Browse regulations

FERPA grants parents and eligible students rights to inspect, amend, and control disclosure of their education records. It applies to educational institutions receiving federal funds and defines 'education records' broadly with specific exceptions and permitted disclosures without consent.

Without FERPA, students and families would lose fundamental privacy rights, with no recourse to correct inaccurate records or control disclosure of sensitive personal information. Educational institutions could freely share data without consent, creating surveillance risks and enabling bureaucratic overreach. The regulation achieves its goals through clear, workable rules that balance legitimate educational needs with individual liberty, with compliance costs justified by the protection of Fourth Amendment-like privacy interests in the educational context.

This regulation implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act for the Department of Education, establishing administrative procedures to impose civil penalties (up to $5,000 per claim) and assessments (up to twice paid amounts) against persons who submit false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to the Department. It defines key terms, establishes investigation and review processes by the Inspector General and General Counsel, requires DOJ approval before issuing complaints, limits applicability to claims under $150,000, and provides for Administrative Law Judge hearings with full due process rights including discovery, representation, and appeal to the Department head.

This regulation serves a legitimate, narrow function: recovering taxpayer funds from fraud against the Department of Education through an efficient administrative process. The procedural safeguards—DOJ approval, independent ALJ, discovery rights, and appeal—prevent abuse while addressing smaller fraud cases that would be uneconomic to pursue through full litigation. The compliance burden falls only on those who would submit false claims; legitimate actors face minimal cost. Eliminating it would either leave smaller frauds unaddressed or force expensive court litigation for minor claims, net losing taxpayer money. The $150,000 cap and requirement of knowingly false conduct properly constrain overreach.

Regulation governs Corps operations involving discharge of dredged or fill material in US waters, requiring public notification, environmental coordination, state certification, and disposal management procedures.

Creates excessive bureaucratic compliance costs and delays for routine infrastructure maintenance, with redundant state-federal coordination requirements that benefit established contractors while harming small businesses and increasing taxpayer costs for basic waterway operations.

Regulation establishes Corps of Engineers procedures for discharging dredged/fill material into US waters and oceans. Requires public notices, hearings, state water quality certification (CWA §401), coastal zone consistency (CZMA), NEPA documentation, EPA consultation for ocean disposal, and numerous environmental evaluations (404(b)(1) guidelines, endangered species, historic resources, etc.). Creates extensive coordination requirements and multiple decision factors balancing navigation needs with environmental protection.

This procedure-heavy regulation imposes significant delays and costs on essential navigation maintenance while duplicating protections already mandated by underlying statutes. The multiple bureaucratic layers — state certifications, EPA reviews, endless evaluation factors — slow commerce and inflate taxpayer expenses. Federal overreach into local water management violates Tenth Amendment principles; states and market-based liability regimes could handle environmental concerns more efficiently without this centralized procedural maze.

This regulation establishes Corps of Engineers procedures for compliance with Clean Water Act section 404 and Ocean Dumping Act section 103 regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters and ocean disposal. It covers Army Civil Works operations and maintenance projects, requiring public notice, environmental review, and application of EPA guidelines for least costly environmentally acceptable alternatives.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because this regulation prevents environmental damage from Corps operations, ensures public input on water-related projects, and requires consideration of environmental impacts before dredging or filling activities that could harm ecosystems, navigation, or public resources. The procedures protect against pollution, habitat destruction, and unintended consequences of federal civil works projects.

Procedures for Army Corps of Engineers to remove wrecks from navigable waters. Places primary responsibility on owners/operators; Corps acts as last resort with reimbursement. Includes hazard criteria, Coast Guard coordination, abandonment process, and cost approval thresholds.

Deletion risks unsafe waterways that disrupt commerce, endanger lives, and block transportation. The regulation properly assigns liability to private parties while providing a limited, accountable federal backstop. Its procedural safeguards—clear hazard standards, interagency coordination, cost controls, and reimbursement—ensure efficient implementation of the Rivers and Harbors Act without expanding federal power, making this constitutionally sound and practically necessary.

Establishes categorical exclusions from NEPA documentation for routine U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works activities, including maintenance, minor dredging, real estate grants, and planning studies, while requiring monitoring for extraordinary circumstances and compliance with other environmental laws.

Deleting this regulation would impose massive, unnecessary compliance costs and delays on routine government operations and maintenance activities that pose minimal environmental risk, expanding bureaucracy without meaningful environmental benefit. It wisely balances administrative efficiency with environmental safeguards by maintaining other statutory requirements and a feedback mechanism to adjust exclusions when needed.

This regulation establishes comprehensive safety requirements for waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG), including facility classification, extensive pre-operational review processes (Letters of Intent, Waterway Suitability Assessments, Operational Risk Assessments), incorporation by reference of numerous industry standards, detailed technical specifications for construction and equipment, operational manuals, inspection authority, and enforcement mechanisms with appeal processes.

This regulation imposes massive compliance costs—likely billions annually—on energy infrastructure that would be better determined by market forces and liability law. It creates unconstitutional federal overreach into local waterfront zoning and land-use decisions (Tenth Amendment violation), raises barriers to entry protecting incumbent energy companies from competition, and substitutes bureaucratic judgment for the dispersed knowledge of facility operators, insurers, and local communities. The hidden tax burden exceeds any marginal safety benefit, as the market already provides strong incentives for safe LNG/LHG operations through insurance requirements, reputational concerns, and catastrophic liability exposure. Regulatory capture has likely distorted these standards to favor incumbents. The 185,000+ page CFR grows by such redundant, knowledge-insensitive mandates that no mortal can fully comply, undermining rule of law itself.

DoD implementing regulations for the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA), establishing administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties (up to $5,000 per false claim) and assessments (up to twice paid amount) against persons submitting fraudulent claims or statements to the Department of Defense. Specifies roles (investigating official, reviewing official, presiding officer), investigation procedures, hearing rights, and appeal processes, with DOJ approval required and a $150,000 threshold for complaints.

This regulation implements a legitimate, core government function: protecting taxpayer money from fraud. The PFCRA provides a streamlined administrative remedy that is less costly and more efficient than full litigation under the False Claims Act. Deleting it would hamper DoD's ability to deter and recover losses from fraudulent claims, shifting more cases to resource-intensive criminal or civil proceedings, ultimately costing taxpayers more. The procedural safeguards built into the regulation (separation of functions, due process hearings, DOJ review) adequately protect against abuse.

This DoD regulation implements equal employment opportunity programs across the Department of Defense, establishing affirmative action requirements, special emphasis programs for minorities and women, and procedures for handling discrimination complaints. It applies to all civilian employees and covers recruitment, advancement, and workplace protections based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it ensures equal employment opportunity in federal workplaces, protects workers from discrimination, and maintains merit-based advancement systems. Without it, federal agencies would lack standardized procedures for addressing discrimination, potentially creating hostile work environments and undermining the principle that employment decisions should be based on ability rather than protected characteristics.

This DoD procurement regulation requires contractors to submit a Competitive Information Certificate for contracts over $100,000 when there's reason to suspect they may have obtained improper government information. It mandates disclosure of how information was obtained, certifies independent pricing, and includes a Profit Reduction Clause allowing the government to reduce contract profits if the certificate is false/inaccurate or if there's a conviction for fraud/bribery related to the contract.

The regulation imposes significant compliance burdens on government contractors, particularly smaller firms, through a complex certification process (nearly 700 words of requirements) with subjective criteria and bureaucratic oversight. The Government maintains discretionary lists of contractors requiring certification, creating uncertainty and potential for arbitrary enforcement. While targeting fraud, the administration costs and barriers to entry for legitimate businesses outweigh marginal benefits since existing criminal laws already penalize the prohibited conduct. The profit reduction clause introduces additional financial risk beyond normal contractual and legal remedies.

Regulation establishes procedures for qualified financial institutions to specially endorse U.S. Savings Bonds and Freedom Shares using a stamp instead of owner signatures, enabling efficient redemption or forwarding to Federal Reserve sites. It defines qualification requirements, endorsement standards, liability guarantees, and record-keeping rules for participating paying agents.

Facilitates voluntary public-private partnership for processing government savings bonds - a core federal function. Reduces transaction costs for bondholders and provides standardized, efficient processing with clear liability rules. Repeal would force Treasury into more expensive direct processing or inefficient individualized contracts, harming both taxpayers and savers.

This regulation governs how financial institutions qualify and operate as paying agents for redeeming U.S. Savings Bonds and Savings Notes. It sets eligibility criteria for banks/credit unions, outlines application procedures with Treasury's Federal Reserve sites, specifies rules for verifying presenter identity and authority, mandates physical surrender of paper securities, imposes reporting requirements to IRS, establishes error liability frameworks, and dictates fee structures. It covers redemption for cash and redemption-exchange transactions with extensive procedural controls.

This massive regulatory apparatus imposes billions in hidden compliance costs on thousands of financial institutions to manage a voluntary government savings program that could be fully privatized. The requirement that only regulated financial institutions qualify as agents creates barriers to entry, protecting incumbent banks from competition. The physical security surrender mandate (no digital images) is technologically obsolete, forcing costly logistics for paper handling. Identity verification protocols, tax reporting obligations, and error liability regimes duplicate existing bank regulations and AML/KYC regimes. Treasury could instead auction redemption rights to lowest bidders or eliminate paper bonds entirely (already largely done), letting market competition drive efficiency. The regulation's primary effect is to create a regulated federal feeding trough for banking cartel members, not protect bondholders—private contract law and existing banking regulations adequately cover fraud and error risks.

Foreign Military Sales debt refinancing program allowing prepayment of high-interest FMS loans with private financing backed by US government guarantees, subject to complex eligibility criteria and procedural requirements involving multiple federal agencies.

This regulation creates a complex bureaucratic apparatus for refinancing foreign military sales debt that distorts market incentives, creates moral hazard by guaranteeing private loans, and involves excessive federal oversight of what should be private commercial transactions between foreign borrowers and lenders.

Requires oil and gas lessees to maintain records of sales contracts and valuation documents, include stipulations that contracts do not modify federal lease terms, and submit information for transportation allowance and royalty valuation determinations under the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act.

Deleting this regulation would undermine the federal government's ability to collect rightful royalties from public resources, likely causing significant revenue loss. The record-keeping and inspection requirements provide essential transparency and enforcement mechanisms that self-reporting cannot replicate due to inherent information asymmetry and incentives to understate costs. The compliance burden, while present, is justified by the protection of taxpayer interests and proper valuation of public assets.