Board member Fryzel said:
"I also do not believe we should write a report on the cost-benefit analysis of every regulation NCUA proposes. Doing so would be too burdensome, or necessitate hiring additional employees. In any event, the intended benefits are generally obvious in the regulations we propose, and, indeed, many comments point out potential costs -- we need not duplicate those efforts."
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in September 2003 wrote:
"A good regulatory analysis should include the following three basic elements: (1) a statement of the need for the proposed action, (2) an examination of alternative approaches, and (3) an evaluation of the benefits and costs—quantitative and qualitative—of the proposed action and the main alternatives identified by the analysis."
OMB goes on to write that good analysis is transparent and provides specific references to all sources of data.
It is unacceptable for NCUA to state that the intended benefits of the proposed rule are obvious and that commenters can point out the potential costs.
Furthermore, Fryzel's comment places the agency on a possible collision course with Senator Shelby of Alabama. Senator Shelby recently introduced the Financial Regulatory Responsibility Act of 2011 (S 1615).
According to the press release, "the legislation holds financial regulators accountable for rigorous, consistent economic analysis on every new rule they propose. It requires them to provide clear justification for the rules, and to determine the economic impacts of proposed rulemakings, including their effects on growth and net job creation. This bill also improves the transparency and accountability of the regulatory process and reduces the burdens of existing regulations. In addition, the legislation mandates that if a regulation’s costs outweigh its benefits, regulators are barred from promulgating the rule."