Browse regulations

Implements whistleblower protection procedures for food industry employees who report violations of federal food safety laws. Establishes complaint process with OSHA, investigation standards requiring prima facie showing, preliminary reinstatement orders, ALJ de novo hearings, ARB review, and remedies including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages.

Maintaining this regulation imposes significant compliance costs on food businesses, particularly small firms, through mandatory OSHA investigations, preliminary reinstatement orders, back pay awards, and attorney fees. The administrative process creates moral hazard, encouraging frivolous claims that waste resources and chill legitimate employment decisions. Unseen costs include the erosion of at-will employment principles and the distortion of labor market incentives, as employers become risk-averse in hiring and supervision to avoid retaliation claims. These burdens on free enterprise outweigh any marginal benefit given that whistleblower protections are already available through state laws and federal courts.

Establishes procedures for Seaman's Protection Act whistleblower complaints filed with OSHA. Protects maritime workers from retaliation for reporting safety violations, refusing unsafe work, or cooperating with investigations. Provides administrative process with prima facie burden-shifting, preliminary reinstatement, and remedies including back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages up to $250,000.

Federal intervention in employment relationships violates Tenth Amendment federalism; maritime retaliation claims belong in state courts under common law or state whistleblower statutes. Compliance costs burden small vessel operators disproportionately, chilling legitimate discipline and raising barriers to entry. Market forces and Coast Guard direct inspections already provide adequate safety oversight without creating a parallel bureaucratic enforcement regime that distorts employment contracts.

Establishes whistleblower protection procedures for employees in the consumer financial products/services sector who report violations of consumer financial laws. Creates complaint, investigation, and adjudication processes administered by OSHA, with remedies including reinstatement, back pay, and damages.

Federalizes employment law traditionally reserved to states, imposes costly bureaucratic compliance burdens on financial businesses, and creates perverse incentives that distort employment decisions—all while state tort law and private contracts already provide adequate remedies for retaliatory discharge. The marginal benefit of a specialized administrative process does not justify the significant costs and federal overreach.

This regulation implements whistleblower protections under the Affordable Care Act by prohibiting employer retaliation against employees who receive ACA premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions, or who report or oppose violations of Title I of the ACA. It establishes procedures for filing complaints with OSHA, investigations with a prima facie burden standard, preliminary orders, de novo hearings before administrative law judges, and review by the Administrative Review Board, with remedies including reinstatement, back pay with interest, compensatory damages, and attorney fees.

This regulation imposes substantial hidden costs on employers, especially small businesses, through increased legal exposure, compliance burdens, and the risk of frivolous lawsuits. It distorts employment incentives by encouraging retaliation claims for mundane personnel decisions, raises operational costs that are passed to consumers, and expands federal bureaucratic reach into state and private employment relations. The low-barrier filing process and broad protected activity definitions create moral hazard, while the administrative overhead contributes to the $2 trillion annual regulatory burden without effectively balancing the unseen harms to economic freedom and job creation.

Interpretive positions by the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division clarifying enforcement of FLSA exemptions and youth wage provisions. Provides specific thresholds: (1) Up to 20% non-exempt work allowed for certain exemptions; (2) Newspaper employees exempt unless ≥50% time on covered job printing; (3) Youth minimum wage ($4.25 for first 90 days) with anti-displacement requirements; (4) Volunteers at non-profit food banks excluded from 'employee' definition.

These interpretive rules provide essential predictability and certainty for employers and employees regarding enforcement standards. Removing them would plunge compliance into ambiguity, forcing reliance on vague statutory language and increasing litigation risk. The bright-line thresholds (20%, 50%, 90 days) balance administrative feasibility with reasonable boundaries, ensuring consistent application while preserving the flexibility needed for diverse work arrangements. The youth wage and volunteer provisions serve legitimate policy goals—encouraging youth employment and supporting humanitarian volunteering—without imposing disproportionate burdens.

This 1947 Department of Labor policy establishes strict enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage, overtime) and Walsh-Healey Act (labor standards for government contractors), stating all employers subject to these acts must strictly comply, rescinding inconsistent prior guidance, and clarifying that advisory interpretations are non-binding.

Federal labor standards like minimum wage and overtime mandate represent unconstitutional federal overreach into state/police power domain, imposing significant compliance costs that disproportionately harm small businesses and reduce employment opportunities for low-skilled workers. Wage determination belongs in free market; states can tailor labor policies to local conditions. The hidden $14,000/year regulatory burden per household includes these counterproductive mandates that distort incentives, reduce labor demand, and create unemployment - all while federal bureaucrats claim superior knowledge to voluntary market arrangements.

This regulation establishes minimum wage rates for American Samoa across 16 defined industry classifications (including government employees, fish processing, petroleum marketing, shipping, construction, retailing, bottling, printing, publishing, finance, ship maintenance, hotels, travel services, private hospitals/educational institutions, garment manufacturing, and miscellaneous activities). It applies to employees engaged in commerce or production of goods for commerce as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, requiring employers to pay at least the prescribed minimum rate and post required notices.

Minimum wage laws price low-skilled workers out of the labor market, creating unemployment particularly among youth, minorities, and the least productive workers. This regulation violates the principle of voluntary contract by preventing mutually agreeable wage arrangements between employers and employees. The unseen costs include reduced job opportunities, diminished on-the-job training, increased automation, and harm to small businesses that operate on thin margins. In American Samoa's unique economy, federal wage controls disrupt local labor market adjustments and create barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses from competition. The regulation represents unconstitutional federal overreach into territory-specific economic affairs and embodies the 'fatal conceit' that central planners can determine appropriate wage rates better than free individuals negotiating in a voluntary market.

The regulation defines 'talent fees' as extra payments to performers (including announcers) for specific commercial or sustaining programs, and provides rules for when such fees satisfy overtime compensation requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act when work occurs outside regular work schedules.

This regulation imposes unnecessary complexity and compliance costs on broadcasters while intruding into private contractual relationships. It creates a special exemption for a specific industry, distorting the labor market and limiting flexibility in compensation. Performers are typically well-organized through unions and can negotiate their own terms; government micromanagement is not needed. The unseen costs include reduced innovation and administrative burdens that ultimately harm consumers.

This regulation governs procedures for withdrawing or annulling certificates that permit employers to pay subminimum wages to specified worker categories (learners, disabled workers, students, apprentices, messengers) under FLSA Section 14. It defines 'withdrawal' (prospective termination) and 'annulment' (retroactive cancellation), authorizes Wage and Hour Division officials to act for non-compliance, mistake, or changed circumstances, and provides notice-and-conference procedures before final order, with limited administrative review by the Labor Department Administrator.

The certificate regime imposes substantial hidden compliance costs—paperwork, recordkeeping, legal risk—that deter hiring of vulnerable workers, with small businesses bearing disproportionate burden. Federal regulation of purely local employment contracts exceeds constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause, eroding federalism. The 'public interest' withdrawal standard is vague and invites arbitrary enforcement. Rather than protect workers, this two-tier system distorts labor markets and reduces opportunity by inserting government permission into voluntary wage negotiations. The unseen cost is foregone employment for those the program claims to help.

Implements nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements for recipients of WIOA Title I funding and one-stop delivery system partners. Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, political affiliation, citizenship status, or program participation, and requires compliance with ADA and other civil rights laws through uniform enforcement procedures.

Without this regulation, federally funded workforce programs could discriminate against protected groups, denying vulnerable Americans access to job training paid by taxpayers. The uniform framework coordinates with existing civil rights laws—eliminating it would create enforcement gaps, inconsistent standards, and require separate litigation under multiple statutes, making nondiscrimination harder to achieve.

Promotes equal opportunity in registered apprenticeship programs by prohibiting discrimination based on protected characteristics (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, disability) and mandating affirmative actions including outreach, utilization analyses, and demographic goals for underrepresented groups.

The regulation imposes heavy compliance costs and mandates affirmative action, violating individual liberty and equal protection. It deters small businesses from offering apprenticeships, reduces opportunities, and expands federal bureaucracy into a domain better governed by state law and market forces.

Requires federal contractors to provide minimum 56 hours/year paid sick leave (1 hour/30 hours worked). Applies to contracts covered by Service Contract Act, Davis-Bacon Act, or Fair Labor Standards Act. Mandates accrual tracking, certification requirements, and carryover provisions with extensive definitions and enforcement mechanisms.

Imposes hidden tax of $14k+/household via compliance costs; small businesses hit 30% harder per employee. Creates entry barriers protecting incumbents, violates Tenth Amendment by federalizing labor policy, and distorts voluntary employer-employee negotiations, reducing hiring and innovation.

This regulation appoints an Independent Counsel with jurisdiction to investigate potential federal criminal and civil violations related to President Clinton and Hillary Clinton's relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, and Capital Management Services. It also covers obstruction of justice and false testimony related to those investigations, and authorizes prosecution of those found to have committed violations.

This is a specific, time-bound investigative authorization from the Whitewater era with no ongoing applicability. Keeping it as dead letter contributes to regulatory bloat, undermines the knowability principle, and serves no legitimate current function.

This regulation establishes an Independent Counsel with jurisdiction to investigate Franklyn C. Nofziger and Edwin Meese III for potential violations of federal conflict of interest and post-employment restrictions laws (18 U.S.C. 207, 201-211) related to activities in the early 1980s, including dealings with Welbilt/Wedtech Corporation. It grants prosecutorial authority to seek indictments for federal offenses connected to these specific investigations.

This regulation is an obsolete, time-bound investigative authorization targeting specific individuals from the 1980s. The investigation it authorized should have concluded decades ago. It represents exactly the kind of politically-driven, special prosecutor regime that creates uneven justice and massive compliance costs without ongoing public benefit. The Independent Counsel statute itself was allowed to expire in 1999 due to its abuse potential. Retaining this relic in the Code of Federal Regulations adds to regulatory complexity while serving no current legitimate purpose.

This regulation establishes the jurisdiction and authority of the Independent Counsel for the Iran/Contra investigation, granting power to investigate and prosecute federal criminal violations related to arms sales to Iran (circa 1984 onward) and funding of Nicaraguan Contras, along with any connected allegations and obstruction of justice.

This regulation is obsolete—it created a special counsel for a specific historical scandal from the 1980s that concluded decades ago. It serves no current purpose, yet remains on the books contributing to regulatory clutter. Its existence exemplifies the accumulation of dead-letter regulations that obscure the rule of law without advancing any legitimate government interest. Repealing it would simplify the Code of Federal Regulations without any cost to liberty or economic activity.