HB 67, the Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act, aims to overhaul how the federal government conducts retrospective reviews of existing regulations. It requires a report within 180 days on the availability of regulations in machine-readable format and clarifies the official status of the eCFR as the legal edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
It also mandates guidance within 18 months on using technology, including artificial intelligence, to conduct retrospective reviews and to train agency personnel. Finally, it requires agency heads to submit a retrospective review plan within 2 years and to implement the strategy within 180 days of plan submission.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires a 180-day report on machine-readable availability of regulations and clarifies the eCFR as the official CFR edition. It also requires 18-month guidance on using technology, including AI, for retrospective reviews and staff training, plus a 2-year agency plan and subsequent implementation.
Who It Affects
Executive-branch agencies, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Federal Register Administrative Committee, the Government Publishing Office, and oversight committees; the public and policy analysts relying on machine-readable regulatory data.
Why It Matters
It establishes a formal, data-driven path to modernize how rules are reviewed after issuance, standardizes machine-readability, and embeds AI-enabled processes into retrospective oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets three core obligations for federal rule reviews. First, within 180 days, the Director of the OMB (through the Administration and in coordination with the Director of GPO, the Federal Register’s Administrative Committee, and the CFR’s official editor) must deliver a report evaluating how many agency regulations are available in machine-readable form and whether the eCFR is acknowledged as the official legal edition of the CFR.
Second, within 18 months, the Administrator must issue guidance to agency heads on how to identify, procure, and use technology—including AI—to conduct retrospective reviews more efficiently and accurately, and on training agency staff to use these tools. Third, within 2 years, each agency head must submit a plan detailing how to implement the guidance, identify regulations or categories that should be reviewed, and include any additional data or ex-post analyses needed.
Notably, after submitting the plan, the agency must implement the strategy within 180 days. The definitions section ties together terms such as machine-readable, retrospective review, and agency.
The result is a structured, technology-enabled approach to post-issuance rule review with defined timelines and accountability.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a 180-day report on machine-readable regulation availability.
The report must assess whether regulations are machine-readable and recognize the eCFR as the official CFR edition.
Within 18 months, the Administrator must issue guidance on using technology, including AI, for retrospective reviews and on staff training.
Agency heads must submit a detailed retrospective review plan within 2 years, outlining implementation strategy and review scope.
Agency heads must implement the plan’s strategy within 180 days after plan submission.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the bill’s formal citation as the Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act.
Report on machine-readable availability
Not later than 180 days after enactment, the Director of the OMB, acting through the Administrator and in consultation with the Director of GPO, the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, and the Director of the Federal Register, must submit to Congress a report on the progress of making agency regulations available in machine-readable format. The report must assess whether regulations are available in machine-readable form and address the recognition of the eCFR as the official legal edition of the CFR.
Contents of the report
The report must include an assessment of machine-readable availability and information regarding the recognition of the eCFR as the official CFR edition and published by the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register and the Director of the GPO.
Guidance on using technology for retrospective reviews
Not later than 18 months after enactment, the Administrator must issue guidance on how agency heads can identify, procure, and use technology (including algorithmic tools and AI) to conduct retrospective reviews of existing regulations. The guidance should help identify regulations that are obsolete, ineffective, insufficient, burdensome, or redundant, and those that should be improved or contain errors or incompatibilities. It also directs training for agency personnel on using such technology.
Agency retrospective review plan
Not later than 2 years after enactment, each agency head must submit a plan to implement the guidance, identifying regulations or categories of regulations that must be reviewed (or are beneficial to review). The plan may include additional information, data, or ex-post analyses deemed useful by the agency head.
Agency implementation
Not later than 180 days after submitting the plan, the head of each agency must implement the strategy described in the plan for retrospective reviews of the agency’s regulations.
Definitions
This subsection defines terms used throughout the act, including Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, Administrator, Agency, Appropriate Congressional Committees, Director of GPO, Machine-readable, Retrospective review of an existing regulation of the agency, and related terms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- OMB/OIRA staff gain clearer, data-driven processes for conducting retrospective reviews.
- Agency regulatory affairs offices gain a concrete, implementable path to modernization.
- Administrative Committee of the Federal Register benefits from formalizing machine-readable formats and the eCFR’s status.
- Government Publishing Office gains alignment with machine-readable CFR and official CFR publication.
- Policy analysts and researchers who rely on machine-readable regulation data benefit from improved access and consistency.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agencies must invest in new IT infrastructure, training, and data modernization.
- OMB and agency staff time to develop and implement the retrospective review plan.
- The Federal Register’s Administrative Committee and the GPO must coordinate to maintain machine-readable standards and the official CFR edition.
- Ongoing costs to maintain and update machine-readable formats as regulations change.
- Budgetary allocations to support the above activities and any ex-post analysis data collection.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Whether accelerating and standardizing retrospective reviews through machine-readable data and AI-enabled tools can be achieved without compromising legal accuracy, cost efficiency, and cross-agency coordination.
The bill foregrounds a more automated, data-driven approach to retrospective regulatory review, relying on machine-readable formats and AI-enabled tools. While this can accelerate and standardize reviews, it raises questions about data quality, tool bias, and the potential for over-reliance on technology in legal interpretation.
The procedural requirements (reports, guidance, plans, and implementation deadlines) create clear accountability but also impose real cost and resource demands on agencies. The success of the act depends on robust data standards, interoperability among agencies, and effective training—areas where implementation risk and variability across agencies could undermine the intended benefits.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.