Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Acquisition and Sale of Trust Real Estate Investment Trust Shares by Individual Account Plans Sponsored by Trust Real Estate Investment Trusts
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants people to tell them if it's okay to keep collecting information about how some people buy and sell special buildings that make money. They're asking for help to make sure they do it in the best and fairest way.
Summary AI
The Department of Labor is asking for public comments on an information collection request related to the acquisition and sale of Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) shares by individual account plans. This request aims to ensure compliance with specific legal exemptions allowing certain transactions that would otherwise be prohibited. The public is invited to provide feedback on the necessity, accuracy, and methods of collecting the information by April 28, 2025. The information collection is under review for a potential three-year authorization by the Office of Management and Budget.
Abstract
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a notice from the Department of Labor (DOL) published in the Federal Register. It invites public comments on a proposed information collection related to Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) shares. These shares can be acquired and sold by individual account plans under specific legal exemptions. The information collection is being reviewed for potential approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a period of three years.
Summary of the Document
The purpose of this document is to seek feedback from the public on an Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) information collection request. This request concerns the handling of REIT shares by individual account plans. Interested members of the public are encouraged to submit their comments by April 28, 2025. The collected information is intended to ensure compliance with legal exemptions and is being evaluated for its necessity, accuracy, and practicality.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One major concern is the complexity of language used in the document, such as terms like "Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2004-07" and references to specific sections of ERISA and the U.S. Code. This complexity could make it difficult for those without a legal background to fully understand the issues at hand. The methodology for calculating the estimated annual costs and time burdens is not fully explained, leaving room for confusion about how these figures were determined.
The document also discusses "confidentiality procedures," but without sufficient clarity surrounding what these procedures entail. This vagueness could hinder understanding and implementation by stakeholders. There is also uncertainty regarding how these proposed changes could specifically benefit the public or individual stakeholders, making the practical utility of the collection unclear.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, especially those involved in or affected by REIT investments, this document holds significance. It has the potential to establish clearer regulatory frameworks ensuring that transactions involving REIT shares are conducted legally and transparently. Public participation in the feedback process can help shape policies that govern these financial instruments.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Businesses, not-for-profit institutions, and other organizations in the private sector might experience impacts related to compliance costs and administrative duties. Specifically, the process of documenting and maintaining investment records could require time and resources. The document's lack of clarity in some areas might lead to challenges in meeting requirements efficiently, potentially increasing burdens on these stakeholders.
Conversely, the requirement for maintaining and sharing information could enhance transparency in REIT transactions, thus benefiting fiduciaries, participants, and beneficiaries by providing them with more detailed and timely reports related to their investments.
In conclusion, while this document proposes necessary arrangements to safeguard REIT transactions within individual account plans, the complexity and gaps in clarity could impact its effectiveness and reception among various stakeholders. Public engagement and detailed feedback are essential to ensuring the proposed arrangements are beneficial and practical.
Financial Assessment
The document provides a detailed overview regarding an information collection request (ICR) submitted by the Department of Labor (DOL), particularly related to the Employee Benefits Security Administration's (EBSA) oversight on the acquisition and sale of Trust Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Shares.
Financial Overview
In this request, the Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden is highlighted as $10,214. This figure represents the additional costs associated with complying with information collection requirements described in the notice. However, the document does not specify how this amount was calculated or what specific expenses it covers, which could lead to uncertainty regarding the accuracy or completeness of the financial estimation.
Relation to Identified Issues
The document's estimated costs are included to ensure transparency regarding potential financial impacts on those who will need to comply. This is directly related to one of the identified issues, as the lack of detail on the calculation methodology may indicate unclear or insufficient information, leaving stakeholders without a full understanding of the financial burden.
Addressing another concern, the document doesn't clarify the practical utility or specific benefits received in exchange for these expenditures. Without explicit explanations of how this financial burden translates into tangible benefits, potential commenters might find the proposal challenging to evaluate positively from a cost-benefit perspective.
Additionally, the estimated costs should be broken down further to aid understanding by those who might not be familiar with the typical cost structure associated with regulatory compliance. Providing a detailed breakdown of this $10,214 estimate would align with efforts to enhance clarity and support the agency’s aim of minimizing the burden on respondents.
Overall, while the document provides a financial estimate related to the ICR, it should strive to address these financial matters with greater precision, particularly in areas that relate to methodology, transparency, and the cost-benefit relationship. This approach will help alleviate some of the concerns raised within the issues identified in the document.
Issues
• The document lacks detailed information regarding how the estimated annual costs and time burdens were calculated, which could indicate unclear methodology.
• The language used, such as 'Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2004-07' and references to specific sections of the ERISA and Code, may be overly complex for readers who are not familiar with legal jargon.
• Clarification could be beneficial for the term 'confidentiality procedures' as it might be too vague and warrants explicit detail to ensure understanding by all stakeholders.
• The document assumes familiarity with terms related to real estate investment trusts (REITs) and individual account plans, which might not be clear to all potential commenters.
• It is unclear how the proposed changes or information collection will specifically benefit public or individual stakeholders, indicating potential issues with practical utility clarification.
• The invitation for comments does not specify if there will be a summary or response to the public comments received, which might lack transparency in the review process.
• The authority cited (44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D)) is referenced without context, which could be confusing to those less familiar with U.S. Code.
• The phrase 'currently valid OMB Control Number' might be unclear as it doesn't specify the conditions or criteria for the number’s validity.