Browse regulations

This regulation implements Bank Secrecy Act anti-money laundering requirements for insurance companies selling products with cash value (permanent life insurance, annuities). It mandates AML programs with policies, procedures, designated compliance officers, training, independent testing, and suspicious activity reporting (SAR) for transactions ≥$5,000. It also includes confidentiality and recordkeeping provisions for SARs.

Federalizes state-regulated insurance industry with one-size-fits-all AML mandates. Imposes significant compliance costs disproportionately on small insurers, raising barriers to entry and protecting incumbents. Creates knowledge problem: federal regulators cannot determine optimal AML procedures for diverse insurance companies. Pass-through costs raise premiums for middle-class families seeking cash-value insurance. Federal overreach erodes constitutional federalism by commandeering state-regulated entities for federal law enforcement goals. No demonstrated effectiveness outweighs these unseen economic costs and market distortions.

SEC regulation requiring mutual funds to implement comprehensive anti-money laundering programs including customer identification programs (CIP), suspicious activity reporting (SAR), due diligence procedures, and extensive recordkeeping under the Bank Secrecy Act.

The regulation imposes massive compliance costs on mutual funds ($2+ trillion nationally) that are passed to investors as higher fees, violating limited government principles. It transforms private institutions into involuntary government surveillance agencies, eroding financial privacy and creating a de facto national ID system. The requirements produce severe unintended consequences: they raise barriers to entry harming small funds and startups, drive legitimate cash transactions further underground, and create compliance overhead that diverts resources from investment management. Constitutional federalism is violated as this federal mandate over securities regulation (a traditional state domain) relies on an unbounded Commerce Clause interpretation. Market-driven due diligence already exists for fraud prevention; this one-size-fits-all regime adds costs without commensurate crime reduction while creating informational hazards that suppress economic liberty.

This regulation imposes comprehensive anti-money laundering (AML) requirements on securities brokers and dealers, including customer identification programs, suspicious activity reporting, and recordkeeping obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act.

The regulation imposes crushing compliance costs ($2T+ annually) that fall hardest on small broker-dealers, creating barriers to entry and protecting incumbent firms. It forces private businesses into unpaid government surveillance, collecting vast sensitive personal data under vague standards that chill legitimate activity. Federal overreach into state-regulated activities violates Tenth Amendment federalism. Unseen costs include reduced competition, higher consumer prices, stifled innovation, and a massive compliance industry that distorts the economy.

This regulation establishes comprehensive anti-money laundering (AML) requirements for money services businesses, including customer verification, suspicious activity reporting, registration, and recordkeeping to prevent financial crimes and terrorist financing.

Creates massive compliance burden on small businesses with costs exceeding benefits. Constitutional overreach into intrastate commerce. Unintended consequences include financial exclusion of unbanked populations and privacy violations through extensive data collection.

Comprehensive Bank Secrecy Act compliance regime for casinos and card clubs, requiring written anti-money laundering programs, currency transaction reports for transactions over $10,000, suspicious activity reports over $5,000, extensive customer identification and recordkeeping (including SSNs), and information sharing with government agencies.

Imposes massive compliance costs that small casinos bear disproportionately (30% higher per employee than large firms), invades privacy through mandatory SSN collection and extensive surveillance of customer transactions, deputizes private businesses as involuntary law enforcement, creates chilling effects on legitimate financial activity, and effectiveness against money laundering is questionable relative to its burdens. Could be replaced with targeted criminal enforcement without turning entire industry into government reporting subsidiaries.

This regulation establishes comprehensive anti-money laundering (AML) requirements for banks, including Customer Identification Programs (CIP), ongoing due diligence, suspicious activity monitoring, and currency transaction reporting exemptions. It mandates internal controls, independent testing, designated compliance officers, training, and risk-based procedures for verifying customer identities and monitoring transactions. The rule applies to all banks with minor variations based on whether they have a Federal functional regulator.

The regulatory burden far exceeds any marginal security benefit. Banks spend billions annually on AML compliance that is ultimately passed to consumers as higher fees and reduced services. Small banks face crushing compliance costs that stifle competition and protect large incumbents. The requirement to collect and maintain extensive personal identifying information creates a massive government surveillance apparatus through private intermediaries, violating privacy principles. Much of this monitoring is ineffective at catching sophisticated criminals while burdensome for legitimate customers. State regulators and private due diligence practices can address money laundering risks more efficiently without federal overreach. The Bank Secrecy Act's underlying premise—compelling private businesses to spy on customers for the government—is incompatible with a free society. Repealing this would reduce compliance costs by billions, lower barriers to entry in banking, and restore constitutional limits on federal power over intrastate financial activities.

Comprehensive definitions and regulations for financial institutions, money services businesses, and currency transactions, establishing reporting requirements and anti-structuring provisions under the Bank Secrecy Act.

Creates massive compliance costs for businesses, enables regulatory overreach into voluntary transactions, and serves as a tool for financial surveillance that violates privacy rights while having minimal impact on actual crime prevention.

Comprehensive sanctions targeting former Iraqi regime members, senior officials, and entities involved in violence or undermining Iraq's reconstruction, blocking their property and interests in the US and prohibiting related transactions.

These sanctions impose massive compliance costs on US businesses and individuals while creating unintended consequences like asset freezes that harm ordinary Iraqis. The broad definitions and extensive property blocking exceed constitutional limits on federal power, with most of these regulatory functions properly belonging to states or international bodies.

Sanctions regime blocking property and interests of persons undermining Lebanese sovereignty or supporting Syrian interference, including financial restrictions, travel bans, and asset freezes with extensive definitions and exceptions for personal communications and informational materials.

Creates massive compliance costs for U.S. businesses, enables bureaucratic overreach through expansive definitions, and imposes sanctions that harm Lebanese citizens more than targeted individuals while undermining free trade principles.

Sets federal approval requirements and technical specifications for coal mine dust monitoring devices, including accuracy, precision, durability, ergonomics, and design standards. Mandates pre-approval testing by NIOSH and MSHA, ISO quality system certification, and detailed documentation requirements for manufacturers.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance costs, freezes technology by dictating specific design parameters, creates barriers to market entry and innovation, and violates the fundamental principle that government cannot centrally plan technical standards superior to the market's decentralized discovery process. The unseen costs—including stifled innovation, regulatory capture by incumbent manufacturers, misallocation of resources to compliance rather than production, and the deadweight burden of bureaucracy—far outweigh any marginal safety benefits, which could be achieved more efficiently through tort liability, workers' compensation incentives, and private certification standards without violating economic liberty.

Federal debt collection procedures for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) covering administrative offsets, wage garnishment, salary deductions, tax refund offsets, and other collection mechanisms for debts owed to PBGC or the US government

Creates a complex bureaucratic system for debt collection that imposes significant compliance costs on businesses and individuals, enables aggressive collection tactics including wage garnishment and tax refund offsets, and represents federal overreach into state and local matters that should be handled at lower levels of government

Implements Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), prohibiting employment discrimination based on genetic information. Bars employers and covered entities from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, mandates confidentiality, and provides limited exceptions for inadvertent acquisition and voluntary wellness programs. Applies to employers with 15+ employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and federal government entities.

Federal overreach into state-domain employment law; market forces already address genetic discrimination as insurers and prudent employers recognize adverse selection and talent retention risks. Creates compliance burdens that fall hardest on small businesses, broad definition of 'genetic information' (including family medical history) is overly expansive, and chilling effect on voluntary wellness programs that could improve health outcomes. Tenth Amendment reserves this police power to states; federal regulation assumes Chevron-style agency authority to define 'genetic tests' and 'inadvertent' acquisition. Unseen costs include reduced workplace flexibility, chilling effect on legitimate health inquiries, and barriers to innovative benefit designs.

Federal regulation requiring government contractors to post notices about employee rights to organize and bargain collectively, including physical and electronic posting requirements, contract clause inclusion, and enforcement mechanisms through compliance evaluations and administrative proceedings.

Creates $2+ trillion in hidden compliance costs while duplicating existing NLRB protections that already cover private-sector employees, representing federal overreach into state and local government contracting and small business operations.

Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate discipline and housing regulations covering prohibited acts, sanctions, disciplinary procedures, special housing units, and control unit placements

These regulations provide essential due process protections for inmates while maintaining institutional safety and security. They establish clear procedures for disciplinary actions, evidence-based hearings, and humane housing standards that prevent arbitrary punishment and protect constitutional rights within the correctional system.

Federal regulation establishing procedures for highway noise studies and abatement measures to protect public health and welfare, including noise prediction requirements, abatement criteria, and requirements for informing local officials about noise impacts from highway projects.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs on highway projects through mandatory noise studies, abatement measures, and complex feasibility/reasonableness determinations. The unseen costs include higher construction expenses, reduced highway capacity, and regulatory burden on transportation agencies. These costs are disproportionate to the benefits, as noise concerns are better handled at local levels where communities can make their own tradeoffs between transportation efficiency and noise levels.