Browse regulations

Regulation establishes administrative assessments and fee allocations for the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), a government-created entity under the Music Modernization Act. Sets annual assessment amounts ($32.9M for 2023, $39.05M for 2024) with inflation-adjusted increases, defines minimum fees for licensee categories based on usage scale ($2,500-$60,000), and describes quarterly allocation formulas distributing 50% of assessments to all allocated licensees based on sound recording usage and 50% to threshold licensees (≥7.5% share). Requires quarterly payments, defines recoupment mechanisms, and establishes reporting requirements.

Imposes a $40M+ annual tax and government-licensed monopoly that replaces voluntary music licensing with bureaucratic allocation, raising consumer costs, burdening small businesses, and distorting market competition through compulsory regulations that eliminate freedom of contract.

Rules governing conduct, filming, events, and enforcement on NARA-owned, GSA-leased, and GPO-controlled properties to protect archives and manage public access.

Protects irreplaceable historical records from damage, ensures public safety, maintains orderly access for researchers, and prevents commercial exploitation. Without these rules, archives would be at risk and public access to America's documentary heritage would be disrupted, harming all citizens who rely on NARA for research, education, and civic engagement.

Federal regulation establishing operating hours, locations, and contact information for National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) facilities including the National Archives Museum, research rooms, Presidential libraries, and Federal Records Centers. Also outlines notification procedures for changes to operating hours.

This is pure housekeeping - operational minutiae for federal facilities that imposes zero costs on private citizens or businesses. Government agencies should post this information on their website, not codify it in the CFR. No compliance burden exists, but the regulation contributes to the 185,000-page code bloat that undermines the rule of law's knowability requirement. The notification procedures are internal agency management that belong in an administrative manual, not federal regulations.

NARA regulation prescribing internal procedures for issuing, reviewing, and posting guidance documents—non-binding policy interpretations that affect regulated parties—including requirements for cost estimates, OIRA review, and notice-and-comment for 'significant' guidance.

It adds bureaucratic overhead while legitimizing agencies' use of guidance to effectively regulate without formal rulemaking, perpetuating hidden compliance costs and regulatory overreach that undermine the rule of law and economic freedom.

This regulation outlines the American Battle Monuments Commission's procedures for implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), including request submission, processing timelines, fee structures, and appeals.

Deletion would eliminate the public's primary mechanism for accessing ABMC records, undermining transparency and accountability. The regulation provides necessary procedural clarity that ensures consistent, predictable handling of FOIA requests—outcomes difficult to achieve without formal rules, risking arbitrary denial of information and increased government secrecy.

This Coast Guard regulation governs waterfront facilities that handle dangerous cargo, requiring facility designation, permits for explosives and high-hazard materials, extensive safety and security standards (fire equipment, lighting, access controls, segregation requirements), notifications for certain cargo quantities, and grants significant discretionary authority to the Captain of the Port to waive requirements, issue permits, and supervise operations. It incorporates numerous external standards (NFPA, ASTM, 49 CFR) by reference.

The regulation imposes substantial compliance costs on waterfront facilities—particularly small operators—through prescriptive requirements that stifle flexibility and innovation. It creates barriers to entry by mandating costly equipment and procedures, effectively protecting incumbent firms. The Captain of the Port's broad discretion to waive or enforce rules creates regulatory uncertainty and opportunities for arbitrary decision-making. These activities on navigable waters could be adequately addressed through private insurance markets, state/local regulation, and common law liability, which would allow facilities to differentiate based on safety records while avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates. The hidden tax of compliance exceeds any marginal safety benefit over market-driven alternatives.

This regulation establishes the Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) internal procedures for processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, including request requirements, response timelines, fee structures, business information protections, and appeal processes. It implements the statutory FOIA framework specific to OSTP's operations.

Americans would be worse off without these procedural rules. OSTP advises the President on critical science and technology policy affecting the entire nation. These regulations operationalize FOIA, ensuring citizens can access government records and hold OSTP accountable. Without clear implementation rules, OSTP could arbitrarily deny requests, undermining transparency and the rule of law. The modest administrative costs pale in comparison to the essential benefit of informed citizenry and oversight of an agency that shapes national policy on emerging technologies, research funding, and scientific integrity. The regulation doesn't create new obligations; it enforces an existing statutory right.

Establishes DoD policies for issuing, modifying, and rescinding guidance documents. Defines guidance documents as non-binding policy statements intended to have future effect on regulated parties. Requires centralized publication, OIRA review for 'significant' guidance, notice-and-comment procedures for significant guidance, economic impact analysis, and public petition processes. Explicitly states guidance cannot create binding requirements.

This regulation *constrains* administrative power rather than expands it. It prevents agencies from using 'guidance' as a backdoor to impose binding requirements without rulemaking, increases transparency through mandatory central publication, requires economic impact analysis for economically significant guidance, and provides public participation mechanisms. The modest internal procedural costs are a necessary price to close the 'guidance loophole' and uphold rule of law by ensuring non-binding agency statements remain clearly non-binding and knowable. Deleting it would remove these critical safeguards against bureaucratic overreach.

This regulation implements civil money penalties and assessments under Section 1128A of the Social Security Act for violations involving TRICARE/CHAMPUS (military healthcare program). It covers submitting false/fraudulent claims, using excluded individuals, false statements, failure to return overpayments, failure to grant access to records, and unlawful kickbacks. Penalties range from $20,504 to $100,522 per violation plus assessments up to 3x the amount involved. It provides appeal rights through the Departmental Appeals Board.

Without this regulation, fraud and abuse in the TRICARE program would proliferate, costing taxpayers billions. While the program itself may be questionable, given its existence, fraud penalties are essential to protect scarce Defense Department resources that should go to caring for service members, not padding provider profits through false claims. The threat of substantial penalties ($100k+ per violation) deters intentional deception that would otherwise be cost-effective for malicious actors to commit.

This rule implements the National Industrial Security Program (NISP), establishing uniform standards for contractors handling classified information. It prescribes security procedures, personnel clearance requirements, physical security standards, information safeguarding measures, and reporting obligations for entities granted access to U.S. government classified data.

Deletion would create unacceptable national security risks. Classified information protection is a core sovereign function that cannot rely on voluntary private action due to intense free-rider problems and catastrophic harm from compromises. The regulation achieves standardized, minimum security baselines across thousands of contractors—coordination impossible through market mechanisms alone. While compliance costs are real, they are necessary to prevent espionage, technology theft, and threats to military personnel and operations. The program ensures consistent protection of information foreign powers actively seek, creating value far exceeding its administrative burden.

Establishes DoD policy and procedures for victim and witness assistance in UCMJ cases, including rights notifications, Special Victim Investigation and Prosecution (SVIP) capability, Special Victims' Counsel for sex offense victims, and reporting requirements across DoD components.

Deleting this regulation would harm military personnel and families—especially victims of sexual assault and domestic violence—by removing critical protections and support in a closed justice system where they face unique barriers: isolation on bases, fear of retaliation, and limited civilian access. The program implements statutory mandates and ensures victims can navigate the UCMJ process, which would be difficult to achieve through ad hoc measures.

Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program regulation establishing comprehensive policies for prevention, response, and oversight of sexual assaults involving military personnel, Reserve/National Guard on active duty/training, adult dependents, and certain civilians OCONUS. Creates dual reporting options (Restricted confidential, Unrestricted triggering investigation), mandates 24/7 response capability, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs), Victim Advocates (VAs), standardized care requirements, centralized database (DSAID), and protections against retaliation.

This regulation represents massive federal overreach into internal military personnel management that should be handled by Secretary of Defense guidance and military department SOPs, not CFR. It creates a parallel bureaucracy (SARCs, VAs, certification, DSAID database) with enormous compliance costs that interfere with command authority and good order/discipline. The restricted reporting option undermines commanders' ability to address crimes affecting unit readiness. Federal regulation of victim advocacy protocols, 'culturally competent' and 'trauma-informed' care standards, and case management groups is precisely the type of hyper-detailed rulemaking that violates the principle that laws must be knowable while doing nothing that cannot be accomplished through proper military training, discipline, and existing UCMJ processes. The unseen costs include erosion of command responsibility, creation of victim advocacy silos separate from the chain of command, and federal micromanagement of military personnel affairs that must remain flexible to operational necessities.

DoD rule establishing annual screening of Ready Reservists to identify those who should be transferred/discharged due to extreme personal/community hardship or because they occupy civilian 'key positions' that cannot be vacated during mobilization. Provides framework for employers to petition for deferment, with final approval by Military Department Secretaries.

Deleting this regulation would eliminate the only structured process to prevent catastrophic disruption of critical civilian infrastructure during mobilization. Without it, the military might indiscriminately mobilize all Ready Reservists, including essential personnel in healthcare, utilities, transportation, and defense-industrial base, causing severe economic collapse and public safety hazards during a national emergency. The modest compliance costs are outweighed by the intelligence and planning value of knowing which civilian roles are indispensable to national survival.

CFIUS regulation requiring notification/approval for foreign purchases, leases, or concessions of real estate near military installations, ports, and sensitive government facilities. Uses risk-based analysis of threat, vulnerability, and consequences. Contains extensive definitions and exceptions for certain investors and transaction types.

Hidden compliance costs and investment chilling far exceed marginal security benefits. Federalizes local land use properly reserved to states, invites regulatory capture, and distorts capital markets. Genuine threats can be addressed through targeted criminal laws and existing zoning without this pre-approval regime that burdens households with hidden regulatory taxes.

This regulation implements CFIUS authority to review foreign investments in U.S. businesses for national security risks. It defines covered transactions—including control acquisitions and certain non-controlling investments in critical technology, infrastructure, or data businesses—and establishes a risk-based review framework with mitigation authority.

The regulation imposes substantial compliance costs and regulatory uncertainty that suppress beneficial foreign investment, particularly harming small businesses. Its expansive scope captures many low-risk transactions, and the discretionary review process is prone to protectionist capture, using national security as a pretext to shield incumbents. National security can be preserved through narrowly tailored, transparent restrictions on specific sensitive sectors rather than a blanket committee review.