Browse regulations

Regulation establishes procedures for filing and settling tort claims against the Department of the Interior under the Federal Tort Claims Act, including claim submission requirements, settlement authority limits ($25,000 requires Attorney General approval), attorney fee restrictions (20-25% caps), employee indemnification policies, and statutes of limitations (2 years to file, 6 months after denial to sue).

This regulation implements a proper waiver of sovereign immunity that holds the federal government accountable to the same tort standards as private citizens—a necessary check on state power. The procedural framework ensures efficient claims processing while protecting government employees who act within their scope. Removing it would immunize negligent federal actions, create barriers to public service by exposing employees to personal liability, and deny Americans a remedy for government-caused injuries. The fee caps and limitations periods balance fairness with finality.

This regulation establishes procedures for managing private cabin permits on federal recreation and conservation areas, including when permits can be modified, extended, or terminated to allow public use. It sets standards for reviewing permits every 5 years, provides amortization periods for substantial improvements, and outlines transfer and nonuse provisions.

This regulation represents federal overreach into land use decisions that should be handled by state and local authorities under the Tenth Amendment. The complex permitting system creates bureaucratic overhead, distorts property rights, and imposes hidden compliance costs on small cabin owners while protecting large corporations from competition. The 5-year review process and termination provisions effectively allow federal agencies to seize private investments in improvements without just compensation, violating property rights principles. Land use and recreational management belong to states and localities, not federal bureaucrats.

Federal regulation imposing comprehensive land-use zoning, development restrictions, and property acquisition controls on privately owned land within the Whiskeytown Unit of a National Recreation Area. Establishes two recreation districts with specific permitted uses, density/setback requirements, and limits federal condemnation authority only for 'improved property' (pre-1963 structures) while local zoning ordinances must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

This regulation represents an unconstitutional regulatory taking and federal overreach into private property rights. It imposes substantial burdens on landowners through restrictive zoning, development limitations, and the threat of condemnation without compensation for zoning violations—all while federalizing what should be local land-use decisions. The compliance costs, uncertainty, and restrictions on voluntary transactions stifle economic activity and violate Tenth Amendment federalism. The federal government's legitimate interest in preserving recreational values can be achieved through voluntary land purchases, cooperative agreements with local authorities, or using existing eminent domain with just compensation—not through this complex regulatory regime that effectively seizes use rights without paying for them.

Coast Guard permit requirements for constructing or modifying bridges over navigable U.S. waters, including application procedures, time limits, bonds, and public meeting processes.

Federal overreach into infrastructure that states could regulate with navigation standards; detailed permitting imposes high compliance costs and delays, harming economic efficiency and violating Tenth Amendment principles of federalism.

This Coast Guard regulation establishes a permitting system for bridges and causeways over navigable waters of the United States. It requires prior approval for bridge construction to ensure reasonable needs of navigation are protected, regulates drawbridge operations, and provides procedures for enforcement and appeals. The regulation implements federal bridge laws that prevent obstructions to navigable waters unless expressly permitted by the United States.

Americans would be significantly worse off without this regulation. Navigable waters constitute critical infrastructure for interstate commerce, carrying billions in goods annually. Unchecked bridge construction could obstruct these waterways, imposing massive costs on shippers, consumers, and the national economy. The permitting system provides essential coordination to protect the public easement of navigation while respecting property rights. Deleting it would lead to a tragedy of the commons, holdout problems, and interstate conflicts that would ultimately increase transportation costs and reduce economic efficiency. The regulation balances legitimate federal authority with minimal burden, making it a rare example of well-targeted governance that preserves liberty by protecting the commons.

This regulation designates hundreds of specific anchorage areas in harbors and waterways primarily across the Northeastern United States, with precise geographic coordinates defining where vessels may anchor. It exempts small vessels (<20 meters) from certain navigation signal requirements within these areas and contains technical specifications about coordinate datums and reference systems.

This represents classic federal overreach into purely local, recreational boating matters that properly belong to states and municipalities under the Tenth Amendment. The federal government should not maintain a massive 185,000+ page code micromanaging where private citizens can anchor their recreational vessels in local harbors. These decisions are better handled by local harbormasters, state regulations, or private market arrangements (marinas, mooring fields). The compliance burden—requiring boaters to consult federal coordinates rather than local knowledge or simple signage—unnecessarily centralizes authority while wasting federal resources maintaining and updating thousands of hyperlocal coordinates. Any legitimate safety or order concerns can be adequately addressed without federal involvement.

These regulations implement FOIA requirements for the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, establishing procedures for public access to agency records, fee schedules, and privacy protections—particularly for Treasury securities records. They also implement the SECURE 2.0 Act provision allowing states to request savings bond owner information solely for locating owners, with strict limitations prohibiting escheatment and requiring data-sharing agreements.

These regulations institutionalize unnecessary federal record-keeping and data-sharing that lacks clear constitutional foundation. The federal government has no legitimate role maintaining detailed individual financial records on savings bond owners or facilitating state access to that information. The SECURE 2.0 data-sharing provision violates federalism by involving the federal government in state unclaimed property enforcement. The entire framework represents bureaucratic mission creep that infringes privacy and expands federal power beyond enumerated constitutional authority. This function could be eliminated entirely, returning to a system where the federal government does not maintain or share such granular personal financial data.

Defines terms and policies for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), which offers voluntary mediation in labor-management disputes affecting interstate commerce. The regulation outlines when FMCS will proffer services (e.g., substantial commerce interruption, national defense, health/safety) and when it will refrain (e.g., intrastate disputes, minor effects with state services available, representation questions), plus coordination with state agencies.

Costs: Taxpayers fund a non-essential service that competes with private mediators and state agencies, distorting market-based dispute resolution. Unseen effects: Creates moral hazard by encouraging parties to expect government intervention rather than negotiate directly; perpetuates unconstitutional Commerce Clause overreach into local labor relations reserved to states by Tenth Amendment. Abolishing FMCS would reduce federal size, respect enumerated powers, and restore voluntary private bargaining.

Regulation defines how employers can include board, lodging, or other facilities as part of employee wages under Fair Labor Standards Act, establishing procedures for determining reasonable cost and fair value of such facilities, and setting limitations on what can be included as wages.

This regulation creates unnecessary complexity and compliance costs for employers and employees. The federal government should not be dictating how employers can structure compensation packages or determining what constitutes "reasonable cost" for facilities. These are private contractual matters that should be handled through voluntary agreements between employers and employees without federal interference.

This compilation of DOL regulations includes: (1) post-employment restrictions preventing former employees from practicing before the Department in matters they handled without Secretary's consent; (2) subpoena response procedures requiring Solicitor approval; (3) rules governing audiovisual coverage of hearings, encouraging transparency for rulemaking while protecting privacy in sensitive cases; and (4) extensive provisions ensuring religious organizations can participate equally in DOL-funded social service programs while maintaining constitutional boundaries.

Deletion would undermine essential safeguards: post-employment rules prevent regulatory capture by limiting the revolving door; subpoena procedures protect both agency information and judicial processes; hearing coverage rules balance transparency with individual privacy; most critically, the religious freedom provisions prevent discrimination against faith-based providers, expanding civil society's role and beneficiary choice—protections that would be difficult to replicate through alternative means and that advance constitutional liberty.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires agents representing foreign principals to register with the DOJ, disclose their activities, funding sources, and political activities, and file periodic reports. It includes registration fees, disclosure requirements for informational materials, and exemptions for certain diplomatic, consular, and commercial activities.

This regulation creates a massive federal surveillance apparatus that chills free speech and association by forcing Americans to register as 'foreign agents' for engaging in political advocacy. The registration requirements, fees, and disclosure mandates impose significant compliance costs while potentially exposing individuals to harassment and targeting. The broad definitions of 'political activity' and 'foreign principal' enable regulatory overreach into protected First Amendment activities. States can handle any legitimate concerns about foreign influence through their own laws without federal intrusion.

This regulation (26 CFR Part 601) describes the internal procedural rules of the Internal Revenue Service for administering federal tax laws. It outlines the IRS's organizational structure, the general course of tax assessment and collection, examination procedures, appeals processes, and enforcement mechanisms including liens, levies, and penalties. It is primarily an administrative manual explaining how existing tax laws are implemented, not a substantive rule creating new obligations.

This document is not an independent regulatory burden but a procedural manual explaining statutory requirements already imposed by Congress. Deleting it would not reduce the underlying tax compliance costs Americans face—it would only make the administration of tax laws less transparent and predictable, undermining the rule of law by removing the published guidelines that both taxpayers and IRS agents rely upon. The regulation provides essential due process protections (e.g., Tax Court access, appeals, notice requirements) that constrain bureaucratic discretion and protect liberty. Its removal would create legal uncertainty without eliminating any of the actual statutory tax burdens the user decries.

Mandates electronic filing for numerous tax returns and information returns (Forms 1042, 1042-S, 8966, 1099 series, W-2, etc.) with a 10-return annual threshold and special rules for partnerships over 100 partners. Includes waiver and exemption processes for hardship and religious objections, with penalties for non-compliance.

Imposes a technology mandate that eliminates voluntary innovation, creates hidden compliance costs (software, training, systems), and disproportionately burdens small employers and financial institutions. The 10-return threshold still traps many small businesses; waiver processes add bureaucratic layers. Electronic filing efficiency gains could emerge naturally from market competition without coercive mandates. This exemplifies regulatory overreach—controlling methods rather than outcomes—which von Mises identified as destroying entrepreneurial calculation and entrenching administrative power.

This regulation establishes federal oversight of treaty-protected Indian fishing rights off reservations, including conservation measures, identification card systems, gear marking requirements, and enforcement mechanisms to balance tribal rights with state conservation laws and resource management.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it protects constitutionally recognized tribal treaty rights and prevents state governments from using conservation laws as a pretext to eliminate these rights. The regulation provides a framework for cooperative management that respects both tribal sovereignty and resource conservation, ensuring that treaty obligations are honored while maintaining sustainable fisheries for all users.

This regulation governs access to and use of federally-owned fishing sites provided to compensate Columbia River Indian tribes for fishing grounds lost to Bonneville Dam construction. It establishes identification requirements, restricts use to treaty-fishing-eligible Indians, allows tribal fishing structures, and permits suspension of privileges for violations of tribal, state, or federal laws.

This regulation represents an unconstitutional federal overreach into tribal affairs and property rights. The federal government should not be managing tribal fishing sites or issuing identification cards - these are matters for tribal sovereignty. The regulation creates unnecessary bureaucratic layers and violates principles of limited government by having federal officials make discretionary decisions about tribal use of their own treaty rights. States and tribes should handle these matters directly without federal micromanagement.