Browse regulations

This regulation implements ADA accessibility requirements for public transportation vehicles, setting detailed technical specifications for buses, rail cars, and other transit vehicles covering dimensions, signage, platform coordination, priority seating, handrails, floor surfaces, public address systems, between-car barriers, and extensive requirements for vehicle lifts, ramps, and bridge plates.

The detailed federal technical mandates impose massive hidden compliance costs on transit systems (passed to taxpayers/riders), violate constitutional federalism by micromanaging local transportation decisions, stifle innovation through one-size-fits-all specifications, and create disproportionate burdens on smaller transit agencies—costs that could be more efficiently addressed through state/local standards, market-based solutions, or constitutional equal protection principles without the $2 trillion regulatory burden.

Federal grant program providing up to 50% funding to local governments, tribes, and nonprofits to acquire private forestlands for community benefits requiring public access and long-term conservation management.

Violates Tenth Amendment by federalizing local land conservation decisions. Subsidizes selective projects, distorting markets and crowding out state, local, and private solutions. Hidden tax of >$14k per household funds bureaucratic expansion while imposing compliance burdens that disproportionately harm small entities.

Federal standards for zoning and development in Fire Island National Seashore, establishing three districts with specific permitted uses, building restrictions, and condemnation suspension criteria for conforming properties

Federal micromanagement of local zoning violates constitutional federalism and the Tenth Amendment. These regulations impose arbitrary density limits, prohibit multi-family housing, and restrict commercial development without demonstrated national interest, creating artificial housing scarcity and protecting incumbent property owners from competition while denying local communities their right to self-governance.

Federal policy establishing ethical standards for human subjects research, requiring institutional review boards (IRBs) to review research, protect subjects from harm, and ensure informed consent. Applies to federally conducted, supported, or regulated research with various exemptions and procedural requirements.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it protects vulnerable research subjects from exploitation and harm. The IRB system provides essential oversight that prevents unethical experiments like Tuskegee syphilis study. Without federal standards, research ethics would vary by state, creating inconsistent protections and potentially allowing dangerous or deceptive practices that could cause physical, psychological, or privacy harm to participants.

Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are general permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to streamline authorization for minor activities with minimal environmental impact, while maintaining oversight through terms, conditions, notifications, and discretionary authority for engineers to modify or revoke permits based on environmental or public interest concerns.

NWPs represent regulatory overreach into activities that should be handled by state/local authorities under the Tenth Amendment. The system creates unnecessary federal bureaucracy, imposes compliance costs on small businesses, and allows for regulatory capture through the discretionary authority mechanism. Most activities covered by NWPs have minimal environmental impact that could be managed through state-level environmental protection laws without federal intervention.

Regulation establishes a fee schedule for the Army Corps of Engineers to recover costs of Flood Plain Management Services provided to federal agencies and private persons. Services are categorized into five levels of complexity with corresponding charges. State/local governments receive services free. Fees based on total labor costs including overhead, reviewed annually with public notice.

This user-pays fee schedule ensures transparent, predictable cost recovery for voluntary federal services. Deleting it would either subsidize these services (creating distortionary incentives) or require more arbitrary negotiated agreements. The regulation's administrative burden is minimal and it embodies market principles by charging recipients rather than taxpayers.

Establishes whistleblower protection for Coast Guard members, prohibiting reprisal against those who make protected communications about violations of law, gross mismanagement, waste, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health/safety. The regulation defines protected communications (to Congress, Inspectors General, chain of command, etc.), reprisal, and creates investigative procedures through the DHS Inspector General and the Board for Correction of Military Records, with potential corrective actions and record corrections.

Military personnel face uniquely severe power imbalances and retaliation risks within the chain of command. This narrowly-tailored protection serves a critical constitutional function: enabling service members to report waste, fraud, and abuse without fear, which is essential for congressional oversight and preventing mission creep that wastes taxpayer resources. The regulation implements existing statutory authority (10 U.S.C. 1034) with limited bureaucratic procedures, and its repeal would gut an essential accountability mechanism in an institution where transparency is otherwise heavily constrained. The modest compliance costs are justified by preventing far larger unseen costs of unchecked corruption and mismanagement in a $100B+ military service.

This regulation establishes CIA policies for responding to demands for production of documents or information, protecting intelligence sources and methods, classified information, and ensuring proper authorization before any disclosure to legal authorities or other entities.

This regulation creates unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to legitimate legal processes, potentially shielding wrongdoing from judicial review, and enables the intelligence apparatus to operate with excessive opacity beyond constitutional checks and balances. The claimed protections for 'intelligence sources and methods' can be used to cover up misconduct, while the multi-layered approval process delays justice and undermines the public's right to information through proper legal channels.

This regulation establishes procedures for serving legal process to CIA personnel, ensuring all service is handled through the Office of General Counsel to protect national security interests and prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It creates a centralized system where only authorized attorneys can accept service, while also protecting CIA employees from being personally served at work for individual matters.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it protects national security by ensuring sensitive intelligence operations aren't compromised through legal discovery processes. The centralized service system prevents hostile actors from using civil litigation as a means to obtain classified information or disrupt intelligence activities. Without these protections, foreign adversaries could exploit the legal system to gather intelligence, identify covert operatives, or interfere with critical national security operations.

This regulation implements Article 139 of the UCMJ, providing an administrative process for private property owners to file claims against the pay of Navy/Marine Corps personnel for property damage caused by riotous, willful, or reckless conduct. It establishes investigation, command-level review, and appeal procedures with caps on deductions.

Americans would be worse off because private citizens would lose an accessible, low-cost remedy for property damage by military personnel, forcing them into expensive civil litigation or leaving them uncompensated. The regulation efficiently achieves its goal through command-level accountability and administrative efficiency that courts could not replicate, while respecting military discipline and service members' due process rights.

This regulation establishes mandatory internal procedures for the NSA regarding service of process, release of official information in litigation, and testimony by NSA personnel, requiring General Counsel approval for all information disclosures, setting detailed protocols for accepting service of process, and outlining fee structures for non-FOIA requests.

Americans would be worse off without these procedures because they protect national security information from unauthorized disclosure while enabling legitimate civil discovery. The regulation provides essential guardrails that balance the NSA's intelligence mission with rule of law obligations; eliminating it would create legal chaos and expose sensitive operations to adversaries, directly harming national security.

This regulation implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities in Treasury Department programs and activities, requiring accessibility accommodations, auxiliary aids, complaint procedures, and facility modifications.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it ensures equal access to government services for people with disabilities. Without it, Treasury programs would revert to excluding qualified individuals based on disability, violating basic civil rights and leaving disabled Americans unable to participate in their own government.

Federal regulation implementing ADA Title I, prohibiting employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Applies to employers with 15+ employees, requires reasonable accommodations, and defines 'disability' broadly (actual impairment, record of impairment, or being regarded as having an impairment). Mandates that disability be construed expansively to maximize coverage.

The regulation imposes substantial compliance costs on employers ($2T+ nationally) while creating litigation risks that distort hiring decisions. The 'regarded as' prong subjects employers to liability even for perceived impairments, encouraging defensive personnel practices. This federal overreach preempts state laws and intrudes on employer-employee relationships that market forces and state-level remedies could address more efficiently. The unseen costs—reduced hiring, administrative burdens, and chilling effect on objective job requirements—outweigh the benefits that private anti-discrimination norms and voluntary accommodations would naturally foster in a free society.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests (polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, etc.) for pre-employment screening or during employment, with narrow exceptions for ongoing investigations of economic loss. It requires posting notices, mandates recordkeeping, and grants enforcement authority to the Department of Labor. Federal, state, and local governments are exempt.

The $2 trillion regulatory burden includes this unjustified intrusion into voluntary employment contracts. Polygraph tests are scientifically unreliable but can be a useful investigative tool for theft, embezzlement, and sabotage. The regulation assumes employers would misuse them, but market forces (reputation, tort liability, competition for workers) and existing fraud laws already constrain abuse. The compliance costs hit small businesses hardest, raising barriers to entry. Americans would be better off trusting parties to negotiate employment terms and using courts to address any harms, rather than maintaining a federal prohibition that eliminates a legitimate business tool and federalizes what should be state-level employment law.

Establishes administrative procedures for assessing civil money penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act for child labor violations, tip retention violations, and repeated/willful minimum wage or overtime violations. Outlines notice requirements, hearing processes before Administrative Law Judges, appeals to the Administrative Review Board, and penalty collection methods.

This regulation creates a costly bureaucratic enforcement apparatus that increases compliance burdens, particularly on small businesses, and represents unnecessary administrative state expansion. Penalties could be pursued through existing federal courts, eliminating this overhead while preserving enforcement and due process.