Browse regulations

This regulation establishes the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) as DoD's implementation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). It sets up peer review processes for large contracts ($1B+), requires certifications and approvals for deviations, adjusts thresholds for inflation, mandates contracting officer qualifications, and defines organizational responsibilities. It's the administrative machinery governing how the Pentagon buys goods and services.

This is pure process regulation that creates layers of bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Peer reviews for billion-dollar contracts add delays and costs while doing nothing to ensure quality—contracting officers already have strong incentives to be careful. Certification requirements and deviation procedures raise barriers to entry, benefitting large incumbents who can navigate complexity while deterring small businesses. The regulation embodies bureaucratic self-preservation: it exists to manage the regulators, not serve taxpayers or national security. The same objectives—fair pricing, quality, accountability—could be achieved with simpler rules and greater contracting officer discretion. Eliminate the peer review mandates, complex certification processes, and deviation bureaucracy; return to a streamlined acquisition system where one person, not a committee, is accountable for results.

Provides incentives for prime contractors to use Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises as subcontractors, offering 5% payment incentives. Also includes preferences for local firms in disaster areas and HBCUs/MIs in procurement, food donation requirements, drug-free workplace mandates, and texting-while-driving policies.

Creates complex compliance burdens and administrative costs while promoting identity-based contracting preferences that distort free market competition. The drug-free workplace requirements impose costly monitoring systems and potential termination procedures that burden small businesses. These regulations represent regulatory capture by special interest groups rather than neutral, merit-based contracting.

Regulation establishes FCC licensing and technical standards for satellite and earth station operations, including spectrum allocation, interference protection, and preemption of local zoning for small antennas, to coordinate radio spectrum use and implement international agreements.

Americans would be worse off without coordinated spectrum management, which prevents interference that would disrupt GPS, weather forecasting, and global communications; the federal licensing system provides property rights and technical certainty essential for a scarce, internationally shared resource that markets cannot efficiently self-govern.

Regulations governing commercial fishing industry vessels, covering safety equipment, operations, and reporting requirements including survival craft, personal flotation devices, and casualty reporting to underwriters or designated organizations.

Excessive regulatory burden on small fishing businesses with compliance costs that could be eliminated through market-based safety incentives and voluntary industry standards.

This regulation defines terms and sets rules for federally funded senior volunteer programs (FGP, SCP, RSVP) under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. It specifies local matching requirements (10-30%) and permits grantees to spend excess locally raised funds on activities 'not inconsistent' with the authorizing statute, subject to documentation and audit requirements.

The regulation imposes administrative burdens (documentation, audits) on nonprofits and local governments while doing little to prevent actual misuse. The vague 'not inconsistent' standard creates uncertainty and gives bureaucrats discretion to restrict legitimate local spending. Federal matching requirements distort charitable incentives and crowd out private funding. These senior volunteer programs could operate more efficiently through private philanthropy or state/local initiatives without federal paperwork mandates.

Administered by the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, this program provides federal indemnity (backed by full faith and credit) for loss or damage to art/artifacts during approved exhibitions—both international (foreign items in U.S., U.S. items abroad) and domestic (U.S. items in U.S., especially when integral to exhibitions with foreign items). The Council reviews applications, certifies exhibitions meeting educational/cultural significance, and issues indemnity agreements up to statutory limits. International exhibitions require State Department certification of national interest.

This federal insurance program exceeds constitutional authority for domestic exhibitions and distorts private risk management. It creates moral hazard by shielding institutions from full loss consequences, likely reducing security diligence. The private art insurance market already exists; government involvement invites regulatory capture, imposes bureaucratic costs on taxpayers, and selectively picks winners in the cultural sector. Any diplomatic benefits can be achieved without federal indemnification. Removing it restores proper alignment of risk and reward, reduces federal overreach into local institutions, and eliminates hidden taxpayer liability.

Regulation establishes exceptions to denying federal benefits to individuals convicted of drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. 853a. It defines 'deemed rehabilitated' as 180+ days of documented abstinence via FDA-approved drug testing, and 'long-term treatment program' as 180+ day programs accredited by specified organizations. Those who declare addiction and submit to treatment or demonstrate rehabilitation cannot be denied benefits.

Federal regulatory system creating unequal protection and excessive barriers for citizens. Duplicates state criminal justice functions under unconstitutional federal police power expansion. Violates principles of federalism and creates permanent second-class status through benefit denial. Expensive urine testing and accreditation requirements serve no legitimate federal interest.USA should not penalize citizens through loss of benefits after sentence served.

Regulation establishes a fee schedule requiring nuclear power plant licensees to pay FEMA for site-specific radiological emergency planning and preparedness services, including exercise development, plan reviews, technical assistance, and legal support, with charges based on FEMA's professional hourly staff rate plus contractual costs.

Americans would be worse off because deletion would either create a taxpayer subsidy for nuclear utilities or lead to underfunded emergency preparedness. The cost-recovery mechanism ensures licensees directly pay for specific federal services they require, maintaining funding certainty and accountability. This user-pay model is hard to replicate without clear statutory authority and predictable fee structures, and emergency preparedness for catastrophic nuclear accidents is a legitimate public safety function requiring stable federal coordination.

This regulation provides geographic pay adjustments for U.S. Park Police officers stationed in high-cost areas (New York and San Francisco), calculating adjusted rates based on 108% of base pay and establishing complex payment rules for various scenarios.

This is a narrow federal intervention in local labor markets that creates administrative complexity and costs without addressing the fundamental issue - federal employees in high-cost areas face the same market pressures as everyone else. The regulation's complexity (over 1,000 words of rules) creates compliance burdens and distortions while the underlying principle of federal pay adjustments based on geography is arbitrary and inefficient. Local governments and private employers handle cost-of-living differences through market mechanisms without federal intervention.

Federal grant program providing funding to nonprofit institutions for training programs in library science and health information communications, excluding biomedical specialties. Sets eligibility criteria, application requirements, evaluation standards, and fund use restrictions including stipends for trainees.

Federal intrusion into education and training markets that states, localities, and private philanthropy should handle. Creates dependency, distorts incentives in library/information science fields, and imposes compliance burdens on nonprofits for a program with no clear constitutional basis under enumerated powers. Even small programs compound the $2 trillion regulatory burden and violate federalism principles.

This regulation governs federal grants for establishing, expanding, and improving basic medical library resources and regional medical libraries, including eligibility criteria, evaluation factors, funding limits, and operational requirements for nonprofit institutions and organizations serving health sciences information needs.

Federal funding of medical libraries represents regulatory overreach beyond constitutional authority, creates market distortions by subsidizing information services that should compete freely, and imposes compliance costs that burden taxpayers while potentially crowding out private sector solutions. The unseen costs include reduced innovation in information delivery and dependency on government funding.

This regulation governs access to the National Library of Medicine's facilities, collections, and services for the general public and health-sciences professionals. It establishes rules for reading rooms, study rooms (with priority given to health professionals), material loans (including special restrictions on historical collections), and reference/bibliographic services. The Director may charge fees for services and has discretion to set additional reasonable rules.

This represents federal overreach into a function that could be efficiently provided by private libraries, academic institutions, and commercial information services. Taxpayers subsidize a specialized service primarily benefiting medical professionals and researchers, crowding out market alternatives. Administrative overhead and compliance costs add burden without justification. The regulation's detailed rules and priority system create unnecessary bureaucracy; private institutions would handle access through pricing and market mechanisms that naturally allocate scarce resources to highest-valued uses. No constitutional authority exists for federal operation of a medical library—properly a state, local, or private endeavor.

The AbilityOne Program mandates federal procurement of commodities and services from designated nonprofit agencies that employ persons who are blind or have severe disabilities (minimum 75% of direct labor). It establishes a Procurement List with priority given to agencies for the blind for commodities, and equal priority for services between blind and severe disability agencies. Federal Prison Industries retains priority for commodities.

This regulation forces the federal government to purchase from preferred nonprofits rather than seeking best value, imposing hidden costs on taxpayers and distorting market competition. The mandate substitutes political allocation for market signals, risks overpaying for goods/services, and creates dependency on government contracts. While well-intentioned, the social welfare goal would be more efficiently achieved through direct assistance to individuals or nonprofits, allowing competitive procurement to determine prices and quality. The $2 trillion in annual compliance costs and the principle of limited government both support eliminating this market-distorting procurement preference.

Federal regulations establishing minimum national criteria for municipal solid waste landfill units under RCRA and Clean Water Act, covering siting, design, operation, closure, and post-closure requirements to protect human health and environment.

Federal overreach into waste management - a function properly reserved to states under Tenth Amendment. Creates $2+ trillion compliance burden that disproportionately harms small businesses while enabling regulatory capture through complex permitting processes.

Federal regulation (Common Rule) establishing IRB oversight, informed consent requirements, and exemptions for human subjects research conducted, supported, or regulated by federal agencies, based on Belmont Report ethical principles. Covers definitions, assurance requirements, exemption categories, and waiver processes.

Deletion would remove enforceable federal ethical standards, risking a return to non-consensual experimentation on vulnerable populations using taxpayer dollars. The regulation achieves protection through mandatory IRB review and standardized consent that institutional self-regulation and market forces failed to provide historically (e.g., Tuskegee). The compliance burden, while real, is necessary to prevent catastrophic rights violations that cannot be left to voluntary measures given power imbalances between researchers and subjects.