Browse regulations

This regulation governs the surrender of military personnel, civilians, and dependents to state and federal authorities for criminal prosecution, balancing federal interests in military discipline against state jurisdiction rights.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it ensures proper coordination between military installations and civilian law enforcement, protecting both military readiness and constitutional due process rights while maintaining the rule of law.

This DoD regulation establishes the Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, creating the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) to determine whether security clearances should be granted or continued for individuals in the defense industrial base and other federal agencies. It provides detailed due process protections including notice of reasons, hearing rights, cross-examination, appeals, and limited reimbursement if the government acts with gross negligence.

Deleting these procedures would eliminate due process protections, allowing arbitrary denial of security clearances without recourse. The government would wield unchecked power to destroy livelihoods based on vague national security claims. These procedures balance legitimate security needs with fundamental fairness—ensuring individuals can challenge allegations, present evidence, and appeal decisions. Such safeguards are essential to prevent government overreach and would be difficult to replicate without formal rules.

Security and conduct rules for Bureau of Engraving and Printing facilities in Washington, DC and Fort Worth, Texas, limiting access, requiring identification and screening, and prohibiting weapons, drugs, gambling, soliciting, photography, and other activities on the property.

Americans would be worse off without these safeguards: currency production facilities are critical to financial stability, and unauthorized access could enable espionage, sabotage, or theft of currency materials. The minimal burden on visitors is justified to protect the integrity of U.S. currency—something all Americans depend on.

This regulation governed United States Savings Notes (Freedom Shares), a government-issued discount security sold only in combination with Series E savings bonds from May 1, 1967, to October 31, 1970. The notes had a 4.5-year original maturity with extensions totaling 30 years, guaranteed minimum yields, and variable market-based yields in extended periods. Registration, purchase limits, and redemption rules were specified.

Obsolete. The program terminated in 1970 and any notes issued would have reached final 30-year maturity by 2000 at the latest. No current activity or holders exist, yet maintaining this dead letter regulation imposes unnecessary compliance costs and clutters the CFR with historical artifacts.

Regulation governing United States Savings Bonds, Series H, which were offered to the public with specific denominations, purchase procedures, interest rates, and redemption terms. The offering was terminated on December 31, 1979.

Obsolete regulation - Series H bond offering terminated December 31, 1979, with no new issuances. Maintaining dead regulatory text creates unnecessary clutter in the CFR and confuses the public about current government offerings. The regulation serves no purpose other than historical reference.

This regulation governed the issuance, terms, and redemption of Series E U.S. Savings Bonds, a government debt instrument sold to individual citizens from 1941-1980. It covered bond registration, denominations, interest calculations, tax treatment, redemption procedures, and limitations on ownership amounts, including special provisions for employee savings plans.

This regulation governed a discontinued financial product (Series E bonds) that was terminated in 1980. The program represented government intervention in capital markets through forced savings mechanisms and price controls on debt instruments, distorting market interest rates and creating artificial demand for government debt. The complex redemption value calculations and special employee plan provisions created regulatory overhead without providing market benefits that private savings vehicles could not offer.

This regulation prescribes procedures for environmental review and public comment on proposed multilateral development bank (MDB) projects. It requires interagency coordination through a Working Group, facilitates public access to project documents via Treasury Library or a private NGO, and allows the U.S. to oppose projects deemed environmentally insufficient.

Imposes costly delays and administrative burdens on development projects in poor countries, exports U.S. regulatory overreach, and the cumbersome comment process serves special interests while reducing the availability and effectiveness of vital infrastructure financing.

Coordinates EEOC and OFCCP processing of dual-filed disability discrimination complaints against federal contractors under Section 503 and ADA, establishing information sharing, jurisdiction rules, and consistent enforcement standards.

This regulation entrenches and streamlines enforcement of federal employment mandates that impose over $14,000 in hidden compliance costs per household. By facilitating interagency coordination, it increases the efficiency of the regulatory apparatus, amplifying unseen harms: higher barriers for small contractors, regulatory capture protection of incumbents, and erosion of Tenth Amendment limits on federal power.

This regulation implements equal employment opportunity requirements for federal agencies, establishing comprehensive anti-discrimination and affirmative action programs. It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, and pregnancy. It mandates agencies maintain EEO directors, processing procedures, complaint investigation systems, counseling, alternative dispute resolution, and detailed timelines. It creates an administrative apparatus for handling discrimination and retaliation complaints within federal employment, with formal steps from counseling through investigation to hearings before administrative judges.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because the federal government, as a massive employer funded by taxpayers, must not discriminate in hiring, promotion, or working conditions. Without this administrative framework, victims of federal employment discrimination would have no accessible recourse except costly federal litigation, discrimination would go undetected and unaddressed, and taxpayer dollars would continue funding prejudiced practices that violate fundamental rights. The regulation achieves its goals through specialized in-house expertise, early resolution mechanisms, and proactive monitoring that courts cannot provide—creating accountability that would otherwise be impossible given the sheer scale of federal employment.

Establishes civil money penalties for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime provisions. Penalties up to $2,515 per violation for repeated or willful violations, with factors for determining amount including business size, seriousness, good faith efforts, and prior history.

Enforces harmful minimum wage and overtime mandates that price low-skilled workers out of employment, destroy entry-level jobs, and impose disproportionate compliance burdens on small businesses. The unseen costs—reduced employment, increased automation, higher consumer prices, and business closures—far exceed any benefits. Labor markets function better when wages are determined by voluntary agreement rather than price controls, and wage disputes are adequately addressed through existing contract and tort law.

Procedures for issuers and domestic concerns to request written opinions from the Attorney General on whether prospective conduct would violate the FCPA's antibribery provisions based on DOJ's present enforcement policy, creating a formal pre-clearance mechanism with a rebuttable presumption of compliance.

This voluntary opinion process imposes significant compliance costs, delays (30-day timelines), and administrative burdens on businesses, particularly disadvantaging small firms. It creates a two-tier system favoring large corporations that can afford formal opinions, ossifies DOJ's enforcement positions, and adds unnecessary bureaucracy. DOJ can provide equivalent guidance through less costly channels like published guidance, FAQs, or speeches without this formalized, resource-intensive process that expands regulatory complexity without commensurate benefit.

Procedural regulations governing the filing, payment, and deposit requirements for various federal excise taxes, including communications, air transportation, fuel, environmental, insurance fees, and designated drug sales. Establishes quarterly/monthly/semimonthly return filing on Form 720, deposit timing and amounts, safe harbor rules, and administrative definitions.

Deletion would create chaos and uncertainty in tax compliance, increasing costs through arbitrary enforcement and inconsistent requirements. These procedural rules provide necessary predictability that reduces overall compliance burden and upholds rule of law by making obligations knowable. While the underlying taxes may be problematic, these administrative provisions narrow, rather than expand, agency discretion and provide a framework that businesses can rely on for planning.

This regulation defines key terms for the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, classifying gaming into three classes and defining concepts like management contracts, key employees, and tribal gaming regulatory authorities to establish the scope of federal oversight over tribal gaming operations.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs through expansive definitions that capture numerous activities under federal oversight, distorts market incentives with rigid gaming classifications, and creates a bureaucratic regime that benefits incumbents while hindering tribal economic development. Hidden costs include legal complexity, delayed operations, and barriers to innovation.

HUD OIG regulations implementing the Privacy Act, establishing procedures for individuals to access, correct, and appeal decisions about their records in OIG systems, with specific exemptions for law enforcement files to protect investigations and confidential sources.

Deletion would strip individuals of clear, accessible procedures to exercise their Privacy Act rights, reducing transparency and creating arbitrary barriers. The regulation achieves a necessary balance between law enforcement imperatives and personal privacy through narrowly tailored exemptions and a defined appeals process that would be difficult to replicate ad hoc.

This regulation provides public housing agencies (PHAs) with an alternative procurement method to award contracts up to $1 million to resident-owned businesses, defined as businesses at least 51% owned and controlled by public housing residents. The process follows standard procurement procedures but limits solicitation to eligible resident-owned businesses, aiming to enhance economic opportunities for public housing residents through preferential contracting.

This regulation creates a government-mandated racial/class-based contracting preference that distorts market competition, increases costs for public housing agencies, and establishes a precedent for government picking winners based on resident status rather than merit. It forces PHAs to limit their contractor pool based on arbitrary residency requirements, potentially reducing quality and increasing prices while creating administrative burdens and compliance costs that outweigh any perceived benefits.