Browse regulations

Requires Selective Service registrants (post-July 1, 1980) to report address changes, submit requested information, and report for induction/examination, maintaining the administrative apparatus for conscription.

Enforces a conscription infrastructure incompatible with liberty, imposing ongoing compliance burdens and surveillance on young men for a draft that hasn't existed in 50 years and is unnecessary given a professional volunteer military.

This regulation covers two distinct military administrative matters: (1) payment of rewards ($50-$75) and expense reimbursements to civilians who apprehend military absentees/deserters, and (2) rules governing the wear of Marine Corps uniforms by veterans/cadet corps and commercial use of Marine Corps seals/emblems to prevent misrepresentation of official endorsement.

Deletion would harm military discipline by removing incentives for civilian assistance in returning absent service members, and would enable commercial fraud through unauthorized use of Marine Corps insignia, creating public confusion and damaging the Corps' reputation. The administrative costs are minimal while the benefits of maintaining order and preventing deceptive marketing are substantial.

Establishes administrative procedures for the Navy to settle admiralty-tort claims (damage by Navy vessels/employees) and affirmative claims (damage to Navy property), with settlement authority delegated up to $15M and specific processes to avoid litigation. Also covers salvage claims and inter-agency coordination.

Without this framework, all maritime tort claims against the Navy would proceed to costly federal litigation, increasing taxpayer expenses and delaying compensation for injured parties. The administrative settlement process reduces litigation costs, provides prompt resolutions, and serves the financial interests of the United States—benefitting both claimants and taxpayers. Alternative processes would be less efficient and more burdensome.

This Navy regulation establishes procedures for military justice proceedings, including witness immunity grants, media information release protocols, civilian witness compensation, and attorney misconduct reporting. It applies to courts-martial and related tribunals, detailing when transactional or testimonial immunity may be granted, how information about accused personnel may be released to the public, witness fee payment processes, and the process for reporting and investigating counsel misconduct.

These procedures are essential for protecting constitutional rights and ensuring fairness within the military justice system. Without standardized rules, service members' Fifth Amendment immunity rights could be violated, fair trials undermined by improper publicity, and ethical standards for military attorneys erode. The regulation achieves necessary consistency and oversight—particularly through required Attorney General approval for civilian witnesses and national security cases—that ad hoc decision-making would not provide, maintaining public confidence in military discipline and justice.

This regulation establishes two administrative boards within the Department of the Army: (1) the Army Disability Review Board (ADRB), which reviews cases of officers separated for physical disability to determine if the disability was incurred in line of duty, and (2) the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), which corrects military records to remove errors or injustices. Both boards provide administrative review processes with specified procedures for applications, hearings, findings, and final actions.

These boards provide essential due process rights for military personnel who risk losing retirement benefits, discharge status, or facing other adverse consequences from erroneous administrative decisions. Without these review mechanisms, service members would have no administrative remedy to correct mistakes in disability determinations or military records, forcing them into costly federal court litigation. The administrative costs are justified because they protect against grave injustices to individuals who served, ensuring that errors in a large bureaucratic system can be rectified through an accessible, specialized process rather than leaving service members without recourse.

This regulation establishes eligibility criteria and operational rules for Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. It defines who may be interred/inurned (primarily active duty service members, veterans with honorable discharge, Medal of Honor recipients, etc.) and their eligible family members. The rule sets documentation requirements, gravesite assignment policies, one-gravesite-per-family rules, and grounds for exclusion (capital crimes, Tier III sex offenders). It provides the administrative framework for managing these federal military cemeteries.

These are government-operated cemeteries honoring military service; the regulation simply administers this limited federal program without regulating or distorting private markets. Deleting it would create chaos for families planning burials and potentially allow incompatible remains to be interred without proper controls. The eligibility criteria ensure these national shrines remain reserved for those with significant military service connections. The modest administrative burden on families (providing DD-214, marriage certificates, etc.) is minimal compared to the $2 trillion regulatory burden from economic regulations that stifle enterprise. This is a legitimate, limited governmental function with clear historical grounding, not an example of regulatory overreach into private economic activity.

Military chaplains are authorized to conduct burial services, perform marriage rites (in compliance with civil law and denomination requirements), and administer religious sacraments/rites for military personnel and civilians under military jurisdiction, according to the beliefs and practices of those involved.

Removing this would directly harm military personnel and families by denying them access to religious and funeral services during deployment or under military jurisdiction, undermining morale, welfare, and the free exercise of religion—a core military support function with no significant compliance cost or economic distortion.

DoD policy authorizing limited logistical and fiscal support (facilities, transportation, utilities, commissary/exchange access, schools, medical) to Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts on overseas military installations to serve military personnel and families, with non-appropriated fund support capped at 70% and requiring formal agreements.

Deletion would harm military families abroad by removing an accessible youth program that aids retention and morale; replicating this support privately in foreign locations would be legally and logistically challenging due to security, host-nation regulations, and lack of existing infrastructure.

This regulation implements the National Security Education Program (NSEP), which provides scholarships and fellowships to U.S. citizens studying languages and regions deemed critical to national security. Recipients must sign a service agreement obligating them to work in federal national security positions (DoD, DHS, State, or Intelligence Community) for a minimum period (1 year for scholarships, duration of fellowship for graduates). The rule establishes bureaucratic procedures for administering the program, including deferrals, extensions, waivers, and debt collection for non-compliance.

The program uses tax dollars to steer individual educational and career choices through central planning, distorting the education market and coercing recipients into government service. Unseen costs include misallocation of talent (students pursue 'critical' fields over their actual interests, reducing quality), the bureaucratic overhead of administering service agreements, and a revolving door that increases regulatory capture. National security language needs can be met more efficiently through market signals—competitive salaries and targeted hiring—rather than manipulating individual life decisions. The hidden tax burden of this and similar programs violates the principle of limited government.

DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) establishes voluntary third-party accreditation for environmental laboratories performing testing for DoD environmental restoration programs. It uses ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standards with DoD-specific requirements, administered through recognized accreditation bodies with government oversight by the DoD Environmental Data Quality Workgroup.

Deletion would compromise DoD's ability to ensure scientifically valid environmental data for defense restoration decisions that affect military personnel and surrounding communities. The program achieves quality assurance cost-effectively through existing international standards and third-party accreditation, avoiding massive in-house bureaucracy. Participation is voluntary—laboratories only bear compliance costs when seeking DoD contracts—making it a legitimate, limited procurement requirement rather than regulatory overreach.

DoD regulation implementing the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children within DoD schools, establishing policies, committees, and liaison positions to ensure military children have smooth educational transitions during moves, covering enrollment, placement, extracurricular eligibility, and graduation requirements across state and DoDEA schools.

Federalizes education coordination, violating Tenth Amendment; creates permanent bureaucracy (committees, liaisons) with compliance costs; unseen consequence: erodes state sovereignty and crowds out market-based solutions like education savings accounts that would directly benefit military families without regulatory overhead.

Regulates wearing of military uniforms by active/retired/reserve members and former service members. Prohibits uniform wear during political activities, with organizations designated as subversive by the Attorney General, in commercial contexts, or when discredit could result. Former members may only wear uniform at specific patriotic/military occasions if they served honorably in wartime. Medal of Honor recipients have broader privileges.

Legitimate military interest in maintaining neutrality, discipline, and uniform prestige. Restrictions are narrowly tailored to prevent implication of military endorsement of political causes or commercial ventures. Minimal economic burden. Cannot be devolved to states without undermining uniform standards across the armed forces.

This regulation implements the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act by authorizing the Treasury Secretary to impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions for Hizballah or its affiliates. It allows for either strict conditions on correspondent/payable-through accounts or complete prohibition, with corresponding compliance requirements and penalties for U.S. financial institutions.

While targeting a legitimate security threat, this regulation imposes significant indirect costs on the financial system and economy. It forces U.S. banks to act as enforcement agents for foreign policy, increasing compliance burdens that are passed to consumers. The secondary sanctions disrupt global correspondent banking relationships, potentially reducing financial access for legitimate businesses and countries. The broad discretionary authority to determine 'significant' transactions and 'knowing' facilitation creates regulatory uncertainty. The hidden costs of financial fragmentation, reduced international capital flows, and deterrence of legitimate banking relationships far exceed any marginal security benefit that could be achieved through targeted intelligence and law enforcement operations without regime-changing private banking decisions.

This Secret Service regulation governs security clearance determinations for White House press pass applicants, establishing that decisions must be based solely on whether an applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President or his family. It provides detailed due process procedures including written notification of proposed denials, a 30-day response period (extendable), right to personal appearance with counsel before the Assistant Director—Protective Operations, and final written decision by registered mail.

The regulation serves a legitimate, narrow federal function—protecting the President—while constraining agency discretion to physical danger only. Its robust due process safeguards prevent arbitrary or politicized denials. The regulatory burden is negligible, affecting only the tiny number of journalists seeking White House access. Repeal would likely lead to less consistent, more subjective decision-making that could undermine both security and press freedom, with no offsetting reduction in regulatory burden for ordinary Americans.

Authorizes use of savings bond illustrations for publicity campaigns and broadly prohibits any reproduction of the bonds, except as authorized or under 18 U.S.C. 504.

The blanket prohibition chills legitimate speech, educational use, and artistic expression, imposing unnecessary compliance costs and being redundant with existing anti-counterfeiting laws. The unseen cost is suppression of non-fraudulent reproductions that pose no harm.