Browse regulations

Internal DOJ regulations establishing property management programs, defining responsibilities, delegating authority, governing use of departmental seals, and implementing seismic safety standards for DOJ construction projects.

Internal property management and seismic safety controls are essential for accountable stewardship of taxpayer assets and ensuring employee safety. Deleting these would lead to property loss, misuse, and compromised building safety, with no external costs to offset.

EPA regulations establishing fuel economy testing procedures, data reporting requirements, and compliance standards for 2008+ model year automobiles, including extensive definitions, record-keeping mandates, and enforcement access provisions.

The $2+ trillion annual compliance burden represents a massive hidden tax on American households and businesses, with small manufacturers bearing disproportionate costs. The labyrinthine testing requirements and mandatory data submission violate the rule of law's knowability principle while distorting market incentives—forcing vehicle designs that may compromise safety or consumer preference to meet arbitrary benchmarks. Federal fuel economy standards usurp state authority under the Tenth Amendment and embody the regulatory hubris that Hayek warned against: the fatal conceit that planners can optimally configure complex markets better than billions of individual choices.

The regulation establishes effluent limitations for hospital wastewater discharges, requiring the application of Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) to reduce pollutants. It incorporates definitions from part 401 and defines 'product' as service from hospital activity per 1,000 occupied beds.

Federal wastewater standards for hospitals represent an unconstitutional overreach into state police powers. Hospitals are point sources whose discharges are local concerns; states and localities are better positioned to set standards reflecting local water conditions and community priorities. The compliance costs—borne disproportionately by small hospitals—constitute a hidden tax that reduces healthcare access. Moreover, the one-size-fits-all BPT mandate stifles innovation as hospitals cannot experiment with more cost-effective treatment methods. The unseen consequence is higher healthcare costs for all Americans, with negligible marginal environmental benefit given that most hospitals voluntarily treat their effluent to avoid liability and reputational harm.

EPA regulation establishing effluent limitations for photographic processing facilities, requiring best practicable control technology for wastewater discharges from developing/printing photos, slides, and film. Exempts small facilities (<150 m²/day) and allows case-by-case variances.

This regulation represents unconstitutional federal overreach into local business activities under the guise of interstate commerce. Water quality is properly a state police power concern; states are better positioned to set standards tailored to local watershed conditions. The compliance costs impose a hidden tax on small businesses while creating barriers to entry, with minimal marginal benefit beyond what states could achieve through existing common-law nuisance and state water quality programs. The one-size-fits-all approach ignores local contexts and inflates administrative bureaucracy.

Regulation sets effluent limitations for water discharges from explosives manufacturing and load/assemble/pack plants, defining product scope (dynamite, TNT, RDX, HMX, ANFO, etc.) and requiring BPT (best practicable control technology) standards for pollutants.

Rigid command-and-control approach imposes high compliance costs that burden small businesses, raises barriers to entry protecting incumbents, stifles innovation by dictating technology rather than outcomes, and represents federal overreach. The vague BPT standard invites regulatory capture, allowing established players to shape rules to their advantage. Unseen consequences include reduced competition, higher consumer prices, and bureaucratic waste—costs that outweigh any marginal environmental benefit that could be achieved through state regulation or market-based mechanisms.

This subpart sets effluent limitations under the Clean Water Act for manufacturing char/charcoal, rosin, turpentine, essential oils, and related products. It requires 'best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)' and in some categories mandates zero discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters.

Keeping this regulation imposes heavy compliance costs on small manufacturers, raising barriers to entry and protecting incumbents. The vague BPT standard enables arbitrary enforcement and regulatory capture, while zero-discharge mandates achieve marginal environmental gains at exorbitant economic cost. These burdens fall disproportionately on small firms and ultimately consumers through higher prices, while water pollution is better addressed through property rights and tort law.

Federal guidelines mandating source separation of solid waste (paper, glass, cans, cardboard) for recycling by federal agencies, with specific thresholds for different waste types and detailed procedures for collection, storage, and market analysis

Imposes costly recycling mandates on federal agencies with minimal environmental benefit, creates regulatory burden that distorts market incentives, and represents federal overreach into waste management that should be handled by states or private sector

EPA guidelines establishing mandatory standards for federal agencies' solid waste collection operations, with recommended adoption by state/local governments. Covers detailed specifications for storage containers, collection vehicles, safety equipment, collection frequencies (food waste weekly minimum, bulky waste quarterly), operational procedures, and reporting requirements for non-compliance. Incorporates ANSI standards by reference and mandates federal agencies either comply or submit justification reports to EPA.

This regulation imposes costly, prescriptive federal standards on traditionally local waste collection, violating Tenth Amendment principles. Detailed specifications (container sizes, ANSI standards, exact frequencies) disregard local conditions and expertise, create barriers to entry for small operators, and expand regulatory burden. States and municipalities are fully capable of managing this local function without federal mandates, which distort markets and impose hidden compliance costs exceeding any marginal safety benefits.

Federal noise emission standards for heavy vehicles (over 10,000 lbs GVWR) under the Noise Control Act of 1972. Defines technical terms, testing procedures, enforcement mechanisms, and exemptions for research, national security, and export. EPA conducts compliance inspections and batch sampling audits of manufacturers.

Vehicle noise is a local public nuisance issue properly within state and local police powers under the Tenth Amendment. Federal intrusion creates unnecessary compliance costs that fall disproportionately on small manufacturers, raises barriers to entry, and violates principles of subsidiarity. State-level noise ordinances, private industry standards, and tort remedies provide constitutionally appropriate alternatives without the $14,000+ annual hidden tax burden per household from federal regulatory overreach.

Federal regulation under the Noise Control Act of 1972 establishing noise emission standards (maximum 76 dBA) for portable air compressors manufactured after 1978, with comprehensive testing protocols, certification requirements, labeling mandates, and enforcement provisions including EPA inspection authority over manufacturing facilities.

Imposes substantial compliance costs on manufacturers (disproportionately burdening small businesses), federalizes a local nuisance issue properly reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment, creates barriers to market entry that protect incumbents, and represents the costly bureaucratic expansion Mises and Friedman warned against—with unseen consequences including reduced competition, higher consumer prices, and resources diverted from productive enterprise to paperwork.

establishes the regulatory framework for implementing and enforcing national primary drinking water regulations, including the process for states to obtain and maintain primary enforcement responsibility (primacy), program revision requirements, and EPA oversight procedures

This regulation imposes massive administrative burdens on states seeking primacy, requiring costly inventory systems, laboratory certifications, and rigid federal oversight. The framework creates regulatory capture where special interests shape standards, while stifling state-level innovation that could achieve safer water at lower cost. The unseen consequence is the destruction of competitive federalism—states must adopt federal standards verbatim to obtain enforcement authority, eliminating local experimentation and imposing one-size-fits-all solutions that disproportionately harm small water systems and rural communities.

This Clean Water Act Section 312 regulation mandates marine sanitation devices on vessels, setting effluent limits (fecal coliform ≤ 200-1000/100ml) and discharge prohibitions based on water type and navigability. It establishes implementation deadlines for new and existing vessels and allows states to petition for complete discharge bans in specific waters.

Federal overreach into local waters imposes heavy hidden costs ($thousands per vessel), stifles innovation through Coast Guard certification monopolies, and violates Tenth Amendment by regulating non-navigable waters. Unseen effects include reduced recreational boating, illegal dumping due to inadequate pump-out infrastructure, and protection of incumbent manufacturers from competition—problems states can address more efficiently with tailored solutions.

Establishes procedural requirements for public hearings on toxic pollutant effluent standards under Clean Water Act Section 307(a), including notice, objections, evidence, and decision-making processes.

This regulation provides essential due process protections for citizens and businesses affected by toxic pollutant effluent standards. The hearing procedures ensure transparency, allow public participation, and create a record that agencies must consider before imposing costly compliance requirements on water users.

EPA's FOIA regulations establish procedures for public access to agency records, including submission methods, processing timelines, fee structures based on requester type, and exemptions. They implement the federal Freedom of Information Act specifically for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because it provides a critical mechanism for transparency and accountability in environmental governance. Without standardized FOIA procedures, citizens, journalists, and businesses could not effectively obtain EPA records to challenge agency overreach, monitor enforcement, or participate intelligently in environmental policy debates. The modest administrative costs are justified by the essential democratic function of preventing bureaucratic secrecy. This specificity makes it hard to replicate—while FOIA is statutory, the EPA's implementing rules ensure consistent application, define fee structures fairly, and establish clear timelines, creating the enforceable framework that makes transparency operational.

FOIA implementing regulation for the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, establishing procedures for public records access, fee schedules, exemptions, indexes, and annual reporting to Congress.

Contributes to the 185,000-page regulatory labyrinth with unnecessary minutiae; its compliance costs and quarterly reporting requirements yield minimal marginal transparency benefit beyond FOIA itself while exemplifying unchecked bureaucratic expansion that obscures the rule of law.