Browse regulations

This regulation establishes the registration framework for entities and individuals in the derivatives/futures industry (futures commission merchants, swap dealers, major swap participants, etc.) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It defines who qualifies as a 'principal' (owners of 10%+ equity, officers, directors, those with controlling influence), requires chief compliance officers, mandates annual compliance reports, sets procedures handled by the National Futures Association, and details application processes, documentation requirements (Forms 7-R, 8-R, fingerprints), and recordkeeping obligations.

The regulation imposes massive, certain compliance costs that disproportionately harm small businesses and concentrate market power among incumbents. Its benefits—ensuring competence and preventing fraud—could be achieved more efficiently through market mechanisms (due diligence, reputational capital, private certification) and existing civil/criminal law. The knowledge problem makes it impossible for regulators to design optimal one-size-fits-all compliance frameworks for thousands of diverse firms. The regulation exemplifies unconstitutional federal overreach into commercial activity properly belonging to states under the Tenth Amendment, and its $2 trillion+ national compliance burden represents an unjustifiable hidden tax on economic activity.

Regulation establishes petition procedures for exempting substances from child-resistant packaging requirements under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. It mandates extensive documentation including toxicology studies, human experience data, packaging specifications, marketing history, and justification based on hazard level, technical feasibility, or compatibility. The process includes detailed submission requirements, data standards, and explicitly states that filing does not stay enforcement of the packaging requirements.

Imposes crushing compliance costs through requirements for extensive toxicology studies, data compilation, and legal preparation that small businesses cannot afford, effectively denying access to exemptions even when justified. The 'no stay' provision forces wasteful compliance expenditures during review, creating a regulatory barrier that protects incumbents by raising adaptation costs. This federal overreach into product design violates Tenth Amendment principles, while the complex process chills legitimate innovation and imposes unseen deadweight losses on the economy.

Procedural rules for adjudicative proceedings under Consumer Product Safety Act, Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and Flammable Fabrics Act, governing complaint procedures, discovery, hearings, and appeals.

Bureaucratic procedural framework that adds compliance costs without clear consumer benefit. Creates complex administrative process that protects incumbents and burdens small businesses, while the underlying safety concerns could be addressed through direct statutory enforcement.

The regulation establishes CPSC procedures for complying with NEPA, requiring environmental assessments for certain actions (e.g., health risk regulations, facility construction) and impact statements for significant effects. Most CPSC actions are categorically excluded. It mandates public comment, interagency coordination, and integrates environmental review into decision-making.

The regulation imposes compliance costs and procedural delays for a process the agency admits is rarely needed; it creates litigation risk, diverts resources from core product safety work, and expands federal administrative reach into areas better handled by markets and state regulation. The unseen costs include slower protection for consumers and normalization of burdensome environmental reviews for negligible benefit.

This regulation governs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), establishing its role as the U.S. national standards laboratory. It details NIST's functions in maintaining measurement standards, providing calibration and testing services (often fee-based), producing standard reference materials, disseminating reference data, operating time/frequency radio stations (WWV, WWVH, WWVB), and publishing technical information. The regulation outlines procedures for customers seeking services, including ordering, shipping, fees, and restrictions on how results may be used.

Measurement standards are a foundational public good essential for a functioning market economy. Without a single, authoritative national standard, scientific research, manufacturing, commerce, and trade would face massive coordination failures, increased transaction costs, and legal disputes. Private metrology services already rely on NIST as the top-level reference, and fragmentation into competing standards would make all Americans worse off through reduced efficiency, interoperability, and innovation. NIST provides a necessary framework that the private sector cannot replicate, with fee-based services that largely recover costs.

This subpart establishes procedures for NASA employees, military personnel assigned to NASA, and their survivors to file claims for damage to or loss of personal property incident to NASA service. It defines eligibility, covered incidents (natural disasters, negligence, transportation losses), exclusions (business property, unassigned quarters), filing deadlines (2 years), evidence requirements, and settlement authorities under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claim Act and Federal Tort Claims Act, with monetary limits ($25,000 before 1988, $40,000 after).

Deletion would force NASA employees into costly FTCA litigation, increasing taxpayer-funded legal expenses and delaying compensation; the regulation provides an efficient administrative remedy that balances accountability with fiscal responsibility—a streamlined process that would be difficult to replicate otherwise.

Federal regulation governing airport development and planning grants, requiring sponsors to be public agencies, comply with numerous federal mandates, and include projects in National Airport System Plan.

Imposes massive compliance costs and regulatory capture through conditional federal funding, violating Tenth Amendment by federalizing local airport planning. Creates dependency on Washington bureaucrats who cannot know local conditions (Hayek's knowledge problem), distorts incentives, and raises barriers to entry. Safety and planning objectives can be achieved more efficiently through state regulation and market mechanisms.

Part 125 prescribes safety and operational rules for U.S.-registered large civil airplanes (20+ passengers or 6,000+ lb payload) when not operating under scheduled air carrier rules (parts 121/129/135/137). It covers certification requirements, operational specifications, management personnel, manuals, flight time limitations, equipment standards, airworthiness, and inspection programs for private/charter operations of large aircraft.

Aviation safety involves clear externalities—a single accident can harm numerous passengers, people on the ground, and property. Passengers cannot independently verify operator safety practices, creating severe information asymmetry. Federal safety standards ensure a level playing field, prevent a race to the bottom, and protect third parties who bear the costs of crashes. Repealing these rules would compromise continued airworthiness oversight, maintenance standards, crew rest requirements, and aircraft airworthiness—directly endangering lives for cost savings. The regulation addresses a legitimate market failure that states cannot effectively police due to the inherently interstate nature of aviation.

Implements FOIA for Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, establishing disclosure procedures, fee schedules, and exemptions for records related to financial institution regulation and supervision.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because FOIA ensures government transparency in financial regulation, allowing public oversight of institutions that manage trillions in deposits and affect economic stability. The specific exemptions protect sensitive financial data while maintaining accountability.

Federal Reserve operational rules for check and payment item collection, establishing procedures, warranties, and settlement requirements for banks using Reserve Bank services.

Government monopoly in payment clearing crowds out private innovation and imposes unnecessary compliance costs. Standardization could be achieved through voluntary industry standards, not federal regulation. Federal overreach into what should be private contractual relationships.

Regulation A establishes Federal Reserve Banks' authority to extend credit to depository institutions through primary, secondary, seasonal, and emergency lending programs, with collateral requirements, restrictions on lending to undercapitalized institutions, taxpayer protection measures, and transparency provisions.

Deleting this regulated framework would remove critical safeguards during financial crises, increasing the risk of systemic collapse that harms all Americans. The regulation imposes necessary constraints (collateral, insolvency bans, broad-based eligibility, time limits, transparency) that prevent arbitrary Fed action and protect taxpayers—constraints that would be hard to implement ad hoc in emergencies.

This regulation establishes rules for how federal and state officeholders can use campaign funds and donated money, defining personal use, office accounts, and permissible expenditures for travel, compensation, security, and other activities.

This regulation creates an overly complex bureaucratic framework that restricts political speech and campaign activities through excessive compliance costs and micromanagement of how officeholders can use their own funds. The 185,000+ pages of federal regulations already create an impossible burden - adding specialized rules for campaign finance creates more regulatory capture opportunities and protects incumbents while raising barriers for challengers.

Regulation 11 CFR part 112 governs the FEC's advisory opinion process, allowing any person to request written guidance on specific campaign finance transactions. Requests must be complete and factual, become public, allow comment, and the Commission must respond within 60-90 days. Issued opinions provide binding good-faith immunity from sanctions for those who rely on them.

Without this process, regulated parties face uncertainty about complex campaign finance rules, driving up compliance costs and risk of inadvertent violations. Advisory opinions provide necessary clarity and create binding reliance protections that informal guidance cannot guarantee. The transparency and comment requirements also constrain agency power and ensure accountability for interpretive decisions.

These regulations establish procedures for processing violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act and tax code reporting requirements, including complaint filing, investigation, conciliation, and penalty assessment mechanisms for election-related disclosures and campaign finance compliance.

Federal election oversight represents unconstitutional federal overreach into political speech and state-level electoral processes. The complex enforcement bureaucracy creates chilling effects on political participation while enabling partisan weaponization of campaign finance rules. Private civil litigation and state enforcement provide adequate remedies without federal regulatory intrusion.

Requires federal campaign committees to file copies of their disclosure reports with state election officials in addition to the FEC, or states can obtain a waiver if they have an electronic system that can access FEC data. Mandates state officials to maintain these records for 2 years and make them publicly accessible. Includes provisions about federal preemption of state campaign finance laws and preserves certain state authorities over elections.

This regulation imposes substantial duplicate compliance costs on political committees by mandating parallel filing with both federal and state authorities. The stated transparency goals are fully achievable through the FEC's centralized database without the redundant state-filing requirement. The 48-hour public access mandate and 2-year retention requirement create unnecessary administrative burdens on state officials while doing nothing that electronic access to FEC records cannot accomplish more efficiently. This represents exactly the sort of bureaucratic duplication that drives regulatory bloat without providing corresponding public benefit.