Browse regulations

Regulates Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) withdrawals for federal employees, covering post-employment distributions, in-service withdrawals for age or financial hardship, required minimum distributions, Roth conversions, and spousal rights.

Provides essential retirement income access rules for federal employees; removing would harm millions' ability to access earned retirement savings for legitimate needs like medical emergencies, financial hardship, or required distributions.

Detailed accounting procedures for daily valuation of TSP funds, including net earnings calculations, expense allocations, and share price determinations.

Deletion would undermine the integrity of federal employees' retirement accounts by removing standardized, transparent pricing rules, leading to potential miscalculations and loss of participant trust. The rule ensures accurate, consistent fund valuation essential for property rights.

Requires the Thrift Savings Plan to provide quarterly statements to participants with detailed account information, transaction history, and fund activity, plus annual fund descriptions and performance data, delivered via website with optional paper copies upon request.

Without these disclosure requirements, federal employees would lack critical information to monitor their retirement savings, detect errors or fraud, and make informed investment choices. In a government-run monopoly with no competitive pressure, market forces alone would not ensure adequate transparency, leaving participants vulnerable to uninformed decisions and potential misuse of their funds.

Governmentwide debarment and suspension system for federal procurement and nonprocurement transactions, establishing procedures to exclude persons who are not presently responsible from federal programs to protect public interest.

This regulation creates a vast administrative bureaucracy that imposes compliance costs on businesses, enables regulatory capture through complex exclusion procedures, and represents federal overreach into private contracting relationships that should be governed by market forces rather than government-mandated debarment lists.

Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP) provides long-term care insurance to federal employees, retirees, and uniformed service members, with underwriting requirements, coverage options, and administrative procedures managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and contracted carriers.

This program provides essential long-term care coverage for federal workers and retirees, ensuring they have access to care options that would otherwise be unaffordable, with established procedures for claims, appeals, and coverage continuity.

This regulation (4 CFR Part 81) establishes the GAO's voluntary public records disclosure policy, mirroring FOIA procedures. It defines which records are accessible, request procedures, exemptions (similar to FOIA), fee structure, and appeals process. The GAO is not legally subject to FOIA but adopts this framework voluntarily.

This represents the type of self-imposed bureaucratic overhead that inflates the $2 trillion regulatory burden. The GAO, as Congress's audit agency, already operates under direct congressional oversight and should provide maximal transparency by default rather than through a complex regulatory scheme. The rule creates administrative costs for managing requests, appeals, and fee waivers while establishing broad discretionary exemptions that can withhold information. True transparency requires no such regulatory apparatus - non-sensitive records should be publicly accessible through straightforward means, and existing legal privileges (attorney-client, deliberative process) are sufficient protection without creating a separate bureaucratic framework. The 'voluntary' nature makes this particularly pointless: it's a self-created rule to manage access that could be handled through simple publication and basic procedures.

Implements Alaska migratory bird subsistence program under MBTA, allowing eligible Alaska Natives to harvest migratory birds and eggs between March 10 and September 1 for nutritional and cultural needs, with specific harvest areas, species restrictions, and co-management council oversight.

Protects cultural subsistence rights of Alaska Natives under treaty obligations while establishing sustainable harvest management through co-management council to prevent overharvesting of migratory bird populations.

Implements a competitive grant program where U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awards federal funds (max $1M/project) to coastal states with 25-50% match for acquisition, restoration, enhancement, or management of coastal wetlands to achieve long-term (20+ years) conservation. Defines eligible activities, selection criteria (13 factors, 64 points), and extensive application and reporting requirements.

The program coerces all taxpayers to fund local conservation projects that properly belong to states, distorting state priorities toward federally-favored projects, imposing costly bureaucratic burdens, and using subjective criteria prone to political favoritism. Removing it respects federalism, reduces hidden tax costs, and returns decision-making to local stakeholders without expanding the administrative state.

Mandates security searches and screening for passengers, crew, and accessible property on non-scheduled aircraft operations boarding from sterile areas. Applies to a specific niche of charter flights, with classified procedures and TSA waiver authority. Compliance date was October 6, 2001.

Imposes heavy compliance costs on a limited segment of aviation for security gains better achieved through market-based incentives and private screening options. Represents post-9/11 mission creep into niche operations with minimal risk and creates bureaucratic overhead.

Aviation security rules for indirect air carriers requiring security programs, personnel vetting, cargo screening, and compliance with TSA directives to prevent unauthorized access and dangerous items on aircraft.

Creates massive regulatory burden on small businesses with compliance costs far exceeding any demonstrated security benefit, while duplicating existing criminal law and private sector security measures that already address aviation threats.

This TSA regulation imposes comprehensive aviation security requirements on foreign air carriers operating to/from the United States, including mandatory security programs, passenger/baggage/cargo screening, screener qualifications and training, known shipper programs, bomb threat response procedures, and X-ray system standards. Compliance requires implementing TSA-approved programs with extensive documentation, training, and operational constraints.

The regulation imposes massive compliance costs on foreign carriers, which are passed to consumers through higher ticket prices, while creating barriers to competition. The one-size-fits-all mandate eliminates market-based security innovation—foreign carriers could develop more efficient, effective security tailored to their operations if free to compete on security standards. The detailed prescriptive requirements exemplify the 185,000-page regulatory morass, with thousands of pages of rules no individual can fully comprehend, violating rule of law principles. The citizenship requirement for screeners discriminates without security justification, while the direct control over foreign companies' operations violates basic principles of sovereignty and federalism. The unseen costs include reduced international route competition, higher prices for Americans, and misallocation of resources to compliance rather than genuine security outcomes.

This regulation establishes a comprehensive federal security regime for commercial aviation operators, mandating detailed security programs, screening protocols, equipment standards, and personnel requirements based on aircraft size and operation type. It creates a tiered system (full, partial, twelve-five, private charter, limited, all-cargo programs) with escalating requirements tied to risk factors, all subject to TSA approval and amendment authority.

Keeping this regulation imposes massive hidden costs ($14,000+ per household) that distort market competition by protecting large incumbents over small operators, creates security theater that wastes resources without proportional safety gains, and prevents liability-driven, decentralized innovation in security. Airlines face strong private incentives to maintain security without burdensome federal mandates that stifle efficiency and consumer choice.

Aviation security regulations governing airport operations, including security programs, access controls, criminal background checks, and coordination with TSA for airports serving aircraft under federal security programs.

These regulations impose massive compliance costs on airports and airlines while creating bureaucratic inefficiencies. The private sector and airlines have strong incentives to maintain security without federal micromanagement. States could handle this more efficiently under federalism principles.

This TSA regulation establishes federal aviation security requirements including definitions of secured areas, passenger screening, weapons prohibitions, and security threat assessments for personnel. It creates a comprehensive federal mandate for airport and airline security operations under 49 CFR.

The $2 trillion regulatory burden includes this TSA regime, which imposes massive compliance costs on airports, airlines, and travelers while achieving questionable security benefits. Federal control eliminates market competition and innovation in security provision, creates privacy-invasive procedures, and represents unconstitutional federal overreach into what could be handled through state regulation, private liability standards, and industry certifications. The permanent bureaucracy expands its scope rather than optimizing cost-effectiveness, violating Hayek's knowledge principle—central planners cannot efficiently determine appropriate security levels for thousands of diverse airports. Americans would be better off with decentralized, market-driven security solutions held accountable through liability and insurance markets, not one-size-fits-all federal mandates.

Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) imposed on air carriers to recover costs of U.S. civil aviation security services, initially set at 2000-level screening costs with periodic redeterminations based on market share or other measures

This is a hidden tax on air travel that distorts market pricing, creates compliance costs for airlines, and represents federal overreach into aviation security - a function that could be handled through direct government funding or private sector solutions without the bureaucratic overhead and compliance burden.