Bill Overview
Title: Advocacy Empowerment Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises the duties of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to include (1) issuing, modifying, or amending rules governing federal agency compliance with regulatory flexibility analysis requirements; and (2) authorizing an agency to issue such supplemental rules governing such compliance as the Chief Counsel may approve.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with or impacted by small businesses globally
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill pertains to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, so it primarily affects small businesses.
- Regulatory flexibility analysis requirements affect how agencies consider the impact of their regulations on small entities.
- By revising these duties, the bill may change how rules are implemented, potentially benefiting or burdening small businesses by affecting how regulations are applied to them.
- The global number of small businesses is significantly large, given that each country has its own framework for small enterprises.
Reasoning
- Small business owners are a significant demographic, and their wellbeing is directly tied to regulatory impacts.
- This policy may create efficiencies or reduce burdens, but its benefits might not be evenly distributed.
- Immediate impacts might be low; however, over time the policy could simplify or complicate compliance, influencing stress and resource allocation.
- Not all small business stakeholders may be aware of or feel the effects of such policy changes, given the complexities involved.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's quite difficult to navigate federal regulations and any support that eases compliance is welcome.
- I hope this makes a difference rather than adding more paperwork.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulatory compliance can be a huge drain when you're trying to focus on innovation.
- I hope this policy will help us manage compliance better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Restaurant Owner (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that simplifies federal compliance is appreciated, especially for small eateries.
- We'll have to wait and see if these changes really help.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Portland, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected unless client businesses find it easier to work with me due to reduced compliance stress.
- This might be beneficial, indirectly at least.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Auto Parts Supplier Manager (Detroit, MI)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope it reduces red-tape and makes it easier to get product to market.
- If the policy streamlines processes effectively, it could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Small Business Consultant (Orlando, FL)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Slightly skeptical as the government's definition of helpful often translates to more bureaucracy.
- I hope the policy achieves what it sets out to do.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Fashion Boutique Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulation clarity would definitely be a relief and potentially improve my business operations.
- Hopeful but cautiously optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Media Production Company Co-Founder (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect much impact initially, but any clarity or reduction in compliance effort could keep things smooth.
- We focus more on creative aspects than regulatory.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Ice Cream Parlor Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful but unsure if this will actually change the amount of paperwork we deal with.
- Anything that helps is welcomed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to see how changes in a federal regulatory body translate to opportunities for us.
- Could help clients but not sure of direct effects.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 5: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $36000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The initiative could lead to dynamic changes in regulatory compliance costs which are difficult to predict precisely.
- Complexity of federal rules might increase or decrease, impacting small businesses differently depending on their resources and capabilities.
- Stakeholders should anticipate potential operational and compliance cost adjustments.
- Long-term regulatory clarity could enhance business predictability and environment.