Browse regulations

This regulation outlines ethics rules and conduct standards for employees of the US Department of Agriculture, including restrictions on outside employment, financial interests, and personal relationships with program participants.

The regulation imposes significant restrictions on employees' outside activities, which may stifle their ability to engage in legitimate and harmless activities, and the costs of compliance and enforcement may outweigh any potential benefits.

This regulation governs appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for violations of veterans' employment rights under USERRA and VEOA, establishing procedures for filing complaints, exhaustion requirements, and remedies for federal agencies that violate reemployment or preference rights of veterans and service members.

This regulation creates unnecessary federal bureaucracy for resolving employment disputes that could be handled through existing state courts and private arbitration. It imposes compliance costs on federal agencies, distorts labor markets by creating special classes of employees, and represents federal overreach into employment relationships that should be governed by contract and state law under the Tenth Amendment.

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program premium conversion regulations covering tax-advantaged payroll deductions for federal employee health insurance, including eligibility, waiver procedures, qualifying life events, and administrative procedures.

This regulation represents a form of government-subsidized health insurance for federal employees, which contravenes the principle of limited government. The tax-advantaged status of premium conversion creates a hidden subsidy for the federal government, distorting free market principles and increasing overall government cost through administrative complexity.

Regulation outlines procedures for handling claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act involving OPM employees' negligence, including claim submission requirements, evidence standards, and approval processes for settlements.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs (part of the $2Trillion annual burden) and creates a complex, opaque process that undermines efficiency. Its existence perpetuates bureaucratic overhead and potential for error, violating the principle of minimizing federal intervention in civil matters.

This regulation establishes a limited-access permit system for American lobster and Jonah crab fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) along the Atlantic Coast. It requires vessels to obtain Federal permits, mandates trap tagging, imposes management area restrictions, and requires electronic trip reporting. The system allocates fishing rights based on historical participation, creating barriers to entry for new fishermen.

This regulation creates a government-granted monopoly system that restricts competition, raises consumer prices, and violates free market principles. The limited-access permit system artificially constrains supply, protects incumbent fishermen from competition, and imposes substantial compliance costs that get passed to households as a hidden tax. Even if conservation is needed, this command-and-control approach is the least efficient method; a system based on clearly defined property rights (ITQs) would achieve conservation at lower cost while preserving market incentives. The federal government has no constitutional authority to manage local fisheries—this belongs to states under the Tenth Amendment. Unseen costs include reduced innovation, black markets, and disproportionate harm to small operators and consumers.

Comprehensive federal regulations governing conservation and management of Atlantic tunas, billfish, swordfish, and sharks under Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA authority, including permit requirements, catch limits, gear restrictions, and closed areas to protect migratory species

Creates massive bureaucratic burden with $2 trillion+ annual compliance costs, imposes federal control over fisheries that should be managed by states under Tenth Amendment, establishes complex permit system that raises barriers to entry for small fishing operations, and enforces arbitrary catch limits that distort market incentives while failing to achieve conservation goals more effectively than private property rights or state-level management

Federal regulations governing endangered species protection, including marine mammals, sea turtles, and other protected wildlife, with specific rules for vessel approaches, speed restrictions, and habitat protection measures.

These regulations impose substantial compliance costs on maritime industries while creating regulatory uncertainty. The complex vessel approach rules and speed restrictions distort navigation patterns and commercial fishing operations. Federal jurisdiction over species protection exceeds constitutional limits, as wildlife management is properly a state/local matter under the Tenth Amendment. The regulations create barriers to entry for small fishing operations and increase operational costs for shipping, ultimately harming consumers through higher prices.

This regulation implements the Endangered Species Act for marine species under NMFS jurisdiction. It governs taking, possession, transport, and trade of endangered/threatened wildlife and plants, defines hundreds of technical terms for fishing gear and regulated areas, mandates specific equipment like turtle excluder devices, establishes critical habitat designations, creates permit systems with burdensome requirements, preempts state law, and sets up cooperative agreements with states for conservation funding. The regulation heavily restricts commercial fishing activities in both state and federal waters.

The regulation imposes crushing compliance costs that fall disproportionately on small fishing businesses—gear modifications, restricted areas, permit requirements, and complex rules create $ billions in hidden taxes while raising seafood prices for consumers. It violates constitutional federalism by commandeering state waters and preempting state law under an expansive Commerce Clause theory. The 'take' definition is impossibly broad, creating liability for ordinary fishing activities and encouraging perverse incentives like preemptive habitat destruction. Regulatory capture is endemic: large commercial operations absorb costs better than small competitors, raising barriers to entry. The unseen costs—lost fishing jobs, suppressed innovation in gear technology, reduced seafood supply, and destroyed property values in designated critical habitats—far outweigh the uncertain conservation benefits that could be achieved more efficiently through state management, market-based conservation easements, or clearer property rights.

Prohibits common carriers in interstate/foreign commerce from giving undue preferences or advantages, including gifts to shippers, and bars using such expenditures to justify rate increases. Establishes a Board-enforced process for refunds on misrouting and advisory opinions on routing lawfulness.

This regulation imposes heavy compliance costs, restricts freedom of contract and price discrimination that could benefit consumers, and creates a regulatory board vulnerable to capture. The vague 'undue preference' standard chills legitimate business arrangements. Misrouting disputes can be resolved via contract law and courts without bureaucratic oversight, making this regulation an unnecessary burden that stifles competition and raises costs for businesses and ultimately consumers.

49 CFR Part 80 implements the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) of 1998, establishing a federal credit program to finance surface transportation projects through loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit.

This regulation enables federal subsidies for transportation projects, distorting market allocation of capital, creating moral hazard for project sponsors, and diverting funds from higher-priority private investments. It unlawfully expands federal power beyond enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause, and substitutes bureaucratic judgment for market signals. Private finance and state/local solutions can fund infrastructure without federal overreach.

Federal regulation establishing minimum safety standards for railroad passenger equipment to prevent collisions, derailments, and other occurrences causing injury or death to railroad employees, passengers, or the public.

Creates $2 trillion in compliance costs that act as a hidden tax on every American household. The regulation's safety goals could be achieved through market competition, tort liability, and state-level oversight without federal intervention. Small businesses face 30% higher compliance costs per employee, creating barriers to entry that protect established players from competition.

Sets comprehensive federal safety standards for steam locomotives, mandating frequent inspections (daily to 1472 service-day cycles), extensive FRA documentation, and reporting requirements for defects, alterations, and accidents. Applies broadly to steam operations with narrow exemptions for insular, narrow-gauge, and certain urban transit.

Federal mandate imposes disproportionate compliance costs on the niche steam locomotive industry while preempting more flexible state oversight or private safety mechanisms (insurance, tort liability). Operators have strong inherent incentives to maintain safe boilers to protect valuable equipment and reputation. The regulation represents outdated federal overreach into a domain with minimal public risk, where alternative safety assurances are sufficient without the heavy paperwork burden and inflexible prescriptive standards.

Federal credit assistance program for surface transportation projects providing TIFIA loans, guarantees, and lines of credit with eligibility thresholds, selection criteria, and compliance requirements.

Federal infrastructure financing distorts market signals, creates moral hazard, and displaces private capital. Transportation projects should be funded by user fees and tolls rather than taxpayer-subsidized credit instruments that benefit politically connected projects while hiding true costs from users.

The DBE program requires recipients of DOT financial assistance to implement race- and gender-conscious contracting preferences for businesses owned by 'socially and economically disadvantaged' individuals. It mandates setting DBE participation goals, using certified DBE directories, enforcing prompt payment to subcontractors, and maintaining extensive reporting and recordkeeping systems.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance costs on taxpayers and contractors while perpetuating the very discrimination it claims to eliminate. It violates equal protection by using racial and gender classifications, distorts market efficiency by forcing consideration of ownership demographics over merit, and creates bureaucratic overhead that falls disproportionately on small businesses. The program's unintended consequences include higher project costs, potential for certification fraud, and social division.

Regulation establishes Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses for federal contracts, allowing price adjustments based on established market prices or cost indexes for commodities, supplies, services, or labor/materials. Contracting officers can use existing EPA clauses or develop customized ones when standard clauses are inappropriate. Established prices/indexes can come from independent third parties like trade associations or government bodies, and multiple indexes may be combined.

This technical procurement rule ensures efficient and fair government contracting by allowing price adjustments for unforeseen market fluctuations. Deleting it would force either rigid fixed prices (leading to contractor risk premiums or bid inflation) or ad hoc negotiated adjustments lacking consistency. The regulation balances government protection against overcharging with contractor protection from cost spikes, promoting competition and stable supply chains essential for government operations.