Browse regulations

The Market Access Program (MAP) provides federal grants to eligible U.S. entities (nonprofit trade orgs, SRTGs, ag co-ops, state agencies) for overseas marketing/promotion of U.S. agricultural commodities. The program operates on a reimbursement basis, requires cost-sharing (10% for generic, 100% match for brand), and includes extensive administrative requirements, reporting, recordkeeping, and specific labeling/origin rules. It is administered by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

This is corporate welfare that distorts free markets and uses taxpayer money to subsidize private export marketing. The administrative burden alone—SAM registration, conflict forms, size certifications, detailed cost eligibility rules, recordkeeping, notifications—creates a hidden tax on recipients while benefiting well-connected agribusinesses. Mandatory 'American' labeling and origin requirements are mercantilist, inviting trade retaliation. The program inevitably leads to regulatory capture as agricultural lobbies secure perpetual subsidies. Small businesses face disproportionate compliance costs while big co-ops and trade groups navigate the system easily. The unseen cost is market distortion: capital and effort flow toward lobbying for MAP funds rather than genuine competitive improvement. If deleted, private industry would handle market development through voluntary cooperation, as it does for domestic marketing—efficiently, without subsidies.

The Foreign Market Development Cooperator program provides federal reimbursement (currently 50% minimum) to nonprofit agricultural trade organizations for overseas generic promotion of U.S. agricultural commodities, with extensive administrative rules governing eligibility, documentation, contracting, and reporting requirements.

This is corporate welfare that forces taxpayers to subsidize private trade association marketing. It distorts market signals, creates dependency, and violates free enterprise principles. The program's $2 trillion+ hidden tax burden includes this wasteful spending, while the compliance labyrinth (SAM registration, detailed recordkeeping, approvals) harms small organizations the program claims to help. Government cannot and should not pick winning export markets—that's the role of private actors bearing their own risks and rewards. The unintended consequences include misallocation of resources, rent-seeking, and artificial market expansion that would collapse without subsidy.

The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEPA) regulations establish a federal program where NRCS pays landowners to place permanent or long-term conservation easements on private and Tribal land, restricting non-agricultural uses and restoring wetlands. The program combines three predecessor programs, has two components (Agricultural Land Easements and Wetland Reserve Easements), and includes extensive provisions for applications, eligibility, payments, monitoring, enforcement, easement modifications, and delegation to third parties. It appropriates federal funds to create legally binding land use restrictions administered by federal bureaucrats.

This regulation exemplifies federal overreach that violates property rights and federalism. Using $2+ trillion in taxpayer compliance costs to fund voluntary easement purchases still represents coercive redistribution that distorts land markets. The program bureaucratizes conservation decisions that private landowners, conservation groups, and states could make more efficiently through voluntary agreements and market mechanisms. NRCS's expansive discretion over land use restrictions, easement modifications, and waiver authority creates rent-seeking opportunities and regulatory capture risks. The Tenth Amendment reserves land use and agricultural policy to states; federalizing these decisions through the Commerce Clause distorts constitutional federalism and imposes one-size-fits-all rules on diverse local conditions. Even if well-intentioned, the unseen costs include reduced land values, barriers to development and innovation, and the moral hazard of encouraging dependence on federal subsidies rather than private conservation solutions.

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) is a voluntary USDA subsidy program administered by NRCS that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers for implementing conservation practices. It operates through partnership agreements with eligible partners (states, NGOs, tribes, etc.), allocating 50% of funds to competitive state/multistate projects and 50% to federally designated Critical Conservation Areas. Producers must comply with federal eligibility requirements and implement activities from covered conservation programs. The program is funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation and includes special provisions for historically underserved producers.

Retention imposes high costs: (1) unconstitutional federal overreach into state/local land-use authority violating Tenth Amendment; (2) market distortions through subsidies that misallocate resources and inflate land values, harming non-participants; (3) expands permanent bureaucracy and adds to $14k/household hidden tax burden; (4) central planning knowledge problem prevents efficient conservation outcomes; (5) fuels regulatory capture by special interest 'eligible partners'; and (6) creates dependency while eroding true property rights through conditional assistance.

Regulation applies SNAP retailer integrity rules to Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT), a temporary COVID-19 emergency nutrition program. It defines violations like trafficking, sets eligibility standards, disqualification periods, fines, and administrative review processes for retailers handling P-EBT benefits.

P-EBT was a temporary emergency program that ended with the pandemic. Maintaining regulations for a defunct program wastes administrative resources, imposes unnecessary compliance costs on retailers, and creates regulatory clutter with no current public benefit. The regulation is obsolete and should be repealed.

This subpart establishes a voluntary, fee-for-service framework for USDA-AMS to provide auditing, accreditation, and certification programs for agricultural products and services, including quality systems verification (GAP, GMP, PVP), audit verification (food defense, origin), and accreditation (ISO 17065, lab approval). It details application procedures, assessments, fees, and enforcement.

Government provision of voluntary certification services duplicates the private market, creates unfair competition, and expands bureaucratic reach. The fee-based model conceals administrative overhead and promotes mission creep, diverting resources from core regulatory functions while distorting market-based quality assurance.

The regulation establishes the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to provide direct payments to eligible agricultural producers for commodities impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak. It defines eligible commodities (livestock, crops, dairy, wool), calculates payments based on inventory and sales from January to April 2020, sets payment limits ($250,000 for individuals, up to $750,000 for entities with multiple active members), includes citizenship and ownership disclosure requirements, and is administered by the Farm Service Agency with a total funding cap of $16 billion. Applications were due in 2020-2021.

Keeping this regulation imposes massive hidden tax burdens ($16B cost) on Americans while distorting market signals that would otherwise allocate agricultural resources efficiently. The complex eligibility and documentation requirements increase compliance costs, disproportionately harming small farms relative to large operations. It establishes a precedent for government bailouts that creates moral hazard, encourages dependence on federal aid, and expands bureaucratic power—all contrary to liberty and limited government. Even if currently inactive, its presence on the books invites future reauthorization and mission creep, undermining constitutional federalism and free enterprise.

USDA regulation prescribing standardized procedures for collecting debts owed to the United States, including demand letters, interest/penalties, administrative offsets, credit reporting, installment agreements, and license suspension. Implements the Debt Collection Improvement Act and provides due process protections for debtors.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation. Deleting it would eliminate standardized, fair collection procedures, leading to inconsistent treatment of debtors, potential due process violations, and inefficient recovery of government debts. The regulation ensures both fiscal responsibility and essential consumer protections—achieving its goals in a way that piecemeal alternatives could not reliably provide.

DoD rules governing standard wording for general terms and conditions in subawards and grants, implementing OMB guidance across many subparts.

Imposes burdensome, overly detailed compliance that adds hidden costs and delays, stifles efficient contracting, and creates regulatory capture; its complexity yields minimal public benefit relative to compliance costs.

Standardizes terms and conditions for DoD grants and cooperative agreements, covering information maintenance, records retention, compliance remedies, and award closeout. Implements OMB guidance across multiple CFR sections.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs ($14k+ per household annually) and adds to the 185k+ CFR pages, creating bureaucratic complexity. Its detailed administrative requirements burden small businesses disproportionately and federalize state/local responsibilities under the Tenth Amendment. The regulation's focus on procedural minutiae distracts from core government functions and increases compliance costs without clear constitutional justification.

Standardizes reporting requirements (performance, financial, property) for DoD grant recipients, implementing OMB guidance in 2 CFR parts 170 and 200 through templates and specifications

Imposes substantial compliance costs creating a hidden tax; paperwork burden distorts incentives, disproportionately harms small entities, and raises barriers to entry; oversight goals achievable through simpler, risk-based approaches using recipients' existing reporting systems

Standard wording for general terms and conditions concerning recipients' purchases of property and services under DoD grants and cooperative agreements, implementing OMB guidance on procurement standards, debarment requirements, bonding, and various federal policy mandates.

This regulation creates a massive bureaucratic compliance burden that costs businesses and state agencies millions in administrative overhead, distorts procurement decisions, and federalizes what should be state/local matters. The 185+ pages of procurement rules, debarment requirements, bonding mandates, and policy conditions create a labyrinth that no entity can fully comprehend, violating the principle that laws must be knowable. It protects incumbent contractors through complex compliance barriers while harming small businesses and new entrants who cannot afford the administrative costs.

This regulation implements OMB guidance (2 CFR 200.310-200.316) for DoD grants and cooperative agreements, standardizing terms and conditions for property rights, management, and disposition across real property, equipment, supplies, intangible property, and federally owned property to ensure consistency and protect federal interests.

Deletion would create inconsistency in federal award administration within DoD, increasing compliance costs and risk of misuse of federal funds; the regulation's tailored implementation of OMB guidance provides necessary uniformity while allowing reservations for inapplicable sections to minimize burden.

Standardizes financial management terms and conditions for DoD grants and cooperative agreements, implementing OMB guidance on financial systems, payments, cost sharing, and audits. Requires DoD Components to use specific appendices for terms and conditions, with exceptions permitted for certain scenarios.

Contributes to the $2 trillion annual regulatory compliance burden without demonstrable net benefits, creating unnecessary bureaucratic complexity that distorts incentives and increases costs for all stakeholders without clear justification for its existence.

This DoD regulation standardizes administrative terms and conditions for cost-type grants and cooperative agreements to universities, nonprofits, States, local governments, and Indian tribes. It provides template language, prescribing how DoD components must construct grant agreements while allowing limited exceptions for small awards, individual cases, or class exemptions with OMB concurrence.

This regulation imposes unnecessary bureaucratic overhead on both the DoD and grant recipients through rigid standardization that ignores local context and organizational diversity. The compliance costs create a deadweight burden without improving outcomes—agencies and recipients spend resources conforming to prescribed templates rather than tailoring agreements to actual needs. It centralizes administrative decision-making, creating a one-size-fits-all approach that disadvantages smaller entities with fewer compliance resources. The exception processes add layers of review and delay, while the regulation itself distracts from mission objectives. Grant administration could be streamlined by eliminating this redundant standardization and allowing agencies to craft appropriate terms case-by-case.