Bill Overview
Title: SMART Act of 2022
Description: Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2022 or the SMART Act of 202 This bill requires agencies, when publishing a proposed or final major rule, to include a framework for assessing whether the rule achieves its regulatory objective. An agency must assess a rule in the time frame included in the framework. The assessment must compare the rule's anticipated and actual benefits and costs. The bill defines a major rule as a rule likely to cause (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, health, safety, the environment, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Sponsors: Sen. Sinema, Kyrsten [D-AZ]
Target Audience
Population: Global population influenced by U.S. major regulations
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill impacts the processes of U.S. federal agencies, particularly in their development and assessment of major regulations.
- It's designed to bring transparency and accountability into the rule-making process, which could affect how efficiently and effectively regulations fulfill their intended objectives.
- By linking regulatory impact assessment with proposed and final rules, the bill could impact the business community, particularly sectors where regulation is a key factor, such as energy, healthcare, and finance.
- Citizens and consumers could be indirectly affected through changes in the regulatory environment which may impact economic variables like prices, competition, and innovation.
Reasoning
- The SMART Act is expected to primarily impact regulatory agencies and businesses significantly affected by regulation.
- The general public may experience indirect effects through changes in employment, prices, and market competition.
- Given the sectors targeted, the primary effects will be on industries rather than individuals, but these could trickle down to consumer costs and job availability.
- With a budget of $350 million in year one and $3.5 billion over ten years, the policy is significant but unlikely to directly change individual well-being scores significantly unless they are closely involved in heavily-regulated industries or reliant on government services affected by major rules.
Simulated Interviews
Regulatory Affairs Specialist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could streamline the regulatory process, potentially reducing bureaucratic hurdles.
- Our company might have more clarity and efficiency in meeting compliance standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could weaken some of the regulations that are crucial for protecting the environment.
- I'm concerned about the transparency and how effectively agencies will enforce regulations.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might reduce uncertainty in financial regulations, which is a positive for stability in markets.
- I expect clearer assessment criteria to be helpful for investment strategies.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more oversight on data regulations, affecting how we implement features and security.
- I'm hopeful it ensures regulations make sense and aren’t overly burdensome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The process could help ensure we're not faced with sudden regulatory changes that disrupt business.
- I think it will help in understanding the goals and impacts of new rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Academic Researcher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This brings a much-needed evaluation framework to policy-making.
- It could lead to more evidence-based regulations, which I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Freelance Writer (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act may result in more actionable insights into regulatory impacts, beneficial for reporting.
- There could be concerns about whether assessments will be truly objective.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Retired School Teacher (Rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm unsure how directly this will affect healthcare regulations, but anything that ensures better assessment is good.
- Regulations based on actual benefits and costs would be helpful for healthcare services.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Solar Energy Technician (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more scrutiny on regulations affecting renewable energy.
- I'm optimistic about the potential for clearer outcomes from regulatory assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Oil and Gas Industry Executive (Houston, Texas)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this may increase some workload initially, the long-term benefits of clearer frameworks are substantial.
- More predictable rules could improve business planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 3: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- The net effect on the economy will depend on how effectively agencies utilize this new framework to streamline and improve existing regulations.
- Initial implementation costs could be high for both government and regulated entities.
- Long-term benefits are potentially significant but uncertain and difficult to quantify.
- The potential costs and benefits are diverse and depend on how agencies interpret and implement the requirements.