Browse regulations

Federal grain grading standards establishing quality classifications, test weight requirements, moisture content limits, and special grade designations for various grains including barley, canola, corn, flaxseed, mixed grain, oats, and wheat under the United States Grain Standards Act

These regulations impose significant compliance costs on farmers and grain handlers through mandatory grading procedures, specialized testing equipment, and bureaucratic certification requirements that distort market signals and protect established players from competition. The complex standards create barriers to entry for small producers while providing little value to consumers who can assess grain quality through market mechanisms. Federal involvement in grain grading exceeds constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause and should be returned to state or voluntary industry standards.

This regulation defines terms and establishes vesting rules for Thrift Savings Plan contributions under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

These rules govern retirement benefits for federal employees, ensuring fair allocation of agency matching contributions based on years of service. Deleting would create uncertainty, potentially harm workers' retirement planning, and could violate the government's contractual commitments to its employees.

This regulation governs OPM's access to state criminal history records for determining eligibility for classified information access and sensitive national security duties, including liability indemnification provisions for states and consent requirements for individuals.

This regulation serves a critical national security function by establishing clear procedures for background checks on individuals with access to classified information, while protecting states from liability and ensuring proper consent protocols that balance security needs with individual rights.

Regulation governs transfer of federal employees from Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), establishing eligibility criteria, election procedures, annuity computation methods, and refund provisions for affected employees.

This regulation provides essential retirement system transition mechanisms that protect federal employees' pension benefits. Deleting it would create uncertainty about retirement coverage, annuity calculations, and refund rights for thousands of employees who have already made FERS elections under these rules.

Regulates recovery of overpayments from Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) basic benefits, including waiver standards, collection procedures, and administrative offsets from retirement payments and other federal funds.

Creates a complex bureaucratic system for recovering retirement overpayments that burdens federal retirees with administrative compliance costs, while the underlying issue of overpayments could be handled through simpler contractual mechanisms without creating a specialized regulatory framework.

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) death benefits and survivor annuities, including definitions, eligibility requirements, benefit calculations, and payment procedures for current and former spouses, children, and other survivors of federal employees and retirees

This regulation creates a massive unfunded liability for federal retirement benefits that exceeds $8 trillion, with survivor benefits costing taxpayers billions annually while creating perverse incentives for marriage timing and retirement decisions. The complexity requires thousands of federal employees to administer, with compliance costs exceeding $500 million annually. These benefits should be eliminated to reduce government spending and allow private life insurance markets to function without distortion.

This regulation establishes the administrative framework governing the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), including procedures for applications, claims processing, recordkeeping, data disclosure, and government funding calculations. It outlines processes for benefit determinations, appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and actuarial methodologies for agency contributions.

Deleting these administrative rules would create chaos in the government's fulfillment of its contractual retirement promises to federal employees, leading to legal uncertainty, arbitrary benefit determinations, and potential violations of statutory obligations. While administrative costs exist, some procedural framework is necessary for any large-scale benefits system—the real target for reduction should be the statutory entitlement itself, not the rules ensuring its coherent administration.

This regulation implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for federal executive agencies, prohibiting discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs and activities. It requires self-evaluations, ensures program accessibility (with exceptions for undue burden/fundamental alteration), mandates auxiliary aids for effective communication, requires accessible facilities (including new construction), and establishes complaint procedures with internal appeals.

Delete due to high compliance costs, bureaucratic burden, and distortion of resource allocation. The regulation imposes affirmative accommodation duties that exceed the constitutional prohibition on discrimination and invite litigation. Its costs to taxpayers and agency efficiency outweigh benefits, and it could be replaced by simpler judicial enforcement.

This regulation implements the Endangered Species Act by establishing procedures for federal agencies to consult with wildlife services to ensure actions don't jeopardize listed species or destroy critical habitat, including requirements for biological assessments, formal and informal consultations, and emergency procedures.

This regulation creates massive bureaucratic delays and costs for federal projects, often stopping development for years while species studies are conducted. It gives unelected wildlife officials veto power over infrastructure, energy, and economic development, with questionable scientific basis for many species listings. The compliance costs and delays harm American prosperity while providing minimal measurable benefits to species recovery.

Regulation implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for federal agencies, prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all federal programs and activities. Requires reasonable accommodations, program accessibility, effective communication, and establishes complaint procedures with exceptions for undue burden and fundamental alteration.

Americans would be worse off because people with disabilities would face unjust exclusion from federal programs and services, violating equal protection principles. The regulation achieves this through enforceable standards and complaint procedures that would be difficult to replicate without a formal rule. It constrains only federal agency conduct—not private enterprise—and includes necessary flexibility exceptions, with administrative costs justified by ensuring government services are accessible to all citizens.

Implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by prohibiting federal executive agencies from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in programs, services, employment, and facility accessibility. Requires reasonable accommodations, effective communication, and accessibility unless causing undue financial burden or fundamental alteration. Establishes complaint procedures and timelines.

Americans would be worse off without it because people with disabilities would face discrimination in accessing federal services, employment, and facilities. The regulation achieves nondiscrimination appropriately by including cost-conscious exceptions for undue burden and fundamental alteration, ensuring government serves all citizens while respecting fiscal limits. Alternatives like ad-hoc decisions or legislation for each accommodation would be far less efficient and consistent.

Establishes procedural requirements for contract disputes and appeals involving the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), designating the Interior Board of Contract Appeals (IBCA) as the appellate body, setting timelines for appeal submission and documentation, and requiring specific FAR clauses in OPM contracts. It governs the administrative process for resolving disputes between OPM and its prime contractors.

This is an internal agency procedural rule that adds no substantive protection for liberty or the public interest. The detailed steps for appeals, forwarding requirements, and mandatory FAR clauses could be issued as agency guidance or incorporated into the FAR itself without separate regulation. It imposes compliance costs on OPM staff and contractors for a process that merely codifies routine administrative functions, contributing to regulatory bloat without addressing any market failure or systemic harm that requires federal oversight. No American's liberty or property rights depend on this specific bureaucratic choreography.

DOE regulation outlining procedures for handling bid protests in its procurement process. It defines authority levels (HCAs vs Senior Procurement Executive), encourages alternative dispute resolution, sets 35-day decision timelines, requires concurrence from counsel and program officials, and establishes policy for GAO compliance. Specifically excludes subcontractor protests from GAO jurisdiction.

This internal procedural framework ensures fair, orderly dispute resolution in federal contracting. Eliminating it would create uncertainty, increase litigation costs, and undermine procurement integrity. The minimal administrative burden is outweighed by the benefits of a structured process that protects both the government and contractors.

Defines terms for maritime radio communications and incorporates by reference numerous international standards (IMO, ITU, IEC), forming the technical framework for ship and coast station operations including GMDSS and AIS.

Incorporation by reference makes the law unknowable and forces compliance with hidden foreign standards, raising costs and ceding sovereignty. Technical specifications should emerge from market competition, not bureaucratic mandates, and safety can be achieved with simpler, transparent rules.

This FCC regulation governs record preservation for communication carriers, requiring: (1) designation of officials to supervise preservation; (2) protection of records from damage; (3) 18-month retention of toll call billing records (caller/callee info, date, time, length); (4) nondominant interexchange carriers must make rate/service information publicly available (in-person and online); and (5) maintenance of price/service information for FCC/state commission requests, retained 2.5 years after service cessation.

Without this regulation, consumers would lose the ability to dispute billing errors beyond a few months, price transparency would diminish harming competition, and regulatory oversight of carrier practices would be severely weakened—all of which would reduce market efficiency and consumer welfare. The modest compliance costs are outweighed by these critical information-disclosure functions that enable markets to work. Alternatives like relying solely on state regulation would fail for interstate/international communications, and private ordering cannot solve the collective action problem of uniform record standards.