SEC Regulatory Accountability Act

SEC Regulatory Accountability Act

Long title	To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.
Announced in	the 113th United States Congress
Sponsored by	Rep. Scott Garrett (R, NJ-5)
Number of co-sponsors	15
Codification
Acts affected	Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Investment Company Act of 1940, Paperwork Reduction Act, SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934
U.S.C. sections affected	15 U.S.C. § 78w, 15 U.S.C. § 7262(b), 5 U.S.C. § 804(2), 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c), 5 U.S.C. § 556, 5 U.S.C. § 557, 15 U.S.C. § 78o–3
Agencies affected	United States Congress, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 1062 by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) on March 12, 2013 Committee consideration by United States House Committee on Financial Services, United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Passed the House on May 17, 2013 (Roll Call Vote 160: 235-161)

The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 1062) is a bill that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives in the 113th United States Congress. The bill would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to give new directions to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) governing its regulation creation and amendment process. The SEC would be required to assess the significance of the problem they are considering addressing, determine whether the estimated costs would outweigh the estimated benefits, and identify alternatives to their proposed regulation.^[1] The bill is intended to help protect the financial sector from excessive, burdensome regulations created by the SEC.^[2] The bill would do this by ordering the SEC to conduct a cost-benefit study before issuing any new rules to ensure that the expected benefits of the new rule would outweigh the expected costs of imposing it.^[2]