Browse regulations

TAAF provides taxpayer-funded technical assistance to U.S. firms harmed by import competition through a network of TAACs. Firms receive certification if imports 'contributed importantly' to layoffs or sales declines, then get consulting services to develop competitiveness plans with 25-50% cost-sharing.

This corporate welfare program violates free market principles by shielding incumbent firms from competition. It distorts resource allocation, creates moral hazard, and imposes $2 trillion+ in hidden compliance costs on all Americans. The unseen costs—dependency, bureaucratic bloat, and protectionism—far outweigh any benefits to selected firms.

Requires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) to comply with portfolio holdings criteria in their Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with the Department of the Treasury, effective while those agreements remain in force and unsuperseded.

Imposes government control over housing finance GSEs, distorting markets and creating moral hazard; the regulatory burden and compliance costs are unnecessary because contract law alone could enforce these terms. Keeping it perpetuates federal overreach into private enterprise and delays needed structural reform.

Requires mortgage lenders to ensure flood insurance coverage for properties in flood-prone areas and establishes civil penalty procedures for non-compliance

Protects homeowners and taxpayers from catastrophic flood losses while maintaining market stability in high-risk areas

Establishes capital classification framework (adequately/under/significantly under/critically undercapitalized) for Federal Home Loan Banks, with progressive restrictions on distributions, activities, and management actions based on capital levels, plus mandatory restoration plans and potential conservatorship.

Perpetuates government-sponsored enterprise model that distorts housing finance and creates moral hazard; regulatory burden adds to compliance costs while signaling taxpayer backstop, preventing market discipline. Director's broad discretion undermines rule of law and cannot substitute for price signals that would properly allocate capital risk.

Imposes a one-year post-employment ban on FHFA senior examiners from working for regulated entities (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Banks) as employee, officer, director, or consultant, with a waiver process and penalties up to $250,000 and 5-year prohibition.

Costs of keeping: unduly restricts individual liberty and labor mobility; imposes blanket ban based on guilt-by-association rather than individualized evidence; deters qualified professionals from regulatory service; and represents a paternalistic expansion of state power that contradicts free-market principles, while failing to address the root problem of government-sponsored enterprises that create the very conflicts it seeks to prevent.

Mandates annual audits and internal control assessments for large insured depository institutions, with reporting requirements to federal regulators. Applies to institutions with $1+ billion in assets, requiring independent auditor reports, management assessments, and audit committee oversight.

Creates massive compliance costs ($100M+ annually) for a regulation that duplicates private sector auditing standards. The unseen costs include: forcing small banks to hire expensive auditors instead of lending, creating regulatory capture through auditor relationships, and imposing one-size-fits-all standards that may not fit local banking needs. Banks already have strong incentives to maintain accurate books without federal mandates.

Establishes administrative procedures for collecting civil monetary claims, including offset, compromise, suspension, and termination of collection activities, as defined under 31 U.S.C. 3701(b).

Provides essential due process and standardized procedures for government debt collection, protecting both taxpayers and citizens from arbitrary or excessive collection actions while ensuring federal agencies can recover legitimate debts.

DOE regulation establishing a reverse auction program to award production incentive payments to cellulosic biofuel producers, with bids evaluated on lowest per-gallon incentive request, requiring demonstrated facility ownership, financing, and production commitments. Targets $1/gallon initial incentive (declining over time), with annual and lifetime funding caps, and minimum production requirements.

This represents corporate welfare and industrial policy that violates free market principles. The government cannot and should not pick winners in energy markets—these subsidies distort price signals, misallocate capital, and create regulatory capture opportunities. The complex bidding process and eligibility requirements advantage large, established players over small innovators, raising barriers to entry. Even if pursuing energy independence goals, the unseen costs include diverted private investment, prevented market discovery of superior alternatives, and taxpayer-funded risk transferred to the public while private entities reap upside. The 2015 target date highlights program failure; if the market didn't achieve the goal voluntarily, it demonstrates the policy was never justified.

The regulation establishes procedures for submitting petitions for rulemaking to FSIS, detailing required information (petitioner details, requested action, factual/legal basis), submission requirements for supporting materials, filing address and docketing, public inspection and confidentiality rules, a 60-day public comment period, and expedited review for public health-related petitions.

This regulation creates unnecessary burdens that restrict the fundamental right to petition the government, favoring well-resourced petitioners and protecting incumbents. The unseen costs include suppressed citizen participation and reinforced status quo, which outweigh any benefits of procedural order. Simpler, open procedures would better serve a free society.

This regulation establishes NIFA's administrative procedures for awarding and managing grants and cooperative agreements for agricultural research, education, and extension programs. It details application types, eligibility criteria (primarily land-grant institutions and universities), competitive vs. noncompetitive processes, merit review requirements, and compliance with 2 CFR part 200. The regulation creates extensive bureaucratic procedures governing how federal funds flow to agricultural education and research entities.

This regulation enshrines massive federal overreach into activities that constitutionally belong to states and private entities. The $14,000+ per household hidden tax burden from federal regulations disproportionately harms small institutions and startups while protecting incumbent land-grant universities through complex eligibility hierarchies. The extensive administrative apparatus—with its merit reviews, matching requirements, and compliance burdens—creates barriers to entry and captures benefits for established players. Agricultural research, education, and extension can be and historically were provided through private markets, state universities, and voluntary associations without this federal bureaucracy. The unseen costs—distorted incentives, reduced competition, and bureaucratic bloat—far outweigh any marginal benefit from centralization.

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary NRCS-administered program that purchases conservation easements or enters into 30-year contracts and restoration cost-share agreements with private and tribal landowners to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, providing financial incentives and prioritizing permanent easements and wildlife habitat benefits.

Federal overreach into state land-use authority (Tenth Amendment); market distortion inflates land values and disproportionately burdens small farmers with higher compliance costs; billions in taxpayer subsidies create dependency; centralized prioritization cannot replicate market efficiency, leading to unseen consequences including reduced agricultural land supply and higher food prices.

The Agricultural Management Assistance program provides federal subsidies to farmers in 16 designated states for conservation practices including irrigation improvements, windbreaks, soil erosion control, integrated pest management, and organic transition. NRCS administers the program through contracts lasting up to 10 years, covering 75% of costs (90% for beginning/limited resource farmers) with a $50,000 annual payment limit, requiring participants to develop detailed operation plans and maintain practices for their lifespan.

This program violates constitutional federalism by federalizing state/local land use decisions, distorts agricultural markets through subsidies that misallocate resources based on government priorities rather than consumer demand, and imposes significant compliance burdens on farmers. The unseen costs include creating dependency on government assistance, enabling regulatory capture through agency discretion over eligible practices, and wasting taxpayer funds on a bureaucratic apparatus that could be replaced by private conservation arrangements or state-level initiatives.

The Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) regulation mandates retailers to label covered commodities (meats, nuts, fruits, vegetables, ginseng) with their country of origin, requiring production-step tracing (born/raised/slaughtered), detailed record-keeping, and specific label formats. Exempts food service establishments and processed foods.

Imposes hidden compliance costs on retailers and suppliers—tracking, record-keeping, labeling—burdening small businesses most. Federal mandate distorts market competition, substitutes government for voluntary labeling, and creates protectionist undertones. Unintended consequences include trade disputes and higher food prices; voluntary labeling already serves consumers who value origin information.

Mandates country of origin and method of production (wild/farm-raised) labeling for fish and shellfish sold at retail, with specific formatting rules and record-keeping requirements for suppliers and retailers, while exempting food service establishments and processed food ingredients.

Forces private businesses to bear compliance costs for information disclosure that markets can provide voluntarily through consumer demand and reputation systems, creating administrative burdens, raising barriers to entry for small retailers, and distorting market signals; government coercion is unnecessary where competitive pressures already reward transparency that consumers value.

Establishes procedures for FLRA employees to produce records or testify in civil legal proceedings. Requires prior written approval from FLRA leadership, imposes fees, and sets detailed requirements for requesters. Purpose: conserve employee time, maintain impartiality, protect confidential information.

Creates unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to justice, imposing financial costs and delays on legitimate discovery while expanding agency discretion to withhold information. Existing discovery rules and court oversight already provide mechanisms to balance agency interests with litigants' rights, making this redundant and prone to abuse that protects the agency from accountability.