Who is affected and how:

• Federal agencies and their rulemaking offices: They would likely need to follow new submission and approval procedures for covered rules and for documents reclassified as “significant guidance.” That raises agency workload, planning challenges, and potential delays in implementing regulatory protections or programs.

• Members of Congress and Congressional committees: Congress gains a clearer, formal approval role over covered agency actions, increasing legislative oversight, review workload, and potential political leverage over regulatory outcomes.

• Businesses, regulated entities, and trade groups: May see benefits from more formal review and potential slowing of new regulations, but also face uncertainty as guidance becomes subject to rule procedures and as agencies adapt. Compliance planning may become harder while agencies adjust.

• American consumers and the public: May experience slower adoption of new protections or regulatory changes (in areas like health, safety, environment, or finance) if rules are delayed or blocked. Conversely, some stakeholders will welcome enhanced Congressional review as increasing accountability.

• Federal budget and fiscal stakeholders (OMB, CBO, Treasury): The change that treats budget-affecting rules as effective for scorekeeping unless Congress disapproves may alter how regulatory impacts are scored and need closer coordination between regulatory and budget offices.

• Legal community and administrative-law practitioners: Expect increased litigation and challenges around whether particular guidance is “significant” and therefore a rule, and about the scope and timing of the congressional approval procedure.

Overall impact and uncertainties:

• If implemented broadly, the bill could shift significant regulatory power toward Congress and away from executive-branch agencies, producing more political negotiation over regulatory details but also more delays and legal contests.
• The missing statutory text in the amendment to chapter 8 and the blank insertion for the definition of “rule” create major uncertainties about scope, thresholds (which rules/guidance qualify), timelines, and exceptions; those gaps make precise impact estimates impossible from the provided excerpt.
• The GAO study will create a baseline measure of the quantity and estimated economic cost of rules in force at enactment, which Congress may use to justify further changes. That study itself could influence future rulemaking behavior and oversight priorities.