Browse regulations

This regulation implements permanent import controls for defense articles and services under the Arms Export Control Act. It establishes the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL), requires importers to register, obtains permits for most imports, and maintains records. It covers firearms, ammunition, military vehicles, aircraft, vessels, and related equipment, with exemptions for certain items and imports from Canada, and coordinates with the Departments of State and Defense.

The regulation imposes heavy compliance costs, creates barriers to entry for small importers, and duplicates existing gun control laws. Its broad scope captures many civilian firearms and accessories, expanding federal power beyond legitimate national security needs. The requirement for State Department concurrence politicizes import decisions and invites regulatory capture, distorting trade and increasing consumer prices.

Regulations governing seizure and forfeiture of personal property and carriers by alcohol, tobacco, and firearms officers for violations of federal laws, including administrative and judicial forfeiture procedures, petition processes, and disposal methods.

This regulatory framework creates an expansive civil forfeiture system that allows government seizure of property without criminal conviction, often resulting in disproportionate burdens on innocent owners who must prove their innocence to reclaim property. The $100,000 administrative forfeiture threshold enables large-scale property confiscation without judicial oversight, while cost bonds and complex procedures create barriers for legitimate claimants. Such broad seizure powers without due process protections represent an unconstitutional expansion of government authority over private property.

This regulation establishes the Indian Business Development Program, which provides non-reimbursable grants to eligible Indian-owned economic enterprises for establishment, acquisition, or expansion. It defines key terms, sets eligibility requirements (51%+ Indian ownership, inability to obtain financing elsewhere), establishes grant limits ($250k for tribes, $100k for individuals), outlines priority criteria based on Indian employment and resource utilization, and mandates reporting requirements and technical assistance provisions.

This regulation creates a government subsidy program that distorts market incentives, picks winners and losers based on racial criteria, and violates equal protection principles. The $2 trillion federal regulatory compliance burden includes countless such programs that should be eliminated to restore free enterprise and individual liberty.

Regulations governing the preparation and approval of plans for the use or distribution of judgment funds awarded to Indian tribes and groups by federal courts, including procedures for research, hearings, enrollment, per capita payments, and tribal programming.

These regulations create a complex bureaucratic framework that federalizes tribal financial management, imposes costly administrative procedures, and restricts tribal sovereignty over their own judgment funds. The extensive oversight requirements, mandatory investment restrictions, and federal approval processes represent unnecessary federal interference in tribal self-determination and create compliance costs that burden tribes without providing commensurate benefits.

This HUD regulation establishes the Turnkey III program, a federal homeownership initiative for low-income families administered through local housing authorities. It sets forth eligibility criteria, selection procedures, financial structures, and extensive operational rules for converting federally-subsidized rental housing into a pathway to ownership. The program requires families to enter binding agreements, make payments to maintenance reserves, undergo mandatory counseling, and comply with detailed use restrictions, with the possibility of eventually purchasing their homes.

The regulation enforces a massive federal intervention in housing markets, imposing $14,000+ in hidden compliance costs per household while violating the Tenth Amendment. It centralizes control in HUD, distorts incentives through government-subsidized ownership, creates dependency, and crowds out private and local solutions. The unseen costs—regulatory burden, market distortions, moral hazard, and loss of federalism—far exceed any benefits. Housing assistance is a state, local, or charitable function, not a federal responsibility.

Federal regulation governing the use of federal highway funds for insurance requirements when construction projects involve railroad right-of-way. Prescribes specific liability insurance coverage for contractors and railroads, sets cost-sharing arrangements, and details procedural requirements for state-railroad agreements.

Unnecessary federal micromanagement of local infrastructure projects; compliance costs distort market incentives and violate Tenth Amendment federalism. Insurance requirements should be determined through contract negotiation and state law, not federal bureaucracy. The regulation creates administrative overhead while protecting railroads from full liability and moral hazard.

Regulation coordinates airport and highway development to ensure safe clearances and prudent use of public funds, requiring FAA/FHWA cooperation for relocations and relocations only when in public interest.

Federal coordination of airport-highway clearances exceeds constitutional limits, creates regulatory capture between agencies, and imposes hidden compliance costs that distort infrastructure planning while state/local governments could handle these safety coordination matters more efficiently.

Requires cosmetic manufacturers, packers, or distributors to file Form FDA 2512 with detailed ingredient information, regardless of interstate commerce involvement. Existing products: 180 days; new products: 60 days. Mandates sharing ingredient data with poison control centers and physicians. Includes 13 product categories, ingredient listing rules, and trade secret confidentiality procedures.

The regulation imposes substantial compliance costs that disproportionately burden small businesses and new entrants, asserts unconstitutional federal authority over purely intrastate activity, stifles innovation through mandatory disclosure of formulations, and creates a federal database that enables future regulatory mission creep. The safety benefits for medical treatment could be achieved through far less burdensome alternatives like requiring manufacturers to maintain records and disclose them upon request.

Cosmetic product establishment registration program requiring manufacturers and packagers to register with FDA, providing basic business information without fees, with no product approval implied.

This registration creates compliance costs for small businesses without providing meaningful safety benefits - cosmetic ingredients are already regulated under FD&C Act, and registration doesn't improve product safety or quality. The administrative burden and privacy concerns outweigh any benefits.

FDA cosmetic labeling regulation requiring comprehensive ingredient disclosure in descending order of predominance, with detailed specifications for type size (minimum 1/16 inch, 1/32 inch for small packages), placement, language requirements, display unit rules, and exemptions for incidental ingredients and processing arrangements. Covers misbranding provisions regarding false representations about other products.

Imposes substantial compliance costs on all cosmetic manufacturers, especially small businesses, through overly prescriptive requirements that exceed what's needed to prevent fraud. The detailed micromanagement of type sizes, display panels, multi-product packaging rules, and processing exemptions creates regulatory barriers to entry that protect incumbents. Market mechanisms (reputation, third-party certifications), state consumer protection laws, and tort liability can handle legitimate ingredient disclosure needs without violating federalism or imposing billions in hidden taxes on Americans.

This regulation defines cosmetic terms and prohibits specific hazardous ingredients (bithionol, mercury, vinyl chloride, halogenated salicylanilides, zirconium, methylene chloride, chloroform, CFCs) in cosmetics, requires tamper-resistant packaging for certain products, bans cattle materials (BSE prevention), and sets sunscreen labeling rules. It relies on scientific evidence of toxicity and health risks.

Americans would be worse off because these substances are proven carcinogens or toxins that cause severe, often irreversible harm. Bright-line bans are necessary: latency and complexity of chemical injuries make tort remedies ineffective; consumers cannot assess risks from ingredients listed in scientific nomenclature. Market mechanisms fail due to information asymmetry and the race-to-the-bottom problem where unsafe manufacturers undercut ethical ones. The regulation's specificity (listing banned chemicals) provides clear, enforceable standards that achieve protection impossible through litigation or voluntary schemes alone.

FDA guidance on warning statements for over-the-counter drugs and devices, providing suggested cautionary language to help manufacturers meet legal requirements for protecting users from potential hazards

This represents unnecessary federal micromanagement of private labeling decisions. Manufacturers already face liability for defective products and have strong incentives to provide accurate safety information. The thousands of specific warnings create regulatory complexity that disproportionately burdens small producers while providing minimal public benefit - consumers can access safety information through other channels without federal mandates dictating exact warning language

This regulation establishes safety and effectiveness standards for over-the-counter antiflatulent products containing simethicone and allows certain antacid-antiflatulent combinations for gas-related symptoms.

This is a minor consumer product regulation that creates unnecessary compliance costs for manufacturers while providing minimal public benefit - the market already self-regulates through competition and consumer choice, and the FDA's resources would be better spent on higher-risk products.

This regulation establishes comprehensive standards for over-the-counter antacid products, defining permitted active ingredients, dosage limits, acid neutralizing capacity requirements, labeling requirements, and professional information. It covers 20+ specific antacid ingredients including aluminum, calcium, magnesium, and sodium compounds, with detailed testing procedures and safety warnings.

This regulation represents excessive federal micromanagement of consumer health products that should be governed by market forces and state-level consumer protection. The detailed ingredient specifications, testing procedures, and labeling requirements create unnecessary compliance costs that are passed to consumers, while FDA oversight already provides basic safety standards. Market competition and tort liability provide better incentives for safety than this prescriptive federal framework.

This regulation establishes the framework for determining when over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRAS/Grande) and not misbranded. It requires compliance with current good manufacturing practices, facility registration, detailed labeling specifications (including format, content, and interchangeable terminology), advertising restrictions, ingredient safety standards, and mandatory warnings. The rule creates an advisory panel system to evaluate safety and effectiveness data, sets standards for clinical evidence, and outlines a rulemaking process with public comment leading to final monographs for 26 designated drug categories.

This federal regulation violates Tenth Amendment federalism by commandeering traditional state authority over health and pharmacy. Its compliance costs exceed constitutional limits, raising prices, protecting Big Pharma incumbents from competition, and suppressing innovation in drug formulations. The pre-market monograph system creates paternalistic barriers that treat adults as incapable of self-care decisions. Private certification (NSF, USP), tort liability, and state regulation could ensure safety without bureaucratic central planning.