Browse regulations

This regulation implements the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, requiring federal agencies to ensure that at least 50% of ocean freight revenue and tonnage for government-funded shipments uses U.S.-flag vessels. It establishes reporting requirements, bid evaluation procedures for subsidized vessels, and procedures for resolving disputes. The regulation aims to support the U.S. maritime industry by guaranteeing a market share for American ships in government-related cargo transport.

This regulation artificially props up the U.S. maritime industry through government coercion, creating a hidden subsidy that distorts market competition. It forces taxpayers to pay higher shipping costs for government cargo, imposes complex compliance burdens on federal agencies, and violates free trade principles by discriminating against foreign vessels. The unseen costs include higher government procurement expenses, reduced economic efficiency, and protection of an industry that cannot compete on merit alone.

Procedural rules governing administrative hearings between the Department of Health and Human Services and States in Federal-State programs, covering filing requirements, hearing conduct, party participation, discovery, evidence, and decision procedures.

Deletion would undermine due process and introduce arbitrary decision-making in federal-state disputes. These neutral, low-cost procedures ensure predictable, fair hearings and protect states' ability to meaningfully contest federal actions; the alternative—unstructured agency discretion—poses far greater risks to liberty than the minimal administrative burden these rules impose.

Establishes the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) within the Department of the Interior, creating specialized divisions (DCHD, PHD, IBIA, IBLA) with administrative law judges to conduct formal hearings and appeals on DOI decisions regarding public lands, Indian affairs, probate, and resource management. Prescribes procedural rules for filings, records, ex parte communications, subpoenas, and other adjudicatory matters.

Eliminating OHA would eliminate accessible, low-cost administrative review, forcing all appeals into expensive federal court and reducing accountability. The specialized expertise and procedural due process it provides are essential checks on agency power and would be difficult to replicate otherwise.

Internal EPA regulatory framework that establishes the Environmental Protection Agency Property Management Regulations (EPPMR) as a supplement to the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR). It describes numbering systems, publication procedures, and processes for implementing and supplementing FPMR. Explicitly states material is not of interest to or directly affect the public, and most will not be published in the Federal Register.

Pure bureaucratic paperwork with no public benefit or constitutional purpose. Explicitly acknowledges it doesn't affect the public, yet consumes taxpayer resources to maintain an internal regulatory numbering system. Represents the kind of administrative overhead that contributes to the $2 trillion regulatory burden without serving any legitimate government function. Easily eliminated without any impact on liberty, property rights, or public welfare.

This regulation defines key terms and establishes procedures for pesticide residue tolerances in food under the FFDCA. It covers definitions of raw agricultural commodities, rules for calculating combined residue tolerances for multiple pesticides, zero tolerance justifications, petition requirements for establishing tolerances, and judicial review processes.

It imposes significant compliance costs and complexity on pesticide manufacturers and farmers, creating barriers to innovation and entrenching large agribusiness interests. The federalization of pesticide safety displaces state and private governance, leading to higher food prices and delayed introduction of safer pesticides. The unseen cost is the wealth and innovation destroyed by central planning of risk assessment.

Establishes minimum criteria for State, local, and regional oil spill contingency plans for inland navigable waters, requiring defined authorities, notification procedures, resource capabilities, response actions, and damage recovery procedures to coordinate with federal response teams.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs on state and local governments while creating duplicative emergency response frameworks. Oil spill response is better handled through existing private insurance, tort liability, and market-based incentives for companies to prevent spills. The federal framework distorts local decision-making and creates bureaucratic overhead that delays actual response times.

This regulation defines air quality control regions across the United States, establishing geographic boundaries for areas subject to Clean Air Act requirements. It lists specific counties and municipalities in each region, covering major metropolitan areas from coast to coast.

Federal air quality control regions represent unconstitutional federal overreach into state and local land use decisions. Air quality management belongs at the state level under the Tenth Amendment, and these arbitrary geographic boundaries create unnecessary bureaucratic complexity without meaningful environmental benefit.

Federal regulation establishing standards of performance for new stationary sources under the Clean Air Act, including definitions, compliance requirements, monitoring systems, and delegation of authority to states.

Creates massive bureaucratic burden with 185,000+ pages of compliance requirements, imposes disproportionate costs on small businesses, and represents federal overreach into state and local matters that should be handled at the state level under Tenth Amendment principles.

This regulation, under Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, prescribes procedures for giving notice before filing a citizen suit to enforce the Act. It specifies methods of service (certified mail or personal service), recipients (EPA Administrator, State agencies, alleged violators), required content of notices, and when notice is deemed given.

Deleting these notice procedures would undermine due process, create uncertainty in enforcement, and risk frivolous lawsuits. The regulation provides essential procedural clarity that ensures all parties receive proper notice, which is fundamental to fair litigation and cannot be easily achieved without a standardized rule.

Requires states to inventory emissions from non-tribal lands (point, nonpoint, mobile sources) and report detailed data to EPA for specified pollutants (SO2, VOC, NOX, CO, lead, PM2.5/10, NH3) on annual or triennial schedules using EPA models and formats. Mandates use of EIIP guidance or state-of-the-art techniques; includes extensive technical specifications for reporting elements, source classifications, and electronic submission requirements.

This federal mandate commandeers state administrative resources to build a national emissions database, violating Tenth Amendment principles of federalism. The $2 trillion annual regulatory burden grows through such data-collection expansions, imposing disproportionate compliance costs on small businesses and creating templates for future command-and-control regulations. The unseen cost is the normalization of centralized planning over local air-quality decisions—the data enables, rather than prevents, regulatory overreach that distorts markets and protects incumbents. Air quality can be addressed through state-level action, liability frameworks, or market-based mechanisms without this expansive federal surveillance apparatus.

Establishes definitions and standards for air quality monitoring and measurement, including ambient air quality standards for various pollutants (SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, ozone, NO2, lead) with specific concentration limits and measurement protocols.

Creates massive regulatory burden on businesses and states with complex compliance requirements, micromanagement of air quality monitoring, and extensive federal oversight that could be handled by state/local authorities under the Tenth Amendment.

EPA regulation establishing certification procedures for pollution control facilities to qualify for accelerated tax amortization under IRC §169. Defines eligible facilities, requires state certification, imposes a 5% threshold on efficiency gains, and sets detailed technical criteria for air and water pollution equipment.

This tax subsidy distorts market incentives, creates complex bureaucracy, and may discourage efficiency improvements due to the 5% rule. It exemplifies regulatory capture through detailed technical rules that invite gaming, while imposing hidden costs on taxpayers through reduced revenue and compliance burdens.

This EPA regulation requires display of OMB control numbers for information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act, stating no person must respond unless a valid control number is displayed.

It adds administrative overhead, contributes to the regulatory maze, and creates a technical loophole that distracts from the core problem: the paperwork burden itself. The control number regime is an ineffective check that perpetuates the $2 trillion compliance cost by legitimizing demands rather than constraining them.

Postal Regulatory Commission ethics rules including: 1-year cooling-off period barring former employees from practicing before the Commission on matters they handled; disqualification requirements for employees taking USPS jobs; gift prohibition from USPS; ex parte communications policy; and 1958 congressional ethics resolution. Designed to prevent conflicts of interest and regulatory capture.

Deletion would eliminate essential anti-corruption safeguards, enabling PRC regulators to immediately join USPS and skew rate decisions for future employment. This guarantees regulatory capture: USPS would manipulate its own regulator, raising rates, degrading service, and stifling competition. The modest compliance costs are indispensable to prevent billions in market distortions and protect consumers from a captured agency.

These rules establish procedures for Postal Service proceedings regarding Periodicals mailing privileges, including application processes, appeals, hearings, and administrative adjudication mechanisms.

This regulation creates an unnecessary bureaucratic layer for a commercial service that should operate on market principles. The Postal Service should not be in the business of regulating which publications can access mailing privileges - this is a form of content-based discrimination that violates free speech principles and creates barriers to entry for new publications.