Overview
Title
To improve retrospective reviews of Federal regulations, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill is about using computers and smart technology to help check old rules and see if they still make sense, so things can run better and not be confusing. It wants all the different government teams to make a plan to do this safely and correctly.
Summary AI
The Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act aims to enhance the way federal regulations are reviewed after they have been issued. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to report on the availability of regulations in a machine-readable format and provide guidance on how agencies can use technology like artificial intelligence to conduct these reviews. Each federal agency must develop and submit a plan to implement this guidance, identifying regulations that need review for potential improvements. The bill seeks to make the process more efficient, reduce unnecessary burdens, and improve legal accuracy.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, titled the "Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act," aims to refine and enhance the processes by which existing federal regulations are reviewed. This initiative underscores a commitment to leveraging technology to ensure that regulations remain effective and relevant over time, while also being accessible in digital formats to the public. The bill outlines a series of steps and responsibilities designated to federal agencies, encouraging a structured approach to assessing and modifying existing rules as necessary.
General Summary of the Bill
The act focuses primarily on improving the retrospective review process of federal regulations—essentially, how regulations are evaluated after being enforced. The bill mandates that federal regulations should be updated to become accessible in machine-readable formats. It also specifies the necessity for guidance on implementing technology, such as artificial intelligence, to streamline the review process. This legislation calls upon the Office of Management and Budget to work alongside relevant governmental offices to produce reports and strategies that help identify outdated, redundant, or problematic rules. Agencies will then need to develop and submit their plans for implementing these guidelines, establishing a timeline for application.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues have been identified regarding this bill. A notable concern revolves around the ambiguous definition of certain terms like "Administrator" and "retrospective review," which may lead to inconsistent applications depending on the interpretation of agency heads. Furthermore, the imposed timelines for reporting and developing guidance plans are considered ambitious, potentially overwhelming agencies given the breadth and complexity of existing regulations.
Other significant concerns include the specific committees designated for reports, potentially overlooking broader legislative oversight needs. The use of technology raises ethical concerns about data privacy and security, especially as the bill lacks specificity in how these would be addressed. The subjectivity in terms like "adequately train personnel" could result in disparities across agency capabilities, and the definitions of regulatory terms could leave the interpretation open to variance among different entities.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The bill's intentions could lead to positive outcomes for the public by making regulations more accessible and easier to understand, thereby promoting transparency. By reviewing and updating regulations efficiently, the bill seeks to eliminate outdated or overly complex rules, which could lead to streamlined procedures and potentially reduced bureaucratic burdens for individuals and businesses alike. However, the ambitious nature of the bill's timelines might translate into rushed implementations, which could lead to incomplete assessments and potentially disrupt services that these regulations govern.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal agencies, this bill presents an opportunity to use advanced tools and methods to enhance regulatory effectiveness, but it also imposes a significant burden to quickly develop and implement comprehensive review strategies. Agencies with well-established processes may find these new requirements invigorate efficiency and clarity, whereas those with more complex regulatory frameworks might struggle with the short timelines, risking insufficient preparation.
For technology providers and data analysts, the emphasis on machine-readable formats and AI presents a growth opportunity as agencies will seek tools and expertise necessary for this transformation. However, these opportunities are tied with expectations to resolve complex privacy and security concerns that such technologies entail.
Overall, while the bill aims to modernize regulatory reviews in a meaningful way, careful consideration and adjustments may be required to ensure that its implementation equitably and efficiently serves its intended purpose.
Issues
The term 'Administrator' in Section 2(a)(2) is ambiguous as it is not specific about the office-holder at the time, which may create uncertainty in application if changes occur in the administration.
In Section 2(b), the requirement for a report on the availability of existing regulations in machine-readable format within 180 days is overly ambitious given the potential volume of regulations and complexities involved.
The definition of 'retrospective review of a regulation of the agency' in Section 2(a)(7) is vague, allowing the head of an agency broad discretion to determine what is 'appropriate,' potentially leading to inconsistent reviews.
The term 'appropriate congressional committees' in Section 2(a)(4) is restricted to specific committees, possibly excluding others with relevant oversight responsibilities, which could limit comprehensive legislative oversight.
In Section 2(c), guidance on using technology such as AI lacks specifics on ensuring data privacy and security, raising ethical and legal concerns about the implementation of technology.
The timeframe for issuing guidance and developing retrospective review plans, as outlined in Sections 2(c) and 2(d), may be too short for agencies with complex regulatory frameworks, potentially leading to rushed or incomplete assessments.
The terminology 'adequately train personnel' in Section 2(c)(1)(B) is subjective, leading to varying interpretations of what constitutes adequate training, which could result in inconsistent skill levels among agency staff.
In Section 2(c)(1)(A), the terms 'obsolete, ineffective, or insufficient' versus 'excessively burdensome' regulations are not clearly defined, leading to potential subjective interpretation and inconsistent application across agencies.
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 that it will be officially called the "Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act."
2. Improving retrospective reviews of Federal regulations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan to improve the way federal regulations are reviewed after they've been issued. It requires reports and strategies to make regulations available in easily accessible formats, use technology for efficient reviews, and identify outdated or problematic rules, with each agency needing to submit a plan and start implementation within specific timelines.