85–891 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–288 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 2 

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2013 

DECEMBER 11, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, from the Committee on Small Business, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2542] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2542) to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), to ensure complete 

analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill and Summary ............................................................. 9 

III. Need for Legislation .................................................................................... 10 

IV. Hearings ....................................................................................................... 14 

V. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 14 

VI. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 16 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2542 .................................................. 33 

VIII. Congressional Budget Cost Estimate ........................................................ 72 

IX. Unfunded Mandates .................................................................................... 74 

X. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 74 

XI. Oversight Findings ...................................................................................... 76 

XII. Statement of Constitutional Authority ...................................................... 76 

XIII. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 76 

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 77 

XV. Statement of No Earmarks ........................................................................ 77 

XVI. Statement of Duplication of Federal Programs ........................................ 77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

XVII. Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ........................................................ 77 

XVIII. Performance Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 77 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 77 

XX. Dissenting Views ......................................................................................... 95 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Clarification and expansion of rules covered by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Sec. 3. Expansion of report of regulatory agenda. 

Sec. 4. Requirements providing for more detailed analyses. 

Sec. 5. Repeal of waiver and delay authority; additional powers of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

Sec. 6. Procedures for gathering comments. 

Sec. 7. Periodic review of rules. 

Sec. 8. Judicial review of compliance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act available after 

publication of the final rule. 

Sec. 9. Jurisdiction of court of appeals over rules implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Sec. 10. Establishment and approval of small business concern size standards by Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

Sec. 11. Clerical amendments. 

Sec. 12. Agency preparation of guides. 

Sec. 13. GAO report. 

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) RULE.—The term ‘rule’ has the meaning given such term in section 551(4) 

of this title, except that such term does not include a rule pertaining to the protection of the rights of and benefits for veterans or a rule of particular (and not 

general) applicability relating to rates, wages, corporate or financial structures 

or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services, or allowances 

therefor or to valuations, costs or accounting, or practices relating to such rates, 

wages, structures, prices, appliances, services, or allowances.’’. 

(b) INCLUSION OF RULES WITH INDIRECT EFFECTS.—Section 601 of title 5, United 

States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(9) ECONOMIC IMPACT.—The term ‘economic impact’ means, with respect to 

a proposed or final rule— 

‘‘(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such rule; and 

‘‘(B) any indirect economic effect (including compliance costs and effects 

on revenue) on small entities which is reasonably foreseeable and results 

from such rule (without regard to whether small entities will be directly 

regulated by the rule).’’. 

(c) INCLUSION OF RULES WITH BENEFICIAL EFFECTS.— 

(1) INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.—Subsection (c) of section 603 

of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting ‘‘Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a detailed 

description of alternatives to the proposed rule which minimize any adverse significant economic impact or maximize any beneficial significant economic impact 

on small entities.’’. 

(2) FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.—The first paragraph (6) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘minimize the 

significant economic impact’’ and inserting ‘‘minimize the adverse significant 

economic impact or maximize the beneficial significant economic impact’’. 

(d) INCLUSION OF RULES AFFECTING TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS.—Paragraph (5) of 

section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘and tribal organizations (as defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))),’’ after ‘‘special districts,’’. 

(e) INCLUSION OF LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS AND FORMAL RULEMAKING.— 

(1) INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.—Subsection (a) of section 603 

of title 5, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘proposed rule,’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘or publishes a revision or amendment to a land management plan,’’ after ‘‘United States,’’. 

(2) FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.—Subsection (a) of section 604 of 

title 5, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘proposed rulemaking,’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘or adopts a revision or amendment to a land management plan,’’ after ‘‘section 603(a),’’. 

(3) LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN DEFINED.—Section 601 of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(10) LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘land management plan’ means— 

‘‘(i) any plan developed by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 

6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); and 

‘‘(ii) any plan developed by the Secretary of the Interior under section 

202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1712). 

‘‘(B) REVISION.—The term ‘revision’ means any change to a land management plan which— 

‘‘(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph (A)(i), is made 

under section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)); or 

‘‘(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph (A)(ii), is made 

under section 1610.5–6 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

successor regulation). 

‘‘(C) AMENDMENT.—The term ‘amendment’ means any change to a land 

management plan which— 

‘‘(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph (A)(i), is made 

under section 6(f)(4) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(4)) and with respect to which 

the Secretary of Agriculture prepares a statement described in section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)); or 

‘‘(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph (A)(ii), is made 

under section 1610.5–5 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

successor regulation) and with respect to which the Secretary of the Interior prepares a statement described in section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).’’. 

(f) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN INTERPRETIVE RULES INVOLVING THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘or a recordkeeping 

requirement, and without regard to whether such requirement is imposed by 

statute or regulation.’’. 

(2) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—Paragraph (7) of section 601 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(7) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—The term ‘collection of information’ has 

the meaning given such term in section 3502(3) of title 44.’’. 

(3) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT.—Paragraph (8) of section 601 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(8) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT.—The term ‘recordkeeping requirement’ 

has the meaning given such term in section 3502(13) of title 44.’’. 

(g) DEFINITION OF SMALL ORGANIZATION.—Paragraph (4) of section 601 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) SMALL ORGANIZATION.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘small organization’ means any not-for-profit 

enterprise which, as of the issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking— 

‘‘(i) in the case of an enterprise which is described by a classification 

code of the North American Industrial Classification System, does not 

exceed the size standard established by the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business 

Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for small business concerns described by such classification code; and 

‘‘(ii) in the case of any other enterprise, has a net worth that does 

not exceed $7,000,000 and has not more than 500 employees. 

‘‘(B) LOCAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.—In the case of any local labor organization, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without regard to any national 

or international organization of which such local labor organization is a 

part. 

‘‘(C) AGENCY DEFINITIONS.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to 

the extent that an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions for such term which are approVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

priate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definitions in the 

Federal Register.’’. 

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF REPORT OF REGULATORY AGENDA. 

Section 602 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘, and’’ at the end and inserting ‘‘;’’; 

(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and 

(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(3) a brief description of the sector of the North American Industrial Classification System that is primarily affected by any rule which the agency expects 

to propose or promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities; and’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c), to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) Each agency shall prominently display a plain language summary of the information contained in the regulatory flexibility agenda published under subsection (a) 

on its website within 3 days of its publication in the Federal Register. The Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall compile and prominently 

display a plain language summary of the regulatory agendas referenced in subsection (a) for each agency on its website within 3 days of their publication in the 

Federal Register.’’. 

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES. 

(a) INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.—Subsection (b) of section 603 of 

title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required under this section shall 

contain a detailed statement— 

‘‘(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; 

‘‘(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; 

‘‘(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

‘‘(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small 

entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the report and record; 

‘‘(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule, or the reasons why such a description could not 

be provided; 

‘‘(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities beyond that already imposed on the class of small entities 

by the agency or why such an estimate is not available; and 

‘‘(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a 

specific class of small entities.’’. 

(b) FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 604(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘an explanation’’ and inserting ‘‘a detailed explanation’’; 

(B) in each of paragraphs (4), (5), and the first paragraph (6), by inserting 

‘‘detailed’’ before ‘‘description’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on small entities or a 

specific class of small entities.’’. 

(2) INCLUSION OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSED

RULE.—Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(or certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b))’’ after 

‘‘initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’. 

(3) PUBLICATION OF ANALYSIS ON WEBSITE.—Subsection (b) of section 604 of 

title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis available to the public, including placement of the entire analysis on the agency’s 

website, and shall publish in the Federal Register the final regulatory flexibility 

analysis, or a summary thereof which includes the telephone number, mailing address, and link to the website where the complete analysis may be obtained.’’. 

(c) CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER ANALYSES.—Subsection (a) of section 605 of title 

5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(a) A Federal agency shall be treated as satisfying any requirement regarding the 

content of an agenda or regulatory flexibility analysis under section 602, 603, or 

604, if such agency provides in such agenda or analysis a cross-reference to the specific portion of another agenda or analysis which is required by any other law and 

which satisfies such requirement.’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

(d) CERTIFICATIONS.—Subsection (b) of section 605 of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘detailed’’ before ‘‘statement’’ the first place it appears; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘and legal’’ after ‘‘factual’’. 

(e) QUANTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.—Section 607 of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘§ 607. Quantification requirements 

‘‘In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall provide— 

‘‘(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of the proposed or 

final rule and alternatives to the proposed or final rule; or 

‘‘(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed statement explaining 

why quantification is not practicable or reliable.’’. 

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF WAIVER AND DELAY AUTHORITY; ADDITIONAL POWERS OF THE CHIEF 

COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 608 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘§ 608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

‘‘(a)(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration shall, after opportunity for notice and comment under section 553, issue rules governing agency compliance with this chapter. The Chief 

Counsel may modify or amend such rules after notice and comment under section 

553. This chapter (other than this subsection) shall not apply with respect to the 

issuance, modification, and amendment of rules under this paragraph. 

‘‘(2) An agency shall not issue rules which supplement the rules issued under subsection (a) unless such agency has first consulted with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to ensure that such supplemental rules comply with this chapter and the rules 

issued under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration may intervene in any agency adjudication (unless such 

agency is authorized to impose a fine or penalty under such adjudication), and may 

inform the agency of the impact that any decision on the record may have on small 

entities. The Chief Counsel shall not initiate an appeal with respect to any adjudication in which the Chief Counsel intervenes under this subsection. 

‘‘(c) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy may file comments in response to any agency 

notice requesting comment, regardless of whether the agency is required to file a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) Section 611(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘608(b),’’. 

(2) Section 611(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘608(b),’’. 

(3) Section 611(a)(3) of such title is amended— 

(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(3)(A) A small entity’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(3) A small entity’’. 

SEC. 6. PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING COMMENTS. 

Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) 

and all that follows through the end of the section and inserting the following: 

‘‘(b)(1) Prior to publication of any proposed rule described in subsection (e), an 

agency making such rule shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration and provide the Chief Counsel with— 

‘‘(A) all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in making the proposed 

rule, including the draft of the proposed rule; and 

‘‘(B) information on the potential adverse and beneficial economic impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities and the type of small entities that might 

be affected. 

‘‘(2) An agency shall not be required under paragraph (1) to provide the exact language of any draft if the rule— 

‘‘(A) relates to the internal revenue laws of the United States; or 

‘‘(B) is proposed by an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section 

3502(5) of title 44). 

‘‘(c) Not later than 15 days after the receipt of such materials and information 

under subsection (b), the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall— 

‘‘(1) identify small entities or representatives of small entities or a combination of both for the purpose of obtaining advice, input, and recommendations 

from those persons about the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule 

and the compliance of the agency with section 603; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

‘‘(2) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, an employee from the agency making the rule, and in the case of an agency other than an independent regulatory 

agency (as defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), an employee from the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget 

to review the materials and information provided to the Chief Counsel under 

subsection (b). 

‘‘(d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the review panel described in subsection (c)(2) 

is convened, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 

shall, after consultation with the members of such panel, submit a report to the 

agency and, in the case of an agency other than an independent regulatory agency 

(as defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. 

‘‘(2) Such report shall include an assessment of the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, including an assessment of the proposed rule’s impact 

on the cost that small entities pay for energy, an assessment of the proposed rule’s 

impact on start-up costs for small entities, and a discussion of any alternatives that 

will minimize adverse significant economic impacts or maximize beneficial significant economic impacts on small entities. 

‘‘(3) Such report shall become part of the rulemaking record. In the publication 

of the proposed rule, the agency shall explain what actions, if any, the agency took 

in response to such report. 

‘‘(e) A proposed rule is described by this subsection if the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, 

the head of the agency (or the delegatee of the head of the agency), or an independent regulatory agency determines that the proposed rule is likely to result in— ‘‘(1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; 

‘‘(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local governments, tribal organizations, or geographic regions; 

‘‘(3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or 

‘‘(4) a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘(f) Upon application by the agency, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration may waive the requirements of subsections (b) through (e) 

if the Chief Counsel determines that compliance with the requirements of such subsections are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 

‘‘(g) A small entity or a representative of a small entity may submit a request that 

the agency provide a copy of the report prepared under subsection (d) and all materials and information provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration under subsection (b). The agency receiving such request shall 

provide the report, materials and information to the requesting small entity or representative of a small entity not later than 10 business days after receiving such 

request, except that the agency shall not disclose any information that is prohibited 

from disclosure to the public pursuant to section 552(b) of this title.’’. 

SEC. 7. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES. 

Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘§ 610. Periodic review of rules 

‘‘(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register and place 

on its website a plan for the periodic review of rules issued by the agency which 

the head of the agency determines have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Such determination shall be made without regard to 

whether the agency performed an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the 

review shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without 

change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes, to minimize any adverse significant economic impacts or maximize any beneficial significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small 

entities. Such plan may be amended by the agency at any time by publishing the 

revision in the Federal Register and subsequently placing the amended plan on the 

agency’s website. 

‘‘(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such agency rules existing on the 

date of the enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013 within 

10 years of the date of publication of the plan in the Federal Register and for review 

of rules adopted after the date of enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013 within 10 years after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. If the head of the agency determines that completion of the review 

of existing rules is not feasible by the established date, the head of the agency shall 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

so certify in a statement published in the Federal Register and may extend the review for not longer than 2 years after publication of notice of extension in the Federal Register. Such certification and notice shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and the Congress. 

‘‘(c) The plan shall include a section that details how an agency will conduct outreach to and meaningfully include small businesses (including small business concerns owned and controlled by women, small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially 

and economically disadvantaged individuals (as such terms are defined in the Small 

Business Act)) for the purposes of carrying out this section. The agency shall include 

in this section a plan for how the agency will contact small businesses and gather 

their input on existing agency rules. 

‘‘(d) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding the results of its review 

pursuant to such plan to the Congress, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and, in the case of agencies other than independent regulatory agencies (as defined in section 3502(5) of title 44) to the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. Such report shall include the identification of any rule with respect to which the 

head of the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or (6) of subsection (e) and a detailed explanation of the reasons for such determination. 

‘‘(e) In reviewing a rule pursuant to subsections (a) through (d), the agency shall 

amend or rescind the rule to minimize any adverse significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities or disproportionate economic impact on a specific class of small entities, or maximize any beneficial significant economic impact 

of the rule on a substantial number of small entities to the greatest extent possible, 

consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. In amending or rescinding the rule, the agency shall consider the following factors: 

‘‘(1) The continued need for the rule. 

‘‘(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from small entities concerning the rule. 

‘‘(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 

‘‘(4) The complexity of the rule. 

‘‘(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other 

Federal rules and, unless the head of the agency determines it to be infeasible, 

State, territorial, and local rules. 

‘‘(6) The contribution of the rule to the cumulative economic impact of all Federal rules on the class of small entities affected by the rule, unless the head 

of the agency determines that such calculations cannot be made and reports 

that determination in the annual report required under subsection (d). 

‘‘(7) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to 

which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the 

area affected by the rule. 

‘‘(f) The agency shall publish in the Federal Register and on its website a list of 

rules to be reviewed pursuant to such plan. The agency shall include in the publication a solicitation of public comments on any further inclusions or exclusions of 

rules from the list, and shall respond to such comments. Such publication shall include a brief description of the rule, the reason why the agency determined that it 

has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (without 

regard to whether it had prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule), 

and request comments from the public, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman concerning 

the enforcement of the rule.’’. 

SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATORY 

FLEXIBILITY ACT AVAILABLE AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 611(a) of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended by striking ‘‘final agency action’’ and inserting ‘‘such rule’’. 

(b) JURISDICTION.—Paragraph (2) of such section is amended by inserting ‘‘(or 

which would have such jurisdiction if publication of the final rule constituted final 

agency action)’’ after ‘‘provision of law,’’. 

(c) TIME FOR BRINGING ACTION.—Paragraph (3) of such section is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘final agency action’’ and inserting ‘‘publication of the final 

rule’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘, in the case of a rule for which the date of final agency action is the same date as the publication of the final rule,’’ after ‘‘except that’’. 

(d) INTERVENTION BY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.—Subsection (b) of section 

612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the first period 

‘‘or agency compliance with section 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, or 610’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

SEC. 9. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS OVER RULES IMPLEMENTING THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2342 of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(8) all final rules under section 608(a) of title 5.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Paragraph (3) of section 2341 of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(F) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, when 

the final rule is under section 608(a) of title 5.’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENT ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE WITH

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.—Subsection (b) of section 612 of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘chapter 5, and chapter 7,’’ after ‘‘this chapter,’’. 

SEC. 10. ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN SIZE STANDARDS 

BY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the criteria specified in paragraph (1)— 

‘‘(i) the Administrator may specify detailed definitions or standards 

by which a business concern may be determined to be a small business 

concern for purposes of this Act or the Small Business Investment Act 

of 1958; and 

‘‘(ii) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy may specify such definitions or 

standards for purposes of any other Act.’’. 

(b) APPROVAL BY CHIEF COUNSEL.—Clause (iii) of section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small 

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(C)(iii)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(iii) except in the case of a size standard prescribed by the Administrator, is approved by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy.’’. 

(c) INDUSTRY VARIATION.—Paragraph (3) of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3)) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘or Chief Counsel for Advocacy, as appropriate’’ before ‘‘shall 

ensure’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘or Chief Counsel for Advocacy’’ before the period at the end. 

(d) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SIZE STANDARDS APPROVED BY CHIEF COUNSEL.—Section 

3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(9) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STANDARDS APPROVED BY CHIEF COUNSEL.—In the 

case of an action for judicial review of a rule which includes a definition or 

standard approved by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy under this subsection, the 

party seeking such review shall be entitled to join the Chief Counsel as a party 

in such action.’’. 

SEC. 11. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(1) the term’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) AGENCY.—The term’’; 

(2) in paragraph (3)— 

(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(3) the term’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(3) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term’’; 

(3) in paragraph (5)— 

(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(5) the term’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(5) SMALL GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION.—The term’’; and 

(4) in paragraph (6)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a period; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(6) the term’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(6) SMALL ENTITY.—The term’’. 

(b) INCORPORATIONS BY REFERENCE AND CERTIFICATIONS.—The heading of section 

605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

1Pub. L. No. 94–305 created the Office of Advocacy within the United States Small Business 

Administration and vested management in a Chief Counsel. The RFA assigned monitoring functions to the Chief Counsel. Therefore, this report uses the terms Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

and Office of Advocacy interchangeably. 

‘‘§ 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications’’. 

(c) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for chapter 6 of title 5, United 

States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking the item relating to section 605 and inserting the following 

new item: 

‘‘605. Incorporations by reference and certifications.’’; 

(2) by striking the item relating to section 607 and inserting the following 

new item: 

‘‘607. Quantification requirements.’’; 

and 

(3) by striking the item relating to section 608 and inserting the following: 

‘‘608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy.’’. 

(d) OTHER CLERICAL ADENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 6.—Chapter 6 of title 5, United 

States Code, is amended as follows: 

(1) In section 603, by striking subsection (d). 

(2) In section 604(a) by striking the second paragraph (6). 

SEC. 12. AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES. 

Section 212(a)(5) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(5) AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.—The agency shall, in its sole discretion, 

taking into account the subject matter of the rule and the language of relevant 

statutes, ensure that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies may prepare separate 

guides covering groups or classes of similarly affected small entities and may 

cooperate with associations of small entities to distribute such guides. In developing guides, agencies shall solicit input from affected small entities or associations of affected small entities. An agency may prepare guides and apply this 

section with respect to a rule or a group of related rules.’’. 

SEC. 13. GAO REPORT. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

General of the United States shall complete and publish a study that examines 

whether the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has 

the capacity and resources to carry out the duties of the Chief Counsel under this 

Act and the amendments made by this Act. 

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 2542, the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013,’’ is to amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) by eliminating interpretive lacunae that agencies have used 

to avoid compliance with the Act. The RFA was enacted in 1980 to 

ensure that federal agencies take into account the disparate impact 

that regulations have on small businesses and other small entities. 

Agencies regularly flouted the requirements of the RFA forcing 

Congress to take action in 1996 with the enactment of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

SBREFA made some significant changes to the RFA with the expectation that it would improve agency compliance. Studies by the 

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports 

from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,1 and Congressional hearings 

held by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 

Small Business demonstrates that agencies are still reluctant to 

comply with the analytical requirements of the RFA. Further action is evidently needed to force agency compliance. 

The bill defines and expands which economic effects are to be examined by agencies, imposes greater detail in performing the analVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

2The finding on disproportionate impact was substantiated by an Office of Advocacy study in 

1984 which found concrete economic evidence of differential impacts of regulation by firm size. 

That conclusion was affirmed anew in a 2001 economic research study sponsored by the Office 

of Advocacy. W. CRAIN & T. HOPKINS, THE IMPACT OF REGULATORY COSTS ON SMALL BUSINESS

(Oct. 2001). The full report can be found at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs207tot.pdf. 

yses, clarifies language concerning applicability of the RFA to the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), subjects all agencies, including the 

IRS, to the procedures in § 609 on the SBREFA panel process, 

eliminates barriers to judicial review of RFA compliance for agencies that have a statutory exhaustion requirement after a final rule 

is published before the rule can be challenged in court, mandates 

that the Chief Counsel promulgate RFA compliance regulations applicable to all federal agencies, and transfers the limited function 

on determining size standards of small businesses for purposes 

other than the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

III. NEED FOR LEGISLATION

During the 1970s, Congress enacted numerous regulatory statutes. By the end of that decade, businesses, especially small ones, 

were groaning under the weight of federal regulation. Regulatory 

requirements were stifling innovation, limiting small business 

growth, and contributing to the general malaise experienced during 

the latter half of that decade. The Federal Register, the compendium of federal regulatory actions, had grown from a non-weighty 

publication for the obscuranta and arcana of the federal government to a 42,000 page blueprint for regulating many of the aspects 

of modern American life. Small businesses found this crush of federal dictates particularly problematic because those businesses had 

greater difficulty in complying with regulations than their larger 

competitors. 

In a series of hearings during the late 1970s, Congress began focusing on the ever-growing burden federal regulation imposed upon 

small businesses. Small businesses reiterated two major themes: 

(1) they were under-represented in federal regulatory proceedings; 

and (2) federal agency efforts to impose a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ body of 

regulation imposed disproportionate burdens on small businesses.2

These findings were supported and reinforced during the 1980 

White House Conference on Small Business. Congress reacted with 

the passage of the RFA. That Act constitutes an additional component of a significantly broader mechanism to control agency decisionmaking—the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA 

prevents an agency from taking actions which are ‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with 

the law.’’ 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This standard presumes that an 

agency will undertake rational rulemaking to: (1) ascertain the 

problem to be solved through regulation; (2) develop potential solutions; (3) seek public comment on proposed solutions and alternatives not considered by the agency; and (4) craft a final rule that 

addresses all relevant criteria. Since the vast majority of entities 

(businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and governmental jurisdictions) regulated by the federal government are small, a rational 

rule should be one that achieves the objectives of the agency without unduly burdening small entities. The RFA, by focusing the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

3The term ‘‘collection of information’’ is a term of art used in the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3502(3). 4The RFA only requires agency compliance if the regulation is required to be issued pursuant 

to notice and comment pursuant to 553 of the APA or some other statute. Interpretative regulations are exempt from the notice and comment requirements. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 5 In fact some would argue that the notice and comment period was not a critical component 

of rational rulemaking but the keystone of ‘‘rationale rulemaking’’ in which the agency uses the 

public comment process to find further support for the foregone conclusion of its proposed regulation. 6Since the changes to the RFA went into effect in late June of 1996 through 2006, a Lexis 

search reveals somewhere around 110 reported cases involving the RFA. By contrast, during the 

first ten years after the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), there were 

770 reported cases involving that statute. Neither count accurately reflects the true number of 

cases filed because reported cases may involve appeals and there may be multiple reported cases 

involving the same litigation. In other instances, cases that were filed during the respective time 

periods may not have been resolved. Finally, this only represents reported cases and not those 

that were filed but settled or were disposed of without a reported decision. Nevertheless, the 

magnitude of litigation under the RFA was significantly less than under NEPA. 

agency’s analysis on the economic effects on small entities, will 

help the agency promulgate rational rules. 

From the time of enactment until 1996, compliance with the RFA 

was at best sporadic. Agencies faced little threat from non-compliance since judicial review of regulatory flexibility analyses was 

very limited, see Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 405 (D.C. Cir. 

1984), and an agency’s certification decision could not be challenged 

in court. See Colorado State Banking Bd. v. RTC, 926 F.2d 931, 

948 (10th Cir. 1991); Lehigh Valley Farmers v. Block, 640 F. Supp. 

1497, 1520 (E.D. Pa. 1986), aff’d on other grounds, 829 F.2d 409 

(3d Cir. 1987) (district court determination on RFA not raised on 

appeal). Without the ability of court orders, agencies only had to 

comply when it would benefit their rulemaking or could be cajoled 

by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy or the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Both the Committee on Small Business 

and the Committee on the Judiciary held hearings at which witnesses confirmed the systemic failure by many agencies to comply 

with the RFA. 

Congress responded to this collective disregard by federal agencies with the enactment of SBREFA. The primary change authorized direct judicial review of agency compliance with the RFA, including challenges to agency certifications. SBREFA also mandated 

that Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service) interpretative regulations that impose a ‘‘collection of information requirement’’ 3 be 

subject to the strictures of the RFA.4 The legislation also recognized that, by the time a proposed rule is published for notice and 

comment, the agency has substantial intellectual capital invested 

in the scope of the proposed rule and is unlikely to change the core 

of its proposal during the notice and comment period.5 Therefore, 

SBREFA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to obtain input from representatives of small entities prior to the publication of any proposed rule that would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities, i.e., any proposed 

rule for which an initial regulatory flexibility analysis would be 

prepared. 

The changes wrought by SBREFA had some effect on agency 

compliance. Lawsuits were filed against agencies, although not to 

the extent feared by critics of judicial review.6 Due to the litigation, 

agencies have come to realize that certifications need to be supported by sound economic analysis or face successful challenges to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

7There are insufficient circumstances to assess the results of this so-called ‘‘panel process’’ on 

OSHA regulations. 8Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation, 76 Fed. Reg. 3,827, 3,827 (Jan. 21, 2011). 9 Id. at 3,828. 10Since the Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 

(1935), independent collegial body agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission 

or Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are not subject to control by the White House or subject 

to presidential executive orders. 11 76 Fed. Reg. 3,821 (Jan. 21, 2011), reprinted at 3 C.F.R. 215 (2011). In 2012, President 

Obama supplemented E.O. 13,563 by issuing E.O. 13,610, which emphasized the importance of 

public participation in the periodic review process, provided guidance on prioritization of reviews, and set a schedule for agencies to report on their review efforts. 77 Fed. Reg. 28,469 (May 

14, 2012), reprinted at 3 C.F.R. 258 (2012). 

compliance with the RFA. Input by small entities has generated 

ideas that improved EPA regulations.7 Despite these ameliorative 

effects of SBREFA, much still needs to be done to ensure that 

agencies comply with the RFA. 

Despite SBREFA and litigation, agencies continued to ignore the 

law. President Bush recognized the importance of the RFA and 

sought to impose greater compliance by the agencies. In a March 

19, 2002 speech, President Bush stated: 

Every agency is required to analyze the impact of new 

regulations on small businesses before issuing them. That 

is an important law. The problem is it is often being ignored. The law is on the books; the regulators do not care 

that the law is on the books. From this day forward they 

will care that the law is on the books. We want to enforce 

the law. 

Subsequent to that speech, the President issued Executive Order 

(E.O.) 13,272, 67 Fed. Reg. 53,462 (Aug. 16, 2002). The order required agencies to adopt standards for complying with the RFA, 

make those standards known to the public, and give the Office of 

Advocacy the opportunity to comment on proposed rules that will 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities prior to publication in the Federal Register. While 

that Executive Order represents a step in the direction of ensuring 

the pellucidity of agency procedures to comply with the RFA, it 

does not close the loopholes that currently exist in the Act or prevent agencies from adopting crabbed interpretations of the RFA 

that enable the agencies to elide the analytical responsibilities imposed by Congress more than 30 years ago. 

President Obama also recognized the importance of the RFA. In 

a memorandum to the Executive Branch on January 18, 2011, the 

President noted that the RFA ‘‘establishes a deep national commitment to achieving statutory goals without imposing unnecessary 

burdens on the public.’’ 8 The President went on to direct agencies 

to ‘‘give serious consideration to whether and how it is appropriate 

... to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses, through increased flexibility.’’ 9 In the memorandum, the President requested 

(but could not mandate) independent agencies to comply with its 

terms.10

Coetaneous with the release of the memorandum on the RFA, 

President Obama issued E.O. 13,563.11 While the putative purpose 

of the Order was to clarify the regulatory analytical requirements 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

12 Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires federal agencies to per- form a cost-benefit analysis for any regulation that will have an impact of more than $100 million on the economy. 13 Exec. Order No. 13,563, § 6, 75 Fed. Reg. at 3,822. 14SBREFA also requires federal agencies to prepare compliance guides for regulations that 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 15See REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: CONGRESS SHOULD REVISIT AND CLARIFY ELEMENTS OF

THE ACT TO IMPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS (2006) (GAO 06–998T); REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: CLARIFICATION OF KEY TERMS STILL NEEDED (2002) (GAO–02–491T); REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

ACT: KEY TERMS STILL NEED TO BE CLARIFIED (2001) (GAO–01–669T); REGULATORY FLEXI- BILITY ACT: IMPLEMENTATION IN EPA PROGRAM OFFICES AND PROPOSED LEAD RULE (2000) 

(GGD–00–193); REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: AGENCIES’ INTERPRETATIONS OF REVIEW RE- QUIREMENTS VARY (1999) (GGD–99–55); REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PANEL REQUIREMENTS (1998) (TGGD–98–75); REGULATORY

FLEXIBILITY ACT: AGENCIES’ USE OF THE OCTOBER 1997 UNIFIED AGENDA OFTEN DID NOT SAT- ISFY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (1998) (GGD–98–61R); REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: AGENCY USE OF THE NOVEMBER 1996 UNIFIED AGENDA DID NOT SATISFY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (1997) (GGD/OGC–97–77R); REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: STATUS OF AGENCIES’ COMPLIANCE (1995) (T–GGD–95–112). 

set forth in E.O. 12,866,12 § 6 of E.O. 13,563 required agencies to 

prepare plans for periodic review of regulations, including all extant regulations.13 Of course, there already is an existing requirement for periodic review of regulations, § 610 of the RFA. 

Two presidents, in succession, ordered federal agencies to follow 

the RFA, a law that has been in existence for over 30 years. Every 

President from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama has mandated a 

comprehensive review of existing agency regulations despite the 

fact that the RFA has required such reviews since its enactment 

in 1980. Given the fact that presidents must reiterate what is already in the law to agencies over which they have plenary authority starkly demonstrates the need for revision to the RFA. Furthermore, presidential reminders, through memoranda or executive orders, may be ignored with impunity by independent regulatory 

agencies since presidents are unable to exert regulatory authority 

over such agencies. 

The conclusion that the RFA must be amended despite efforts of 

five presidents is buttressed by the findings of the GAO. GAO has 

done numerous studies on agency compliance with various aspects 

of the RFA and SBREFA.14 According to GAO, the most significant 

stumbling block to improved compliance is the lack of definitions 

for ‘‘significant economic impact’’ and ‘‘substantial number of small 

entities.’’ GAO also notes that this threshold determination of 

whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is critical to compliance with 

other requirements in the RFA, including periodic review of rules 

under § 610 and the receipt of small entity input prior to the publication of proposed rules by EPA and OSHA.15

Testimony at hearings held by the Committee on Small Business 

during the 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, 112th and 113th 

Congresses further supports the need for change. Hearings before 

the Committee found that considerable confusion still reigns on 

when agencies need to conduct regulatory flexibility analyses. Witnesses testified that agencies still finds ways to avoid compliance 

with the RFA, even after the enactment of SBREFA and various 

presidential directives to comply. Finally, the testimony was 

consentient in finding that agencies continue to impose unnecessary burdens on small businesses as a result of their failure to 

comply with the RFA. 

Nor have the courts been the anodyne that the authors of 

SBREFA contemplated. Courts have not given agency compliance 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

16 H.R. Rep. No. 112–89, pt. 2, at 13–14 (2011); H.R. Rep. No. 112–288, at 2 (2011), respectively. 

with the RFA the same searching scrutiny that they have given to 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

even though the authors of SBREFA expected judicial review to 

have the same impact on agency decisionmaking that court decisions had on agency compliance with NEPA. See Associated Fisheries of Maine v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104, 114 (1st Cir. 1997). 

Neither the actions of successive presidents, nor the courts, nor 

congressional oversight have tempered the broad discretion that 

agencies have in implementing the RFA. This broad discretion enables them to avoid compliance with the RFA’s underlying analytical requirements. In order to constrain this discretion and ensure 

proper consideration is given to the impact that regulatory actions 

will have on small entities, particularly small businesses, it is necessary to make further amendments to the RFA as set forth in 

H.R. 2542 which are set forth in the next section of this report. 

IV. HEARINGS

H.R. 2542 is, with one significant exception, identical to the bill 

that passed the House by a vote of 263 to 159. The one addition 

is the inclusion of H.R. 585 which was reported out of the Committee by a vote of 13 to 8. As a result, the findings of the Committee in the previous Congress for H.R. 527 and H.R. 585 that address the matters set forth in H.R. 2542 are incorporated herein by 

reference.16 The findings of the previous Congress were confirmed 

anew in a hearing by the Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations entitled ‘‘Regulating the Regulators Reducing Burdens on Small Business’’ on March 14, 2013. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Small Business met in open session, with a 

quorum being present, on September 18, 2013 and ordered H.R. 

2542 reported, as amended, to the House by a voice vote at 3:22 

p.m. During the markup, 19 amendments were offered. Seven 

amendments were adopted and 12 were rejected. Disposition of the 

amendments is addressed below. 

Amendment Number One filed by Mr. Huelskamp (R–KS) requires the agencies to provide to small entities, upon their request, 

panel reports and materials and information provided to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy within 10 business days of the request. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote at 2:06 p.m. 

Amendment Number Two filed by Ms. Meng (D-NY) and Mr. 

Barber (D–AZ) would allow an agency to avoid compliance with the 

RFA, as amended by H.R. 2542, by certifying that compliance will 

delay implementation of a rule and increase the likelihood that 

children will be harmed. The amendment was not agreed to on a 

recorded vote of 11 yeas and 12 noes at 3:07 p.m. 

Amendment Number Three filed by Ms. Meng (D–NY) would require that initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses include a 

description and estimate of the benefits of the proposed rule to 

small entities. The amendment was not agreed to on a recorded 

vote of 10 yeas and 13 noes at 3:11 p.m. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Amendment Number Four filed by Ms. Meng (D–NY) would require each agency to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule and 

if they exceed the regulation’s costs then the agency does not have 

to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review panel. The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote at 2:16 p.m. 

Amendment Number Five filed by Mr. Barber (D–AZ) requires 

that an agency conduct outreach to and meaningfully include 

women, veteran and socially and economically disadvantaged small 

businesses in their plan to gather input on existing agency rules. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote at 2:18 p.m. 

Amendment Number Six filed by Mr. Barber (D–AZ) requires 

that an assessment of the economic impact of the proposed rule on 

small entities in a panel report includes an assessment of the proposed rule’s impact on startup costs for small entities. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote at 2:20 p.m. 

Amendment Number Seven by Ms. Hahn (D–CA) would require 

that a panel include at least one small entity or their representative that shall benefit from or whose health or safety would be protected by the proposed rule. The amendment was not agreed to by 

voice vote at 2:23 p.m. 

Amendment Number Eight by Ms. Chu (D–CA) would allow an 

agency to elect not to comply with the RFA, as amended by H.R. 

2542, by certifying that compliance with the terms of H.R. 2542 

would significantly inhibit the ability of the agency to carry out its 

statutory duties. The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote 

at 2:25 p.m. 

Amendment Number Nine by Ms. Chu (D–CA) would require the 

Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to convene a small business panel on potential regulations that may be promulgated to implement a trade agreement when Congress approves a trade agreement. The amendment was not agreed to on a recorded vote of 9 

yeas and 14 noes at 3:13 p.m. 

Amendment Number 10 by Mr. Tipton (R–CO) allows small entities to provide input on the list of rules an agency plans to review 

by requiring agencies to solicit public comment on the list of rules 

when it is published in the Federal Register and on the agency’s 

website. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote at 2:35 p.m. 

Amendment Number 11 by Mr. Schrader (D–OR) would strike 

section 10 of H.R. 2542 which provides authority to the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy to determine size standards 

for purposes other than the Small Business Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. The amendment was not agreed to on 

a recorded vote of 11 yeas and 13 noes at 3:15 p.m. 

Amendment Number 12 by Ms. Clarke (D–NY) would allow an 

agency not to comply with the RFA, as amended by H.R. 2542, with 

regard to a rule related to terrorism or disaster preparedness or response. The amendment was not agreed to on a recorded vote of 

11 yeas and 13 noes at 3:17 p.m. 

Amendment Number 13 by Ms. Clarke (D–NY) requires a GAO 

study no later than 90 days after the enactment of H.R. 2542 that 

examines whether the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy has 

the capacity and resources to carry out its duties under H.R. 2542. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote at 2:47 p.m. 

Amendment Number 14 by Ms. Clarke (D–NY) would strike section 2(b) of H.R. 2542 which defines economic impact as including 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

both direct economic effects and indirect economic effects that are 

reasonably foreseeable and result from the rule. The amendment 

was not agreed to by voice vote at 2:50 p.m. 

Amendment Number 15 by Mr. Murphy (D–FL) and Mr. Barber 

(D–AZ) exempts rules that protect the rights of and benefits for 

veterans from the definition of ‘‘rule’’ in H.R. 2542. The amendment 

was agreed to by voice vote at 2:53 p.m. 

Amendment Number 16 by Mr. Murphy (D–FL) would allow the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy to take on approval of small business 

size standards only if and when the Chief Counsel certifies that he 

or she has the funding and personnel to take on this additional 

duty. The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote at 2:56 p.m. 

Amendment Number 17 by Mr. Schweikert (R–AZ) clarifies that 

indirect economic effects include compliance costs and effects on 

revenue. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote at 2:58 p.m. 

Amendment Number 18 by Mr. Payne (D–NJ) would have made 

the effective date of H.R. 2542 contingent on a certification from 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy that H.R. 2542 will not prevent any 

agency from taking appropriate and timely action. The amendment 

was not agreed to on a recorded vote of 9 yeas and 15 noes at 3:20 

p.m. 

Amendment Number 19 by Ms. Vela ́zquez (D–NY) would have 

required the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to establish a compliance 

schedule setting forth a schedule by which agencies must comply 

with section 6 of H.R. 2542 based on the agency’s budgetary resources. The amendment was not agreed to on a recorded vote of 

11 yeas to 13 noes at 3:22 p.m. 

VI. COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion to report the legislation and amendments thereto. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. HUELSKAMP OF KANSAS

Page 19, insert after ‘‘interest.’’ on line 22 the following: 

‘‘(g) A small entity or a representative of a small entity may submit a request that the agency provide a copy of the report prepared 

under subsection (d) and all materials and information provided to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration under subsection (b). The agency receiving such request shall 

provide the report, materials and information to the requesting 

small entity or representative of a small entity not later than 10 

business days after receiving such request, except that the agency 

shall not disclose any information that is prohibited from disclosure 

to the public pursuant to 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. MENG OF NEW YORK

Page 30, insert after line 14 the following (and conform the table 

of contents accordingly): 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

SEC. 13. CERTIFICATION PERMITTING COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR 

VERSION OF THE LAW. 

If the head of an agency certifies that compliance with the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by this Act would 

cause a delay in the implementation of a rule (or a land management plan) which would result in a significant increase in the likelihood that children would be harmed, then such agency may elect 

to comply with the requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United 

States Code, as in effect on the date prior to the date of enactment 

of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 21 85891P2.001

FULL COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

ROLL CALL 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18,2013 

ROLLCALL: 1 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 2 

VOTE: (A YE) 11 (NO) 12 

MEMBER 

Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR. KING 

MR.COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY 

MR. TIPTON 

MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR. HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO 

MR.COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

MR. SCHNEIDER 

MR. BARBER 

MS. KUSTER 

MR. MURPHY 

TOTALS 

AYE NO PRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

11 12 

I 
19 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. MENG OF NEW YORK

Page 11, line 24, strike ‘‘and’’. 

Page 12, line 3, insert after ‘‘entities.’’ the following: 

‘‘(8) describing and estimating the benefits (including those 

pertaining to health and safety) of the proposed rule to small 

entities.’’. 

Page 12, line 3, strike ‘‘entities.’’ and insert the following: ‘‘entities; and’’. 

Page 12, line 12, strike ‘‘and’’. 

Page 12, insert after line 12 the following (and redesignate provisions accordingly): 

(C) in the first paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

end; 

Page 12, line 16, insert before the period at the end the following: 

‘‘(8) describing and estimating the benefits (including those 

pertaining to health and safety) of the proposed rule to small 

entities.’’. 

Page 12, line 16, strike ‘‘entities.’’ and insert ‘‘entities; and’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 24 85891P2.002

FUll COMMITTEE ON SMAll BUSINESS 

ROll CAll 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18, 2013 

ROLLCALL: 2 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 3 

VOTE: (AYE) 10 (NO) 13 

MEMBER 

Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR. KING 

MR.COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY 

MR. TIPTON 

MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR.HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO 

MR. COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

MR. SCHNEIDER 

I MR. BARBER 

I MS. KUSTER 

i MR. MURPHY 

I 

TOTALS 

AYE NO I PRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

Ix 

x 

x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

I 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

I 

10 113 I 

i 

I 

I 
21 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. MENG OF NEW YORK

Page 16, line 22, strike ‘‘information on’’ and insert the following: 

‘‘an estimate of’’. 

Page 17, line 11, insert before ‘‘shall’’ the following: ‘‘, except as 

provided under subsection (g),’’. 

Page 19, line 22, insert after ‘‘public interest.’’ the following: 

‘‘(g) If the potential beneficial economic impacts (including those 

pertaining to health and safety) estimated under subsection 

(b)(1)(B) exceed the potential adverse economic impacts estimated 

under that subsection, a panel under subsection (c) may not be convened.’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. BARBER OF ARIZONA

Page 21, line 12, insert after ‘‘businesses’’ the following: ‘‘(including small business concerns owned and controlled by women, small 

business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, and small 

business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (as such terms are defined in the 

Small Business Act))’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. BARBER OF ARIZONA

Page 18, line 15, insert after ‘‘energy’’ the following: ‘‘an assessment of the proposed rule’s impact on start-up costs for small entities,’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. HAHN OF CALIFORNIA

Page 17, line 13, insert after ‘‘, including at least one such small 

entity (or their representative) that shall benefit from or whose 

health or safety would be protected by such proposed rule,’’. 

Page 18, line 2, insert before the period at the end the following: 

‘‘, and a small entity or a representative of a small entity (or their 

representative) that shall benefit from or whose health or safety 

would be protected by such proposed rule’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. CHU OF CALIFORNIA

Page 30, insert after line 14 the following (and conform the table 

of contents accordingly): 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

SEC. 13. CERTIFICATION PERMITTING COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR 

VERSION OF THE LAW. 

If the head of an agency certifies that compliance with the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by this Act would 

significantly inhibit the ability of the agency to carry out the statutory duties of the agency, then such agency may elect to comply 

with the requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, 

as in effect on the date prior to the date of enactment of this Act. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. CHU OF CALIFORNIA

Page 19, line 22, insert after ‘‘public interest.’’ the following: 

‘‘(g)(1) If Congress approves a trade agreement under section 

2191 of title 19, United States Code, then the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall— 

‘‘(A) identify small entities or representatives of small entities or a combination of both for the purpose of obtaining advice, input, and recommendations from those persons about the 

potential economic impacts of rules implementing or pertaining 

to such trade agreement; and 

‘‘(B) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, 

an employee from relevant agencies or, if appropriate, an employee from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget to review the advice, 

input, and recommendations provided to the Chief Counsel 

under subparagraph (A). 

‘‘(2) Not later than 60 days after the review panel described in 

paragraph (1) is convened, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration shall, after consultation with the 

members of such panel, submit a report to Congress. Such report 

shall include an assessment of the economic impact of rules implementing or pertaining to the trade agreement on small entities and 

a discussion of any alternatives that will minimize significant adverse economic impacts or maximize significant beneficial economic 

impacts on small entities.’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 32 85891P2.003

FUll COMMITTEE ON SMAll BUSINESS 

ROll CAll 

I 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18, 2013 

ROLL CALL: 3 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 9 

VOTE: (AYE) 9 (NO) 14 

MEMBER 

Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR. KING 

MR.COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY 

MR. TIPTON 

MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR.HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO 

MR.COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

I MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

MR. SCHNEIDER 

MR. BARBER 

MS. KUSTER 

I MR. MURPHY 

i TOTALS 

AYE NO PRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

I X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

I 

i 

9 14 
24 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. TIPTON OF COLORADO

Page 23, line 11, insert after ‘‘plan.’’ the following: ‘‘The agency 

shall include in the publication a solicitation of public comments on 

any further inclusions or exclusions of rules from the list, and shall 

respond to such comments.’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. SCHRADER OF OREGON

Beginning on page 26, line 4, strike section 10, and conform the 

table of contents accordingly. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 35 85891P2.004

FUll COMMITTEE ON SMAll BUSINESS 

ROll CAll 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18,2013 

ROLL CALL:4 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 11 

VOTE: (AYE)11 (NO) 13 

MEMBER 

I Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR.KlNG 

MR.COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY , 

MR. TIPTON 

MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR. HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO 

MR.COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

MR. SCHNEIDER 

MR. BARBER 

MS. KUSTER 

MR.MURPHY 

TOTALS 

AYE NO iPRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x I 

x 

x 

11 13 
26 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. CLARKE OF NEW YORK

Page 30, insert after line 14 the following (and conform the table 

of contents accordingly): 

SEC. 13. CERTIFICATION PERMITTING COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR 

VERSION OF THE LAW. 

If the head of an agency certifies that compliance with the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by this Act with 

regard to a rule is necessary to safeguard the United States and 

its territories in regard to an act or potential act of terrorism or 

to respond or prepare to respond to a disaster, then such agency 

may elect not to comply with the requirements of this Act or the 

amendments made by this Act, and to comply with the requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, as in effect on 

the date prior to the date of enactment of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 37 85891P2.005

FULL COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

ROLL CALL 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18, 2013 

ROLLCALL: 5 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 12 

VOTE: (AYE) 11 (NO) 13 

MEMBER 

Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR.KING 

, MR. COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY 

MR. TIPTON 

MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR.HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO ! 

MR. COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

MR. SCHNEIDER 

MR. BARBER 

MS. KUSTER 

MR. MURPHY 

TOTALS 

AYE NO PRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

I 

11 13 

I 
28 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. CLARKE OF NEW YORK

Page 30, insert after line 14 the following: 

SEC. 13. GAO REPORT. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Comptroller General of the United States shall complete and 

publish a study that examines whether the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has the capacity and resources to carry out the duties of the Chief Counsel under this Act 

and the amendments made by this Act. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. CLARKE OF NEW YORK

Page 3, strike lines 1 through 14, and redesignate provisions accordingly. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. MURPHY OF FLORIDA

Page 2, line 10, insert after ‘‘does not include’’ the following: ‘‘a 

rule pertaining to the protection of the rights of and benefits for 

veterans or’’. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. MURPHY OF FLORIDA

Page 27, insert after line 20 the following: 

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this Act, this section, and the amendments made by this section, 

shall take effect only beginning on the date that the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration submits to the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee on Small 

Business of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on 

Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate a certification 

that the Office of Advocacy has sufficient funding and personnel to 

carry out the additional duties and responsibilities provided for in 

this section and the amendments made by this section. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. SCHWEIKERT OF ARIZONA

Page 3, line 10, insert after ‘‘indirect economic effect’’ the following: ‘‘(including compliance costs and effects on revenue)’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MR. PAYNE OF NEW JERSEY

Page 30, insert after line 14 (and conform the table of contents 

accordingly) the following: 

SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may 

take effect until the date on which the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration submits a certification to 

Congress that, in the determination of Chief Counsel, this Act and 

the amendments made by this Act will not prevent any agency 

from taking appropriate and timely agency action. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 44 85891P2.006

FULL COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

ROLL CALL 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18, 2013 

ROLL CALL: 6 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 18 

VOTE: (AYE) 9 (NO) 15 

MEMBER 

Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR. KING 

MR.COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY 

MR. TIPTON 

MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR. HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO 

MR.COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

MR. SCHNEIDER 

MR. BARBER 

MS. KUSTER 

MR.MURPHY 

TOTALS 

AYE NO PRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

9 15 

I 
31 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2542 

OFFERED BY MS. VELA ́ ZQUEZ OF NEW YORK

Page 19, line 22, insert after ‘‘public interest.’’ the following: 

‘‘(g) Agencies may defer compliance with subsections (b) through 

(f) of this section, as amended by the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013. The Chief Counsel of the Office of Advocacy shall establish a compliance schedule setting forth during 

which fiscal years agencies shall become compliant with section 6 

of the Act. The Chief Counsel shall base that compliance schedule 

on the budgetary resources available to the agencies and the extent 

to which the rules of such agencies have affected small entities.’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 46 85891P2.007

FULL COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

ROLL CALL 

BILL: HR 2542 

DATE: September 18,2013 

ROLLCALL: 

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 19 

VOTE: (A YE) 11 (NO) 13 

MEMBER 

Mr. GRAVES, Chairman 

Mr. CHABOT 

MR. KING 

MR.COFFMAN 

MR. LUETKEMEYER 

MR. MULVANEY 

MR. TIPTON 

! MS. HERRERA BEUTLER 

MR.HANNA 

MR. HUELSKAMP 

MR. SCHWEIKERT 

MR. BENTIVOLIO 

MR. COLLINS 

MR. RICE 

MS. VELZAQUEZ, 

RANKING MEMBER 

MR. SCHRADER 

MS. CLARKE 

MS.CHU 

MS. HAHN 

MR. PAYNE, JR. 

MS.MENG 

I MR. SCHNEIDER 

MR.BARBER 

MS. KUSTER 

MR.MURPHY 

I TOTALS 

AYE NO PRESENT NOT 

VOTING 

X 

X 

X 

X I 

X , 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X I 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X I 

I 

I 

11 13 I 

I 
33 

17From a purely logical standpoint, the approval of rates, wages, etc. for a particular entity 

looks more like a license as that term is defined in the APA. However, the definition of a ‘‘license’’ under the APA is quite restrictive and approval of various types of corporate structures 

(such as the approval of a initial public offering by the Securities and Exchange Commission) 

does not constitute a license under the APA. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2542 

Section 1. Short title 

Designates the bill as the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Improvements 

Act of 2013.’’ 

Section 2. Clarification and expansion of rules covered by the RFA 

Subsection (a)—Definition of ‘‘Rule’’ 

The RFA currently defines a rule as one that is issued pursuant 

to the notice and comment provisions of § 553(b) of the APA. This 

definition is unnecessarily restrictive for no apparent reason. Fundamentally, a rule is any issuance from an agency that does not 

emanate from an adjudication. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 

F.3d 1015, 1021 n.13 (D.C. Cir. 2000), quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 700 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The definition of a rule 

should be consistent, to the extent practicable, with the definitions 

set forth in the APA. That will permit courts, for purposes of interpreting the RFA, to adopt the interpretations they have developed 

under the APA. See White v. Mercury Marine, 129 F.3d 1428, 1434 

(11th Cir. 1997); Greenwood Trust Co. v. Massachusetts, 971 F.2d 

818, 827 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1052 (1993); Doe v. 

DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 82 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (legislative use of same 

term in different sections should be given the same meaning and 

interpretation). Therefore, § 2(a) of H.R. 2542 eliminates the distinction between § 551(4) of the APA and § 601(2) of the RFA. 

Section 2(a) of the bill does make one necessary distinction between rules as defined under the APA and the RFA. The APA definition of a rule includes any rule of particular applicability relating 

to ‘‘rates, wages, corporate or financial structures, prices, facilities, 

appliances, services, or allowances therefor or to valuations, costs 

or accounting, or practices relating to such rates, wages, structures, 

prices, appliances, services, or allowances.’’ 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). The 

RFA does not apply to any rule that falls within any of the aforementioned categories. Id. at § 601(2). Agencies should not be delayed in approving the financial structure or the like of a specific 

entity as such rule change clearly could not affect a significant 

number of small entities. In contradistinction, the rules for how 

agencies determine rates, wages, or financial structures may have 

a dramatic impact on small entities.17 As a result, the appropriate 

compromise is to define a rule that will cover rates, wages, etc. 

only if the rule can be applied to more than one entity. For example, the definition of a rule under the Committee’s solution would 

include the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations for calculating the rates charged by incumbent local exchange 

carriers for unbundled network elements. A rule would not include 

the application of those standards for determining the unbundled 

network element rates for a particular incumbent local exchange 

carrier. To the extent that the determination of the rates are made 

in a rulemaking, this definition ensures that the agency cannot use 

as an excuse for delay the need to comply with the RFA. FurtherVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

18Since the decision to certify a rule was not a justiciable claim under the original version 

of the RFA, the court did not have to decide the issue. 19 American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1044–45 (D.C. Cir. 1999), rev’d on other 

grounds, 531 U.S. 457 (2001); Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 466 (D.C. 

Cir. 1998); United Distr. Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Other courts also 

have adopted the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation. White Eagle Coop. Ass’n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 

479–81 (7th Cir. 2009) (producers indirectly regulated under milk marketing so not able to bring 

claim under RFA). 

more, the amendatory language answers in the affirmative the 

question of whether the RFA covers rules of general applicability 

concerning the calculation of rates, wages, etc. Finally, any rule 

that pertains to the protection of the rights and benefits for veterans is exempted from the definition of rule. 

Subsection (b)—Inclusion of Indirect Effects 

The RFA requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis 

if the agency determines that the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The original authors of the RFA did not define the term ‘‘economic impact’’ 

following the trend in the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) in which the term ‘‘significant effect on the environment’’ 

was left open to interpretation. The scope of the economic impacts 

that should be considered for compliance with the RFA has been 

the subject of much discussion and confusion even during the debates on passage. The genesis of the confusion stems from comments made by Senator John Culver (D–IA) (one of the original authors of the RFA). In the section-by-section analysis of the RFA, 

Senator Culver suggested that agencies should assess both indirect 

and direct effects of the proposed regulation. 126 Cong. Rec. 

21,458–59 (1980). 

The issue of indirect effects reappeared when an electric cooperative, Mid-Tex, challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) determination to permit the inclusion of construction-work-in-progress expenses (CWIP) in the rate base for 

generating utilities. The inclusion of CWIP forced the Commission 

to raise the rates for wholesale power purchased by electric cooperatives such as Mid-Tex. The Commission certified that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only affected 

large entities—the generators of electric power. The electric cooperatives, in their challenge to the regulation, alleged that the 

Commission should have performed a regulatory flexibility analysis 

on the impact that the decision would have on the purchasers of 

the power. The D.C. Circuit disagreed with the cooperatives’ interpretation of the RFA’s legislative history and held that Congressional intent with respect to the analysis of indirect effects was ambiguous. The court determined, although it did not have to,18 that 

the use of indirect effects by Senator Culver referred to the indirect 

effects on the entities subject to the regulation not the passthrough indirect effects on society in general. Mid-Tex Elec. Coop. 

v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342–43 (D.C. Cir. 1985). This conclusion 

has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions by the D.C. Circuit, 

the only circuit that has considered the issue.19

By limiting analysis to entities directly regulated, the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the RFA enables federal agencies to avoid 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

20 If a state does not develop a state implementation plan, the EPA is authorized to develop 

the implementation plan. 21The RFA applies to small businesses, small organizations (not-for-profits), and small governmental jurisdictions which are defined as any governmental entity with a population of less 

than 50,000. No state has less than 50,000 people. Therefore, states are not small governmental 

jurisdictions. 22There are Indian tribes with populations of less than 50,000. EPA’s conclusion that only 

large governmental entities were being regulated was wrong. 

assessing impacts on small entities for some very significant 

rulemakings. Some examples will elucidate this problem. 

The EPA is charged with establishing national ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. Once established, the Clean 

Air Act then grants to the states the authority to develop plans to 

meet those standards.20 Ambient air quality standards can impose 

significant economic harm on businesses that may have to reduce 

their activities in order to comply with the state implementation 

plan and meet the ambient air quality standards. EPA does not 

comply with the RFA when it develops the standards or during the 

approval of the state implementation plans. 

The EPA argues that the RFA does not apply because the ambient air quality standards and state implementation plans only regulate states which are not small entities under the RFA.21 Despite 

this legal legerdemain, a revised ambient air quality standard can 

have a profound impact on the economy and one that is totally 

foreseeable. The EPA identified significant economic consequences 

when it revised its ambient air quality standards for nitrogen oxide 

and particulate matter in the late 1990s. That regulation underwent substantial economic review, including the development of a 

cost-benefit analysis pursuant to E.O. 12,866. As a result, EPA was 

required to identify the foreseeable costs of imposing stricter ambient air quality standards on the nation, including small entities, 

even though the exact scope on specific small entities might vary 

depending on the state implementation plan. If most of the entities 

are small that must readjust their behavior to reduce pollution and 

they cannot comply, the rule is irrational because EPA will not 

meet its goal of cleaner air. Therefore, an analysis of the indirect 

effects of the ambient air quality standards is a critical element in 

the development of the APA-mandated rational rule. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d), requires states to develop lists of impaired waters, i.e., those waters 

for which effluent limitations on point sources (such as factories 

and publicly-owned treatment facilities) do not meet the water 

quality standards applicable to such body of water. The states are 

then required to establish total maximum daily load (TMDL) for 

each impaired body to bring into compliance with the applicable 

water quality standard. On July 13, 2000, EPA promulgated new 

regulations to implement the TMDL program. 65 Fed. Reg. 43,585. 

The EPA certified the final rule because it found that the ‘‘rule established requirements applicable only to EPA, states, territories, 

and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.’’ 22 Id. at 43,654. EPA reached this conclusion even though it found that the changes in the TMDL program would result in an annual effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million. In its E.O. 12,866 analysis, EPA estimated the cost 

on various industries for complying with updated TMDLs developed by the states. The development and availability of this data 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

23 Congress recognized the significance of EPA rules on small entities in SBREFA by creating 

a mechanism for those entities to provide input into the development of proposed EPA regulations. 24These regulations are given substantial deference by the courts. See Robertson v. Methow 

Valley Citizens Ass’n, 490 U.S. 332, 356 (1989); Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979). 

It is important to note that the Court gives these regulations substantial deference even though 

CEQ issued the rules pursuant to an Executive Order issued by President Carter since NEPA 

had no statutory authorization for CEQ to do anything other than monitor agency compliance 

with NEPA. 

under the Executive Order belies any notion that EPA’s rules only 

affected states. As with the ambient air quality standards, the economic consequences were large but foreseeable even though the 

exact impact on specific entities was not available. Therefore, EPA 

could and should have developed a regulatory flexibility analysis 

that assessed the impact on small entities. 

If EPA was the only agency where the issue of direct and indirect 

effects occurred, it would deserve a legislative solution given the 

impact that EPA regulations have on small entities.23 However, 

EPA is not the only agency that has avoided RFA compliance due 

to the indirect effects of the regulations they promulgate. For example, the Department of Agriculture never complied with the RFA 

when it promulgated revised regulations for amending forest management plans even though those rules would have significant impact on how the national forests would be managed and would affect thousands of small businesses and rural local governments. 

The IRS proposed to modify the reporting of non-resident alien interest income which could threaten the availability of capital for 

small businesses. The Immigration and Naturalization Service proposed reducing the time limit for extensions of visas to foreign visitors which, although not directly regulating any small businesses, 

could have a significant adverse impact on small businesses that 

rely on residents of cold climates wintering in places such as Florida or Arizona. 

To the extent that these rules are significant under E.O. 12,866, 

the indirect effects would be analyzed in the development of a costbenefit analysis. However, the impacts would not be assessed for 

cost-effectiveness under the RFA—a gap that makes no logical 

sense and undermines the ability of agencies to craft rational rules 

as mandated by the APA. 

Given the adverse consequences for small entities of indirect effects, it is imperative that agencies consider the foreseeable indirect effects of their regulatory actions on small entities. The Committee does not find that objections raised by the courts and federal 

agencies—that indirect economic effects cannot be measured with 

any accuracy—valid. The RFA, as already noted, was modeled on 

NEPA, in effect forcing agencies to perform an economic impact 

statement. The Committee believes that the parallels between 

NEPA and the RFA should include the scope of the effects examined. 

According to the regulations promulgated by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ),24 the term ‘‘effects’’ means: 

(a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the 

same time and place. 

(b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later 

in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

25 CEQ regulations define effects of major federal actions to include economic and social impacts. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8. 26 Numerous parties, but especially federal agencies, opined that authorizing direct judicial 

challenges to RFA compliance would be akin to cracking open Pandora’s jar and prevent federal 

agencies from performing their regulatory functions. As the statistics on estimated number of 

RFA lawsuits demonstrate, the ‘‘sky-is-falling’’ clamor from federal agencies was nothing more 

than, as Macbeth might have put it, sound and fury signifying nothing. In short, the contentions 

of federal agencies are akin to Getrude’s sentiment in Hamlet about ladies doth protesting too 

much. 27 Even though NEPA refers only to mitigation efforts of adverse environmental consequences, 

beneficial impacts on the environment from various alternatives of the major federal action are 

discussed in an environmental impact statement. This especially is true when an agency prepares an environmental impact statement for regulatory changes that have the consequence of 

lowering the amount of pollutants that can be released into the environment. Furthermore, CEQ 

regulations contemplate that a cost-benefit analysis might be relevant to the decisionmaking 

process. § 40 C.F.R. 1502.23. 

use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air 

and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. The CEQ regulations go on to state that the 

term ‘‘effects’’ includes economic effects whether direct, indirect, or 

cumulative. Id. Agencies have had to comply with these regulations 

for nearly a quarter of century. If federal agencies are capable of 

developing estimates of indirect effects of major federal actions for 

purposes of NEPA, the agencies should be capable of developing 

the same estimates for compliance with the RFA. This conclusion 

is buttressed by the fact that major federal actions, for purposes of 

NEPA, include rulemakings. Id. at § 1508.18; see also Cellular 

Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 (2001). Thus, federal agencies already are estimating the indirect effects, including economic impacts,25 of some 

of their regulations in order to comply with NEPA. Given that requirement, the Committee is of the opinion that extending the 

NEPA requirement to the RFA would not constitute a hardship 

that federal agencies contend it would be to estimate indirect economic impacts.26

Section 2(b) adopts a definition of ‘‘economic effect’’ that parallels 

the definition of ‘‘effects’’ utilized by CEQ in its NEPA regulations. 

The definitions of ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘indirect’’ (especially as it relates to 

foreseeability of economic consequences) effects have the same 

meaning as that developed by CEQ and the courts for interpreting 

the requirements of NEPA. Furthermore, the definition clearly 

states that both compliance costs and effects on revenue are indirect economic effects. 

Subsection (c) Rule with Beneficial Effects 

A regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared whenever an 

agency finds that a proposed or final rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 

statute does not limit the economic impacts to only adverse consequences although 604 requires a final regulatory flexibility analysis to include a discussion of an agency’s efforts to minimize the 

significant economic impacts of the final rule but requires no discussion of an agency’s efforts to maximize beneficial impacts. This 

limitation on the analysis also falls within the parallelism to NEPA 

which only requires agencies to examine alternatives that will mitigate adverse environmental consequences.27 Thus, agencies have 

interpreted this requirement as obviating the need to perform a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

28This conclusion is supported by classical welfare economic theory which teaches that given 

the selection of a particular policy choice, the one selected should have the greatest ratio of benefits to costs. Such a selection constitutes the most efficient resource allocation. 29 Under definitions utilized by the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 

more than 95% of the businesses in nearly all of the industrial classifications established by 

the North American Industrial Classification System. Similarly, there are far more governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000 than those with more than 50,000. 

regulatory flexibility analysis when the impact of a rule will be significant but beneficial. 

This interpretation is incorrect, but it is easy to comprehend how 

agencies reached the conclusion based on 604’s failure to require a 

discussion of efforts made to maximize beneficial effects. Despite 

the absence of such a mandate, such an analysis would be useful 

because it forces the agency to examine whether it has selected an 

alternative that maximizes the benefits to small entities. If everything is ceteris paribus, an agency should select an alternative that 

maximizes any beneficial economic effect on small entities 28 because small entities (except in very unusual circumstances) will 

represent the vast majority of entities subject to a particular regulation.29

Section 2(c) eliminates this confusion by requiring that agencies 

consider the impact of regulations even if they have a beneficial effect. Under this subsection, a regulatory flexibility analysis will be 

performed whenever the economic impacts of the proposed or final 

rule is significant without regard to whether the impacts are positive or negative. This amendment will require agencies to assess alternatives that either mitigate negative economic impacts or enhance positive economic effects. Finally, this subsection should be 

interpreted to prevent agencies from certifying proposed or final 

rules when the impacts are significant but beneficial. 

Subsection (d)—Rules Affecting Tribal Organizations 

Under the current definitions in the RFA, small governmental jurisdictions are those with populations of less than 50,000. The definition typically includes governmental bodies whose power is delegated by the state such as municipalities, water districts, etc. 

Given the intent of the original legislation to focus on the impact 

of regulations on entities that are creatures of state governments, 

it is unclear whether the term ‘‘governmental jurisdiction’’ includes 

tribal organizations. They are sovereign entities that have a special 

relationship with the federal government. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n 

v Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). 

The federal government regularly imposes various and often significant regulatory requirements on tribal organizations from those 

related to the operation of tribal organizations to environmental 

controls. Despite the imposition of diverse regulatory requirements 

on tribal organizations, federal agencies fail to perform regulatory 

flexibility analyses on regulations affecting tribal organizations. 

The failure to comply with the RFA is particularly troubling because tribal organizations, like many small governments, do not 

have the infrastructure or resources to interpret and comply with 

federal regulatory requirements. 

Given the adverse consequences on tribal organizations from the 

failure to comply with the RFA, section 2(d) adds tribal organizations to the list of small governmental entities that fall within the 

ambit of the RFA. Federal agencies would have to perform a reguVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

30Letter from Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy Mark Hayward to Chief of the Forest Service, F. Dale Robertson at 17 (May 16, 1991) (copy of letter available from the Committee’s Chief 

Counsel). In the 1970s, Congress imposed requirements on BLM and the Forest Service to develop plans to guide and control the actions of the agencies in managing land under their jurisdiction. See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 59 (2004) (describing 

land planning obligations of BLM); Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729 (1998) 

(describing land management plans of Forest Service). 31GAO, CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT: APPLICATION TO THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST LAND

AND RESOURCE PLAN 2 (1997) (T–OGC–97–54). 32The Forest Service gains some sustenance from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio Forestry Ass’n. In that case, the Court held that a challenge to a forest management plan’s logging 

schedule was not ripe because the logging set forth in the plan was subject to further review 

and revision, including a site specific analysis. The Court contrasted that with the immediacy 

and impact of a final rule. 523 U.S. at 737. Given the fact that the Federal Land Management 

Policy Act uses language very similar to that requiring forest management plans, courts would 

likely use the Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio Forestry Ass’n to reach a similar conclusion 

about BLM’s land management plans. See text accompanying discussion of subsection 2(a), 

supra. Even though the legal consequences may not satisfy the ripeness requirement under Article III of the Constitution, forest management plans do guide the agency’s management of the 

forests and thus will have economic and policy impacts that need to be weighed, including those 

on small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. 33 Both agencies typically develop environmental impact statements when making major modifications or developing new land management plans. As already noted, CEQ regulations, 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.8 requires agencies to consider economic effects (both direct and indirect) in their 

environmental impact statements. As a result, no rational argument exists for concluding that 

analysis under the RFA would delay the development of a new plan or the adoption of a major 

modification to such plan. 

latory flexibility analysis on any proposed or final rule if it had significant economic effects on a substantial number of small tribal organizations, i.e., one with a population of less than 50,000. The 

term tribal organization has the same meaning as that used in 4(l) 

of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 

Subsection (e)—Inclusion of Land Management Plans 

The long-standing position of the Office of the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy has been that land management plans developed by the 

United States Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) are rules that are subject to analysis 

under the RFA.30 GAO also reached the same conclusion.31 Nevertheless, the Forest Service and BLM maintain that their resource 

management plans are not rules.32 Given the potential consequences on small entities (both businesses that rely on the resources of the public lands and the communities that border those 

lands), the Forest Service and BLM should assess the impact of 

these plans on small entities under the RFA.33

Section 2(e) of the bill eliminates any questions by requiring the 

Forest Service and BLM to comply with the RFA when they are developing changes to resource management plans. Compliance is 

limited to the development of plans and revisions or amendments 

made thereto but only to the extent that the revisions or amendments require preparation of an environmental impact statement. 

This limitation is appropriate because minor changes to resource 

management plans that are not considered major federal actions 

and are unlikely to impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In contradistinction, preparation 

of environmental impact statements demonstrate that the proposed 

changes to the management plan will be significant. Since BLM 

and the Forest Service already will have to collect economic data 

to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement, analysis 

under the RFA will not pose any undue burdens on the agencies. 

Finally, this limitation ensures that BLM and the Forest Service 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

34The fact that the IRS voluntarily seeks comment on proposed rules does not create a mandate that the agency is required to issue the regulations after notice and comment. Cf. Chrysler 

Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 306–10 (1979) (noting that agency going beyond requirements in 

statute does not create justiciable right in court). 35This position is contradicted by the Service’s litigation position that its regulations should 

be given deference that is accorded only to those rules for which the agency intended to have 

the force and effect of law, i.e., thereby actually making law. E.g., Landmark Legal Foundation v. IRS, 267 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Fior D’Italia v. United States, 242 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 

2001); Callaway v. Commissioner, 231 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2000); Snowa v. Commissioner, 123 F.3d 

190 (4th Cir. 1997). 

Commentators have noted that the Internal Revenue Code is replete with straightforward delegations requiring the IRS to promulgate regulations. J. COVERDALE, Court Review of Tax regulations and revenue rulings in the Chevron Era, 64 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 35 (1995). For example, 

§ 385 of the Code provides: ‘‘[t]he Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations as may 

be necessary . . . to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated . . . as 

stock or indebtedness. . . .’’ In response to a question from then-Chairman Donald A. Manzullo 

(R–IL), Assistant Secretary Olson stated that any regulations implementing § 385 were interpretative. However, no one would doubt that if a corporation did not follow the regulations promulgated pursuant to that section, the Service could find the taxpayer to be in violation of the law. 

Similarly, if the taxpayer failed to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary concerning the time for depositing taxes set forth in regulations adopted by the IRS pursuant to 

6302, the taxpayer would find itself facing significant penalties. Nevertheless, the IRS maintains 

that the regulations are interpretative despite the fact that the Service is exercising its discretion when taxes are to be deposited or what constitutes indebtedness. 

The Service’s intransigence and aberrant interpretation of the APA is further placed in stark 

relief by comparison to similar statutes. For example, Title V, Subtitle A of Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

provides: ‘‘[t]he Federal Trade Commission [FTC], . . . may prescribe regulations clarifying or 

describing the types of institutions which shall be treated as financial institutions for purposes 

of this subchapter.’’ 15 U.S.C. § 6827(4)(E). This permissive authority enables the FTC to include 

other institutions, including credit reporting agencies, as financial institutions, even though they 

were not enumerated in the definitions of financial institutions. This authority is no different 

than the supplementation that the IRS in §§ 385 and 6302 found to be interpretative. Yet, the 

FTC argued and the court agreed that the regulations classifying credit reporting agencies as 

financial institutions were valid legislative regulations with the force and effect of law subject 

to Chevron deference. Individual Reference Servs. Group v. FTC, 145 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 

2001). There is no rational distinction between the permissive authority in Gramm-Leach Bliley 

will conserve their analytical resources to focus on those plan 

changes that would have the greatest significance to small entities. 

Subsection (f)—Inclusion of Certain Interpretative Rules of 

the IRS 

The RFA only applies to those regulations that are required to 

be published pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking by either 

553 of the APA or some other statute. Section 553 of the APA exempts interpretative rules from the notice and comment requirements. The IRS issues numerous regulations but styles them as interpretative. Prior to the enactment of the SBREFA, the IRS determined that it was not required to comply with the RFA because 

their regulations were interpretative and therefore need not be 

issued pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking.34

Congress attempted to rectify the situation with the enactment 

of SBREFA by requiring IRS compliance with the RFA for any interpretative rule issued that imposes a collection of information requirement on small entities. The IRS has interpreted this amendment by limiting its application, not to any regulation that imposes 

a collection of information (a term taken directly from the Paperwork Reduction Act), but only on those regulations that require 

taxpayers to complete a new, never-used form. At a hearing of the 

Committee on Small Business on May 1, 2003, then Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, the Honorable Pamela F. Olson, testified that 

the Department of Treasury and the IRS do not consider that they 

impose any collection of information requirements; rather collection 

of information requirements, as well as tax burdens, are imposed 

by Congress rather than the agencies.35 This has been a longstanding position of the Treasury Department and the IRS. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

and the permissive authority in the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, many of the regulations implementing the Code are legislative in nature and burdens are imposed by the Service. 

Nevertheless, nothing in H.R. 2542 attempts to make a priori determinations of what regulations should be considered legislative in nature. Nor do the authors of the bill attempt to resolve 

the murky administrative law problem of distinguishing between legislative and interpretative 

rules. 36OIRA is charged with interpreting and implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 

U.S.C. § 3504. Thus, the IRS is not the implementing agency. As such, its interpretation of that 

Act is not entitled to any deference. Professional Reactor Operator Soc’y v. NRC, 939 F.2d 1047, 

1051 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 

The Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy has criticized that 

jejune interpretation. The authors of H.R. 2542 also consider the 

IRS interpretation to violate the letter and the prophylactic intent 

of SBREFA.36 The RFA’s definition of the term ‘‘collection of information’’ is identical to that used in the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

There is no evidence that Congress intended the term ‘‘collection of 

information’’ to mean something different in the RFA than it does 

in the Paperwork Reduction Act. Cf. Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. 

United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932); United States v. BlasiniLluberas, 169 F.3d 57, 63 (1st Cir. 1999) (same term in different 

statutes have same meaning unless legislative history demonstrates to the contrary). The evidence of identical treatment of 

the term in the two statutes is evidenced by Congress incorporating 

into the RFA the exact definition of the term ‘‘collection of information’’ as it is used in the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, it 

would be illogical to assume that Congress did not intend the term 

‘‘collection of information’’ from the two statutes to be coextensive 

because Congress was making a legislative modification designed 

to force IRS compliance with the RFA. Clearly, Congress, given the 

testimony in hearings on RFA compliance and reports of the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy concerning IRS compliance, would not adopt 

a definition of the term that authorizes the current crabbed interpretation of the term ‘‘collection of information.’’ Nor do the authors 

accept the principle that the IRS does not itself impose collection 

of information requirements not otherwise specified in statute. 

Of all the agencies that have protested and contested the application of the RFA to rulemakings, the IRS remains the most recalcitrant. The Service believes that its obligations to collect revenue 

supersede any mandates from Congress that the IRS considers interference with its statutory mission. The Constitution vested legislative power with Congress not the IRS and the Service has no authority to ignore those dictates. Hearings before the Committee on 

Small Business, comments from the Office of the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy, and directives from Presidents Bush and Obama have 

not changed the intransigent position of the IRS or Treasury Department on RFA compliance. H.R. 2542 represents the congressional response to the obstinacy of the IRS. 

Section 2(f) eliminates the IRS interpretation that it need only 

comply with the RFA if it is imposing a new form. The subsection 

also recognizes that the IRS believes that Congress is imposing the 

collection of information requirements. Therefore, the bill takes the 

approach that requires compliance with the RFA whenever the 

Service intends to codify a regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations and the regulation or statute that the regulation is interpreting imposes a collection of information requirement. 

The modifications to § 603 should not be viewed by the IRS as 

limiting its economic analysis simply to the cost associated with the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

37To the extent that the IRS needs to promulgate a regulation in an emergency situation, it 

can find good cause to forgo rulemaking and issue its regulation without analysis under the 

RFA. This exemption should be used sparingly by the Service because compliance with statutory 

mandates or the agency’s own inaction fails to meet the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption in the APA. 

Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 357 (9th Cir. 1982); Nat’l Ass’n of Farmworkers Organizations v. Marshall, 628 F.2d 604, 622 (D.C.Cir. 1980). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has determined 

that notice and comment rulemaking can be conducted in situations in which an agency is required to issue rules on a weekly basis something the IRS does not have to do. Riverbend 

Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1486–87 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 999 (1992). 

‘‘collection of information.’’ Rather, the ‘‘collection of information’’ 

simply acts as a trigger for the broader assessment of economic effects of the proposed and final rule. This would include any increases or decreases in payment of taxes resulting from the rule. 

The authors of the bill reject out of hand the IRS’ contention that 

the true economic effect of its regulations stem from the Internal 

Revenue Code. There are a number of instances in which the IRS 

argues that its regulations are substantive and deserve Chevron 

deference. E.g., Bankers Life and Cas. Co. v. United States, 142 

F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 961 (1998) (explicating cases in which IRS requested Chevron deference). Since the 

Supreme Court accords Chevron deference only to agency pronouncements which are intended to have the force and effect of law 

in order to fill statutory gaps or resolve legislative ambiguities, 

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 230–31 (2001), the IRS 

cannot be heard to argue that its regulations are unable to create 

or eliminate the payment of taxes. To give a more recent example, 

the IRS decided to propose a regulation that would eliminate an exemption the agency itself created for special mobile machinery. 67 

Fed. Reg. 38,913 (June 6, 2002). Eliminating the exemption would 

add hundreds of millions of dollars in tax burdens to companies not 

currently paying certain excise taxes. For the IRS to argue that the 

economic effects of its regulations stem solely from the strictures 

of Congressional mandates is disingenuous. 

Nor is it likely that compliance with the RFA will slow the 

issuance of IRS regulations. Taking the example of the special mobile machinery exemption, the IRS easily could have determined 

the total revenue that the Highway Trust Fund would receive from 

the elimination of the exemption based on the aggregate data it obtains when businesses file for excise tax rebates (this data also 

would provide an accurate estimate of the revenue impact of excise 

tax payments for vehicles currently exempt). The IRS should not 

be exempt from this basic requirement of rulemaking (understanding the scope of the problem and the effect of the proposed solution). Obtaining similar aggregate data to comply with the RFA 

should not slow the development of regulations.37 In fact, without 

this data, the IRS could not make sensible estimates of the amount 

of revenue gain or loss that would occur with a particular regulatory change. The argument that compliance with the RFA would 

slow regulatory development is a red herring and certainly is an 

inadequate rationale for supporting the current IRS practice with 

respect to RFA compliance. 

This conclusion is bolstered by the testimony of Frank Swain at 

the Committee’s May 1, 2003 hearing on RFA compliance by the 

IRS in the 108th Congress. At that hearing, Mr. Swain revealed 

that the Service had in its possession a study it requested from the 

Federal Highway Administration on the economic impact of removing the special mobile machinery regulation. The study by the FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

38 In the Paperwork Reduction Act, the terms trigger a mandatory review of the paperwork 

burdens imposed by the government on citizens. In the RFA, it triggers a mandatory review of 

the economic burdens imposed by the IRS on small entities. Both statutes, therefore, are designed to force agencies to examine ways to reduce burdens on the regulated community. 39See Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 691 (1983) (applying in pari passu construction of various federal attorneys fee shifting statutes). 40The Small Business Administrator determines size based on an examination of small businesses on a national basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b). 

eral Highway Administration was dated 1999 and the IRS did not 

promulgate a proposed rule on eliminating the exemption until the 

summer of 2002, nearly three years later. Thus, the assertion that 

the completion of regulatory analyses will slow the development of 

regulations is, at best, specious. 

The RFA adopted the definitions in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

for the terms ‘‘collection of information’’ and ‘‘recordkeeping requirement.’’ Despite the identical nature of the definitions in the 

two pieces of legislation, some agencies, particularly the IRS, might 

argue in court the use of the terms in the two statues have different meanings. See Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 

286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932) (noting that Congress may use similar 

terms in different statutes to have different meanings). 

The authors of SBREFA, in 1996, always intended that the terms 

utilized in the Paperwork Reduction Act to have the same meaning 

as that in the RFA. To eliminate potential confusion, § 2(f)(2–3) repeals the definitions in § 601(7–8) and simply cross-references to 

the relevant portions of the Paperwork Reduction Act as set forth 

in title 44 of the United States Code. This eliminates any possibility that a court would apply a different interpretation to the 

RFA’s use of the terms ‘‘collection of information’’ and ‘‘recordkeeping requirement.’’ Although used for slightly different purposes,38 the palliative nature of both statutes, with respect to burdens on regulated entities, clearly justifies the application of the in 

pari passu canon of statutory construction 39 to the terms ‘‘collection of information’’ and ‘‘recordkeeping requirement.’’ 

Subsection (g)—Definition of Small Organization 

As already noted, the RFA covers small entities other than small 

businesses. The RFA defines a small organization as ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. . . .’’ 5 U.S.C. § 601(4). That definition 

fundamentally makes no sense because there is no rational way to 

determine a not-for-profit’s independence or economic dominance. 

The definition raises a number of practical questions. For example, 

on a local level, a rural electric cooperative might be considered 

dominant in the sense that it is the only provider of electric service 

in a rural area. However, on a national basis,40 is the rural electric 

cooperative dominant? Should the electric cooperative be compared 

with other electric cooperatives or with all other businesses in the 

electric utility industry? While some industries may have for-profit 

analogs, other small entities, such as charitable institutions or 

trade associations that can be adversely affected by federal regulations, do not. Furthermore, affiliation standards that the SBA uses 

in its size determinations may not be applicable in the not-for-profit sector, such as whether a trade association should be affiliated, 

for size determination purposes, with its members or whether a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

41 National Truck Equipment Ass’n v. NHTSA, 972 F.2d 669, 674 (6th Cir. 1992). 42See Comment, Corporate Goliaths in the Costume of David: The Question of Association Aggregation under the Equal Access to Justice Act—Should the Whole be Greater than its Parts? 

26 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 151 (1998) (collecting cases in which federal government argued for aggregation). 43 National Ass’n of Manufacturers v. DOL, 159 F.3d 597, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (discussing circuit split). 44While there is some facial appeal to the concept that a small organization could seek assistance from its members (probably through the payment of higher dues), there is no guarantee 

that it would be able to do so. And even if it did, depending on the makeup of the organization, 

that could impose additional burdens on small businesses that might be members of the organization which undercuts the palliative purpose of the RFA. 

charitable institution is independently owned and operated by its 

donors. 

In a different context, the courts have grappled with the notion 

of independence of not-for-profit entities. The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) permits certain small entities to recover their legal 

fees should they prevail in litigation against the federal government. EAJA classifies eligible parties as one that does not have a 

net worth in excess of $7,000,000 or more than 500 employees. 

Under EAJA, the question then becomes whether an entity requesting attorneys fees from the government actually fits within its 

zone of protection. Courts, in trying to answer this question, have 

wrestled with the concept of affiliation by assessing whether the 

small entity is affiliated with larger enterprises in a manner that 

defeats the purpose of the EAJA—ensuring that only small entities 

that do not have the financial wherewithal to sue the federal government receive attorneys fees if they prevail in litigation. 

One interpretation, adopted by the Sixth Circuit, would require 

complete aggregation of members net worth and employees to determine EAJA eligibility.41 The second interpretation, proffered by 

the federal government on a frequent basis, is that a trade association should be ineligible if any of its members exceed the net worth 

and employee standards.42 This interpretation of EAJA has been 

rejected by the D.C., Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.43 These circuits 

determined that EAJA eligibility should be calculated by looking 

solely at the organization that brings the litigation, its net worth, 

and number of employees. 

Given the prophylactic nature of both the EAJA and the RFA 

with respect to small entities, it would make sense to apply the interpretations of the EAJA to the RFA. Thus, one definition of 

‘‘small organization’’ would be to adopt the definition of small entity used by the Sixth Circuit. However that approach is incompatible with the purposes of the RFA because the capabilities of a 

small organization to comply with regulations is not based on the 

resources of its members but rather on the number of employees 

and net worth the organization controls.44 Since the small organization does not control or have direct access to the net worth of its 

members, it should be judged on solely on its resources and not 

those of its members or donors. 

Section 2(g) adopts a two-prong approach to the definition of 

small entity. First, it recognizes that for many not-for-profit organizations there are small for-profit analogs. If there is an existing 

Small Business Administration size standard for a small business, 

the agency should use that definition for small organizations. For 

example, the size standard for electric utilities is one that generates, transmits, or distributes annually 4 million megawatt hours 

and a small not-for-profit electric cooperative would be one that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

45 Nor would the agency have to consider the indirect effects on the individual members since 

those individual members are not an entity, i.e., small business, small non-profit, or small governmental jurisdiction. 

generates, transmits or distributes annually 4 million megawatt 

hours. If an organization does not have an equivalent size standard 

under Small Business Administration regulations, then the size of 

the entity shall be that under the EAJA—net worth of $7,000,000 

and not more than 500 employees. Net worth and number of employees should be calculated by examining the not-for-profit organization without aggregating or affiliating the net worth or employees of any member or donor. 

Section 2(g) also provides a definition of small labor organization 

since they have unique characteristics that do not easily fall into 

any other category of small organization as used in the RFA or 

H.R. 2542. Agencies do not examine the impact of their regulations 

on local chapters of national and international labor unions. As 

with other small organizations, local chapters may not be able to 

rely on the resources of their parent organizations for compliance 

assistance. Therefore, § 2(g) deems that a local chapter of a labor 

union shall be a small organization for purposes of compliance with 

the RFA without regard to its affiliation with a national or international labor organization. As a result, if the Department of Labor 

imposes a regulation on the operation of a labor union, the Department will have to consider its impact on these local chapters even 

if they are considered to be affiliated with a national or international union. However, the agency need not consider the impact 

of the regulation on individual members of the local labor union 

since it is the entity (not the members) subject to the regulation.45

Finally, § 2(g) authorizes an agency to adopt a different definition 

of small organization after the opportunity for notice and comment 

to the extent such different definition is appropriate. The subsection also requires consultation with the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Essentially, the process for defining small organizations would be identical to that already in the RFA for small 

businesses under § 601(3). 

Section 3. Expansion of report of regulatory agenda 

Section 602 of the current RFA requires each agency to publish 

in the Federal Register a regulatory flexibility agenda each April 

and October. By alerting small entities to potential consequences of 

upcoming rules, the authors of the legislation expect greater involvement of small entities in the rulemaking process ultimately 

leading to regulations that achieve agency objectives without unnecessary burdens. These agendas describe which rules an agency 

expects to issue in the near future that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

The agencies are required to briefly describe the rules; however, in 

their current form, the regulatory flexibility agendas provide almost no insight into the potential impacts of the rules on small entities. Thus, the regulatory flexibility agendas are of little use to 

most small entities. 

Section 3 expands the information required to be provided in the 

regulatory flexibility agendas thereby increasing transparency and 

providing small entities with a better understanding of the potential impacts of a rule an agency expects to propose or promulgate. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

46 National Ass’n of Homebuilders v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 417 F.3d 1272, 1286 

(D.C. Cir. 2005). 

Each agency is required to describe the sector of the North American Industrial Classification System that is primarily affected by 

the rules. Section 3 also requires the agencies and the Office of Advocacy to publish plan language summaries of the information in 

the agendas on their websites. 

Section 4. Requirements providing for more detailed analyses 

Senator Culver, in developing the concept for the RFA, was attempting to mirror the type of in-depth analyses that agencies performed under NEPA when assessing the impact of major federal 

actions that would have a significant impact on the environment. 

The language of the two statutes are sufficiently parallel to the 

point that it makes sense to draw a conclusion that the RFA creates a requirement for an economic impact statement for federal 

rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

This thesis has been accepted by the courts. In Associated Fisheries of Maine v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997), Judge Selya, 

writing for the court, stated: 

We think that a useful parallel can be drawn between 

RFA § 604 and the National Environmental [Policy] Act, 

which furthers a similar objective by requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). . . . 

The EIS requirement is meant to inform the agency and 

the public about potential . . . alternatives prior to a final 

decision on the fate of a particular project or rule.. . . 

Recognizing the analogous objectives of the two 

acts. . . . 

Id. at 114. Judge Selya noted that the analogy seemed fair since 

the EIS requires a detailed statement while the RFA only requires 

a statement. The rectitude of Judge Selya’s reading is confirmed by 

the D.C. Circuit adoption of the parallelism finding.46

NEPA’s success in changing agency culture did not occur immediately after enactment because agencies were initially loath to 

prepare environmental impact statements and upset embedded 

constituencies that benefitted from various federal projects. Activists who disagreed with the need for a particular project used 

NEPA to stop the projects from going forward. While the Supreme 

Court ultimately determined that NEPA is not a substantive statute, see Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 

223, 227 (1980), the litigation losses by the government forced 

agencies to draft better environmental impact statements. The litigation reinforced the underlying principle of NEPA that ‘‘important 

effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise 

cast.’’ Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 

349 (1989). 

After a number of hearings before various House and Senate 

Committees, Congress determined that agencies were ignoring 

their responsibilities under the RFA. The solution recommended by 

witnesses and ultimately adopted by Congress was judicial review 

of agency compliance with the RFA. SBREFA was premised on the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

47 Courts have found violations of the RFA when an agency incorrectly certified a rule rather 

than preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis. E.g., Harlan Land Co. v. USDA, 186 F. Supp. 

2d 1076, 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2001); North Carolina Fisheries Ass’n v. Daley, 16 F. Supp. 2d 647, 

652 (E.D. Va. 1997). 48The review is an offshoot of the requirement that agencies must consider all relevant statutory factors in order to satisfy the rational decisionmaking standard of the APA. See Citizens 

to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 418–0919 (1971). 

threat of judicial review creating an atmosphere that would force 

agencies to comply with the RFA in the same manner and with the 

same completeness that agencies considered environmental impacts 

to avoid challenges of their compliance with NEPA. In other words, 

the authors of SBREFA expected that important economic consequences to small entities would not be overlooked prior to an 

agency’s commitment to a specific regulatory approach. The end result is not analysis for analysis sake, but rather more rational rulemaking as dictated by the APA. 

The imposition of judicial review has not had the salutary effect 

that Congress expected. While it has been effective in forcing agencies to perform regulatory flexibility analyses rather than certifications,47 the majority of analyses are perfunctory. The agencies 

comply with the bare minimum specifications without really addressing the important issues—impacts on small entities and alternatives to minimize those impacts. However, this minimalist effort 

appears to satisfy the standard of demonstrating a reasonable effort to comply. A cursory look at a court’s analysis of the adequacy 

of an environmental impact statement demonstrates the distinction 

between a statement pursuant to the RFA and detailed statement 

required by NEPA. 

Judicial review of agency compliance with NEPA is designed to 

ensure that agencies take a ‘‘hard look’’ at environmental consequences. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 

427 U.S. 390, 410 n.21 (1976). In turn, courts carefully scrutinize 

the environmental impact statement to determine whether the 

agency has addressed each element of the statement:48 the environmental impact of the proposed action; any unavoidable adverse environmental consequences should the proposed action be implemented; alternatives to the proposed action; relationship between 

short and long-term uses of the environment; and commitment of 

any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should 

the proposal be implemented. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Courts do not 

look at the statement as whole and determine whether the agency 

made a reasonable effort to address the requirements of NEPA. Instead, the courts examine, in detail, each requirement to determine 

whether the statement adequately addresses that element. E.g., 

Colorado Env’tl Coalition v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1171–76 

(10th Cir. 1999); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States DOT, 

123 F.3d 1142, 1150–60 (9th Cir. 1997). The close scrutiny accorded 

to environmental impact statements by the courts then ensures significant consideration of environmental consequences. 

There can be little doubt that the reasonableness standard is appropriate for judicial review of regulatory flexibility analyses. However, the absence of the ‘‘detailed’’ statement requirement has led 

courts to provide only a cursory review of compliance with the requirements of § 604 of the RFA. The limited scope of the review to 

meet the standard of reasonableness has enabled agencies to avoid 

taking a hard look at the economic consequences of their proposed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

49 Nothing in H.R. 2542 affects the requirements in the IRFA under § 603(c). 50This also comports with the change made by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 in which 

the reference to term ‘‘succinct’’ were deleted from § 604. Pub. L. No. 111 09240, § 1601, 124 

Stat. 2504, 2551. 

and final rules. Carrying the distinction found by Judge Selya in 

Associated Fisheries of Maine, to its logical conclusion suggests that 

the difference in the scrutiny between the two statutes rests on the 

distinction between a ‘‘statement’’ and a ‘‘detailed statement.’’ 

Section 4 modifies the requirements for preparing a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in order to ensure that agencies will give the 

same ‘‘hard look’’ to economic consequences that agencies already 

give to environmental effects pursuant to NEPA. Adoption of this 

stronger standard does not transform the RFA into a decision-forcing statute. Once the agency has taken the ‘‘hard look’’ at the economic consequences of its rulemaking action, application of the rational rulemaking standards inherent in the APA would strongly 

suggest that the agency take those consequences into account when 

crafting a final rule. However, nothing in the RFA mandates a particular regulatory outcome and nothing in H.R. 2542 changes that 

abecedarian tenet of the RFA. The agency is at liberty to determine 

that other values outweigh the economic burdens imposed on small 

entities. Cf. Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 

444 U.S. 223, 227–28 (1980); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. 

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978) (holding that NEPA does not 

require agency to select least environmentally damaging alternative). 

Subsection (a)—IRFAs 

Section 4(a) amends 603 by requiring the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to contain a ‘‘detailed statement’’ rather than 

a statement. This should lead agencies to prepare IRFAs with the 

same detail and care that are currently required for draft environmental impact statements. 

Currently, an agency, in preparing an IRFA, must provide: (1) 

the rationale for undertaking the proposed rule; (2) a succinct 

statement of the objectives and legal basis for the rule; (3) a description and estimate, where practicable, of the number of small 

entities affected by the proposed rule; (4) a description of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements along with an estimate of 

the skills needed to comply with such requirements; (5) an identification to the extent practicable of overlapping or duplicative federal rules. 5 U.S.C. § 603(b). In addition to these requirements of 

subsection (b), the IRFA also must contain alternatives that will 

minimize adverse or maximize beneficial effects of the proposed 

rule. Id. at § 603(c).49 H.R. 2542 makes a number of changes and 

additions to these analytical requirements as will be outlined 

below. 

H.R. 2542 strikes the term ‘‘succinct’’ from § 603(b)(2) to avoid 

possible confusion between an overall requirement of a detailed 

statement and the use of a ‘‘succinct’’ statement of the objectives 

of the rule. Federal agencies will not have to create something new 

for this statement. Rather, they will be able to simply take the 

summary of the rule that is prepared for publication in the Federal 

Register and add the legal basis (if not already incorporated in the 

summary) and republish it in the IRFA.50


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

51 An agency might not be able to estimate the number of small entities when the agency is 

preparing a rule that opens up existing markets to new entrants or creates a new market. In 

such circumstances, there are no statistics on the number of small entities in that market. In 

such circumstances, it is probable that the agency, in preparing the proposed rule, has some 

sense of the number of potential new entrants from discussions with industry. Of course, such 

estimates will not have the precision that an agency should have when proposing a modification 

to an existing rule or imposing a new rule on a well-established industry. Nevertheless, an inaccurate estimate (with appropriate caveats concerning the lack of precision) is better than no estimate. Furthermore, the agency should recognize the lack of confidence in the estimate and make 

a specific request in its notice of proposed rulemaking for data on the number of small entities. 

Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA currently requires the IRFA contain, 

when feasible, a description and an estimate of the number of 

small entities affected by the proposed rule. This requirement provides a substantial loophole for agencies to comply with the RFA. 

The Office of Advocacy calculates that there are more than 25 million small businesses in the United States based on aggregate data 

from the IRS. Size standards established by the Small Business 

Administration demonstrate that more than 95% of the businesses 

in each industrial classification are small. Thus, most entities subject to any regulation are likely to be small. An agency that fails 

to provide a relatively accurate estimate of the number of small entities affected by a proposed rule, cannot undertake rational rulemaking because the agency has no idea of the scope of the affected 

universe. The failure to provide an accurate estimate of the number 

of small entities affected would be akin to a federal agency stating 

that it has no way to determine the environmental consequences of 

building a dam on a river and therefore cannot complete an environmental impact statement. Such a rationale would not be accepted by any court and agencies should not be able to shirk their duty 

to understand the scope of the regulated universe simply because 

they might have to gather actual data on the number of small entities. As a result, § 4(a) strikes the term ‘‘where feasible’’ in its redraft of § 603(b)(3).51

The current requirement for completion of an IRFA requires the 

agency to identify, to the extent practicable, all relevant duplicative, overlapping, and conflicting rules. 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(5). As with 

the requirement for estimating the number of small entities, the 

proviso ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ creates a loophole that allows 

the agency to prepare an irrational rule. Two classic examples elucidate the problem. The ergonomics standard established by the 

Department of Labor in 2000 (and subsequently overturned by a 

joint resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act) mandated that businesses develop plans to eliminate musculo-skeletal 

disorders. One way to perform this task in skilled nursing facilities 

is to purchase mechanical lifts for patients. However, regulations 

promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) permit a patient to reject being lifted by mechanical device. 

Nothing in the final ergonomics rule or the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) addressed this potential conflict because the 

Department of Labor never identified the CMS rules as creating a 

problem. Another example involves the requirement for notifying 

communities of underground storage facilities pursuant to § 312/ 

313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know 

Act. EPA required gas stations to notify EPA that they had underground storage tanks with gasoline so EPA could provide that information to local communities. However, this information already 

was being provided to local fire departments under other reguVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

latory regimes. The Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy had 

to intervene before EPA redressed the duplicative reporting requirement. Had EPA actually made the effort to comply with the 

RFA, it would have identified the duplication and avoided promulgation of an additional reporting burden on small businesses. 

It is difficult to understand how an agency can draft rational 

rules without knowing how its proposed or final regulatory solution 

will mesh with other existing federal requirements imposed by 

itself or other agencies. While the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OIRA) can 

play a role in identifying these overlaps and conflicts, the primary 

role must be the agency drafting the regulation because it is the 

agency that has the obligation to create a rational rule—not OIRA 

or the Office of Advocacy. Section 4(a) resolves this problem by 

striking the ‘‘extent practicable’’ from the existing § 603(b)(5). Thus, 

an agency, in drafting proposed regulations, will have to identify 

duplicative, overlapping, and conflicting regulations. Obviously, 

agencies will need to start an interagency dialog in order to identify duplicative, overlapping, or inconsistent regulatory requirements. This should improve the rationality of agency rulemaking 

and prevent the tunnel vision (the agency has to promulgate this 

rule so why concern itself with what other agencies have done) that 

federal regulators currently wear in implementing the directives of 

Congress. The new requirement in the IRFA also should assist 

OIRA in carrying out its regulatory coordination function set forth 

in E.O. 12,866. 

Section 4(a) adds a new requirement for preparation of an IRFA. 

One of the biggest problems that small entities face is not the imposition of any one particular regulatory requirement; rather it is 

the accumulation of burdens from many regulatory requirements 

from all federal agencies that can have a significant effect on the 

capital available for small businesses to expand their enterprises. 

Any assessment of the impact of a rule on small entities, particularly small businesses, cannot be even reasonably accurate without 

understanding how the proposed rule interplays with the already 

extant burden on the entities subject to the regulation. To be sure, 

this assessment will be difficult. Section 4(a) adds a new paragraph 

(6) to § 603(b) that requires an evaluation of the cumulative impact 

or an explanation why such evaluation is not possible. It is likely 

that an agency would have to inquire with OIRA, the Office of Advocacy and other federal agencies to compile the cumulative economic impact data. As with other provisions of the RFA, as amended by H.R. 2542, nothing in the cumulative impact evaluation prevents an agency from determining that other factors are more significant than the costs imposed on small entities and continuing 

with the rulemaking process. Identification will provide the agency, 

the affected public, and Congress with a better assessment of the 

implementation of statutory mandates. Furthermore, the identification may help the agency develop alternatives that impose less cumulative impact while still achieving an agency’s regulatory objective. 

While the RFA requires identification of impacts on small entities, not all small entities are necessarily equally affected by a proposed rule. For example, many of the marketing orders established 

by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) pursuant 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

52 A detailed discussion of marketing orders and the Regulatory Flexibility Act can be found 

in Pineles, Marketing Orders and the Administrative Process: Fitting Round Fruit into Square 

Baskets, 5 SAN JOAQUIN AG. L. REV. 89 (1995). 53The classic example of this situation occurred when the EPA was trying to determine 

whether to control volatile organic chemicals associated with filling gasoline tanks in cars. Evaporation of volatile organic chemicals from gasoline is a major contributor to ground level ozone 

and smog. There are two primary mechanisms for controlling such evaporation—modification of 

gasoline tanks in cars or by reconfiguring the fuel pump to prevent the escape of gasoline vapors 

as an automobile’s gas tank is being filled. Modification of the fuel pump would disproportionately fall on small businesses while modifying the gas tank in cars would fall on big businesses. 

Although EPA ultimately selected the reconfiguration of gasoline station pumps (ergo the reason 

for the rubber hoses on the nozzles of gas pumps), had it needed to specifically identify the disproportionate impact on small businesses, it might have selected a different regulatory approach. 54 In addition to removing the term ‘‘succinct’’ as already noted, see note 50, supra, the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010, also removed the term ‘‘summary’’ from § 604 of the RFA. Pub. L. 

No. 111 09240, § 1601, 124 Stat. 2504, 2551. 

to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 608c,52 will have different effects on producers, handlers (essentially wholesalers), and processors. Even within one class of growers, the regulations implementing marketing orders may have disparate impacts between independent growers and those associated 

with agricultural cooperatives. This simply represents one example 

of numerous regulations in which a proposed rule might have very 

different consequences on different classes of small businesses. In 

fact, the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy criticized USDA 

for conflating various impacts of its rules on marketing orders to 

find that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities even though a 

class of small businesses would be severely harmed. To rectify this 

situation and force agencies to better understand the potential consequences of their proposed rules, § 4(a) of H.R. 2542 adds a new 

paragraph (7) to § 603(b) of the RFA by requiring agencies to describe any disproportionate impact on small businesses53 or a specific class of small businesses. 

Subsection (b)—FRFAs 

Section 4(b) amends the requirements for completing a FRFA. 

The changes made by the Committee to § 604 ensure the development of a detailed statement that forces agencies to give a ‘‘hard 

look’’ at the final rule stage to the economic consequences of the 

final rule. The bill adds the term ‘‘detailed’’ to the statement requirement where currently only a statement is required.54 Use of 

the detailed statement in the preparation of a FRFA does not mandate any particular outcome in an agency rulemaking. Rather, it 

simply assures that an agency, the public, Congress, and the courts 

fully understand the scope and impact of a final rule on small entities. Furthermore, 4(b) requires that the same seven analytical elements required in the IRFA by the amended § 603(b) be incorporated into the FRFA mandated by the amended § 604(b). 

The changes made by § 4(b) also comports with the parallelism 

between the RFA and NEPA as noted by the First and D.C. Circuits. The expectation is that the agencies, after the regulations 

issued by the Chief Counsel pursuant to § 5 of H.R. 2542, and the 

courts will interpret in the same manner the term ‘‘detailed statement’’ currently contained in NEPA. The FRFA should evidence the 

agency’s hard look at the economic consequences of the final rule 

and provide appropriate grist for the mill of judicial review. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

55 H.R. 2542 does not address whether publication on www.regulations.gov satisfies the requirements of the amended § 604. That issue is best left to the regulations that will be developed 

by the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

Current law mandates the agency summarize, in the FRFA, the 

comments received in response to an IRFA. While it is true that 

all IRFAs lead to the preparation of a FRFA, not all FRFAs are developed in response to an IRFA. An agency may initially certify a 

rule pursuant to § 605(b) and then receive sufficient comment that 

the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The agency then would prepare a FRFA. 

However, the agency would be under no obligation to summarize 

the comments that it received in response to the certification in the 

FRFA. This simply represents an oversight by the authors of the 

RFA and SBREFA. An adequate FRFA should entail the summarization of comments received in response to a certification at the 

proposed rule stage. The process of summarization assists the Congress, the courts, and the regulated community in identifying those 

cost considerations that the agency failed to recognize at the proposed rule stage. The simple step of making an affirmative identification will help agencies perform better cost assessments at the 

initial stage of rulemaking and avoid unnecessary delays in the development of a final rule. Section 4(b) rectifies this problem by requiring the summarization of comments on a certification made at 

the proposed rule stage. 

Current requirements in the RFA mandate federal agencies to 

publish the FRFA in the Federal Register or, in lieu thereof, a 

summary with information specifying where an individual can obtain the full analysis. Since the enactment of SBREFA in 1996, numerous initiatives within the government have utilized the explosive growth of the Internet and Internet-based communication. 

Many agencies participate in the general website for regulatory 

matters, www.regulations.gov. Agencies that do not participate in 

that website (many of the independent agencies, such as the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC)) have their own electronic interfaces for accepting and publishing regulatory material on the web. 

Continued growth of electronic availability of rulemaking documents and dockets is beneficial for both small entities and federal 

agencies. Since the RFA has not been amended since the growth 

of Internet-based rulemaking access, § 4(b) updates the publication 

requirements for the FRFA by requiring that it be placed on the 

agency website. Publication on the agency’s website and publication 

of the link to a website in the Federal Register notice of the final 

rule does not obviate the obligation that currently exists in the 

RFA to publish the FRFA or summary thereof in the Federal Register along with the final rule.55

Subsection (c)—Cross References to Other Analyses 

In an effort to avoid duplication, federal agencies can use other 

analyses to meet the requirements of the RFA but only if that analysis satisfies the requirements of the RFA. For example, a federal 

agency can use an environmental impact statement to the extent 

that analysis assesses alternatives which would be less burdensome or more beneficial to small entities. See Associated Fisheries 

of Maine, 127 F.3d at 115. Utilization of existing analyses is beneVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

56Preparation of a certification at the proposed rule stage does not foreclose an agency from 

preparing a FRFA at the final rule stage due to comments filed after the proposed rule was 

published. The change in the agency position cannot be considered a failure; rather it demonstrates the principle of agency edification by the public inherent in the notice and comment 

process. 57 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13; see Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 58 CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY, UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ANNUAL

REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATORY

FLEXIBILITY ACT: CALENDAR YEAR 1993 15–16 (1994). 59Lehigh Valley Farmers v. Block, 640 F. Supp. 1497, 1520 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (district court determination on RFA was not addressed on appeal). 

ficial by reducing the work done by the agencies and the documentation that small entities must review during the rulemaking 

process. Unfortunately, agencies fail to provide adequate cross-references to these other documents. For example, some agencies will 

state in their IRFA or FRFA that alternatives were examined to reduce the adverse consequences and a discussion can be found in 

the statement of basis and purpose. Generic cross-references then 

force interested small entities to wade through dozens, if not hundreds, of pages in the Federal Register or on an agency website to 

determine whether the IRFA or FRFA was adequate. The indefiniteness of the cross-references is especially problematic at the proposed rule stage because the inability to quickly identify alternatives will tend to dissuade small entities from filing comments. 

Section 4(c) resolves this problem by mandating that agencies 

make sufficiently specific cross-references to other analyses that 

satisfy the requirements of the IRFA or FRFA. The expectation is 

that the specificity must be sufficient so that a small entity can 

turn directly to the part of the cross-referenced analysis that addresses the component of the IRFA or FRFA. 

Subsection (d)—Certifications 

The RFA authorizes an agency head or delegatee to certify that 

a proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Certification obviates the 

need for preparation of an IRFA or FRFA56 in the same way that 

a finding of no significant environmental impact (FONSI) eliminates an agency’s preparation of an environmental impact statement.57 After the enactment of the RFA in 1980, agencies frequently issued boilerplate certifications that merely reiterated the 

language of § 605(b).58 Small entities had no way of ascertaining 

why these certifications were issued and courts were prohibited 

from even examining the certification as part of the rulemaking 

record.59

Congress attempted to rectify the problem of boilerplate certifications with the enactment of SBREFA. Since July 1, 1996, agencies are required to provide a factual basis for the certification. 

This amendment has not improved agency certifications. Many still 

reiterate the statutory language without further exegesis. Some 

refer back to other material in the statement of basis and purpose 

without identifying the cross-referenced material. Still others provide some factual basis for the certification. No agency provides the 

detail in its certification that can be found in an environmental assessment accompanying a FONSI. Given the fact that the RFA parallels NEPA (as already noted), it is appropriate for agencies to 

supply in their certifications, the same detail that accompanies an 

environmental assessment. Furthermore, requiring greater speciVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

60Technically, it would be incorrect for the agency to certify a rule for which notice and comment is not required because the RFA trigger is notice and comment. Nevertheless, many agencies, out of an abundance of caution, certify these rules. If they are going to do so, then the 

agencies should be required to explain what they are doing and why they are doing it. 61The amendment set forth in § 4(e) is further supported by the enactment in 2000 of the 

Data Quality Act and that Act’s requirement that agencies provide accurate data in all of their 

functions, including rulemaking. The Data Quality Act requires the Office of Management and 

Budget to issue guidelines to all agencies ensuring that the soundness of the data they present 

to the public. 44 U.S.C. § 3516 note. 62The inaccurate estimates would be subject to challenge under the Data Quality Act in any 

event. If the quantifiable effects are sufficiently suspect simply due to the paucity of available 

data, it makes no logical sense for the agency to quantify such effects only to have them challenged under the Data Quality Act and adds no benefit to an agency’s rulemaking, its analyses 

under the RFA or to the small entities. 

ficity and detail in the certification will force the agency to develop 

a better assessment of the potential economic effects on small entities before they publish a proposed rule. This should lead to improved agency decisionmaking. 

Section 4(d) amends § 605(b) by requiring the preparation of a 

detailed statement supporting the certification decision. The section 

also mandates that the agency provide the legal rationale for any 

certification as well as a factual basis. This requirement is unfortunately necessary because agencies frequently certify proposed and 

final rules based on the inapplicability of the RFA to the rulemaking process in the first instance. For example, agencies often 

certify a rule in which the agency has forgone notice and comment 

under the APA. The Committee believes that it is appropriate for 

an agency to explain to the both the small entity community and 

any reviewing court these legal conclusions about the basis for its 

decision.60 If the FRFA is to be reviewed under the same standard 

as a final EIS prepared pursuant to NEPA, then the logical conclusion to the statutes’ parallelism is for the certification under the 

RFA to be reviewed by a court under the same scrutiny that it 

would apply to a FONSI under NEPA. 

Subsection (e)—Quantification Requirement 

Section 4(e) modifies the existing requirements in § 607 of the 

RFA concerning the quantification of effects on small entities. 

Agencies are required to provide a numerical or descriptive analysis of the effects on small entities. Rational rulemaking requires 

an agency to understand the scope of the regulated community, the 

costs currently faced by those entities, and the economic consequences of any regulatory action. Under § 607, agencies can avoid 

developing sound numerical data and can provide general descriptions, such as the regulation will increase costs to small entities. 

The absence of objective numerical data makes it more difficult for 

small entities to assess the significance of any regulatory change. 

Agencies should make every effort to obtain objective data supporting a regulatory change including the estimated consequences 

to small entities.61 Section 4(e) amends § 607 by making quantification of impacts the default in developing an assessment of impacts 

on small entities. 

There may be circumstances in which it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide accurate quantification of a rule’s impact on small 

entities. For example, if a regulation is opening a new market, the 

agency may not be able to determine the universe of potential market entrants. The agency then should not be forced to develop highly suspect numerical estimates of the impacts.62


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

63 E.g., NRDC v. Evans, 316 F.3d 904, 911 (9th Cir. 2003); Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 754–55 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Levesque v. Block, 723 F.2d 175, 185 (1st Cir. 

1983). 64 Improving and Strengthening the Office of Advocacy: Hearing before the Committee on Small 

Business, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (2001) 11 (statement of Giovanni Coratolo); 65 (statement of 

Deputy Chief Counsel for Advocacy Kay Ryan); Improving the Office of Advocacy: Hearing before 

the Committee on Small Business, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. (2000) 12 (statement of James Morrison). 

New subsection (2) of § 607 of the RFA authorizes agencies to 

provide a more general description of the impacts on small entities 

if quantification is not practicable or reliable. The reliability factor 

in new subsection (2) should incorporate the standards of data established by each agency pursuant to the Data Quality Act. If an 

agency determines that it is unable to provide a quantification and 

still meet the criteria of the Data Quality Act, the agency shall provide a detailed statement explaining why it cannot provide the 

quantification. Ultimately, the quality and accuracy of the data will 

be the subject of regulations drafted by the Office of the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy. 

Section 5. Repeal of waiver authority and additional powers of 

Chief Counsel 

This section repeals the provision in § 608 authorizing the head 

of an agency to waive completion of a FRFA for up to 180 days if 

the agency cannot complete the FRFA by the time the rule needs 

to be published. In lieu of that waiver, H.R. 2542 grants additional 

powers to the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

Repeal of Waiver Authority 

The RFA allows an agency to waive the requirements for an 

IRFA and delay for up to 180 days the preparation of a FRFA. This 

provision is unnecessary. Notice and comment rulemaking is not 

required if the agency, for good cause finds it impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B). The 

courts have interpreted this provision as authorizing an agency to 

forgo notice and comment rulemaking in true emergencies in which 

delayed promulgation would do real harm.63 An agency that establishes good cause to forgo notice and comment need not comply 

with the RFA because the analytical requirements are only triggered if the rule must be promulgated pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking. The conditions under which a waiver would 

issue under § 608 of the RFA also satisfies the impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest standard of § 553(b)(B) 

of the APA. Since agencies would not be required to comply with 

the RFA under such circumstances no good rationale exist to have 

such a waiver provision. 

Revised § 608—Additional Powers for the Office of the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy 

In two hearings on the Office of Advocacy, the Committee received testimony suggesting that the Chief Counsel for Advocacy’s 

findings on compliance with the RFA should be accorded some type 

of deference.64 The witnesses were responding to the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. 

Cir. 1999), rev’d in part and aff’d in part, Whitman v. American 

Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). In that case, the D.C. Circuit 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

65 Although the D.C. Circuit referred to the SBA, it clearly meant the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

stated: ‘‘[t]he SBA, however, neither administers nor has any policymaking role under the RFA; at most its role is advisory. . . . 

Therefore we do not defer to the SBA’s interpretation of the RFA.’’ 

175 F.3d at 1044, citing Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices v. Department of Defense, 87 F.3d 1356, 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1996).65 Absent 

some action by Congress, courts are unlikely to grant the Chief 

Counsel’s interpretations of the RFA any deference. And if the 

courts do not do so, it also is highly improbable that other federal 

agencies will do so. 

The situation clearly needs to be rectified. Granting the Chief 

Counsel’s interpretation of the RFA deference substantially will 

change the balance between the Chief Counsel and the agencies in 

the development of regulations. Currently, the Office of Advocacy 

simply must cajole the agencies to make regulatory modifications 

or otherwise revise their certifications or regulatory flexibility analyses. The Chief Counsel has little power to coerce changes that 

would be beneficial to small businesses or other small entities. 

However, an Office of Advocacy accorded deference in interpreting 

the RFA can represent, in conjunction with its authority to file 

amicus briefs in court, a substantial power to coerce regulatory 

modifications. If an agency does not comply properly with the RFA, 

the threat of the Chief Counsel ‘‘intervening’’ in court and expressing an opinion, which the court will give substantial deference, that 

the agency did not comply with the RFA could lead to a remand 

of the regulation. Therefore, the agency is likely to negotiate 

changes in RFA compliance that might in turn result in subsequent 

modifications to the rule that would reduce burdens on small entities. 

One potential option would be to amend the RFA by mandating 

that courts and agencies give substantial deference to the views of 

the Chief Counsel concerning compliance with the RFA. This appears to be the tersest solution to the D.C. Circuit’s dismissal of 

Advocacy’s comments. However, brevity in this circumstance is unworkable for a variety of reasons. First, the personnel of the Office 

of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy can change at the behest of the 

President. Each new Chief Counsel can adopt different interpretations of the RFA. If that is the case, then it is possible that an 

agency may receive inconsistent interpretations of the RFA; in 

turn, that makes it more difficult for the agency to develop a consistent methodology for assessing the impact on small entities. Furthermore, the courts have held that the level of deference afforded 

an agency is dramatically reduced if the agency is constantly 

changing the interpretation of a statute. Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 515 (1994). And the constantly shifting sands of Chief Counsel interpretations is not the gravest barrier to achieving deference; the Chief Counsel’s interpretations still 

must overcome the standards established by the Supreme Court in 

Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and United States 

v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). 

Courts start an analysis of a statute by first determining whether Congress spoke explicitly and clearly on the point in question. 

If so, Chevron dictates that the courts go no further; interpretaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

66 In fact, the powers and functions of CEQ remarkably parallel those of the Office of Advocacy. 

tions offered by the agency that are inconsistent with a clear mandate from Congress receive no deference and are invalid. 467 U.S. 

at 842–43. If the agency interpretation is consistent with the clear 

language of the statute, courts must uphold the agency interpretation. Id. This is often referred to as ‘‘Chevron Part One’’ analysis. 

The real deference accorded the agency comes pursuant to the socalled ‘‘Chevron Part Two’’ analysis. Under that standard, an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute or statutory lacuna 

filled by the agency is accorded substantial deference if the interpretation or gap-filling regulation is rational. Id. In essence, as between two equally valid or rational interpretations of an ambiguity 

in a statute, the agency’s interpretation wins under ‘‘Chevron Part 

Two.’’ 

Not all pronouncements from an agency are eligible for deference 

under the ‘‘Chevron Part Two’’ test. For the answer to that question, one must look to the Court’s decision in United States v. Mead 

Corp. According to that case, Chevron deference exists not on some 

inflexible line, but rather on a continuum depending on the intent 

of Congress and the agency’s procedures for developing the interpretation. 533 U.S. at 227–31. The keystone for Chevron deference 

is whether Congress ‘‘would expect the agency to be able to speak 

with the force of law.’’ Id. at 229. The Court noted that ‘‘a very 

good indicator of delegation meriting Chevron treatment in express 

congressional authorizations to engage in the process of rulemaking 

. . . that produces regulations . . . for which deference is claimed.’’ 

Id. Since notice and comment rulemaking represents a formal administrative procedure to reach an agency decision, the Court concluded that it would be logical to assume Congress intended the 

agency pronouncement in such circumstances to have the force and 

effect of law. Id. at 230. Thus, regulations arising from notice and 

comment rulemaking would be afforded full Chevron deference. 

Given the state of the caselaw and the objectives of empowering 

the Chief Counsel, the best alternative for ensuring the Chief 

Counsel’s interpretation of the RFA would be given Chevron deference is to require the Chief Counsel to promulgate governmentwide rules which all agencies must follow in complying with the 

RFA. This is a well-trodden path followed by federal agencies in 

the implementation of the RFA’s parallel statute—NEPA. After enactment of NEPA, all federal agencies developed their own, often 

inconsistent approaches, to compliance. In 1977, President Carter 

issued an executive order mandating the Council of Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) to ‘‘issue regulations to Federal agencies for the implementation of the procedural provisions of the Act [NEPA] (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)).’’ E.O. 11,991 (May 24, 1977), reprinted in 42 Fed. 

Reg. 26,967 (May 25, 1977). Even though Congress, in NEPA, did 

not delegate to CEQ any power to issue regulations,66 the regulations developed by it are accorded substantial deference by the 

courts. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Ass’n, 490 U.S. 332, 

356 (1989). 

New § 608(a) provides that the Chief Counsel for Advocacy shall 

promulgate regulations governing agency compliance with the RFA. 

The Chief Counsel should follow the pattern established by CEQ— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

67 The Supreme Court considers these independent regulatory commissions, at least in part, 

creatures of Congress. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 628 (1935). Therefore, Congress can restrict their independence by requiring them to comply with the regulations 

adopted by the Chief Counsel. 

draft baseline regulations that all agencies must follow but grant 

the agencies the authority to supplement those regulations to meet 

their own needs. These regulations promulgated by the Chief Counsel must be done pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking because it ensures adequate participation of all interested parties and 

comports with the Supreme Court’s determination in United States 

v. Mead that notice and comment rulemaking assures the agency 

(in this case the Chief Counsel) will be granted Chevron deference. 

The revised § 608 also authorizes federal agencies to supplement 

the Chief Counsel’s rules. However, these supplemental regulations 

cannot conflict with the regulations promulgated by the Chief 

Counsel. To ensure the absence of conflict, federal agencies wishing 

to supplement the rules must consult with the Chief Counsel in an 

effort to eliminate conflicts but may issue the rules without the approval of the Chief Counsel. H.R. 2542 could have taken the approach that supplemental agency rules could not be adopted unless 

the Chief Counsel approved them. That path represents bad policy 

for two reasons. First, one agency should not have the authority to 

disapprove another agency’s regulations; if the delegation of power 

was improper, Congress should act by passing legislation modifying 

the delegation of authority. Second, Chief Counsel approval would 

be an executive branch employee interfering with the operation of 

independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Federal 

Trade Commission. Even though these agencies must obtain approval of their collection of information requests from OIRA, Congress recognized their independence from the executive branch by 

granting them the power to override a disapproval by simply majority vote of the commissioners. 44 U.S.C. § 3507(f)(1). It sets a bad 

precedent to authorize, on an ad hoc basis, an executive branch 

agency, approving or disapproving the actions of an independent 

collegial body regulatory commission.67

New § 608(b) provides the Chief Counsel with the same power to 

intervene in individual agency adjudications that the Chief Counsel 

has to file an amicus brief under § 612 of the RFA. There have been 

instances in which the Chief Counsel attempted to intervene in adjudications before federal agencies due to the significance of the 

issues raised by the adjudication but was rebuffed because the administrative law judge determined that the Chief Counsel was not 

a proper party to the proceeding. This is particularly important because some agencies, such as the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the National 

Labor Relations Board make significant policy determinations in 

adjudicatory proceedings. The clear grant of a right to intervene 

will eliminate this problem. 

The section also makes clear that the right to intervene as a 

party in an adjudication does not grant the Chief Counsel the authority to appeal any decision by the administrative law judge either to another body in the agency (such as an appeal to the full 

Commission) or to federal court. The role of the Chief Counsel in 

adjudicatory proceedings is vital but limited to advising the deciVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

68 The Chief Counsel has neither the resources nor the expertise to represent private parties 

in federal administrative enforcement proceedings. 69 The panels are referred to both as Small Business Advocacy Review panels and SBREFA 

panels. SBREFA created the requirement for EPA and OSHA. The CFPB was added to the list 

of agencies that must convene panels in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111–203, § 1100G, 124 Stat. 1376, 2112 (2010). 70 At a Committee hearing on CFPB’s compliance with the RFA, the CFPB Director testified 

that the Small Business Advocacy Review panels helped the Bureau to shape its proposals, been 

a collaborative process between small entities and the Bureau, and have proven to be valuable 

to the CFPB. Know Before You Regulate: The Impact of CFPB Regulations on Small Business, 

112th Cong., 2d Sess. (2012) 4 (statement of Director Richard Cordray). 

sionmakers of the significance of the issues to small entities rather 

than as a real party in interest. Given these concerns and the possibility that small entities might request the assistance of the Chief 

Counsel in an individual adjudication, the better policy is to exclude the Chief Counsel from intervening in adjudications in which 

the agency is authorized to impose a fine or penalty. It is the expectation that the Chief Counsel will refer to this restriction when 

a small entity requests intervention in an individual enforcement 

proceeding to deny that request. In sum, the intervention rights 

granted in this subsection are not designed to allow the small entity to substitute the Chief Counsel for adequate retention of private 

counsel.68

Amended § 608(c) authorizes the Chief Counsel to file comments 

on any notice of proposed rulemaking without regard to whether 

the notice had been issued pursuant to § 553 of the APA. This language ensures the Chief Counsel’s role as the primary advocate for 

small entities in federal agency decisionmaking and not just on 

agency compliance with the RFA. 

Section 6. Procedures for gathering comments 

Section 609 of the RFA requires three federal agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), to consider, prior to publication 

of a proposed rule in which an IRFA will be prepared, the concerns 

of small entities. Section 609(b) of the RFA establishes the procedures for obtaining the input of small entities. The procedures require the formation of a panel of federal employees, including a 

representative from the Office of Advocacy (the organizer of the 

panel), who then obtain input on the potential economic impacts 

from selected small entity representatives.69 After receiving the 

input, the panel submits a report to the agency and requires the 

agency to respond to the panel report in the proposed rule. The 

agency is at liberty to modify the proposal according to the recommendations of the panel report but is not required to do so. 

The Committee on Small Business received testimony in hearings that the panel process needs expansion to other federal agencies and requires technical changes to ensure optimal participation 

by small entities. The process established in 609(b) makes a valuable contribution to agency understanding of the impacts of its proposals on small entities.70 In fact, during a hearing on the H.R. 

2345 (a predecessor bill), during the 108th Congress, the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy, Tom Sullivan, recommended that the process 

be expanded to all agencies. The argument of the Chief Counsel 

(whose employees would have to deal with the SBREFA panels) 

makes sense and H.R. 2542 adopts the recommendation to expand 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

the SBREFA panel process to all agencies when they are proposing 

a rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities or the proposed rule qualifies as a major 

rule under the Congressional Review Act. The SBREFA procedures 

will increase the value of the prepublication input to federal agencies and enhance the rationality of the rulemaking process. 

Section 6 modifies the standards for determining which proposed 

rules will be subject to the panel process. Current law limits the 

rules to those for which EPA, OSHA and CFPB will prepare an 

IRFA. This parameter unnecessarily narrows the regulations that 

should be the subject of a § 609 panel and allows the agencies to 

make a self-interested determination to avoid the panel process. A 

more appropriate standard would be any rule for which the covered 

agencies decide to prepare an IRFA or for any rule that a covered 

agency or OIRA determines to be a major rule under standards 

identical to those found in 804 of the Congressional Review Act. 

Except in the most unusual circumstances (such as a regulation on 

natural gas pipelines or automobile manufacturers), a major rule 

will affect a substantial number of small entities and the agency 

preparing the rule will benefit from small entity input. 

The Committee on Small Business has heard informally from the 

Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy that questions remain concerning the kind of material made available by the covered agencies. Section 6 clarifies that the agency provide the Chief Counsel 

and the employees of that Office all materials prepared or utilized 

in developing the proposed rule including a copy of the draft rule. 

The covered agencies also are required to provide information on 

the impacts, whether positive or negative, on small entities. Agencies should be as forthcoming with material as possible. To the extent that information utilized by the agency is not subject to disclosure as proprietary information under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA), appropriate non-disclosure agreements with the Office 

of Advocacy would be appropriate. The Office of Advocacy is an executive branch agency within the federal government and should be 

assumed to operate under the same prohibitions against the release of predecisional documents or proprietary information that 

apply to all federal agencies under FOIA. 

Special procedures must be applied with respect to rules drafted 

by the IRS. If certain small entities receive the actual draft of a 

proposed tax rule, those entities may be able to take advantage of 

that information in tax planning or through business transactions. 

Clearly, this is a legitimate concern and H.R. 2542 does not require 

the IRS provide the exact language of any draft proposed rule. For 

example, the IRS would state it is planning to modify the calculation of certain depreciable assets but would not be required to provide the exact date for the regulation to take effect. However, the 

IRS would be expected to provide sufficient information to enable 

the small entities to make sensible comments to the panel. 

Provision of draft regulations by independent regulatory agencies 

(those collegial body organizations set forth in 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5)) 

also raises potential problems. Under their organic statutes, these 

collegial bodies only can take action if a majority of the members 

of the collegial body approve the action. The Government in Sunshine Act prohibits the members from conducting business except 

in an open meeting. 5 U.S.C. § 552b(b). If an agency set forth in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

71 In many instances rules from these collegial bodies, such as the FCC, tend not to have very 

specific regulatory language. More often than not, the proposed rules read more akin to advanced notices of proposed rulemaking without even tentative conclusions. 72Federal agencies promulgating regulations would have a bias to select small entity representatives, to the extent possible that would support the regulatory position of the agency. 

44 U.S.C. § 3502(5) was to submit a draft regulation to the Office 

of Advocacy, prior to a meeting, that could be taken as akin to the 

conduct of business not in an open meeting. The importance of the 

Government in Sunshine Act should not be underestimated. Therefore, the agencies are not required to submit the draft proposed 

rule to the Office of Advocacy. Under the revised § 609, collegial 

bodies only should submit sufficient information so that small entities understand the scope of the proposed regulation in order to 

make their input to the panel worthwhile.71

The Committee also recognizes that E.O. 12,866 by its own terms 

does not cover these independent regulatory agencies. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 

295 U.S. 602 (1935), these agencies are not considered part of the 

executive branch and their regulatory activities are not considered 

subject to oversight by OIRA. To avoid any entanglement between 

the executive branch and these independent regulatory agencies, 

the panel reports are prepared by an employee of the agency and 

an employee of the Office of Advocacy. OIRA employees only will 

be a part of the panel process for those agencies not set forth in 

44 U.S.C. § 3502(5). 

Disputes have arisen between the Office of Advocacy and agencies over the definition of small entity representative. The conflict 

stems from an inconsistency in the drafting of § 609(b). The Office 

of Advocacy is to identify individuals representative of small entities for obtaining advice but the panel is only required to collect advice and recommendations from individual small entity representatives identified by the agency after consultation with the Office of 

Advocacy. For example, EPA limits its universe of small entity representatives only to actual businesses affected; in contrast, the Office of Advocacy is willing to hear from trade association executives 

and lawyers who represent small entities. 

The language in § 609 is not a model of clarity and requires 

amendment to ameliorate disputes between the Office of Advocacy 

and other federal agencies that serve on the panel. New subsection 

609(c) that accords to the Office of Advocacy the sole responsibility 

of selecting the small entity representatives. The Office of Advocacy 

has the greatest contact with small entities and is least likely to 

select biased representatives.72 The Office of Advocacy should use 

the discretion granted to it in § 609 in a balanced manner by finding small entity representatives that can provide diverse views on 

a particular proposed regulation. The amendment to § 609 also 

ends the dispute over the universe of potential small entity representative by authorizing the Office of Advocacy to select either 

small entities or their representatives for providing advice to the 

panel. Under this language, the Office of Advocacy may select individual small entities, lawyers or consultants who represent small 

entities, or officials from trade associations whose members include 

small entities. 

Section 609 currently requires the panel to receive recommendations and draft a report that becomes part of the rulemaking 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

record. The panel should receive advice and recommendations from 

small entities. The panel should discuss these issues but it is inappropriate for a panel to write a report conveying the concerns of 

small entities. H.R. 2542’s rewrite of § 609 adds a new subsection 

(d) that mandates the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to draft the report. In drafting the report, the Chief Counsel must consult with 

the other panel members to ensure that the report accurately reflects the views of small entities. This change ensures that the Office of Advocacy, being an independent voice for small entities, will 

provide a more robust representation of small entity views than a 

report from a panel that includes personnel from the agency that 

crafted the rule and the agency that might review the rule—OIRA. 

Furthermore, the small entities are more likely to participate if 

they know that the Chief Counsel is charged with conveying their 

views to the rulemaking record. 

The panels currently convened under § 609 are not subject to the 

strictures of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The amendments 

to that section made by H.R. 2542 should not be construed as requiring the General Services Administration to comply with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

New § 609(d) also modifies the contents of the report. Currently, 

the report simply provides a litany of issues raised by small entity 

representatives as filtered by the panel. While this information is 

useful, reasoned decisionmaking, including appropriate consideration of all statutory factors (one of which is the impact on small 

entities), requires a report of greater detail. A requirement has 

been added that the report contain an assessment of the proposed 

rule on small entities and a discussion of alternatives that will 

maximize beneficial or minimize adverse economic consequences. 

The assessment also is required to discuss the proposed rule’s impact on the cost that small entities pay for energy and on start-up 

costs for small entities. By requiring this information at a 

preproposal stage, the agency will have the opportunity to modify 

the regulation or amend its IRFA should it wish to do so. Furthermore, the inclusion of this report early in the rulemaking record 

will provide small entities with a base of ideas upon which to suggest other alternatives during the rulemaking process. The inclusion of alternatives also can assist the agency in demonstrating to 

the courts that it approached the rulemaking process with an open 

mind. PLMRS Narrowband Corp. v. FCC, 182 F.3d 995, 1002 (D.C. 

Cir. 1999); United Steelworkers of American v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 

1189, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The report need not be an exhaustive 

peroration of alternatives but should be sufficient to provide both 

the agency and the regulated community with some ideas on what 

alternatives are available. However, the report should include alternatives, to the extent possible, that are not being considered by 

the agency in the preparation of its IRFA. 

There may be exceptional circumstances where an agency finds 

it impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest to 

receive input at the prepoposal stage. New § 609(f) creates a procedure by which the agency can seek a waiver of the panel process. 

Waivers only should be granted in the same exceptional circumstances similar to those that would permit an agency to forgo 

notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to § 553(b)(B) of the 

APA. For example, EPA may need to deal with an imminent public 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

73See note 15, supra. 74This should not be a substantial burden on agencies since all executive branch agencies had 

to come up with a plan to review all existing reviews pursuant to President Obama’s revisions 

to E.O. 12,866. 

health problem and has sufficient time to issue a rule for a brief 

notice and comment period but does not have the lead time to conduct a panel process. That would be the type of circumstance in 

which the Chief Counsel might consider a waiver of the panel process. 

Finally, new § 609(g) enhances transparency in the rulemaking 

process by providing small businesses with access to panel reports 

and materials and information used to develop a proposed rule. It 

allows a small entity or a representative of a small entity to request that an agency provide a copy of a panel report and all materials prepared or utilized in developing the proposed rule that were 

provided by the agency to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. The 

agency is required to provide the report, materials and information 

to the requesting small entity or its representative within 10 business days. Any proprietary information utilized by the agency that 

is not subject to disclosure under FOIA shall not be subject to disclosure under this section. 

Section 7. Periodic review of rules 

Section 610 of the RFA mandates that agencies periodically review their rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. GAO has done a number of studies of agency compliance with § 610 and found compliance sorely 

lacking.73 GAO concludes that the problem relates back to the 

threshold determination of whether the regulation will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

While GAO’s conclusion is correct, the problems with § 610 compliance are far more pervasive and endemic. Unfortunately, § 610 was 

not a paragon of clear statutory drafting; the language is easily interpreted in a manner by which agencies can avoid compliance. 

Nevertheless, periodic review of regulations is an excellent idea because it forces agencies to examine their regulatory structures 

given changes in the marketplace. Rather than trying to correct 

unclear drafting, H.R. 2542 completely revises the section through 

the development of procedures that ensure agencies will periodically review those regulations which have a significant economic 

impact on small entities. 

When § 610 was first enacted, agencies were required to develop 

plans for periodic review. These plans are now more than 30 years 

old. An investigation by the Committee on Small Business in 1997 

and 1998 found that many agencies cannot find their plans; given 

the passage of time, it is less likely that those plans can be unearthed. Rather than having agencies dig through archives for 30 

year old plans, revised § 610 requires the development of new plans 

for periodic review within 180 days after the enactment. The plan 

must detail how an agency will conduct outreach to and gather 

input from small businesses on existing rules in order to periodically review its regulations pursuant to § 610. In addition to publication of the plan in the Federal Register, agencies are required to 

place these plans on their websites.74


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

The trigger for periodic review in the revision to § 610 will be 

whether the agency head determines that the regulation has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

The language is written in the present tense meaning that the regulation is subject to review if at the time of review of the regulation, the rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The provision grants the agency appropriate flexibility in determining when to conduct periodic review 

based on current circumstances not events that happened a number of years before the review. In ensuring that the review occurs 

based on current conditions, language in the amended § 610 makes 

it explicit that the decision for review is independent of whether 

the agency developed a FRFA at the time of the rule’s original promulgation. Despite the flexibility provided by § 610, there is an expectation that the full compliance with the periodic review provision will be based on the regulations promulgated by the Chief 

Counsel pursuant to the authority of amended § 608. 

Although the revised § 610 tracks the scope of the review currently in the RFA, there were a number of modifications designed 

to make the review more thorough. The review now must include 

comments from the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the 

Office of Advocacy to ensure that the agency receives the most current information on the affect of a rule including how agencies may 

be enforcing (or abusing) the regulation. The revision also requires 

the agency to consider the rule’s contribution to the cumulative impact of federal regulatory burden on small businesses. However, 

given the complexity of such calculation, § 610(e)(6) allows the head 

of the agency to explain why such calculation cannot be made and 

include such statements in the report that the agency files pursuant to new § 610(d). These amendments to the scope of review also 

comport with those made to the FRFA under § 4 of H.R. 2542. 

Periodic review commences from the date of enactment of the 

Act. The plan must provide for review of all regulations in force at 

the time of enactment within ten years of the date of enactment. 

A regulation in effect on enactment may not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and should 

not be reviewed. However, five years after enactment the regulation may have that impact; if the agency had not previously reviewed the regulation or made a determination that the regulation 

did not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities after publication of the plan of review, the head 

of the agency would determine at the time the regulation came up 

for review whether it should be reviewed. In short, the determination of ‘‘significance’’ and ‘‘substantial’’ should be made as close to 

the review date as possible and based on the most current information available. Regulations promulgated after enactment of the legislation must be reviewed within ten years after the publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register. Agencies are authorized to 

extend the review process for no more than 2 years. Agencies have 

the resources to complete the review within 12 years. Unlike the 

current statute, the agency head delaying the review must notify 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy because of the Chief Counsel’s responsibility to monitor agency compliance with the RFA. 

A new mandate in § 610 requires each agency to report annually 

on the results of its periodic reviews. The current version of § 610 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

75 It would be up to the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to determine how 

www.regulations.gov fits into the Internet publication requirement of § 610. 76Publication of the list in the April or May Federal Register’s semi-annual agenda would not 

provide sufficient notice to small entities on the rules for which the agency has already commenced review since the beginning of the calendar year. 77There are cases in which the courts, after much judicial prestidigitation, found that exhaustion was not required. E.g., Furlong v. Shalala, 238 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 2001); American 

Lithotripsy Soc’y v. Thompson, 215 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). However, these court cases 

are not sufficiently definitive with respect to the availability of review outside the Departmental 

Continued 

can be interpreted as allowing a review to take place without it 

being memorialized. Submission of a report will enable the Office 

of Advocacy, House and Senate Committees, and OIRA to take appropriate action to ensure compliance or question the determinations on specific rules. To protect the independence of collegial body 

commissions (such as the SEC or CFTC), the agencies identified in 

§ 3502(5) of Title 44, United States Code need not submit reports 

to OIRA. 

Revised subsection 610(f) requires the agency to place on its 

website a list of rules to be reviewed annually as well as a brief 

description of the rule, the agency’s preliminary determination on 

why the regulation has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a request for comments from the 

public, the Chief Counsel and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman. The agency is also required to solicit and respond to comments from the public on any rules that should have been included 

on or excluded from the list or rules to be reviewed. Utilization of 

the Internet 75 should maximize input from affected small entities. 

The Committee also requires publication in the Federal Register 

and the agency can combine the publication of the list of rules for 

review in conjunction with its semi-annual agenda in the Federal 

Register 76 prior to the start of the next calendar year. 

Nothing in the changes made by H.R. 2542 modifies the ability 

of adversely affected entities to challenge agency compliance with 

the periodic review requirements. Given the procedures established 

in the revised § 610 and the regulations to be promulgated by the 

Chief Counsel pursuant to amended § 608, the determination of 

whether a particular regulation should be reviewed is subject to judicial challenge and is not committed to agency discretion under 

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) and its progeny. 

Section 8. Judicial review of compliance with the RFA 

Section 8(a) modifies the current requirement that judicial review of the RFA is limited to ‘‘final agency action.’’ Instead, judicial 

review will be available when the agency publishes the final rule. 

Section 8(b) modifies the jurisdiction of courts by inserting the parenthetical ‘‘or which would have such jurisdiction if publication of 

the final rule constituted final agency action.’’ 

The changes are made due to concerns that certain procedural 

requirements for challenging agency regulations could dramatically 

delay small entity challenges to the agency compliance with the 

RFA. For example, under the Medicare program, challenges to 

CMS regulations must first run the gauntlet of the Department of 

Health and Human Services administrative law judges and departmental appeals boards. See Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long 

Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1 (2000).77 Similarly, regulations issued 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

appeals process to ensure small entity access to federal courts for RFA challenges. Therefore, 

these cases do not militate against making the change to the RFA. 78The Chief Judicial Officer at the Department of Agriculture acts as the Secretary when 

hearing appeals pursuant to § 15(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. If 

the Secretary thought the rule was irrational, the Secretary should not have issued it in the 

first instance. Upon further reflection, it is highly unlikely that the Secretary would find his 

or her initial decision to be irrational. 79For example, the Chief Judicial Officer within the Department of Agriculture has, with one 

exception, never overturned the Secretary’s regulation implementing a marketing order. And the 

only circumstance in which that was done was to benefit the largest central marketing organization of oranges and lemons grown in California (a marketing order that no longer exists). 

to implement marketing orders under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act must go through a statutory exhaustion process before an administrative law judge and then the Chief Judicial Officer. United States v. Ruzicka, 329 U.S. 287 (1946). These formal 

statutory exhaustion requirements, often the vestiges of legislation 

enacted prior to the APA, are an anachronism in the context of informal rulemaking. 

These agencies are utilizing a pre-APA decisionmaking process to 

determine if the regulation complied with the APA by building a 

record supplemental to the one developed during the rulemaking. 

These statutory exhaustion requirements enable covered agencies 

to take a second look at its own regulatory issuances.78 While that 

process may be beneficial to the agency in building a record to 

demonstrate the rationality of their rules, it enables the agencies 

to cavalierly dismiss the requirements of the APA and RFA by ensuring those assessments are addressed in a formal adjudication 

after the regulation is promulgated. Due to the cost involved of essentially conducting two separate litigations (an adjudication within the agency and a challenge at the federal court level), small entities generally will be foreclosed from challenging an agency’s RFA 

analysis. It certainly takes a courageous small entity to absorb the 

cost of dual litigation in order to get into federal court recognizing 

the likelihood that the original challenge before a federal agency 

will almost certainly favor the federal agency.79 This severely undermines the rationale used by the drafters of SBREFA to mandate 

judicial review—the threat of a relatively quick, unbiased review of 

agency action in federal court would lead to improved compliance 

with the RFA. If an agency can avoid that (due to cost) in order 

to supplement its record ex post facto then the deterrent effect of 

judicial review is negated. Not surprisingly, CMS and the Agricultural Marketing Service remain two of the agencies that have had 

the worst record of complying with the RFA. As a result, the 

changes set forth in § 8(a)–(b) ensure access to judicial review of 

challenges to agency compliance with the RFA without having to 

exhaust any post-promulgation internal agency adjudication on the 

underlying rule. 

The amendments could lead to piecemeal litigation on the final 

rule; judicial review on RFA compliance would then be followed at 

some later date by a challenge to the rationality of the rule. However, the response to this contention is the Supreme Court’s finding 

that ‘‘procedural rights’’ are special, Lujan v. Defenders of the Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 n.7 (1992) and someone complaining of an 

agency’s failure to comply with NEPA ‘‘may complain of that failure at the time the failure takes place, for the claim can never get 

riper.’’ Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 737 

(1998). Given the parallels between the RFA and NEPA already 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

80See National Ass’n of Homebuilders v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 417 F.3d 1272, 

1286 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

recognized by the courts, then a challenge to agency compliance 

with the RFA can never be riper than it is when the agency promulgates the final rule, irrespective of whether the substance of 

the underlying rule requires review through some additional agency procedures.80 Furthermore, the likelihood of duplicative litigation is constrained by the limited number of agencies at which further agency appeals are required to challenge a final rule. Finally, 

it is important to note that the agencies that can take advantage 

of this statutory exhaustion process are among the worst in complying with the RFA—the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

and CMS. Therefore, the benefits of speeding judicial review of 

RFA compliance and the need to protect the ‘‘special procedural 

rights inherent in the RFA’’ outweigh the costs to the federal judiciary of piecemeal litigation. 

The amendments made in § 8(a)–(b) are not intended to authorize 

challenges to either the agency’s RFA compliance or the underlying 

regulation prior to the issuance of a final rule. Principles of exhaustion of administrative remedies remain the most prudent course by 

allowing the agency to correct deficiencies with its RFA compliance 

in the final rule. However, once the agency has had the opportunity 

to make corrections in the final rule, it seems foolhardy to allow 

the agency to get another crack at correcting its RFA compliance 

after issuance of the final rule. The amendment is intended to 

allow federal courts to do what they do best—review agency compliance with statutes governing agency decisionmaking. Federal 

courts will not benefit from any supplementation of the record because federal courts have nearly 60 years of determining compliance with the APA, more than 30 years of reviewing environmental 

impact statements under NEPA, and about 35 years of ensuring 

adequate agency release of information under the Freedom of Information Act. RFA compliance is no more difficult and additional 

agency adjudication under the principle of exhaustion past the final 

rule simply will be of no benefit to the court. Finally, recalcitrant 

agencies like CMS and AMS, rather than risking immediate litigation over RFA compliance, will take the initiative, to improve their 

RFA compliance during the rulemaking process. 

Section 8(c) of the bill makes conforming technical corrections to 

§ 611. The trigger for any challenge is modified from the date of 

final agency action to publication of the final rule. 

Section 8(d) clarifies the Chief Counsel’s amicus authority. In the 

past, the Department of Justice has challenged the scope of the 

Chief Counsel’s brief on the occasions that the Chief Counsel has 

prepared a brief under § 612. In one instance (prior to the enactment of SBREFA), the Department of Justice questioned whether 

the brief could address the rationality of the rule and compliance 

with the RFA. The authors of SBREFA attempted to clarify this by 

authorizing the amicus brief to address the adequacy of the rulemaking record with respect to small entities. Given the changes 

being made in § 5 of H.R. 2542 concerning the promulgation of implementing rules by the Office of Advocacy, it is appropriate to 

specify that the Chief Counsel has the authority to address compliance with §§ 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, and 610 of the RFA. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

Section 9. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals for challenges to rules 

implementing RFA 

Section 9 recognizes that certain actions taken by the Chief 

Counsel may adversely affect the rights of small entities. The regulations concerning the implementation of the RFA, and any subsequent changes to those rules should be subject to judicial review by 

small entities that believe the rules do not properly implement the 

RFA. Any small entity would be entitled to challenge the Chief 

Counsel’s decision pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Orders Review Act, U.S.C. §§ 2341–51. Given the importance 

of these rules and their impact on federal rulemaking, a federal appeals court appears to be the most appropriate venue for review. 

In some instances, challenges to agency decisions, such as those 

concerning ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act 

or licenses for use of spectrum under the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, must be brought in the D.C. Circuit. It would 

be inappropriate to force small entities to retain counsel and prosecute an appeal solely in the District of Columbia. In addition to 

authorizing challenges to Chief Counsel regulations, § 9(b) also 

makes appropriate technical and conforming changes to the RFA 

and the Administrative Orders Review Act. 

As already noted, the Department of Justice has argued that limitations should exist on the scope of the amicus brief filed by the 

Chief Counsel. The RFA simply represents one component of the 

necessary considerations for developing a rational rule as mandated by the APA. A limitation on the scope of the amicus brief 

would place the Chief Counsel in the odd position of arguing that 

the agency did not comply with the RFA but could then not draw 

the obvious conclusion—the procedural failure constitutes a violation of the rational rulemaking mandated by the APA. See Motor 

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 

(1983); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 

418–19 (1971). Furthermore, the analysis performed by the agency 

pursuant to the RFA can demonstrate that the rule itself is irrational even if the agency complied with the RFA. Thompson v. 

Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 405 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Chief Counsel 

should not be prohibited from reaching conclusions of law concerning the rationality of an agency’s rule in an amicus brief. Section 9(c) clarifies that the Chief Counsel has the authority in its 

amicus briefs to comment on compliance with the rationality of the 

rule as well as the procedures for complying with the APA and the 

RFA. 

Section 10. Establishment and approval of Small Business Concern 

Size Standards by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

In 1992, Senators Dale Bumpers (D–AR) and Malcolm Wallop 

(R–-WY) were incensed at actions taken by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) to increase fees for byproduct users of fissile 

material under the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC did not perform 

an adequate assessment of these fee increases on small entities as 

required by the RFA. In establishing these fees, the NRC utilized 

a different set of definitions than had been set by the SBA under 

§ 3 of the Small Business Act. Senators Bumpers and Wallop sponsored an amendment to the Small Business Act requiring that federal agencies wishing to adopt a definition of small business that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

varied from those promulgated by the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to its § 3 authority must issue the new size 

standard for notice and comment and then obtain approval of the 

Administrator of the SBA. 

While the Administrator has significant acumen in setting size 

standards, that expertise is limited to the use of size standards for 

purposes of the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment 

Act of 1958. As a result, the Administrator is not the proper official 

to determine size standards for purposes of other agencies’ regulatory activities. The Administrator is not fluent with the vast 

array of federal regulatory programs, is not in constant communication with small entities that might be affected by another federal agency’s regulatory regime, and does not have the analytical 

expertise to assess the regulatory impact of a particular size standard on small entities. Furthermore, the Administrator’s standards 

are: very inclusive, not developed to comport with other agencies’ 

regulatory regimes, and lack sufficient granularity to examine the 

impact of a proposed rule on a spectrum of small businesses. When 

other agencies have sought the approval of the Administrator 

under the amendments made to § 3 of the Small Business Act by 

Senators Bumpers and Wallop, the Office of Size Standards consulted with personnel in the Office of Advocacy on the rectitude of 

an agency’s definition of small business that varied from those set 

forth in the SBA’s regulations interpreting the Small Business Act. 

Given this rationale, it is appropriate to split the size standard 

functions in the Small Business Act. Section 10 of H.R. 2542 provides that the Administrator shall establish size standards to carry 

out the purposes of the Small Business Act or Small Business Investment Act of 1958. Section 10 then delegates the authority to 

approve a size standard for purposes of all other statutes to the 

Chief Counsel. The Chief Counsel is only entitled to rule on size 

standards for definitions of small business concerns if the agency 

issuing the regulation does not adopt a size standard approved by 

the Administrator for carrying out the purposes of the Small Business Act or Small Business Investment Act. This will constrain the 

number of size standard decisions by the Chief Counsel and allow 

agencies to utilize already established standards rather than have 

to go through the Chief Counsel for approval of each standard. If 

a federal agency adopts, as a definition of small business, a size 

standard approved by the Administrator, the federal agency need 

not seek approval of the Chief Counsel pursuant to § 3 of the Small 

Business Act as amended by H.R. 2542. The determination of a size 

standard for other regulatory purposes has no effect on the requirements of an agency that wishes to develop a definition of small 

business as set forth in § 601(3) of the RFA. Thus, there are two 

different size standard approvals that the Chief Counsel may be 

forced to make: 1) the size determination for analyzing the proposed and final rule pursuant to the RFA; and 2) the definition of 

a small business that may be included in the text of the final rule. 

Nothing in the legislation requires that the agency promulgating 

a regulation must utilize the size standards in its rules for purposes of complying with the RFA. However, it would be logical for 

the agency to explain the rationale for adopting different definitions in the statement of basis and purpose as well as any FRFA 

or certification. To be sure, an agency may use a different definiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

81This could be particularly problematic if the size standard adopted by the agency with the 

concurrence of the Chief Counsel is larger than the size standard promulgated by the Administrator. The Administrator might feel such an expansion of the term ‘‘small business’’ inappropriate. 

tion of small business for purposes of compliance with the RFA if 

the agency adopts the Administrator’s definition of small business 

in the rule at issue. 

An alternative to the approach taken in H.R. 2542 would be for 

the Administrator to make all size standard determinations with 

the concurrence of the Chief Counsel on those size standards developed to implement statutes other than the Small Business Act or 

Small Business Investment Act. Adoption of that regulatory regime 

could lead to the anomalous result of the Chief Counsel and Administrator making different determinations on the same size 

standard. Under § 601 of the RFA, the default size standard for 

agency compliance with the RFA are the ones adopted by the Administrator and set forth in Part 121 of Title 13, Code of Federal 

Regulations. However, the RFA permits the agency to utilize a different standard in complying with the RFA after consultation with 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. The agency then uses that standard for its initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses which results in the agency adopting a small business exemption identical 

to the definition of a small business in its regulatory flexibility 

analyses. Since that definition is different than the one adopted by 

the Administrator, the agency must seek the approval of the Administrator. If the Administrator disapproves that standard, then 

a small business exemption that the Chief Counsel and the agency 

thought was appropriate would not be put into effect.81 H.R. 2542 

avoids these potentially anomalous results by vesting the Chief 

Counsel with the sole authority to make size decisions for the purposes of other regulatory programs. 

Section 10(c) makes conforming changes in § 3(a)(3). The Chief 

Counsel is added to ensure that size standards vary from industry 

to industry as is appropriate given the context of the rulemaking 

for which the Chief Counsel has been asked to approve a definition 

of small business. 

The Chief Counsel’s decision on size standards should be rational 

and subject to judicial review. Section 10(d) authorizing judicial review eliminates litigation over whether Congress intended a private right of action under Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), or 

whether the decision was left to the discretion of the agency pursuant to Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). 

To be sure, the Office of Advocacy could be placed in the odd circumstance of being a respondent in an action in which it is defended by the Department of Justice while at the same time filing 

an amicus brief against the Department of Justice on whether the 

agency complied with the RFA. Given the fact, the Chief Counsel’s 

‘‘intervention’’ in the RFA compliance aspect of the case is as an 

amicus rather than as a party, the Committee does not believe the 

odd litigation stance will prove problematic to the court reviewing 

the case or the Department of Justice’s defense of the Chief Counsel. The odd alignment of defendants and friends of the court 

should not complicate judicial review because courts often face 

challenges in which one party challenging an agency action may 

agree with the agency in opposition to a stance taken by another 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

82 It is very unlikely that the Chief Counsel will condemn an agency’s compliance with the 

RFA because of a size standard used in the regulation was approved by the Chief Counsel. That 

actually would be the height of irrational decisionmaking. 

party challenging the same rules. Despite the potential alignment 

of interests, the Department of Justice should be able to fulfill its 

obligations to defend the Chief Counsel on the size standard decision82 even though the Chief Counsel may be filing an amicus brief 

in opposition to the Justice Department’s other agency defendant. 

Finally, given the nature of the claims and the record on review, 

the Department of Justice’s defense of the action will reveal client 

confidences concerning the development of the rule to a ‘‘party’’ opposed to the rule. 

Nothing in these changes made by H.R. 2542 are designed to authorize a specific challenge to the size determination made by the 

agency and the Office of Advocacy pursuant to § 601(3). To the extent that a party believes that the size standard utilized in complying with the RFA was unreasonable, the adversely affected 

small entity may challenge the agency’s compliance with the RFA 

as set forth in § 611. 

The changes made in H.R. 2542 will not represent a significant 

strain on the resources of the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. According to data from the SBA, there have been 27 requests 

by other agencies under the authority of amended section 3 of the 

Small Business Act since the date of amendment in 1992. That 

works out to between one to two requests per year. Even that may 

be an overestimate since the vast majority of requests were made 

by the Federal Communications Commission to implement its authority to auction spectrum under § 309(j) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Given that the number of such auctions will continue to diminish as the government runs out of spectrum to auction, the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

should have sufficient resources to handle the authority transferred 

to it under this legislation. 

Section 11. Clerical amendments 

Section 11 contains appropriate clerical amendments needed to 

make the United States Code consistent with the changes sought 

by the Committee. 

Section 12. Agency preparation of guides 

Section 212(a)(5) of SBREFA requires agencies to prepare compliance guides for any rule for which a FRFA was prepared. Under 

the existing law, agencies may consult with small entities in the 

development of these guides. Section 12 requires agencies to solicit 

input from affected small entities or associations of affected small 

entities in the development of compliance guides. 

Since small entities represent most of the entities subject to regulations, soliciting input from small entities in preparing compliance guides will help agencies to develop better guides. Small entities can identify potential compliance problems with a regulation in 

advance so an agency is able to address those problems in the compliance guide. This collaborative process will provide the agency 

with the best opportunity for obtaining full compliance from small 

entities by ensuring that the compliance guide is comprehensive 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

and raises appropriate awareness of regulatory compliance requirements. 

Section 13. GAO Report 

Section 13 requires the GAO to examine whether the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has the capacity and resources to carry out its duties under H.R. 2542. The 

GAO’s study must be completed and published not later than 90 

days after H.R. 2542’s enactment. 

VIII. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 2542 would amend the RFA to require federal agencies to 

provide more detailed analyses of the impacts of their proposed and 

final rules on small entities, including small businesses. The bill 

also requires federal agencies to seek out the input of small entities 

prior to publication of significant proposed rules. Finally, the legislation revises the already extant requirement of agencies to review 

periodically their existing regulations. 

Based on information from the Office of the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy and other agencies, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 2542 would cost $45 million over the 

2014–2018 period subject to appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply to this legislation because 

it could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, November 18, 2013. 

Hon. SAM GRAVES, 

Chairman, Committee on Small Business, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Buget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2542, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2542—Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013 

Summary: H.R. 2542 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) to expand the number of rules covered by the act and to require agencies to perform additional analysis of regulations that affect small businesses. The legislation also would provide new authorities to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Office of 

Advocacy to intervene and provide support for agency rulemaking. 

Finally, H.R. 2542 would require the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) to report on the implementation of the legislation. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2542 would cost $45 million over the 2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-asyou-go procedures apply. CB0 estimates, however, that any net inVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

crease in spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 2542 would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 2542 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2542 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 370 (commerce and 

housing credit), 800 (general government), and all budget functions 

that include funding for agencies that issue regulations affecting 

small businesses. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014–2018 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................. 5 9 12 12 12 50 

Estimated Outlays ................................................ 4 7 10 12 12 45 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the start of calendar year 2014, that the 

necessary amounts will be appropriated each year, and that spending will follow historical patterns for similar activities. 

CBO is unaware of any comprehensive information on the current level of spending for regulatory activities governmentwide. 

However, according to the Congressional Research Service, federal 

agencies issue 3,000 to 4,000 final rules each year. Most rules, regardless of size, are promulgated by the Departments of Transportation, Homeland Security, and Commerce, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Most major rules (those with an estimated economic impact on the economy of more than $100 million 

per year) are issued by the Departments of Health and Human 

Services and Agriculture and EPA. 

H.R. 2542 would broaden the definition of a ‘‘rule’’ for rulemaking purposes to include agency guidance documents and policy 

statements. The bill also would expand the scope of the regulatory 

analysis for proposed and final rules to include an examination of 

indirect economic effects on small businesses and a more detailed 

analysis of the possible economic consequences of the rule for small 

businesses and allow the analysis to be provided to a requesting 

small business. The legislation defines indirect economic effects as 

any impact that is reasonably foreseeable. The legislation also 

would require agencies to prepare reports on the cumulative economic impact on small businesses of new and existing regulations. 

Implementing H.R. 2542 would increase the amount of regulatory analysis that agencies would need to prepare, and it would 

expand the role of the SBA’s Office of Advocacy and the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the rulemaking process. Finally, the legislation 

would require more federal agencies to use panels of experts to 

evaluate regulations and to prepare reports on the economic impact 

of proposed regulations on small business. 

Information from OIRA, SBA, and some federal agencies indicates that the new requirements would increase the cost to issue 

a few hundred of the thousands of federal regulations issued annuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

ally. Based on that information, CBO estimates that administrative 

costs in some regulatory agencies, the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, 

and OIRA would increase by a total of about $12 million annually, 

subject to the availability of appropriated funds. We expect that it 

would take about three years to reach that level of effort. The GAO 

report would cost less than $500,000 to complete in fiscal year 

2014. 

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. Enacting H.R. 

2542 could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through 

annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by 

those agencies would not be significant. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2542 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On September 5, 2013, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for H.R. 2542 as ordered reported by the House 

Committee on the Judiciary on July 31, 2013. Both versions of the 

bill contain similar provisions regarding amending the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the estimated costs are the same. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Matthew Pickford and 

Susan Willie; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

IX. UNFUNDED MANDATES

H.R. 2542 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 

No. 104–4, and would impose no costs on state, local or tribal governments. 

X. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House, the Committee provides the following opinion and estimate 

with respect to new budget authority, entitlement authority and 

tax expenditures. 

The Committee does not adopt as its own the estimate of new 

budget authority contained in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to § 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

The Committee believes that the cost estimate provided by the 

Congressional Budget Office exhibits a serious misunderstanding of 

the rulemaking process. Consequently, the cost estimate significantly overestimates the cost of complying with the new requirements of H.R. 2542. 

First, the Congressional Budget Office admits that there are no 

credible studies on the actual cost of writing federal regulations. 

The conclusion is buttressed by a review of federal appropriations 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

legislation which does not specifically allocate funds to the writing 

and drafting of regulations. 

Second, the Congressional Budget Office’s cost estimate is primarily based on the use of prepublication panels in § 6 of H.R. 

2542. Under H.R. 2542, the prepublication panel requirement, 

which currently only applies to CFPB, EPA and OSHA, would be 

extended to all agencies. The CBO asserts that federal agencies 

will be required to use ‘‘panels of experts to evaluate regulations.’’ 

This misstates who participates in the prepublication panel process. The participants in the panel process include small business 

representatives and a panel of government employees which includes a representative from the covered agency, a representative 

from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and a representative of the Office of Advocacy. The prepublication panel requirement is an outreach tool that allows agencies to get input on 

regulatory proposals that are under development from affected 

small businesses. Agencies identify small businesses that will affected by the regulatory proposal and small businesses provide the 

agency with recommendations on how to reduce adverse or increase 

positive consequences of the proposed rule on small businesses. The 

small business recommendations must be included in a report that 

is published along with the proposed rule. Agencies already have 

extant procedures to gather input from interested parties on regulations according to the plans developed in response to E.O. 13,563 

and executed pursuant to E.O. 13,610. For example, at a May 8, 

2013 hearing before the Committee, the Under Secretary for Policy 

of the Department of Transportation testified that they have been 

conducting outreach through Department-wide public meetings and 

utilizing existing advisory committees to engage with the public 

and address small business concerns. The prepublication panel requirement simply codifies existing outreach procedures and ensures 

that the input of small businesses on a particular regulatory proposal is memorialized. Thus, the Committee does not believe that 

the type of outreach required adds any cost to the process of writing regulations since agencies are already conducting outreach pursuant to E.O.’s 13,563 and 13,610. Furthermore, the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy analyzes proposed rules that affect small businesses 

already. Preparing the panel reports simply would move the process to a different point in that Office’s normal course of business 

in reviewing regulations published in the Federal Register. 

Third, federal agencies would be required to examine the indirect 

effects of significant rules, conduct more detailed analyses of the 

possible economic consequences of significant rules and evaluate 

the cumulative economic impact of rules on small businesses under 

H.R. 2542. While the Congressional Budget Office suggests the fact 

that these requirements will increase costs, the Committee disputes that conclusion. Agencies are already required to estimate indirect effects for and conduct an assessment of the costs and benefits of regulations that are subject to the strictures of E.O. 12,866. 

Agencies also already are estimating the indirect effects, including 

economic impacts, of some of their regulations to comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, agencies are already required to take into consideration cumulative effects of regulations under E.O. 13,610. Thus, the Committee believes that 

there will be significant overlap between the regulatory analysis alVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

ready done by agencies and what is required for H.R. 2542. This 

substantially undermines the rationale for this portion of CBO’s 

cost estimate. 

Fourth, agencies (other than independent collegial bodies) are reviewing their existing regulations to comply with E.O.’s 13,563 and 

13,610. Agencies published their final retrospective review plans in 

August 2011 to comply with E.O. 13,563. Subsequently, E.O. 

13,610, which supplemented E.O. 13,563, was issued to institutionalize regular assessment of significant regulations. In response 

to a question from Chairman Graves at a September 21, 2011 hearing on implementation of E.O. 13,563, then Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Sunstein stated that the 

agencies could conduct the review of all existing federal regulations, including outreach to the regulated community, under current budgetary constraints. The current Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs Administrator was asked, in a question for the 

record following a July 24, 2013 hearing, to explain how agencies 

are both doing their existing work and conducting retrospective reviews. Administrator Shelanski responded by stating that, ‘‘agencies are prioritizing their regulatory work based upon their respective agency goals and priorities, as well as guidance provided by 

the President’s Executive Orders.’’ If agencies are capable of conducting retrospective reviews within their existing budgetary constraints and able to prioritize the reviews along with their goals 

and priorities, there should not be a significant cost to comply with 

the requirements of H.R. 2542, i.e. agencies can comply with the 

new analytical requirements within existing budget constraints. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Committee does not adopt the cost 

estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office and believes 

that agencies will be able to comply with the requirements of H.R. 

2542 by utilizing the procedures and analysis that is already used 

to comply with Executive Orders 12,866, 13,563, and 13,610. The 

bill does not contain any new entitlement authority, tax expenditures, or tax revenue. 

XI. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In accordance with clause (2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the 

House, the oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee on Small Business with respect to the subject matter contained in H.R. 2542 are incorporated into the descriptive portions 

of this report. 

XII. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the authority for this 

legislation in Art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3, and 18; Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, and 

the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 

XIII. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

H.R. 2542 does not relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the 

meaning of § 102(b)(3) of Pub. L. No. 104–1. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 2542 does not establish or authorize the establishment of 

any new advisory committees as that term is defined in the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. 

XV. STATEMENT OF NO EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 2542 does not contain any 

congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in subsections (e), (f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule XXI 

of the Rules of the House. 

XVI. STATEMENT OF DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House, 

no provision of H.R. 2542 establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the federal government known to be duplicative of another Federal 

program, a program that was included in any report from the GAO 

pursuant to Section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance. 

XVII. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House, 

H.R. 2542 requires the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration to develop and issue regulations related to 

RFA compliance. The Chief Counsel is required, after an opportunity for notice and comment, to issue regulations not later than 

270 days after the date of enactment of the legislation to govern 

federal agency compliance with Chapter 6 of Title 5 of the United 

States Code. This ensures, as stated elsewhere in the report, that 

agencies implement the RFA in a consistent manner. 

XVIII. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House, 

the Committee establishes the following performance related goals 

and objectives for this legislation: 

H.R. 2542 includes a number of provisions designed to strengthen agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, reduce 

confusion among agencies concerning compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and streamline determinations associated 

with size standards for the purposes of statutes other than the 

Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958. 

XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 6—THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY 

FUNCTIONS 

Sec. 

601. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

ø605. Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses.¿ 

605. Incorporations by reference and certifications. 

* * * * * * * 

ø607. Preparation of analyses. 

ø608. Procedure for waiver or delay of completion.¿ 

607. Quantification requirements. 

608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

§ 601. Definitions 

For purposes of this chapter— 

ø(1) the term¿ 

(1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ means an agency as defined 

in section 551(1) of this titleø;¿. 

ø(2) the term ‘‘rule’’ means any rule for which the agency 

publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 

section 553(b) of this title, or any other law, including any rule 

of general applicability governing Federal grants to State and 

local governments for which the agency provides an opportunity for notice and public comment, except that the term 

‘‘rule’’ does not include a rule of particular applicability relating to rates, wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services, or allowances therefor or to valuations, costs or accounting, or practices relating to such rates, wages, structures, prices, appliances, services, or allowances;¿ 

(2) RULE.—The term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning given such term 

in section 551(4) of this title, except that such term does not include a rule pertaining to the protection of the rights of and 

benefits for veterans or a rule of particular (and not general) 

applicability relating to rates, wages, corporate or financial 

structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services, or allowances therefor or to valuations, costs or 

accounting, or practices relating to such rates, wages, structures, prices, appliances, services, or allowances. 

ø(3) the term¿ 

(3) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term ‘‘small business’’ has the 

same meaning as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ under section 3 of the Small Business Act, unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Registerø;¿. 

ø(4) the term ‘‘small organization’’ means any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field, unless an agency establishes, after 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

opportunity for public comment, one or more definitions of such 

term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and 

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register;¿ 

(4) SMALL ORGANIZATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘small organization’’ means 

any not-for-profit enterprise which, as of the issuance of the 

notice of proposed rulemaking— 

(i) in the case of an enterprise which is described by 

a classification code of the North American Industrial 

Classification System, does not exceed the size standard established by the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration pursuant to section 3 of the 

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for small business 

concerns described by such classification code; and 

(ii) in the case of any other enterprise, has a net worth that does not exceed $7,000,000 and has not 

more than 500 employees. 

(B) LOCAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.—In the case of any 

local labor organization, subparagraph (A) shall be applied 

without regard to any national or international organization of which such local labor organization is a part. 

(C) AGENCY DEFINITIONS.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) 

shall not apply to the extent that an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions for such term which are 

appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 

such definitions in the Federal Register. 

ø(5) the term¿ 

(5) SMALL GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION.—The term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ means governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, and tribal organizations (as defined in section 4(l) of the 

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 

U.S.C. 450b(l))), with a population of less than fifty thousand, 

unless an agency establishes, after opportunity for public comment, one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and which are based on 

such factors as location in rural or sparsely populated areas or 

limited revenues due to the population of such jurisdiction, and 

publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Registerø;¿. 

ø(6) the term¿ 

(6) SMALL ENTITY.—The term ‘‘small entity’’ shall have the 

same meaning as the terms ‘‘small business’’, ‘‘small organization’’ and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ defined in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of this sectionø; and¿. 

ø(7) the term ‘‘collection of information’’— 

ø(A) means the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the 

public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless 

of form or format, calling for either— 

ø(i) answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed 

on, 10 or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States; or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

ø(ii) answers to questions posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which 

are to be used for general statistical purposes; and 

ø(B) shall not include a collection of information described under section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States 

Code. 

ø(8) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT.—The term ‘‘recordkeeping requirement’’ means a requirement imposed by an 

agency on persons to maintain specified records.¿ 

(7) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘collection of information’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3502(3) 

of title 44. 

(8) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT.—The term ‘‘recordkeeping 

requirement’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

3502(13) of title 44. 

(9) ECONOMIC IMPACT.—The term ‘‘economic impact’’ means, 

with respect to a proposed or final rule— 

(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such 

rule; and 

(B) any indirect economic effect (including compliance 

costs and effects on revenue) on small entities which is reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated by 

the rule). 

(10) LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘land management plan’’ 

means— 

(i) any plan developed by the Secretary of Agriculture 

under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); 

and 

(ii) any plan developed by the Secretary of the Interior under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712). 

(B) REVISION.—The term ‘‘revision’’ means any change to 

a land management plan which— 

(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 

(A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)); or 

(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 

(A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5–6 of title 43, Code 

of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation). 

(C) AMENDMENT.—The term ‘‘amendment’’ means any 

change to a land management plan which— 

(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 

(A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(4) of the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(4)) and with respect to which the 

Secretary of Agriculture prepares a statement described 

in section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)); or 

(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 

(A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5–5 of title 43, Code 

of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

and with respect to which the Secretary of the Interior 

prepares a statement described in section 102(2)(C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). 

§ 602. Regulatory agenda 

(a) During the months of October and April of each year, each 

agency shall publish in the Federal Register a regulatory flexibility 

agenda which shall contain— 

(1) * * * 

(2) a summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to 

paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance 

of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action 

on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice 

of proposed rulemakingø, and¿; 

(3) a brief description of the sector of the North American Industrial Classification System that is primarily affected by any 

rule which the agency expects to propose or promulgate which 

is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; and 

ø(3)¿ (4) the name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable concerning the items listed in paragraph 

(1). 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) Each agency shall endeavor to provide notice of each regulatory flexibility agenda to small entities or their representatives 

through direct notification or publication of the agenda in publications likely to be obtained by such small entities and shall invite 

comments upon each subject area on the agenda.¿ 

(c) Each agency shall prominently display a plain language summary of the information contained in the regulatory flexibility agenda published under subsection (a) on its website within 3 days of 

its publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration shall compile and prominently display a plain language summary of the regulatory agendas referenced in subsection (a) for each agency on its website within 3 

days of their publication in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 603. Initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(a) Whenever an agency is required by section 553 of this title, 

or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking 

for any proposed rule, øor¿ publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an interpretative rule involving the internal revenue 

laws of the United States, or publishes a revision or amendment to 

a land management plan, the agency shall prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Such analysis shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on 

small entities. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a summary shall be published in the Federal Register at the time of the 

publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule. 

The agency shall transmit a copy of the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

Administration. In the case of an interpretative rule involving the 

internal revenue laws of the United States, this chapter applies to 

interpretative rules published in the Federal Register for codification in the Code of Federal Regulations, but only to the extent that 

such interpretative rules impose on small entities a collection of information requirementø.¿ or a recordkeeping requirement, and 

without regard to whether such requirement is imposed by statute 

or regulation. 

ø(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required under 

this section shall contain— 

ø(1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is 

being considered; 

ø(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis 

for, the proposed rule; 

ø(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; 

ø(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping 

and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; 

ø(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the proposed rule.¿ 

(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required under this 

section shall contain a detailed statement— 

(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is being 

considered; 

(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; 

(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to which 

the proposed rule will apply; 

(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including 

an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject 

to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary 

for preparation of the report and record; 

(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or the reasons why 

such a description could not be provided; 

(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact of 

the proposed rule on small entities beyond that already imposed 

on the class of small entities by the agency or why such an estimate is not available; and 

(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on small 

entities or a specific class of small entities. 

(c) øEach initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain 

a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule 

which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and 

which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities.¿ Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

shall also contain a detailed description of alternatives to the proposed rule which minimize any adverse significant economic impact 

or maximize any beneficial significant economic impact on small enVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

tities. Consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, 

the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d)(1) For a covered agency, as defined in section 609(d)(2), each 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall include a description of— 

ø(A) any projected increase in the cost of credit for small entities; 

ø(B) any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which 

accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and 

which minimize any increase in the cost of credit for small entities; and 

ø(C) advice and recommendations of representatives of small 

entities relating to issues described in subparagraphs (A) and 

(B) and subsection (b). 

ø(2) A covered agency, as defined in section 609(d)(2), shall, for 

purposes of complying with paragraph (1)(C)— 

ø(A) identify representatives of small entities in consultation 

with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; and 

ø(B) collect advice and recommendations from the representatives identified under subparagraph (A) relating to issues described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and subsection (b).¿ 

§ 604. Final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(a) When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 

of this title, after being required by that section or any other law 

to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, øor¿ promulgates a final interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws 

of the United States as described in section 603(a), or adopts a revision or amendment to a land management plan, the agency shall 

prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis. Each final regulatory 

flexibility analysis shall contain— 

(1) * * * 

(2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public 

comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (or certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b)), 

a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as 

a result of such comments; 

* * * * * * * 

(4) a detailed description of and an estimate of the number 

of small entities to which the rule will apply or øan explanation¿ a detailed explanation of why no such estimate is 

available; 

(5) a detailed description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be 

subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills 

necessary for preparation of the report or record; 

(6) a detailed description of the steps the agency has taken 

to øminimize the significant economic impact¿ minimize the 

adverse significant economic impact or maximize the beneficial 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

significant economic impact on small entities consistent with 

the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 

alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the 

other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the 

agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected; 

and 

ø(6) for a covered agency, as defined in section 609(d)(2), a 

description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize any 

additional cost of credit for small entities.¿ 

(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on small 

entities or a specific class of small entities. 

ø(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis available to members of the public and shall publish 

in the Federal Register such analysis or a summary thereof.¿ 

(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory flexibility 

analysis available to the public, including placement of the entire 

analysis on the agency’s website, and shall publish in the Federal 

Register the final regulatory flexibility analysis, or a summary 

thereof which includes the telephone number, mailing address, and 

link to the website where the complete analysis may be obtained. 

ø§ 605. Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses¿ 

§ 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications 

ø(a) Any Federal agency may perform the analyses required by 

sections 602, 603, and 604 of this title in conjunction with or as a 

part of any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if 

such other analysis satisfies the provisions of such sections.¿ 

(a) A Federal agency shall be treated as satisfying any requirement regarding the content of an agenda or regulatory flexibility 

analysis under section 602, 603, or 604, if such agency provides in 

such agenda or analysis a cross-reference to the specific portion of 

another agenda or analysis which is required by any other law and 

which satisfies such requirement. 

(b) Sections 603 and 604 of this title shall not apply to any proposed or final rule if the head of the agency certifies that the rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If the head of the agency 

makes a certification under the preceding sentence, the agency 

shall publish such certification in the Federal Register at the time 

of publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule 

or at the time of publication of the final rule, along with a detailed 

statement providing the factual and legal basis for such certification. The agency shall provide such certification and statement 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 607. Preparation of analyses 

øIn complying with the provisions of sections 603 and 604 of this 

title, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a proposed rule or alternatives to the proposed rule, or more general descriptive statements if quantification 

is not practicable or reliable. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

ø§ 608. Procedure for waiver or delay of completion 

ø(a) An agency head may waive or delay the completion of some 

or all of the requirements of section 603 of this title by publishing 

in the Federal Register, not later than the date of publication of 

the final rule, a written finding, with reasons therefor, that the 

final rule is being promulgated in response to an emergency that 

makes compliance or timely compliance with the provisions of section 603 of this title impracticable. 

ø(b) Except as provided in section 605(b), an agency head may 

not waive the requirements of section 604 of this title. An agency 

head may delay the completion of the requirements of section 604 

of this title for a period of not more than one hundred and eighty 

days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of a final 

rule by publishing in the Federal Register, not later than such date 

of publication, a written finding, with reasons therefor, that the 

final rule is being promulgated in response to an emergency that 

makes timely compliance with the provisions of section 604 of this 

title impracticable. If the agency has not prepared a final regulatory analysis pursuant to section 604 of this title within one hundred and eighty days from the date of publication of the final rule, 

such rule shall lapse and have no effect. Such rule shall not be repromulgated until a final regulatory flexibility analysis has been 

completed by the agency.¿ 

§ 607. Quantification requirements 

In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall provide— 

(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of the 

proposed or final rule and alternatives to the proposed or final 

rule; or 

(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed statement explaining why quantification is not practicable or reliable. 

§ 608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

(a)(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013, the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall, 

after opportunity for notice and comment under section 553, issue 

rules governing agency compliance with this chapter. The Chief 

Counsel may modify or amend such rules after notice and comment 

under section 553. This chapter (other than this subsection) shall 

not apply with respect to the issuance, modification, and amendment of rules under this paragraph. 

(2) An agency shall not issue rules which supplement the rules 

issued under subsection (a) unless such agency has first consulted 

with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to ensure that such supplemental rules comply with this chapter and the rules issued under 

paragraph (1). 

(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may intervene in any 

agency adjudication (unless such agency is authorized to impose a 

fine or penalty under such adjudication), and may inform the agency of the impact that any decision on the record may have on small 

entities. The Chief Counsel shall not initiate an appeal with respect 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

to any adjudication in which the Chief Counsel intervenes under 

this subsection. 

(c) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy may file comments in response 

to any agency notice requesting comment, regardless of whether the 

agency is required to file a general notice of proposed rulemaking 

under section 553. 

§ 609. Procedures for gathering comments 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) Prior to publication of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis which a covered agency is required to conduct by this chapter— 

ø(1) a covered agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and provide the 

Chief Counsel with information on the potential impacts of the 

proposed rule on small entities and the type of small entities 

that might be affected; 

ø(2) not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of the 

materials described in paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel shall 

identify individuals representative of affected small entities for 

the purpose of obtaining advice and recommendations from 

those individuals about the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule; 

ø(3) the agency shall convene a review panel for such rule 

consisting wholly of full time Federal employees of the office 

within the agency responsible for carrying out the proposed 

rule, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within 

the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel; 

ø(4) the panel shall review any material the agency has prepared in connection with this chapter, including any draft proposed rule, collect advice and recommendations of each individual small entity representative identified by the agency 

after consultation with the Chief Counsel, on issues related to 

subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) and 603(c); 

ø(5) not later than 60 days after the date a covered agency 

convenes a review panel pursuant to paragraph (3), the review 

panel shall report on the comments of the small entity representatives and its findings as to issues related to subsections 

603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) and 603(c), provided that 

such report shall be made public as part of the rulemaking 

record; and 

ø(6) where appropriate, the agency shall modify the proposed 

rule, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis or the decision on 

whether an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required. 

ø(c) An agency may in its discretion apply subsection (b) to rules 

that the agency intends to certify under subsection 605(b), but the 

agency believes may have a greater than de minimis impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

ø(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered agency’’ 

means— 

ø(1) the Environmental Protection Agency; 

ø(2) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of the Federal Reserve System; and 

ø(3) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of 

the Department of Labor. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

ø(e) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy, in consultation with the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2), and with the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, may waive the requirements of 

subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) by including in the rulemaking 

record a written finding, with reasons therefor, that those requirements would not advance the effective participation of small entities in the rulemaking process. For purposes of this subsection, the 

factors to be considered in making such a finding are as follows: 

ø(1) In developing a proposed rule, the extent to which the 

covered agency consulted with individuals representative of affected small entities with respect to the potential impacts of 

the rule and took such concerns into consideration. 

ø(2) Special circumstances requiring prompt issuance of the 

rule. 

ø(3) Whether the requirements of subsection (b) would provide the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2) with a competitive advantage relative to other small entities.¿ 

(b)(1) Prior to publication of any proposed rule described in subsection (e), an agency making such rule shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and provide 

the Chief Counsel with— 

(A) all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in making the proposed rule, including the draft of the proposed rule; 

and 

(B) information on the potential adverse and beneficial economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and the 

type of small entities that might be affected. 

(2) An agency shall not be required under paragraph (1) to provide the exact language of any draft if the rule— 

(A) relates to the internal revenue laws of the United States; 

or 

(B) is proposed by an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section 3502(5) of title 44). 

(c) Not later than 15 days after the receipt of such materials and 

information under subsection (b), the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the Small Business Administration shall— 

(1) identify small entities or representatives of small entities 

or a combination of both for the purpose of obtaining advice, 

input, and recommendations from those persons about the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule and the compliance of the agency with section 603; and 

(2) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from the 

Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, an 

employee from the agency making the rule, and in the case of 

an agency other than an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), an employee from the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget to review the materials and information provided to the Chief Counsel under subsection (b). 

(d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the review panel described in 

subsection (c)(2) is convened, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration shall, after consultation with the 

members of such panel, submit a report to the agency and, in the 

case of an agency other than an independent regulatory agency (as 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. 

(2) Such report shall include an assessment of the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, including an assessment 

of the proposed rule’s impact on the cost that small entities pay for 

energy, an assessment of the proposed rule’s impact on start-up costs 

for small entities, and a discussion of any alternatives that will 

minimize adverse significant economic impacts or maximize beneficial significant economic impacts on small entities. 

(3) Such report shall become part of the rulemaking record. In the 

publication of the proposed rule, the agency shall explain what actions, if any, the agency took in response to such report. 

(e) A proposed rule is described by this subsection if the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of the agency (or the 

delegatee of the head of the agency), or an independent regulatory 

agency determines that the proposed rule is likely to result in— (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; 

(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local governments, tribal 

organizations, or geographic regions; 

(3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 

States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or 

(4) a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

(f) Upon application by the agency, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may waive the requirements of subsections (b) through (e) if the Chief Counsel determines 

that compliance with the requirements of such subsections are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 

(g) A small entity or a representative of a small entity may submit 

a request that the agency provide a copy of the report prepared 

under subsection (d) and all materials and information provided to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration under subsection (b). The agency receiving such request shall 

provide the report, materials and information to the requesting 

small entity or representative of a small entity not later than 10 

business days after receiving such request, except that the agency 

shall not disclose any information that is prohibited from disclosure 

to the public pursuant to section 552(b) of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 610. Periodic review of rules 

ø(a) Within one hundred and eighty days after the effective date 

of this chapter, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register 

a plan for the periodic review of the rules issued by the agency 

which have or will have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by 

the agency at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal 

Register. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether 

such rules should be continued without change, or should be 

amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities. The 

plan shall provide for the review of all such agency rules existing 

on the effective date of this chapter within ten years of that date 

and for the review of such rules adopted after the effective date of 

this chapter within ten years of the publication of such rules as the 

final rule. If the head of the agency determines that completion of 

the review of existing rules is not feasible by the established date, 

he shall so certify in a statement published in the Federal Register 

and may extend the completion date by one year at a time for a 

total of not more than five years. 

ø(b) In reviewing rules to minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the 

agency shall consider the following factors— 

ø(1) the continued need for the rule; 

ø(2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; 

ø(3) the complexity of the rule; 

ø(4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with 

State and local governmental rules; and 

ø(5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or 

the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other 

factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. 

ø(c) Each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register 

a list of the rules which have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, which are to be reviewed pursuant to this section during the succeeding twelve months. The list 

shall include a brief description of each rule and the need for and 

legal basis of such rule and shall invite public comment upon the 

rule.¿ 

§ 610. Periodic review of rules 

(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013, each agency shall publish in 

the Federal Register and place on its website a plan for the periodic 

review of rules issued by the agency which the head of the agency 

determines have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Such determination shall be made without 

regard to whether the agency performed an analysis under section 

604. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether such 

rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or 

rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any adverse significant economic impacts or maximize any beneficial significant economic impacts on a substantial 

number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the agency 

at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal Register and 

subsequently placing the amended plan on the agency’s website. 

(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such agency rules 

existing on the date of the enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Improvements Act of 2013 within 10 years of the date of publication 

of the plan in the Federal Register and for review of rules adopted 

after the date of enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013 within 10 years after the publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. If the head of the agency determines 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

that completion of the review of existing rules is not feasible by the 

established date, the head of the agency shall so certify in a statement published in the Federal Register and may extend the review 

for not longer than 2 years after publication of notice of extension 

in the Federal Register. Such certification and notice shall be sent 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and the Congress. 

(c) The plan shall include a section that details how an agency 

will conduct outreach to and meaningfully include small businesses 

(including small business concerns owned and controlled by women, 

small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, and 

small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (as such terms are defined in 

the Small Business Act)) for the purposes of carrying out this section. The agency shall include in this section a plan for how the 

agency will contact small businesses and gather their input on existing agency rules. 

(d) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the Congress, the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and, in 

the case of agencies other than independent regulatory agencies (as 

defined in section 3502(5) of title 44) to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. Such report shall include the identification of 

any rule with respect to which the head of the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or (6) of subsection (e) and a 

detailed explanation of the reasons for such determination. 

(e) In reviewing a rule pursuant to subsections (a) through (d), the 

agency shall amend or rescind the rule to minimize any adverse significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 

or disproportionate economic impact on a specific class of small entities, or maximize any beneficial significant economic impact of the 

rule on a substantial number of small entities to the greatest extent 

possible, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. 

In amending or rescinding the rule, the agency shall consider the 

following factors: 

(1) The continued need for the rule. 

(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from 

small entities concerning the rule. 

(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 

(4) The complexity of the rule. 

(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of the agency determines it to be infeasible, State, territorial, and local 

rules. 

(6) The contribution of the rule to the cumulative economic 

impact of all Federal rules on the class of small entities affected 

by the rule, unless the head of the agency determines that such 

calculations cannot be made and reports that determination in 

the annual report required under subsection (d). 

(7) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the 

degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

(f) The agency shall publish in the Federal Register and on its 

website a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to such plan. The 

agency shall include in the publication a solicitation of public comments on any further inclusions or exclusions of rules from the list, 

and shall respond to such comments. Such publication shall include 

a brief description of the rule, the reason why the agency determined 

that it has a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities (without regard to whether it had prepared a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule), and request comments 

from the public, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

concerning the enforcement of the rule. 

§ 611. Judicial review 

(a)(1) For any rule subject to this chapter, a small entity that is 

adversely affected or aggrieved by øfinal agency action¿ such rule 

is entitled to judicial review of agency compliance with the requirements of sections 601, 604, 605(b), ø608(b),¿ and 610 in accordance 

with chapter 7. Agency compliance with sections 607 and 609(a) 

shall be judicially reviewable in connection with judicial review of 

section 604. 

(2) Each court having jurisdiction to review such rule for compliance with section 553, or under any other provision of law, (or 

which would have such jurisdiction if publication of the final rule 

constituted final agency action) shall have jurisdiction to review 

any claims of noncompliance with sections 601, 604, 605(b), 

ø608(b),¿ and 610 in accordance with chapter 7. Agency compliance 

with sections 607 and 609(a) shall be judicially reviewable in connection with judicial review of section 604. 

(3) ø(A)¿ A small entity may seek such review during the period 

beginning on the date of øfinal agency action¿ publication of the 

final rule and ending one year later, except that, in the case of a 

rule for which the date of final agency action is the same date as 

the publication of the final rule, where a provision of law requires 

that an action challenging a final agency action be commenced before the expiration of one year, such lesser period shall apply to an 

action for judicial review under this section. 

ø(B) In the case where an agency delays the issuance of a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section 608(b) of this 

chapter, an action for judicial review under this section shall be 

filed not later than— 

ø(i) one year after the date the analysis is made available to 

the public, or 

ø(ii) where a provision of law requires that an action challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the expiration of the 1-year period, the number of days specified in 

such provision of law that is after the date the analysis is 

made available to the public.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

§ 612. Reports and intervention rights 

(a) * * * 

(b) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration is authorized to appear as amicus curiae in any action 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

brought in a court of the United States to review a rule or agency 

compliance with section 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, or 610. In any 

such action, the Chief Counsel is authorized to present his or her 

views with respect to compliance with this chapter, chapter 5, and 

chapter 7, the adequacy of the rulemaking record with respect to 

small entities and the effect of the rule on small entities. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART VI—PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 158—ORDERS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES; 

REVIEW 

§ 2341. Definitions 

As used in this chapter— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) ‘‘agency’’ means— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) the Secretary, when the order is under section 812 

of the Fair Housing Act; øand¿ 

(E) the Board, when the order was entered by the Surface Transportation Boardø.¿; and 

(F) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, when the final rule is under section 608(a) of title 

5. 

§ 2342. Jurisdiction of court of appeals 

The court of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) has exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, 

set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity 

of— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) all final orders under section 812 of the Fair Housing Act; 

øand¿ 

(7) all final agency actions described in section 20114(c) of 

title 49ø.¿; and 

(8) all final rules under section 608(a) of title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

SMALL BUSINESS ACT 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

(a) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF SIZE STANDARDS.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the criteria specified in 

paragraph (1), the Administrator may specify detailed definitions or standards by which a business concern may be 

determined to be a small business concern for the purposes 

of this Act or any other Act.¿ 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the criteria specified in 

paragraph (1)— 

(i) the Administrator may specify detailed definitions 

or standards by which a business concern may be determined to be a small business concern for purposes of 

this Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958; 

and 

(ii) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy may specify such 

definitions or standards for purposes of any other Act. 

* * * * * * * 

(C) REQUIREMENTS.—Unless specifically authorized by 

statute, no Federal department or agency may prescribe a 

size standard for categorizing a business concern as a 

small business concern, unless such proposed size standard— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(iii) is approved by the Administrator.¿ 

(iii) except in the case of a size standard prescribed 

by the Administrator, is approved by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy. 

(3) VARIATION BY INDUSTRY AND CONSIDERATION OF OTHER

FACTORS.—When establishing or approving any size standard 

pursuant to paragraph (2), the Administrator or Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy, as appropriate shall ensure that the size standard varies from industry to industry to the extent necessary to 

reflect the differing characteristics of the various industries 

and consider other factors deemed to be relevant by the Administrator or Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

* * * * * * * 

(9) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STANDARDS APPROVED BY CHIEF

COUNSEL.—In the case of an action for judicial review of a rule 

which includes a definition or standard approved by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy under this subsection, the party seeking 

such review shall be entitled to join the Chief Counsel as a 

party in such action. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 212 OF THE SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY 

ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1996 

SEC. 212. COMPLIANCE GUIDES. 

(a) COMPLIANCE GUIDE.— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.—The agency shall, in 

its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter of the 

rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure that the 

guide is written using sufficiently plain language likely to be 

understood by affected small entities. Agencies may prepare 

separate guides covering groups or classes of similarly affected 

small entities and may cooperate with associations of small entities to develop and distribute such guides. An agency may 

prepare guides and apply this section with respect to a rule or 

a group of related rules.¿ 

(5) AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.—The agency shall, in 

its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter of the 

rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure that the guide 

is written using sufficiently plain language likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies may prepare separate 

guides covering groups or classes of similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with associations of small entities to 

distribute such guides. In developing guides, agencies shall solicit input from affected small entities or associations of affected 

small entities. An agency may prepare guides and apply this 

section with respect to a rule or a group of related rules. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(95) 

1 Agencies subject to the panel process include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, ‘‘Report on the Regulatory Flexibility Act for FY 2012,’’ at 3 (Washington, D.C., Feb. 2013). 

XX. DISSENTING VIEWS

BACKGROUND

In 1980, Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

to respond to concerns that the uniform application of federal regulations imposed disproportionate burdens on small firms. In order 

to minimize the burden of regulations on small businesses, the 

RFA mandates that federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of federal rules on small entities. Federal agencies 

accomplish this goal by analyzing regulations for their impact on 

small businesses. In addition to these requirements, select agencies 

provide further outreach to small firms by conducting small business advocacy reviews (SBAR) panels.1 The results of these interventions are used to tailor regulations in a manner that results in 

lower compliance costs for small firms. 

By many measures, the efforts taken under the RFA have already been very successful, calling into question the need for additional RFA legislation in the first place. During FY 2012, the Office 

of Advocacy claims that efforts undertaken through the RFA yielded nearly $2.4 billion in foregone regulatory costs for small businesses.2 Such results included regulatory savings across a widerange of agencies including the Department of Labor, Department 

of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). It is notable that significant savings were achieved at a considerable number of agencies not subject to the SBAR panel process. 

While the success of RFA is indisputable, the Committee has 

nevertheless pursued additional legislation in this area. In the 

112th Congress, the Committee and the full House passed H.R. 

527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, but it 

failed to become public law. H.R. 2542, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Improvements Act of 2013, incorporates the House-passed version 

of H.R. 527 from the 112th Congress and combines it with H.R. 

585, the Small Business Size Standard Flexibility Act of 2011, also 

passed by the Committee during the 112th Congress. Identical to 

its predecessor legislation, H.R. 2542 gives extensive new powers 

to the Office of Advocacy, imposes substantial requirements across 

all federal agencies, and does so at significant cost to the taxpayer. 

IMPACT OF LEGISLATION

H.R. 2542 makes far-reaching changes to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and its implementation. In doing so, the legislation 

makes it significantly easier for opponents to stop and delay the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

issuance of regulations throughout the government. As a result, 

federal agencies will face considerable obstacles in protecting 

human health, worker safety, consumers, and the environment. 

It is also important to recognize that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored the cost of H.R. 2542 at $45 million for the 

five-year budget window between 2014–2018 (note that the prior 

CBO estimate for this legislation in the 112th Congress was nearly 

double this estimate; this issue is discussed in detail below). However, it does not authorize any new funding for these new requirements. It is highly improbable that Advocacy’s post-sequester budget of $8.5 million and staffing level of 46 employees will be sufficient to administer the additional responsibilities contained in H.R. 

2542. 

Impedes Health, Safety, and Consumer Protection Regulation 

Taken together, the changes included in H.R. 2542 will create 

delays for agencies issuing regulations. The impact of these bureaucratic delays could be significant on individuals or businesses seeking immediate government action. For example, this could impede 

rules pertaining to food safety, consumer protection, health and 

safety, and veterans’ assistance. It could also adversely impact 

rules that would protect families from fraudulent practices in the 

mortgage industry or safeguard children from toxic substances. 

In this regard, Rep. Meng offered an amendment that would 

have specified that an agency does not have to comply with the requirements of the legislation if doing so would cause a delay that 

would result in a significant increase in the likelihood that children 

would be harmed. It was not agreed to by a vote of 11 ayes to 12 

nays. By not including this amendment, regulations that would 

protect children could be delayed or made less effective. Rep. Hahn 

also offered an amendment to address public safety concerns with 

the legislation. Her amendment would have required that at least 

one small entity (or their representative) that would benefit from 

or whose health or safety would be protected by the proposed rule 

shall be included in a panel. The amendment was not agreed to by 

voice vote, thus preventing the full spectrum of small business perspectives to be considered during a panel. To ensure that the interests of small businesses, who can be both exporters and consumers, 

were incorporated into trade agreements, Rep. Chu offered an 

amendment to require the Office of Advocacy to convene a panel for 

any trade agreement that is approved by Congress. This amendment was not agreed to by a vote of 9 ayes to 14 nays. Its exclusion 

will limit the examination of trade agreements’ impact on smaller 

firms. Rep. Murphy offered an amendment to exempts rules pertaining to the protection and rights of veterans from this legislation 

and it was agreed to by voice vote. Providing such protection will 

minimize the legislation’s impact on veterans. 

Further, the legislation requires agencies to analyze the indirect 

effects of proposed rules. This mandate would require wasteful new 

analyses that could be applied to virtually any action an agency attempts to undertake, no matter how unclear the connection is to 

small business interests. When added to the existing procedural 

and analytical steps that agencies must already take, the legislation would serve only to further delay rulemakings and make it 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

nearly impossible for agencies to fulfill their mission of protecting 

the public. Rep. Clarke offered an amendment to address this matter and strike this new requirement, but it was not agreed to by 

voice vote. By failing to incorporate this amendment, the legislation 

maintains its broad mandate to incorporate indirect effects into 

RFA analyses, allowing opponents of certain regulations to seek 

further delays. 

Fails to account for recent Executive Orders 

In 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13563, 

calling for agencies to retrospectively review existing regulations. 

Shortly thereafter, EO 13579 was issued applying this requirement 

to independent regulatory agencies. In 2012, EO 13610 was issued 

to institutionalize these requirements and to increase public participation in the regulatory process. Though previously introduced 

and passed Committee and the House in the 112th Congress, H.R. 

2542 has not been updated to accommodate the impact of these executive orders even though the Committee has held two Committee 

hearings this year. Testimony during these hearings on such retrospective reviews has shown that departments and agencies have 

produced more than two dozen regulatory review plans, with over 

500 regulatory reform initiatives. Just a small fraction of the rules 

already finalized will produce billions of dollars of savings in the 

near term. H.R. 2542 duplicates these efforts unnecessarily, imposing new costs and complexity to address a problem that is already 

being addressed government-wide. 

Puts the environmental and public lands at risk 

The legislation applies the RFA to Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land management plans. 

Land management plans address the need for restoration and conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of 

threats. In order to protect and enhance America’s water resources, 

plans proactively address adverse environmental impacts and emphasize the maintenance and restoration of watershed health. They 

also provide for the diversity of species and wildlife habitat and foster sustainable forests and lands and their contribution to vibrant 

rural economies. Applying the RFA to land management plans, 

would allow corporate interests, such as those engaged in the timber, energy, and mining industries, to challenge land management 

plans which restrict commercial activity in national parks and public lands. This could result in the exploitation of critical habitats 

and environmental resources. 

Gives SBA ’s Office of Advocacy unilateral power to slowdown any 

and all regulation 

The legislation will enable the Office of Advocacy to be involved 

in federal agency decision-making and not just on matters pertaining to agency compliance with the RFA as they are now. By 

broadening the Office of Advocacy’s role in the rulemaking process, 

the balance between the office and federal agencies will change 

dramatically. To address this concern, Rep. Chu offered an amendment that would have allowed an agency to avoid convening a 

panel if doing so would inhibit an agency from carrying out its statVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

utory duties. This amendment was not agreed to by voice vote. 

Similarly, Rep. Payne offered an amendment that would have prevented the legislation from being implemented until the Office of 

Advocacy certifies to Congress that it will not prevent agencies 

from taking appropriate and timely actions. This amendment was 

not agreed to by voice vote. By not incorporating either of Rep. Chu 

and Rep. Payne’s amendments, the legislation will make it more 

difficult for agencies’ to carry out their basic missions. 

Currently, the office may simply file a comment letter on a particular proposed rule and the agency may or may not heed its advice. However, if H.R. 2542 is enacted, the Office of Advocacy will 

be accorded with judicial deference in interpreting the RFA, providing the office with substantial power to coerce regulatory modifications. This could adversely affect federal agencies ability to protect consumers, workers, and the environment. 

Fails to account for the benefits of rulemakings and promote transparency 

Federal rulemaking confer large benefits on society through increasing human health and safety. To this point, the Office of Management Budget (OMB) has estimated that the annual benefits of 

major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2002, 

to September 30, 2012, for which agencies estimated and monetized 

both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $193 billion 

and $800 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $57 billion and $84 billion. H.R. 2542, however, fails 

to recognize only costs of regulations and not the benefits they provide to the public. For these reasons, Rep. Meng offered an amendment that would have required that the initial and final regulatory 

analyses include a description and estimate of the benefits of the 

proposed rule to small entities. This amendment was not agreed to 

by a vote of 10 ayes to 13 nays. Rep. Meng offered an additional 

amendment on this subject that would have required each agency 

to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule and if they exceeded 

the regulation’s costs, then the agency would not have to convene 

a panel under the RFA. This amendment was not agreed to by 

voice vote. Without either of Rep. Meng’s amendments, the legislation fails to provide information concerning the benefits of proposed 

regulations for small businesses. 

Along similar lines, Rep. Barber offered an amendment that will 

increase the transparency of the panel process. His amendment 

will require that the Office of Advocacy’s report summarizing each 

panel include an assessment of the proposed rule’s impact on the 

costs to startup a small business. This amendment was agreed to 

by voice vote. 

Diverts scarce taxpayer dollars away from key priorities 

Given the current fiscal situation and the recent sequester, it is 

hard to justify the diversion of limited taxpayer dollars to modify 

the RFA—legislation that is already producing impressive results. 

As the Office of Advocacy has stated, the RFA was successful in reducing small businesses’ regulatory costs by $2.4 billion for last 

year alone. To fully assess whether the Office of Advocacy has the 

resources and capacity to carry out H.R. 2542, an amendment ofVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:47 Dec 14, 2013 Jkt 085891 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR288P2.XXX HR288P2

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

fered by Rep. Clarke, and agreed to by voice vote, will require that 

the GAO to undertake a study to assess whether the Office has the 

resources to implement the legislation. 

Taxpayer dollars should instead be used to restore the budgets 

of domestic programs that were hurt the most by the sequester. As 

noted, over a five-year period, it is expected that this legislation 

would cost nearly $50 million, while the true cost, based on prior 

CBO scores, is likely closer to $100 million. Such sums could be 

used to fully restore the budget to services essential to the creation 

of new entrepreneurial opportunities such as the SBA’s Small Business Development Center, Women’s Business Center, Veteran’s 

Business Development, and SCORE programs. In an effort to mitigate the legislation’s impact on women, minorities, and veterans, 

an amendment offered by Rep. Barber and passed by voice vote will 

require agencies conducting periodic reviews of regulations to reach 

out to small business owned by women, veterans, and minorities. 

Finally, with regard to the SBA, H.R. 2542 could hurt the very 

entities that it is seeking to assist by delaying regulations implementing small business financing, contracting, and entrepreneurial 

development initiatives. 

Creates excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy 

This legislation splits the size standard functions in the Small 

Business Act. It provides that the Administrator shall establish 

size standards to carry out the purposes of the Small Business Act 

or Small Business Investment Act of 1958. It then delegates the 

authority to approve a size standard for purposes of all other statutes to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy. In practice, the Chief Counsel will approve size standards for agencies seeking to use a size 

standard other than approved by the Administrator for carrying 

out the purposes of the Small Business Act or Small Business Investment Act. Under current practice, if an agency seeks to use a 

different size standard it must get approval from the Administrator 

of SBA, unless specifically given the authority to do so in law. For 

RFA purposes only under current practice, an agency can use a different size standard if it consults with Advocacy and provides an 

opportunity for notice and comment in the Federal Register. Rep. 

Murphy offered an amendment to prevent this authority from going 

into effect unless the Office of Advocacy certifies it has the funding 

and personnel to carry out the section. This amendment was not 

agreed to by voice vote, creating a situation where the Office of Advocacy will be given new responsibilities, but without commensurate funding. Such a situation will cause the Office of Advocacy to 

reduce its efforts in core areas, including broadly advocating for the 

interests of small businesses. 

Requiring Advocacy to take on size standard determinations, 

even in this limited capacity, will require them to deviate from 

their current mission of advocating for small businesses in the regulatory process. Approval of a size standard can be time consuming 

and require different skill sets than the Office currently has. In addition, adding this capacity at Advocacy would duplicate the SBA’s 

Office of Size Standard mission. To put a finer point on these concerns, former Chief Counsel for Advocacy Frank Swain testified before the Committee that the Office of Advocacy should not take on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

the new responsibilities outlined in the legislation. To address this 

issue, Rep. Schrader offered an amendment to strike this new authority, which creates a duplicate sizes standard office in the Office 

of Advocacy and does not eliminate the existing SBA Office of Size 

Standards. This amendment was not agreed to by a vote of 11 ayes 

to 13 nays. By leaving this new authority in the underlying legislation, the SBA will have duplicative entities determining size standards. Such an outcome is a waste of taxpayer dollars. 

In attempt to provide a more rational and budgetary-sensitive 

rollout of this legislation, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez offered an 

amendment that would have required the Office of Advocacy to establish a compliance schedule that will determine when agencies 

shall become compliant with the new government-wide requirements to convene panels. The amendment would have required the 

Office of Advocacy to base its decision on the budgetary resources 

available to agencies and to the extent those agencies’ regulations 

have typically affected small businesses. This amendment was not 

agreed to by a vote of 11 ayes to 13 nays. Without this amendment, 

the legislation will be implemented across the entire government at 

the same time, irrespective of agencies’ budget situation. As a result, some agencies may not have the resources to implement the 

new panel requirements effectively and would do without the benefit of learning the lessons that would have come with a tiered implementation. 

Does not provide agencies with flexibility to respond to disasters or 

acts of terrorism 

The underlying legislation repeals section 608 of the RFA, permitting agencies to waive or delay completing an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis in the event of an emergency. By doing so, the 

legislation could lead to situations where an agency would be 

blocked from responding to a tragedy quickly and effectively. Disasters are all too common and terrorism continues to be a threat. Ensuring that agencies are not unnecessarily prevented from helping 

the public or protecting the homeland in a timely manner should 

be a priority. For this reason, Rep. Clarke offered an amendment 

that would have specified that an agency does not have to comply 

with the legislation if the head of an agency certifies that a specific 

rulemaking is necessary either safeguard the United States and its 

territories in regard to an act or potential act of terrorism or to respond or prepare to respond to a disaster. This amendment was not 

agreed to by a vote of 11 ayes to 13 nays. Failure to include this 

amendment could lead to situations where regulations critical to 

disaster response or national security are unnecessarily delayed 

due to RFA proceedings. 

SPECIAL NOTE ON CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO) COST

ESTIMATE

The CBO provided a cost estimate for H.R. 2542 that found that 

the legislation would cost $45 million over a five-year period. However, this estimate is entirely inconsistent with prior CBO’s scores 

and as a result seemingly unreliable for the purposes of floor consideration. During the 112th Congress, CBO provided a cost estimate for identical legislation passed by the Committee that was 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

$86 million over a five-year period. The legislation, H.R. 527 and 

H.R. 585, is wholly contained within H.R. 2542. The only addition 

to H.R. 2542 is a provision that would place further responsibilities 

on federal agencies, thereby increasing the cost of the legislation 

further. CBO provided no rationale for this change in the cost estimate and did not provide any explanation when asked by Committee staff. Given the massive discrepancies and CBO’s inability 

to provide clarification on this matter, CBO’s cost estimate for H.R. 

2542 is highly questionable and should be used with the utmost 

caution. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 2542 would dramatically expand the powers of the Office of 

Advocacy, including requiring the Office to issue RFA regulations, 

greatly increasing its role in judicial proceedings, and subjecting all 

RFA agencies to the panel processes. This would give opponents of 

regulations powerful tools to stop them. Doing so would leave many 

individuals, as well as the environment, without the protections 

that federal agencies are charged with providing. As a result, many 

regulations—including those related to consumer protection, the 

environment, and health and safety—would be delayed or, in the 

worst case, unimplemented. 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS