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

5 U.S.C. § 605

Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(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.(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 statement providing the factual basis for such certification. The agency shall provide such certification and statement to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.(c) In order to avoid duplicative action, an agency may consider a series of closely related rules as one rule for the purposes of sections 602, 603, 604 and 610 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 96–354, § 3(a), Sept. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 1167; amended Pub. L. 104–121, title II, § 243(a), Mar. 29, 1996, 110 Stat. 866.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–121 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “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 succinct statement explaining the reasons for such certification, and provide such certification and statement to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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, see section 4 of Pub. L. 96–354, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Northport Health Svcs. of Ark. v. USDHHS, 14 F.4th 856 (8th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Northport Health Svcs. of Ark. v. USDHHS, 14 F.4th 856 (8th Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “§ 706 (2)(A); and (iv) was promulgated in compliance with the RFA, 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b). Northport now appeals, and we have granted a stay of the Revised Rule’s enforcement pending resolution of this appeal.”
Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2004). · cites it 3× “See 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b). Such a certification must be made by the head of the agency and the agency is required to publish that certification in the Federal Register at the time of publication “along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification.”
Int'l Internship Programs v. Napolitano, 853 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 4× “” 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b) (1980). The RFA was amended in 1996 by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub.”
Am. Health Care Ass'n v. Burwell, 217 F. Supp. 3d 921 (N.D. Miss. 2016). “See 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b). Although plaintiffs may disagree with the Secretary’s analysis or wish it had been more detailed, that does not make out a violation of the RFA.”
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. Env't Prot. Agency, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “5 U.S.C. §§ 605 , 603, 604. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.”
Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency, 652 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “at 79,481; see 5 U.S.C. § 605 . The petitioners contend that EPA’s regulatory flexibility analysis was arbitrary and capricious in failing to consider the costs of complying with the state conditions that the final VGP would impose.”
G Eorge R. T Heiss v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 204 (Vet. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2003) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b)). The certification accompanying this regulatory amendment contained no such statement.”
Appalachian Power Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “Unless EPA certifies that the amendments to the Title V rule would not "have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b), it must also comply with the various procedural requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement…”
Associated Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997). “To disregard otherwise compliant analysis simply because it is not ensconced in a specific format would be inconsistent both with the RFA’s explicit authorization to avoid duplicative or unnecessary analyses, see 5 U.S.C. § 605 (a), and with the legislative concession that an…”
United Distrib. Companies v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Windward Energy & Mktg. Co., Intervenors, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “” 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b). The PUCs argue that the RFA required that FERC perform a small entity impact analysis for Order No.”
Ace Lobster Co., Inc. v. Evans, 165 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.R.I. 2001). · cites it 2× “; 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b). After a comment period, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) accompanies the publication of a final rule, and agencies are exempt from this process only if they certify that the proposed rule does not significantly impact a “substantial number”…”
Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 605 (b). In the analysis, the agency must evaluate how the rule will affect small businesses, describe the steps the agency has taken to “minimize the significant economic impact” of the rule on small entities and explain “why each one of the other significant…”
Show all 69 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.