Common use of Regulatory Flexibility Act Clause in Contracts

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. 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 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. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), first enacted in 1980, was designed to place the burden ) XXXX certifies this rule would not have a significant economic effect on the government to review all regulations to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purposes, they do not unduly inhibit the ability a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Small public entities affected by this rulemaking may be cities, counties, towns, townships, villages or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000. Small entities are occasionally parties to competean agreement for the use of OCS sand, gravel, and/or shell resources. Over the last two decades, BOEM has issued nearly 50 leases or MOAs with 22 parties, of which five were small public entities. Four out of the five small public entities received significant Federal cost-shares to conduct beach replenishment projects. The RFA recognizes that the size of a business, unit of government, or nonprofit organization frequently has a bearing on its ability application and monitoring requirements are necessary to comply with a federal regulationFederal law and provide BOEM and the public with the best information on the topographic changes in the OCS borrow areas due to dredging. 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 Since BOEM is not proposing any material changes to the publiclongstanding requirements for the use of OCS sand, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to gravel, and/or shell resources, this rulemaking does not have a substantial effect on 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 Act (SBREFA) The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to allow judicial review of an agency’s compliance with the RFAreceive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The 1996 amendments also updated Ombudsman will annually evaluate the requirements for a final regulatory flexibility analysisenforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BOEM enforcement activities, including a description of the steps an agency must take you may call 0-000-000-0000. You may comment 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 without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the RFA. In determining the scope, or ‘universe’, of the entities to Small Business Administration will 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 investigated for appropriate action. If the effects of the This 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.a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)). This rule: