Browse regulations

The Land Contract Guarantee Program is a USDA/FSA initiative that provides federal guarantees to private sellers of family farms when selling to 'beginning farmers' or 'socially disadvantaged farmers' through land contracts. The government guarantees up to three years of payments (prompt payment plan) or 90% of the principal balance (standard plan) for 10 years, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The program imposes extensive eligibility requirements on both buyers and sellers, mandates use of approved escrow/servicing agents, requires appraisals, environmental reviews, annual financial reporting, and includes detailed provisions for loss claims, modifications, and guarantee termination.

This federal guarantee program distorts agricultural land markets by socializing risk while privatizing gains, creating moral hazard that makes sellers less careful in vetting buyers and encourages marginal operations that couldn't survive without subsidies. It unconstitutionally expands federal power into private contracts and picks winners and losers based on demographic criteria rather than merit, inflating land prices and making it harder for non-eligible farmers to compete. The massive compliance bureaucracy and contingent taxpayer liability represent exactly the type of market-distorting intervention that Mises, Hayek, and Friedman warned against—artificially propping up economically unsustainable operations while punishing efficient producers through higher land costs.

Allows the Secretary of Agriculture to establish temporary emergency eligibility standards and issue emergency food allotments after disasters that disrupt commercial food distribution, waiving normal rulemaking procedures and permitting alternate benefit delivery methods when EBT systems are unavailable.

Without this emergency authority, food assistance to disaster victims would be delayed by normal rulemaking processes, risking starvation when commercial distribution collapses and EBT systems fail. The temporary procedural flexibility is essential for rapid disaster response, and the narrow scope prevents permanent federal overreach. Americans would be worse off if deleted due to resulting hunger during catastrophes.

This regulation establishes the requirements for retail food stores and wholesale food concerns to become authorized SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) retailers. It dictates detailed eligibility criteria, including complex stocking requirements (Criterion A: 7 varieties across 4 food categories with 3 units each, including perishables in 3 categories; or Criterion B: >50% gross sales in staple foods). It mandates extensive documentation, on-site inspections, personal identification disclosure, tax verification, and imposes bonds for repeat offenders. The rule also outlines procedures for application, denial, withdrawal, and reauthorization.

This regulation embodies massive federal overreach and regulatory burden. It imposes a $200+ billion hidden tax through compliance costs, disproportionately harming small grocers and limiting competition per the软骨 effect. The intricate stocking mandates (e.g., 'seven different varieties') represent bureaucratic knowledge problems—no central planner can optimally dictate shelf composition. This federalizes local commerce, eroding Tenth Amendment principles. The $2 trillion total regulatory burden underscores the urgency of repeal. SNAP's goal of nutrition assistance could be achieved through state-administered vouchers or block grants without these micromanagement mandates, which distort market incentives and raise barriers to entry.

Federal regulation establishing State agency liability for financial losses in Food Stamp Program operations, including coupon shortages, overissuances, and certification errors, with appeal rights and enforcement mechanisms.

Creates massive bureaucratic liability framework that penalizes state agencies for administrative errors, discourages efficient program management, and imposes hidden compliance costs on taxpayers without improving program integrity.

This regulation establishes the Performance Reporting System (PRS) for state agencies administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), requiring systematic monitoring, quality control reviews, data collection, analysis, corrective action planning, and reporting to ensure compliance with federal SNAP requirements and accurate benefit distribution.

This regulation creates an excessive federal oversight bureaucracy that imposes significant compliance costs on state agencies and taxpayers. The complex review procedures, contractor requirements, and detailed documentation mandates represent regulatory capture benefiting federal contractors and bureaucrats while burdening small states. The system's extensive data collection and monitoring requirements violate principles of limited government and state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

This SNAP regulation prohibits states from taxing purchases made with food benefits, restricts disclosure of recipient information to specific government and enforcement purposes, mandates record-keeping and reporting requirements for states, and sets implementation deadlines for various program amendments.

The regulation represents unconstitutional federal overreach by commandeering state tax policy and imposing top-down administrative burdens. Its unseen costs include infringement on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, compliance expenses borne by retailers and state agencies, erosion of privacy through extensive data sharing, and the creation of dependency that displaces voluntary charity and local community support—precisely the distorting incentives Mises andFriedman warned against.

SNAP is a federal nutrition assistance program administered by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service that provides electronic benefits to low-income households for food purchases. The regulation establishes eligibility criteria, benefit calculations, retailer authorization requirements, employment and training mandates, and extensive administrative controls enforced through state agencies and quality control systems.

The regulation imposes massive hidden costs: it distorts food markets, creates dependency that erodes work incentives, crowds out private charity and mutual aid networks, expands federal power beyond constitutional limits, and imposes enormous compliance burdens on retailers and states that ultimately increase food prices for all Americans. The unseen consequence is the weakening of civil society and family structures as government replaces community-based support systems.

Internal ethics regulation requiring Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) and Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) employees to obtain prior written approval for outside employment, business relationships, or activities. Defines employment broadly, excludes most nonprofit participation, requires detailed application forms, provides 3-year approvals with renewal requirements, and establishes an appeal process to the Agency Director.

CSOSA and PSA employees supervise offenders and defendants in the criminal justice system—positions of significant public trust where conflicts of interest could directly compromise public safety and due process. Without prior approval requirements, employees could accept outside employment with entities doing business with the agency, defendants, or criminal justice organizations, creating real risks of corruption, favoritism, or the appearance thereof. The narrow scope and minimal compliance costs are justified by preventing even the possibility of compromised supervision decisions that could endanger communities or undermine judicial integrity.

This regulation imposes a prior approval requirement for outside employment by Federal Election Commission employees when the work relates to official duties or uses the same specialized skills as their government position. It defines outside employment broadly and exempts commissioners and special government employees. Approval must be obtained from the Designated Agency Ethics Official before engaging in covered outside activities.

Prior restraint on employee liberty creates unnecessary bureaucracy, chills legitimate outside work, and duplicates existing executive branch ethics standards. The marginal benefit in preventing conflicts does not justify the compliance costs and knowledge problem inherent in central approval decisions, especially since commissioners with greater power are exempt.

Implements Drug-Free Workplace Act requirements for DHS grants and cooperative agreements, mandating recipients maintain drug-free workplaces, report employee drug convictions to DHS OIG, and include specific terms in awards; violations trigger payment suspension, award termination, or debarment up to 5 years.

Imposes uniform federal workplace micromanagement on grant recipients, creating compliance burdens and draconian penalties that deter small organizations from seeking DHS funds and stifle competition; the federal government should not dictate internal employment policies when most organizations already maintain drug-free workplaces voluntarily. Unseen costs include lost innovation from excluded grantees, excessive administrative overhead, and disproportionate sanctions that destroy careers over isolated incidents unrelated to job performance.

Implements the Drug-Free Workplace Act for HUD grantees, requiring recipients to maintain drug-free workplace policies and notify HUD of employee drug convictions, while aligning with government-wide OMB standards.

Deletion would undermine federal stewardship of taxpayer funds by allowing grantees to operate without basic drug-free safeguards, increasing risks to program integrity and safety. Uniform implementation across agencies ensures consistent oversight while minimizing duplication; alternative approaches (state laws or private contracts) would create a patchwork that weakens accountability and leaves federal interests exposed.

This regulation implements the Drug-Free Workplace Act for USAID grants and cooperative agreements, requiring recipients to maintain drug-free workplaces, notify federal agencies of employee drug convictions, and include drug-free workplace terms in awards.

This regulation imposes costly administrative burdens on aid recipients without clear evidence of improving workplace safety or aid effectiveness. It creates compliance costs, paperwork requirements, and potential termination threats that distract from USAID's core mission of international development assistance.

Regulation implements government-wide debarment and suspension system for USAID non-procurement transactions, adopting OMB guidance to exclude individuals/entities engaged in fraud or misconduct from receiving USAID-funded assistance, with requirements flowing down to sub-contractors over $25,000.

This regulation protects taxpayer dollars from known bad actors by preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in foreign aid programs. Without it, suspended or debarred individuals/entities could access USAID funds through pass-through entities or lower-tier contracts, undermining program integrity. The flows-down requirements (while creating compliance burden) are necessary to make the exclusion system effective across entire funding chains. Removing it would directly increase the risk of funds going to corrupt or incompetent actors, harming USAID's mission and American taxpayers.

This regulation implements the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 for USDA grants and cooperative agreements by incorporating OMB guidance, establishing compliance requirements, and creating notification procedures for drug-related convictions.

Federal drug-free workplace requirements create unnecessary compliance costs and regulatory burden for agricultural grant recipients without clear evidence of improved outcomes. The regulation duplicates existing state and local workplace safety laws, imposes paperwork requirements that distract from agricultural productivity, and represents federal overreach into workplace management that should be handled at the state level. Small farming operations and rural cooperatives face disproportionate compliance costs relative to their size, while the regulatory framework creates barriers to entry for new agricultural entrepreneurs.

ACUS FOIA regulations governing public access to agency records, including request procedures, fee schedules, exemptions, and appeal processes under 5 U.S.C. 552.

These regulations implement the Freedom of Information Act, ensuring government transparency and public access to agency records. They provide structured procedures for requests, fee waivers for certain categories, and appeal mechanisms that protect citizens' right to know about government operations.