Overview
Title
Branch Application Procedures; Correction
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FDIC found a mistake in some rules they made about how banks open new branches, so they fixed it to make sure everyone follows the right steps when looking after old and special places in the environment.
Summary AI
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has issued a correction to a previous regulation published on November 13, 2020, which deals with Branch Application Procedures. The regulation amendment aims to fix an error in the instructions concerning the establishment and relocation of branches and offices, specifically regarding statements about compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. As a result of this correction, certain paragraphs in the regulation are being removed and others are being renumbered. This correction became effective on February 16, 2021.
Abstract
This document contains a correction to the final regulation which was published in the Federal Register of November 13, 2020. The regulation to be corrected related to Branch Application Procedures.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Document
This document is a correction from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) related to a previously published regulation from November 2020 on Branch Application Procedures. Initially, the regulation was amended to ease application procedures for establishing and relocating branches by removing requirements for statements on compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The current correction addresses an error in the regulatory language, specifically amending an instruction error in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Significant Issues or Concerns
There are a few issues to consider regarding this document. Primarily, the correction does not detail the nature of the original error or its consequences. It remains unclear how this mistake influenced the regulations or those involved, such as banks or potential applicants, and what remedial actions, if any, have been or will be taken. Additionally, there is a lack of detail on how the FDIC identified this mistake and what processes are being implemented to prevent similar errors in future regulatory amendments. This transparency is crucial in maintaining confidence in the regulatory framework.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this correction may have limited immediate impact. However, it is part of a broader regulatory process that ensures the efficient functioning and accountability of financial institutions. By clarifying procedures, it seeks to streamline operations and compliance for banks, potentially influencing service delivery and long-term stability within the banking sector.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
From a stakeholder perspective, banking institutions and applicants for branch relocation or establishment will be directly affected. The removal and renumbering of specific regulatory paragraphs form part of attempts to reduce administrative burdens, facilitating easier compliance with regulations. This can potentially lead to cost savings and operational efficiencies. However, the absence of a requirement to demonstrate compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act may raise concerns for environmental and historical preservation advocates, questioning whether this supports broader societal and environmental responsibilities.
Overall, while the correction rectifies an error, broader implications of the initial regulation change remain worthy of consideration, particularly in balancing regulatory simplicity with other societal values and responsibilities.
Issues
• The document contains a correction for a previous error, but it does not clearly state the nature of the error or its potential impact on the regulations or affected parties.
• There is no information on whether the error has already impacted any branches or offices that have submitted applications, and if so, what measures are in place to address those impacts.
• The document lacks detail on the process by which the error was identified and the steps taken to ensure similar errors do not occur in the future.
• The text could include more background information on why statements regarding compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were initially required and the rationale for their removal.