FR 2021-04046

The document in question is a notice from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) inviting comments from the public and federal agencies regarding the renewal of two information collection requirements. These actions are part of the FDIC's obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collections involve recordkeeping, disclosure, and reporting requirements related to federal regulations that ensure transparency and fairness in financial transactions and the availability of funds for consumers.

General Summary

The FDIC seeks to renew two specific information collection efforts linked to crucial consumer protection measures. The first collection is associated with Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act. It requires financial institutions to disclose credit terms and cost details to consumers, maintaining uniformity and protecting consumers from deceitful lending practices. The second collection relates to disclosures about electronic fund transfers and deposit accounts as required by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Regulations E and DD and Federal Reserve Regulation CC. These regulations ensure that consumers have access to essential information about fees, availability of funds, electronic transfers, and interest rates.

Public comments on these renewals are open until April 27, 2021, with the FDIC inviting feedback on the necessity, utility, and burden of these information collections. Comments received will become part of the public record.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several noteworthy issues associated with this document:

1. Complex Language and Burden Estimation: The document contains jargon and technical terms that may not be easily understood by a lay audience. The burden estimates, which include a staggering 2,395,630 hours of workload, could confuse those unfamiliar with the nuances of regulatory compliance.

2. Lack of Cost Details: The document does not provide financial data related to the implementation or continuation of these information collections. This omission leaves questions about potential fiscal impacts or wasteful spending.

3. Opaque Methodology: There is a lack of transparency in the methodologies and assumptions used to calculate the burden of these requirements. Without additional context, it's challenging to verify the accuracy or fairness of these estimates.

Potential Impact on the Public

For the general public, the document represents a continued effort to protect consumer rights and promote transparency in financial transactions. By ensuring that financial institutions uphold strict disclosure standards, consumers are better equipped to make informed decisions about their financial engagements.

For Consumers: This initiative supports consumer rights, providing essential clarity regarding the costs of credit and the terms relating to their financial accounts. This transparency helps consumers avoid negative outcomes such as hidden fees or delayed fund availability.

For Financial Institutions: The document signifies an administrative burden. Institutions supervised by the FDIC must continue to allocate resources to maintain compliance with these regulations. While necessary for consumer protection, these requirements could place a financial and operational strain on smaller institutions with limited resources.

Stakeholder Impacts

• Positive for Consumers: Enhances security and transparency, protecting against unfair lending practices and ensuring informed decision-making.

• Challenging for Small Institutions: Could impose additional compliance costs and administrative burdens, particularly for smaller banks trying to remain competitive.

Overall, while the FDIC document ensures continued consumer protection, it might benefit from more accessible language and greater transparency regarding costs and methodologies to foster a broader understanding and engagement from all stakeholders.

The Federal Register document, published by the FDIC, primarily focuses on the renewal of information collection activities related to certain regulatory requirements. There is a notable mention of financial references concerning the estimation of the frequency of responses linked to recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements. However, the document lacks detailed information on any specific financial appropriations or spending directly associated with these activities.

Summary of Financial References:

In the document, the FDIC has assessed the dollar volume of activity that falls within the scope of the information collection. This assessment helps estimate the frequency of responses required from FDIC-supervised institutions. While this does imply an evaluation of financial activities, it stops short of specifying any direct costs or outline specific budget allocations.

Financial Allocations and Related Issues:

One notable issue stemming from this document is that, despite references to the monetary assessment of activities, there is no clarity on the total cost or budget allocated for these information collection activities. This absence makes it challenging to evaluate any potential wasteful spending or resource misallocation. Furthermore, the document mentions an estimated annual burden of 2,395,630 hours for recordkeeping and reporting but omits the associated financial implications, such as cost per hour or overall financial impact on the institutions.

Another issue relates to the complexity of financial references presented. The general public might struggle with interpreting figures like 2,395,630 hours divided into 36 hours for implementation and 2,395,594 hours for ongoing burdens. Without explicit financial metrics, it becomes difficult for stakeholders to fully appreciate or critique the financial efficiency of these regulatory processes.

Moreover, the document uses identifiers like "OMB Control No. 3064-0082; -0084", which, while standard within federal paperwork contexts, may not be immediately clear to those outside governmental or legal professions. The absence of detailed estimation methodologies and assumptions further complicates understanding how these financial references were derived, impacting the transparency and perceived accuracy of the estimates.

In summary, while the document makes certain financial references regarding assessment activities, it falls short in providing comprehensive financial details or explanations that would clarify the potential monetary impact or efficiency of these regulatory efforts. This lack of clarity could hinder public understanding and contribute to issues regarding transparency and accountability in federal spending.