Browse regulations

Establishes OPM/OMB certification process allowing federal agencies to pay senior executives above standard caps (Level III Executive Schedule) up to Level II or VP-level compensation if their performance appraisal systems demonstrate meaningful performance differentiation. Sets nine certification criteria including alignment with agency mission, results-oriented expectations, oversight, accountability, and pay differentiation tied to performance ratings.

Keeping this regulation raises direct costs by increasing compensation ceilings for senior bureaucrats and adds bureaucratic overhead through certification machinery. It institutionalizes the flawed premise that government must competitively pay executives to attract talent—when limited government should shrink, not expand, administrative payroll. Unseen effects include incentives to game performance metrics and mission creep to justify higher pay, while drawing human capital from productive private enterprise into unproductive administration.

This regulation implements 5 U.S.C. 7302 by requiring federal agencies to provide written notice to senior executives and high-paid employees about post-employment conflict-of-interest restrictions under 18 U.S.C. 207(c). It defines coverage criteria based on pay levels, mandates notification procedures before personnel actions, and clarifies that restrictions apply regardless of notice receipt.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because this ensures transparency about post-employment restrictions that prevent government officials from immediately leveraging their public service for private gain. Without mandatory notification, high-level employees could unknowingly violate conflict-of-interest laws, undermining public trust in government integrity and creating unfair advantages for those who understand the rules versus those who don't.

Regulations establishing aggregate compensation limits for federal employees, including basic pay, premium pay, awards, and various allowances, capped at Executive Schedule Level I or Vice President's salary depending on performance certification status.

Federal pay caps distort labor markets, prevent merit-based compensation, and create bureaucratic compliance costs. They interfere with agencies' ability to attract talent and reward performance, while generating complex administrative burdens that outweigh any intended fiscal benefits.

Regulation governing federal competitive examining procedures, including OPM-set examination weights, veterans' preference points (5-10 points), military service credit, retained grade considerations, and direct-hire authority for positions with severe candidate shortages or critical hiring needs. Also implements category rating as an alternative to numeric scoring.

These are internal federal personnel management procedures that ensure basic merit principles, veterans' preference, and flexibility for critical hiring needs. Deleting them would create chaos in federal hiring, likely increase political appointments, and undermine the objective of maintaining a qualified civil service. The administrative burden is minimal compared to the benefits of standardized, fair hiring frameworks that serve constitutional government operations.

Regulation establishes procedures for federal agencies to notify employees and stakeholders about new regulations through posting notices. Requires agencies to make regulations available for review, display notices prominently, determine posting locations and durations based on local factors, and continue posting even after public comment periods close. The purpose is to inform agency personnel of regulatory changes.

Imposes unnecessary bureaucratic overhead on agencies with minimal public benefit. Internal communications about regulatory changes should be determined by each agency based on operational needs, not dictated by top-down mandates. Adds complexity to federal regulations while failing to address any market failure or protect fundamental rights. Eliminating this requirement would reduce administrative burden without materially affecting agency effectiveness, as agencies have inherent incentives to inform their workforce about new rules.

49 CFR Part 821 governs procedural rules for NTSB administrative hearings and appeals in aviation safety enforcement cases, including certificate suspensions/revocations, civil penalties, and medical certificate denials. It establishes filing requirements, service rules, discovery protocols, motion practice, timelines, and appeals procedures before NTSB administrative law judges and the Board.

This is a purely procedural regulation that does not impose substantive compliance costs on the public. It provides essential due process safeguards and orderly administration for individuals facing certificate actions or penalties. Deleting it would create chaos, increase litigation uncertainty, and force parties to seek judicial clarification of basic procedural matters, ultimately raising costs and undermining fair adjudication of aviation safety enforcement—a core federal function with no Tenth Amendment implications.

Regulation establishes NHTSA's procedures for handling claims that submitted information qualifies for confidential treatment under FOIA Exemption 4, primarily protecting trade secrets and commercial information from disclosure. It details submission requirements, marking standards, evaluation criteria, class determinations, and reconsideration processes balancing business confidentiality interests with FOIA's transparency goals.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because it provides essential procedural structure implementing FOIA's confidentiality exemptions. Without standardized procedures, businesses would face uncertainty about how to properly protect legitimate trade secrets when submitting information to NHTSA, potentially chilling voluntary disclosure of safety data or forcing over-disclosure of proprietary information. The administrative framework ensures consistent, timely evaluation of claims, prevents arbitrary withholding, and includes public interest overrides. The modest compliance burden is outweighed by protecting innovation and maintaining the government's ability to obtain necessary technical information from businesses.

Regulations for interstate household goods motor carriers covering liability, estimates, payment, advertising, arbitration, and consumer protections for individual shippers

Creates a massive compliance burden on small businesses with complex rules, forms, and disclosures that raise barriers to entry while federalizing what should be state/local matters under the Tenth Amendment

Federal regulation requiring grant recipients to maintain drug-free workplaces, publish policies, conduct awareness programs, and report drug convictions of employees working on federal awards.

Creates costly administrative burden with minimal demonstrated benefit, duplicates state/local laws, and imposes federal oversight on what should be private workplace matters. The compliance costs and reporting requirements create unnecessary bureaucracy while state and local governments already have drug laws and workplace safety regulations in place.

Mandates the use of specific DHS and DD forms for contract closeout, wage restitution claims, and invention reporting across all DHS Components, referencing FAR and HSAR regulations.

Standardized forms ensure transparent, auditable government contracting processes, protect taxpayer interests in contract closeouts and wage claims, and provide necessary documentation of government intellectual property rights. Contractors voluntarily accept these minimal procedural requirements by choosing to do business with DHS, and the benefits of consistency and accountability outweigh the modest compliance costs.

DHS supplemental regulation establishing requirements for contractors handling Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), including disclosure procedures, background checks, training, incident reporting, and security protocols for protecting sensitive government data.

The government has a legitimate, compelling interest in protecting sensitive information entrusted to contractors—including national security data, critical infrastructure information, and personal privacy data. These requirements are risk-based and proportionate: without them, breaches could cause catastrophic harm to national security, public safety, and individual privacy that would far exceed compliance costs. The regulation establishes necessary minimum standards for data handling, incident response, and personnel security that contractors can reasonably absorb as part of doing business with the government. Striking it would create unacceptable vulnerabilities in government operations and data protection.

Mandates inclusion of specific shipping and delivery terms (FOB origin/destination) clauses in federal procurement solicitations

Ensures consistent, standardized contract terms for shipping and delivery in federal procurement, preventing disputes and protecting taxpayer interests in government contracting

Mandates warranties for US Coast Guard major system acquisitions ($10M+), requiring contractors to fix defects at no additional cost. Excludes combat damage, allows tailoring, and permits waiver for national defense or cost-benefit reasons with Congressional notification. Governs procurement terms, remedies, and liability limitations.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because it protects taxpayer interests in major defense procurement. Contractors would have less incentive to ensure quality and compliance on expensive systems, leading to waste, fraud, and abuse. While one could argue warranties would emerge anyway, the mandatory requirement establishes a baseline accountability standard that is essential when dealing with complex, high-stakes acquisitions where information asymmetries are severe and post-delivery defects are costly to taxpayers.

This regulation mandates federal agencies to use specific contractor performance reporting systems (CPARS, CCASS, ACASS) and requires contracting officers to include a representative clause for technical contracts, following FAR procurement guidelines.

This regulation creates unnecessary federal bureaucracy and compliance costs for contractor evaluation systems that could be handled more efficiently by individual agencies or through market mechanisms. The mandated systems add overhead without clear evidence of improving contractor performance or value for taxpayers.

This Coast Guard regulation outlines procedures for health care personal services contracts, permitting exemptions from competition requirements for urgent homeland security needs. It requires local notice, qualification-based selection, negotiated contracts, pay caps, and expense allowances.

Administrative requirements and pay caps increase costs and reduce flexibility. The competition exemption undermines procurement integrity and may lead to higher prices. This adds to the regulatory burden without clear benefit over existing authorities.