Browse regulations

Mandates hospitals publish comprehensive price lists (gross, negotiated, cash prices) in standardized machine-readable files and consumer-friendly formats for 300+ shoppable services, with annual updates, strict formatting rules, and civil penalties ($300-$5,500/day) for noncompliance.

Imposes significant compliance costs on all hospitals, disproportionately burdening small rural facilities, while producing data that rarely reflects actual patient responsibility due to complex insurance structures. This federal mandate violates Tenth Amendment federalism principles by usurping state authority over healthcare regulation. Resources diverted to formatting, attestations, and CEO certifications could be better spent improving care or lowering prices. True transparency would emerge from market-based reforms—expanding HSAs, allowing catastrophic-only insurance, eliminating certificate-of-need laws, and enabling cross-state insurance competition—not from adding 185,000+ pages of technical requirements that create a false sense of disclosure without addressing root causes of healthcare opacity.

Federal regulation establishing Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) - state-level law enforcement units with federal matching funds (90% for first 12 quarters, then 75%). Requires separate, identifiable state entities with specific staffing (attorneys, investigators, auditors) to investigate Medicaid fraud, provider abuse/neglect of patients/residents. Units must be certified and recertified by HHS OIG, submit extensive reporting, and comply with structural requirements including separation from Medicaid agencies. Permits data mining of Medicaid data with advance federal approval. States must either have prosecution authority or formal referral procedures with AG's office.

Creates expensive federalized enforcement bureaucracy with matching funds that distort state incentives and expand federal control into state law enforcement. Federal certification requirements force states to create separate units with minimum staffing regardless of actual need. Violates constitutional federalism by making states administrators of federal priorities. High compliance costs and data mining provisions threaten privacy without evidence of superior effectiveness over existing state/federal law enforcement mechanisms. Enables regulatory creep beyond original fraud focus.

Allows the Public Health Service to appoint special consultants when regular civil service hiring is insufficient, and permits temporary detail of PHS employees to state/local/non-profit organizations for up to 2 years (extendable) with pay from non-federal sources.

Americans would be worse off during public health emergencies if PHS could not quickly access specialized expertise outside rigid civil service procedures or temporarily assign staff to coordinate with state/local partners. This internal personnel flexibility is essential for a health agency responding to emerging threats and does not impose costs or restrictions on the public.

EPA regulation under TSCA controlling methylene chloride to mitigate unreasonable health risks. Establishes exposure limits (ECEL 2 ppm TWA, STEL 16 ppm), mandates monitoring, exposure control plans, respiratory/dermal protection, and phases out consumer and most commercial uses.

Crushing compliance costs fall disproportionately on small businesses; federalizes workplace safety - a Tenth Amendment state power; one-size-fits-all mandates eliminate flexibility; unseen consequences include substitution with potentially more hazardous chemicals and reduced economic opportunity. Private tort law and state regulation can protect health more efficiently without stifling enterprise.

Recordkeeping and reporting requirement for ocean dumping permittees under the Ocean Dumping Act. Mandates maintenance of records on material characteristics, dumping times/locations, and other permit conditions. Requires periodic reports every 6 months and immediate reports for emergency dumping with specific Coast Guard and FDA notifications.

Without these recordkeeping and reporting requirements, enforcement of ocean dumping regulations would be impossible. Americans would be worse off due to unchecked pollution of marine environments, inability to track violations, and loss of accountability. The administrative costs are minimal compared to the irreversible environmental harm from unreported dumping. This transparency mechanism is fundamental to the regulatory scheme and could not be achieved through less bureaucratic means while maintaining effective enforcement.

Regulation establishes compulsory licensing rates and terms for use of nondramatic musical works in creating physical/digital phonorecords under 17 U.S.C. 115. It fixes specific royalty rates (e.g., 13.1 cents per work in 2026, adjusted for CPI), defines over 50 technical terms (Eligible Interactive Stream, Bundled Subscription Offering, Service Provider Revenue, etc.), and imposes detailed accounting, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on licensees. Creates formulaic methods for calculating royalties from bundled services and advertising revenue allocations.

This compulsory licensing regime is an unconstitutional expropriation of property rights, forcing copyright owners to license their works at government-dictated rates. The regulatory burden—with its labyrinth of definitions, revenue allocation formulas, and recordkeeping mandates—imposes enormous compliance costs that fall most heavily on small streaming services and startups, stifling competition and innovation. The rate-setting process is vulnerable to regulatory capture, with Copyright Royalty Judges likely influenced by industry incumbents who benefit from standardized pricing that protects their market position. Free market negotiation would yield more efficient pricing, better serve artists through differentiated licensing, and eliminate the hidden tax of compliance. The unseen costs—legal fees, barriers to entry, distorted investment decisions, and the moral hazard of government price controls—far outweigh any claimed benefits of legal certainty.

Regulation governs Copyright Royalty Judges' proceedings to set the Administrative Assessment fee that funds the Mechanical Licensing Collective, establishing detailed litigation-style procedures for petitions, discovery, depositions, hearings, and determinations.

Creates an unnecessarily complex, costly adjudicatory process for fee determination; extensive discovery, depositions, and multi-stage submissions impose high legal and administrative costs that ultimately pass to consumers. The structure favors well-resourced incumbents (major publishers and streaming services), creating barriers to entry for smaller rights holders and digital services. A simpler, streamlined procedure would achieve the same legitimate oversight at a fraction of the burden.

Establishes procedural rules for Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) conducting proceedings to set royalty rates for compulsory copyright licenses, distinguishing between administrative assessment proceedings (governed by part 355) and all other rate determination proceedings (governed by parts 351-354).

Deleting these procedures would collapse the essential dispute resolution mechanism for compulsory licenses, creating legal chaos that harms both creators (uncertain compensation) and users (risk of infringement), while the compliance burden is minimal compared to the necessity of orderly rate-setting for the creative economy.

Procedural rules governing format, filing, electronic submission, deadlines, and signature requirements for parties participating in Copyright Royalty Judges proceedings. These are administrative and technical requirements for document submission to the board.

These are essential internal operating rules for a quasi-judicial tribunal. Without them, proceedings would be chaotic, inefficient, and unfair. The costs are minimal and borne only by voluntary participants in royalty disputes. The formatting, electronic filing, and deadline rules ensure orderly administration and equal treatment. Alternative ad hoc approaches would be more costly and less predictable.

This part implements the Privacy Act of 1974 for the Department of Defense, establishing procedures for individuals to access, amend, and obtain accounting of disclosures of their personal records maintained in DoD systems. It covers request requirements, fee structures, appeal processes, and exemptions for national security and law enforcement systems.

Deletion would eliminate the only practical means for service members and DoD employees to exercise Privacy Act rights, allowing unchecked government retention of inaccurate personal data that could impact benefits, clearances, and careers. The regulation's standardized procedures are essential to implementing the Act's protections in a way litigation cannot efficiently replicate.

This DoD regulation implements the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, establishing procedures for DoD law enforcement to request financial records from institutions. It requires supervisory approval, limits requests to cases where no other authority is available, mandates customer notice (unless delayed by court), provides challenge procedures, and includes certification requirements.

This regulation imposes meaningful procedural constraints on government power that protect individual liberty. Without these specific safeguards, DoD could access financial records with less transparency, notice, and accountability - creating greater privacy risks. The regulation operationalizes an existing statute with checks that limit overreach while enabling legitimate law enforcement. Deleting it would leave a void that could be filled with less constrained practices, not greater freedom.

Authorizes expanded access to DoD commissaries and exchanges for additional veteran and caregiver groups, with associated credit/debit card user fee collection.

Expands a non-core government function, increasing bureaucratic overhead and administrative compliance costs. Distorts free markets by using taxpayer advantages to crowd out private retailers. Creates perverse incentives for rent-seeking behavior around veteran and caregiver status designations, while entrenching the hidden tax burden on all Americans to support this welfare expansion.

DoD policy protecting dependents of military and civilian personnel from foreign criminal/civil jurisdiction abroad, establishing Designated Commanding Officers to invoke diplomatic protections, monitor trials, ensure fair treatment, and approve counsel fees where necessary.

Without this regulation, American service members' families stationed overseas would lack guaranteed diplomatic advocacy and procedural safeguards in foreign legal systems. The formalized structure—mandatory trial observers, clear criteria for counsel funding, and designated officers with escalation pathways—cannot be reliably replicated through ad hoc diplomacy, especially for non-military personnel or in nations with weak rule of law. Deleting would increase risk to US citizens, harm military readiness and retention, and undermine US obligations under status-of-forces agreements.

Establishes Transitional Compensation (TC) payments to dependents of military service members separated for dependent abuse offenses (sexual assault, rape, assault, battery, murder, manslaughter). Payments last 12-36 months based on remaining service obligation, with commensurate exchange/commissary privileges and medical/dental benefits through TRICARE. Eligibility requires annual recertification of non-remarriage/cohabitation.

Victims of violent crimes by service members would face destitution without transitional support after their abuser's separation. The program is narrowly targeted, has minimal cost footprint compared to trillion-dollar regulatory burdens, and serves compelling government interest in protecting vulnerable dependents who lose their sole financial support due to the member's criminal misconduct. The humanitarian purpose directly prevents worse outcomes for a tiny, specific population.

DoD regulation establishing the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) procedures for identifying family members with special medical/educational needs, processing civilian employees for overseas assignments, and ensuring they receive information about available services while protecting employees from discrimination based on family needs.

This regulation serves a legitimate, limited purpose within the military context: it ensures that service members and civilian employees with special needs family members can make informed decisions about overseas assignments and receive appropriate support. The anti-discrimination provisions protect civilian employees from being denied positions based on family circumstances. Importantly, it explicitly states it creates no new rights and merely coordinates existing DoD authorities. The program is narrowly tailored to military personnel—a proper federal function—and helps maintain force readiness by enabling assignments for qualified personnel who might otherwise decline due to uncertainty about support services. Removing it would harm military families with disabilities and impair DoD's ability to manage overseas staffing.