Browse regulations

This regulation establishes the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), governing official travel by federal employees. It defines per diem allowances, transportation standards (e.g., mandatory coach class), relocation benefits (household goods, temporary quarters), and travel authorizations. It applies to executive agencies, military departments, and certain legislative/judicial entities, excluding government corporations. Key mechanisms include standardized reimbursement rates, mandatory use of the Contract City Pair Program for air travel, and detailed eligibility rules for family members and dependents.

This micromanagement of internal government operations imposes significant compliance costs and complexity without constitutional necessity. The detailed prescriptive rules (e.g., exact definitions of 'coach class,' 'immediate family,' 'domestic partnership') create administrative burdens that could be replaced with agency discretion and core accountability principles. Standardization could be achieved through simpler guidelines rather than binding regulations, and the regulation's expansion of benefits to non-traditional dependents exemplifies mission creep beyond essential government functions.

Exempts new chemical substances manufactured at ≤10,000 kg/year or meeting strict low-exposure/low-release criteria from TSCA premanufacture notice, requiring 30-day advance notice to EPA with certifications and ongoing compliance.

Deletion would force low-risk chemical manufacturers into more burdensome full premanufacture review, raising costs, delaying innovation, and reducing consumer choice. The exemption achieves necessary regulatory relief that would be difficult to replicate otherwise.

This regulation establishes detailed procedural rules for administrative hearings and appeals under the Administrative False Claims Act as applied to the United States Postal Service. It governs how respondents accused of submitting false claims to USPS may request hearings, conduct discovery, present evidence, and appeal decisions to an internal Judicial Officer, creating a specialized adjudicatory system within the agency.

This regulation establishes an unnecessary parallel administrative adjudication system that bypasses Article III courts, concentrating both prosecutorial and judicial power within USPS. The $2+ trillion regulatory burden includes maintaining such specialized hearing systems that duplicate existing federal court infrastructure while raising serious separation-of-power concerns and regulatory capture risks when the agency judges its own cases. Federal courts already provide robust due process at lower systemic cost, and eliminating this specialized framework would reduce bureaucracy while preserving constitutional safeguards through the APA and federal court rules.

Regulation establishes administrative hearing procedures for Postal Service employees to challenge debts and salary offsets under the Debt Collection Act. It outlines petition filing requirements, Hearing Official authority, hearing conduct, and decision processes. Provides due process rights for federal employees facing involuntary wage deductions.

Deleting this would remove essential procedural due process protections, allowing the Postal Service unilaterally to offset employee salaries without independent review. The modest compliance burden is justified by preventing arbitrary government seizure of private earnings—a core liberty protection. The regulation checks agency power, ensures fair hearings before neutral officials, and aligns with rule-of-law principles that requiregovernmental actions be subject to review.

This regulation establishes procedures for administrative wage garnishment hearings before the Postal Service's Judicial Officer Department, allowing debtors to challenge the existence or amount of delinquent nontax debts owed to the Postal Service (or other federal agencies by agreement). It outlines filing requirements, hearing procedures, evidence rules, decision-making processes, and finality for judicial review.

Deleting this regulation would eliminate the only formal administrative hearing process for individuals facing wage garnishment by the Postal Service for delinquent debts, violating due process rights and enabling wrongful garnishments without any administrative review mechanism. The regulation implements existing statutory rights at minimal administrative cost while protecting Americans' property rights from government overreach—a core liberty principle consistent with limited government.

Regulation establishes procedures for the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals, which adjudicates disputes arising from USPS and Postal Regulatory Commission contracts. It covers jurisdiction, filing requirements, timelines, discovery limits, hearing protocols, and special expedited tracks for small claims and small businesses, aiming for just, inexpensive, and timely resolution.

Deleting this would subject contractors—especially small businesses—to less predictable, costlier, and potentially biased dispute resolution with the government monopoly USPS. The specialized board provides expertise in government contracting and streamlined procedures that general courts cannot replicate, safeguarding property rights and contract enforceability. Removing it would increase litigation expenses, create uncertainty, and violate the rule-of-law principle that legal processes must be knowable and accessible.

This regulation establishes detailed service standards (delivery timeframes) for USPS mail products (First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Marketing Mail, Package Services) based on origin-destination ZIP codes, processing facility distances, and geographic categories. It includes complex formulas and exceptions for different mail types and locations.

This internal operational guidance for a government monopoly adds to regulatory bloat without binding private parties. The detailed methodology constrains USPS flexibility and contributes to the opaque CFR, while service standards could be maintained through voluntary agency policy. The costs of this minutiae—complexity, inflexibility, and erosion of the rule of law—outweigh any marginal transparency benefits.

Regulation governs commercial services contracts allowing private operators to provide visitor services (lodging, food, tours, etc.) in national parks under the Visitor Experience Improvements Authority. It establishes a competitive bidding process, exempts these contracts from most federal procurement laws (except Davis-Bacon wage rules and civil rights), sets contract terms up to 10 years, and requires alignment with park preservation and public enjoyment goals.

It achieves the desirable outcome of leveraging private capital and market competition to improve park visitor services—a mechanism that would be difficult to replicate without this specific statutory framework. Deleting it would force NPS to either directly provide these services (less efficient) or abandon them altogether, degrading the national park experience for millions of Americans. The competitive selection, market-based rate principles, and private funding structure represent a superior alternative to government provision.

The Corps' NEPA implementing procedures establish the framework for environmental review of Corps permit decisions under various statutes (Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, etc.). The regulation defines when NEPA applies, sets categorical exclusions, prescribes levels of review (categorical exclusion, EA, EIS), imposes page limits and deadlines, and outlines public involvement and applicant coordination requirements.

The regulation imposes massive compliance costs and delays on infrastructure projects while producing minimal environmental benefits. NEPA reviews create barriers to entry that disproportionately harm small businesses and favor incumbents. The process is weaponizable through litigation to delay projects regardless of merit. Environmental protection is properly a state/local function under the Tenth Amendment; federal duplication inflates costs without adding accountability. The 'unseen' costs—foregone innovation, housing, and economic growth—far outweigh any speculative benefits from a procedural requirement that does not directly protect the environment.

These are operational regulations governing navigation through the Cape Cod Canal and Amelia Earhart Dam locks, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The regulations set vessel size restrictions, draft requirements, signaling protocols, traffic priority rules, speed limits, equipment standards (fenders, lines), communications procedures, and safety requirements for all watercraft using this federal waterway infrastructure.

This represents legitimate government operation of critical infrastructure with natural monopoly characteristics. The rules are technical, content-neutral, and focused on safe, efficient use of a strategic maritime passage that requires centralized coordination to prevent accidents, congestion, and environmental damage. The compliance burden is minimal compared to the economic value of maintaining reliable navigation through this essential waterway, which serves as a major shipping route. Removing these would create dangerous chaos in a constrained infrastructure where uniform rules are necessary for all users.

This regulation designates specific shipping safety fairways and anchorages along U.S. coasts where artificial islands or fixed structures are prohibited or limited, ensuring unobstructed approaches to major ports. It includes precise geographic coordinates, spacing requirements for structures in anchorages, and special conditions for temporary drilling operations in the Gulf of America.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because unregulated offshore construction would obstruct critical shipping lanes, causing collisions, oil spills, port closures, and supply chain disruptions that burden every state. The regulation achieves its safety outcome through clear, geographically defined zones that prevent a tragedy of the commons in navigable waters—a coordination problem states cannot solve across jurisdictional boundaries and that private ordering would address only through costly litigation after harm occurs. The narrow, location-specific restrictions impose minimal compliance costs relative to the catastrophic risks prevented.

Coast Guard regulation mandating specific lifesaving equipment (life floats, rafts, preservers, buoys, exposure suits) with detailed technical specifications for offshore platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf.

The regulation's prescriptive mandates create high compliance costs that raise energy prices and block competition from smaller operators, while ossifying technology standards and preventing market-driven safety innovation. The unseen burden of this regulatory code falls on American households through higher living costs and reduced economic dynamism.

The regulation establishes the Coast Guard's procedures for publishing Notices to Mariners (local and national) and annual Light Lists to inform mariners of changes, deficiencies, and details regarding navigational aids maintained by the Coast Guard.

Deletion would eliminate the authoritative, centralized source for critical real-time safety information about navigational aids, leading to increased maritime accidents, environmental disasters, and loss of life; the Coast Guard's direct oversight ensures accuracy and timeliness that private alternatives cannot reliably match for government-maintained aids.

OFAC regulation implements blocking sanctions against persons designated in connection with the International Criminal Court under E.O. 14203. It freezes property, prohibits all transactions, mandates interest-bearing blocked accounts, and establishes complex licensing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for U.S. persons and financial institutions.

This sanctions regime violates free enterprise by prohibiting voluntary international transactions and confiscating private property without due process, imposing billions in compliance costs that fall disproportionately on small businesses. Sanctions historically fail to achieve foreign policy goals while harming American economic interests through lost trade and market access. The complex, vague rules create legal uncertainty and retroactive liability, undermining rule of law. The U.S. can express disapproval of the ICC through far less restrictive means—diplomatic protest or non-cooperation—without infringing economic liberty.

This regulation establishes a comprehensive federal certification regime for surety companies seeking to write bonds with the U.S. government. It governs application, renewal, and ongoing supervision by Treasury, including extensive financial reporting, capital requirements ($250k minimum for stock companies), underwriting limitations (10% of capital per risk), reinsurance mandates, and discretionary approval powers. Companies must be state-licensed and subject to continuous federal monitoring through quarterly filings, change notifications, and Treasury's authority to impose additional requirements.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance costs that distort the surety market, protect incumbents, and duplicate state regulation. The federal certification requirement creates a barrier to entry that disproportionately harms smaller firms, while Treasury's vast discretion ('may require additional documentation,' 'exercise discretion in valuing assets') invites arbitrary power and regulatory capture. The government's legitimate interest in ensuring bondworthiness can be achieved more efficiently by relying on state insurance regulators and market discipline—refusing bonds from companies with poor state exam ratings or financial weakness—without a separate federal licensing scheme that adds $billions in hidden costs and violates principles of federalism and free enterprise.