Overview
Title
To improve retrospective reviews of Federal regulations, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7533 is a plan to use new technology, like computers and smart programs, to help keep government rules up-to-date and get rid of old ones that aren't useful anymore. It also asks each part of the government to check their own rules and tell others if they need to be fixed.
Summary AI
H.R. 7533, also known as the “Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review,” aims to improve how federal regulations are reviewed after being implemented. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to report on the availability of regulations in machine-readable formats and provide guidance on using technology, like artificial intelligence, to review existing regulations more efficiently. Additionally, each federal agency must create and execute a plan to review their regulations to identify outdated or redundant rules, and report their findings to relevant congressional committees. This bill strives to ensure that government regulations remain effective and up-to-date.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed bill, titled "Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review," aims to enhance the process of reviewing federal regulations after they have been issued. The intention is to modernize this review process by utilizing technology, including artificial intelligence and algorithmic tools, to make it more efficient and effective. The bill also requires the regulations to be available in machine-readable formats, making them more accessible for analysis and review.
Key components of the bill include: - A report on the progress of making regulations accessible in machine-readable forms. - Guidance issued on using technology for retrospective reviews. - Agencies are required to develop and implement a detailed plan for reviewing existing regulations.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several potential issues have been identified within the bill:
Extended Timelines: The timelines for issuing guidance and planning retrospective reviews are potentially lengthy, allowing up to 18 months and 2 years, respectively. This could delay improvements in regulatory efficiency and effectiveness.
Lack of Accountability: There is a noticeable absence of specific accountability mechanisms to ensure agencies meet the set deadlines and properly implement the strategies for reviewing regulations.
Broad Terminology: Terms such as "algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence" are quite broad, which may lead to varied interpretations and inconsistent application across different agencies.
Technology-Centric Focus: The bill primarily emphasizes the use of technology, potentially overlooking other important methods or strategies for conducting comprehensive retrospective reviews.
Stakeholder Involvement: The bill does not address how public or stakeholder input will be incorporated into the review process, which might enhance transparency and accountability.
Training Details: The language regarding the training of agency personnel on new technologies lacks specificity regarding the comprehensiveness or standardization required.
Complexity and Misinterpretation Risks: The language used in parts of the bill, particularly regarding machine-readable formats and eCFR recognition, may be overly complex and lead to confusion.
Impact on the Public
The bill holds the potential to significantly impact the public by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of federal regulations, thereby possibly reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens and fostering a more agile regulatory environment. If successful, this could lead to enhanced public trust in federal regulations and their implementation. However, delays due to extended timelines might slow down these potential benefits.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government Agencies: Agencies might face challenges related to interpreting broad technological terms and implementing new technology-driven review processes. The need for comprehensive training could also pose a logistical burden.
Regulatory Analysts and Lawyers: These professionals might benefit from clearer regulatory texts and more streamlined processes, potentially reducing the time and effort needed for analysis and compliance.
Businesses and Industry Groups: The bill could positively impact businesses by potentially reducing regulatory burdens and eliminating obsolete or contradictory regulations, thereby simplifying compliance. However, if the timelines extend improvements, these benefits might be delayed.
General Public and Advocacy Groups: These groups might encounter frustration due to a lack of structured public involvement in the retrospective review process. Greater transparency and stakeholder engagement could enhance the public perception and effectiveness of the regulatory process.
In conclusion, while the bill proposes a forward-thinking modernization of regulatory reviews through technology, careful consideration and resolution of the identified issues could enhance its effectiveness and public reception.
Issues
The timeline for the issuance of guidance and the retrospective review plan might be too extended, delaying potential improvements to regulations. This issue relates to Section 2, subsections (b)(1) and (c), which allow up to 18 months and 2 years respectively.
There is a lack of specific accountability or enforcement mechanisms to ensure agencies adhere to the timelines and implement the strategies effectively. This concern spans Section 2, primarily subsections (b), (c), and (d).
The term 'algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence' is broad and may lead to differing interpretations by different agencies. This could cause inconsistency in implementation, as noted in Section 2, subsection (b)(1).
The bill primarily focuses on technology use, which might overlook other important aspects or methods for conducting effective retrospective reviews, as indicated in Section 2, subsection (b).
There is no mention of how the public or other stakeholders are involved in the retrospective review process, which could improve transparency and accountability. This is relevant to the overall framework proposed in Section 2.
The language regarding training agency personnel on new technology lacks specifics on how comprehensive or standardized this training should be, as highlighted in Section 2, subsection (b)(1)(B).
Overly complex language might lead to confusion, for instance, in areas discussing machine-readable formats and eCFR recognition, as mentioned in Section 2, subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2)(B).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act specifies its name, which is “Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review.”
2. Improving retrospective reviews of Federal regulations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section focuses on improving how federal regulations are reviewed by making them available in machine-readable formats and using technology like artificial intelligence for efficient analysis. It outlines steps for creating and implementing plans to review existing regulations, and defines key terms related to the process, such as "agency," "Administrator," and "retrospective review."