Browse regulations

This regulation establishes procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act for citizens to petition the Department of the Interior to issue, amend, or repeal rules. It requires petitions to be addressed to the Secretary, identify the specific rule or provide proposed text, include supporting reasons, and mandates prompt consideration and notification. The agency may publish petitions in the Federal Register to solicit public comment when deemed helpful.

Deleting this regulation would eliminate the formal channel for citizens and businesses to petition against burdensome rules, raising barriers to challenging regulatory overreach. It embodies transparency and accountability—core checks against bureaucratic mission creep. Without it, the only recourse would be costly litigation, effectively silencing small businesses and ordinary Americans. The petition process is a low-cost liberty-enhancing mechanism that does not restrict economic activity but instead provides a means to resist it. Repeal would diminish the rule of law by making agency action less accessible and more entrenched.

CMS-specific FOIA implementation procedures covering record access, exemptions (including Medicare confidentiality), and fees for public information requests.

Redundant administrative overhead; CMS's FOIA compliance can be achieved through existing HHS regulations (45 CFR part 5) with guidance, eliminating bureaucratic complexity while maintaining transparency.

Regulation governing research and demonstration grants for occupational safety and health (OSHA) and mine health research (NIOSH). Defines eligibility, application requirements, evaluation criteria, award terms, and funding restrictions.

Federal funding of occupational safety research is not a core Constitutional function and crowds out private sector, state, and philanthropic alternatives. The program imposes administrative burdens on applicants, creates dependency on federal grants, and risks mission creep and regulatory capture. Taxpayers are forced to fund research that may not align with market priorities, diverting capital from higher-value uses.

Regulation implements a service payback requirement for individuals receiving federal clinical traineeships in psychology, psychiatry, social work, or nursing. Recipients must serve month-for-month in underserved areas or designated institutions, with a 3x repayment penalty plus interest for non-compliance, and extensive reporting requirements for both institutions and individuals.

It violates individual liberty by coercing career choices, distorts the mental health labor market by creating artificial service obligations, imposes significant compliance costs on institutions and trainees, and likely deters talented individuals from entering these fields. If underserved areas need mental health professionals, direct subsidies or market-rate incentives would achieve the goal without government overreach and unintended supply reductions.

EPA regulation setting strict effluent limits (often zero discharge) for wastewater from timber processing operations including barking, veneer, plywood, hardboard, wood preserving, insulation board, and furniture manufacturing.

Imposes excessive compliance costs, disproportionately burdening small businesses and creating barriers to entry. The inflexible zero-discharge mandates stifle innovation and raise consumer prices while representing federal overreach into state water management. Unseen consequence: incentivizes offshoring to countries with weaker environmental standards, potentially worsening global pollution.

Comprehensive federal regulations governing electroplating operations and related metal finishing processes, establishing pretreatment standards for toxic metals and organics discharged to publicly owned treatment works

These regulations impose massive compliance costs on manufacturers while achieving minimal environmental benefit. The $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance burden falls disproportionately on small businesses, creating barriers to entry and protecting large incumbents. The detailed chemical monitoring requirements and toxic organic management plans add administrative overhead without clear evidence of superior outcomes compared to market-driven solutions. Federal micromanagement of electroplating processes represents unconstitutional overreach into manufacturing that should be governed by state and local authorities, property rights, and common law tort principles.

Establishes federal pretreatment standards to prevent industrial pollutants from interfering with or passing through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), requiring industrial users to pretreat wastewater before discharge and setting specific prohibitions on hazardous substances.

Creates massive compliance costs ($2+ trillion annually) and regulatory burden that disproportionately harms small businesses, while federalizing what should be state/local responsibilities under the Tenth Amendment. The Code of Federal Regulations has ballooned to over 185,000 pages, creating an incomprehensible labyrinth that violates the rule of law principle that laws must be knowable.

Establishes procedures for EPA to rescind a state's primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations under FIFRA, including notice, conference, hearing, and appeal requirements.

This regulation enables unconstitutional federal encroachment on state authority, violating Tenth Amendment principles of federalism. It centralizes enforcement power, undermining local accountability and state-level experimentation. The bureaucratic process consumes resources and distorts incentives, encouraging states to prioritize federal compliance over local needs while creating a pathway for regulatory capture at the federal level.

This regulation governs state-level registration of pesticides for special local needs under Section 24(c) of FIFRA, allowing states to register new uses or products when federal registration is insufficient for specific local pest problems. It establishes procedures for state registration, federal oversight, and mechanisms for disapproval or suspension of state authority.

Creates duplicative bureaucracy that adds compliance costs without meaningful safety benefits. States already have authority to regulate pesticides under their own laws, making federal oversight redundant. The complex approval/disapproval mechanisms impose $2+ billion in regulatory costs while producing minimal public health gains beyond what existing federal/state coordination achieves.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows eligible individuals, small businesses, and non-profits to recover attorney fees and expenses when they prevail in adversary adjudications against the Postal Service, provided the agency's position was not substantially justified. Eligibility thresholds include net worth ≤ $2M (individuals) or ≤ $7M (others) and ≤ 500 employees. Attorney fees are capped at $125/hour unless increased by rulemaking. The regulation details application requirements, documentation standards, and award procedures.

Without EAJA, ordinary citizens and small entities would lack the financial means to challenge unjust Postal Service actions, effectively immunizing the agency from accountability and allowing bureaucratic overreach to go unchecked. The threat of fee-shifting serves as a crucial constraint on expansive government, ensuring agencies substantiate their positions and discouraging frivolous or oppressive actions. Repealing it would create a massive imbalance of power, undermining the rule of law and property rights.

FOIA implementation for Advisory Council on Historic Preservation detailing request procedures, timelines, appeals, fees, and exemptions for accessing agency records.

Deletion would eliminate the public's only reliable mechanism to access the Council's records, fostering government secrecy. This regulation achieves transparency through mandatory timelines, structured appeals, and standardized fees—features informal channels cannot replicate, ensuring accountability of a federal agency to the citizens it serves.

This regulation implements historic preservation review requirements for Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) projects funded by HUD. It requires applicants (cities/urban counties) to identify properties in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, assess project effects, and undergo review by State Historic Preservation Officers, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It establishes expedited procedures substituting for the Council's general regulations, with specific timelines and consultation processes for projects that may have adverse effects on historic properties.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles on urban revitalization projects in distressed communities. It federalizes what should be a local decision through conditional spending, violates principles of federalism by commandeering local governments into a complex federal review process, and creates perverse incentives that could block or delay needed development. The unseen costs include opportunity costs of delayed projects, increased administrative burdens on small municipalities, and the distortion of local priorities to satisfy federal historic preservation mandates rather than community needs.

Establishes procedures for listing properties on the National Register of Historic Places, creating a federal inventory of historically significant buildings, structures, and sites while providing tax incentives and preservation guidelines for listed properties.

Creates a massive federal regulatory burden on property owners through complex nomination procedures, notice requirements, and review processes. The program enables federal agencies to restrict property use under the guise of 'consultation' and imposes compliance costs that disproportionately harm small property owners. Tax incentives distort market decisions and create regulatory capture as preservation groups lobby for listings. Property rights are violated when owners cannot freely use their land without federal oversight.

The Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) provides federal grants to minority institutions (colleges with >50% minority enrollment) and partner organizations to improve STEM education and increase underrepresented minorities, particularly women, in science and engineering careers through faculty development, curriculum materials, research capacity building, and cooperative projects.

Deletes because: (1) Federal overreach into education violates Tenth Amendment federalism; (2) Racial classifications undermine equal protection and meritocracy; (3) Creates dependency and distorts institutional incentives to chase grants rather than educational excellence; (4) Adds administrative costs to the $2 trillion regulatory burden; (5) Private philanthropy and state initiatives can achieve diversity goals without coercion.

The High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) are federal grant programs providing educational and support services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families. HEP helps participants obtain high school equivalency and employment/college placement; CAMP assists with first-year college expenses and retention. Grants go to institutions of higher education or nonprofits (requiring IHE cooperation). Services include academic instruction, counseling, health services, financial aid (stipends, scholarships, tuition), housing, transportation, and child care. Federal funds cannot be used for major construction. Programs must comply with extensive EDGAR and 2 CFR administrative requirements.

This federal program violates constitutional federalism by intruding into education—a state and local responsibility under the Tenth Amendment. It redistributes wealth through taxes to benefit a narrow occupational group, creating dependency rather than encouraging self-reliance. The complex administrative requirements (EDGAR, 2 CFR part 200) impose significant compliance costs that divert resources from actual services. These distortions could be better addressed by private charities, religious organizations, or state/local initiatives operating without federal coercion and bureaucratic overhead. The unseen cost is the erosion of limited government principles and the displacement of voluntary, community-based solutions.