Browse regulations

Establishes regulatory framework for Regional Fishery Management Councils, defines terms for fishery management, and governs foreign fishing operations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Creates excessive federal bureaucracy that federalizes fisheries management which should be handled by states and local entities. The complex regulatory framework imposes compliance costs on fishing industry while enabling regulatory capture through advisory panels and foreign fishing permits.

Implements fishery conservation measures under international treaties, conventions, and the Lacey Act, applying to all persons and places under US jurisdiction. Establishes definitions, prohibited acts, boarding procedures, and specific reporting requirements for tuna and tuna-like species fishing in the IATTC Convention Area.

Creates massive regulatory burden on fishing industry through complex reporting requirements, boarding procedures, and vessel monitoring systems. Disproportionately harms small fishing businesses while enabling bureaucratic mission creep beyond congressional intent. International fishing agreements should be handled through diplomatic channels rather than federal regulatory apparatus.

Voluntary seafood quality grading standards administered by NMFS under the Agricultural Marketing Act, defining product forms, defect assessments, sampling methods, and hygiene requirements. Compliance satisfies certain program requirements but not FDA safety mandates.

Non-essential federal expansion into private certification markets, wasting taxpayer resources and risking regulatory capture. Private entities can provide comparable quality standards more efficiently without government involvement, preserving market competition and innovation.

Regulation implements the Whaling Convention Act by establishing a licensing system, quotas, reporting requirements, and enforcement mechanisms specifically for aboriginal subsistence whaling by Native American whaling organizations, while prohibiting commercial whaling, wasteful practices, and trade in whale products except limited handicrafts.

Deleting this regulation would extinguish the only legal pathway for Alaska Native communities to practice traditional subsistence whaling, causing severe cultural and nutritional harm and violating US treaty obligations under the International Whaling Commission. The quota system, mandatory reporting, and enforcement provisions ensure sustainable harvests, prevent commercialization, and monitor whale populations—objectives that would be unachievable without a coordinated federal framework given the migratory nature of whales and the need for international compliance.

This regulation mandates that rail carriers file detailed summaries of contracts for transporting agricultural products with the Surface Transportation Board. It establishes a 7-day filing deadline, specific formatting requirements, and allows complaints within 30 days by shippers or ports alleging common carrier violations, unreasonable discrimination, or destructive competitive practices. The rule outlines discovery procedures, confidentiality protections, and timelines for Board review and potential contract disapproval.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs on railroads and creates a bureaucratic process that distorts private contracting and invites regulatory harassment. Protecting specific agricultural shippers through contract oversight violates the principle of equal treatment under law and represents protectionist rent-seeking. Any legitimate concerns about railroad market power are adequately addressed by general antitrust laws and state-level enforcement. The STB's monitoring of private contract terms exceeds proper regulatory bounds, inflates transportation costs that ultimately harm farmers and consumers, and exemplifies the unseen burden of federal regulations that exceed $2 trillion annually.

Regulation imposes disclosure and notice requirements on pipeline carriers: must provide rates/service terms immediately upon request, establish rates on demand within 10 business days, and give 20-day notice before increasing rates or changing terms to certain customers.

Enforces costly administrative burdens (tracking requestors, rapid response systems, 10-day rate establishment) while distorting market price signals. The 20-day notice requirement prevents carriers from adjusting to changing costs or demand, misallocating resources. Small carriers face disproportionately higher compliance costs per employee than large incumbents. Competitive markets naturally incentivize price transparency; shippers can contract for disclosure terms. Regulation assumes market failure where none exists and raises barriers to entry through compliance complexity.

This regulation mandates transparency and notice requirements for rail carriers regarding rates, charges, and service terms. It requires carriers to disclose specific rates and terms upon request, establish rates promptly when requested, provide 20-day notice before rate increases or service term changes, and publish rate schedules for agricultural products and fertilizer with public access requirements.

This regulation imposes costly compliance burdens on rail carriers through mandatory disclosure, notice periods, and publication requirements that distort market pricing and create bureaucratic overhead. The forced transparency eliminates competitive advantages and pricing flexibility that could benefit consumers through more efficient market operations. Small rail carriers face disproportionate compliance costs that create barriers to entry, while the 20-day notice requirement prevents dynamic pricing responses to market conditions.

This Surface Transportation Board regulation governs the process for rail carriers to abandon rail lines or discontinue service. It mandates extensive procedural requirements: color-coded system maps categorizing lines by abandonment status; publication of notices in newspapers for three consecutive weeks; notification to numerous state/federal agencies and significant users; submission of detailed financial data, workpapers, and environmental reports; and provisions for third-party financial assistance offers or public/trail use conditions. The underlying statute requires the Board to find that 'public convenience and necessity' require or permit abandonment before it can be approved.

The regulation imposes a massive hidden tax on railroads—particularly small Class III carriers—through onerous paperwork burdens, costly newspaper publications, and mandatory notifications to dozens of agencies. It violates core property rights by forcing private owners to obtain government permission to discontinue service on their own assets, replacing market signals with bureaucratic discretion via the subjective 'public convenience and necessity' standard. The process distorts resource allocation by potentially propping up unprofitable lines through subsidies or delays, increasing rail costs for all shippers while creating an administrative state apparatus whose unseen costs far exceed any purported benefits. If communities value a line, voluntary purchases or subsidies will emerge organically without this regulatory labyrinth.

STB procedures for exemption petitions under 49 U.S.C. 10502, covering filing requirements, discovery rules, timelines, and special provisions for 'interchange commitments' restricting third-party rail access.

These procedures impose significant hidden costs: burdensome documentation, discovery, and deadlines that advantage large incumbents while deterring smaller competitors. The interchange commitment rules force disclosure of competitive information and regulatory complexity that stifles market entry and innovation. A streamlined process would achieve the same oversight at far lower economic burden.

This NHTSA regulation establishes minimum driving range criteria for dual-fueled passenger automobiles (200 miles for most alternative fuels, 150 miles for natural gas, specific electric ranges) to qualify for special fuel economy calculations under CAFE standards. It also defines gallon equivalents for gaseous fuels and provides a petition process for reduced ranges. Applies to model years 1993-2019.

This regulation is obsolete, applying only to expired model years (1993-2019), and therefore has no current practical effect. Even when active, it imposed compliance costs and complexity on manufacturers to qualify for CAFE incentives, distorting vehicle development toward meeting arbitrary thresholds rather than consumer needs. The petition process created unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. The underlying CAFE scheme itself represents federal overreach into automotive design decisions better left to market forces and state regulations.

Prescribes minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing standards for highway-rail grade crossing warning systems; requires reporting of system failures; mandates state action plans for crossing safety improvements; requires railroads to establish toll-free reporting systems for unsafe conditions; and mandates reporting to the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.

Deleting this regulation would eliminate federal safety standards at highway-rail crossings, creating dangerous gaps in protection at locations where trains collide with vehicles/pedestrians hundreds of times annually. The technical standards ensure reliable warning systems that prevent catastrophic accidents, benefits that far outweigh compliance costs. Federal standards are necessary because railroads are interstate commerce and accidents transcend state boundaries; a patchwork of state regulations would create unacceptable risks and inefficiencies. The regulation achieves its safety objective through clear, enforceable requirements that are technically precise and economically justified, with penalties reserved for genuine violations rather than routine operations.

Federal regulation requiring oil spill response planning for transportation of oil by motor vehicles and rolling stock, including comprehensive plans for large volume shipments and notification procedures.

Creates massive compliance costs and bureaucratic overhead without addressing actual safety - railroads already have strong liability incentives to prevent spills, and this regulatory framework adds redundant paperwork while protecting large incumbents from competition.

Regulation establishes procedures for hazardous materials transportation special permits—exemptions from standard rules requiring government approval. Defines terms like 'fitness,' 'applicant,' and sets application requirements including detailed documentation, D-U-N-S identifiers, certifications, and justification showing safety 'at least equal' to regulations. Creates a bureaucratic process for businesses to seek permission to innovate or operate differently in transporting hazardous materials, with PHMSA holding discretionary power to grant or deny based on vague 'fitness' determinations.

This regulation creates a costly permitting bureaucracy that centralizes safety decisions, imposes high compliance burdens (especially on small businesses), and enables regulatory capture through discretionary 'fitness' approvals. Federal hazardous materials oversight exceeds constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause, and the safety benefits claimed are speculative compared to the $2 trillion regulatory burden. Market mechanisms like liability, insurance, and voluntary standards can achieve safety more efficiently without sacrificing liberty.

Regulation establishes a bronze medal award for bravery in accidents involving interstate rail carriers or motor vehicles, outlining application procedures, required information, oath requirement, DOT investigation authority, and awarding process by Secretary of Transportation on behalf of the President.

This non-essential federal program imposes administrative costs and expands bureaucracy for a ceremonial function that could be achieved through private or state-level recognition or simpler presidential authority without regulatory overhead.

Establishes uniform acquisition policies and procedures for the Social Security Administration, conforming to the Federal Acquisition Regulation System to ensure consistent federal procurement practices.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it ensures SSA procurement follows standardized federal acquisition practices, preventing waste, fraud, and abuse in the administration of Social Security benefits that millions of Americans depend on.