Overview
Title
Revision of Agency Information Collection of a Previously Approved Collection; Request for Comments
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people who watch over credit unions want to keep doing some paperwork to check on how credit unions are doing. They’re asking people to let them know what they think about this paperwork until January 2025 because more credit unions want to start or grow.
Summary AI
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is extending and revising the information collections it previously approved with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection includes forms related to chartering, field of membership amendments, and conversions concerning federal credit unions. Public comments on this collection are invited until January 13, 2025, and may be submitted online. The NCUA notes that an increase in applications for new charters and expansions has resulted in a higher burden in terms of time spent on these processes.
Abstract
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is submitting the following extensions and revisions of currently approved collections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Revision of Agency Information Collection of a Previously Approved Collection; Request for Comments" is a notice published by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). It announces the agency's intention to extend and revise certain information collections, which are subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in line with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collections relate to forms and processes concerning chartering, amendments to field of membership, and conversions for federal credit unions.
General Summary
The main focus of the document is the NCUA's submission for the continuation and revision of existing collections. These collections involve specific forms used by credit unions to address various administrative processes like new charters and membership expansions. The NCUA also highlights an increasing administrative burden due to a rise in applications for chartering and membership expansions, which necessitates the revision and renewal of form collections.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues are evident in the document. Firstly, the reason behind the increase in new charter applications, bond expansions, and underserved area applications is not clearly stated, creating uncertainty around the rising burden hours. Secondly, while the methods for submitting public comments are mentioned, they are not detailed enough for someone unfamiliar with the process to navigate easily. Additionally, the precision level in the estimated hours per response is excessively detailed and might come across as unnecessary and confusing for a general audience. The document also lacks clarity on why the numerical estimates for respondents and responses have not changed despite mentioning an increase in applications. Lastly, the request for comments section is somewhat generic, which may not effectively guide the public on how to provide constructive feedback.
Impact on the Public
This document could broadly impact the public, particularly those involved in or considering starting credit unions, as it pertains to procedural adjustments and potential increased administrative times due to additional paperwork requirements. The increased burden hours might translate to longer wait times for process completions, affecting planning and operational decisions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For credit unions, especially those in the process of applying for new charters or expanding membership, these changes could pose a challenge due to additional administrative work. Increased burden hours may require allocating more resources, potentially straining operations, especially for smaller, not-for-profit institutions.
On a positive note, public involvement is encouraged through comments, allowing stakeholders the opportunity to influence the process. However, this opportunity might be somewhat limited by the lack of guidance on what constitutes useful feedback, which could diminish the effectiveness of public contributions.
Issues
• The document does not specify the reason for an increase in the number of new charters, single and multiple common bond expansions, and underserved area applications, making it unclear why burden hours have increased.
• The document refers to the methods for submitting comments and recommendations, such as using www.reginfo.gov, without providing more detailed instructions or tips for the public that might be unfamiliar with the process.
• The level of detail regarding the estimated hours per response (2.354281395) is overly precise and may not be easily understood or deemed necessary.
• It is unclear why the numerical estimates for respondents and responses have not changed, which might not reflect the real impact of the increase in applications mentioned.
• The request for comments section is quite generic and does not provide specific examples or guidance on what constitutes feedback on improvement areas, which might limit the practicality of public input.