General Information & Client Service
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518
February 27, 2018

The U.S. GAO published a report reviewing policies and analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The report concludes that policies and analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Retrospective Reviews could be improved.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to analyze the impact of their regulations on small entities. GAO found several weaknesses with the analyses of six financial regulators—CFPB, CFTC, FDIC, FED, OCC, and SEC—that could undermine the goal of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and limit transparency and public accountability. For example, some analyses lacked important information, such as data sources, methodologies, and consideration of broad economic impact. Evaluations of potential economic effects and alternative regulatory approaches also were limited. Additionally, regulators generally lacked comprehensive policies and procedures for implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. By not developing such policies and procedures, the ability of regulators to consistently and effectively meet the objectives of Regulatory Flexibility Act may be limited.

This report is based on findings from the GAO reports on implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (published in January 30, 2018) and on regulatory burden on community banks and credit unions (published in February 13, 2018). In these two reports, GAO made 20 recommendations to the financial regulators to improve their policies, procedures, and analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and in retrospective reviews. The regulators generally agreed with the recommendations. Federal financial regulators must comply with various rulemaking and review requirements, including those in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). These statutes require analyses relating to regulatory burden, small entities, or both analyses during rulemaking and retrospective reviews. As part of the retrospective reviews, EGRPRA directs FDIC, FED, and OCC to review regulations at least every 10 years and identify areas that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to review within 10 years of publication those rules assessed as having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies are to determine if rules should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded to minimize such impact.

Related Links

Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Retrospective Reviews, EGRPRA, Proportionality, GAO

Related Insights

BCBS Finds Liquidity Risk Management Principles Remain Fit for Purpose

BCBS completed a review of its 2008 Principles for sound liquidity risk management and supervision. The review confirmed that the principles remain fit for purpose.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

MAS Guidelines on Risk Mitigation Requirements for OTC Derivatives

MAS published guidelines on risk mitigation requirements for non-centrally cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

HKMA Urges Local Banks to Start Working on FRTB Implementation

HKMA announced that it plans to issue a consultation paper on the new market risk standard in the second quarter of 2019.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Finalizes Guidelines for High-Risk Exposures Under CRR

EBA published the final guidelines on the specification of types of exposures to be associated with high risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR). The guidelines are intended to facilitate a higher degree of comparability in terms of the current practices in identifying high-risk exposures.

January 17, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BoE Publishes the Schedule for Statistical Reporting for 2019

BoE published the updated schedule for statistical reporting for 2019. The reporting institutions use the online statistical data application (OSCA) to submit statistical data to BoE.

January 16, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Delays Final Direction on Reporting of Private Securitizations

PRA and FCA have delayed the issuance of final direction, including the final template, on reporting of private securitizations, from January 15, 2019 to the end of January 2019.

January 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

SNB Updates Forms on Supervisory Reporting for Banks

SNB published Version 1.7 of reporting forms (AUR_U, AUR_UEA, AUR_UES, AURH_U, AUR_K, AUR_KEA, and AURH_K) and the related documentation for supervisory reporting on an individual and consolidated basis.

January 15, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

BCBS Finalizes Market Risk Capital Framework and Work Program for 2019

BCBS published the final framework for market risk capital requirements and its work program for 2019. Also published was an explanatory note to provide a non-technical description of the overall market risk framework, the changes that have been incorporated into in this version of the framework and impact of the framework.

January 14, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for January 2019

EBA published answers to 13 questions under the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) updates for this week.

January 11, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News

PRA Proposes to Amend Supervisory Statement on Credit Risk Mitigation

PRA published the consultation paper CP1/19 that is proposing changes to the supervisory statement (SS17/13) on credit risk mitigation.

January 10, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 2473