Browse regulations

This regulation implements procedures for the Federal Service Impasses Panel to resolve disputes between federal agencies and unions over flexible/compressed work schedules, providing mechanisms for hearings, factfinding, and final determinations when agencies refuse to establish or terminate such schedules due to adverse agency impact.

This regulation creates a bureaucratic layer for resolving workplace scheduling disputes that should be handled through direct negotiation between agencies and unions. The costs of maintaining this federal panel, including staff, hearings, and administrative overhead, far exceed any benefits, while the private sector successfully resolves similar scheduling issues without federal intervention.

Regulation establishes OPM's authority for personnel research programs and demonstration projects, including waiver procedures, agency proposal requirements, Congressional notification, public hearings, and evaluation processes for testing alternative federal personnel management policies.

Creates unnecessary bureaucratic infrastructure and centralized control over federal personnel experiments. Waiver authority undermines rule of law by allowing bypass of legal requirements. Administrative costs and potential for mission creep outweigh benefits; decentralized experimentation without OPM oversight would better align with limited government principles.

Establishes Fishermen's Contingency Fund compensating commercial fishermen for gear damage/loss from OCS oil/gas activities, financed by mandatory assessments on OCS lease/permit holders, with eligibility rules and presumption framework for causation.

Creates costly bureaucracy to resolve private disputes better handled through tort law or lease conditions; mandatory assessments distort market prices; fund's 50% 'economic loss' compensation creates moral hazard and subsidies; administrative overhead exceeds benefits of centralized processing.

This regulation establishes the Surface Transportation Board's procedures for reviewing railroad consolidation transactions (mergers, acquisitions, trackage rights, etc.), classifying them as major, significant, minor, or exempt. It requires extensive pre-approval applications with detailed financial, operational, and competitive information; imposes conditions to mitigate anticompetitive effects; mandates service assurance plans and environmental reviews; requires employee protection arrangements; and establishes a 5-year post-merger oversight process.

This pre-approval regime assumes regulators can outperform markets in determining which consolidations serve the public interest—a knowledge problem Hayek identified as insurmountable. The massive compliance burden ($billions in hidden costs) distorts incentives, protects incumbents from competition through regulatory capture, and deters beneficial efficiency-enhancing mergers. Traditional property rights enforcement and existing antitrust law can address genuine harms (monopolization, fraud, safety violations) without this industrial planning apparatus that substitutes bureaucratic judgment for dispersed market knowledge.

This regulation governs applications for certificates to construct, acquire, or operate railroad lines in interstate commerce, including detailed filing requirements, environmental reviews, and exemption procedures for various rail operations including designated operators and abandoned line acquisitions.

This regulation creates massive regulatory burden on rail infrastructure development through complex application processes, extensive paperwork requirements, and bureaucratic oversight that distorts market signals and raises costs for rail transportation. The $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance costs across all industries suggest rail regulations like this contribute significantly to economic inefficiency without providing proportional public benefit.

Procedural regulation from the Surface Transportation Board governing documentation requirements for freight damage claims under modified procedure. Requires specific claim statement format including shipment details, carrier information, and weight/rate calculations, plus certification by carrier auditors and submission protocols based on number of shipments.

This bureaucratic paperwork mandate imposes compliance costs and barriers on legitimate claimants seeking reparations while providing no public safety justification. It exemplifies federal overreach into dispute resolution that states or private contracts could handle more efficiently, adding to the $2 trillion regulatory burden and undermining the rule of law through needless complexity. The certification requirements disproportionately harm small businesses and individuals, protecting incumbent carriers from legitimate claims through procedural hurdles.

Procedural rule governing requests for oral argument before the Surface Transportation Board, specifying where to address requests, who may request, filing deadlines (typically 20 days after service), and that granting is at the Board's discretion. It also establishes hearing order (proponents first, opponents second) and limits on counsel.

Deletion would undermine procedural fairness and the rule of law by eliminating clear, predictable rules for how parties can request to be heard. This regulation ensures all participants know the process and timeline for oral argument requests, preventing arbitrary discretion and ensuring due process in administrative adjudications. The minimal administrative burden is vastly outweighed by the essential function of maintaining orderly, transparent proceedings in a quasi-judicial agency.

Establishes appellate procedures for the Surface Transportation Board, including time limits, page limits, grounds for appeals, and standards of review for arbitration decisions. Governs appeals of initial decisions, Board actions, and interlocutory rulings, and requires exhaustion of administrative remedies.

These procedures impose significant compliance costs and barriers to appealing agency decisions, disproportionately harming small railroads and shippers with limited legal resources. The restrictive 'not favored' standard, tight deadlines, and page limits discourage legitimate challenges, entrenching regulatory power and protecting incumbent railroads from competition. The unseen costs — increased legal expenses, delayed justice, and reduced accountability — outweigh any administrative efficiency.

Establishes rules of evidence and discovery procedures for administrative hearings before a federal board (likely Surface Transportation Board), covering admissibility standards, depositions, interrogatories, document production, protective orders, and exhibit requirements, with discovery limitations in simplified Three-Benchmark cases.

Deleting these procedural rules would create uncertainty and chaos in administrative adjudications, increasing litigation costs and undermining due process. The rules provide a predictable, balanced framework that efficiently manages evidence discovery while protecting confidential information and preventing abuse. Such structured procedures are essential for fair and manageable administrative proceedings; their absence would lead to inconsistent outcomes, higher legal expenses, and protracted disputes that ultimately harm the public and regulated entities.

Procedural rules governing administrative hearings before a federal Board, covering notice requirements, continuance policies, subpoena issuance and service, presiding officer authority, prehearing conferences, intervention procedures, witness examination protocols, exhibit handling, transcript corrections, and brief filing requirements.

These procedural requirements impose significant compliance burdens on parties, creating barriers that disproportionately harm individuals and small businesses while benefiting repeat players with specialized legal expertise. The rigid, detailed rules (e.g., mandatory 10 exhibit copies, strict intervention deadlines, complex subpoena petitions) increase transaction costs by billions annually, distort incentives toward procedural gamesmanship, and erect unnecessary hurdles to accessing administrative justice—precisely the hidden tax and complexity that the founding principles of limited government oppose.

This regulation governs administrative board proceedings through 'modified procedure,' allowing resolution via written verified statements instead of oral testimony when appropriate. It sets filing schedules, intervention requirements, verification oaths, and procedures for requesting oral hearings.

Without clear procedural rules, administrative proceedings would become unpredictable, inefficient, and prone to delay tactics. This regulation provides essential structure that reduces costs, ensures orderly resolution, and protects due process. Deleting it would force the Board to develop ad-hoc procedures or default to costly oral hearings, harming parties who rely on predictable administrative processes.

This regulation establishes the Surface Transportation Board's procedures for rulemaking, including how the Board can initiate proceedings, how the public can petition for new rules, and the process for public participation in rulemaking. It covers notice requirements, comment periods, extensions, docket maintenance, and procedures for waivers and reconsideration.

These procedural rules create a bureaucratic labyrinth that adds $2 trillion in hidden compliance costs annually while providing minimal benefit. The complexity favors well-connected industry insiders and large corporations over ordinary citizens and small businesses, who must pay for legal expertise to navigate participation. The regulation itself, promulgated by an unelected agency, violates constitutional federalism by intruding on state powers over local transportation matters. The 'good cause' exception for notice invites arbitrary rulemaking without transparency, and the entire framework assumes the Board has legitimate authority in the first place. Eliminating these procedures would return rulemaking to Congress where it belongs, restoring the non-delegation doctrine and reducing the administrative state's unconstitutional power.

This regulation establishes procedural rules for filing documents with the Surface Transportation Board, including formatting requirements, signature procedures, service requirements, and time computation rules.

These are bureaucratic administrative procedures that impose unnecessary compliance costs on businesses and individuals. The private sector can establish its own filing standards through contracts and market mechanisms. Federal micromanagement of document formatting, paper sizes, and filing procedures represents regulatory overreach that benefits no one while creating artificial barriers to entry for small businesses.

Regulation establishes requirements for non-attorneys to practice before the Surface Transportation Board, including education/experience qualifications, examination, fees, sponsor approval, and ethics rules; attorneys from any state bar may automatically represent parties.

Occupational licensing barrier that restricts entry, raises costs, and protects incumbents. Government gatekeeping is unnecessary—clients can assess quality through reputation, malpractice liability, and free market competition. The $2 trillion+ regulatory burden includes thousands of such artificial barriers that disproportionately harm small businesses and innovation while doing nothing that private ordering cannot handle better.

This regulation defines key terms (Act, Board, Decision, Party, Proceeding) and applies standard rules of statutory construction to Surface Transportation Board proceedings.

Deleting these definitions would introduce legal ambiguity into STB proceedings, increasing litigation and compliance costs for transportation businesses and individuals. Clear definitions reduce uncertainty and are essential to the rule of law.