Browse regulations

This regulation establishes administrative procedures for the USDA to suspend, revoke, or discipline veterinarians accredited to perform animal health duties. It creates a multi-step process including informal conferences, warnings, and formal complaints for handling alleged violations of animal health standards.

Veterinarians play a critical role in preventing animal disease outbreaks that can devastate agriculture and threaten food security. Without these administrative procedures, there would be no efficient way to address incompetence or misconduct among accredited veterinarians, potentially allowing diseased animals to enter the food supply or spread infectious diseases to livestock populations.

This regulation establishes the National Veterinary Accreditation Program (NVAP) under APHIS, authorizing accredited veterinarians to perform federal animal health inspections, certifications, and testing on behalf of the USDA. It creates two accreditation categories with different scopes, sets requirements for application, training, renewal, and outlines standards of conduct. Veterinarians must be state-licensed and complete federal training to perform duties like issuing movement certificates, conducting tests, and reporting diseases. The program delegates federal authority to private veterinarians to safeguard animal health and facilitate interstate/international commerce.

Eliminating this accreditation system would jeopardize America's multibillion-dollar agricultural industry by removing the standardized, nationwide network of veterinarians authorized to inspect and certify animal health for interstate and international trade. Without accredited veterinarians, either costly federal employees would need to handle all inspections or inconsistent state standards would create trade barriers and increase disease transmission risks. The economic consequences of an animal disease outbreak (e.g., foot-and-mouth, avian flu) far exceed the minimal compliance costs, making this a rare regulation where the hidden tax is justified by the catastrophic unseen costs of not having it.

This regulation establishes procedures for investigating and penalizing document fraud under immigration law, including complaint filing, investigation processes, issuance of notices of intent to fine, hearing procedures, and civil penalties for fraudulent document use in employment contexts.

Creates costly bureaucratic enforcement apparatus that criminalizes document-related employment activities, imposes disproportionate penalties on small businesses, and expands federal regulatory reach into private employment decisions without clear constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause.

This regulation establishes the administrative enforcement process for section 274C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits document fraud in connection with employment eligibility verification. It defines key terms, sets forth complaint procedures, investigation authority, subpoena power, the Notice of Intent to Fine process, hearing rights before an administrative law judge, and a detailed civil penalty schedule with varying amounts based on offense type and history. It also includes a special declination provision for refugees.

The compliance and administrative costs of this enforcement apparatus—including ALJ proceedings, subpoenas, and bureaucratic penalty determinations—are disproportionate to its effectiveness. It creates economic distortions by forcing employers to verify documents, raising hiring costs and discriminating against foreign-looking workers, while doing little to address the root causes of unauthorized immigration. The arbitrary penalty schedule and expansive agency discretion represent the type of regulatory overreach that burdens small businesses and entrenches bureaucratic power without delivering commensurate public benefit.

Defines 'longshore work' and prohibits nonimmigrant crewmen from performing such work in US ports, with exceptions for hazardous cargo, prevailing practice (including collective bargaining or attestation), and reciprocity. Requires specific documentation on manifests and establishes fines and debarment procedures for violations.

This protectionist regulation imposes significant compliance costs, artificially inflates shipping expenses for American consumers, and distorts labor markets by shielding US longshore workers from foreign competition. Its complex exception regime creates a bureaucratic maze that benefits incumbent union interests while reducing port competitiveness and raising barriers to entry for smaller shipping firms—all for a non-compelling government interest that could be achieved through less restrictive means.

This regulation governs tax servicing for USDA Rural Development borrowers with multi-family housing loans (RRH, RCH, LH, NP) and certain single-family borrowers with Farmer Program loans. It establishes County Supervisor responsibilities for ensuring proper tax listing, contacting delinquent borrowers, and using the Type 60 Purchase Order System to pay delinquent taxes to protect government security interests.

This regulation creates costly bureaucratic overhead for monitoring and servicing tax payments on rural housing loans. The unseen costs include: County Supervisors spending time on tax collection rather than productive lending activities, government payment of delinquent taxes that creates moral hazard (borrowers may strategically default knowing USDA will cover taxes), and the Type 60 Purchase Order System itself represents a hidden subsidy that distorts market incentives. These costs exceed the benefits of preventing foreclosure when borrowers could simply be required to maintain escrow accounts like conventional mortgages.

Establishes general policies and requirements for insured and guaranteed loans to finance rural electric facility construction, including generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure, with detailed definitions and eligibility criteria.

Federal involvement in rural electric infrastructure creates market distortions, protects incumbent utilities from competition, and imposes hidden costs on taxpayers. Private markets can efficiently provide rural electric service without government guarantees that socialize risk while privatizing profits.

Establishes the Mushroom Council, a 4-9 member administrative body composed of large mushroom producers and importers, funded by mandatory assessments on producers (over 500,000 lbs annually) and importers (over 500,000 lbs annually). The Council conducts promotion, research, consumer information, and industry information programs to enhance mushroom demand and industry efficiency.

This is a classic checkoff program that compels commodity producers to fund government-sanctioned industry advertising. It violates liberty by forcing small producers to subsidize promotional speech and imposes a hidden tax that disproportionately burdens small businesses. The Council structure ensures regulatory capture: large producers control the entity that spends their mandatory dollars. Market demand for mushrooms emerges through voluntary consumer choice, not industry propaganda. Any legitimate research or consumer information could be privately funded by willing producers without state coercion. The program distorts the free market by transferring wealth from small to large operators and creates an artificial barrier to entry through increased compliance costs.

Establishes comprehensive ethical standards for federal employees, prohibiting conflicts of interest, improper gifts, and misuse of public office while requiring loyalty to constitutional principles and disclosure of misconduct.

Americans would be worse off if federal employees could accept bribes, use their positions for private gain, or make decisions based on personal financial interests rather than public good. This regulation ensures government integrity and prevents corruption that would erode public trust.

Regulation establishes procedures for awarding attorney fees and expenses to eligible parties who prevail in adversary adjudications against the Office of Government Ethics, including eligibility criteria, application procedures, and standards for determining awards.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it ensures access to justice for individuals and small entities who successfully challenge government actions, preventing the government from using its superior resources to force unjust settlements or discourage legitimate challenges.

Regulates OPM's handling of court orders affecting CSRS/FERS retirement benefits, establishing procedures for processing divorce settlements, property division, and child abuse judgment enforcement related to federal employee retirement annuities.

This regulation ensures federal retirement benefits are properly distributed according to court orders, protecting both employees' rights and former spouses' entitlements while maintaining administrative clarity and preventing fraud.

Establishes OPM procedures for referring past-due debts from federal employee benefits programs to IRS for tax refund offset, including notice, review, and communication requirements.

Deletion would eliminate mandatory due process safeguards, leading to arbitrary tax refund offsets without notice or opportunity to dispute, violating constitutional rights. The regulation ensures only legally enforceable debts are collected through a transparent, uniform process that would be hard to replicate via internal guidance, which lacks force of law and could be revoked arbitrarily.

Implements interim relief requirements of the Whistleblower Protection Act, requiring federal agencies to provide compensation and benefits to employees who win an initial Merit Systems Protection Board decision during the appeal period. Sets specific timing, duration, and procedural rules for interim personnel actions, but explicitly excludes back pay and attorney fees.

Whistleblowers are essential for exposing government waste, fraud, and abuse. Without guaranteed interim relief during lengthy appeals, employees who successfully challenge retaliation at the initial stage would face financial ruin, chilling legitimate whistleblowing that serves the public interest. The regulation's detailed procedural requirements prevent agencies from delaying relief, ensuring the statutory protection is meaningful rather than illusory. Deletion would effectively nullify the Whistleblower Protection Act's interim relief provision, undermining one of the few effective oversight mechanisms for federal misconduct.

This regulation establishes the Surface Transportation Board's procedures for complying with NEPA and other environmental laws, requiring Environmental Assessments or Impact Statements for transportation projects based on detailed thresholds, along with Historic Reports, public notices, and agency consultations.

The regulation imposes massive compliance costs and delays on rail infrastructure projects, diverting resources from productive use into process. The detailed thresholds and mandatory multi-agency consultation create uncertainty and litigation risks that discourage investment. Small railroads face disproportionate burdens. The 'look but don't touch' approach of NEPA often prevents beneficial projects from proceeding while achieving minimal environmental benefit—transportation projects could address genuine harms through direct regulations (emissions standards, safety rules) without this bureaucratic maze.

Regulation implementing the Debt Collection Act of 1982 at the Surface Transportation Board, establishing procedures for administrative offset of federal employees' salaries to collect debts owed to the government. Provides notice requirements, hearing rights, procedural safeguards, 15% disposable pay cap, and inter-agency debt collection protocols.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because legitimate government debts would either go uncollected (imposing costs on taxpayers) or be collected through arbitrary methods without due process. This regulation achieves efficient debt collection while protecting employee rights through standardized procedures, hearing opportunities, burden-of-proof rules, and reasonable limits. The balanced framework is difficult to replicate ad hoc and prevents both revenue loss and rights violations.