Browse regulations

VA policy mandating reporting to State Licensing Boards of current or former VA-employed healthcare professionals whose clinical practice significantly deviates from generally accepted standards, listing serious misconduct like patient abuse, falsification, substance abuse, and other safety threats. Includes definitions of key terms (dentist, physician, state, etc.) and 'generally accepted standards.'

Without this policy, state licensing boards would lack vital information about healthcare providers who exhibit serious patient-safety risks during VA employment, potentially allowing dangerous practitioners to continue treating patients elsewhere. The VA's direct oversight provides unique clinical insights that states cannot readily obtain; deleting it would undermine accountability and increase public health risks, especially across state lines. The policy effectively targets only egregious failures while respecting state licensing authority.

Implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities in federal agency programs and activities, requiring accessibility, effective communication, and establishing complaint procedures.

Deletion would permit federal agencies to discriminate against people with disabilities, denying them equal access to government services and employment. The regulation provides clear, enforceable standards and a consistent complaint process that internal agency policies would lack, ensuring accountability and uniform protection across all executive agencies.

Federal fellowship program providing financial support for doctoral students in arts, humanities, and social sciences based on academic merit and financial need

Creates artificial demand for humanities/social science PhDs, distorting labor market signals and encouraging students to pursue degrees with poor employment prospects, while the $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance burden suggests government should focus on core functions rather than subsidizing academic specialization

Federal fellowship program providing financial assistance to graduate students in designated areas of national need through academic departments of higher education institutions

Creates dependency on federal funding for graduate education, distorts academic priorities through government-determined 'areas of national need', and imposes costly administrative requirements that burden institutions while potentially crowding out private scholarship funding

The Talent Search program provides grants to identify and support at-risk youth for postsecondary education, offering financial aid, academic tutoring, and career guidance to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged populations.

The program addresses a clear public need by improving access to education for disadvantaged youth, aligning with the intent of federal support for educational opportunities. Its benefits in increasing college readiness and completion rates outweigh the costs, as it directly supports the goal of expanding educational attainment for underprivileged groups.

The Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program provides grants to institutions to assist in establishing and strengthening their physical plants, development offices, endowment funds, academic resources, and student services to participate in fulfilling the goal of equality of educational opportunity in graduate education.

The costs of maintaining and administering this program, including the potential for regulatory capture and unintended consequences, likely outweigh any potential benefits, and the goals of promoting equality in educational opportunities could be achieved through more targeted and efficient means.

The HBCU Program provides federal grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities to help them strengthen physical infrastructure, academic resources, and student services to support educational opportunity. The regulation establishes eligibility criteria, allowable activities, funding formulas, and administrative requirements for these grants.

This regulation represents unconstitutional federal overreach into higher education, which properly belongs to states under the Tenth Amendment. The program creates dependency on federal funding, distorts institutional incentives, and violates equal protection by providing race-based benefits. Private sector and state-level solutions would better serve these institutions without federal intervention.

This ED regulation implements the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, prohibiting age discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. It applies broadly to educational institutions, state/local governments, and private entities receiving funds, requiring compliance measures including self-evaluations, grievance procedures, and record-keeping. The regulation allows limited exceptions for age distinctions necessary to normal program operation or statutory objectives, with the burden of proof on the recipient. It establishes complaint, mediation, investigation, and enforcement processes, including possible termination of federal funding.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs on schools, nonprofits, and state/local governments, disproportionally burdening small entities. It represents federal overreach into education and other programs properly reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment, using the spending power to coerce private and local governmental actors. The broad definition of 'program or activity' forces recipients to alter legitimate age-based programming (youth services, senior programs) due to enforcement risk. Market forces and existing state anti-discrimination laws adequately address legitimate concerns without federal intervention. The regulatory burden distorts incentives, reduces efficiency, and creates a chilling effect on voluntary age-based distinctions that serve valid purposes.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) regulation enables individuals and small entities to recover attorney fees and expenses from the Department of Education when they prevail in certain adversary adjudications, provided the Department’s position was not substantially justified and the applicant meets income/net worth thresholds. It outlines procedural requirements for filing, reviewing, and appealing fee applications, with strict caps on hourly rates ($75/hour) and detailed eligibility and documentation rules.

This regulation imposes complex, costly administrative burdens on both applicants and the Department of Education for a narrowly scoped benefit that duplicates existing judicial remedies. The $75/hour fee cap is inertial and outdated, trivializing legal representation, while the bureaucratic structure entrenches a system of litigation-dependent subsidies instead of encouraging efficient dispute resolution. It incentivizes strategic litigation by small actors over federal policy disputes—distorting the role of courts while failing to meaningfully enhance access to justice. The Act’s original intent of balancing power between individuals and the state is now obsolete, as constitutional checks and modern legal aid systems have evolved beyond its narrow, archaic framework. Its repeal would eliminate unnecessaryRED tape without diminishing access to justice.

Regulation establishes data collection framework for international investment surveys under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act, defining terms, reporting requirements, confidentiality, and penalties for non-compliance.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs (over $2 trillion annual burden) and creates potential for regulatory capture through its broad definitions (e.g., 'foreign parent') and strict confidentiality provisions that could protect industry interests. Its data collection mission is better served by state-level data initiatives under the Tenth Amendment, and its enforcement creates disproportionate burdens on small businesses while maintaining a system where the 'foxes' design the 'henhouse'.

This regulation mandates reporting of international capital transactions, positions, and foreign currency positions by U.S. entities to the Treasury Department. It aims to comply with international agreements and provide data for economic analysis and policy-making.

The costs of compliance are high, and the data collected is often used to benefit international organizations rather than American citizens. The regulation creates a burden on businesses, particularly small ones, and the information gathered is often not transparent or beneficial to the public. The regulation also represents an overreach of federal authority into areas that should be managed at the state or local level.

This regulation prioritizes blind vendors in operating vending facilities on Department of the Treasury-controlled property, ensuring compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act and relevant CFR regulations

The costs of maintaining and enforcing this regulation, including administrative burdens and potential inefficiencies in vendor selection, likely outweigh any benefits, and its goals could be achieved through alternative, less restrictive means, such as private agreements and contracts that prioritize accessibility and inclusion

This regulation outlines the procedural rules for administrative trials and appellate reviews conducted by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. It covers the scope, applicability, and construction of these rules, as well as detailed procedures for appearances, filings, service of documents, deadlines, and contests related to mine safety and health disputes.

The costs of maintaining this regulation are high, including the administrative burden and potential delays in resolving disputes. The regulation also creates a complex procedural framework that may not be necessary for ensuring mine safety. Additionally, the regulation could be seen as an example of regulatory capture, where the interests of established players in the mining industry are protected at the expense of innovation and competition. The desired goal of ensuring mine safety can be achieved through more streamlined and less burdensome regulations.

Regulation outlines the procedures for executing death sentences, including notification requirements, presence of specific individuals during execution, and certification of state mechanisms for providing legal representation to indigent death row prisoners.

The regulation ensures the proper execution of death sentences in compliance with due process, including the certification of state mechanisms for legal aid to indigent prisoners. It aligns with constitutional principles of due process and the rule of law, and the costs associated with it are a necessary part of the legal system, not a hidden tax on businesses.

This regulation establishes privacy and constitutional rights protections for criminal intelligence systems funded under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. It sets standards for data collection, retention, dissemination, security, and oversight of criminal intelligence databases used by law enforcement agencies.

Americans would be worse off without these privacy protections in criminal intelligence systems. The regulation creates essential safeguards against abuse of surveillance databases, requiring reasonable suspicion for data collection, limiting political/religious profiling, mandating security protocols, and establishing oversight mechanisms. These protections balance legitimate law enforcement needs with constitutional rights in an era of expanding data collection capabilities.