Browse regulations

This Army Corps of Engineers regulation mandates that states, localities, and private owners maintain federally-funded flood control and navigation infrastructure according to detailed federal standards. It requires appointment of a 'Superintendent,' prohibits unauthorized alterations, mandates semiannual reports to the District Engineer, and prescribes specific maintenance protocols for levees, flood walls, drainage structures, pumping plants, and channels. It also governs water control management for reservoir projects, requiring Corps approval of reservoir operations for flood control and navigation purposes.

This regulation imposes substantial unfunded mandates on local governments and private owners, violating Tenth Amendment federalism by dictating local infrastructure management. The prescriptive requirements create a hidden tax through compliance costs while removing local flexibility and innovation. Heavy-handed federal oversight produces suboptimal outcomes, as local officials possess superior knowledge of their specific flood risks and community needs. Administrative burdens consume resources that could be spent on actual flood protection. Regulatory capture risks are elevated as federal engineers may prioritize bureaucratic procedures over real-world effectiveness. Flood control is a proper state and local responsibility that can be better managed through market mechanisms, liability rules, and voluntary coordination.

Regulation limits tows of seagoing barges on U.S. inland waters (excluding Great Lakes, upper Mississippi, etc.) to five vessels, mandates bunching in specific locations like New York Harbor and above Schuylkill River, and imposes license revocation penalties under 1908 statutes.

This outdated regulation imposes compliance costs and operational inflexibility on maritime commerce without clear justification. It micromanages vessel configuration based on century-old assumptions, creating regulatory burden that could be eliminated while relying on existing safety frameworks like insurance, liability, and professional mariner standards.

Coast Guard regulation requiring Coast Guard-approved fire extinguishers on manned and crewed unmanned marine platforms, with specific maintenance, inspection, and installation rules referencing NFPA 10, and grandfathering for older vessels.

The regulation imposes unnecessary compliance costs, creates protectionist barriers through Coast Guard approval, duplicates market-driven safety incentives from insurance and liability, stifles innovation, and fosters regulatory capture. Unseen consequences include higher energy prices, reduced competition, and a disproportionate burden on small operators, while the risk of fires is already mitigated by operators' financial incentives.

Establishes anchorage grounds in navigable waters for safe navigation. Coast Guard District Commanders designate anchorage areas after consulting with agencies (Corps of Engineers, Naval District, quarantine stations) and public hearings. Provides for special anchorage areas for vessels under 65 feet exempt from light requirements. Authority derives from Rivers and Harbors Act (1915), Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act (2006), and Ports and Waterways Safety Act.

Deletion would create chaos on public waterways: unregulated anchoring would block ports and channels, dramatically increase collision risks, and endanger lives. This is a legitimate public safety function with low compliance costs and clear statutory authority—the classic case of government providing the legal framework for orderly use of common infrastructure that markets cannot efficiently supply.

Establishes a Retiring Review Board in the Coast Guard to review disability retirement decisions. Sets procedures for applications, hearings, and decision-making for Coast Guard members/former members seeking review of retiring board findings. Includes composition (5 officers), 15-year statute of limitations, representation rules, and recordkeeping requirements.

Military personnel deserve due process. Without this review mechanism, individuals could be denied rightful disability retirement benefits based on erroneous findings with no recourse. The limited administrative costs are justified to ensure fair treatment of those who served.

Codifies broad waiver authority allowing the Coast Guard to exempt vessels from navigation and inspection laws when deemed necessary for national defense, and includes specific standing waivers from 1951 and 1958 for emergency evacuation and Military Sealift Command operations.

These standing waivers from the 1950s represent an outdated, quasi-permanent delegation of regulatory relief that should be subject to regular congressional review. The executive can and should seek time-limited waivers during actual emergencies rather than relying on seven-decade-old blanket exemptions that bypass democratic accountability and create regulatory opacity.

Regulation establishes procedures for the Coast Guard to accept and manage gifts, devises, and bequests of property or money for Coast Guard institutions (schools, hospitals, libraries, etc.). Authorizes the Commandant to accept gifts, designate officers to accept them, and administer a General Gift Fund. Gifts are made payable to the Treasurer of the United States and deposited into a specific fund. Provides tax treatment guidance and authorizes the Commandant to issue detailed instructions.

Bypasses congressional power of the purse and creates a channel for private influence over military institutions. Even if abuse is rare, the mechanism erodes democratic accountability and commodifies public services. The Coast Guard can be fully funded through the normal appropriations process without this special channel.

This regulation requires the Coast Guard to display OMB control numbers for its information collection requirements as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. It is a procedural transparency measure that does not impose substantive requirements on the public.

This is pure bureaucratic housekeeping that serves no meaningful public interest. The Paperwork Reduction Act's control number system creates an additional layer of compliance paperwork itself. Removing this requirement would have zero negative impact on Americans while eliminating a trivial but unnecessary regulatory burden.

Standardizes the executive branch's handling of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) - unclassified information requiring protection. Replaces agency-specific policies with a uniform program administered by NARA, establishes the CUI Registry, and defines designation, marking, safeguarding, and dissemination requirements for agencies and contractors.

Deleting it would revert to a costly, inconsistent patchwork of agency-specific rules that impede information sharing and multiply compliance burdens. The centralized standard reduces net bureaucracy by replacing numerous conflicting systems with one efficient framework, achieving uniformity that decentralized rulemaking cannot match while maintaining necessary protections.

Procedures for other federal agencies to access classified historical CIA records for historical research, requiring multi-level approvals and strict controls on use and dissemination.

Deleting this would either lead to arbitrary access denials undermining legitimate inter-agency historical research, or uncontrolled dissemination of sensitive classified intelligence—both harming national security and governmental accountability.

The regulation formally adopts the Federal Acquisition Regulation's (FAR) debarment and suspension procedures for CIA contractors, ensuring standardized due process and consistent treatment of contractors facing suspension or debarment from federal contracts.

Without this formal adoption, CIA debarment actions could face legal challenges for lacking standardized procedures, creating uncertainty for contractors and risking inconsistent enforcement. The uniform FAR process protects both the government's interest in excluding bad actors and contractors' due process rights. Deleting it wouldn't eliminate debarment authority but would invite litigation that could disrupt national security contracting and waste taxpayer resources on legal challenges, while potentially allowing unethical or non-performing contractors to continue work without clear recourse.

CIA regulation establishing procedures to waive the 'need-to-know' requirement for classified information access by historical researchers, former presidential appointees, and former presidents/vice presidents. It creates an Agency Release Panel to review requests, sets specific criteria for each category, requires security clearances, nondisclosure and prepublication review agreements, and limits access to two years.

Deletion would create uncertainty and arbitrariness in access decisions, undermining the careful balance between national security and legitimate historical research or former officials' need to access records from their service. The regulation establishes clear, structured criteria and processes that protect classified information while enabling necessary transparency. Internal administrative costs are minimal and impose no burden on the public or private enterprise.

Establishes procedures for mandatory declassification review (MDR) requests to ODNI, including eligibility criteria, fee structure, referral coordination with other agencies, and appeals process. Governs how members of the public can request declassification of classified national security information under Executive Order 13526.

Deleting this regulation would eliminate the sole formal avenue for citizens to challenge improper classification, increasing government secrecy and undermining accountability. It creates a structured transparency mechanism that benefits the public without imposing compliance costs on the general population—only voluntary requesters pay reasonable service fees for this discretionary review.

Regulation provides for payment of actual and reasonable emergency medical care and burial expenses for Selective Service registrants who suffer illness, injury, or death while acting under orders from the Director of Selective Service. Claims must be filed within one year, exclude cases of registrant negligence, cap burial expenses, and can be paid directly to providers or as reimbursement to registrants or their families.

This regulation creates a hidden tax-funded compensation scheme that distorts the cost-benefit calculus of the Selective Service system itself. By socializing injury costs, it reduces the political and administrative pressure to minimize risks and ensure safety protocols, potentially encouraging reckless deployment of registrants. The program's existence masks the true human and financial costs of compulsory service, making it easier for the government to expand Selective Service activities without bearing full accountability. Private insurance or state-based compensation would be more appropriate, and eliminating this federal subsidy would force honest accounting of the burdens of conscription, potentially reducing the size and scope of the Selective Service system itself—a desirable outcome consistent with liberty and limited government principles.

Procedural rules for local Selective Service boards processing classification claims from registrants seeking exemptions or deferments from military conscription, including requirements for personal appearances, witness testimony, and file transfers.

This regulation sustains an unconstitutional system of conscription that treats American citizens as state property. The 'procedural protections' merely provide Due Process within an inherently coercive framework that claims ownership of individuals' labor and lives. The unseen costs are catastrophic: it destroys the very principle of self-ownership foundational to liberty, creates a permanent administrative state for managing forced labor, and normalizes government as a master rather than servant of the people. Even if abolished tomorrow, the infrastructure and mindset it sustains would take generations to dismantle.