Browse regulations

A temporary FEMA grant program (FY1999-2000 disasters) that provides federal funds (up to 75%) to states, localities, and nonprofits to acquire flood-damaged principal residences or elevate structures. Properties must be in the 100-year floodplain, certified uninhabitable, and pre-disaster value under $300,000. Acquired properties must be dedicated to open space/recreational/wetland uses in perpetuity with restrictive covenants and federal oversight.

Obsolete time-limited program expired decades ago. Even if active, it represents federal overreach into land use (Tenth Amendment), encourages moral hazard by subsidizing floodplain development, imposes permanent federal deed restrictions on private property, and distorts market signals that would otherwise discourage building in flood zones. The unseen cost is systemic interference with price mechanisms and local decision-making that should govern property risk.

This regulation implements the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program (FMAGP), a FEMA program that provides federal financial assistance to states and tribal governments for firefighting costs during declared wildfires. It establishes procedures for requesting declarations, determining eligibility, calculating costs, and administering grants. Eligible costs include equipment, supplies, labor, travel, pre-positioning, emergency work, and temporary repairs. The program has cost thresholds ($100,000 individual fire or cumulative threshold based on population) and requires state administrative and hazard mitigation plans. It reimburses states for costs incurred during the incident period of fires threatening major disasters.

This program usurps state and local responsibilities, creating moral hazard by subsidizing fire suppression costs that should be borne by states. Federal involvement expands government beyond constitutional limits, distorts incentives, and redistributes wealth from taxpayers to fire-prone jurisdictions. States should manage wildfires through their own budgets, mutual aid compacts, and private risk-pooling mechanisms. The administrative complexity and bureaucratic thresholds represent unseen compliance costs without justifying federal intervention in what is fundamentally a state and local function.

Establishes procedures for exploration, development, and disposal of mineral materials on public lands, including permits for free use and contracts for sale, with environmental protections and competitive bidding requirements.

Creates unnecessary federal bureaucracy over state-managed resources, imposes compliance costs on small businesses, and represents unconstitutional federal overreach into land management that should be handled by states under the Tenth Amendment.

Federal grant program providing up to $50,000 immediate awards and up to 2-year intermediate awards to public entities (states, tribes, localities) for mental health/substance abuse emergency response. Requires certification that existing systems are overwhelmed by a sudden precipitating event (disaster, act of terrorism, etc.) and that no other funding sources are available. Includes extensive application requirements, reporting obligations, and restrictions on unallowable expenses.

This program violates constitutional federalism—mental health emergency response is a traditional state and local function, not a federal enumerated power. The administrative compliance burden for small grants ( paperwork, certifications, quarterly reports, OMB forms) consumes resources that should go to direct services. The 'no other funding' requirement is unenforceable and encourages gaming; states will underfund local capacity to maintain eligibility. Federal involvement distorts local priorities, creates dependency, and inevitably expands beyond true emergencies into routine service provision. The hidden tax of administering this bureaucracy is unjustified when states and communities—closer to the problem—can and should respond directly. This is precisely the type of program that generates regulatory mission creep while raising barriers to competition from private/charitable alternatives.

This regulation establishes procedures for CSB employees to handle legal requests for agency materials, protecting confidential information and preventing CSB involvement in unrelated litigation while conserving employee time and resources.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it protects sensitive safety investigation data from being weaponized in private litigation, ensures CSB resources are used for their intended public safety mission rather than corporate legal battles, and maintains the agency's ability to conduct impartial investigations without fear of selective disclosure that could compromise future investigations.

Regulation restricts testimony by Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board employees in legal proceedings related to chemical incidents. It allows only factual testimony (no expert/opinion) via deposition after General Counsel approval, provided the information is not reasonably available elsewhere. Live court testimony is prohibited. The rule implements a statutory bar on using CSB reports as evidence and aims to conserve agency resources, preserve impartiality, and protect deliberative materials.

Deletion would drain CSB resources and undermine Congress's intent to separate safety investigations from liability litigation, weakening the Board's ability to prevent chemical incidents. The rule achieves its purpose by centralizing control to manage workload, limiting testimony to unique factual observations, and prohibiting opinion testimony that would circumvent the statutory protection.

Procedural rules for Chemical Safety Board (CSB) depositions during investigations, covering witness counsel participation limits, attorney sanctions, exclusion of conflicted counsel, and transcript access procedures. Primarily governs deposition conduct for subpoenaed and voluntary witnesses.

These procedural safeguards ensure constitutional due process (right to counsel, appeal mechanisms, transcript access) while preserving the CSB's legitimate investigatory authority. Deletion would either enable unchecked bureaucratic power or cripple investigations through endless dilatory tactics—both outcomes threaten accountability and safety in chemical incident investigations. The modest compliance burden is the cost of balanced, rule-bound fact-finding.

This regulation establishes CSB procedures for handling Privacy Act requests, including access to personal records, amendment/correction requests, and disclosure accounting, following standard federal agency protocols.

This is a redundant administrative procedure that duplicates existing FOIA requirements and adds bureaucratic overhead without meaningful protection beyond what individuals already have under broader privacy laws.

Federal radiation protection standards for DOE's storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain repository. Sets dose limits of 150 microsieverts/year for 10,000 years and 1 millisievert/year thereafter up to 1 million years, requires performance assessments to demonstrate 'reasonable expectation' of compliance, and specifies detailed modeling assumptions.

Imposes crushing compliance costs for scientifically speculative million-year risk projections. Federal preemption stifles state innovation in waste management. Complex standards invite regulatory capture, benefiting incumbents while raising barriers to entry. The rule's unachievable 'reasonable expectation' standard creates legal uncertainty without improving actual safety.

This regulation establishes EPA's framework for regulating 'plant-incorporated protectants' (PIPs)—pesticidal substances produced within genetically engineered plants—under FIFRA and FFDCA. It defines PIPs, creates exemption categories based on the method of genetic modification (conventional breeding vs. genetic engineering), and establishes procedures for developers to self-determine or request EPA confirmation of exemption eligibility. The rule includes recordkeeping, adverse effects reporting, and tolerance exemption provisions for specific PIPs like Bt proteins.

This regulation represents federal overreach into agriculture, creating a costly pre-approval regime that stifles innovation and protects incumbent agribusinesses from competition. Compliance burdens fall disproportionately on small biotech firms and farmers, while the exemption framework creates arbitrary distinctions between 'conventional breeding' and 'genetic engineering' that lack scientific basis—the safety of a crop depends on its properties, not the technique used. The unseen costs include delayed adoption of potentially beneficial pest-resistant and climate-resilient crops, higher food prices, and erosion of Tenth Amendment principles by federalizing matters that should be governed by states or the free market. The regulation assumes government preemptive authority over agricultural innovation, violating the presumption of liberty and imposing a hidden tax on American households through reduced choice and increased costs.

EPA regulation establishing comprehensive labeling requirements for pesticide products, including mandatory content (product name, manufacturer info, registration numbers, ingredient statements, usage directions), format standards (legibility, placement), safety warnings based on toxicity categories, child hazard warnings, first aid statements, and prohibitions against false/misleading claims.

Pesticides pose significant public health and environmental risks requiring federal safety standards. This regulation addresses market failures: information asymmetry (manufacturers know more about product risks), externalities (improper use harms neighbors and ecosystems), and potential for deceptive claims. The labeling requirements ensure transparency about ingredients, proper usage, and hazard warnings that private actors would underprovide. While federalism concerns exist, pesticides cross state lines through commerce, making uniform national standards efficient. The compliance costs are modest compared to prevented harm from poisoning, misuse, and environmental damage.

This regulation (40 CFR Part 35) establishes administrative procedures for EPA grants to states, localities, and tribes for environmental programs like air/water pollution control, hazardous waste, and pesticides. It governs application requirements, work plans, performance reporting, funding allocations, and approvals for both standard grants and Performance Partnership Grants that consolidate multiple programs.

This grant-regulatory regime imposes massive administrative burdens on states while undermining federalism. The compliance paperwork, negotiated work plans, performance metrics, and conditional approvals create a federal shadow government over state environmental programs, distorting state priorities toward EPA's agenda. The unseen costs include dependency on federal funding, reduced state innovation, and a complex bureaucracy that increases taxpayer burden without demonstrably improving environmental outcomes—which states could achieve more efficiently without federal strings attached.

Environmental impact assessment requirements for nongovernmental activities in Antarctica, implementing Antarctic Treaty Protocol and requiring documentation based on activity severity (PERM, IEE, or CEE) with federal review and public comment processes.

Imposes excessive federal bureaucracy on Antarctic tourism/exploration with multi-year review processes, public comment periods, and enforcement penalties that create costly barriers to entry while duplicating international treaty obligations that could be handled through voluntary compliance or state-level coordination.

Voluntary stamp program where customers pay above postage value; the differential, less USPS costs, funds causes deemed in national public interest. Requires proposals, review by Office of Stamp Services and Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, final decision by Postmaster General. Proceeds go to federal executive agencies.

Government should not allocate private charitable contributions; program creates unnecessary bureaucracy, substitutes political for individual judgment on worthy causes, and lacks transparency with closed committee meetings.

Federal program providing grants to states for constructing, acquiring, or renovating facilities to care for veterans, with matching funds required and prioritization based on need and project type

Federal intervention in state-level veteran care facilities represents unconstitutional overreach into areas traditionally managed by states, creates costly bureaucratic overhead, and distorts local decision-making about veteran care priorities