Browse regulations

Establishes procedures for DOE to transfer real property at closed/downsized defense nuclear facilities for economic development, including indemnification for claims related to hazardous substance releases. Allows transfers by sale or lease, often below fair market value, with NEPA review and congressional notification requirements.

Creates a subsidized economic development program that distorts market allocation, picks regional winners, and exposes taxpayers to open-ended liability. Proper disposal should occur via neutral auctions at fair market value with clear title, not bureaucratic reengineering.

Defines calculation method for electric vehicle petroleum-equivalent fuel economy (mpg) for CAFE compliance, including test cycles, weighting formulas, and equivalency factors.

Enforces a centrally planned metric that distorts market incentives, imposes unnecessary compliance burdens, and perpetuates federal overreach into vehicle design, harming consumer choice and small manufacturers.

Federal building energy efficiency standards for commercial and multi-family high-rise residential buildings constructed before January 3, 2007, based on ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989, covering building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and electrical systems to maximize energy efficiency and renewable energy use.

These regulations impose costly compliance burdens on federal construction projects, distort market incentives, and federalize building standards that properly belong to states under the Tenth Amendment. The energy savings are minimal compared to the $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance costs that burden American households.

The Title IX regulations prohibit sex discrimination in any education program receiving federal financial assistance, requiring self-evaluations, designated compliance officers, grievance procedures, and affirmative action measures, with exemptions for religious institutions, military training, and certain youth organizations.

The regulation imposes substantial compliance costs on thousands of educational institutions, creating a federal enforcement bureaucracy that intrudes on state and local authority over education. It weaponizes federal funding to coerce compliance, disproportionately burdens small institutions, and generates perverse incentives such as quotas and fear of investigations. The goal of preventing sex discrimination, while laudable, is better achieved through state laws, private accreditation standards, and market forces—not top-down federal mandates that violate Tenth Amendment principles and generate over $14,000 in hidden costs per household through bureaucratic overhead and compliance burdens.

Regulates interstate movement of animals diagnosed with Johne's disease, requiring official eartags, owner-shipper statements, direct transport to slaughter facilities, and vehicle sanitation to prevent disease spread.

Johne's disease is a low-risk, chronic condition with minimal economic impact on the beef industry; state-level oversight is sufficient. The regulation imposes $200M+ annual compliance costs on ranchers for national uniformity that violates federalism, distracts from real disease threats, and benefits labs and tag manufacturers through regulatory capture—all while voluntary industry programs already manage risk effectively.

Regulation establishes uniform methods for bovine tuberculosis eradication, including surveillance, testing, movement restrictions, and interstate compliance.

The regulation imposes excessive compliance costs on small businesses, infringes on state authority under the Tenth Amendment, and creates a complex system prone to regulatory capture. Its benefits are outweighed by the hidden tax on farmers and the distortion of free enterprise.

Regulation outlines matching fund requirements (100% for 1890 land-grant institutions, 50% for 1862 in insular areas) for federal agricultural research and extension grants, with waiver criteria based on financial hardship and reporting obligations via SF 425.

Imposes unnecessary administrative burdens on institutions, creates opportunities for arbitrary waiver decisions, and perpetuates federal overreach into state and local educational responsibilities, distorting incentives and increasing compliance costs.

Requires land-grant colleges receiving federal agricultural formula funds to establish stakeholder input processes on fund use, report annually to USDA, and faces fund withholding for non-compliance.

Imposes costly administrative burden on universities while yielding negligible benefits. Federal condition on state institutions violates Tenth Amendment federalism. Creates paperwork diversion from core teaching/research missions and opens process to special interest capture. Accountability to taxpayers would be better achieved by reducing federal involvement in higher education entirely.

The Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order establishes a federal marketing order that creates a Blueberry Council to collect assessments from producers and importers to fund generic promotion, research, and information programs for cultivated blueberries in the United States. The Council has 20-21 members representing different regions, production states, importers, exporters, and public interests, and operates under USDA oversight with authority to levy $18/ton assessments.

This is a classic example of federal agricultural marketing order that creates artificial market intervention through mandatory assessments, distorting free market signals and creating compliance costs for small producers. The program benefits established producers while imposing costs on all participants regardless of their market preferences, and represents unconstitutional federal overreach into what should be state or private sector activity.

The Emergency Loan for Seed Producers Program provides government-backed loans to farmers who produced seed crops for AgriBiotech under contract and were adversely affected by that company's bankruptcy. Loans are limited to 65% of the bankruptcy claim value, with 0% interest initially, and are secured by the claim itself. The program is administered by the Farm Service Agency with specific eligibility criteria and application requirements.

This program represents an unjustified market distortion and corporate welfare. It uses taxpayer funds to bail out producers who assumed contractual risk with AgriBiotech, creating moral hazard and undermining the bankruptcy process. The unseen costs include: (1) distorting resource allocation by propping up businesses that would otherwise adapt or exit; (2) setting a precedent for future targeted bailouts that expand government's role in private markets; (3) imposing administrative costs on taxpayers to run the program; and (4) violating the principle of equal protection by favoring one group of producers over all others. Private capital markets, not government loans, should handle such risk allocation.

The Special Apple Loan Program provides subsidized federal loans to apple producers who have suffered economic losses due to low apple prices. The program offers loans up to $500,000 (or $300 per acre) for various farm expenses and requires citizenship, creditworthiness, and collateral. It includes environmental restrictions and is administered by the Farm Service Agency.

This regulation creates an unconstitutional subsidy program that distorts agricultural markets by picking winners and losers. It uses taxpayer funds to prop up private enterprises facing normal market price fluctuations, creating moral hazard and unfair competition. The program represents federal overreach into areas reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment, and its unseen costs include misallocated capital, reduced market efficiency, and increased government dependence.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) works with private landowners to conserve natural resources, providing technical assistance and implementing conservation plans to improve soil, water, air, and related resources.

The costs of keeping this regulation include the potential for bureaucratic mission creep, regulatory capture, and unintended consequences that may harm the environment or private landowners, outweighing any potential benefits of the NRCS's conservation efforts.

This regulation establishes the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency providing technical assistance for soil, water, air, plant, and animal resource conservation to private landowners. It details the agency's organizational structure, leadership roles, and various conservation programs and initiatives including wetlands protection, environmental quality incentives, and farmland preservation.

Federal conservation programs represent unconstitutional overreach into private land use decisions that properly belong to states and individuals. These programs create dependency on federal assistance, distort market signals for land use, and impose hidden compliance costs on all taxpayers. Private conservation efforts and state-level initiatives can achieve the same environmental goals without federal intervention, while preserving property rights and reducing the $2 trillion annual regulatory burden on American households.

This regulation establishes the organizational structure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) within the USDA, detailing its central offices, field organization, leadership roles (Administrator, Associate Administrator, Deputy Administrators), and the specific functions and delegated authorities for each division including Plant Protection and Quarantine, Veterinary Services, Wildlife Services, Animal Care, International Services, and support offices.

This is an internal agency management document that does not impose direct compliance burdens on citizens or businesses. It belongs in agency internal manuals, not the Code of Federal Regulations. Codifying bureaucratic structure in the CFR adds to the 185,000-page labyrinth without providing public benefit. Agency organization should remain flexible and internally determined to avoid unnecessary regulatory complexity and to reduce the overall footprint of federal regulation that undermines the rule of law's knowability principle.

Regulation defining terms and procedures for organic certification, handling, and labeling under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.

This foundational regulation ensures consistency and integrity in organic certification, prevents fraud, and maintains consumer trust in organic labeling. Deleting it would undermine the entire organic certification system and allow non-compliant products to enter the market.