Overview

Title

To improve retrospective reviews of Federal regulations, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

H.R. 7533 is a plan to help the government tidy up its rules by using computers and smart technologies to make sure they are not old-fashioned or confusing, and to teach people how to use these technologies.

Summary AI

H.R. 7533 aims to improve the way federal regulations are reviewed after they have been enacted. The bill mandates that within 180 days of its passing, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must report on whether agency regulations are available in digital formats that computers can read. It also requires guidance for agencies on using technology, like artificial intelligence, to identify and fix outdated or overlapping regulations, and to ensure personnel are trained in using such technology. Furthermore, each agency must later submit a plan showing how they will implement this guidance to efficiently review existing regulations.

Published

2024-12-18
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Reported in House
Date: 2024-12-18
Package ID: BILLS-118hr7533rh

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
1,186
Pages:
8
Sentences:
21

Language

Nouns: 331
Verbs: 93
Adjectives: 63
Adverbs: 16
Numbers: 47
Entities: 60

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.34
Average Sentence Length:
56.48
Token Entropy:
4.93
Readability (ARI):
30.64

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, known as the “Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act,” aims to enhance the review and updating process for federal regulations. It mandates that federal regulations be made available in a machine-readable format and requires guidance on leveraging technology—such as algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence—for more efficient retrospective reviews of these regulations. The bill outlines deadlines for reports and implementation plans to ensure federal agencies systematically evaluate regulations for obsolescence, error, or redundancy.

Summary of Significant Issues

Several issues arise from the bill that warrant careful consideration. The requirement to report on the availability of existing regulations in a machine-readable format within 180 days may be too ambitious, potentially leading to incomplete reports. Furthermore, the broad use of terms like "algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence" lacks specificity, which could lead to varying interpretations across different agencies. There's also concern about data privacy and security, as the bill does not address these crucial aspects when using technology for regulatory review.

Moreover, the deadlines for developing retrospective review plans and implementing strategies could delay necessary updates and reforms, possibly hindering timely regulatory advancements. Lastly, the bill's definitions section refers to external legal codes without providing context within the text, which may confuse stakeholders who do not have ready access to these references.

Broad Public Impact

For the general public, the bill's intent to improve how federal regulations are revisited and revised could lead to more efficient governance and updated regulatory frameworks that better reflect current needs. By utilizing technology, the government could potentially streamline regulatory processes, reduce inconsistencies, and eliminate redundant or burdensome regulations, potentially easing compliance for businesses and individuals.

However, there are concerns about the speed and nature of these changes. The implementation deadlines might result in rushed assessments and decisions, possibly leading to errors that could directly affect public services or rights. Additionally, the lack of attention to data security in the context of using advanced technologies for regulation reviews might raise public concerns around privacy and the safeguarding of personal information.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

The bill may positively affect governmental agencies by providing them with technological tools and processes that could make regulatory reviews more effective and aligned with modern standards. However, these agencies may face challenges meeting the tight deadlines and preparing accurate, comprehensive assessments of existing regulations.

Private sector stakeholders, such as businesses subject to federal regulations, could benefit from more efficient and streamlined regulatory processes. However, they may also experience uncertainty during the transition period as agencies implement new guidelines and technologies for regulatory reviews. Legal practitioners and consultants might see an increase in demand for services related to navigating potential changes in the regulatory landscape.

Overall, while the bill aims to modernize and improve the federal regulatory process, it also introduces challenges that will need careful management to ensure public benefit and stakeholder confidence.

Issues

  • The timeline for the report on the availability of existing regulations in machine-readable format (180 days) might be too short for a comprehensive assessment, leading to potentially incomplete or rushed conclusions. (Section 2(a))

  • The use of broad terms like 'algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence' in subsection (b)(1)(A) could be more specifically defined, as these terms are open to interpretation and could lead to inconsistent application across agencies. (Section 2(b)(1)(A))

  • Subsection (b)(1)(A) emphasizes cost-effectiveness and efficiency in using technology but does not address potential data privacy or security implications, posing ethical concerns that need to be mitigated. (Section 2(b)(1)(A))

  • The plan submission deadline of 2 years after enactment in subsection (c) might create a significant delay in implementing improvements, potentially hindering timely regulatory advancements. (Section 2(c))

  • Subsection (d) sets a 180-day deadline for implementing the retrospective review strategy, which might be insufficient for agencies depending on the complexity of their regulations and could lead to rushed and potentially ineffective implementations. (Section 2(d))

  • The term 'appropriate congressional committees' is defined in subsection (e)(4), but the process for further consultation or review by these committees is not clearly established within the text, potentially leading to oversight gaps. (Section 2(e)(4))

  • The subsection (e)(3) definition of 'agency' refers to another legal code without providing further context or ensuring readers' accessibility to that information within this section, which may limit understanding and transparency for stakeholders. (Section 2(e)(3))

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 this act states the short title, which is the “Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act.”

2. Improving retrospective reviews of existing Federal regulations Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section of the bill aims to improve how federal regulations are reviewed and updated by requiring them to be available in a machine-readable format. It mandates that guidance be issued on using technology to review existing regulations, agency leaders develop plans for implementing this guidance, and definitions for key terms used in this process are provided.