Browse regulations

Clean Water Act regulation for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Prohibits manure/litter/process wastewater discharges from production areas except during overflow of facilities designed for 10-25 year storms. Requires nutrient management plans, soil/manure sampling, 100-foot land application setbacks (or 35-foot vegetated buffers), regular inspections, and extensive recordkeeping. Applies to dairy, beef, swine, poultry, veal, horses, sheep, and ducks above specified size thresholds (e.g., 700+ dairy cows, 2,500+ swine).

Federalizes water quality regulation that belongs to states under Tenth Amendment. Compliance costs disproportionately crush small-medium farms (30% higher per employee than large corporations), protecting incumbents and reducing competition. 'No discharge' standard is unachievably strict even during extraordinary weather, creating perpetual liability. Complex permitting, nutrient management, and recordkeeping erect barriers to entry, stifling innovation and forcing consolidation. Unseen costs include higher food prices, loss of family farms, and wealth transfer to regulatory consultants.

This EPA regulation establishes comprehensive requirements for fellowship awards to support academic and professional education in environmental protection fields. It covers eligibility criteria, application processes, funding provisions, agreement terms, payment procedures, and administrative requirements for both student and government employee fellowships under various environmental statutes.

Federal fellowship programs represent unconstitutional federal overreach into education, create dependency on government funding, and distort academic priorities. These programs should be eliminated to restore educational freedom, reduce regulatory burden, and allow states and private sector to determine environmental education needs without federal intervention.

Federal regulation requiring grant recipients to maintain drug-free workplaces, including employee drug policies, awareness programs, workplace identification, and mandatory reporting of drug convictions, with penalties including suspension and debarment for violations.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs on small businesses and nonprofits receiving grants, creates a federal intrusion into workplace management that should be handled by employers and states, and duplicates existing criminal law enforcement. The bureaucratic overhead of tracking convictions, maintaining awareness programs, and potential debarment for workplace incidents represents an excessive burden that doesn't demonstrably improve public safety or grant effectiveness.

This regulation establishes procedures for international trademark applications and registrations under the Madrid Protocol, including filing requirements, fees, and maintenance procedures for extensions of protection to the United States.

This regulation creates unnecessary bureaucratic complexity for trademark protection that could be handled through simpler bilateral agreements. The extensive fee structure and administrative requirements impose significant compliance costs on businesses without providing commensurate benefits over existing U.S. trademark protections.

This regulation implements the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 for NARA grants and financial assistance awards. It requires recipients (both organizations and individuals) to maintain drug-free workplaces, publish policies, establish awareness programs, report employee drug convictions within 10 days, and take personnel action or require rehabilitation within 30 days. Violations can result in suspension or termination of awards and debarment from federal funding for up to five years.

This mandate imposes substantial compliance costs on countless universities, nonprofits, research institutions, and state/local governments receiving federal grants—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers. The one-size-fits-all requirement extends federal control into private workplace management decisions better left to employers and employees. Small organizations face disproportionate burdens, creating barriers to participating in federal programs. The regulation achieves its aims paternalistically rather than through more targeted, performance-based approaches that respect institutional autonomy and the knowledge problem inherent in centralized rulemaking.

Implements the Drug-Free Workplace Act for Department of Education grant recipients, requiring them to publish drug-free workplace statements, establish awareness programs, identify workplaces, notify agencies of employee drug convictions within 10 days, and take personnel action or require rehabilitation within 30 days. Violations can result in suspension or termination of awards and debarment for up to 5 years.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs on educational and nonprofit organizations to create policies, track employees, and file reports unrelated to their core educational missions. It federalizes workplace drug policy—a traditional state and private sector concern—through conditional spending, creating uniform requirements regardless of local context or actual risk. The unseen costs include reduced grant participation (especially by smaller organizations), bureaucratic overhead, and mission distortion. If Congress desires drug-free workplaces for grantees, existing grant oversight mechanisms can address serious performance issues without a separate prescriptive regime.

Establishes procedures for the Department of Education to administratively garnish wages of individuals with delinquent federal education debts without court involvement, overriding state law.

The regulation violates due process by allowing wage garnishment without prior judicial review and a mere 30-day window to request a hearing; it preempts more protective state debtor laws; imposes compliance costs on employers; uses an internal, non-independent hearing process; and places high proof burdens on debtors to demonstrate hardship, causing severe financial ruin and loss of liberty with unseen social and economic costs.

These regulations implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) under WRDA 2000. They establish a federal-state-tribal coordination framework with extensive procedural requirements: Project Implementation Reports, Project Cooperation Agreements, Operating Manuals, interim goals/targets, and a system of review and concurrence processes. The rules govern how the Army Corps of Engineers, Florida agencies, and tribes plan, implement, and evaluate restoration projects while maintaining water supply and flood protection. The regulations are framed as internal agency guidance that does not create enforceable rights and explicitly preserves Florida's water allocation authority.

This represents federal overreach into state water management under the guise of restoration. The $billions in spending and complex bureaucratic apparatus (PIRs, PCAs, Operating Manuals, multiple teams, concurrence requirements) create massive compliance costs and regulatory capture risks—foxes designing the henhouse. It violates Tenth Amendment federalism: water resource management is a core state police power. The 'intended benefits' of ecosystem restoration can be achieved more efficiently through Florida-led initiatives, interstate compacts, or market-based water rights transfers without the unseen costs of federal administrative bloat, distorted incentives, and permanent mission creep. Even as internal guidance, it institutionalizes massive federal intervention.

This regulation prescribes the Army Corps of Engineers' disaster preparedness, response, and recovery procedures under Public Law 84-99. It authorizes federal supplemental assistance for flood fighting, rescue, rehabilitation of flood control works, emergency water supplies, and drought relief, but requires non-federal resources to be exhausted first and includes cost-sharing and maintenance standards.

Delete: federalizes core state/local responsibilities in violation of the Tenth Amendment, creating moral hazard that subsidizes risky development and maintenance neglect. The program imposes massive hidden tax burdens while crowding out more efficient private and local solutions, distorting land markets and reducing community resilience.

This Coast Guard regulation mandates comprehensive security protocols for large offshore oil and gas facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, requiring approved Facility Security Plans, TWIC credentials for personnel, designated security officers, regular drills and exercises, and tiered security measures based on maritime security threat levels. It applies to facilities hosting over 150 people for 30+ days or producing over 100,000 barrels of oil or 200 million cubic feet of gas daily.

The regulation imposes massive compliance costs on energy producers—security plan development, TWIC programs, designated officers, regular drills, extensive record-keeping, and equipment—all of which get passed to consumers as higher energy prices. Small offshore operators face nearly 30% higher per-employee compliance costs than large corporations, creating barriers to entry and protecting incumbents. The prescriptive, command-and-control approach eliminates market innovation in security solutions. Rather than mandating specific protocols through a federal bureaucracy, security for these facilities could be achieved through performance-based standards, private insurance requirements, and liability rules that allow operators to tailor security to their specific risks—avoiding the knowledge problem and regulatory capture endemic to such detailed federal mandates.

Regulation establishes mandatory security requirements for maritime facilities receiving certain vessels, including Facility Security Plans, certified Facility Security Officers, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) programs, regular security drills, and compliance with Coast Guard-issued MARSEC Levels. It applies to ports, terminals, and barge facilities handling passenger vessels, foreign cargo ships, and dangerous cargoes, with exemptions for military facilities, oil/gas production sites, and some isolated operations.

Imposes billions in annual compliance costs that disproportionately crush small maritime businesses while protecting large incumbent operators through regulatory barriers to entry. The prescriptive, one-size-fits-all regime destroys local adaptation and innovation, federalizing what proper constitutional federalism leaves to states and private actors. Security benefits could be achieved more efficiently through liability frameworks, insurance markets, and voluntary industry standards—allowing facility owners to tailor security to actual risks rather than bureaucratic mandates. The hidden tax on commerce and unseen costs—reduced competition, distorted incentives, and bureaucratic mission creep—vastly outweigh any marginal security gains.

Maritime security regulations establishing vessel security requirements including Vessel Security Plans, TWIC credentials, security officers, and access control for vessels engaged in international commerce.

Federal overreach into maritime security creates unnecessary compliance costs, distorts market incentives, and establishes a bureaucratic apparatus that serves industry incumbents more than public safety. Security functions are properly handled by private insurers, ports, and vessel owners who have direct financial incentives to protect their assets. The TWIC system creates a government-controlled identity card system that expands surveillance state capabilities without demonstrable security benefits.

Establishes Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committees in each port zone, composed of government, industry, and labor representatives to conduct risk assessments, develop security plans, and coordinate with Coast Guard. Mandates annual exercises, federal approval of plans, and extensive recordkeeping (5 years for assessments).

Imposes massive compliance costs ($2T+ nationwide) while creating a regulatory capture mechanism where industry and agency insiders co-design rules to benefit incumbents. Raises barriers to entry for smaller ports and operators. Ports have strong inherent incentives for security (insurance, business continuity) and could achieve equal or better protection through competitive private security services, liability law, and minimal federal standards rather than bureaucratic committee micromanagement and federal plan approvals.

This regulation establishes a comprehensive maritime security regime requiring vessels, facilities, and ports to develop security plans, conduct assessments, implement access controls via TWIC credentials, and comply with screening and coordination requirements. It aligns domestic standards with international SOLAS/ISPS conventions while applying prescriptive federal mandates that preempt state/local regulations and cover all waters under U.S. jurisdiction.

The regulation imposes billions in annual compliance costs on maritime commerce through bureaucratic mandates (TWIC, security plans, assessments, audits) with questionable security value, creates barriers to entry favoring large incumbents, preempts more flexible local and private approaches, and represents federal overreach into areas better handled by market-based security with liability rules. The unseen costs—higher shipping costs, reduced competition, stifled innovation, and economic distortion—far outweigh any marginal security benefits over a decentralized, performance-based alternative.

Establishes the Joint Service Committee to annually review the Manual for Courts-Martial and propose amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Defines membership (military service Judge Advocates), procedures, public notice and comment requirements, and record-keeping. Applies to all DoD components.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because without a coordinated, transparent review process, military justice rules could become inconsistent across services, undermining fairness and due process for service members. The JSC structure ensures uniform updates with public input, preventing parochial interests from dominating. This systematic approach is hard to replicate ad hoc while maintaining accountability.