[House Report 118-902]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-902
======================================================================
MODERNIZING RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT
_______
December 18, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 7533]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 7533) to improve retrospective reviews
of Federal regulations, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 4
Legislative History.............................................. 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 5
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 7
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 7
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 8
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 8
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 8
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 8
Earmark Identification........................................... 8
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 9
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 10
Minority Views................................................... 11
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory
Review Act''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVING RETROSPECTIVE REVIEWS OF EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS.
(a) Report on Availability of Existing Regulations in Machine-
readable Format.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, acting through the Administrator and in
consultation with the Director of GPO, the Archivist, and the
Director of the Federal Register, shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees, a report on the progress
of the Federal Government in making regulations of agencies
available in machine-readable format.
(2) Contents of report.--The report required by paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) an assessment of whether regulations of agencies
have been made available in a machine-readable format
to the public; and
(B) information regarding the recognition by the
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register of the
eCFR maintained by the Director of the Federal Register
and the Director of GPO as an official legal edition of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Guidance on Using Technology to Conduct Retrospective Reviews.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, acting through the Administrator, shall
issue guidance on how the head of the agency can--
(A) identify, procure, and use technology (including
algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence) to more
efficiently, cost-effectively, and accurately conduct
any retrospective review of the existing regulations of
the agency, including to more efficiently, cost-
effectively, and accurately identify through any such
review regulations of the agency that--
(i) are obsolete, ineffective, insufficient,
excessively burdensome, or redundant;
(ii) should be improved;
(iii) contain typographic errors;
(iv) contain inaccurate cross-references; or
(v) contradict or overlap with each other, or
any standards of the agency; and
(B) adequately train personnel of the agency on how
to use such technology.
(2) Development of guidance.--In developing the guidance
required pursuant to paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
take into account any assessment or information included in the
report required by subsection (a).
(c) Agency Retrospective Review Plan.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of each agency shall
submit to the Administrator and the appropriate congressional
committees a plan that--
(1) includes a detailed strategy for implementing the
guidance issued pursuant to subsection (b) with respect to the
regulations of the agency;
(2) identifies any regulation of the agency, or categories of
regulations of the agency, that the head of the agency--
(A) is required by law to review after the applicable
regulation is issued; or
(B) determines would benefit from being reviewed
after the regulation is issued; and
(3) includes any additional information, data, or ex-post
analysis determined necessary or useful by the head of the
agency.
(d) Agency Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which the head of an agency submits the plan required by subsection
(c), the head of the agency shall implement the strategy included in
such plan with respect to any retrospective review of an existing
regulation of the agency.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrative committee of the federal register.--The
term ``Administrative Committee of the Federal Register'' means
the Committee established under section 1506 of title 44,
United States Code.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
(3) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code.
(4) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of
the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(5) Director of gpo.--The term ``Director of GPO'' means the
Director of the Government Publishing Office.
(6) Machine-readable.--The term ``machine-readable'' has the
meaning given the term in section 3502 of title 44, United
States Code.
(7) Retrospective review of an existing regulation of the
agency.--The term ``retrospective review of an existing
regulation of the agency'' means a review of a regulation of
the agency conducted after the regulation has been issued,
including any such review required by law or determined
appropriate by the head of the agency.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 7533 requires the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), acting through the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) and in consultation with the Archivist, the
Director of GPO, and the Director of the Federal Register, to
issue guidance on how agencies can use technology to more
efficiently, cost-effectively, and accurately carry out
retrospective review of federal regulations that are redundant,
contain typographic errors, or overlap with existing
regulations. The bill also requires OIRA to submit a report to
Congress assessing whether Federal regulations are available in
a machine-readable format and requires agencies to submit a
``Retrospective Review Plan'' that includes a strategy for how
each agency will implement the OIRA guidance and identifies
agency regulations that are subject to statutory retrospective
review or would benefit from regular retrospective review.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Retrospective review of regulations is a process that helps
agencies analyze existing regulations to determine if they are
effective in achieving their intended goals, have become
outdated, create unnecessary burdens or otherwise negatively
impacting the lives of Americans.
For many years Congress and presidents have directed
agencies--and encouraged independent regulatory agencies--to
periodically review existing regulations through various
statutes and executive orders. For example, Congress has
directed agencies to periodically review certain existing
regulations in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and to assess whether regulations are contributing as planned
to agency priority goals in the GPRA Modernization Act of
2010.\1\ Agencies also may choose to review regulations at
their own discretion, in response to feedback from regulated
parties and agency staff, changes in technology and market
conditions, or during the normal rulemaking process.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1165
(1980); GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat.
3866 (2011).
\2\U.S. Gov't accountability off., GAO-14-268, Reexamining
Regulations: Agencies Often Made Regulatory Changes, but Could
Strengthen Linkages to Performance Goals, (May 12, 2014), https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an April 2014 report, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) surveyed twenty-two federal agencies to better
understand their planned and completed retrospective analyses
and resulting actions.\3\ Between January 2011 and the end of
August 2013, those agencies completed 246 of the planned 665
regulatory analyses (less than 40 percent).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7533 strengthens the regulatory retrospective review
process by ensuring that agencies are using the most up-to-date
technology to assist with the identification of outmoded and
redundant or contradicting regulations to ensure a higher
completion rate of planned regulatory analyses. Modern
technological tools, including artificial intelligence tools,
could make agency retrospective reviews more efficient, cost-
effective, and accurate. For instance, the Department of Health
and Human Services' ``AI for Deregulation'' pilot project
resulted in the issuance of a final rule in November 2020 that
provided for the correction of nearly 100 citations, the
removal of erroneous language, and the correction of
misspellings and typographical errors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Catherine Sharkey, Algorithmic Tools in Retrospective Review,
Report for the Administrative Conference of the United States (May
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consideration and use of modern technology is prevalent
in the rulemaking or prospective review process. In April 2023,
President Biden issued Executive Order 14094 on Modernizing
Regulatory Review, which requires OIRA to consider guidance or
tools to modernize the notice-and-comment process, including
through technological changes such as artificial
intelligence.\6\ OMB's Circular A-4, which provides guidance to
most federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis, requires that agencies consider technological
advances in prospective rulemaking in everything from
monitoring capabilities to effects on competition and much
more, concluding that ``[i]f you assume that technology will
remain unchanged in the absence of regulation when
technological changes are likely, then your analysis may
misstate both the benefits and costs attributable to the
regulation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Exec. Order No. 14094, 88 FR 21879 (April 6, 2023).
\7\Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4: Regulatory
Analysis (Nov. 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7533 ensures that agencies are using modern
technological tools for retrospective regulatory review
commensurate with their use for prospective regulatory review.
Retrospective reviews are an important part of constraining the
expansion of the regulatory state. As the regulatory state
grows, Congress must ensure agencies also review existing
regulations.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The short title is the ``Modernizing Retrospective
Regulatory Review.''
Section 2. Improving retrospective reviews of Federal regulations
Subsection (a) requires the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to submit
to appropriate congressional committees (House Oversight and
Senate HSGAC) a report on the availability of Federal
regulations in a machine-readable format.
Subsection (b) requires the Administrator of OIRA
to issue guidance on how agencies can use technology to more
efficiently, cost-effectively, and accurately conduct
retrospective review of regulations, especially such
regulations that are obsolete, contain typographic errors,
contain inaccurate cost references, or are redundant.
Subsection (c) requires each agency to submit to
OIRA and appropriate congressional committees a plan for
implementing the guidance required by subsection (b) and a list
of regulations that are required to be retrospectively reviewed
and a list of regulations the head of the agency determines
would benefit from retrospective review.
Subsection (d) requires the head of each agency to
carry out the implementation plan under subsection (c) within
180 days for any regulations that are required to have
retrospective review and authorizes the agency to carry out the
implementation plan for any other regulation the agency
determines appropriate.
Subsection (e) provides definitions for
`Administrative Committee of the Federal Register,'
`Administrator,' `Agency,' `Appropriate Congressional
Committees,' `Director of GPO,' `Machine-Readable,' and
`Retrospective Review of a Regulation of the Agency.'
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 7533, the Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review,
was introduced on March 5, 2024, by Representative Andy Biggs.
The following Representatives are cosponsors of the bill:
Elijah Crane (R-AZ) and Nancy Mace (R-SC). The bill was
referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The
Committee held a hearing related to and used for development
and consideration of the bill on September 14, 2023. The
Committee considered H.R. 7533 at a business meeting on March
7, 2024, and ordered the bill as amended favorably reported by
a recorded vote.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On March 7, the Committee met in open session and ordered
the bill, H.R. 7533, favorably reported with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of 21-19, a
quorum being present.
ROLL CALL VOTES
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following roll call vote
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 7533:
The first and only roll call vote was on final passage of
H.R. 7533. The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 21-19.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute that made certain
technical changes to the bill. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute passed by voice vote.
LIST OF RELATED COMMITTEE HEARINGS
In accordance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, (1) The following hearing was
used to develop or consider H.R. 7533:
On September 14, 2023, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity,
Information Technology, and Government Innovation held a
hearing titled ``How are Federal Agencies Harnessing Artificial
Intelligence?'' with Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director, White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy; Dr. Craig Martell,
Chief Digital and AI Officer, Department of Defense; and Mr.
Eric Hysen, Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland
Security.
(2) The following related hearings were held:
On March 8, 2023, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity,
Information Technology, and Government Innovation held a
hearing titled ``Advances in AI: Are We Ready for a Tech
Revolution?'' with Dr. Eric Schmidt, Chair, Special Competitive
Studies Project; Dr. Aleksander Madry, Director, MIT Center for
Deployable Machine Learning, and Cadence Design Systems
Professor of Computing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Dr. Scott Crowder, Vice President, IBM Quantum, and CTO, IBM
Systems, Technical Strategy and Transformation IBM; and Ms.
Merve Hickok, Senior Research Director, Center for AI and
Digital Policy.
On December 6, 2023, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity,
Information Technology, and Government Innovation held a
hearing titled ``White House Policy on AI'' with Mr. Ross
Nodurft, Executive Director, Alliance for Digital Innovation;
Mr. Samuel Hammond, Senior Economist, Foundation for American
Innovation; Ms. Kate Goodloe, Managing Director BSA
The Software Alliance; Dr. Daniel Ho, William Benjamin Scott
and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law, Senior Fellow, Stanford
Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford Law School; and Dr.
Rumman Chowdhury, Responsible AI Fellow, Berkman Klein Center
for Internet & Society, Harvard University.
On March 21, 2024, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity,
Information Technology, and Government Innovation held a
hearing titled ``White House Overreach on AI'' with Ms.
Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy Research Fellow, Cato
Institute; Mr. Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology
& Innovation, R Street Institute; Mr. Neil Chilson, Head of AI
Policy The Abundance Institute; and Dr. Nicol Turner Lee,
Senior Fellow, Governance Studies and Director, Center for
Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for
Legislation section above.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals or objectives of this bill are to require the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), acting through the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and in consultation
with the Archivist, the Director of GPO, and the Director of
the Federal Register, to issue guidance on how agencies can use
technology to more efficiently, cost-effectively, and
accurately carry out retrospective review of federal
regulations that are redundant, contain typographic errors, or
overlap with existing regulations. The bill also requires OIRA
to submit a report to Congress assessing whether Federal
regulations are available in a machine-readable format and
requires agencies to submit a ``Retrospective Review Plan''
that includes a strategy for how each agency will implement the
OIRA guidance and identifies agency regulations that are
subject to statutory retrospective review or would benefit from
regular retrospective review.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill does not relate to employment or access to public
services and accommodations in the legislative branch.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, no provision of this bill
establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government
known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program
that was included in any report from the Government
Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of
Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a program
identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT STATEMENT
The Committee finds that this legislation does not direct
the establishment of advisory committees within the definition
of Section 5(b) of the appendix to title 5, U.S.C.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 the Committee has included a letter received from the
Congressional Budget Office below.
EARMARK IDENTIFICATION
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee includes a cost
estimate below prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST
ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as
follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 7533 would require the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to issue guidance on the use of
technology to conduct retrospective reviews of existing federal
regulations. Under the bill, agencies would use that guidance
to create and execute a strategy for reviewing their current
regulations. The bill would require agencies to report to OIRA
and the Congress on their retrospective review plans and would
require OIRA to report to the Congress on the extent that
existing federal regulations are available to the public in a
machine-readable format.
Federal agencies issue regulations pursuant to statutory
authority granted by the Congress and the Congressional
Research Service has reported that 3,000 to 4,000 final rules
are published each year. OIRA publishes the regulatory and
deregulatory activities of each agency in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Recent
administrations have initiated different regulatory
retrospective review processes meant to reduce outdated and
ineffective rules under Executive Orders 13563, 13610, and
13771. While those processes resulted in regulatory changes and
deregulatory actions, they had no significant effect on the
scope or scale of the regulatory process.
Using information from OIRA and selected agencies, CBO
expects that H.R. 7533 would build upon Executive Order 14110,
which established a governmentwide effort to guide artificial
intelligence development and deployment, and would require
agencies to institute retrospective review processes like those
under previous administrations. Based on the cost of similar
activities, CBO estimates that the additional analysis under
the bill would cost $15 million over the 2025-2029 period. That
amounts to less than $500,000 per year for each major agency.
Any related spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
The costs of the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall
within any budget function that contains salaries and expenses.
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 7533
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2024-2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Authorization........................ 0 2 3 4 3 3 15
Estimated Outlays.............................. 0 2 3 4 3 3 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacting H.R. 7533 also could affect direct spending by
some agencies that are allowed to use fees, receipts from the
sale of goods, and other collections to cover operating costs.
CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those
agencies would be negligible because most of them can adjust
amounts collected to reflect changes in operating costs.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The requirements of clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives do not apply to H.R. 7533.
MINORITY VIEWS
The Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act would
require the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget to
issue a report within six months on the progress of the federal
government in making regulations available in a machine-
readable format. The bill would also require the Administrator
to issue guidance within one year on how agencies can use
technology to identify through retrospective review of
regulation typographical errors and inaccurate cross
references. These are reasonable steps to help modernize the
regulatory process.
However, the bill adds onerous and unnecessary new
requirements for agencies to retrospectively review
regulations. The bill also creates an open-ended authority that
grants agency heads the discretion to review regulations when
such review is not required by statute. This could be a
dangerous tool in the wrong hands and allow for already
insufficient agency resources to be used on reviewing--and
potentially rolling back--existing regulatory protections,
rather than on enforcing current rules and developing new ones
that address the many evolving threats to the public's well-
being. In this respect, the bill appears to be a thinly veiled
attempt to weaken important regulatory protections that protect
the American people.
I must oppose this bill in its current form.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.
[all]