Browse regulations

Regulation establishes framework for designating qualified anti-terrorism technologies under the SAFETY Act, including criteria for designation, insurance requirements, and application procedures.

Regulation imposes disproportionate compliance costs on small businesses and risks regulatory capture through revolving door influences. Its effectiveness is undermined by complex, burdensome requirements that distort market incentives and fail to address underlying security vulnerabilities

Establishes procedures for Merit Systems Protection Board employees to testify or produce records in third-party litigation, requiring General Counsel approval based on 14 discretionary factors.

Deletion would expose MSPB to unlimited discovery demands, wasting taxpayer-funded employee time, risking disclosure of confidential deliberative information, and undermining agency impartiality in private disputes. The regulation's structured approval process with specific factors protects legitimate agency interests while preserving judicial authority to compel evidence—a balanced framework difficult to replicate through ad hoc case management.

This regulation establishes privacy and data protection requirements for OPM employees, prohibiting misuse of personal data, unauthorized disclosures, and ensuring compliance with the Privacy Act. It mandates that employees only collect and use personal information necessary for their duties and prevents the appearance of using public office to access personal data beyond authorized purposes.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it protects citizens' sensitive personal information from government misuse and unauthorized access. Without these privacy safeguards, OPM employees could potentially abuse their positions to collect, share, or use personal data for unauthorized purposes, violating individual privacy rights and creating opportunities for identity theft, discrimination, or other harms that are difficult to prevent through market mechanisms alone.

This regulation establishes conduct standards for federal employees, prohibiting gambling on government property, using government-acquired information for exam preparation, and engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or disgraceful conduct, or any conduct prejudicial to the Government. It references compliance with 5 CFR part 2635 and authorizes disciplinary action for violations.

The regulation creates unnecessary bureaucratic overhead by imposing overbroad restrictions that duplicate comprehensive ethics standards already codified in 5 CFR part 2635. The vague 'conduct prejudicial to the Government' standard enables mission creep into employees' personal lives, chilling legitimate private conduct and inviting inconsistent, costly enforcement. Agency-specific policies could address legitimate concerns more efficiently with less risk of abuse, reducing compliance costs and protecting employee rights.

Regulation mandates federal agencies to reimburse the Judgment Fund for payments related to the No FEAR Act, including notification, training, and reporting obligations for employees and applicants.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs (over $2 trillion annually) and creates regulatory capture risks by tying reimbursement to self-reporting by agencies. Its broad requirements burden small businesses disproportionately and may enable agencies to prioritize their own interests over public accountability, violating the principle of limited government.

This regulation implements the Intergovernmental Personnel Act mobility program, allowing temporary assignment of federal employees to state/local/tribal governments, higher education institutions, and certain nonprofit organizations, with corresponding assignments in the reverse direction under specific terms and conditions.

This regulation represents unwarranted federal intrusion into state and local government personnel management through certification requirements and mandatory assignment terms. It expands federal influence over non-federal entities and creates bureaucratic overhead with no clear public benefit that cannot be achieved through voluntary intergovernmental cooperation.

Regulation adopts OMB guidance for Peace Corps debarment/suspension policies, defining applicability to participants, respondents, officials, and transactions under specific thresholds.

Regulation imposes compliance costs without clear public benefit; creates bureaucratic overhead for debarment/suspension processes that could be handled more efficiently by private sector solutions. The OMB guidance it adopts already contains the necessary framework for transparent, competition-neutral debarment processes.

Adopts OMB guidance for nonprocurement debarment and suspension, applying to covered transactions and respondents in Department of Commerce actions

Costs of maintaining and enforcing this regulation likely outweigh benefits, as it adds complexity to an already labyrinthine regulatory system, potentially creating unintended consequences and regulatory capture, while also increasing compliance costs for small businesses and individuals

This DOE regulation adopts OMB guidance to implement government-wide nonprocurement debarment and suspension policies for individuals and entities participating in DOE transactions (grants, cooperative agreements, etc.). It prohibits participation by those who have engaged in fraud or misconduct, requires inclusion of compliance clauses in subawards, and delegates authority to specific DOE officials to make debarment/suspension decisions and grant exceptions.

The regulation imposes a substantial compliance burden on all participants—especially small nonprofits and businesses—who must navigate complex rules, include mandatory clauses in subawards, and risk arbitrary debarment. It expands federal administrative power through a punitive blacklist system that lacks traditional due process, chilling participation in DOE programs and wasting resources on bureaucracy rather than focusing on fraud prevention through existing criminal and contract law remedies.

Federal regulations governing king and Tanner crab fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, implementing a quota system for commercial fishing and processing rights under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Creates a complex quota system that raises barriers to entry, enables regulatory capture through quota trading, and distorts market incentives - costs that outweigh the intended conservation benefits.

This regulation imposes extensive federal security requirements on all civilian aircraft operations to and from three small airports near Washington, D.C., and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). It mandates TSA approval for pilots, security coordinators, and armed security officers; requires lengthy background checks including fingerprints and SSNs; imposes costly threat assessments; forces compliance with detailed operational procedures; and mandates armed personnel onboard civilian flights — all under threat of penalty for noncompliance.

These regulations represent a massive, unconstitutional federal overreach into purely local aviation matters, imposing $200M+ in annual compliance costs on small airports and private flyers for negligible security gain. The 10-year criminal history checks, mandatory armed security officers on private flights, and TSA’s unchecked discretion to revoke approvals violate due process and property rights. D.C.’s unique security needs do not justify federalizing a regulatory regime that crushes small operators while doing little to deter determined actors — and which overwhelmingly burdens law-abiding citizens, not terrorists. The entire framework was built on post-9/11 panic, not evidence, and now violates the Tenth Amendment, Commerce Clause limits, and constitutional liberty.

Establishes the organizational structure and procedures of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), including office responsibilities, rulemaking processes, and emergency relief procedures.

This regulation merely creates a federal bureaucracy that duplicates functions already handled by state and local transit authorities. It imposes unnecessary administrative costs on taxpayers while centralizing decision-making that should occur at the local level where transit needs are best understood. The emergency relief provisions create a permanent framework for federal intervention in local transit operations.

This regulation mandates that manufacturers of vehicles produced in multiple stages (incomplete, intermediate, and final-stage) ensure conformity with federal motor vehicle safety standards. It requires incomplete vehicle manufacturers to provide an incomplete vehicle document (IVD) detailing compliance with relevant standards, and mandates that intermediate and final-stage manufacturers maintain and update this documentation.

The costs of maintaining this regulation outweigh its benefits. The regulation imposes significant compliance burdens on manufacturers, particularly small businesses, which can stifle innovation and increase vehicle costs. Additionally, the regulation may be redundant given that final-stage manufacturers already assume responsibility for vehicle safety. The market can better ensure safety through competition and consumer choice.

This regulation mandates that manufacturers affix a certification label to motor vehicles specifying compliance with federal safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, including details on manufacturer, date, weight ratings, certification statement, VIN, and vehicle type. It defines label placement, formatting, and applies to various manufacturing scenarios including incomplete vehicles, alterers, and replicas.

The compliance costs are negligible (printing and affixing a label) while providing essential, standardized transparency about vehicle safety certification. Without it, consumers—especially used-car buyers—could not easily verify compliance with mandatory safety standards, and enforcement would be significantly hampered. The label efficiently serves a clear information need in a market where safety certification is already required, and the minimal burden cannot justify the confusion and harm its removal would cause.

This regulation requires motor vehicle manufacturers to report compliance data with vehicle safety standards to NHTSA, including certification of vehicles meeting federal requirements and exemptions, with specific reporting deadlines and record-keeping requirements.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance costs on manufacturers for paperwork that provides minimal safety benefit - the data collection and reporting requirements create a bureaucratic burden without demonstrably improving vehicle safety outcomes, and the information could be obtained through less costly means if NHTSA truly needs it.