justice for low-income taxpayers facing IRS disputes. The rate exception and client privacy carve-out are narrowly tailored to ensure effective representation without compromising attorney-client privilege. Achieving these safeguards through alternative means would be less efficient and could jeopardize the program's mission.