Oy, where to even start here.
First, I’d be willing to bet the requirement to re-locate the fire pull is due to local building codes, not any federal reg. So, bad example for the OP.
Secondly, theres this misconception that regs 1) are a drag on the economy, 2) are an unnecessary financial burden on companies that often results in job losses. So do yourself a favor and simply Google “Do regulations create jobs” and follow the links. You’ll see a multitude of studies that have been performed over the last several decades quantifying both the economic impacts of regs, as well as the impacts regs have on employment. If you do, you’ll see that the absence or presence of regs is in no way shape or form a prime function of either creating or destroying jobs. In fact, most regs generally create jobs at a greater ratio, i.e. for each job lost, 1.5 jobs created.
Now in saying that, Im a consultant that primarily works with operators in the energy sector in Colorado, one of the toughest regulatory environments in the nation, particularly for that industry. As you might imagine, the vast majority of the upper-level managers are decidedly on the right-hand side of the spectrum. Yes, there are certainly regs out there, and not just in my industry, that are an over-reach. When we encounter them, we work to reel them back in, at least attempting to provide avenues for operations to continue without being unnecessarily encumbered by the new reg while simultaneously still providing adequate protections in place for the resource(s) in question. It does take time, and it does take money, but regs are continually modified all the damn time to strike a balance between industry and the resources they intend to protect. But the vast majority of regs are not seen as obstacles or impediments, they are simply another component of the working environment and these operators account for that business plans.
But the oddest thing is what has happened since all this reg slashing started. It’s created an atmosphere where these operators are hesitant to move forward with production plans. Why? Because of the regulatory uncertainty. Let’s assume that a reg is relaxed or entirely cut by Trump, opening new areas for operators to develop and extract mineral resources. They then start to assess the area for potential and maybe determine it’s beneficial to target those minerals. They then begin drafting their plan of development, which is subsequently reviewed through the NEPA process… a process that can take anywhere from 6-7 months or several years. By this time, there’s a very good chance that a new administration is int he WH with an entirely different view than Trump and keen on reviving that reg that was slashed, essentially wasting that entire planning and permitting effort. Make sense?
In my experience, these guys don’t necessarily hate the regs, the hate regulatory uncertainty. It can have a paralyzing effect on industry.