Browse regulations

Establishes notice-and-comment procedure for Forest Service directives (Manual/Handbook) covering standards, criteria, guidelines. Requires minimum 30-day comment period, website posting, and response to comments. Excludes law enforcement, personnel, procurement, and other administrative functions. Allows interim directives in emergencies with later comment.

Deletion would eliminate mandatory transparency in forest policy formation, allowing the Forest Service to issue binding internal directives without public input. This would reduce accountability, prevent incorporation of local knowledge, and increase risk of regulatory capture. The modest administrative cost is outweighed by the democratic benefit of ensuring citizens can review and comment on policies affecting public lands—a safeguard that would be difficult to maintain without a binding requirement.

The National Industrial Security Program (NISP) establishes uniform standards for protecting classified information released to federal contractors, licensees, grantees, and certificate holders across executive agencies. Cognizant Security Agencies oversee compliance, requiring security clearances, insider threat programs, facility safeguards, and inspections. Defense serves as Executive Agent maintaining the NISPOM manual.

Deletion would enable catastrophic leaks of classified military/intelligence information, endangering lives and national security. The program achieves essential protection through standardized, mandatory requirements applied uniformly - impossible to replicate consistently through individual contracts without creating dangerous gaps and duplication.

Establishes the DoD Self-Service Logon credential program for secure authentication of DoD beneficiaries and affiliated personnel to access DoD self-service websites, defining eligibility, application procedures, credential management, and access permissions.

Deletion would compromise security and fraud prevention for DoD beneficiaries accessing benefits and personal information. Secure, standardized authentication is a core government function that cannot be delegated to private markets due to national security and privacy concerns; the regulation ensures consistent, reliable access control across all DoD components.

The Common Rule (45 CFR Part 46) establishes a comprehensive federal framework for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and human subjects protection in federally-funded or regulated research. It mandates institutional assurances, defines 'research' and 'human subjects' broadly, requires IRB review and approval for most studies, sets exemptions for low-risk research, and prescribes detailed informed consent requirements. The policy applies to all federal departments that adopt it and preempts state/local laws only when they provide less protection.

This regulation represents an unconstitutional federal overreach into matters historically governed by professional ethics, state law, and institutional self-regulation. The $2+ trillion annual regulatory burden includes massive compliance costs that fall disproportionately on small research entities, creating barriers to entry and stifling innovation. The one-size-fits-all bureaucratic approach—requiring multi-member IRBs, extensive documentation, and layered approvals—delays vital medical research while providing uncertain benefits that could be achieved through simpler mechanisms: state oversight boards, strengthened malpractice liability, professional association standards, and targeted federal conditions on funding. The hidden tax of compliance ultimately reduces the supply of new treatments and raises healthcare costs for all Americans, with questionable improvement in actual subject protections that professional ethics and tort law already address.

This regulation governs the process for filing notices and requests for indemnification or defense with the Department of Defense regarding third-party environmental claims on transferred DoD property. It specifies required documentation (10 items), filing deadlines (15 days for notice, 2 years for indemnification), mandatory right of entry for DoD inspections, and adjudication procedures.

The regulation imposes significant compliance costs through rigid documentation requirements and strict deadlines that disproportionately burden small businesses and individuals. These barriers could deter legitimate claims and require costly legal assistance, adding to the regulatory stack without clear justification that such prescriptive procedures are necessary. The same program goals could be achieved through simpler, more flexible administrative processes.

This regulation implements a temporary pilot program (Nov 10, 2018 - Feb 13, 2020) that expanded CFIUS's jurisdiction to review certain non-controlling foreign investments in U.S. businesses dealing with critical technologies. It required mandatory notifications and established review procedures for covered transactions. The pilot was explicitly designed to expire when permanent FIRRMA regulations took effect.

The regulation is obsolete. It was a time-limited pilot program that ended in February 2020 and has been superseded by permanent FIRRMA implementing regulations. Keeping expired rules in the CFR creates regulatory confusion, wastes compliance resources, and undermines the rule of law by maintaining non-binding, historical documents as if they were current law.

This regulation blocks all property and interests in property of the North Korean government, Workers' Party of Korea, and designated persons/entities within U.S. jurisdiction. It prohibits transactions with blocked parties and imposes secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions facilitating prohibited activities related to North Korea's nuclear program, human rights abuses, and illicit activities.

North Korea poses an existential threat through nuclear proliferation, ballistic missiles, and human rights atrocities including forced labor camps. Sanctions exploit the regime's financial vulnerabilities to pressure behavioral change when diplomatic engagement has repeatedly failed. While compliance costs affect financial institutions, they are justified by the national security imperative of containing a hostile state that threatens U.S. allies. This regulation falls within core federal foreign affairs powers, not Tenth Amendment state domains, and serves a compelling purpose that private alternatives cannot achieve against a totalitarian regime that usesWestern financial systems to fund its weapons programs.

Cooperative agreement between Oklahoma and the federal government implementing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) on Federal lands within Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Department of Mines serves as primary permitting, inspection, and enforcement authority for surface coal mining operations on Federal lands, with federal funding reimbursement and retained federal oversight for certain responsibilities (NEPA, Mineral Leasing Act, etc.).

This administrative agreement duplicates state mining regulation and creates costly federal-state bureaucracy implementing SMCRA, a federal overreach into land use that should be state-controlled under the Tenth Amendment. Surface coal mining on Federal lands should be regulated through simple lease terms and state law applied to federal lessees, not through this elaborate cooperative framework with its $14,000+ per household hidden compliance costs. The revolving door between OSMRE and industry risks regulatory capture, while small mining operators bear disproportionate compliance burden from navigating both State and Federal requirements.

This regulation establishes a cooperative agreement between Alabama and the federal government for regulating surface coal mining on federal lands, giving primary enforcement authority to the Alabama Surface Mining Commission while maintaining federal oversight through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. It outlines detailed procedures for permit applications, inspections, enforcement, bonding, and coordination with other federal agencies.

This represents unconstitutional federal overreach into state sovereignty over land use and natural resources under the Tenth Amendment. The regulation imposes significant compliance burdens that increase energy costs, discourage production, and create barriers to entry protecting incumbent mining companies—outcomes diametrically opposed to free enterprise. Alabama is fully capable of regulating mining through its own state program without federal micromanagement; federal involvement here relies on an expansive Commerce Clause interpretation that the Framers never envisioned. The hidden compliance tax burdening mines and ultimately consumers serves no essential federal purpose that cannot be achieved through state-level regulation or market mechanisms.

Regulation prescribes notice requirements and procedural rules for mergers and transfers among multiemployer pension plans under ERISA. It mandates preservation of accrued benefits, requires actuarial valuations, imposes plan solvency tests, and requires notification to PBGC. The rule also establishes procedures for 'facilitated mergers' where PBGC may provide technical assistance and financial support to encourage consolidation, particularly for plans in critical or declining status.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance burdens on private pension arrangements through mandatory filings, actuarial certifications, and PBGC oversight, raising costs that ultimately harm participants. It restricts freedom of contract by preventing mutually beneficial transfers that might restructure benefits, and creates moral hazard by enabling government-subsidized bailouts through facilitated mergers with financial assistance. The requirement that PBGC determine whether a merger is 'in the interests of participants' substitutes bureaucratic judgment for market-driven decisions. Private parties, with existing contract law and fiduciary duties, are better positioned to evaluate transaction merits without federal micromanagement that protects incumbents and insulates plans from the consequences of poor funding decisions.

This regulation implements the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the National Indian Gaming Commission, establishing procedures for requesting agency records, fee structures based on requester type, processing timelines, and appeal processes. It defines various requester categories (commercial, educational, media, etc.) with corresponding fee rates, outlines search and duplication costs, and specifies requirements for requests, including verification, descriptions, and fee agreements.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because it provides essential procedural framework for accessing government records, ensuring transparency and accountability of the Commission. The specific fee categories, processing rules, and appeal mechanisms are necessary to manage FOIA requests efficiently and prevent abuse while maintaining public access. Deleting it would create chaos, potentially leading to arbitrary denials or unsustainable resource burdens on the agency.

Federal regulation governing fee collection by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) from tribal gaming operations. Establishes annual fees (max 0.08% of total revenues, tiered up to 5% per operation), quarterly payment requirements, extensive reporting with detailed calculations, late fees up to 20%, and fingerprint processing fees. The Commission is funded by the entities it regulates.

This regulation imposes regressive compliance costs that disproportionately burden smaller tribal operations (~30% higher per-employee burden) while funding the very agency regulating them—creating perverse incentives for mission creep. The complex tiered fee structure, quarterly reporting, and capital expenditure allowances generate unnecessary administrative overhead that distorts market competition and raises barriers to entry. Tribal sovereignty principles suggest tribes could self-regulate gaming without federal fee extraction, and market mechanisms (reputation, competition) would naturally ensure integrity without this hidden tax exceeding $14,000 per household equivalents. The agency's self-funding model violates proper separation between regulator and regulated, inviting regulatory capture.

Regulation governs Bureau of Indian Affairs electric power utilities, establishing procedures for customer service agreements, billing, rate adjustments, appeals, and operational requirements. It defines terms and processes for how the federal government directly provides electric utility service to customers, primarily on tribal lands.

Federal operation of electric utilities violates constitutional federalism and limited government principles. Electric power delivery is a traditional state/local/private function reserved by the Tenth Amendment. This government-owned utility distorts markets, imposes bureaucratic compliance costs, and creates hidden taxes exceeding $14,000 per household in regulatory burden. The Operations Manual, Federal Register notices, and Treasury collection requirements add administrative overhead with no corresponding federal constitutional authority. Even if serving reservations, this could be accomplished more efficiently through tribal utilities, state/local governments, or private providers with targeted subsidies—not permanent federal ownership.

Procedural regulations for HUD's Office of Inspector General implementing the Freedom of Information Act. Details request requirements, fee structures, processing timelines, exemptions, and appeal processes for obtaining OIG records.

Deleting these transparency procedures would undermine FOIA's mandate, allowing the OIG to arbitrarily withhold information from the public. The regulation merely operationalizes congressional intent for government transparency with minimal administrative burden, balancing legitimate exemptions (privacy, law enforcement) against the public's right to know. Without it, accountability for HUD's $50B+ budget and OIG investigations would suffer.

Procedural rules governing the Millennium Challenge Corporation's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, including request requirements, timelines, fee structures (with distinctions for commercial, educational, and media requesters), appeals process, handling of confidential commercial information, and record preservation.

Deleting this regulation would undermine transparency and accountability by eliminating procedural protections that ensure citizens can access government records. The rule provides essential due process, clear fee structures, appeal rights, and safeguards for confidential business information. Removing it would create arbitrary administration of FOIA, potentially shielding government actions from public scrutiny—the opposite of liberty. The minimal administrative cost is outweighed by the fundamental importance of an informed citizenry in checking federal power.