Bill Overview
Title: Hearing Small Businesses Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Internal Revenue Service to seek and consider the advice of small entities about a proposed or interim final rule before publishing the rule if the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Sponsors: Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]
Target Audience
Population: Small business owners and employees globally
Estimated Size: 61000000
- The bill is entitled the 'Hearing Small Businesses Act of 2022', which indicates it is focused on small businesses.
- The bill involves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the IRS, suggesting it pertains to regulations that these agencies oversee.
- Small businesses are typically defined as those having fewer than 500 employees, though specifics can vary by industry according to the SBA.
- The bill mentions a significant economic impact, implying it is aimed at rules with considerable financial implications for small entities.
- Small businesses are a substantial part of the U.S. economy, with millions of small businesses across the country.
- The bill's requirement for consultation indicates that it is meant to ensure the voices of small businesses are considered in rulemaking processes, directly affecting them.
Reasoning
- Not all small businesses will be significantly affected by every decision made by the IRS and Fish and Wildlife Service, so the impact might vary.
- Small businesses in industries highly regulated by these agencies might have a more substantial impact.
- The budget constraints suggest only a limited number of businesses can be addressed in the first year, implying a targeted rather than blanket approach.
- Even with limited budget, ensuring representation from diverse regions and industries is crucial for a comprehensive perspective on regulatory impacts.
- Consultation can enhance business confidence and encourage more aligned regulatory compliance, potentially improving self-reported wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Small business owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could help businesses like mine by ensuring that the rules we follow are reasonable.
- It sounds like it might save businesses from unexpected regulatory costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small business consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a consultant, this policy could facilitate my work by giving clients more clarity on regulations.
- It might reduce the number of surprises during audits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retail store owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially help in understanding and influencing regulations.
- If it doesn't work as expected, it could be a wasted opportunity for small businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Employee at a tech startup (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think these policies indirectly affect us, making the regulatory environment more predictable.
- Overall, it could lead to a more stable business environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Marine biologist (San Diego, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consulting means understanding regulations I can help businesses navigate them better if consulted.
- It allows me to also inform my clients more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Owner of a small restaurant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy might not directly impact me unless regulations change drastically in my industry.
- It's great for those directly affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelance graphic designer (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could streamline my workflow when dealing with small business clients affected by regulations.
- I expect minimal direct impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental consultant for small businesses (Boulder, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this allow for better dialogue between businesses and regulatory bodies.
- It could enhance the quality of advice I provide to businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Owner of a local craft shop (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business is not directly impacted by wildlife regulations, so I don't expect much from this policy.
- Focus is more on IRS matters, which seem slightly affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
R&D manager at a small tech company (Boston, MA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased clarity on regulations can spur greater innovation and product development in my company.
- I see this indirectly benefiting our growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $8500000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $9000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill targets U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and IRS rules that significantly impact small businesses economically, implying a wide range of potential uses.
- Requires ongoing data collection and communication structures to be developed.
- Potentially leads to better-crafted regulations that address small business concerns more effectively.