U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 6— THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

5 U.S.C. § 603

Initial regulatory flexibility analysis

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(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, or publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United States, 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 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 requirement.(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required under this section shall contain—(1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;(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;(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.(c) Each 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. Consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as—(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;(3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.(d)(1) For a covered agency, as defined in section 609(d)(2), each initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall include a description of—(A) any projected increase in the cost of credit for small entities;(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(C) advice and recommendations of representatives of small entities relating to issues described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and subsection (b).(2) A covered agency, as defined in section 609(d)(2), shall, for purposes of complying with paragraph (1)(C)—(A) identify representatives of small entities in consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; and(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).(Added Pub. L. 96–354, § 3(a), Sept. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 1166; amended Pub. L. 104–121, title II, § 241(a)(1), Mar. 29, 1996, 110 Stat. 864; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1100G(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2112.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 111–203 added subsec. (d).

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–121, § 241(a)(1)(B), inserted at end “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 requirement.”

Pub. L. 104–121, § 241(a)(1)(A), which directed the insertion of “, or publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United States” after “proposed rule” was executed by making the insertion where those words appeared in first sentence to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of this title.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–121 effective on expiration of 90 days after Mar. 29, 1996, but inapplicable to interpretative rules for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was published prior to Mar. 29, 1996, see section 245 of Pub. L. 104–121, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1981, except that the requirements of this section applicable only to rules for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on or after Jan. 1, 1981, see section 4 of Pub. L. 96–354, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: White Eagle Co-op. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
White Eagle Co-op. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “See 5 U.S.C. § 603 . The initial analysis must include: (1) a description of the reasons for the proposed action; (2) a succinct statement of the proposed rule's objectives and legal basis; (3) a description of, and the number of, small entities "to which the proposed rule will…”
Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 494 F.3d 161 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “" 5 U.S.C. § 603 (a). Along with the final rule, "the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis" which "shall contain," inter alia, (2) a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility…”
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. Env't Prot. Agency, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d at 342 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 603 (b)). Congress “did not intend to require that every agency consider every indirect effect that any regulation might have on small businesses in any stratum of the national economy.”
Vidal v. Nielsen, 291 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 2× “" 5 U.S.C. §§ 603 (a), 604(a). The Batalla Vidal Plaintiffs claim that the DACA Rescission Memo violated the RFA because it failed to consider the impact of the rescission on Plaintiff Make the Road New York ("MRNY") and similar small entities (BV TAC ¶¶ 184-85), while the State…”
A.M.L. Int'l, Inc. v. Daley, 107 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 2000). · cites it 5× “24 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 603 , 604; Associated Fisheries, 127 F.”
Ace Lobster Co., Inc. v. Evans, 165 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.R.I. 2001). · cites it 4× “Fourth, plaintiffs claim that the regulations do not comport with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 603 , 604 (1996). Fifth, plaintiffs claim that defendant did not have authority under the ACFCMA to withdraw the previous lobster…”
Hall v. Evans, 165 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.R.I. 2001). · cites it 4× “In Count Six, the Hall plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated 5 U.S.C. § 603 (c), which requires the defendants and his designees to complete an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which “accomplish the…”
Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016). “See 5 U.S.C. § 603 (c). Therefore, a blanket exemption for small businesses was not a significant alternative that DOE needed to consider.”
Am. Fuel & Petrochemical v. EPA, 937 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “As part of that analysis, the agency must assess any potential effects its proposed rule may have on small entities and must consider alternatives that would “minimize any significant economic impact” on small entities to which the rule will apply. Id. § 603(b)(3), (c); accord…”
Associated Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997). “See 5 U.S.C. § 603 . When promulgating a final rule,' the agency not only must prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) but also must make copies available to members of the public and publish directions for obtaining such copies.”
United States Cellular Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 254 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “5 U.S.C. § 603 . Not only did'petitioners fail to raise this argument until their reply brief, see Corson & Gruman Co.”
Cal. Cattlemen's Ass'n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 369 F. Supp. 3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “5 U.S.C. § 603 (a). The regulatory flexibility analysis must describe the effect of the proposed rule on small entities.”
Show all 89 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.