Browse regulations

Implements cross-waiver of liability requirements from the International Space Station intergovernmental agreement and for NASA's other launch-related activities. Requires NASA agreements to include waivers where parties and their related entities (contractors, subcontractors, users, customers) waive claims for damage arising from 'Protected Space Operations,' with exceptions for claims between a party and its own related entities, personal injury/death, willful misconduct, intellectual property, and certain contract breaches.

Deletion would undermine U.S. treaty obligations, create legal uncertainty, and increase transaction costs for international space cooperation. The regulation achieves predictable risk allocation across complex, multinational partnerships that private actors could not efficiently negotiate independently, thereby encouraging participation in space exploration without significant regulatory burden.

Establishes mandatory drug and alcohol testing programs for aviation employees performing safety-sensitive functions, including pilots, flight attendants, maintenance workers, and air traffic controllers. Requires pre-employment testing, random testing at 50% annual rate, post-accident testing, and specific consequences for violations.

Imposes massive compliance costs on aviation industry while creating bureaucratic overreach into private employment relationships. Safety-sensitive functions can be better addressed through private contractual arrangements and market accountability without federal micromanagement.

This regulation establishes election procedures for Federal Home Loan Bank directors, including board composition, director eligibility requirements, voting mechanisms, and nomination processes. It defines terms like 'member directorship,' 'independent directorship,' and 'public interest directorship,' and outlines how directors are elected by members based on stock ownership.

This regulation creates unnecessary complexity in banking governance by establishing a multi-tiered election system with different director categories, voting weights based on stock ownership, and extensive eligibility requirements. It represents regulatory overreach into private corporate governance that should be left to bank bylaws and shareholder agreements. The costs of compliance and administrative burden far exceed any benefits, while creating opportunities for regulatory capture and bureaucratic interference in free market decision-making.

Regulates golden parachute and indemnification payments to executives of troubled financial institutions, requiring Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) consent and due diligence to prevent excessive payments to executives who contributed to the institution's troubles

Creates bureaucratic barriers to legitimate compensation arrangements while enabling regulatory capture - the FHFA can effectively veto compensation decisions, distorting market incentives and imposing compliance costs that ultimately burden taxpayers and shareholders

This regulation establishes FHFA's assessment policy for regulated entities (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Banks), setting annual fees to fund agency operations including examinations, enforcement, litigation, housing goal monitoring, and administrative expenses. Assessments are allocated based on total exposure for enterprises and minimum required regulatory capital for banks, with semiannual payments and mechanisms for adjusting fees based on capitalization status or enforcement costs.

This is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy tax that creates a perverse incentive structure where the FHFA has financial motivation to increase regulatory burden to justify higher assessments. The assessment system funds activities like 'housing goal monitoring' and 'community programs' that extend beyond core safety-and-soundness regulation, effectively forcing private entities to subsidize federal social policy. The complexity of allocation formulas and penalty mechanisms creates compliance costs that disproportionately harm the very institutions meant to ensure housing market stability.

This regulation establishes NCUA procedures for collecting federal debts through administrative offset, salary deduction, and wage garnishment, including notice requirements, hearing rights, and collection methods for federal employees and former employees.

Creates a bureaucratic labyrinth for debt collection that burdens federal employees with excessive paperwork and procedural requirements while diverting agency resources from core missions. The extensive hearing processes and multiple notice requirements add administrative costs that ultimately fall on taxpayers.

This regulation implements the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act by requiring financial institutions to establish policies to identify and block restricted transactions related to illegal online gambling. It defines payment systems, commercial customers, and restricted transactions, and provides due diligence procedures for compliance.

This regulation creates massive compliance costs for financial institutions, distorts payment processing markets, and imposes federal control over activities that should be handled at state level. It represents regulatory overreach that burdens legitimate businesses while failing to effectively prevent illegal gambling.

The regulation implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, prohibiting discrimination based on handicap in its programs and activities. It defines key terms, sets nondiscrimination standards, requires program accessibility, effective communication, and establishes complaint and appeal procedures.

Deleting this regulation would remove clear protections and recourse for individuals with disabilities accessing EAC services, undermining equal participation in the electoral process. The structured complaint process and accessibility requirements ensure accountability and consistent implementation that would be difficult to achieve ad hoc.

This regulation establishes ethical standards for employees of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission by cross-referencing existing federal ethics rules from 5 CFR parts 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638, 2641, 734, and 735.

Federal election administration requires strict ethical standards to maintain public trust in democratic processes. Without these baseline ethical requirements, there would be no guardrails preventing conflicts of interest, financial improprieties, or political manipulation in how elections are administered and certified. The costs of potential election fraud or corruption far exceed the compliance burden of these established ethical standards.

This regulation implements Privacy Act requirements for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, establishing procedures for individuals to access, correct, and amend their personal records, including identity verification, request processes, appeal mechanisms, and fee structures.

Creates bureaucratic overhead for record access without addressing the core issue that federal election oversight itself represents unconstitutional expansion of federal power into state election administration. The administrative costs and compliance burdens for citizens seeking their own records are unnecessary given the regulation's limited scope to a federal agency that should not exist.

This regulation establishes policies and procedures for responding to demands or requests for official records, information, or testimony from U.S. Election Assistance Commission employees in legal proceedings. It requires prior written approval from the General Counsel before any employee can produce records or provide testimony, and outlines detailed procedures for submitting requests, factors for consideration, conditions on testimony/production, and fee structures.

This regulation creates unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to accessing government information and testimony. The extensive approval requirements and discretionary authority of the General Counsel effectively shield the Commission from public scrutiny and legal accountability. It imposes significant compliance costs on litigants and creates a chilling effect on legitimate discovery requests, while providing no clear public benefit beyond protecting bureaucratic convenience.

This regulation implements the Government in the Sunshine Act for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, establishing requirements for open meetings, public notice, and transparency in the Commission's decision-making processes. It defines when meetings must be open to public observation, when they can be closed, and procedures for public participation and record-keeping.

This regulation creates a specialized bureaucracy for transparency requirements that could be handled through existing FOIA and general government transparency laws. The Election Assistance Commission's core function is election administration, not conducting meetings that require such elaborate procedural frameworks. These requirements add compliance costs and regulatory overhead without providing benefits that couldn't be achieved through simpler, existing mechanisms.

This regulation implements the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, establishing procedures for public access to agency records, fee structures, requester categories, response timelines, exemptions, and appeals processes.

Americans would be worse off without standardized FOIA procedures, which ensure transparent access to election administration records essential for democratic accountability. The regulation balances public access with legitimate exemptions in a predictable, knowable manner, reducing arbitrary decision-making and promoting rule of law.

Implements section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act to control dissemination of Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) concerning nuclear facilities, materials, and weapons. Establishes criteria for UCNI designation, marking requirements, access controls, physical protection standards, and penalties for unauthorized dissemination. Applies to persons with authorized/unauthorized access to UCNI. Excludes information already controlled by DoD and exempts basic scientific research, radiation exposure data, and low-level waste transportation info.

Americans would be dramatically worse off without this regulation: it prevents nuclear proliferation and terrorism by controlling sensitive unclassified information that could enable illicit nuclear weapons production or sabotage of nuclear materials. The regulation achieves its vital objective in a way impossible for markets or voluntary measures—nuclear threats impose catastrophic, non-excludable risks that require centralized, enforceable controls. Its narrow tailoring (specific criteria, science exemptions, quarterly transparency reports) minimizes burdens while addressing existential threats beyond the scope of private ordering or state action.

This DOE regulation implements a federal loan program under Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act to provide financing (through the Federal Financing Bank) for manufacturing facilities producing 'advanced technology vehicles' (ATVs) and qualifying components. The program provides loans covering up to 80% of project costs to manufacturers who meet specific fuel economy/emissions standards and demonstrate financial viability. Applications require extensive documentation including environmental reports, business plans, financial statements, and compliance demonstrations. The loans have terms up to 25 years with Treasury-determined interest rates and are secured by government liens on project assets.

This program represents corporate welfare and market-distorting industrial policy. Government has no business picking winners in the auto manufacturing sector through subsidized loans. Private capital markets—not federal bureaucrats—should allocate investment based on market signals. The program creates regulatory capture opportunities, burdens taxpayers with risk while private firms reap upside, and crowds out private lending. Even if some projects are worthwhile, the government lacks the knowledge to distinguish truly innovative ventures from politically connected ones, leading to malinvestment. The hidden costs include higher taxes, distorted capital allocation, and unfair competition advantages for firms receiving government backing over smaller competitors. The program compounds the regulatory burden on manufacturers while violating the principle of limited government.