Prove It Act — Rept. 119-108, Part 1 (House of Representatives, 119th Congress, May 21, 2025)
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
Summary
House Report 119–108, Part 1, on the Prove It Act, submitted by Mr. Williams of Texas from the Committee on Small Business and ordered to be printed May 21, 2025, to accompany H.R. 1163. The committee reports the bill favorably with an amendment and recommends that it pass. The amendment text requires initial regulatory flexibility analyses to address reasonably foreseeable indirect costs to small entities and adds a new § 605A letting small entities petition the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to review agency certifications. It also requires publication of guidance for certain rules and sets review procedures under section 610, including that a rule not reviewed within the 10-year period ceases to be effective. The report closes with Minority Views signed by Ranking Member Nydia M. Velázquez opposing the bill.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Prove It Act — Rept. 119-108, Part 1 (House of Representatives, 119th Congress, May 21, 2025).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-119hrpt108/
, SHA-256 5e8d32e461ad30d364a5585da9034d3b54fe042545de1a184b9ffc10b5ef5332.Full text
119TH CONGRESS REPT. 119–108
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
1st Session Part 1
PROVE IT ACT
MAY 21, 2025.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, from the Committee on Small Business,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1163]
The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1163) to amend title 5, United States Code, to require greater
transparency for Federal regulatory decisions that impact small
businesses, and for other purposes, having considered the same, re-
ports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that
the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Bill Summary ........................................................................ 5
II. Need for Legislation .................................................................................... 5
III. Hearings ....................................................................................................... 5
IV. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 5
V. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 6
VI. Section-by-Section of H.R. 1163 ................................................................. 12
VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 13
VIII. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 13
IX. Oversight Findings & Recommendations .................................................. 13
X. Performance Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 13
XI. Statement of Duplication of Federal Programs ........................................ 13
XII. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits ..................................................................................................... 13
XIII. Federal Mandates Statement ..................................................................... 14
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 14
XV. Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................... 14
XVI. Statement of Constitutional Authority ...................................................... 14
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 14
XVIII. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 23
59–006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
2
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prove It Act’’.
SEC. 2. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in section 603(b)—
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘;
and’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(6) where feasible, any reasonably foreseeable potential indirect costs the
proposed rule may impose on small entities, including small entities that—
‘‘(A) purchase products or services from, sell products or services to, or
otherwise conduct business with entities directly regulated by the rule;
‘‘(B) are directly regulated by other governmental entities as a result of
the rule; or
‘‘(C) are not directly regulated by the agency as a result of the rule but
are otherwise subject to other agency rules as a result of the rule.’’;
(2) in section 605(b), by striking ‘‘The agency’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later than
10 days after completing the certification described in this subsection, the agen-
cy’’; and
(3) by inserting after section 605 the following:
‘‘§ 605A. Review procedures relating to initial regulatory flexibility analysis
certifications
‘‘(a) FILING A PETITION TO REVIEW AGENCY CERTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED
RULE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any small entity, group of small entities, or organization
representing the interests of small entities may petition the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (in this section referred to as
the ‘Chief Counsel’) to review a certification published under section 605(b) that
a proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
‘‘(2) FORM.—The Chief Counsel shall—
‘‘(A) determine the method, timing, and form of disseminating a petition
described in paragraph (1); and
‘‘(B) display the information described in subparagraph (A) on the website
of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in a con-
spicuous manner.
‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—Each petition described in paragraph (1) with respect to a
certification published under section 605(b) for a proposed rule shall clearly and
concisely—
‘‘(A) specify the name of the petitioner and a telephone number, a mailing
address, and an email address that the Chief Counsel may use to commu-
nicate with the petitioner;
‘‘(B) if the petitioner is an organization, provide additional identifying in-
formation, as applicable, including the organizational or corporate status of
the petitioner, the State of incorporation of the petitioner, the registered
agent of the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner in representing small
entities affected by the proposed rule and the certification at issue, and the
name and authority of the individual who signed the petition on behalf of
the organizational or corporate petitioner;
‘‘(C) present the specific problems or issues that the petitioner believes
should be addressed or considered through a review of the certification,
such as—
‘‘(i) any specific circumstances in which the determination of the cer-
tification that the proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a signifi-
cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is in-
correct, incomplete, or inadequate; or
‘‘(ii) why the proposed rule would, if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
‘‘(D) cite, enclose, or reference any relevant and non-protected or confiden-
tial technical, scientific, or other data or information supporting any asser-
tion of the problems or issues with the certification;
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
‘‘(E) present a proposed solution to the problems or issues raised in the
petition, including potential regulatory or compliance alternatives to the
proposed rule;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
3
‘‘(F) provide an analysis, discussion, or argument that explains how the
proposed solution described in subparagraph (E) solves the problems or
issues raised in the petition; and
‘‘(G) cite, enclose, or reference any other publicly available data or infor-
mation supporting the proposed solution described in subparagraph (E).
‘‘(b) CONSULTATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any entity or organization desiring to file a petition under
subsection (a) may request a consultation with the Chief Counsel before or after
filing the petition.
‘‘(2) FORM.—The Chief Counsel shall—
‘‘(A) determine the method, timing, and form of requesting a consultation
with the Chief Counsel under paragraph (1); and
‘‘(B) display the information described in subparagraph (A) on the website
of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in a con-
spicuous manner.
‘‘(3) LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.—In any consultation regarding a petition
under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel—
‘‘(A) may only—
‘‘(i) describe the process for filing, docketing, tracking, closing,
amending, withdrawing, and resolving the petition; and
‘‘(ii) assist the petitioner to clarify the petition so that the Chief
Counsel is able to understand the issues of concern to the petitioner;
and
‘‘(B) may not advise a petitioner on whether the petition should be
amended or withdrawn.
‘‘(c) PRIMA FACIE REVIEW.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon receipt of a petition filed under this section with re-
spect to the certification of a proposed rule, the Chief Counsel shall make an
initial prima facie determination on the merit of the issues raised in the peti-
tion as to the properness of the certification and whether the proposed rule in
question would, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a sub-
stantial number of small entities.
‘‘(2) NO FURTHER REVIEW.—If, following the prima facie review of a petition
under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel determines that the issues raised in the
petition do not merit further review by the Chief Counsel, the Chief Counsel
shall, not later than 10 days after receipt of the petition, inform the petitioner
of that determination and the matter shall be closed.
‘‘(3) FURTHER REVIEW.—If, following the prima facie review of a petition under
paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel determines that the issues raised in the peti-
tion do merit further review by the Chief Counsel, the Chief Counsel shall, not
later than 10 days after receipt of the petition, inform the petitioner and the
agency that promulgated the proposed rule that the Chief Counsel shall conduct
a full review of the certification and proposed rule to which the petition relates
under subsection (d).
‘‘(d) FULL REVIEW.—
‘‘(1) CONSIDERATIONS; MEETING.—In conducting a full review under this sub-
section with respect to the certification made under section 605(b), the Chief
Counsel shall—
‘‘(A) consider—
‘‘(i) whether the agency that promulgated the proposed rule correctly
determined which small entities will be affected by the proposed rule;
‘‘(ii) whether the agency considered adequate economic data to assess
whether the proposed rule will have a significant impact on a substan-
tial number of small entities; and
‘‘(iii) the economic implications of the proposed rule; and
‘‘(B) convene a virtual or in-person meeting between the Chief Counsel,
the petitioner, representatives of the agency that promulgated the proposed
rule who are determined appropriate by the Chief Counsel, and the Admin-
istrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to—
‘‘(i) provide positions and support for those positions regarding the
certification of the proposed rule; and
‘‘(ii) allow the Chief Counsel to ask questions as the Chief Counsel
determines necessary to make a final determination as to the validity
of the certification.
‘‘(2) PUBLICATION.—Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Chief
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
Counsel begins a full review of a certification made with respect to a proposed
rule under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel shall submit to the petitioner and
the agency that promulgated the proposed rule, and publish in the Federal Reg-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
4
ister and on the website of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Admin-
istration, the results of the review conducted under paragraph (1).
‘‘(3) REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM ANALYSES.—If, after a full review of a certifi-
cation made with respect to a proposed rule under paragraph (1), the Chief
Counsel determines that the proposed rule will, if promulgated, have a signifi-
cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the agency that
promulgated the proposed rule shall perform an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and a final regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule under
sections 603 and 604, respectively.
‘‘(4) PENALTY.—If an agency fails to attend the required meeting under para-
graph (1)(B) or in any other way fails to assist the Chief Counsel in a full re-
view under paragraph (1) with respect to a proposed rule of the agency, as de-
termined by the Chief Counsel, the final rule shall not apply to small entities.
‘‘(5) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—For purposes of judicial review under chapter 7 of this
title, a certification made by an agency under section 605(b) for which a petition
is filed under subsection (a) shall be considered final agency action as of the
date on which the Chief Counsel—
‘‘(A) makes a determination under subsection (c)(2) that the issues raised
in the petition do not merit further review; or
‘‘(B) publishes the results of a full review of the certification under para-
graph (1).’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter
6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 605 the following:
‘‘605A. Review procedures relating to initial regulatory flexibility analysis certifications.’’.
SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF GUIDANCE.
Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘(f) With respect to any rule that an agency determines is likely to have a signifi-
cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the
agency shall, on regulations.gov or any similar internet website—
‘‘(1) publish all guidance documents and other relevant documents, as deter-
mined by the agency, including any updated guidance documents that set forth
interpretations of the rule; and
‘‘(2) allow for comments on the documents described in paragraph (1) to en-
sure that small entities may access and provide feedback on those documents.’’.
SEC. 4. REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR SECTION 610 PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)—
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the following fac-
tors’’;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(C) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘;
and’’; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(6) any indirect costs described in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
under section 603(b)(6), and any other indirect costs that may have arisen dur-
ing the 10-year period described in subsection (a).’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(d) If an agency fails to conduct a review of a rule as required under this section
within the 10-year period described in subsection (a)—
‘‘(1) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
shall notify the agency that the rule has ceased to be effective;
‘‘(2) the agency shall publish in the Federal Register a notification that the
rule has ceased to be effective, and solicit comments for why the rule should
be reinstated; and
‘‘(3) if, based on the comments received under paragraph (2), the agency de-
termines that the rule should be reinstated—
‘‘(A) the agency shall have 180 days beginning on the date of that deter-
mination to complete the review of the rule under this section; and
‘‘(B) upon completion of the review under subparagraph (A), the rule shall
be reinstated, notwithstanding the notice and comment rulemaking proce-
dures under section 553 of this title.’’.
(b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by subsection (a)(2) shall apply with re-
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
spect to any final rule issued by an agency—
(1) during the 5-year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
5
SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying
out this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
I. PURPOSE AND BILL SUMMARY
On February 10, 2025, Rep. Finstad, along with Rep. Hageman,
Rep. Moran, Rep. Salazar, Rep. Meuser, Rep. Nunn, Rep. Steil, and
Rep. Stauber, introduced H.R. 1163, the Prove It Act of 2025. H.R.
1163 strengthens the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by requiring
federal agencies to thoroughly assess the direct and indirect im-
pacts of regulations on small businesses and to publicly share up-
dates and reviews of final rules. The bill also allows small busi-
nesses to challenge agency actions through the SBA’s Office of Ad-
vocacy when agencies fail to meet these requirements.
II. NEED FOR LEGISLATION
On May 22, 2024, the Committee released a report titled ‘‘Regu-
latory Flexibility Act (RFA) Report: Agencies’ Noncompliance with
the RFA.’’ The report was a result of a 15-month long investigation
in which the Committee found that agencies frequently failed to
properly assess the true impact of their rules on small businesses,
among other agency efforts to skirt RFA requirements.
This bill codifies efforts ordered under President Trump’s Execu-
tive Order 14192 ‘‘Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.’’ 1
H.R. 1163 is necessary to address longstanding deficiencies in
agency compliance with the RFA. The RFA requires ‘‘federal agen-
cies to consider the effects of their regulations on small businesses
and other small entities.’’ Unfortunately, agencies are not properly
considering the effects of their regulations on small businesses.
Congress has not amended the RFA since 2010, therefore it is es-
sential for H.R. 1163 to strengthen procedural safeguards and shift
power back to small businesses. The RFA was a pivotal first step
in ensuring that small businesses have a way to challenge the over-
ly burdensome administrative state, but agencies still underreport,
minimize or ignore the effect regulations have on small businesses.
The Prove It Act of 2025 will help force the administrative state to
comply with the RFA, ensure indirect costs on small businesses are
properly accounted for, and gives small businesses a way to chal-
lenge non-compliant agencies.
III. HEARINGS
On April 1, 2025, the Committee on Small Business held a hear-
ing examining matters related to H.R. 1163 entitled ‘‘The Golden
Age: Unleashing Main Street Through Deregulation.’’
IV. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee on Small Business met in open session, with a
quorum being present, on April 30, 2025, and ordered H.R. 1163,
as amended, to be reported favorably to the House of Representa-
tives by a roll call vote of 15 ayes to 11 nos. During the markup
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
five amendments were offered.
1 Exec. Order No. 14,192, 90 Fed. Reg. 9065 (2025).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
6
V. COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representa-
tives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the mo-
tion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The Committee
voted to favorably report H.R. 1163, as amended, to the House of
Representatives at 6:21 PM.
The Committee considered the following amendments to H.R.
1163:
• Representative Finstad offered an amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute. This amendment was adopted by voice
vote.
• Representative Goodlander offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The vote on the
amendment failed 11 ayes to 15 nos.
• Representative McGarvey offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The vote on the
amendment failed 11 ayes to 15 nos.
• Representative Velázquez offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The vote on the
amendment failed 11 ayes to 15 nos.
• Representative Olszewski offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The vote on the
amendment failed 11 ayes to 15 nos.
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
7
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 8 here HR108.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
8
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 9 here HR108.002
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
9
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 10 here HR108.003
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
10
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 11 here HR108.004
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
11
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
Insert offset folio 12 here HR108.005
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
12
VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION OF H.R. 1163
Section 1—Short title
This act may be cited as the ‘‘Prove It Act of 2025.’’
Section 2—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section requires agencies to consider ‘‘indirect costs’’ when
conducting an RFA certification. This includes costs to small enti-
ties which purchase from or sell to directly impacted entities, are
regulated by other government entities because of the rule, or are
subject to other regulations because of the rule.
Any small entity or group representing small entities can peti-
tion the SBA Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) to review an agency’s
certification.
• Advocacy will conduct an initial review. If the rule does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial num-
ber of small entities, the review stops there. If it does, Advo-
cacy has 10 days to notify the petitioner and agency that Advo-
cacy will do a full review.
• The full review must consider whether the agency: (1) cor-
rectly considered which small entities would be impacted; and
(2) accurately and wholly considered the relevant economic
data and impact.
• Advocacy must host a meeting between itself, the peti-
tioner, representatives of the agency, and the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
» This meeting allows each side to defend its position
and Advocacy to ask questions.
• Final review must be published by Advocacy within 30
days.
• If determined to have a substantial economic impact on a
significant number of small entities, the agency that promul-
gated the proposed rule must perform an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) for the rule.
• If the agency fails to comply with any of the above, the
rule does not apply to small entities.
Section 3—Publication of guidance
For any rule determined to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, the promulgating agency
must publish the guidance and all relevant documents on Regula-
tions.gov. The agency must also allow for comments on the pub-
lished documents.
Section 4—Review procedures for section 610 periodic review of
rules
When periodically reviewing rules, agencies must consider the in-
direct costs considered in the IRFA and any others arising in the
10-year period since the last review or since the publication of the
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
rule. If an agency fails to do the review, Advocacy will alert the
agency that the rule is no longer valid, and the agency must pub-
lish said information in the Federal Register.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
13
VII. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives, the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursu-
ant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The
Committee has requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a cost estimate for the Committee’s
provisions.
VIII. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY,
AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives and section 308(a)(I) of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following opinion and
estimate with respect to new budget authority, entitlement author-
ity, and tax expenditures. While the Committee has not received an
estimate of new budget authority contained in the cost estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursu-
ant to Sec. 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Com-
mittee does not believe that there will be any additional costs at-
tributable to this legislation. H.R. 1163 does not direct new spend-
ing, but instead reallocates funding independently authorized and
appropriated.
IX. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the over-
sight findings and recommendations of the Committee on Small
Business with respect to the subject matter contained in H.R. 1163
are incorporated into the descriptive portions of this report.
X. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, there are no specific
performance goals and objectives of H.R. 1163 applicable.
XI. STATEMENT OF DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, no provision of H.R. 1163 is known to be dupli-
cative of another Federal program, including any program that was
included in a report to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public
Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic As-
sistance.
XII. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS,
AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS
With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee finds that the bill does not con-
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
tain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
14
XIII. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal man-
dates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.
XV. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or
accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Con-
gressional Accountability Act.
XVI. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House, the
Committee finds that the authority for this legislation in Art. I, § 8,
cl.1 of the Constitution of the United States.
XVII. 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 omit-
ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,
and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
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 omit-
ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,
and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 6—THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY
FUNCTIONS
Sec.
* * * * * * *
605A. Review procedures relating to initial regulatory flexibility analysis certifi-
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
cations.
* * * * * * *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
15
§ 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, 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 anal-
ysis shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small enti-
ties. 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 Administra-
tion. In the case of an interpretative rule involving the internal
revenue laws of the United States, this chapter applies to interpre-
tative rules published in the Federal Register for codification in the
Code of Federal Regulations, but only to the extent that such inter-
pretative 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, in-
cluding 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 ruleø.¿; and
(6) where feasible, any reasonably foreseeable potential indi-
rect costs the proposed rule may impose on small entities, in-
cluding small entities that—
(A) purchase products or services from, sell products or
services to, or otherwise conduct business with entities di-
rectly regulated by the rule;
(B) are directly regulated by other governmental entities
as a result of the rule; or
(C) are not directly regulated by the agency as a result
of the rule but are otherwise subject to other agency rules
as a result of the 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
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
rule on small entities. Consistent with the stated objectives of ap-
plicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives
such as—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
16
(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting re-
quirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compli-
ance 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 enti-
ties;
(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 en-
tities; 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 Ad-
ministration; and
(B) collect advice and recommendations from the representa-
tives identified under subparagraph (A) relating to issues de-
scribed in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and sub-
section (b).
* * * * * * *
§ 605. Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses
(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 pro-
posed 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 state-
ment providing the factual basis for such certification. øThe agen-
cy¿ Not later than 10 days after completing the certification de-
scribed in this subsection, the agency shall provide such certifi-
cation and statement to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
(c) In order to avoid duplicative action, an agency may consider
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
a series of closely related rules as one rule for the purposes of sec-
tions 602, 603, 604 and 610 of this title.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
17
§ 605A. Review procedures relating to initial regulatory flexi-
bility analysis certifications
(a) FILING A PETITION TO REVIEW AGENCY CERTIFICATION OF A
PROPOSED RULE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any small entity, group of small entities, or
organization representing the interests of small entities may pe-
tition the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Ad-
ministration (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Chief Counsel’’)
to review a certification published under section 605(b) that a
proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant eco-
nomic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
(2) FORM.—The Chief Counsel shall—
(A) determine the method, timing, and form of dissemi-
nating a petition described in paragraph (1); and
(B) display the information described in subparagraph
(A) on the website of the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in a conspicuous manner.
(3) CONTENTS.—Each petition described in paragraph (1)
with respect to a certification published under section 605(b) for
a proposed rule shall clearly and concisely—
(A) specify the name of the petitioner and a telephone
number, a mailing address, and an email address that the
Chief Counsel may use to communicate with the petitioner;
(B) if the petitioner is an organization, provide addi-
tional identifying information, as applicable, including the
organizational or corporate status of the petitioner, the
State of incorporation of the petitioner, the registered agent
of the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner in rep-
resenting small entities affected by the proposed rule and
the certification at issue, and the name and authority of the
individual who signed the petition on behalf of the organi-
zational or corporate petitioner;
(C) present the specific problems or issues that the peti-
tioner believes should be addressed or considered through
a review of the certification, such as—
(i) any specific circumstances in which the deter-
mination of the certification that the proposed rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic im-
pact on a substantial number of small entities is incor-
rect, incomplete, or inadequate; or
(ii) why the proposed rule would, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
(D) cite, enclose, or reference any relevant and non-pro-
tected or confidential technical, scientific, or other data or
information supporting any assertion of the problems or
issues with the certification;
(E) present a proposed solution to the problems or issues
raised in the petition, including potential regulatory or
compliance alternatives to the proposed rule;
(F) provide an analysis, discussion, or argument that ex-
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
plains how the proposed solution described in subpara-
graph (E) solves the problems or issues raised in the peti-
tion; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
18
(G) cite, enclose, or reference any other publicly available
data or information supporting the proposed solution de-
scribed in subparagraph (E).
(b) CONSULTATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any entity or organization desiring to file
a petition under subsection (a) may request a consultation with
the Chief Counsel before or after filing the petition.
(2) FORM.—The Chief Counsel shall—
(A) determine the method, timing, and form of requesting
a consultation with the Chief Counsel under paragraph (1);
and
(B) display the information described in subparagraph
(A) on the website of the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in a conspicuous manner.
(3) LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.—In any consultation regard-
ing a petition under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel—
(A) may only—
(i) describe the process for filing, docketing, tracking,
closing, amending, withdrawing, and resolving the pe-
tition; and
(ii) assist the petitioner to clarify the petition so that
the Chief Counsel is able to understand the issues of
concern to the petitioner; and
(B) may not advise a petitioner on whether the petition
should be amended or withdrawn.
(c) PRIMA FACIE REVIEW.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon receipt of a petition filed under this
section with respect to the certification of a proposed rule, the
Chief Counsel shall make an initial prima facie determination
on the merit of the issues raised in the petition as to the
properness of the certification and whether the proposed rule in
question would, if promulgated, have a significant economic im-
pact on a substantial number of small entities.
(2) NO FURTHER REVIEW.—If, following the prima facie review
of a petition under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel determines
that the issues raised in the petition do not merit further review
by the Chief Counsel, the Chief Counsel shall, not later than 10
days after receipt of the petition, inform the petitioner of that
determination and the matter shall be closed.
(3) FURTHER REVIEW.—If, following the prima facie review of
a petition under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel determines
that the issues raised in the petition do merit further review by
the Chief Counsel, the Chief Counsel shall, not later than 10
days after receipt of the petition, inform the petitioner and the
agency that promulgated the proposed rule that the Chief Coun-
sel shall conduct a full review of the certification and proposed
rule to which the petition relates under subsection (d).
(d) FULL REVIEW.—
(1) CONSIDERATIONS; MEETING.—In conducting a full review
under this subsection with respect to the certification made
under section 605(b), the Chief Counsel shall—
(A) consider—
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
(i) whether the agency that promulgated the proposed
rule correctly determined which small entities will be
affected by the proposed rule;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
19
(ii) whether the agency considered adequate economic
data to assess whether the proposed rule will have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities; and
(iii) the economic implications of the proposed rule;
and
(B) convene a virtual or in-person meeting between the
Chief Counsel, the petitioner, representatives of the agency
that promulgated the proposed rule who are determined ap-
propriate by the Chief Counsel, and the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to—
(i) provide positions and support for those positions
regarding the certification of the proposed rule; and
(ii) allow the Chief Counsel to ask questions as the
Chief Counsel determines necessary to make a final de-
termination as to the validity of the certification.
(2) PUBLICATION.—Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Chief Counsel begins a full review of a certification
made with respect to a proposed rule under paragraph (1), the
Chief Counsel shall submit to the petitioner and the agency that
promulgated the proposed rule, and publish in the Federal Reg-
ister and on the website of the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, the results of the review conducted
under paragraph (1).
(3) REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM ANALYSES.—If, after a full re-
view of a certification made with respect to a proposed rule
under paragraph (1), the Chief Counsel determines that the pro-
posed rule will, if promulgated, have a significant economic im-
pact on a substantial number of small entities, the agency that
promulgated the proposed rule shall perform an initial regu-
latory flexibility analysis and a final regulatory flexibility anal-
ysis for the proposed rule under sections 603 and 604, respec-
tively.
(4) PENALTY.—If an agency fails to attend the required meet-
ing under paragraph (1)(B) or in any other way fails to assist
the Chief Counsel in a full review under paragraph (1) with re-
spect to a proposed rule of the agency, as determined by the
Chief Counsel, the final rule shall not apply to small entities.
(5) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—For purposes of judicial review under
chapter 7 of this title, a certification made by an agency under
section 605(b) for which a petition is filed under subsection (a)
shall be considered final agency action as of the date on which
the Chief Counsel—
(A) makes a determination under subsection (c)(2) that
the issues raised in the petition do not merit further review;
or
(B) publishes the results of a full review of the certifi-
cation under paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
§ 609. Procedures for gathering comments
(a) When any rule is promulgated which will have a significant
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the
head of the agency promulgating the rule or the official of the agen-
cy with statutory responsibility for the promulgation of the rule
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
20
shall assure that small entities have been given an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking for the rule through the reasonable
use of techniques such as—
(1) the inclusion in an advanced notice of proposed rule-
making, if issued, of a statement that the proposed rule may
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities;
(2) the publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking
in publications likely to be obtained by small entities;
(3) the direct notification of interested small entities;
(4) the conduct of open conferences or public hearings con-
cerning the rule for small entities including soliciting and re-
ceiving comments over computer networks; and
(5) the adoption or modification of agency procedural rules to
reduce the cost or complexity of participation in the rule-
making by small entities.
(b) Prior to publication of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
which a covered agency is required to conduct by this chapter—
(1) a covered agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advo-
cacy 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;
(2) not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of the ma-
terials 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;
(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;
(4) the panel shall review any material the agency has pre-
pared in connection with this chapter, including any draft pro-
posed rule, collect advice and recommendations of each indi-
vidual 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);
(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 rep-
resentatives 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
(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.
(c) An agency may in its discretion apply subsection (b) to rules
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
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.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
21
(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered agency’’
means—
(1) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of the Federal
Reserve System; and
(3) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor.
(e) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy, in consultation with the indi-
viduals identified in subsection (b)(2), and with the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Of-
fice 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 require-
ments would not advance the effective participation of small enti-
ties in the rulemaking process. For purposes of this subsection, the
factors to be considered in making such a finding are as follows:
(1) In developing a proposed rule, the extent to which the
covered agency consulted with individuals representative of af-
fected small entities with respect to the potential impacts of
the rule and took such concerns into consideration.
(2) Special circumstances requiring prompt issuance of the
rule.
(3) Whether the requirements of subsection (b) would provide
the individuals identified in subsection (b)(2) with a competi-
tive advantage relative to other small entities.
(f) With respect to any rule that an agency determines is likely to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, the head of the agency shall, on regulations.gov or
any similar internet website—
(1) publish all guidance documents and other relevant docu-
ments, as determined by the agency, including any updated
guidance documents that set forth interpretations of the rule;
and
(2) allow for comments on the documents described in para-
graph (1) to ensure that small entities may access and provide
feedback on those documents.
§ 610. Periodic review of rules
(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 sub-
stantial 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 ap-
plicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of
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
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
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,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
22
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.
(b) In reviewing rules to minimize any significant economic im-
pact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities in a man-
ner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the
agency shall consider øthe following factors¿—
(1) the continued need for the rule;
(2) the nature of complaints or comments received con-
cerning the rule from the public;
(3) the complexity of the rule;
(4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or con-
flicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with
State and local governmental rules; øand¿
(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 ruleø.¿; and
(6) any indirect costs described in the initial regulatory flexi-
bility analysis under section 603(b)(6), and any other indirect
costs that may have arisen during the 10-year period described
in subsection (a).
(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 pur-
suant 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.
(d) If an agency fails to conduct a review of a rule as required
under this section within the 10-year period described in subsection
(a)—
(1) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Ad-
ministration shall notify the agency that the rule has ceased to
be effective;
(2) the agency shall publish in the Federal Register a notifica-
tion that the rule has ceased to be effective, and solicit com-
ments for why the rule should be reinstated; and
(3) if, based on the comments received under paragraph (2),
the agency determines that the rule should be reinstated—
(A) the agency shall have 180 days beginning on the date
of that determination to complete the review of the rule
under this section; and
(B) upon completion of the review under subparagraph
(A), the rule shall be reinstated, notwithstanding the notice
and comment rulemaking procedures under section 553 of
this title.
* * * * * * *
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
XVIII. MINORITY VIEWS
Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in 1980 out
of concern that uniform regulations disproportionately burden
small firms.1 The Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) is responsible for
monitoring agencies’ compliance with the RFA and educates rule-
writing staff on the effect their rules would have on small busi-
nesses. Advocacy seeks to find targeted solutions that are less bur-
densome, and in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 2023), their efforts resulted
in more than $90 million in estimated regulatory costs savings for
small businesses.2
Concerns have been raised by the Coalition for Sensible Safe-
guards and other organizations that the RFA has become a tool for
large businesses to obstruct the regulatory process. To that end,
the ‘‘Prove It Act of 2025’’ would give the biggest companies a pow-
erful new tool to use against regulations that protect our health,
environment, and safety, and cause further harm to the very small
entities it purports to help.
Cumbersome New Process Giving Powerful Trade Groups Too Much
Influence
First and foremost, the bill creates an unworkable quasi-judicial
process within Advocacy for reviewing agencies’ certification that a
regulation would not have a ‘‘significant economic effect on a sig-
nificant number of small entities (SEISNSE).’’ Unlike the original
RFA, which only allows small entities to seek judicial review, the
‘‘Prove It Act of 2025’’ ‘‘would allow an ‘‘organization representing
the interests of small entities’’ to file a petition for review with the
Chief Counsel of Advocacy. This new process would let powerful
trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce petition the
SBA to review a certification as long as the organization can claim
to represent some small entities affected by the underlying rule.
Moreover, the bill would allow these organizations to challenge the
agencies’ certifications without identifying which small businesses
they represent or how those small businesses would be harmed by
the rules they are challenging.
Once a petition is filed, the Chief Counsel would have 10 days
to determine if the petition warrants a full review. If the Chief
Counsel determines that a full review is required, the Chief Coun-
sel has 30 more days to conduct the review and publish the results.
This new process would result in additional meetings with the rep-
resentatives of small entities, agencies, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and Advocacy. Multiple and duplicative
1 Stuart Shapiro & Deanna Moran, The Checkered History of Regulatory Reform, 19 N.Y.U.
J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y 141, 153–54 (2016) (describing hearings leading up to passage of the
RFA).
2 OFF. OF ADVOC., U.S. SMALL BUS. ADMIN., REPORT ON THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT:
FISCAL YEAR 2023 (2024), https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/RFA-FY23_
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
final.pdf.
(23)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
24
petitions could be received on the same rule, resulting in numerous
reviews and meetings.
Indirect Economic Effect Cost Estimates
The bill would also require agencies to include indirect economic
effects of rules in their regulatory flexibility analyses, which can be
burdensome, impracticable, and counterproductive. Under current
law, the RFA requires agencies to take into consideration the direct
impact on small entities and try to minimize the direct impact
while achieving the same goal. Indirect costs are significantly more
difficult to estimate, and agencies do not always have that informa-
tion available to them, nor do they have control over minimizing
them.
Unreviewable Discretion Granted to the Chief Counsel
In addition to creating a new process, the bill gives the Chief
Counsel unreviewable discretion to sanction the agency promul-
gating the rule by making the final rule inapplicable to small enti-
ties upon the finding that the agency failed to assist the Chief
Counsel. With 99 percent of businesses being designated as small,
the bill would allow Advocacy to essentially gut a regulation.
The Chief Counsel must also track agency completion of manda-
tory reviews of existing rules every 10 years. It requires agencies
to also conduct retrospective reviews based on the indirect costs
identified in the initial analysis. This provision doesn’t make sense
because agencies may have changed the rules significantly between
proposed and final rule stages, meaning the indirect costs identi-
fied in the proposed stage may not be applicable to the final rule,
let alone 10 years after the final rule has taken effect. To that end,
the provision is unworkable.
If the Chief Counsel finds that an agency failed to conduct a re-
quired review of a rule, the Chief Counsel could suspend operation
of the rule, meaning it wouldn’t apply to anyone or any business.
This provision creates another layer of regulatory review, which
would essentially allow Advocacy to freeze a regulation until an
agency review is conducted and then possibly reinstate the rule—
causing undue uncertainty to small businesses.
In the 118th Congress, Advocacy shared with Democratic Com-
mittee staff that small businesses need certainty in the rule-mak-
ing process and requiring small businesses to come into compliance
with a rule or regulation only to remove it from the books would
be onerous in and of itself. Advocacy further stated, ‘‘rules are inte-
grated into one another, and they have a much broader impact in
terms of who it affects, further contributing to the uncertainty in
the rulemaking process, particularly for small businesses that pro-
cure with the federal government.’’
CBO Score
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill would in-
crease administrative costs for most agencies, including Advocacy.
Accordingly, CBO reported that H.R. 7198, identical legislation in-
troduced in the previous Congress, would increase direct spending
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
for independent agencies by $10 million, reduce revenues by $7
million over the 2025–2034 period, and increase spending by $35
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
25
million over the 2025–2029 period, subject to the availability of ap-
propriated funds.3 In sum, the enactment of this bill would result
in significant costs to the taxpayer, and it would likely not result
in any meaningful reduction of the burdensome requirements to
small businesses.
Moreover, by opening the door for well-resourced trade associa-
tions to challenge virtually any rule, the bill could end up requiring
the Chief Counsel to review agencies’ RFA compliance for many of
the thousands of rules issued each year, to say nothing of agencies’
periodic reviews of existing rules. That would do little to help small
businesses but would help powerful companies with money to hire
well-connected lobbyists.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the
four agencies they reviewed to assess compliance with the RFA
generally met statutory requirements, but almost half hadn’t re-
ceived training since 2003. GAO made six recommendations, in-
cluding one requiring the Office of Advocacy to develop and imple-
ment procedures to provide training on RFA compliance, including
identifying the agencies most in need of training.4
Committee Democrats offered four commonsense amendments to
improve the bill, but Republicans rejected them all.
Ms. Goodlander offered an amendment to require organizations
to list the name, address, telephone number, and email of the small
businesses they are filing a petition on behalf of with Advocacy.
The commonsense amendment would close a loophole in the bill
that allows powerful trade associations to exploit the process by fil-
ing a petition without naming the small business they are rep-
resenting. Committee Democrats supported this good government
amendment that would bring transparency and accountability to
the process. The Majority rejected this amendment on the grounds
that listing the name, address, phone number, and email of the
small business the National Federation of Business (NFIB) and
Chamber of Commerce file a petition on behalf of would be an un-
necessary administrative burden.
Mr. McGarvey offered an amendment that would carve out an
exemption for any rules that the agency finds would have a sub-
stantial beneficial impact on veterans. He stated, the Prove-It Act
is the ‘‘same unworkable policy that would empower the country’s
biggest corporations to paralyze all federal rulemaking under the
guise of protecting small businesses.’’ He offered the amendment to
protect veterans from the damage of the Prove-It Act, given all Re-
publican cuts they are facing to programs like, Medicaid, health
care, and SNAP. The Republicans argued that the amendment
would create and exemption that would undermine transparency
and accountability and defeated it.
Ranking Member Velázquez offered an amendment requiring Ad-
vocacy to train rule-writing staff at agencies on how to comply with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at least once every four years, and
require agencies to submit a report on the retrospective review of
3 CONG. BUDGET OFF., H.R. 7198, Prove It Act of 2024, Cost Estimate (Dec. 2, 2024), https://
www.cbo.gov/publication/61042.
4 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: IMPROVED POLICIES FOR
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
ANALYSIS AND TRAINING COULD ENHANCE COMPLIANCE (Apr. 10, 2025), https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-25-106950.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
26
rules. The Prove-It Act disregards the meaningful progress that
agencies have been making to examine the impact a new rule
would have on small businesses. Rather than create an adversarial
process between Advocacy and the agencies under the Prove-It Act,
the amendment would foster a more constructive working relation-
ship that would lead to more success. The Republicans rejected this
amendment on the grounds that it would create ‘‘an uncertain and
burdensome environment.’’ It is ironic because the the Prove-It Act
would require small businesses to come into compliance with a rule
only to take it off the books ten years later, if a retrospective re-
view was not conducted in a timely manner and then put it back
on the books if the retrospective review was conducted. Small busi-
nesses need clear, consistent rules of the road, not chaos. Without
a solid argument against the amendment, the Republicans relied
on the argument that it will result in more ‘‘bureaucratic red tape.’’
It is important to note, that the Prove-It Act would establish a
whole new bureaucratic process filled with new analytical and pro-
cedural requirements, making the rulemaking process significantly
more complex.
Mr. Olszewski offered an amendment to carve out an exemption
for any rules that the agency finds would have a substantial bene-
ficial impact on workforce development programs and rural small
business owners. He pointed out the problems with the Prove-It
Act and stated his amendment would strengthen our workforce and
uplift small rural businesses. The Republicans rejected this amend-
ment based on the flawed assumption that it would result in fraud.
I countered that the fraud Mr. Finstad was referring to started
under the first Trump Administration.
In conclusion, Committee Democrats could not support the Prove-
It Act, which creates an unworkable bureaucratic process, and al-
lows powerful companies to exploit rulemakings that benefit small
businesses, and protect the health and safety of all Americans.
NYDIA M. VELÁZQUEZ,
Ranking Member.
Æ
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 May 31, 2025 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR108P1.XXX HR108P1
File and source
- File
- CRPT-119hrpt108.pdf
- Size
- 721,937 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5e8d32e461ad30d364a5585da9034d3b54fe042545de1a184b9ffc10b5ef5332
- Our copy
- CRPT-119hrpt108.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.