Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), first enacted in 1980, was designed to place the burden on the government to review all regulations to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purposes, they do not unduly inhibit the ability of small entities to compete. The RFA recognizes that the size of a business, unit of government, or nonprofit organization frequently has a bearing on its ability to comply with a Federal regulation. Major goals of the RFA are: (1) to increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small business, (2) to require that agencies communicate and explain their findings to the public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. The RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities and on the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of the action. On March 29, 1996, President Xxxxxxx signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Among other things, the new law amended the RFA to allow judicial review of an agency’s compliance with the RFA. The 1996 amendments also updated the requirements for a final regulatory flexibility analysis, including a description of the steps an agency must take to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. Finally, the 1996 amendments expanded the authority of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to file amicus briefs in court proceedings involving an agency’s violation of the RFA. In determining the scope, or ‘universe’, of the entities to be considered in an IRFA, NMFS generally includes only those entities, both large and small, that can reasonably be expected to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action. If the effects of the rule fall primarily on a distinct segment, or portion thereof, of the industry (e.g., user group, geographic area), that segment would be considered the universe for the purpose of this analysis. NMFS interprets the intent of the RFA to address negative economic impacts, not beneficial impacts, and thus such a focus exists in analyses that are designed to address RFA compliance. NMFS has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not have negative economic impacts to small entities as defined and, as such, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, pursuant to 5 USC 603, is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule is not required to be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment, and therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., does not apply.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule does not impose any additional requirements on small businesses. The rule does not affect the method of managing Government property. The rule merely clarifies and corrects the previous FAR rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section II. of this rule), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The final rule applies only to the Banks, which do not come within the meaning of ‘‘small entities,’’ as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore, in accordance with section 605(b) of the RFA, see id. § 605(b), the Finance Board hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Community development, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the Finance Board hereby amends title 12, chapter IX, parts 900, 917, 926, 944, 950, 952, 961 and 980, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–611, requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of those rules on small businesses. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on such entities in accordance with the RFA.16 In proposing these amendments to part 30, the Commission stated that they would affect foreign members of foreign boards of trade who perform the functions of an FCM, some of which may be foreign affiliates of U.S. FCMs. The Commission previously has determined that, based upon the fiduciary nature of the FCM/ customer relationships, as well as the requirement that FCMs meet minimum financial requirements, FCMs should be excluded from the definition of small entities. No comment was received regarding the impact of these amendments on small businesses.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each federal agency either certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in final form, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule and publish the analysis for comment. For purposes of the RFA analysis or certification, financial institutions with total assets of $175 million or less are considered to be ‘‘small entities.’’ The FDIC hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This is because the FDIC already applies the Part 329 definition of ‘‘interest’’ and the interpretive rule on premiums for purposes of determining whether an account qualifies for full deposit insurance coverage as a noninterest- bearing transaction account. The FDIC is only transferring the definition from Part 329 to Part 330 because the former regulation will become moot on July 21, 2011, pursuant to section 627 of the DFA and its repeal of the statutory ban on the payment of interest on demand deposits. There will therefore be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as a result of this change.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.28 The Commission previously has established certain definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used in evaluating the impact of its regulations on small entities in accordance with the RFA.29 The proposed rules would affect swap dealers and major swap participants. Swap dealers and major swap participants are new categories of registrants. Accordingly, the Commission has not previously persons are, in fact, small entities for purposes of the RFA. The Commission previously has determined, however, that futures commission merchants should not be considered to be small entities for purposes of the RFA.30 The Commission’s determination was based, in part, upon the obligation of futures commission merchants to meet the minimum financial requirements established by the Commission to enhance the protection of customers’ segregated funds and protect the financial condition of futures commission merchants generally.31 Like futures commission merchants, swap dealers will be subject to minimum capital and margin requirements and are expected to comprise the largest global financial firms. The Commission is required to exempt from swap dealer designation any entities that engage in a de minimis level of swaps dealing in connection with transactions with or on behalf of customers. The Commission anticipates that this exemption would tend to exclude small entities from registration. Accordingly, for purposes of the RFA for this rulemaking, the Commission is hereby proposing that swap dealers not be considered ‘‘small entities’’ for essentially the same reasons that futures commission merchants have previously been determined not to be small entities and in light of the exemption from the definition of swap dealer for those engaging in a de minimis level of swap dealing. The Commission also has previously determined that large traders are not ‘‘small entities’’ for RFA purposes.32 In that determination, the Commission considered that a large trading position was indicative of the size of the business. Major swap participants, by statutory definition, maintain substantial positions in swaps or maintain outstanding swap positions that create substantial counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States banking system or financial markets...
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most contracts awarded to small entities use simplified acquisition procedures or are awarded on a competitive, fixed-price basis, and do not require application of the cost principle discussed in this rule. For Fiscal Year 2003, only 2.4 percent of all contract actions were cost contracts awarded to small businesses.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows: The data obtained from the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research Development Animal Research Development Test & Evaluation Protection Programs shows an estimate of 50 new DoD Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation contracts awarded in Fiscal Year 2012 that involved animal testing. Forty eight of these contracts were awarded to small businesses entities, which could be impacted by this rule. However, any cost burden caused by this rule will be outweighed by the effect of the rule preventing cruelty to animals. The rule does not add any new information collection requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that will accomplish the objectives of the rule. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2013–D038), in correspondence.
