For every proposed rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would publish its reasoning, expected costs and benefits, alternatives, assumptions, and supporting research.
For each proposed rule, the bureau would publish the full notice and explain its need, options, expected effects, and burdens. A mismatched reference makes part of the alternatives analysis unclear.
The bureau would justify a proposal when its measured net benefits do not exceed those of alternatives. Another required justification points to a clause that lists no benefits, leaving that trigger unclear.
If a proposed rule would raise small businesses' direct or indirect costs, the bureau would consult the Small Business Administration's advocacy office about ways to reduce that impact.
The bureau would publish each proposed-rule notice in full in the Federal Register and include a detailed analysis. The requirements would cover every proposed rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The notice would explain why action is needed, why the private market or state, local, or tribal authorities cannot adequately address the problem, and whether the proposal conflicts with other federal rules. It would assess expected direct and indirect costs and benefits, reasonable alternatives, effects on regulated groups, and how the burden would be shared. When feasible, it would show the range and likelihood of possible outcomes using suitable statistical methods. The bureau would disclose its assumptions, supporting studies and data, and whether studies were peer reviewed. The instruction to analyze alternatives points to clause (v), although clause (vi) lists the alternatives, leaving that requirement unclear.
The bureau would provide explanations tied to two comparisons of measured costs and benefits, though one comparison has an unclear trigger. These explanations would be part of the bureau's analysis of a proposed regulation. If the proposal's measured net benefits do not exceed the measured net benefits of the alternatives, the bureau would have to justify the regulation. Another provision requires a justification when benefits identified under clause (iv) do not outweigh the regulation's costs. Clause (iv) identifies no benefits, so the meaning of this trigger is unclear.
The bureau would consult the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy about reducing a proposed rule's costs for small businesses. The requirement would apply to proposed bureau rules that the bureau finds would raise costs for small businesses. Consultation would be required only if the bureau determines that the proposal would increase small businesses' costs. The consultation would consider ways to reduce both direct and indirect costs imposed on small businesses.
No hearings or votes scheduled.