Browse regulations

Federal Animal Welfare Act licensing and registration regulations for dealers, exhibitors, carriers, research facilities, and related entities, establishing permit requirements, exemptions, inspection procedures, and compliance standards.

Creates a massive bureaucratic apparatus that imposes $120+ licensing fees, extensive paperwork requirements, and government inspections on animal-related businesses. The unseen costs include barriers to entry for small operators, regulatory capture by established industry players, and unconstitutional federal overreach into local animal commerce that properly belongs to states under the Tenth Amendment.

Establishes procedures for submitting FOIA requests to USDA's Office of Finance and Management, including contact information for records at Washington DC headquarters and the National Finance Center in New Orleans, fee schedules, and appeals process to the Director.

Deleting this guidance would undermine transparency and accountability by making it harder for citizens to access USDA financial records. The regulation provides necessary procedural clarity that ensures consistent, fair handling of FOIA requests, which is essential for monitoring government spending and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. Without it, requesters would face confusion and arbitrary denials, impairing the public's right to know how tax dollars are spent.

Regulation establishes FOIA request procedures for USDA Office of Operations, including authorized officials, submission methods, fee schedule, and appeals process.

Deleting this would eliminate transparent public access to USDA records, undermining accountability. Minimal procedural costs are justified to maintain FOIA's essential role in constraining government secrecy and enabling citizen oversight.

Describes the organization and functions of USDA's Office of Operations, including its six divisions and staff responsible for procurement, property management, facilities, mail, and other administrative services.

Internal agency organization belongs in a website or internal manual, not the CFR. This regulation contributes to 185,000+ pages of bloat without providing transparency benefits that couldn't be achieved more efficiently, and it unnecessarily formalizes bureaucratic structure.

Regulation establishing special servicing, appeal, and transfer rules for Rural Housing Service loans sold to the Rural Housing Trust 1987-1 in a 1987 transaction. Exempts these loans from standard RHS transfer/assumption regulations, preserves borrower rights under existing RHS rules, retains RHS final appeal review, and provides priority for eligible borrowers purchasing properties securing these loans.

-Obsolete artifact from a 1987 loan sale; remaining loans subject to this regulation are minimal as they age and are paid off -Creates special administrative complexity and compliance burden for a negligible public benefit when standard agency procedures or contract terms would suffice -Undermines equal treatment and rule of law by maintaining parallel rules for a shrinking cohort of loans -Imposes ongoing administrative costs on RHS and servicers for no compelling reason

This regulation provides special servicing procedures for Rural Development borrowers who enter military service, including interest rate caps, property management options, and legal protections under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. It covers chattel and real estate loans, leasing arrangements, power of attorney requirements, and procedures for handling delinquent accounts.

This regulation represents federal overreach into matters properly handled by state courts and private contracts. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act already provides legal protections at the federal level, making this redundant bureaucracy that increases compliance costs for Rural Development and borrowers without adding meaningful protections beyond existing law.

Imposes a 2% annual interest rate penalty on USDA rural development loans for projects using prime or unique farmland, with an exemption for public bodies/tribes that demonstrate no suitable alternative sites. Requires consultation with the Soil Conservation Service to determine farmland status.

This regulation federalizes local land-use decisions, distorting rural economic development through financial penalties. The 2% 'hidden tax' raises borrowing costs for farmers and businesses, disproportionately harming small operators. It violates Tenth Amendment principles by imposing Washington's judgment on farmland use, displacing local knowledge and voluntary market decisions. The bureaucratic consultation requirement adds compliance burdens without improving outcomes—prime farmland protection should be addressed by state/local zoning, not federal loan conditions.

This regulation describes the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) cushion of credit payments program, which is being phased out. Effective December 20, 2018, no new accounts may be established, and existing accounts can only be used to make scheduled loan payments or with Administrator approval. The program will terminate when all balances reach zero. It defines terms like accumulated interest, advance payments, cushion of credit payments, interest credits, and prepayments, and outlines procedures for applying cushion funds to delinquent installments and closing accounts.

Because this regulation merely administers the orderly wind-down of a dormant program with no new enrollments; deleting it would disrupt existing contractual arrangements, create legal uncertainty for remaining borrowers, and potentially constitute a breach of the government's obligations under existing loan contracts. The administrative burden is minimal and declining as accounts naturally terminate, while the unseen costs of repeal—undermining rule of law and contractual stability—would outweigh any marginal benefit from eliminating this already-terminating program.

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) regulations governing telecommunications loan construction, procurement, and engineering services for rural telephone borrowers, establishing standardized procedures for contract bidding, material standards, and RUS approval requirements.

These regulations create excessive federal oversight of rural telecommunications construction, imposing costly compliance burdens on small borrowers while duplicating state-level procurement and engineering oversight that could be handled locally. The mandatory RUS approval process for contracts, materials, and construction methods represents federal overreach into areas better managed by states and local entities, with compliance costs disproportionately affecting small rural providers.

This regulation governs USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) loan programs for telephone service improvements in rural areas. It prescribes detailed application procedures, eligibility requirements, engineering standards, and oversight mechanisms for borrowers seeking federal financing. The rule defines terms, outlines submission of certified incorporation documents, financial statements, area coverage surveys, loan designs, and imposes numerous certifications and compliance requirements including non-segregation, lobbying, and relocation assistance policies.

This federal loan program violates constitutional federalism by intruding on state and local authority over telecommunications infrastructure. It distorts market signals, crowds out private investment, and creates dependency on federal subsidies. The regulatory burden—certifications, engineering approvals, and compliance requirements—disproportionately harms small rural telecoms while protecting incumbents from competition. Modern alternatives (wireless, satellite, private LTE) have emerged, making this New Deal-era intervention obsolete. The hidden tax burden of administering this program exceeds any marginal benefit to rural subscribers, who would be better served by market-driven solutions and state-level initiatives.

Establishes RUS telephone loan program policies for rural telecommunications, including loan eligibility, security requirements, and acquisition/consolidation provisions under the Rural Electrification Act.

Federal subsidy of rural telephone service represents market distortion that artificially sustains uneconomical infrastructure. The $2+ trillion regulatory compliance burden and constitutional violations of state authority over telecommunications make this program obsolete. Private markets and state-level solutions can better serve rural areas without federal intervention.

This regulation allows Rural Utilities Service borrowers (electric/telephone utilities) to defer loan payments if they invest equally in approved rural development or job creation projects, subject to extensive eligibility criteria, application requirements, and repayment terms.

It distorts markets by privileging certain utilities with payment deferments, imposes significant hidden compliance costs on both borrowers and bureaucracy, intrudes on state/local economic development authority under the Tenth Amendment, creates moral hazard and misallocates capital through federal industrial policy. The requirement for Administrator discretion opens regulatory capture risks, and the complexity favors large incumbents over smaller competitors.

This regulation governs the assignment of cash payments from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) or Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to third parties. It mandates the use of specific government forms (CCC-36, CCC-251/252), requires filing with designated agency offices prior to payment approval, sets rules for offsetting assignor debts to government agencies, and establishes procedures for voiding assignments due to misrepresentation.

This regulation imposes unnecessary compliance burdens by prescribing exact forms and filing procedures for private assignment of government payments. The same objectives—proper payment routing, debt collection, and fraud prevention—could be achieved through standard contract law, banking practices, and existing government debt collection authorities at a fraction of the compliance cost. It represents micro-management of routine financial transactions, inflating regulatory complexity without meaningful public benefit.

Federal Summer Food Service Program regulations establishing nonprofit food service operations for children in needy areas when schools are closed, including eligibility criteria, funding mechanisms, administrative requirements, and monitoring procedures.

Federal food assistance programs represent unconstitutional overreach into areas traditionally managed by states and local communities. These regulations create costly bureaucratic overhead that distorts local decision-making, imposes complex compliance burdens on small organizations, and perpetuates dependency rather than addressing root causes of poverty. The $2+ trillion annual regulatory compliance cost burden demonstrates how such programs waste resources that could be better used by local charities and families.

Ethics regulation requiring employees of the Inter-American Foundation (excluding Board and Advisory Council) to obtain prior written approval before engaging in compensated outside teaching, speaking, or writing. The General Counsel serves as designated agency ethics official.

Creates unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to employees' outside income opportunities, imposing compliance costs and administrative burden without addressing corruption more effectively than existing standards in 5 CFR part 2635. The prior-approval requirement is disproportionate to the risk and stifles legitimate professional activity, violating the principle of limited government intrusion into private economic conduct.