Browse regulations

Establishes procedures for Selective Service System to handle litigation requests for official information and witness testimony, requiring General Counsel approval and setting disclosure standards based on classification, privilege, and relevance factors.

This internal administrative procedure is necessary for orderly, legally compliant responses to discovery, protecting classified information, privacy rights, and ongoing investigations. Without it, individual employees could make ad hoc disclosure decisions, risking national security and privacy violations. The minimal compliance costs are vastly outweighed by preventing chaos and ensuring consistent, legally sound responses.

DoD policy governing operational contract support (OCS) for overseas contingency operations, establishing procedures for contracting, personnel accountability (via SPOT-ES), deployment requirements, and restrictions on contractor roles (e.g., inherently governmental functions). It defines CAAF status, legal jurisdiction, and requirements for combat trafficking and law-of-war compliance.

This regulation governs contractors in war zones, directly impacting mission success and force protection. Deleting it would create unaccountable personnel, undermine command authority, and risk legal violations (e.g., Geneva Conventions, MEJA) during operations where lives depend on reliable, synchronized support.

This regulation governs the distinctive paper and counterfeit deterrents used in United States Federal Reserve notes. It specifies the security features (security threads, optically variable inks, non-visual characteristic features, etc.) that must be used in currency, declares Treasury has exclusive property interest in these features, and makes unauthorized possession or control of these materials a crime under 18 U.S.C. 474A.

Americans would be far worse off without this regulation. Counterfeiting would increase dramatically, devaluing legitimate currency, eroding trust in the monetary system, and enabling widespread fraud that harms every holder of US dollars. The regulation protects the integrity of the nation's currency—a core, legitimate government function—and cannot be effectively privatized or market-based. The modest compliance costs are trivial compared to the trillions in economic damage that unchecked counterfeiting would inflict.

This regulation blocks all property and interests in property within U.S. jurisdiction of persons designated by Treasury/State as responsible for threatening South Sudan's peace, security, or stability, committing human rights abuses, or supporting such activities. It prohibits all transactions involving blocked property, requires U.S. persons to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts, and extends blocking to entities owned 50%+ by blocked persons, enforced by OFAC through licensing and civil/criminal penalties.

Economic sanctions violate core libertarian principles of freedom of contract and non-aggression. They represent government coercion over peaceful voluntary exchange, impose compliance costs on U.S. financial institutions, harm innocent civilians in targeted countries, and create a vast bureaucratic apparatus (OFAC) with unchecked authority. The unseen costs include retaliation against American businesses, humanitarian harm, chilling effects on international trade, and erosion of the rule of law through vague 'national emergency' declarations enabling perpetual expansion of economic warfare powers.

Regulation under IEEPA implements sanctions against persons undermining Mali's stability, blocking all their U.S. property and prohibiting transactions by U.S. persons. It requires blocked funds held in interest-bearing accounts, defines property and transfer extremely broadly, and applies extraterritorially to services worldwide.

Enforces unconstitutional property seizure without due process, imposing massive hidden compliance costs on financial institutions that are passed to consumers as a hidden tax. Unseen effects include chilling legitimate international commerce, harming innocents caught in opaque designation process, and normalizing unchecked executive power that distorts markets and expands federal overreach beyond constitutional limits.

Regulation blocks property of persons associated with Belarus government and its policies undermining democracy, human rights, or public corruption, as designated under E.O. 13405 and 14038. It prohibits U.S. persons from dealing with such blocked persons, requires blocked funds to be held in interest-bearing U.S. accounts, and defines numerous economic sectors (defense, security, energy, potash, tobacco, construction, transportation) for targeting.

Sanctions violate free market principles by restricting voluntary international commerce, impose compliance costs on financial institutions, and likely harm ordinary Belarusians while entrenching the authoritarian regime. The vague criteria for designation grant OFAC excessive discretionary power, undermining rule of law and creating regulatory uncertainty. Unseen consequences include pushing Belarus toward adversarial powers and empowering the administrative state beyond constitutional limits.

This regulation implements sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act against foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State (in consultation with Treasury and Attorney General) to be responsible for or complicit in hostage-taking or wrongful detention of U.S. nationals abroad. It blocks all property and interests in property of such persons within U.S. jurisdiction, prohibits all transactions with them, requires blocked funds to be held in interest-bearing accounts, and establishes licensing procedures through OFAC.

This regulation serves a critical national security function by imposing economic costs on foreign actors who violate the rights of U.S. citizens abroad. The property blocking is a targeted, proportional response that does not create broad compliance burdens for American citizens or businesses, while serving as an essential deterrent against hostage situations. Deleting it would remove a key tool for protecting Americans overseas and weaken U.S. leverage in hostage recovery efforts. The regulation is narrowly tailored to specific egregious acts and falls within legitimate federal foreign policy and national security powers, not the type of domestic economic regulation that burdens free enterprise or creates regulatory capture.

This regulation establishes the framework for federal oversight of Missouri's state-administered surface coal mining program under SMCRA. It documents approval history, disapproves specific state amendments that deviate from federal standards, and mandates that Missouri make certain future amendments to align with federal requirements found at 30 CFR parts 778 and others. It also covers the approved abandoned mine land reclamation plan.

This federal oversight regime imposes significant compliance costs on Missouri and its miners while usurping state sovereignty over land use and resource regulation. Mining is a local activity; Missouri has strong incentives to protect its own land and water while maintaining a competitive mining industry. Federal micromanagement creates a one-size-fits-all approach, stifles regulatory innovation, and adds layers of bureaucracy. The unseen costs include delayed permits, increased legal complexity, and the erosion of the principle that states are laboratories of democracy best suited to address their local environmental and economic conditions. The federal role should be limited to interstate externalities, not comprehensive program approval and amendment mandates.

Establishes procedures for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to issue right-of-use and easement (RUE) grants allowing alternate energy or marine-related uses of existing Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities that are not otherwise authorized under other federal statutes. Requires applicants to demonstrate technical/financial capability, obtain facility owner/lessee agreements, and comply with extensive safety, environmental, and reporting requirements. Includes processing fees, public notice requirements, federal/state coordination mandates, and civil/criminal penalties for non-compliance.

This regulation creates a costly federal permitting bureaucracy for alternate uses of private offshore infrastructure that could be efficiently handled through voluntary contracts between owners, lessees, and operators. The $14,000+ per household hidden tax burden includes compliance costs for applications, fees, reporting, and coordination that ultimately stifle innovation and advantage large corporations over smaller competitors. The 'fair return to the United States' requirement distorts market pricing while the extensive federal coordination and approval requirements violate Tenth Amendment principles by federalizing matters of local land/water use. Existing property law, tort liability, and safety/environmental regulations already provide adequate safeguards without this redundant layer of centralized control that enables regulatory capture and bureaucratic mission creep.

Regulation establishes BOEM's procedures for leasing and authorizing renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf, including application requirements, fees, compliance obligations, enforcement mechanisms, and coordination with states/tribes, aiming to balance safety, environmental protection, fair return, and other goals.

This regulation imposes substantial hidden costs via processing fees, reporting burdens, and approval delays that inflate renewable energy prices and deter small entrants, protecting incumbents. The complex 'rational balance' of 12 goals creates subjectivity and legal uncertainty, increasing transaction costs. Federal control overland-use decisions violates Tenth Amendment principles that should favor states or markets. Unseen effects include slowed clean-energy deployment and innovation due to bureaucratic hurdles—outcomes that could be better achieved through streamlined leasing, liability law, and existing environmental statutes.

Regulation establishes BSEE's oversight of renewable energy and alternate use activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, requiring safety, environmental protection, and coordination. Key mechanisms include permit requirements, agency approvals, processing fees, data submission, compliance orders, penalties, and appeals.

Deletion would eliminate the only comprehensive framework for managing federal offshore resources, leading to uncoordinated development, safety risks, environmental damage, and wasted assets. The regulation implements congressional mandate and balances development with protection; alternatives like ad-hoc contracts or litigation would be less effective and more costly.

Establishes OSHA procedures for handling retaliation complaints under the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (CAARA). Protects employees, contractors, and agents who report antitrust violations or reasonably believe violations exist. Provides for investigations within 60 days, preliminary orders with reinstatement/back pay, ALJ hearings, ARB review, and limited attorney fees for frivolous claims.

Antitrust enforcement is essential to preserve competitive markets and prevent price-fixing cartels that harm all consumers. Whistleblowers are often the only viable source of information about secret violations. Without protection, employees would fear retaliation and remain silent, severely undermining enforcement of laws that prevent monopolistic practices. The administrative process is relatively lightweight and includes guardrails (prima facie showing, 'contributing factor' standard, employer's ability to prove same-action defense) that balance protection against frivolous claims. The modest compliance burden is vastly outweighed by the consumer welfare benefits of effective antitrust detection.

Terms of service governing voluntary mediation, facilitation, training, and dispute resolution services provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Includes standard provisions on confidentiality, liability protection, virtual meeting protocols, and limitations on mediator authority.

These terms represent the internal operational rules of a voluntary service. FMCS should not exist as a federal agency—mediation and dispute resolution are private market functions better handled by competing businesses. The existence of this federal agency distorts the market by using taxpayer funds to provide services that private mediators could offer, creating unfair competition. Even if FMCS continued, these specific terms could simply be published as standard contractual conditions rather than codified as regulations. The regulation imposes zero actual compliance costs on the public beyond those who voluntarily use the service, but the agency itself represents unnecessary federal involvement in a private matter and should be abolished rather than having its terms of service merely deleted.

This regulation establishes procedures for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to acquire land in trust status for Native American tribes and individuals. It defines eligibility criteria, application requirements, and decision-making factors, with presumptions favoring tribal acquisitions. The process removes land from state and local jurisdiction, eliminates it from tax rolls, and places it under federal control with restricted alienation rights.

The regulation imposes massive unseen costs: permanently removes land from local tax rolls shifting burden to other residents; creates a sprawling federal bureaucracy; distorts property markets by restricting alienation; violates federalism by federalizing local land use; creates knowledge problems with complex rules; and perpetuates paternalistic wardship generating dependency. The 'checkerboarding' reduction it claims to achieve is undermined by the trust system itself creating jurisdictional patches. Small sellers near reservations bear disproportionate compliance costs. The $2 trillion regulatory burden includes this antiquated system that treats Americans differently based on ancestry.

Establishes administrative appeal procedures for decisions made by Bureau of Indian Affairs and other Indian Affairs officials within the Department of the Interior. Provides a process for adversely affected parties to challenge decisions internally before seeking judicial review, including timelines, filing requirements, service rules, and appeal hierarchy.

Removing this procedural framework would force all disputes directly into federal court, dramatically increasing litigation costs for both the government and Native American individuals and tribes who are typically the affected parties. The administrative review acts as an essential filter to correct agency errors without expensive litigation, preserves judicial resources, and maintains the proper exhaustion requirement that respects agency expertise while preserving ultimate court access. The relatively minimal administrative overhead is far less costly than the alternative of overwhelming federal courts with complex Indian affairs matters that could be resolved more efficiently at the agency level.