Bill Overview
Title: Guidance Clarity Act of 2021
Description: This bill requires federal agencies to state on the first page of guidance documents that such guidance (1) does not have the force and effect of law, and (2) is intended only to provide clarity to the public about existing legal requirements or agency policies.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People who interact with or rely on federal agency guidance documents worldwide
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill focuses on federal agencies and how they issue guidance documents.
- Federal agencies provide guidance documents across various sectors affecting all citizens either directly or indirectly.
- Guidance documents can affect decisions made by businesses, non-profits, and individuals by clarifying legal requirements.
- All individuals, businesses or entities that interact with or rely on federal agency guidance could be impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy targets all individuals and entities that rely on federal guidance documents, which is a vast number reaching almost the entire population.
- Considering practical execution, the policy's effects will be more pronounced for individuals and businesses closely tied to regulatory compliance and administration.
- The policy will likely have low to medium direct impact on most individuals, but it could have higher significance for organizations and larger businesses that frequently interact with federal guidance.
- Considering the budget constraints, the impact at the individual level might be more about increasing awareness and minor adjustments rather than significant tangible benefits.
- We have included a mix of individuals and small business owners to reflect a cross-section of the population likely engaging with federal guidance.
- The cost coverage seems sufficient for a policy rollout that primarily focuses on clarification rather than substantive legal changes.
Simulated Interviews
small business owner (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mostly finds federal guidance challenging to navigate.
- Lacks the time to go through detailed regulations, so often relies on briefings.
- Believes clarification could potentially reduce time spent on compliance.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
corporate lawyer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Already accustomed to interpreting guidance as non-mandatory.
- Sees value in explicitly stating non-binding nature for clients.
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 |
help desk manager (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Occasionally required to explain federal guidelines to clients.
- Hopes the clarity will make guidance easier to understand and less time-consuming.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
environmental scientist (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees agency guidance as critical yet sometimes unclear in scope.
- Appreciates any steps toward greater clarity but skeptical about impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
senior government official (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Views the policy as aligning with existing objectives to make guidance clearer.
- Expects minimal to no personal impact but sees benefit for public understanding.
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 |
healthcare administrator (Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expects clarification to help streamline compliance processes.
- Concerned about ensuring frontline staff remain updated with clear communications.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
non-profit worker (Illinois)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes the policy will reduce confusion among stakeholders.
- Believes the impact depends on individual familiarity with federal documents.
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 | 5 |
retired teacher (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Does not anticipate direct impact.
- Supports anything that helps the general public better understand government guidance.
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 |
software developer (Michigan)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expects no personal impact beyond informing work through clients.
- Appreciates clarification for clients less familiar with government processes.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
owner of a local café (Utah)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Historically finds federal guidelines confusing and vague.
- Welcomes any initiative that simplifies understanding.
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 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $-500000 (Low: $-1000000, High: $0)
Year 5: $-500000 (Low: $-1000000, High: $0)
Year 10: $-500000 (Low: $-1000000, High: $0)
Year 100: $-500000 (Low: $-1000000, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The initial cost primarily involves updating document templates and potentially training staff about the new requirements.
- Long-term savings could arise from clearer public understanding and fewer legal challenges.
- Minimal economic, employment, and distributional impacts are expected due to the administrative nature of the change.