Browse regulations

The regulation establishes ethics rules for Interstate Commerce Commission employees, prohibiting them from employment or financial interests in for-hire transportation companies, defining indirect interests, providing waiver procedures, and requiring prior approval for outside employment.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995, making this regulation obsolete; even if active, such ethics rules impose unnecessary compliance costs and could be superseded by market-based accountability mechanisms.

Regulation implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, prohibiting discrimination against individuals with handicaps in programs and activities conducted by Executive agencies. Requires reasonable accommodations, accessible facilities, and effective communication, with exceptions for undue burden and fundamental alteration.

Deletion would permit federal agencies to discriminate against disabled individuals in employment, services, and programs, wasting human capital and violating equal opportunity principles. The regulation's framework balances accommodation requirements with legitimate constraints (undue burden/fundamental alteration) in a structured, predictable manner that would be difficult to replicate through ad-hoc approaches.

This regulation governs the reemployment of federal annuitants (retirees) by the Federal Government or District of Columbia, detailing rules for annuity suspension, termination, offset, and computation of supplemental or redetermined annuities based on CSRS and FERS retirement systems.

The regulation's excessive complexity imposes high administrative costs, creates confusion and potential barriers to reemployment for retirees, and its goals could be achieved through simpler rules or market-based arrangements.

Regulation establishes standards for federal agency human capital management, including roles like Chief Human Capital Officer, evaluation systems, and compliance with OPM standards to ensure efficient, merit-based workforce management.

The regulation ensures federal agencies align human capital practices with merit system principles and federal performance goals, which is essential for maintaining effective, transparent, and legally compliant government operations.

This regulation establishes detailed procedures for the Government Accountability Office Personnel Appeals Board to handle personnel matters including prohibited personnel practices, discrimination claims, adverse actions, and labor relations for GAO employees. It covers jurisdiction, filing procedures, investigations, hearings, appeals, and various administrative rules implementing the GAO Personnel Act of 1980.

The regulation adds to the $2+ trillion annual regulatory compliance burden and contributes to the 185,000+ page Code of Federal Regulations that undermines the rule of law through excessive complexity, while creating bureaucratic procedures that impede efficient government operations and employee accountability.

Regulation establishes the internal governance structure of the GAO Personnel Appeals Board: composition (5 members appointed by Comptroller General), quorum rules (simple majority), authority to designate panels, election of Chair/Vice Chair, and appointment of General Counsel by the Comptroller General upon Chair's selection.

Purely internal agency governance procedures that impose no direct public burden but contribute to regulatory bloat. This self-structuring boilerplate belongs in an internal agency manual, not the Code of Federal Regulations. Every such page adds to the 185,000-page labyrinth that undermines rule of law by obscuring what actually regulates citizens. The agency can manage its own personnel appeals process through less formal means without necessitating a formal CFR entry.

This regulation requires child restraint system manufacturers to maintain records of owners who voluntarily submit registration forms, including names, addresses, model information, and retain these records for at least 6 years. The purpose is to enable manufacturers to contact owners during safety recall campaigns and to allow NHTSA to verify recall compliance.

Deleting this regulation would undermine the child restraint recall system, potentially preventing timely notification of life-threatening defects to parents. The compliance burden is minimal (maintaining records of voluntary registrations) while the benefit—enabling recalls that save children's lives—is immense. Without organized owner records, manufacturers cannot effectively conduct recalls, leaving defective restraints in use. The regulation imposes negligible costs but serves a compelling safety interest that private market alternatives cannot reliably provide.

This Federal Railroad Administration regulation establishes comprehensive safety standards for railroad employees performing inspection, maintenance, construction, and bridge work. It mandates fall protection systems for work at heights, on-track safety procedures (exclusive track occupancy, foul time, train coordination), life vests for work over water, scaffolding standards, detailed technical specifications, training requirements, and penalties for violations. The regulation aims to prevent accidents and casualties in hazardous railroad workplace environments.

Railroad work involves extreme hazards where failure results in death or serious injury. Without uniform federal standards, interstate railroads would face inconsistent state regulations or inadequate private safety practices, leading to more workplace fatalities. The clear technical requirements and allowance for equivalent alternatives effectively mitigate these risks while providing regulatory certainty essential for interstate commerce.

This regulation establishes procedures for federal grants to states, territories, and Indian tribes for hazardous materials emergency planning and training. It covers grant eligibility, allowable costs, application requirements, and oversight mechanisms to support emergency preparedness for hazardous materials incidents, particularly transportation-related emergencies.

This is a classic example of federal overreach into state and local emergency management functions. Hazardous materials emergency response is fundamentally a local responsibility that states and localities can coordinate themselves without federal funding strings attached. The $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance burden is exacerbated by programs like this that create complex grant bureaucracies, impose matching fund requirements, and extend federal control over traditionally state and local functions. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act itself represents regulatory expansion beyond constitutional limits, and this grant program further entrenches federal involvement in what should be state and local emergency management.

This Cost Accounting Standard mandates consistency between government contractors' cost estimating practices (used in proposals) and their cost accumulation/reporting practices (used during contract performance). It establishes complex rules for allocating indirect costs, distinguishing direct vs indirect costs, and allocating home office expenses to segments, with requirements for Disclosure Statements. The goal is to prevent double-counting and ensure comparable transactions are treated alike in federal procurement.

The compliance burden of this ~15-page prescriptive standard, requiring detailed Disclosure Statements and complex allocation formulas, imposes significant hidden costs on contractors that are ultimately borne by taxpayers. Small businesses face disproportionate burdens, raising barriers to entry and protecting incumbent contractors. The regulation distorts incentives toward accounting compliance over operational efficiency, creates perverse classification decisions around direct vs indirect costs, and exemplifies the knowledge problem by dictating specific allocation methods that cannot account for diverse business models. Unseen consequences include reduced competition, higher contract prices, and the substitution of regulatory compliance for genuine cost control.

Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) impose disclosure and consistency requirements on federal contractors above certain thresholds ($50M for full coverage, modified for $7.5M-$50M), requiring them to maintain and follow detailed cost accounting practices specifically for federal contracts, with various exemptions for small businesses, foreign entities, commercial items, and educational institutions.

The compliance burden—complex accounting systems, mandatory disclosures, prospective change negotiations, and government oversight—imposes significant costs that distort business decisions and raise barriers to entry for mid-size contractors. These unseen costs exceed the marginal benefit of standardized cost reporting for government contracts, which could be achieved more efficiently through targeted auditing and reliance on existing accounting standards.

This NSF regulation supplements the FAR's debarment and suspension procedures, designating the Deputy Director as the debarring/suspending official, mandating written compelling reasons for continued business with debarred contractors, involving OIG investigations, and outlining an appeal process.

It adds unnecessary bureaucratic layers, requiring superfluous written justifications and centralized discretion that increase administrative costs and delay contracting. The unseen effect is heightened barriers for small contractors and potential for arbitrary enforcement, while market reputation and existing legal frameworks already provide adequate accountability for fraud and misconduct.

CAS rules require contractors to disclose and consistently follow cost accounting practices for negotiated contracts over $2.5M, with exemptions for small businesses and sealed bids. The system includes compliance reviews, waiver processes, and mechanisms for handling cost accounting practice changes.

Creates massive bureaucratic overhead for government contractors with complex compliance requirements that primarily benefit large contractors who can afford compliance staff, while small businesses face disproportionate burden. The system distorts market competition by creating artificial barriers to entry and protects incumbent contractors through regulatory complexity rather than merit-based competition.

This regulation requires Maritime Administrator approval for transfers of U.S.-documented vessels to non-citizens or foreign registry. It defines citizenship requirements, imposes fees, and sets conditions on transfers to protect the U.S. merchant marine for national defense and maritime policy goals.

This protectionist rule violates property rights by restricting voluntary transactions, creates a costly bureaucratic approval process, and distorts capital allocation. The national defense rationale is paternalistic—if a merchant marine is needed, direct subsidies would be more efficient than banning ownership transfers. Unseen costs include higher shipping costs for Americans, cronyism through discretionary approvals, and barriers to entry that benefit established U.S. shipping interests at consumers' expense.

This regulation implements the Bayh-Dole Act for NSF-funded research, establishing a framework where grantees (universities, nonprofits, small businesses) retain title to inventions but grant the government a royalty-free license, with requirements for disclosure, reporting, and US manufacturing preference, plus 'march-in' rights allowing government to force licensing.

Americans would be far worse off without this framework: it enables the commercialization of federally-funded research through private ownership rather than government control. The Bayh-Dole system has generated tens of thousands of patented inventions brought to market, creating jobs, driving economic growth, and returning value to taxpayers. Deleting this would revert to the pre-1980s policy where government owned all patents, resulting in far fewer innovations reaching the public. While compliance costs exist, they are dwarfed by the unseen benefits of unleashed entrepreneurial activity.