Browse regulations

Federal regulation establishing financial responsibility requirements for vessels to cover oil spill and hazardous substance release liabilities under OPA 90 and CERCLA, including COFR certificates and guaranty methods.

Creates a complex regulatory bureaucracy that distorts market incentives and raises compliance costs for small businesses, while the underlying liability concerns could be addressed through tort law and insurance markets without federal intervention.

Regulation establishes comprehensive motor vehicle traffic supervision system for military installations, including vehicle registration, driver licensing verification, DUI enforcement with implied consent testing, administrative suspension/revocation procedures, impoundment authority, coordination with state DMVs, and remedial training programs. Creates detailed bureaucratic structure with automated records, reporting requirements, and multiple agency coordination.

Creates massive administrative apparatus for routine base traffic management that could be handled by straightforward installation commander directives. Excessive bureaucracy includes: multi-layer command responsibilities, automated records systems, state DMV coordination expanding federal reach, complex due process hearings, and continuous documentation requirements. Unseen costs include burden on service members/families for registration/insurance paperwork, contractor compliance costs, opportunity costs of personnel managing these systems rather than core military functions, and regulatory capture enabling mission creep beyond legitimate safety needs. Military commanders already possess inherent authority over base operations—this regulation substitutes centralized control for local discretion, violating Tenth Amendment principles by federalizing what could be state/traditional police powers even on federal property.

DoD regulation creates Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Boards that can declare civilian establishments 'off-limits' to military personnel based on vague standards affecting health, safety, welfare, morale, or morals. Governs off-installation military police coordination with civilian law enforcement and procedures for restricting business access.

Off-limits designations impose severe, disproportionate economic harm on private businesses by denying them access to military customers based on subjective military judgments. The regulation weaponizes military purchasing power against civilian enterprises, creating a hidden tax on businesses near bases. Unseen consequences include chilling effects on legitimate business activity, potential for regulatory capture and selective enforcement, and erosion of the principle that adults are responsible for their own conduct. Military discipline goals are achievable through individual accountability and education without burdening innocent third-party businesses.

Federal protocol for prioritizing munitions response at defense sites with unexploded ordnance, chemical agents, or munitions constituents based on hazard evaluation modules covering explosive, chemical, and health risks.

This regulation creates an unnecessary federal bureaucratic framework that should be handled by the Department of Defense internally without federal rulemaking. The hazard prioritization methodology adds regulatory compliance costs and delays to military cleanup operations that could be managed more efficiently through existing DoD procedures and expertise.

Part 907 establishes a federal compliance and enforcement regime for the FBI's Interstate Identification Index System (III) used for noncriminal justice purposes like employment background checks. It mandates systematic reviews, detailed reporting, and progressive sanctions administered by the Compact Council and FBI against agencies violating Compact rules.

Federal overreach imposing costly compliance bureaucracy on state/local agencies and private entities for background checks, a function reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment. The sanctions regime risks delays in employment/licensing checks, creates regulatory capture opportunities, and cannot justify its compliance burden given that states can self-regulate through interstate compacts.

Establishes standards for National Fingerprint File (NFF) participants, ensuring compliance with the NFF Qualification Requirements set by the Compact Council and the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board.

The costs of maintaining this regulation include potential overreach into state jurisdictions, unnecessary bureaucracy, and the risk of regulatory capture. The desired outcome of accurate identification can be achieved through less intrusive and more decentralized methods, reducing the burden on states and local law enforcement.

Establishes screening standards for criminal history records obtained via the Interstate Identification Index System for noncriminal justice purposes, requiring state authorities to remove entries that cannot legally be used for the specific requested purpose in compliance with the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

Deletion would permit improper dissemination of criminal records containing information that cannot legally be used for certain noncriminal purposes (e.g., expunged offenses, juvenile records), violating privacy rights and exposing employers to liability. The standards ensure uniform, legally compliant handling of sensitive government information across state lines—a function requiring centralized rules that cannot be left to disparate state practices or private actors.

Establishes protocols for submitting fingerprints to access criminal history records via the Interstate Identification Index (III) for noncriminal justice purposes, allowing delayed fingerprint submission under exigent circumstances, and mandating audits and logging of access.

This regulation enforces a costly, centralized biometric data system for noncriminal purposes, violating privacy and due process norms. It enables mass surveillance under vague 'exigent circumstances,' expands federal reach into state/local domains, and imposes compliance burdens on states and agencies without demonstrable public safety gains that couldn't be achieved through voluntary, state-led alternatives. The system facilitates potential abuse and unwarranted tracking, contradicting Founding principles of limited federal power and individual liberty.

Comprehensive infectious disease management program in federal correctional facilities including testing, treatment, prevention, education, and infection control measures for HIV, TB, and other communicable diseases.

Unconstitutional federal overreach into prison medical care that should be handled by states; excessive testing requirements violate bodily autonomy; creates massive bureaucratic compliance costs without clear constitutional authority under Commerce Clause.

This document describes the organizational structure of the Bureau of Prisons, including its Central Office location, Staff Training Center, and six Regional Offices, and provides contact information. It is purely informational and contains no regulatory requirements or compliance obligations.

This is not a regulation but merely administrative contact information. The Code of Federal Regulations should contain only rules with the force of law. Including directory listings inflates the CFR's size, contributes to the knowability problem, and fails to serve any legitimate regulatory purpose. Such information is better maintained on agency websites, which can be updated more efficiently and kept current without the cumbersome rulemaking process.

This regulation (18 U.S.C. § 2257 implementing regulations) requires producers of sexually explicit material to create and maintain detailed identification records for all performers, verify age through government-issued ID, index records by performer name and content title, make them available for warrantless inspection, and affix compliance statements to all materials. It applies to any material produced after specific dates that crosses state or foreign commerce, with 7-year retention requirements and extensive organizational mandates.

This regulation imposes massive compliance costs on a legal industry ($2T+ in total regulatory costs nationwide represents misallocation of scarce enforcement resources), disproportionately harms small producers unable to sustain the bureaucratic burden, and creates a warrantless inspection regime that violates property rights. The prophylactic record-keeping mandate—requiring copies of IDs, performer images, URLs, and exhaustive indexing—functions as a prior restraint on protected speech while doing nothing to actually prevent child exploitation, which is already prohibited by criminal law. Federalizing what could be state-level licensing regimes violates Tenth Amendment federalism principles, and the revolving door between agencies and the adult entertainment industry creates regulatory capture risks where rules protect incumbents over new entrants.

This regulation establishes a detailed federal grazing permitting system for Navajo Partitioned Lands, administered jointly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Navajo Nation. It defines eligibility criteria, animal unit quotas, permit requirements, and management plans, creating a command-and-control framework for livestock grazing on tribal trust lands. The system requires extensive bureaucratic coordination between BIA and tribal committees, with provisions for waivers, appeals, and enforcement.

This regulation imposes a heavy-handed command-and-control system that restricts property rights, creates artificial scarcity through permit quotas, and discriminates via eligibility and age-based priority rules. It conflicts with free enterprise principles by forbidding market-based allocation of grazing rights and prohibiting permit transfers except under restrictive conditions. The complex bureaucratic framework imposes significant compliance costs predominantly on small-scale Navajo grazers while creating rent-seeking opportunities through tribal committees and BIA oversight. The same objectives of sustainable range management could be achieved far more efficiently through tribal self-governance without federal involvement or through the establishment of clear private property rights, allowing market forces to determine optimal stocking levels and resource use.

This regulation establishes procedures for depositing proceeds from contracts, leases, permits, rights-of-way, or easements on lands withdrawn for Native selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It requires Federal agencies and the State of Alaska to deposit these proceeds to the credit of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.

This regulation ensures proper management and accounting of proceeds from Native land selections, protecting Alaska Native financial interests and maintaining transparency in the distribution of funds from lands subject to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Deleting it would create uncertainty about where proceeds should be deposited and could undermine the financial protections established for Alaska Native communities under federal law.

Regulation prescribes detailed process for Bureau of Indian Affairs-operated schools to develop local educational financial plans, including consultation with school boards, specific timelines, certification requirements, approval hierarchies, and audit access. It governs how federal education funds are planned, approved, reported, and used.

The regulation imposes heavy administrative burdens on small, often under-resourced schools through complex planning, rigid timelines, multiple approval layers, and extensive reporting requirements. These costs strip resources from classroom instruction while providing minimal accountability value beyond simple post-audit mechanisms. It exemplifies federal micromanagement of locally-run schools, creating bureaucratic inertia that undermines the flexibility needed to serve Native American communities effectively. The compliance burden violates principles of limited government and subsidiarity.

Establishes grant-making procedures for tribally controlled schools under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, including funding mechanisms, termination procedures, appeals processes, and regulatory compliance requirements.

Ensures federal funding reaches Native American educational institutions while preserving tribal sovereignty and providing accountability mechanisms. The regulation creates a structured system for educational grants that tribal governments can voluntarily participate in, with clear procedures for funding, appeals, and dispute resolution that protect both tribal interests and federal oversight responsibilities.