Browse regulations

Federal program providing surplus grain from Commodity Credit Corporation to farmers for feeding migratory waterfowl away from crops, preventing damage through luring birds with food. Administered by USDA and Fish and Wildlife Service with strict eligibility criteria and usage restrictions.

Creates moral hazard by subsidizing farmers to feed wildlife that would otherwise be managed through market mechanisms. Distorts grain markets through price support programs, encourages dependency on government intervention, and represents unconstitutional federal overreach into agricultural wildlife management that should be handled at state/local level.

Federal regulations governing hunting of migratory game birds and crows, establishing seasons, bag limits, hunting methods, and possession/transport requirements to ensure sustainable harvest and comply with international treaties.

Regulatory compliance costs exceed $2 trillion annually and create a labyrinth of over 185,000 pages of federal regulations. This specific regulation imposes extensive bureaucratic requirements on hunting activities that should be managed by states under constitutional federalism. The costs and complexity disproportionately burden small businesses and hunters while providing minimal public benefit beyond what state-level management could achieve.

Federal regulations implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, defining wildlife expansively and establishing a permit regime for nearly all activities involving migratory birds and other wildlife—including possession, transportation, sale, import/export, and taking—with broad federal preemption over state laws.

Violates Tenth Amendment by federalizing traditionally state wildlife management; imposes massive hidden compliance costs on millions for victimless conduct (e.g., possessing a feather or processed product); disproportionately crushes small businesses, collectors, educators, and scientists while delivering marginal conservation gains; enables regulatory capture and arbitrary enforcement; stifles legitimate commerce and innovation under the guise of protecting migratory birds—objectives better achieved through state-level regulation and voluntary conservation.

Federal standards for state vehicle inspection programs covering brake, steering, suspension, and tire/wheel systems for vehicles under and over 10,000 lbs GVWR. Specifies detailed technical requirements and test procedures that states may adopt to receive highway safety funding.

Unnecessary federal overreach into state inspection programs. States already have strong incentives (liability, insurance, market demand) to maintain vehicle safety standards without federal micromanagement. The detailed technical specifications create compliance costs, favor large inspection chains, raise barriers for small operators, and disproportionately burden low-income vehicle owners. The regulation's one-size-fits-all approach ignores state-specific conditions and creates a federal bureaucracy to administer a program that states should independently design and fund. Safety gains, if any, are achieved at excessive unseen cost while violating principles of federalism and subsidiarity.

This regulation establishes the process for vehicle manufacturers to request temporary exemptions from federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards administered by NHTSA. Exemptions may be granted for up to 3 years based on: substantial economic hardship (for manufacturers producing ≤10,000 vehicles annually), facilitation of new safety/low-emission features, or when a vehicle provides equivalent overall safety. Caps limit exemptions to 2,500 vehicles per 12-month period. The process requires detailed applications with engineering, financial, and testing documentation, followed by public notice, comment, and agency determination.

This exemption process institutionalizes regulatory privilege by creating a bureaucratic gatekeeper who decides which manufacturers may bypass safety laws. It imposes significant compliance overhead (detailed applications, extensive documentation, waiting periods) that only larger established firms can navigate, raising barriers to entry for innovative small manufacturers. The system assumes centralized planners can assess 'equivalent overall safety' and 'public interest'—an impossible calculation that substitutes agency opinion for market signals and consumer choice. Characteristic of regulatory capture, it entrenches the very regulatory apparatus it pretends to circumvent while reinforcing the unconstitutional federal overreach into what should be state tort and contract law. True safety emerges from competition, reputation, and liability—not government permission slips.

Regulations requiring cruise ships to disclose safety information to passengers, including vessel name, country of registry, and compliance status with international safety standards.

This is redundant federal regulation since international safety standards already exist and are enforced by the International Maritime Organization. The compliance costs and bureaucratic burden on cruise operators outweigh the benefits, as safety-conscious passengers can already access this information through other channels. Market forces and international agreements provide sufficient safety oversight without federal intervention.

Establishes load line (freeboard) requirements for Great Lakes vessels, including eligibility criteria, marking, calculation methods, and structural standards to ensure safe navigation and stability.

Deletion would risk maritime disasters causing loss of life, environmental damage to the Great Lakes, and economic disruption; uniform federal standards are essential because these shared international waters require coordinated safety rules that private markets or individual states cannot effectively provide.

Implements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for programs receiving federal financial assistance from the NEA, NEH, and IMLS. Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in program participation and requires recipients to provide assurances, maintain records, and submit to investigations. Enforcement includes hearings and potential termination of funding.

Imposes substantial compliance costs—assurances, reporting, record-keeping, and potential investigations—on small arts, humanities, and library organizations that voluntarily seek federal grants, diverting scarce resources from their missions. The regulation's allowance for race-based 'special consideration' invites constitutional violations and reverse discrimination. Federal oversight of local cultural programming exceeds constitutional bounds; state anti-discrimination laws and voluntary compliance suffice to prevent the rare instance of discriminatory exclusion from federally-funded programs.

Implements Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provisions for orderly land selection and conveyance to Alaska Natives and Native corporations, establishing procedures for applications, withdrawals, and conveyance requirements while reserving public easements for access to publicly owned lands and major waterways.

Americans would be worse off if deleted because this regulation ensures fair and just settlement of Native land claims, provides certainty to land ownership, and balances Native rights with public access needs through established procedures that prevent costly litigation and protect existing rights.

Definitions and procedural rules for hearings under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), establishing administrative procedures, party rights, and discovery mechanisms for pesticide registration disputes.

Administrative procedural rules create regulatory overhead without addressing substantive safety concerns - the costs of compliance and bureaucratic complexity outweigh the benefits of standardized hearing procedures.

Procedural rules governing citizen enforcement lawsuits under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Specifies notice requirements, service methods, notification recipients (EPA administrators, state agencies, Attorney General), and timing constraints including 60-day notice period before filing suit and 45-day review for consent judgments.

These procedures multiply compliance costs for citizen plaintiffs (who are themselves enforcing violations) through redundant notice requirements to multiple government agencies. The rules transform what should be a straightforward private enforcement mechanism into a bureaucratic obstacle course, requiring certified mail to up to 6 different offices. This creates barriers to enforcement that disproportionately harm smaller organizations while protecting violators through delay. The procedures facilitate regulatory capture by ensuring the very agencies that failed to enforce in the first place are notified and can intervene in private suits.

Establishes liability caps for small onshore oil storage facilities (≤1,000 barrels) when federal government performs oil spill cleanup, distinguishing aboveground/belowground facilities and excluding high-throughput facilities.

Exceeds enumerated federal powers by regulating local land use and property matters reserved to the states; the liability cap socializes cleanup costs, creating moral hazard and distorting market incentives while adding unnecessary compliance burden that disproportionately harms small businesses.

This regulation (40 CFR Part 112) establishes spill prevention requirements for non-transportation facilities that store oil, requiring Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans for facilities with aboveground storage >1,320 gallons or buried storage >42,000 gallons. Plans must be certified by Professional Engineers and include procedures, inspection schedules, and secondary containment. Numerous exemptions exist for small containers, motive power, farms, wastewater treatment, and containers meeting other regulatory standards. The EPA can require plans for exempt facilities if deemed necessary.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs on thousands of small businesses and farms through engineer certifications, written plans, regular inspections, and documentation requirements—burdens that are particularly crushing for small operations (30% higher cost per employee). Many exempted facilities already comply with equivalent state standards or other federal programs (DOT, Interior, NRC). The federal government lacks constitutional authority to regulate purely intrastate, land-based oil storage that poses no interstate commerce threat; this is classic regulatory overreach under an expansive Commerce Clause interpretation. Private liability, state tort law, and insurance markets already provide adequate incentives for spill prevention. The Regional Administrator's discretionary power to force plans on exempt facilities creates arbitrary risk assessment without cost-benefit analysis. The $2 trillion regulatory burden includes this redundant layer—states can handle oil spill prevention more efficiently without one-size-fits-all federal mandates that ignore local conditions and knowledge.

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations governing renewable fuel production, distribution, and Renewable Identification Number (RIN) tracking system to ensure compliance with Clean Air Act renewable fuel mandates.

Creates massive compliance bureaucracy costing billions, distorts fuel markets through mandated blending requirements, and forces consumers to pay for politically favored biofuels that often have worse environmental impacts than conventional fuels.

Establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, including regulatory definitions, permitting requirements, compliance schedules, and reporting obligations to protect public health from air pollution.

Creates massive regulatory burden with compliance costs exceeding $2 trillion annually, stifles economic growth and innovation, disproportionately harms small businesses, and represents federal overreach into areas better handled by states under the Tenth Amendment.