Browse regulations

Delegates authority under the Defense Production Act to allocate scarce materials and equipment to maximize domestic energy supplies during exceptional circumstances, requiring findings that supplies are scarce, critical, and essential and that energy projects cannot proceed without such allocation, with FEMA coordination and Presidential approval for broader civilian control.

During genuine energy emergencies, this limited authority ensures critical materials reach essential energy infrastructure, preventing supply disruptions that could cause blackouts, economic harm, and national security risks. The narrow criteria, required findings, and procedural safeguards minimize potential for abuse while providing a necessary backstop when markets fail due to scarcity.

This regulation establishes priority rating policies for federal procurement under the Defense Production Act, specifically exempting commonly available commercial items from priority assistance while allowing ratings for specialized items needed for military/national defense purposes based on historical procurement ratios.

This regulation represents unnecessary federal intervention in procurement that distorts market mechanisms, creates artificial scarcity through priority systems, and enables government overreach into commercial markets. The priority rating system effectively creates a two-tiered economy where government-connected entities receive preferential treatment, raising costs for civilians and creating supply chain distortions that harm economic efficiency.

Governs the loan/lease of government-owned industrial equipment (acquisition cost $1,000+) to private industry for defense mobilization and emergency preparedness, requiring uniform rental rates and proper maintenance to ensure equipment readiness.

Government ownership and leasing of industrial equipment distorts free market competition, advantages contractors receiving subsidized equipment over competitors, imposes administrative burdens and reporting requirements on both agencies and private businesses, and creates dependency on government resources rather than private investment. National defense readiness can be achieved more efficiently through private ownership, with emergency requisition powers available if absolutely necessary, avoiding ongoing bureaucratic management and market intervention.

This regulation establishes federal policy for resource allocation following a nuclear attack on the United States, assigning priority to military operations, government authority, survival items, and essential services. It directs federal, state, and local officials to manage resources based on 'national survival' objectives and lists essential items in categories like health supplies, food, power, and water.

This regulation represents central economic planning during a national emergency, violating the knowledge problem identified by Hayek. No federal bureaucracy can rationally allocate scarce resources across diverse local conditions in the chaos of a nuclear attack. The plan would inevitably misallocate life-saving resources, prevent local adaptation, and cost lives. Additionally, this obsolete Cold War document creates dangerous legal authority for comprehensive government control that could be invoked in any crisis, undermining constitutional federalism and individual liberty. The unseen cost is the false security it provides while displacing more resilient, decentralized emergency response systems.

This Cold War-era regulation mandates the maintenance of a defense industrial mobilization base by requiring the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Maritime Administration to select and sustain facilities, equipment, and skilled workers for wartime production—especially post-nuclear attack survival—through ongoing procurement, readiness measures, dispersal planning, and annual reviews of excess capacity, with small business participation encouraged.

It imposes heavy hidden costs, distorts market allocation by forcing private industry to maintain idle capacity, creates incentives for regulatory capture and corporate welfare, and represents an obsolete approach to industrial readiness that can be achieved more efficiently through flexible contracting, strategic stockpiling, and market-based solutions without permanent government-directed planning.

This regulation establishes procedures for federal disaster preparedness technical assistance and improvement grants to states under the Stafford Act. It defines key terms, outlines how governors request assistance, creates an annual grant program (up to $50,000 per state with 50% federal match), lists eligible products (hazard mitigation plans, training, SOPs, etc.), and requires quarterly reporting.

This federal grant program for state disaster preparedness violates principles of federalism and subsidiarity. Disaster preparedness is a quintessential state and local responsibility that should be funded and managed at the local level, not through federal redistribution of tax dollars. The program creates dependency, administrative bloat, and risk of one-size-fits-all federal standards crowding out locally-tailored solutions. Even with matching requirements, it incentivizes states to reorient their priorities around federal funding streams rather than their actual needs. The modest dollar amount does not justify the constitutional overreach and distortion of proper state-federal boundaries. Private insurance, mutual aid compacts, and state innovation can better address disaster preparedness without federal entanglement.

Regulation establishes procedures for filing and processing claims against FEMA under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It specifies filing locations (Chief Counsel or regional offices), requires Standard Form 95 or equivalent, sets a 2-year statute of limitations, details evidence requirements for death, injury, and property damage, delegates settlement authority up to $25,000, requires DOJ consultation for novel legal questions or large claims, outlines reconsideration rights and payment procedures, and includes special provisions for FEMA employees' personal property losses.

It provides essential procedural clarity that ensures fair, consistent, and predictable administration of claims against the government. Deleting it would create arbitrary barriers to redress, increase litigation over process, and undermine the rule of law by depriving citizens of clear notice of requirements. The regulation balances accountability with fraud prevention while enabling Americans to hold FEMA responsible for tortious conduct.

This regulation establishes FEMA's 8-step decision-making process for all agency actions affecting floodplains and wetlands, implementing Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. It requires FEMA to avoid floodplain/wetland development unless no practical alternative exists, minimize adverse impacts, involve the public, and consider nature-based solutions. It applies to FEMA-funded construction, Stafford Act disaster assistance, and federal activities, with exemptions for emergency work and small projects.

Federal intrusion into traditionally state/local land use authority violates Tenth Amendment principles. Compliance costs delay disaster recovery and federal projects while duplicating state regulations. The mandated analysis creates bureaucratic hurdles without market discipline—proper risk pricing through flood insurance would deter risky development more efficiently. Emergency exemptions already acknowledge the regulation's hindrance to urgent response.

This regulation consolidates criminal violations relating to public lands from various sections of title 43 into a single regulatory section for easier access and enforcement. It provides comprehensive coverage of prohibited acts including grazing violations, timber theft, wildlife protection, off-road vehicle use, and other activities on federal lands, with specific criminal penalties ranging from fines up to $2,000 and imprisonment up to 12 months.

This regulation creates an overly broad criminal enforcement framework that criminalizes numerous activities on public lands, effectively turning federal bureaucrats into armed enforcers. The $2 trillion compliance cost burden and 185,000 pages of federal regulations already criminalize vast swaths of ordinary American life. This consolidation merely makes it easier to prosecute citizens for victimless crimes like grazing without permits, cutting timber for personal use, or driving off-road vehicles in designated areas. The federal government has no constitutional authority to criminalize these activities, which properly belong to state and local jurisdictions under the Tenth Amendment. The regulation also enables regulatory capture through selective enforcement that protects special interests while punishing small operators.

Mining operations regulations in wilderness study areas requiring plans of operations, environmental protection measures, reclamation requirements, and fees for environmental assessments and mineral examinations to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability while allowing valid existing mining rights to continue.

Creates massive bureaucratic burden on mining operations with $2+ trillion in compliance costs, effectively federalizing land use decisions that belong to states under the Tenth Amendment, while imposing extensive environmental review requirements that distort market incentives and raise barriers to entry for small mining operations.

Regulation establishes procedures for selling BLM-administered public lands under FLPMA. Lands must meet disposal criteria (no longer needed for federal purpose, serves important public objectives, or uneconomic to manage). Sales require fair market value via competitive, modified competitive, or direct bidding, with numerous preferences for states, local governments, adjoining owners, and existing users. Includes family farm size limits, 60-90 day notification requirements, grazing permit protections, and mineral reservations to the US.

Creates anti-competitive barriers to privatization through preferences, direct sales, and modified bidding that protect incumbents over market efficiency. Imposes central planning via 'family-sized farm' limits that distort land allocation. Overly complex bureaucracy with 60-90 day notices, congressional vetoes, and discretionary 'authorized officer' decisions increases transaction costs and maintains federal control over lands that should be transferred to states/private ownership with minimal interference. The regulation itself perpetuates the federal estate it claims to dispose of.

The Carey Act (1894) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant up to 1 million acres of federal 'desert lands' to states for reclamation through irrigation, with lands to be settled and cultivated in 160-acre parcels by 'actual settlers.' States have 10-15 years to complete reclamation, after which patents are issued. The program is administered by the Bureau of Land Management and involves extensive application, approval, and compliance processes, including economic feasibility determinations, environmental mitigation plans, and publication requirements. Several states received additional acreage authorizations through early 20th century amendments.

This 1894 program is functionally obsolete; nearly all eligible desert lands in the qualifying states have already been developed through other means (Reclamation Act of 1902, private irrigation, state programs). The regulatory burden—extensive federal application processes, economic feasibility determinations, environmental mitigation requirements, and ongoing monitoring—imposes compliance costs for a program that serves virtually no current purpose. It violates federalism by maintaining a federal land disposal mechanism that encroaches on what should be state authority over land use and water resources. The 'actual settler' and cultivation requirements reflect anachronistic agrarian assumptions incompatible with modern Western land ownership patterns. Continuing to administer this dead letter wastes taxpayer resources and creates regulatory uncertainty for any remaining potential projects.

This regulation establishes standards and procedures for creating, operating, and terminating advisory committees to advise the Secretary of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management on public lands and resources. It implements the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act, requiring balanced representation of various interests including grazing permit holders, environmental groups, and elected officials. The regulation covers committee structure, membership qualifications, meeting procedures, recordkeeping, and termination requirements.

This regulation creates a complex bureaucratic structure for advisory committees that imposes significant compliance costs and administrative burdens on BLM operations. The extensive membership requirements, mandatory training, detailed recordkeeping, and strict procedural rules create a regulatory maze that hinders rather than helps public participation. Small local governments and citizen groups face disproportionate compliance costs, while the rigid structure limits flexibility in addressing local resource management needs. The regulation represents federal overreach into what should be state and local decision-making processes regarding public lands.

Regulations implementing Section 17 of ANGTA and Condition 11 of the President's Decision for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, requiring non-discrimination and affirmative action (including MBE/FBE participation goals) in all employment, procurement, and benefits activities by recipients, contractors, and subcontractors. Mandates approved affirmative action plans with specific goals/timetables for minorities and women, equal opportunity clauses in contracts, extensive reporting, and Federal Inspector oversight.

Imposes significant hidden compliance costs on a specific energy infrastructure project through demands for racial/gender preferences, extensive reporting burdens, and Federal monitoring—distorting merit-based decisions, increasing costs, and creating perverse incentives. The regulation's affirmative action mandates (MBE/FBE goals) violate equal protection principles and free market allocation of resources. Its original premise—using discrimination to remedy past discrimination—is both morally and economically flawed, as Friedman recognized. This project-specific regulatory overlay from the 1970s represents unnecessary bureaucratic expansion with continuing compliance costs that exceed any marginal benefit; private parties and existing laws (41 CFR parts 60-1, 60-2) already cover non-discrimination without these quota-driven mandates.

Medicare provider agreements and participation requirements for healthcare facilities, including conditions of participation, civil rights compliance, and billing obligations

Federal overreach into healthcare provider regulation - states and private accreditation bodies can handle quality standards, civil rights compliance is already federal law, and market forces better regulate provider behavior than bureaucratic mandates