Browse regulations

This regulation establishes filing procedures for documents required under the Act, specifying that all designations, statements, reports, and notices must be filed in original form with the Commission as defined in § 1.2.

This is a procedural filing requirement that adds bureaucratic overhead without substantive benefit. It mandates paper-based original filings in an era of digital communication, creating unnecessary compliance costs and delays for businesses while providing no meaningful consumer protection or market benefit. The requirement serves only to expand agency paperwork and staff without advancing any legitimate regulatory purpose.

This regulation (11 CFR 104.3) imposes detailed financial reporting requirements on political committees, mandating itemized disclosure of contributions and expenditures over $200, use of specific FEC forms (3, 3-P, 3-X), and comprehensive schedules covering receipts, disbursements, debts, and independent expenditures. It forces committees to report donor names, addresses, amounts, dates, and purposes, with special rules for candidates, party committees, and independent expenditures, effectively regulating political speech through bureaucratic disclosure.

The regulation imposes crushing compliance costs that function as a hidden tax on political participation, disproportionately harming grassroots movements and small campaigns while protecting incumbents. It violates privacy and chills free speech by forcing donor disclosure, enabling harassment and intimidation of political dissenters. The complex bureaucratic machinery represents federal overreach into voluntary association, creating barriers to entry and centralizing control over political expression in an administrative agency. Transparency can be achieved through voluntary disclosure and private accountability without coercive state mandates that contradict foundational principles of liberty and limited government.

This FEC regulation mandates that political committees use designated bank accounts, deposit all contributions within 10 days, make disbursements by check, and imposes detailed duties on treasurers to examine contributions for illegality or excess, maintain separate accounts for questionable contributions, and issue refunds within specified timeframes.

The regulation imposes substantial compliance costs that burden political speech, favor incumbents who can afford specialists, and create a chilling effect on participation. Its complex rules and reporting requirements violate limited government principles and exceed any marginal anti-corruption benefits, while federalizing what should be state-regulated election administration.

Federal Election Commission regulations governing campaign finance disclosure requirements, including filing of Statements of Organization, contribution and disbursement recordkeeping, and reporting obligations for political committees, authorized committees, and separate segregated funds.

These regulations impose excessive compliance costs on political speech, create barriers to entry for grassroots candidates, and enable regulatory capture by established political interests. The complex reporting requirements effectively function as a prior restraint on First Amendment rights, with small donors' privacy compromised and administrative burdens disproportionately affecting challengers rather than incumbents.

Definitions for election terms, candidate status, political committees, filing procedures, and campaign activities under Federal Election Campaign Act regulations

Campaign finance regulations create barriers to political participation, favor incumbents through complex compliance requirements, and distort free speech by treating political expression as subject to government regulation and reporting requirements

Regulation establishes procedures for public access to Federal Election Commission records, specifying which records are available (campaign finance reports, advisory opinions, enforcement documents, meeting minutes), how to request them, and associated fees.

Deletion would undermine transparency in federal elections by creating uncertainty and potential barriers to accessing campaign finance information, essential for voter accountability and detecting corruption. The regulation ensures consistent, predictable access procedures that balance openness with privacy and operational concerns; alternatives like ad hoc policies or reliance solely on FOIA would likely be less efficient and could result in uneven implementation of statutory disclosure mandates.

DOE/FERC regulation implementing the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, establishing detailed procedures for accepting, reporting, and disposing gifts and decorations from foreign governments.

Creates disproportionate compliance bureaucracy with mandatory filings, multi-level approvals, and disposal procedures that impose high administrative costs while chilling legitimate diplomatic engagement; existing anti-corruption laws and ethics standards suffice without this specialized regime.

DOE regulation implementing federal civil rights laws (Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, Age Discrimination Act, etc.) prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Covers both service delivery and employment practices, requires assurances, notifications, self-evaluations, and includes enforcement mechanisms.

This regulation represents unconstitutional federal overreach, using funding coercion to impose one-size-fits-all civil rights mandates on states, local governments, and private entities for programs only tangentially connected to federal interests. It creates massive compliance costs ($2T+ nationwide) that fall heaviest on small organizations and distorts employment decisions through subjective 'primary purpose' tests and disparate impact liability. The federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate hiring, admission, or service practices of local entities receiving federal assistance—these matters belong to states and localities under the Tenth Amendment. Decades of Chevron deference enabled agencies to expansively interpret their authority far beyond congressional intent. The unseen costs—reduced flexibility, litigation risk, bureaucratic overhead, and deterrence of beneficial programs for fear of violations—far outweigh any marginal benefits beyond what states could achieve themselves through less centralized, more accountable enforcement.

This regulation governs administrative claims against the Department of Energy (DOE) for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by DOE employees' negligence. It establishes procedures for filing claims, required evidence, claim processing, settlement authority, and final denial procedures under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it provides a clear, standardized process for citizens to seek compensation when harmed by DOE employees. Without these procedures, victims would face uncertainty about how to file claims, what evidence is needed, and what compensation they might receive, potentially leaving them without recourse for legitimate injuries caused by government negligence.

DOE regulation establishing pricing policy for materials and services sold to external entities, mandating 'full cost' recovery with exceptions for byproduct material and other categories, including detailed cost accounting definitions and numerous statutory exemptions.

Government should not be in the business of selling commercial goods and services. This regulation institutionalizes market-distorting competition with private enterprise and creates unnecessary bureaucratic complexity through detailed cost allocation formulas. Any legitimate cost-recovery requirements should be set by Congress, not delegated to agency rulemaking. The exceptions and flexible pricing authority undermine consistent cost recovery while enabling DOE to engage in commercial activities beyond its constitutional scope.

Department of Energy implementing regulations for the Privacy Act of 1974. Establishes procedures for managing systems of records containing personal information, defines individual rights to access and amend their records, sets requirements for collection and disclosure, and provides appeal mechanisms.

Americans would be worse off without these procedural safeguards that provide transparency and accountability for how their personal information is collected, maintained, and used by the Department of Energy. The regulation implements statutory rights that protect citizens from potential government overreach and misuse of personal data—critical checks on federal power that cannot be achieved without formal binding procedures. While compliance imposes administrative costs, the alternative of unchecked government access to personal records without accountability represents a far greater threat to liberty.

This Department of Energy regulation establishes procedures for investigating, settling, denying, or otherwise disposing of patent and copyright infringement claims against the government, including detailed requirements for claim submission and processing.

Deletion would eliminate a cost-effective administrative alternative to litigation, forcing all claimants into court and increasing both private and taxpayer costs while creating uncertainty in how the government handles valid infringement claims. The regulation balances efficient claims processing with protection of public funds.

Department of Energy regulation governing licensing of government-owned inventions, establishing procedures for granting licenses, appeals processes, and conditions for equitable patent rights exchanges.

Expands federal control over intellectual property and creates bureaucratic licensing processes that contradict free enterprise principles by limiting private ownership rights.

Regulation implementing fuel use prohibitions under the repealed Fuel Use Act, requiring powerplants to use coal/alternate fuels when technically and financially feasible, with detailed bureaucratic criteria and forced compliance schedules.

Obsolete regulation implementing repealed 1980s legislation; represents heavy-handed central planning that forces private businesses into specific fuel choices, imposes massive compliance costs, distorts market incentives, and violates economic liberty principles. The technical and financial feasibility determinations grant excessive bureaucratic power to micromanage private enterprise, while the hidden tax of regulatory compliance outweighs any marginal energy security benefits that could be better achieved through market mechanisms.

This regulation establishes the Appropriate Technology Small Grants Program, providing federal funding up to $50,000 for energy-related projects focused on renewable resources, conservation, and local community applications. The program includes regional administration, technical review processes, and annual funding allocations based on population and proposal volume.

This is a federal subsidy program that distorts energy markets by picking winners and losers, creating dependency on government funding rather than allowing free market solutions to emerge. The administrative costs and bureaucratic overhead likely exceed any benefits, while the $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance burden demonstrates how such programs contribute to economic inefficiency.