Posted on Apr 24, 2018
Treasury Dept. Kills 305 Obsolete Rules, Introduces 250 Deregulatory Initiatives | One America...
3.88K
17
6
9
9
0
Draining the swamp incrementally. Step by step cleaning up laws and regulations needs to be done carefully and sufficiently.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 12:53 PM PT — Tues. April 24, 2018
The Treasury Department recently released a report detailing its progress on the path of regulatory reform.
The Treasury said it’s rolled back 305 regulations, including 298 outdated IRS rules since President Trump took office.
The department also said it has dropped 94 rules from its regulatory agenda annually, and introduced zero new regulations.
Image: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin takes his seat to testify on the FY2019 budget during a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Additionally, the Treasury has put forth over 250 recommendations on deregulation in the financial sector.
Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the reforms are crucial to promoting U.S. business activity and ensuring a quicker GDP growth.
Background from federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/24/2018-06881/regulatory-capital-rules-removal-of-certain-capital-rules-that-are-no-longer-effective-following-the:
"AGENCY:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
This final rule rescinds certain capital regulations of the FDIC's codified rules (superseded capital rules) that were no longer effective following the January 1, 2015 implementation of the revised capital rules. The final rule also makes conforming changes to sections in the FDIC's codified rules that refer to the superseded capital rules. The FDIC has concluded that good cause exists to publish this rule as final without a period of notice and comment and with an effective date as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register because this final rule rescinds the superseded capital rules and other sections of the FDIC's codified rules that refer to the superseded capital rules and imposes no new requirement on FDIC-supervised institutions.
DATES:
The final rule is effective April 24, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benedetto Bosco, Chief, Capital Policy Section; [login to see] , Capital Markets Branch, Division of Risk Management Supervision, [login to see] ; Catherine Wood, Counsel, [login to see] ; Michael Phillips, Supervisory Counsel, [login to see] , Supervision and Legislation Branch, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 2014, the FDIC comprehensively revised and strengthened its capital regulations applicable to FDIC-supervised institutions (revised capital rule).[1] The revised capital rule was codified in part 324 of the FDIC's codified rules (effective January 1, 2014, for advanced approaches banking organizations) and was effective for all non-advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institutions on January 1, 2015. Before the effective dates of the revised capital rule, FDIC-supervised institutions were subject to the superseded capital rules in part 325 and subparts Y and Z of part 390 of the FDIC's codified rules. The superseded capital rules remain in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), even though they were no longer effective for any FDIC-supervised institution since January 1, 2015. Maintaining the superseded capital rules in the FDIC's codified rules could result in confusion and therefore this final rule removes the superseded capital rules.
II. Description of the Final Rule
The final rule rescinds part 325, subpart A—Minimum Capital Requirements, subpart B—Prompt Corrective Action and appendices A through D, as the rules contained therein have been superseded by part 324. Under the final rule, the annual stress testing rule will remain in part 325. Part 325 will be retitled to Annual Stress Test and the stress testing rule will be renumbered to reflect the removed capital rules. Similarly, the final rule removes the superseded capital rules contained in part 390 subpart Y—Prompt Corrective Action and part 390, subpart Z—Capital and related appendices. Under the final rule, sections in part 390 that are not removed will remain codified in part 390, including certain enforcement authorities related to savings association's capital requirements. The final rule also makes conforming technical changes to provisions of the FDIC's codified rules that refer to part 325 for state nonmember banks and subparts Y and Z of part 390 for state savings associations in conjunction with the FDIC's capital rules. However, this final rule does not impact the legal status of any reference to the superseded capital rules in outstanding compliance and enforcement orders, agreements, and memoranda of understanding entered into by the FDIC prior to the effective date of this final rule. Regardless of whether an outstanding enforcement order refers to the superseded capital rule, all FDIC-supervised institutions are subject to the revised capital rule and must be in compliance with the minimum capital requirements in part 324.[2]
III. Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require an agency to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register if an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” [3] The FDIC finds that for purposes of the rescission of the superseded capital rules, good cause exists to not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and, therefore, is issuing this rule as a final rule. The FDIC believes that a notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary for such purposes because the FDIC published three NPRs and an interim final rule for comment before issuing the revised capital rules in 2014.[4] The comment period for those NPRs and interim final rule provided sufficient public notice that the revised Start Printed Page 17738capital rules would replace the superseded capital rules for all FDIC-supervised institutions as of January 1, 2015. This final rule solely removes the obsolete provisions of, and references to, the superseded capital rules in the CFR and imposes no new requirement on FDIC-supervised institutions. Accordingly, the FDIC concludes that good cause exists to publish the rule as final without a notice and opportunity to comment.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that, for good cause found and published with the rule, an agency does not have to comply with the requirement that a substantive rule be published not less than 30 days before its effective date.[5] The final rule will be effective immediately upon its publication in the Federal Register. The FDIC invokes the good cause exception to the APA's 30-day publication requirement for the reasons discussed above.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), requires an agency, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (defined by the Small Business Administration for purposes of the RFA to include banking entities with total assets of $550 million or less) or to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA also requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities. Neither an IRFA nor FRFA is required, however, if the rule is issued under the APA provision allowing the agency to forego notice and comment rulemaking for good cause. Therefore, the FDIC has not prepared either an IRFA or an FRFA in connection with this final rule. Nevertheless, the FDIC notes that the final rule does not impose any burden on small banking entities as it only rescinds obsolete provisions in the FDIC's CFR.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC reviewed the rule and determined that it does not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121).
D. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The FDIC has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
E. Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
F. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
Under the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802, (RCDRIA), there is a requirement that “[n]ew regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form” absent a good cause determination by the agency.[6] The final rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions and therefore is not subject to the effective date requirement in RCDRIA."
FYI LTC Stephen C. Maj William W. "Bill" Price LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. LTC (Join to see) CPT Gabe Snell Capt Tom Brown Capt Seid Waddell SSgt Robert Marx SSgt (Join to see) SCPO Morris RamseySP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT Robert George SGT John " Mac " McConnell SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright SP5 Robert Ruck SCPO Morris Ramsey CPL Eric Escasio Cpl Joshua Caldwell
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 12:53 PM PT — Tues. April 24, 2018
The Treasury Department recently released a report detailing its progress on the path of regulatory reform.
The Treasury said it’s rolled back 305 regulations, including 298 outdated IRS rules since President Trump took office.
The department also said it has dropped 94 rules from its regulatory agenda annually, and introduced zero new regulations.
Image: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin takes his seat to testify on the FY2019 budget during a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Additionally, the Treasury has put forth over 250 recommendations on deregulation in the financial sector.
Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the reforms are crucial to promoting U.S. business activity and ensuring a quicker GDP growth.
Background from federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/24/2018-06881/regulatory-capital-rules-removal-of-certain-capital-rules-that-are-no-longer-effective-following-the:
"AGENCY:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
This final rule rescinds certain capital regulations of the FDIC's codified rules (superseded capital rules) that were no longer effective following the January 1, 2015 implementation of the revised capital rules. The final rule also makes conforming changes to sections in the FDIC's codified rules that refer to the superseded capital rules. The FDIC has concluded that good cause exists to publish this rule as final without a period of notice and comment and with an effective date as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register because this final rule rescinds the superseded capital rules and other sections of the FDIC's codified rules that refer to the superseded capital rules and imposes no new requirement on FDIC-supervised institutions.
DATES:
The final rule is effective April 24, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benedetto Bosco, Chief, Capital Policy Section; [login to see] , Capital Markets Branch, Division of Risk Management Supervision, [login to see] ; Catherine Wood, Counsel, [login to see] ; Michael Phillips, Supervisory Counsel, [login to see] , Supervision and Legislation Branch, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 2014, the FDIC comprehensively revised and strengthened its capital regulations applicable to FDIC-supervised institutions (revised capital rule).[1] The revised capital rule was codified in part 324 of the FDIC's codified rules (effective January 1, 2014, for advanced approaches banking organizations) and was effective for all non-advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institutions on January 1, 2015. Before the effective dates of the revised capital rule, FDIC-supervised institutions were subject to the superseded capital rules in part 325 and subparts Y and Z of part 390 of the FDIC's codified rules. The superseded capital rules remain in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), even though they were no longer effective for any FDIC-supervised institution since January 1, 2015. Maintaining the superseded capital rules in the FDIC's codified rules could result in confusion and therefore this final rule removes the superseded capital rules.
II. Description of the Final Rule
The final rule rescinds part 325, subpart A—Minimum Capital Requirements, subpart B—Prompt Corrective Action and appendices A through D, as the rules contained therein have been superseded by part 324. Under the final rule, the annual stress testing rule will remain in part 325. Part 325 will be retitled to Annual Stress Test and the stress testing rule will be renumbered to reflect the removed capital rules. Similarly, the final rule removes the superseded capital rules contained in part 390 subpart Y—Prompt Corrective Action and part 390, subpart Z—Capital and related appendices. Under the final rule, sections in part 390 that are not removed will remain codified in part 390, including certain enforcement authorities related to savings association's capital requirements. The final rule also makes conforming technical changes to provisions of the FDIC's codified rules that refer to part 325 for state nonmember banks and subparts Y and Z of part 390 for state savings associations in conjunction with the FDIC's capital rules. However, this final rule does not impact the legal status of any reference to the superseded capital rules in outstanding compliance and enforcement orders, agreements, and memoranda of understanding entered into by the FDIC prior to the effective date of this final rule. Regardless of whether an outstanding enforcement order refers to the superseded capital rule, all FDIC-supervised institutions are subject to the revised capital rule and must be in compliance with the minimum capital requirements in part 324.[2]
III. Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require an agency to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register if an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” [3] The FDIC finds that for purposes of the rescission of the superseded capital rules, good cause exists to not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and, therefore, is issuing this rule as a final rule. The FDIC believes that a notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary for such purposes because the FDIC published three NPRs and an interim final rule for comment before issuing the revised capital rules in 2014.[4] The comment period for those NPRs and interim final rule provided sufficient public notice that the revised Start Printed Page 17738capital rules would replace the superseded capital rules for all FDIC-supervised institutions as of January 1, 2015. This final rule solely removes the obsolete provisions of, and references to, the superseded capital rules in the CFR and imposes no new requirement on FDIC-supervised institutions. Accordingly, the FDIC concludes that good cause exists to publish the rule as final without a notice and opportunity to comment.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that, for good cause found and published with the rule, an agency does not have to comply with the requirement that a substantive rule be published not less than 30 days before its effective date.[5] The final rule will be effective immediately upon its publication in the Federal Register. The FDIC invokes the good cause exception to the APA's 30-day publication requirement for the reasons discussed above.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), requires an agency, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (defined by the Small Business Administration for purposes of the RFA to include banking entities with total assets of $550 million or less) or to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA also requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities. Neither an IRFA nor FRFA is required, however, if the rule is issued under the APA provision allowing the agency to forego notice and comment rulemaking for good cause. Therefore, the FDIC has not prepared either an IRFA or an FRFA in connection with this final rule. Nevertheless, the FDIC notes that the final rule does not impose any burden on small banking entities as it only rescinds obsolete provisions in the FDIC's CFR.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC reviewed the rule and determined that it does not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121).
D. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The FDIC has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
E. Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
F. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
Under the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802, (RCDRIA), there is a requirement that “[n]ew regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form” absent a good cause determination by the agency.[6] The final rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions and therefore is not subject to the effective date requirement in RCDRIA."
FYI LTC Stephen C. Maj William W. "Bill" Price LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. LTC (Join to see) CPT Gabe Snell Capt Tom Brown Capt Seid Waddell SSgt Robert Marx SSgt (Join to see) SCPO Morris RamseySP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT Robert George SGT John " Mac " McConnell SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright SP5 Robert Ruck SCPO Morris Ramsey CPL Eric Escasio Cpl Joshua Caldwell
Treasury Dept. Kills 305 Obsolete Rules, Introduces 250 Deregulatory Initiatives | One America...
Posted from oann.com
Office of the President (POTUS)
IRS
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
This latest Administration has rolled back regulations on payday loans which will hurt the consumer again. I am sure the military still has restrictions for prohibiting the use of payday loans and article 15s and worse for those service members who use the payday loans against military regulations.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
well... seeing as most/if not all pay day loan companies are on the black list, entering into an agreement in said establishments is punishable.... then again.... getting ripped off and losing your money like an idiot is punishment enough.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
6 reasons to avoid payday loans
With all the bad press payday loans get, you'd think people would steer clear of them. But the lure of fast cash keeps them coming
(0)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
Payday loans are predatory as a whole. The only thing I see with deregulation on them is that regulating these things and telling people what is or is not good for them is not a good governing approach.
We have the taxation on large sodas in NJ(?) and things of that nature which just punish people further for already making bad decisions. The only way to remove payday loan requirements is education and support, not further regulations.
Prohibition tends not to work.
We have the taxation on large sodas in NJ(?) and things of that nature which just punish people further for already making bad decisions. The only way to remove payday loan requirements is education and support, not further regulations.
Prohibition tends not to work.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC Stephen F. This is good news. It seems that the federal government has grown and creeped into areas that they really shouldn't be in. Thanks for sharing.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google