Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FDIC wants to know what people think about its forms: one for people wanting to work there and another for those buying from closed banks. They are looking for feedback on how useful and easy these forms are to understand and fill out.
Summary AI
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has issued a notice requesting public comments on the renewal of two information collections related to its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The first collection involves employees applying for jobs at the FDIC, requiring them to certify they meet certain fitness and integrity standards. The second collection involves verifying the eligibility of individuals or entities to purchase assets from failed banks under FDIC receivership. The FDIC is asking for feedback on the necessity, accuracy, quality, and burden of these information collections before the deadline of February 7, 2025.
Abstract
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0121 and -0135).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) discusses a proposal to renew information collections concerning employment standards and asset purchasing eligibility in connection to banks under receivership. As part of its legal duties under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FDIC seeks public feedback by February 7, 2025, on whether these information collections are necessary and if their methodology is accurate and burdensome.
General Summary
The FDIC is responsible for insuring bank deposits and overseeing financial institutions. In this document, it is requesting comments on renewing two specific information collections. The first concerns a certification process for individuals applying for jobs within the FDIC, ensuring they meet integrity and fitness standards. The second involves purchasers' eligibility to buy assets from banks that the FDIC has placed under receivership. In essence, the FDIC wants to assess the practicality and burden of these collections on the public.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A significant concern is the document’s lack of detailed explanation for the changes in workload estimates. The increase in estimated hours for the employment certification process and the decrease for the asset purchasing eligibility are merely attributed to changes in the number of respondents. However, the exact reasons behind these changes are unclear. Further elaboration on these points would benefit stakeholders seeking to understand the implications of these estimates. Also, the document's technical language might prove too formal for the general public, potentially limiting meaningful participation from individuals who are not familiar with regulatory processes.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
From a public perspective, the implications of these renewed information collections may appear distant but hold significant importance for maintaining qualified personnel and overseeing proper asset distribution regarding failed banks. Properly vetted FDIC employees and legitimate asset transaction processes contribute to the strength and stability of banking systems, which benefits everyone who uses financial institutions.
Specific stakeholders, such as job applicants to the FDIC and entities interested in purchasing bank assets, might experience a direct impact. Prospective FDIC employees must go through a certification process to ensure no history of misconduct, which promotes trust in the agency. Meanwhile, potential asset purchasers must certify their eligibility, ensuring fair play in acquiring failed bank holdings. While essential for integrity, these processes do place an administrative burden on respondents, which the FDIC is keen to minimize, thus emphasizing the importance of feedback.
Conclusion
While the FDIC's initiative to solicit public comment on these collections is commendable, improved clarity in explaining the changes in respondent numbers and potential burden would enhance understanding and engagement. Ultimately, these efforts are vital for maintaining transparency and efficiency in regulatory practices, affecting various stakeholders differently but aimed at benefiting the financial system's wider stability.
Issues
• The document does not specify the specific increase in the number of respondents for the Certification of Compliance with Mandatory Bars to Employment, only stating it increased from 88 to 144 hours. More detail on the increase in respondents would be useful.
• The language describing the burden estimate changes, such as for the Purchaser Eligibility Certification, could be clearer. Specifically, explaining joint venture transactions or why the number of respondents has changed would provide better context.
• The request for comments section could be simplified to make it more accessible. Some of the language used might be too formal or technical for the general public to easily understand.
• The document mentions changes in burden estimates but does not explain why these changes occurred beyond referencing an increase or decrease in respondents. More detailed analysis or data could be provided to support these statements.
• There is no explanation regarding what steps are being taken to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected as requested in the comments section.
• The instructions for submitting comments could be more detailed, such as specifying any preferred formats or any specific guidelines or criteria for the comments.