FR 2021-00101

The document from the Federal Register discusses a correction to a previously published rule by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which is part of the Treasury Department. Originally, on December 11, 2020, the OCC issued a rule to update and improve regulations surrounding national banks and Federal savings associations. This was intended to make procedures clearer and more efficient while ensuring safety and soundness. However, some typographical errors and a missing paragraph in the effective date discussion were identified, requiring a supplementary correction that took effect on January 11, 2021.

Document Overview

The key changes made include the addition of a missing comma, re-designation of certain paragraph numbers, and removal of a superfluous word. These corrections have no substantive impact on the rules themselves but serve to clarify and correct the official record. The OCC fast-tracked these amendments without the standard public notice and comment period, citing them as technical adjustments that did not warrant such steps.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the primary issues with the document is its dense regulatory language, which might be challenging for those without legal or financial expertise to fully grasp. Furthermore, the document does not elaborate in detail why the standard procedure for public comment and notice was bypassed, which might raise questions about transparency in the decision-making process.

The reasoning behind the quick implementation is partially explained through the "good cause" determination, suggesting that the corrections were urgent enough to forego the usual procedural delays. However, this justification may not be immediately compelling or clear to the average reader.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

For the general public, these corrections likely have little immediate impact given they are technical. However, the clarity they bring can indirectly affect public confidence in regulatory processes by ensuring accuracy and reliability in financial oversight.

Specific stakeholders, such as national banks and Federal savings associations, may benefit from these amendments as they could streamline compliance efforts. By correcting the rule promptly and removing ambiguities, these institutions can implement necessary changes more effectively and with greater certainty.

Conclusion

Although the document deals primarily with bureaucratic corrections, ensuring accuracy in such regulatory texts is crucial for operational clarity. While the explanation provided may not address every concern or be easily understood by all, the OCC's intention to promote regulatory precision and remove unnecessary burdens on financial institutions reflects a commitment to maintain sound financial governance. Stakeholders directly affected by these changes are likely to appreciate the swift rectification, which aids in maintaining consistent compliance and operational efficiency.

In this Federal Register document, several key monetary references are central to understanding the potential financial impacts and considerations involved in the rule amendment process. This commentary aims to elucidate these references for a general audience.

Major Rule Definition

A critical financial reference appears in the context of the Congressional Review Act. For a rule to be considered a "major rule," it must meet certain financial criteria. Specifically, it involves any rule that is anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more. This is a significant threshold, underscoring that any rule achieving this status is likely to have substantial economic impacts or reverberations across multiple sectors including consumers and various government agencies. Such a designation would imply extensive review and potentially delayed implementation to accommodate legislative oversight, typically a wait of at least 60 days post-publication.

Unfunded Mandates and Budgetary Impact

The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 is another legislative framework discussed in the document, which requires the preparation of a budgetary impact statement if any federal mandate might lead to expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any single year. This measure is designed to ensure that significant federal actions with substantial financial impacts undergo thorough financial scrutiny and accountability, ensuring that affected parties are well-prepared for the financial burdens such changes might impose.

Small Entity Definition

Furthermore, the document specifies the federal definitions used by the Small Business Administration for what constitutes a "small entity." Under these regulations, a small entity can be a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with total assets of $600 million or less, and trust companies with total assets of $41.5 million or less. This is crucial for determining the regulatory impact and compliance expectations appropriate to different sizes of financial institutions, ensuring neither undue burden nor oversight occurs.

Relation to Identified Issues

The financial references within this document relate to the broader issues identified, particularly concerning how stakeholders might perceive the potential impact of these technical corrections. Although these amendments are described as having no substantive change in meaning, being aware of the monetary thresholds helps illustrate the rigor involved in potential economic analyses that such federal actions must pass to mitigate unintended financial burdens.

These monetary references also play a significant role in regulatory flexibility analysis, assessing whether new rules have significant economic impacts on smaller entities. By understanding these financial definitions and thresholds, stakeholders, including smaller financial institutions, can better appreciate their relevance and implications for regulatory compliance and potential economic effects stemming from rule changes.