Dodd-Frank Act Regulations:

Implementation Could Benefit from Additional Analyses and Coordination

GAO-12-151: Published: Nov 10, 2011. Publicly Released: Nov 10, 2011.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Angela N. Clowers
(202) 512-3000
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) requires or authorizes various federal financial regulators to issue hundreds of rules to implement reforms intended to strengthen the financial services industry. GAO is required to annually study financial services regulations. This report examines (1) the regulatory analyses, including cost-benefit analyses, financial regulators have performed to assess the impact of selected final rules issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act; (2) how financial regulators consulted with each other in implementing the selected final rules to avoid duplication or conflicts; and (3) what is known about the impact of the final rules. GAO examined the 32 final Dodd-Frank Act rules in effect as of July 21, 2011; the regulatory analyses conducted for 10 of the 32 rules that allowed for some level of agency discretion; statutes and executive orders requiring agencies to perform regulatory analysis; and studies on the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act. GAO also interviewed regulators, academics, and industry representatives..

Federal financial regulators are required to conduct a variety of regulatory analyses, but the requirements vary and none of the regulators are required to conduct benefit-cost analysis. All financial regulators must analyze the paperwork burden imposed by their rules and consider the impact of their rules on small entities as part of their rulemaking process. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission are also required under their authorizing statutes to consider certain benefits and costs of their rules. As independent regulatory agencies, the federal financial regulators are not subject to executive orders requiring federal agencies to conduct detailed benefit-cost analysis in accordance with a guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Financial regulators are not required to follow OMB's guidance, but most told GAO that they attempt to follow the guidance in principle or spirit. GAO's review of regulators' rulemaking policies and 10 final rules found inconsistencies in the extent to which OMB's guidance was reflected. GAO recommends that to the extent the regulators strive to follow OMB's guidance, they should take steps to more fully incorporate the guidance into their rulemaking policies and ensure that it is consistently followed. Although federal financial regulators have coordinated their rulemaking, they generally lacked formal policies to guide these efforts. The Dodd-Frank Act establishes interagency coordination requirements for certain agencies and for specific rules or subject matters. However, for other rules, the regulators have discretion as to whether interagency coordination should occur. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) is tasked with facilitating coordination among member agencies but, to date, has played a limited role in doing so beyond its own rulemakings as it continues to define its role. Several regulators voluntarily coordinated with each other on some of the rules GAO reviewed. However, most of the regulators, including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, lacked written protocols for interagency coordination, a leading practice that GAO has previously identified for interagency coordination. GAO recommends that FSOC work with the financial regulators to develop such protocols for Dodd-Frank Act rulemaking. Little is known about the actual impact of the final Dodd-Frank Act rules, given the short amount of time the rules have been in effect. Regulators are required to conduct reviews of existing regulations to assess their impact, but some have not yet developed plans to review their Dodd-Frank Act rules. To maximize the usefulness of these reviews, GAO recommends that the regulators identify what data will be needed to retrospectively assess the impact of the rules in the future. FSOC is also required to examine, among other things, financial market and regulatory developments and make recommendations to enhance the efficiency, competitiveness, and stability of U.S. financial markets. Although FSOC officials said that FSOC plans to include an impact analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act rules in its future reports, it has not yet begun identifying and collecting the data needed for this type of analysis. GAO recommends that FSOC direct the Office of Financial Research, an entity created to support the research needs of FSOC, to work with the regulators to identify and begin collecting data needed for future analyses. GAO is making four recommendations to the regulators and FSOC to strengthen the prospective and retrospective analyses of the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations on financial markets and improve coordination among financial regulators on rulemaking. Regulators and FSOC generally agreed with the report's findings but most neither agreed nor disagreed with the report's recommendations.

Recommendations for Executive Action

  1. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In a November 2011 report, we recommended that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) revise its rulemaking policies and procedures to more fully incorporate the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance. On April 17, 2013, FDIC issued an updated policy statement on the development and review of FDIC regulations and policies. In the policy statement, FDIC describes specific principles in its regulatory analysis that incorporate OMB's guidance. For instance, FDIC's updated guidance states that, once the need for a regulation is determined, staff evaluates the benefits and costs based on available information and considers reasonable and possible alternatives. This language is similar to OMB's guidance, which states that a good regulatory analysis should include a statement of the need for proposed action, an examination of alternative approaches, and an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the proposed action and the main alternatives identified by the analysis. In addition, FDIC's updated guidance states that, prior to issuing a final rule, the potential benefits are weighted against the potential costs of the regulation, and FDIC staff should discuss key implications they considered in their analysis. This language is also similar to OMB's guidance, which states that, in evaluating regulatory alternatives, agencies "should carefully consider all appropriate alternatives for the key attributes or provisions of the rule" and "should clearly set out the basic assumptions, methods, and data underlying the analysis." We believe that these principles, among others, in FDIC's updated guidance respond to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

  2. Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, NCUA told us that it is nearing completion of agency internal policies that standardize and institutionalize the rulemaking process within NCUA. According to agency officials, these policies will document NCUA's current practice related to OMB's regulatory analysis guidance. The policies will be issued to appropriate staff by the end of 2016. At that time, we will review the policies to review the extent to which they incorporate the practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: National Credit Union Administration

  3. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In a November 2011 report, we recommended that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revise its rulemaking policies and procedures to more fully incorporate the specific practices in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulatory analysis guidance. In March 2012, SEC issued revised guidance on economic analysis for SEC rules. SEC stated that, although it is not required to follow OMB's guidance, it drew on principles found therein. Specifically, the guidance directs staff to (1) clearly identify the justification for the proposed rule; (2) define a baseline against which to measure the likely economic consequences of the proposed rule; (3) identify alternative regulatory approaches; and (4) evaluate the benefits and costs--both quantitative and qualitative--of the proposed action ad the main alternatives. These are the basic elements of good regulatory analysis as set forth in OMB's guidance. In addition, SEC cites specific language in the OMB guidance to illustrate how each of the elements can be applied during a rulemaking. For example, regarding evaluating of benefits and costs, the SEC guidance directs staff to (1) identify and describe the most likely economic benefits and costs of the proposed rule and alternatives; (2) quantify those expected benefits and costs to the extent possible; (3) for those elements of benefits and costs that are quantified, identify the source or method of quantification and discuss any uncertainties underlying the estimates; and (4) for those elements that are not quantified, explain why the cannot be quantified. We found that each of these steps has a basis in the OMB guidance. Therefore, we believe that SEC has responded to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: United States Securities and Exchange Commission

  4. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: On July 7, 2014, CFPB updated its internal policies and procedures for conducting analyses of benefits and costs that were published on an interim basis on January 9, 2012. The updated guidance states that CFPB aims to define problems carefully, consider a wide variety of options, and evaluate their benefits and costs. This general approach is consistent with the key elements of regulatory analysis defined in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance. In addition, the updated guidance notes that CFPB has unique regulatory analysis requirements under Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The updated guidance includes a section with guidance on the manner and methods for considering the benefits, costs, and impacts enumerated in Section 1022(b)(2) that draws on the spirit of Executive Order 12866 and OMB's regulatory analysis guidance. In this section, the updated guidance included new language concerning the challenges associated with quantifying the costs and benefits of a rule. Specifically, it now states that "staff should describe the kinds of data that would be necessary for quantifying or monetizing benefits or costs and then explain why this data is not available." This language incorporates OMB's regulatory analysis guidance regarding benefits and costs that are difficult to quantify or monetize into CFPB's regulatory analysis guidance. In addition, CFPB told us that it is working with a professor from Harvard Law School to inventory and analyze approaches to cost-benefit analysis followed by other federal agencies in contexts similar to those facing CFPB. Finally, CFPB reported that it will be hosting a conference with outside experts from other agencies and academics with respect to measuring benefits from consumer finance regulation. As a result, CFPB is better positioned to ensure that it more closely follows OMB's regulatory analysis guidance during future rulemakings.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  5. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In June 2016, CFTC stated that its General Counsel and Chief Economist issued detailed written guidance in May 2011 on the consideration of costs and benefits in their rulemakings. The guidance discusses regulatory analysis in the contact of Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act, which specifies the requirements that CFTC must satisfy in considering the costs and benefits of final rulemakings. CFTC officials also stated that the guidance explicitly instructs staff considering the costs and benefits to take key aspects of OMB's regulatory analysis guidance into account, and to incorporate the principles of Executive Order 13563 to the extent reasonably feasible. In our November 2011 report, we applied this recommendation to CFTC because the May 2011 guidance did not apply to the rulemakings we were reviewing. Given that the guidance is now applicable, and includes key aspects of OMB's regulatory analysis guidance, we believe CFTC has responded to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: Commodity Futures Trading Commission

  6. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In a November 2011 report, we recommended that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) develop a plan for measuring the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act regulations. On April 17, 2013, FDIC published an updated policy statement on the development and review of FDIC regulations and policies. It included a section entitled "Periodic Review of Existing Regulations and Statements of Policy." In the section, FDIC described the ways in which it conducts periodic review of regulations, including (1) review in conjunction with a change to a regulation or policy statement triggered by a change in the law; (2) review at least once every ten years under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996; and (3) targeted review in a specific area based on changes in the markets or observations at bank examinations. FDIC also described the factors that should be considered in determining whether a regulation or policy statement should be revised or eliminated, including (1) the continued need for the regulation or policy; (2) opportunities to simplify or clarify the regulation or policy; (3) the need to eliminate duplicative or inconsistent regulations and policies; and (4) the extent to which technology, economic conditions, and other factors have changed in the area affected by the regulation or policy. We believe that FDIC's updated guidance responds to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

  7. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In July 2016, SEC stated that it plans for retrospective reviews in three ways. First, they have general retrospective review approaches through informal and formal processes. Formal processes include Regulatory Flexibility Act reviews and formal petitions from industry and Congress. Informal processes include informal discussions with industry and Congressional representatives about challenges associated with regulations; informal comments by Commissioners about regulatory reviews; and, initiatives undertaken by staff to review regulations. Second, SEC plans for retrospective reviews through the application of guidance for economic analysis in rulemakings. The establishment of a baseline, as prescribed by the guidance, enables staff to develop a clear understanding of current market conditions. The baseline helps them monitor changes in market conditions after the regulation is implemented. Finally, the guidance on economic analysis in rulemakings places increased emphasis on data and measuring the impact of regulations quantitatively. Staff now builds into regulations data-driven analysis that they intend to do at a later date. For example, the rule defining swap dealers includes a threshold determining whether the rule applies to certain swap dealers. The rule includes a look-back provision that reflects the understanding that the market will change and thus the threshold will need to be adjusted. Similar look-back provisions were built into rules regarding reporting of swap information and credit risk retention. We believe that SEC's approaches for measuring the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations respond to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: United States Securities and Exchange Commission

  8. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In June 2016, CFTC stated that it voluntarily created a Plan for Retrospective Review of Agency Regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13563 and published the plan in the Federal Register on June 30, 2011. In the release, CFTC stated that it intends to begin the process of the periodic, retrospective review of the remainder of its regulations (i.e., those regulations that were not reviewed as part of the Dodd-Frank effort). Therefore, CFTC officials stated that the plan will incorporate a review of Dodd-Frank rulemakings and solicit public input on which rules should be reviewed. We reviewed the plan as well as the sixth status report on implementation of the plan that was published in January 2014. We believe that the plan and CFTC's subsequent implementation of the plan respond to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: Commodity Futures Trading Commission

  9. Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, NCUA noted that all of the agency's regulations are reviewed at least every three years, during an established rotation, so that every year one-third of the agency's regulations are open to comment from the public. NCUA reported that it recently launched a comprehensive multi-year project to update the agency's main data collection and analytic systems. Agency officials stated that the updates will ensure that the agency collects the data needed to assess the effectiveness and impact of applicable regulations. We will continue to monitor NCUA's progress in updating its information systems for purposes of retrospective reviews.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: National Credit Union Administration

  10. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In a December 2013 report, we reported that CFPB is focusing on fulfilling its retrospective review requirements under section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the act, CFPB is required to assess retrospectively each significant rule or order adopted by CFPB under federal consumer financial law to address, among other things, the rule or order's effectiveness in meeting the act's purposes and goals. CFPB is required to publish a report of its assessment no later than 5 years after the rule or order's effective date, and is required to solicit public comment to inform its assessment. CFPB officials said that they were in the initial stage of developing a review plan, which includes identifying what data will be needed and how such data can be collected, but said that they had not yet drafted a plan. In a related effort, CFPB requested public comment in December 2011 on streamlining regulations it inherited from other federal agencies. As a result of the comments received, CFPB identified several priority areas for regulatory action. For example, in May 2013, CFPB issued a final rule amending the ability-to-pay regulations under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 in response to industry participants' comments to its December 2011 request. We believe that CFPB's actions are responsive to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  11. Status: Open

    Comments: After the Dodd-Frank Act regulations are implemented, federal financial regulators will need to revisit their prospective analyses of Dodd-Frank Act regulations in light of actual outcomes to help ensure that the Dodd-Frank Act regulations are achieving their intended purpose without creating unintended consequences that negatively impact the markets. The regulators are required to conduct retrospective reviews of their regulations, including rules issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act in the future. However, we found that some of the regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) have not yet developed plans of how to review their Dodd-Frank Act regulations after they are implemented. In April 2013, OCC reported that prior to the next retrospective review of its regulations in 2016, it expects to have completed the rulemakings that the Dodd-Frank Act required it to promulgate individually. OCC stated that it will include the completed Dodd-Frank Act regulations in its plans for the 2016 review.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

  12. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2016, Treasury provided information showing that FSOC completed a number of studies reviewing the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations on the financial marketplace. However, FSOC provided no evidence that OFR worked with FSOC members to identify and collect data for the impact assessments. As we stated in the report, such planning efforts are important to help ensure that FSOC can not only accurately measure the impact of significant Dodd-Frank Act regulations but also efficiently coordinate with its members to leverage their retrospective reviews.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To effectively carry out its statutory responsibilities, the FSOC should direct the Office of Financial Research to work with its members to identify and collect the data necessary to assess the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act regulations on, among other things, the stability, efficiency, and competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets.

    Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council

  13. Status: Open

    Comments: We sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in May 2016 regarding the status of the recommendation, but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: Federal Reserve System

  14. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In November 2011, we recommended that the federal financial regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and procedures. In December 2011, OCC issued a rulemaking procedures guidance that updated their procedures for economic analysis in OCC rulemaking. One of the stated purposes of the guidance is to ensure that OCC complies with the rulemaking requirements imposed by the statutes and executive orders that apply to various aspects of the rulemaking process. The OCC guidance on economic analysis defines the elements included in a full cost-benefit analysis in a similar fashion and includes citations to specific sections of the OMB guidance. In particular, Appendix I of the OCC guidance describes standard procedures for economic analysis of proposed and final rules. The procedures state that economists in OCC's Policy Analysis Division will determine whether a proposed rule is a major rule and, if so, they will prepare a full cost-benefit analysis consistent with the OMB guidance. There are also procedures to follow if the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we believe that OCC's updated guidance responds to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

  15. Status: Open

    Comments: We sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in May 2016 regarding the status of the recommendation, but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency Affected: Federal Reserve System

  16. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council

  17. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: Federal Reserve System

  18. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

  19. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  20. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: On April 17, 2013, FDIC published an updated policy statement on development and review of FDIC regulations and statements of policy. FDIC's updated guidance included a section describing principles for development of regulations and a policy statement. Among the principles enunciated by FDIC was that "common or overlapping statutory and supervisory requirements should be implemented by the federal financial institutions regulators in a coordinated way." FDIC noted the common statutory and supervisory requirements it has with the other federal banking regulators. FDIC also noted that some of its statutory and supervisory requirements may the overlap in either substance or in effect with other financial sector regulators. Therefore, FDIC's updated guidance states that "[w]here required by law or otherwise appropriate, interagency working groups consult or collaborate to develop rules and policy statements to identify interactions and promote consistency." FDIC's updated guidance does not directly address some of the issues we raised in our recommendation regarding interagency coordination. However, the updated guidance does formalize a coordination procedure that was used informally to good effect during the Dodd-Frank Act rulemaking process. Therefore, we believe that FDIC's updated guidance responds to our recommendation.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

  21. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: United States Securities and Exchange Commission

  22. Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, CFTC officials stated that FSOC has written protocols for consulting on rules for which coordination is required under the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, in May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: Commodity Futures Trading Commission

  23. Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, NCUA stated that it continues to work closely with the other federal financial agencies regarding rulemaking, and formally coordinates with them during joint rulemaking initiatives. Agency officials said they would comply with any future coordination guidance provided by FSOC. In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency Affected: National Credit Union Administration

  24. Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2016, FSOC told us that they published five annual reports which describe significant financial market and regulatory developments, analyze potential emerging threats, and make certain recommendations, including recommendations to enhance the stability, efficiency, and competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets. Additionally, FSOC reported that it (or its Chairman) published a number of studies that relate to our recommendation, including: a study of the extent to which the concentration limit required by Section 622 of the Dodd-Frank Act would affect financial stability; moral hazard in the financial system; the efficiency and competitiveness of U.S. financial firms and financial markets; the cost and availability of credit and other financial services to households and businesses in the United States; a study evaluating the importance of maximizing United States taxpayer protections and promoting market discipline with respect to the treatment of fully secured creditors in the utilization of the orderly liquidation authority authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act; a study on the feasibility, benefits, costs, and structure of a contingent capital requirement for nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and for large, interconnected bank holding companies; and two studies (in 2011 and in 2016) of the economic impact of possible financial services regulatory limitations intended to reduce risks to financial stability and to make recommendations regarding the optimal structure of any limits considered. However, FSOC provided no evidence that OFR worked with FSOC members to identify and collect data for the impact assessments. As we stated in the report, such planning efforts are important to help ensure that FSOC can not only accurately measure the impact of significant Dodd-Frank Act regulations but also efficiently coordinate with its members to leverage their retrospective reviews. Therefore, this recommendation remains open.

    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To effectively carry out its statutory responsibilities, the FSOC should direct the Office of Financial Research to work with its members to identify and collect the data necessary to assess the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act regulations on, among other things, the stability, efficiency, and competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets.

    Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research

 

Explore the full database of GAO's Open Recommendations »

Jul 25, 2016

Jul 5, 2016

May 6, 2016

Apr 21, 2016

Apr 18, 2016

Apr 12, 2016

Mar 28, 2016

Mar 8, 2016

Feb 16, 2016

Jan 27, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here