Bill Overview
Title: REVIEW Act of 2022
Description: 2 This bill prohibits a final agency rule from taking effect until (1) the agency submits the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and (2) OIRA makes a determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule that may impose an annual cost on the economy of at least $1 billion. In addition, an agency must postpone the effective date of a high-impact rule until the final disposition of all actions seeking judicial review of the rule.
Sponsors: Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by high-impact federal regulation changes
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects the process of implementing new regulations, which could change the timeline for when these regulations come into effect, impacting industries that might be subject to high-impact rules.
- High-impact rules often affect large sectors of the economy and can have wide-reaching effects, influencing both businesses and consumers.
- Any delay in implementing a rule could have economic effects, potentially preventing new regulations that might have provided public benefits or halted ones that might have imposed costs.
- Agencies that produce regulations, such as the EPA or FDA, will be directly affected since they might need to postpone the implementation of high-impact rules.
Reasoning
- The policy affects agencies involved in implementing regulations, therefore impacting both regulators and regulated entities, including businesses and potentially consumers.
- Large sectors influenced by high-impact rules include industries like energy, healthcare, and manufacturing, which have broad implications for employment and economic activity.
- There would be variance in the level of impact based on how closely individuals are related to industries affected by these regulations.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy will slow down necessary environmental regulations, possibly impacting our fight against climate change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Oil & Gas Industry Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could give us more time to prepare for regulatory changes, which may protect my job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Tech Industry Regulatory Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Review processes are critical, but excessive delays can stifle innovation and tech advancements.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean fewer abrupt changes and give us a chance to adjust, but it might delay improvements crucial for industry standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Public Health Advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delaying public health regulations could harm community well-being, but thorough reviews are sometimes necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Retired (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy might delay growth in the green energy market which could affect my investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Student (San Diego, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential delay in urgently needed climate action is concerning. We shouldn't postpone critical environmental rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy scrutiny is beneficial, but protracted reviews could stop necessary improvements in educational tech regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Health Services Administrator (Denver, CO)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If health regulations are delayed, it can disrupt service delivery and patient care, though excessive regulation is also a challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Marketing Executive (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Slowing down of new rules could be advantageous for our strategies, giving more reaction time to regulation shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $76000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $81000000)
Year 10: $66000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $92000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The delay in implementing high-impact rules until after judicial reviews could mitigate potential negative impacts from rushed regulations.
- The process might add administrative costs for both OIRA and the agencies involved, potentially requiring additional resources.