Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act
The Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act would direct the federal government to improve how agencies review existing regulations after they have been issued. Within 180 days of enactment, the Office of Management and Budget, through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, would have to report to Congress on the availability of agency regulations in machine-readable format and on the status of recognizing the eCFR as an official legal edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. The bill also requires OMB to issue guidance within 18 months on how agencies can use technology, including algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence, to make retrospective reviews more efficient, cost-effective, and accurate.
The bill further requires each agency head to submit, within two years, a retrospective review plan describing how the agency will implement OMB guidance, identifying regulations that must be reviewed by law or that would benefit from review, and including any additional data or ex-post analysis deemed useful. Agencies would then have 180 days after submitting their plans to begin implementing the strategy for retrospective review. The bill is aimed at identifying obsolete, ineffective, burdensome, redundant, contradictory, or error-filled regulations and improving the overall quality of the regulatory code.
If enacted, the bill would add new reporting, guidance, planning, and implementation requirements for federal agencies and OMB, but it would not itself repeal or amend substantive regulatory programs. It would affect the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Government Publishing Office, the Archivist, the Federal Register, and all executive agencies subject to retrospective review requirements. The measure would likely influence how regulations are maintained, digitized, and periodically reassessed under Title 44 and related administrative law frameworks, especially by encouraging machine-readable regulatory data and use of AI-enabled review tools.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a government modernization and efficiency proposal, suggesting a generally reform-oriented and technocratic intent. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means sentiment cannot be measured directly from legislative action history.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s likely pressure points are the use of algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence in regulatory review, the administrative burden of preparing agency plans, and the question of whether agencies have sufficient resources and expertise to implement the required technology and training. Potential concerns could also arise over the legal status of machine-readable regulatory formats and the extent to which retrospective review might be used to justify deregulation or changes to existing rules. Because there are no transcripts or votes, it is not possible to attribute these concerns to any named member or stakeholder from the record provided.