Requires agencies to use AI in retrospective reviews of regulations. Directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance on AI use for identifying obsolete or burdensome regulations. Mandates agency plans and implementation strategies for these AI-assisted reviews.
Analysis summaries, actor details, and coverage mappings were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
This is a binding federal statute introduced in Congress with mandatory language requiring specific actions by federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget, with clear timelines and enforcement through congressional oversight.
This document has minimal coverage of AI risk domains. It primarily addresses AI as a tool for regulatory review rather than regulating AI risks. The only substantive coverage relates to governance failure (6.5) as it addresses mechanisms to improve regulatory oversight, though indirectly. There is no meaningful coverage of discrimination, privacy, misinformation, malicious actors, human-computer interaction, socioeconomic impacts, or AI system safety risks.
This document does not govern AI use in specific economic sectors. Instead, it governs the internal operations of federal government agencies, requiring them to use AI technology for retrospective regulatory review. The primary sector governed is Public Administration (excluding National Security), as it applies to federal agencies' regulatory review processes.
The document does not govern the AI development lifecycle itself, but rather mandates the use of AI tools by federal agencies for regulatory review purposes. It addresses the deployment and operation of AI systems (algorithmic tools and artificial intelligence) within government agencies for retrospective regulatory analysis.
The document explicitly mentions 'artificial intelligence' and 'algorithmic tools' as technologies to be used by agencies for regulatory review. It does not define AI models, systems, or specify particular types of AI (frontier, general purpose, task-specific, etc.). No compute thresholds or model types are mentioned.
Mr. Biggs (U.S. House of Representatives); Committee on Oversight and Accountability
The bill was introduced by Mr. Biggs in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, indicating these are the proposing entities.
Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives; Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Congressional committees are designated to receive reports and plans, providing oversight. The Administrator of OIRA has authority to issue guidance and receive agency plans, giving them an enforcement/oversight role.
Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives; Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
The same congressional committees and the Administrator that enforce also monitor through receipt of reports, plans, and implementation strategies, allowing them to track compliance and progress.
Federal agencies; Office of Management and Budget; Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Director of GPO; Archivist; Director of the Federal Register
The bill applies to federal agencies and specifically directs the Office of Management and Budget (through the Administrator of OIRA) to issue guidance and requires agency heads to submit plans and implement strategies for AI-assisted retrospective reviews.