Browse regulations

Regulation prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities conducted by the agency, and requires accessibility and reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities

Repealing this regulation would leave individuals with disabilities without protections against discrimination and unequal access to programs and services, potentially worsening their quality of life and opportunities

The regulation implements the Beirut Agreement by establishing a certification and authentication process for educational, scientific, and cultural audio-visual materials to qualify for duty-free import/export. It defines eligibility criteria, application forms (IAP-17, IA-862), review by the State Department's Attestation Officer, and appeal procedures.

The certification process imposes significant compliance costs and creates barriers for small educational publishers. The subjective content-based standards (e.g., not primarily entertainment, no propaganda) invite bureaucratic discretion, chilling educational content creation and risking viewpoint discrimination. It perpetuates a tariff regime that should be abolished entirely, while the regulatory overhead and unseen market distortions outweigh the benefits of duty-free treatment, which could be achieved more efficiently through unconditional tariff elimination.

This regulation outlines the submission and handling procedures for licensed biological products regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). It specifies mailing addresses for various types of submissions, including biologics license applications, deviation reports, and samples. The regulation also defines terms related to biological products and their manufacturing processes.

This regulation imposes unnecessary administrative burdens on manufacturers, increasing compliance costs without clear benefits. The detailed mailing instructions and definitions could be streamlined or handled through digital submissions, reducing paperwork and allowing for more efficient regulatory oversight. The regulation also seems outdated given the advent of digital submissions and electronic records, which could make these processes more efficient and less error-prone.

Sets 130-day annual limits on railroad unemployment/sickness benefits, defines base year compensation calculation formula, establishes exhaustion criteria, and provides extended benefits for employees with 10+ years service.

These rules ensure predictable, uniform administration of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, preventing arbitrary agency discretion. Without clear standards for benefit calculation and exhaustion, the system would violate the rule-of-law principle that regulations must be knowable. The complex formulas require precise guidance to ensure consistent, fair application.

This regulation establishes procedures for appointing representative payees to manage Railroad Retirement benefits for annuitants deemed incapable of managing their own funds, based on mental, physical, or age-related incapacity. It outlines criteria for selecting payees (prioritizing family, guardians, or institutions), mandates accountability through reporting and investment rules, and provides processes for changing or terminating payees and restoring direct payment to annuitants who regain capacity.

This regulation enforces paternalistic state control over the financial autonomy of capable adults under the guise of protection, creating bureaucratic overhead, incentivizing false claims of incapacity, and displacing private family and fiduciary arrangements. The presumption of incompetence contradicts the foundational liberty principle that adults are presumed competent unless adjudged otherwise by due process. The costs of administration, compliance, and the chilling effect on personal freedom far outweigh the negligible benefit of preventing rare misuse—especially since criminal fraud is already prosecutable under existing law. Voluntary trusts, family arrangements, and private fiduciaries are superior, market-based solutions that require no federal intervention.

This regulation establishes detailed procedural rules for binational panel reviews under USMCA Article 10.12, covering filing deadlines, protective orders for proprietary/privileged information, sanctions for violations, and suspension of liquidation procedures in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

This regulation creates a complex bureaucratic apparatus that cedes U.S. judicial sovereignty to international tribunals, imposes significant compliance costs on businesses and legal professionals, and institutionalizes a parallel dispute resolution system that undermines the rule of law. The unseen costs include normalizing the delegation of judicial authority to unelected foreign panels, creating barriers to entry for small firms unable to navigate the labyrinthine procedures, and perpetuating the underlying protectionist antidumping/countervailing duty regime that distorts free markets. Americans would be better served by either eliminating these trade remedies entirely or resolving disputes through domestic courts with transparent, uniform procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Administrative procedures for investigations under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, covering definitions, filing requirements, service procedures, confidentiality rules, and sanctions for misconduct in trade remedy proceedings involving unfair import practices and intellectual property rights.

These regulations create an unnecessary bureaucratic layer for trade disputes that could be handled through existing judicial channels. The complex procedural requirements, confidentiality rules, and specialized administrative law judges add significant compliance costs without providing benefits that cannot be achieved through federal courts or arbitration. Small businesses face disproportionate burdens from these specialized procedures, and the rules effectively create a parallel legal system with its own costly compliance requirements.

This regulation outlines procedural rules for the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate claims that increased imports are seriously injuring domestic industries. Petitioners must represent domestic industries and provide detailed evidence of injury. The process involves public hearings, confidential business information handling, and detailed reporting to the President with findings and recommendations for import relief.

Costly bureaucracy that shields domestic industries from competition, distorting market signals and consumer welfare. The regulatory process creates barriers to entry for foreign competitors and reduces dynamic efficiency in the economy.

This regulation establishes the technical rules for determining the country of origin of imported goods, primarily to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). It defines key terms (e.g., 'wholly obtained or produced,' 'substantial transformation'), sets forth sequential tests for origin determination based on tariff classification changes, and includes special provisions for textile and apparel products. The rules are used to apply preferential tariff rates, enforce marking requirements, and administer quantitative restrictions.

Deleting this regulation would prevent the United States from implementing its binding free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, stripping American consumers and businesses of preferential tariff treatment that lowers costs and increases market access. The modest administrative burden of origin verification is far outweighed by the economic benefits of trade integration, including lower prices, greater efficiency, and stronger commercial ties with close neighbors. The rules are a necessary, neutral mechanism to operationalize trade policy already enacted by Congress.

Federal regulation requiring consumer commodity labeling with identity, manufacturer information, net quantity, and serving information in both customary and metric units to enable value comparison and prevent deceptive packaging.

Creates billions in compliance costs for businesses while providing minimal consumer benefit - modern apps and websites already provide detailed product information, making mandatory physical labeling redundant. The regulation distorts packaging design, increases waste, and protects large manufacturers from competition while imposing disproportionate costs on small businesses.

Regulation mandates price transparency for funeral services, requiring detailed listings of casket, container, and service costs, along with disclosures about legal requirements for embalming and casket use for cremations.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs on small funeral providers (30% higher per employee) and creates a complex, burdening system that could lead to regulatory capture. Its benefits (preventing deception) are offset by the disproportionate impact on small businesses and the potential for industry influence over rules. Simplifying to self-regulation or industry standards would better align with limited government principles.

This regulation mandates federal agencies to transfer unclassified STEI (scientific, technical, and engineering information) produced with federal funds to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for public dissemination. It outlines methods for transfer, formatting requirements, and exceptions.

The regulation imposes unnecessary compliance costs on federal agencies and contractors. It creates a centralized bureaucracy (NTIS) that may not efficiently distribute information, leading to potential delays and increased costs. The regulation also risks duplicating efforts already covered by existing laws like the Freedom of Information Act and the Depository Library Program. Moreover, it may hinder timely dissemination of information by adding layers of bureaucracy.

Requires U.S. firms to report annually on offset agreements exceeding $5M in defense exports to foreign entities, including details on transaction types (co-production, tech transfer, etc.), NAICS codes, values, and performance metrics. The Bureau of Industry and Security collects and aggregates this data for annual congressional reports.

This regulation enforces costly, complex reporting on voluntary commercial contracts with no clear public benefit. Offsets are market-driven negotiation terms, not national security necessities. The $2 trillion regulatory burden outweighs any aggregated data value, which Congress can obtain through voluntary industry surveys or existing trade reporting systems without intruding on private contracts. It imposes bureaucratic overhead on businesses to satisfy bureaucratic curiosity, distorting market decisions under the guise of oversight.

The NVCASE program is a voluntary, cost-reimbursable service where NIST evaluates U.S. conformity assessment bodies (testing labs, certifiers, registrars) to provide assurance to foreign governments that these bodies meet their technical requirements. This helps U.S. industry access foreign markets that mandate specific conformity assessments. The program operates only when no satisfactory private alternative exists and after public consultation showing significant disadvantage would result without it. NIST develops generic requirements based on international standards and specific criteria for each foreign requirement, with public input and interagency coordination. Evaluations are conducted, certificates issued, and public lists maintained. The program includes confidentiality protections, surveillance requirements, and appeal processes.

Without this program, U.S. businesses would face significant barriers to foreign market access when foreign governments require government-to-government assurances about conformity assessment bodies. The program fills a genuine market failure where private accreditation alternatives are unavailable, facilitating billions in exports. It operates on a purely voluntary, cost-reimbursable basis—imposing no burdens on non-participants—and includes explicit safeguards limiting its scope to cases of demonstrated need after public consultation. Deleting it would cede this function to foreign governments entirely, reducing U.S. competitiveness and giving foreign regulators unilateral control over market access conditions to the detriment of American exporters.

Regulation ensures special event tour operators provide valid event tickets or contracts to avoid selling unguaranteed admission, with strict compliance and refund rules.

Regulation represents federal overreach under the Tenth Amendment, as event admission should be state/local concerns. Compliance costs (part of $2T federal burden) exceed benefits, and the rule's scope (interstate/foreign air) is unnecessary. The 'foxes design the henhouse' problem is inherent in such regulations, and the 'unseen costs' include stifling small business innovation and distorting free enterprise.