One-Time Assessment Credit, 28809-28819 [E6-7583]

Agencies

• FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28809-28819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7583]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 327

RIN 3064-AD08


One-Time Assessment Credit

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

[[Page 28810]]


ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC'') is 
proposing to amend 12 CFR part 327 to implement the one-time assessment 
credit for certain eligible insured depository institutions required by 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (``FDI Act'') as amended by the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (``Reform Act''). The 
proposed rule covers: the aggregate amount of the one-time credit; the 
institutions that are eligible to receive credits; and the amount of 
each eligible institution's credit, which for some institutions may be 
largely dependent on how the FDIC defines ``successor'' for these 
purposes. The proposed rule also would establish the qualifications and 
procedures governing the application of assessment credits, and provide 
a reasonable opportunity for an institution to challenge 
administratively the amount of the credit.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number by any of 
the following methods:
     Agency Web site: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/
federal.propose.html. Follow instructions for submitting comments on 
the Agency Web site.
     E-mail: Comments@FDIC.gov. Include the RIN number in the 
subject line of the message.
     Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: 
Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20429
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 
550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 
7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/
propose.html including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Munsell W. St.Clair, Senior Policy 
Analyst, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-8967; Donna M. 
Saulnier, Senior Assessment Policy Specialist, Division of Finance, 
(703) 562-6167; and Kymberly K. Copa, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 
898-8832.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 7(e)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended by 
the Reform Act,\1\ requires that the FDIC's Board of Directors 
(``Board'') provide by regulation an initial, one-time assessment 
credit to each ``eligible'' insured depository institution (or its 
successor) based on the assessment base of the institution as of 
December 31, 1996, as compared to the combined aggregate assessment 
base of all eligible institutions as of that date (``the 1996 
assessment base ratio''), taking into account such other factors the 
Board may determine to be appropriate. The aggregate amount of one-time 
credits is to equal the amount that the FDIC could have collected if it 
had imposed an assessment of 10.5 basis points on the combined 
assessment base of the Bank Insurance Fund (``BIF'') and Savings 
Association Insurance Fund (``SAIF'') as of December 31, 2001. 12 
U.S.C. 1817(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Reform Act was included as Title II, Subtitle B, of the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109-171, 120 Stat. 9, 
which was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ``eligible'' insured depository institution is one that:
    1. Was in existence on December 31, 1996, and paid a Federal 
deposit insurance assessment prior to that date;\2\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prior to 1997, the assessments that SAIF member institutions 
paid the SAIF were diverted to the Financing Corporation (``FICO''), 
which had a statutory priority to those funds. Beginning with 
enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
Enforcement Act of 1989 (``FIRREA,'' Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183) 
and ending with the Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996 (``DIFA,'' 
Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-479), FICO had authority, with 
the approval of the Board of Directors of the FDIC, to assess 
against SAIF members to cover anticipated interest payments, 
issuance costs, and custodial fees on FICO bonds. The FICO 
assessment could not exceed the amount authorized to be assessed 
against SAIF members pursuant to section 7 of the FDI Act, and FICO 
had first priority against the assessment. 12 U.S.C. 1441(f), as 
amended by FIRREA. Beginning in 1997, the FICO assessments were no 
longer drawn from SAIF. Rather, the FDIC began collecting a separate 
FICO assessment. 12 U.S.C. 1441(f), as amended by DIFA. Payments to 
SAIF prior to December 31, 1996, therefore, are considered deposit 
insurance assessments for purposes of the one-time assessment 
credit. The new law does not change the existing process through 
which the FDIC collects FICO assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Is a ``successor'' to any such insured depository institution.
    The FDI Act requires the Board to define ``successor'' for these 
purposes and provides that the Board ``may consider any factors as the 
Board may deem appropriate.'' The amount of a credit to any eligible 
insured depository institution must be applied by the FDIC to the 
assessments imposed on such institution that become due for assessment 
periods beginning after the effective date of the one-time credit 
regulations required to be issued within 270 days after enactment.\3\ 
12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(3)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 2109 of the Reform Act also requires the FDIC to 
prescribe, within 270 days, rules on the designated reserve ratio, 
changes to deposit insurance coverage, the dividend requirement, and 
assessments. An interim final rule on deposit insurance coverage was 
published on March 23, 2006. See 71 FR 14629. A notice of proposed 
rulemaking on the dividend requirement and a notice of proposed 
rulemaking on operational changes to the FDIC's assessment 
regulations are both being proposed by the FDIC at the same time as 
this notice on the one-time assessment credit. Additional 
rulemakings on the designated reserve ratio and risk-based 
assessments are expected to be proposed in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are three restrictions on the use of credits:
    1. As a general rule, for assessments that become due for 
assessment periods beginning in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, 
credits may not be applied to more than 90 percent of an institution's 
assessment. 12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(3)(D)(ii). (This 90 percent limit does 
not apply to 2007 assessments.)
    2. For an institution that exhibits financial, operational or 
compliance weaknesses ranging from moderately severe to unsatisfactory, 
or is not at least adequately capitalized (as defined pursuant to 
section 38 of the FDI Act) at the beginning of an assessment period, 
the amount of any credit that may be applied against the institution's 
assessment for the period may not exceed the amount the institution 
would have been assessed had it been assessed at the average rate for 
all institutions for the period. 12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(3)(E).
    3. If the FDIC is operating under a restoration plan to 
recapitalize the Deposit Insurance Fund (``DIF'') pursuant to section 
7(b)(3)(E) of the FDI Act, as amended by the Reform Act, the FDIC may 
elect to restrict credit use; however, an institution must still be 
allowed to apply credits up to three basis points of its assessment 
base or its actual assessment, whichever is less. 12 U.S.C. 
1817(b)(3)(E)(iii).
    The one-time credit regulations must include the qualifications and 
procedures governing the application of assessment credits. These 
regulations also must include provisions allowing a bank or thrift a 
reasonable opportunity to challenge administratively the amount of 
credits it is awarded.\4\ Any determination of the amount of an 
institution's credit by the FDIC pursuant to these administrative 
procedures is

[[Page 28811]]

final and not subject to judicial review. 12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Similarly, for dividends under the FDI Act as amended by the 
Reform Act, the regulations must include provisions allowing a bank 
or thrift a reasonable opportunity to administratively challenge the 
amount of dividends it is awarded. 12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the FDIC is requesting comment on proposed rules that 
would implement the one-time assessment credit requirement added by the 
Reform Act.

II. Description of the Proposal

    As part of this rulemaking, the FDIC must, among other things: 
determine the aggregate amount of the one-time credit; determine the 
institutions that are eligible to receive credits; and determine the 
amount of each eligible institution's credit, which for some 
institutions may be largely dependent on how the FDIC defines 
``successor'' for these purposes. The FDIC also must establish the 
qualifications and procedures governing the application of assessment 
credits, and provide a reasonable opportunity for an institution to 
challenge administratively the amount of the credit. The FDIC's 
determination after such challenge will be final and not subject to 
judicial review.
    As set out more fully below, the FDIC proposes that the Board: rely 
on the 1996 assessment base figures contained in the Assessment 
Information Management System (AIMS II) \5\; define ``successor'' as 
the resulting institution in a merger or consolidation, while seeking 
comment on alternative definitions; determine that the FDIC will 
automatically apply each institution's credit against future 
assessments to the maximum extent allowed consistent with the 
limitations in the FDI Act; and provide an appeals process for 
administrative challenges to the amounts of credits that culminates in 
review by the Assessment Appeals Committee (AAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The current Assessment Information Management Systems 
(commonly referred to as AIMS II) contains a record for quarterly 
reports of condition data from institutions with bank and thrift 
charters. The FFIEC Central Data Repository (``FFIEC-CDR'') for 
banks and the Thrift Financial Report for thrifts provide AIMS II 
with the values of the deposit line items that are used in the 
calculation of an institution's assessment base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly after publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
FDIC intends to make available to each insured depository institution 
the FDIC's calculation of that institution's 1996 assessment base (if 
any), and to give each institution the opportunity to review and verify 
its 1996 assessment base, as well as information related to mergers or 
consolidations to which it was a party.

A. Aggregate Amount of One-time Assessment Credit

    The aggregate amount of the one-time assessment credit is expected 
to be $4,707,580,238.19, which is calculated by applying an assessment 
rate of 10.5 basis points to the combined assessment base of BIF and 
SAIF as of December 31, 2001. The FDIC proposes to rely on the 
assessment base numbers available from each institution's certified 
statement (or amended certified statement), filed quarterly and 
preserved in AIMS II, which records the assessment base for each 
insured depository institution as of that date. AIMS II is the FDIC's 
official system of records for determination of assessment bases and 
assessments due.

B. Determination of Eligible Insured Depository Institutions and Each 
Institution's 1996 Assessment Base Ratio

    The FDIC must determine the assessment base of each eligible 
institution as of December 31, 1996, and any successor institutions, to 
determine the 1996 assessment base ratio. In making these 
determinations, the Board has the authority to take into account such 
factors as the Board may determine to be appropriate. 12 U.S.C. 
1817(e)(3)(A).
    Stated simply, the denominator of the 1996 assessment base ratio is 
the combined aggregate assessment base of all eligible insured 
depository institutions and their successors. The numerator of each 
eligible institution's 1996 assessment base ratio is its assessment 
base as of December 31, 1996, together with the assessment base on 
December 31, 1996, of each institution (if any) to which it is a 
successor. An eligible insured depository institution is one in 
existence as of December 31, 1996, that paid an assessment prior to 
that date (or a successor to such institution).
1. Determination of Eligible Institutions
    As a starting point, the FDIC proposes to use the December 31, 1996 
assessment base for each institution, as it appears on the 
institution's certified statement or as subsequently amended and as 
recorded in AIMS II. Those numbers reflect the bases on which 
institutions that existed on December 31, 1996, paid assessments. As of 
December 31, 2005, it appears that there were approximately 7,400 
active insured depository institutions that may be eligible for the 
one-time assessment credit--that is, they were in existence on December 
31, 1996, and had paid an assessment prior to that date.
a. Effect of Voluntary Termination or Failure
    The FDIC has identified those institutions that have voluntarily 
terminated their insurance or failed since December 31, 1996, which 
otherwise would have been considered eligible insured depository 
institutions for purposes of the one-time credit. The FDIC proposes 
that the definition of ``successor'' (discussed more fully below) 
govern the determination of whether the one-time credits of an 
institution that voluntarily is eligible and its credits transfer to a 
successor. Whether an institution that voluntarily terminated would 
have a successor would depend on the specific circumstances surrounding 
its termination. The FDIC proposes that an insured depository 
institution that has failed would not have a successor.

b. De Novo Institutions

    The FDIC has identified those institutions newly in existence as of 
December 31, 1996 (``de novo institutions'') that did not pay deposit 
insurance premiums prior to December 31, 1996. Under the statute, those 
institutions could not be eligible insured depository institutions for 
purposes of the one-time assessment credit.
    The FDIC's records indicate that there were approximately 90 
institutions that became newly insured between July 1, 1996 and 
December 31, 1996, that did not pay any deposit insurance assessment 
and did not acquire through merger or consolidation another institution 
that had paid assessments before year-end 1996. These institutions are 
not eligible for credits under the terms of the statute.
    In addition, the FDIC's records indicate that there are two de novo 
institutions, which did not pay assessments directly, but each acquired 
by merger an institution that had paid assessments before December 31, 
1996. Under traditional general principles of corporate law, the 
surviving or resulting institution in a merger or consolidation is 
considered to have acquired the rights, privileges, powers, franchises, 
and property of the terminating institution, as well as the 
liabilities, restrictions, and duties of that institution. The 
surviving or resulting institution effectively continues the business 
of the terminating institution. 15 William Meade Fletcher et al., 
Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations Sec. Sec.  7041-
7100 (perm. ed., rev. vol. 1999). On that basis, the FDIC proposes that 
a de novo institution that acquired, through

[[Page 28812]]

merger or consolidation, an existing insured depository institution 
that had paid a deposit insurance assessment be considered to have 
stepped into the shoes of the existing institution for purposes of 
determining eligibility for the one-time assessment credit.
2. Definition of ``Successor''
    As noted above, an insured depository institution in existence on 
December 31, 1996, that paid insurance premiums is eligible for the 
one-time assessment credit. An institution also may be eligible as a 
``successor'' to such an institution. In making the preliminary 
determinations of eligible insured depository institutions, their 
assessment bases as of December 31, 1996, and the combined assessment 
base of the BIF and the SAIF as of the same date, the FDIC proposes to 
rely on the institution's certified statement (as amended, if 
necessary), as recorded in AIMS II.
    Many institutions that existed at the end of 1996 no longer exist. 
Some have disappeared through merger or consolidation. In fact, it 
appears that approximately 3,850 additional institutions that were in 
existence on December 31, 1996, have since combined with other 
institutions. In addition, 38 institutions have failed and no longer 
exist, while the FDIC has to date identified approximately 90 others 
that voluntarily relinquished federal deposit insurance coverage or had 
their coverage terminated. The FDIC does not maintain complete records 
on sales of branches or blocks of deposits, but various sources suggest 
that at least 1,400 and possibly over 1,800 branch or deposit 
transactions have occurred since 1996.
    Section 7(e)(3)(F) of the FDI Act expressly charges the FDIC with 
defining ``successor'' by regulation for purposes of the one-time 
credit, and it provides the FDIC with broad discretion to do so. The 
Board may consider any factors it deems appropriate.
    In developing its proposal regarding the definition of 
``successor,'' the FDIC viewed the issue in the context of two 
fundamental questions: what would be most consistent with the purpose 
of the one-time credit and what would be operationally viable. While a 
number of definitions of ``successor'' are possible in light of the 
discretion accorded the FDIC in defining the term, on balance, the FDIC 
concluded that one approach was more consistent with the purpose of the 
credit and more operationally viable.
    The FDIC considered definitions that would focus on the institution 
itself and definitions that linked credits to deposits and considered 
the arguments in support of those definitions. Proponents of an 
institution-based approach might argue that it is the institution that 
paid deposit insurance premiums to capitalize the insurance funds, that 
the potential one-time credit would be one of the rights or privileges 
of an institution that would be acquired through merger or 
consolidation under general principles of corporate law, and that a 
different approach could result in institutions that had not paid 
premiums to capitalize the funds receiving credits. Proponents of a 
``follow-the-deposits'' definition, however, might argue that the one-
time credit should adhere to deposits because the one-time credit is to 
be allocated based on deposits and is intended to offset future 
assessments to be paid on deposits. The FDIC also considered the 
operational viability of these approaches to the definition and found 
that the FDIC's existing systems of records could support an 
institution-based approach, but a ``follow-the-deposits'' approach 
would require collection of information from the industry before it 
could be fully implemented.
    For the reasons set forth below, the FDIC proposes to define 
``successor'' for purposes of the one-time credit as the resulting 
institution in a merger or consolidation occurring after December 31, 
1996. As proposed, the definition would not include a purchase and 
assumption transaction, even if substantially all of the assets and 
liabilities of an institution are acquired by the assuming institution. 
However, the FDIC further requests comment on whether to include in 
this definition a regulatory definition of a de facto merger to 
recognize that the results of some transactions, which are not 
technically mergers or consolidations, largely mirror the results of a 
merger or consolidation.
a. Merger or Consolidation Rule
    Defining ``successor'' as the resulting institution in a merger or 
consolidation is consistent with the clear purpose of the one-time 
assessment credit--that is, to recognize the contributions that some 
insured depository institutions made to capitalize the deposit 
insurance funds and conversely to recognize the fact that many newer 
institutions have never paid assessments because they were chartered 
after the reserve ratios of BIF and SAIF reached 1.25 percent and most 
institutions were charged nothing.\6\ In addition, the FDIC believes 
that this definition is consistent with the general expectations of the 
industry, because it reflects the common legal meaning of the word 
``successor'' and the principle that the resulting corporation in a 
merger or consolidation generally receives the rights, privileges, 
interests, and liabilities of the merging or consolidating 
corporations. 15 William Meade Fletcher et al., Fletcher Cyclopedia of 
the Law of Private Corporations Sec. Sec.  7041-7100 (perm. ed., rev. 
vol. 1999). Institutions that acquired other institutions by way of 
merger or consolidation will have believed that they were acquiring all 
of the rights and privileges of the acquired institution, known or 
unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prior to the effective date of changes to the FDIC's 
assessment authority by the Reform Act, the FDIC is required to set 
assessments when necessary and only to the extent necessary to 
maintain the reserve ratio at 1.25 percent of estimated insured 
deposits, except for those institutions that exhibit financial, 
operational, or compliance weaknesses ranging from moderately severe 
to unsatisfactory, or are not well capitalized. 12 U.S.C. 
1817(b)(2)(A) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is possible that some state banking laws may differ, this 
definition is consistent with the National Bank Consolidation and 
Merger Act. 12 U.S.C. 215, 216. The FDIC has significant discretion in 
defining the term ``successor'' for these purposes, and a single 
federal standard is essential to allow the FDIC to implement and 
administer the one-time credit requirement in a timely and efficient 
manner.
    Mergers and consolidations require regulatory approval under 
section 18(c) of the FDI Act, and the FDIC maintains records on true 
mergers and consolidations. Only if the FDIC's records are incomplete 
or in error will institutions have to provide information to the FDIC. 
Because the ``merger or consolidation rule'' relies principally on 
existing data, it is operationally viable. In addition, a merger or 
consolidation rule would not advantage or disadvantage parties simply 
on the basis of whether they kept records on transactions for which the 
statute of limitations has expired.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 7(b)(5) of the FDI Act currently requires 
institutions to maintain assessment-related records for five years, 
and section 7(g) provides a five-year statute of limitations for 
assessment actions. The Reform Act includes amendments to those 
provisions, prospectively shortening both to three years, effective 
on the date that new assessment regulations take effect. See 
sections 2104(b), (d) and 2109(a)(5) of the Reform Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. De Facto Merger Alternative
    Some transactions may be viewed as effectively paralleling the 
results of a merger or consolidation. The FDIC looked to traditional 
principles of corporate law for guidance on this issue and found a 
useful analogy. Traditional corporate law principles provide for

[[Page 28813]]

certain exceptions to the general rule that liabilities do not transfer 
with the sale of assets, including an exception for a transaction that 
amounts to a de facto merger or consolidation (``de facto merger'').
    The FDIC recognizes, however, that a de facto merger exception 
could be viewed as a departure to some extent from the clear, bright 
line that a strictly applied merger or consolidation rule would 
provide. The FDIC, therefore, seeks comment on whether to include de 
facto mergers in the definition of ``merger'' for purposes of the one-
time assessment credit and to provide a regulatory definition of de 
facto merger. A de facto merger for these purposes could be defined, 
for example, as an eligible institution conveying all of its deposit 
liabilities and substantially all of its assets to a single acquiring 
institution, so long as the conveying institution subsequently 
terminated its deposit insurance. This type of transaction might have 
arisen, for example, as part of a voluntary liquidation. Even under 
this alternative, unless an eligible institution actually merged or 
consolidated with another institution, it would not have a successor if 
it conveyed its assets and deposit liabilities to more than one 
acquiring institution.
2. Alternative Approaches to Definition of Successor That Would 
``Follow the Deposits''
    The FDIC also explored alternative definitions of successor that 
allowed credits to follow deposits (regardless of the means by which 
deposits were transferred, including merger, consolidation, branch 
sale, or other deposit transfer). These alternative definitions might 
be based on a view that credits should adhere to deposits, as described 
above. Under these alternative definitions, credits could be 
transferred on a pro rata basis with the deposits transferred or they 
could be split between the parties to the deposit transfer transaction. 
Splitting the credits associated with a deposit transfer between the 
buyer and seller would be a compromise solution and would recognize 
that, as a practical matter, it is unlikely the parties to most of 
these deposit transfers took into account the potential for assessment 
credits at the time of the transactions.
    After considering the arguments, the FDIC concluded that a 
``follow-the-deposits'' approach seemed less consistent with the 
purpose of the one-time credit and did not reflect the reasonable 
expectations of parties to transactions based on general corporate law 
principles. In addition, the FDIC was concerned about the viability of 
a ``follow-the-deposits'' approach because of: An absence of reliable 
existing data; the number of interrelated transactions that would have 
to be resolved due to the passage of time and consolidation in the 
industry; and the potential inequities and litigation risks inherent in 
mechanisms (such as thresholds or other choices) that might be used to 
reduce the number of potential claims to a more manageable level. 
Potential inequities also arise in connection with the data issue 
because institutions that engaged in very similar transactions could be 
treated differently solely because some institutions retained records 
long past the expiration of the statute of limitations and others did 
not.
    The FDIC does not routinely maintain the detailed data on all 
deposit transfer transactions that would be necessary to implement a 
``follow-the-deposits'' rule. Thus, most, if not all, of the necessary 
information would have to be collected from the industry and disputes 
between institutions resolved before a deposit transfer approach to 
allocating the one-time credit could be fully implemented. As 
previously noted, available data suggests that, in addition to roughly 
3,850 mergers and consolidations, at least 1,400 and perhaps over 1,800 
branch or deposit transactions may have occurred since 1996.
    Because of the possibility of a chain of mergers, consolidations, 
and deposit transfers, resolving one institution's claim to one-time 
credits first might require examining claims from many transactions in 
the chain. In most cases, the FDIC would have to review and rely on the 
records of the institutions involved in the deposit transfer. Appeals 
of credit determinations could become lengthy fact finding exercises 
involving the comparison of the available evidence from all of the 
institutions involved.
    The FDIC explored developing a type of de minimis rule under which, 
for example, only deposit transfers (or a series of transfers) from one 
institution to another that, in total, exceeded some percentage 
threshold, such as 15 percent of the transferor's total domestic 
deposits or 30 percent of the transferee's deposits as determined at 
the time of the transfer, might be considered. The FDIC was concerned, 
however, that thresholds or other choices to limit the number of 
institutions covered by a rule by their nature may result in disparate 
treatment of otherwise similarly situated institutions.
    Because the statute of limitations will have expired with respect 
to many deposit transfer transactions from the late 1990s, institutions 
may not have retained records of these transactions. Institutions that 
saved their records would have a significant advantage over those that 
did not, potentially leading to results based solely on the 
availability of records.
    The FDIC is seeking comment on the proposed definition of 
``successor,'' as well as alternative ``follow-the-deposits'' 
approaches, for purposes of the one-time assessment credit. The FDIC 
requests that commenters address the purpose of the one-time credit and 
the extent to which the various possible definitions of ``successor'' 
are viewed as consistent with that purpose. In addition, the FDIC 
requests that commenters consider whether a ``follow-the-deposits'' 
approach might be made more operationally viable, including how the 
data issues might be addressed.
3. No Successor Identified
    If there is no successor to an institution that would have been 
eligible for the one-time assessment credit before the effective date 
of the final rule, because an otherwise eligible institution ceased to 
be an insured depository institution before that date, then the FDIC 
proposes that that portion of the aggregate one-time credit amount be 
redistributed among the eligible institutions. For example, if an 
otherwise eligible insured depository institution failed after December 
31, 1996, but before the issuance of the final rule implementing the 
one-time credit, and had no successor, that institution would be 
excluded from the calculation. As a result, the remaining eligible 
institutions would receive a proportionate share of that failed 
institution's share of the one-time credit.
    On the other hand, if there is no successor to an eligible insured 
depository institution that ceases to exist after the Board issues the 
final rule and allocates the one-time assessment credit among eligible 
insured depository institutions, it is proposed that that institution's 
credits expire unused. One example would be the failure of an eligible 
institution after it has received its one-time credit amount. Under 
those circumstances, any remaining one-time credit amount would simply 
expire.

D. Notification of 1996 Assessment Base Ratio and Credit Amount

    The FDIC intends to make available a searchable database provided 
through the FDIC's public Web site (https://www.fdic.gov) that shows 
each currently existing institution and its predecessors by merger or 
consolidation from January 1, 1997, onward, based on information

[[Page 28814]]

contained in certified statements, AIMS II, and the Structure 
Information Management System (``SIMS'').\8\ The database would include 
corresponding December 31, 1996 assessment base amounts for each 
institution and its predecessors and preliminary estimates of the 
amount of one-time credit that the existing institution would receive 
based on the proposed definition of successor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ SIMS maintains current and historical non-financial data for 
all institutions that is retrieved by AIMS II to identify the 
current assessable universe for each quarterly assessment invoice 
cycle. SIMS offers institution-specific demographic data, including 
a complete set of information on merger or consolidation 
transactions. SIMS, however, does not contain complete information 
about deposit or branch sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The database will also allow searching by institution name or 
insurance certificate number to ascertain which current institution (if 
any) would be considered a successor to an institution that no longer 
exists. Institutions would have the opportunity to review this 
information, which could significantly reduce the time needed to 
determine successors even if one of the ``follow-the-deposits'' 
alternatives for defining ``successor'' is adopted in the final rule. 
Institutions should be aware that this preliminary estimate could 
change, for example, because of a change in the definition of 
``successor'' adopted in the final rule or because of a change to the 
information available to the FDIC for determining successorship.
    As soon as practicable after the Board approves the final rule, the 
FDIC proposes to notify each insured depository institution of its 1996 
assessment base ratio and share of the one-time assessment credit, 
based on the information developed through the FDIC's searchable 
database. The notice would take the form of a Statement of One-time 
Credit (or ``Statement''): Informing every institution of its 1996 
assessment base ratio; itemizing the 1996 assessment bases to which the 
institution may now have claims pursuant to the successor rule based on 
existing successor information in the database; providing the amount of 
the institution's one-time credit based on that 1996 assessment base 
ratio as applied to the aggregate amount of the credit; and providing 
the explanation as to how ratios and resulting amounts were calculated 
generally. The FDIC proposes to provide the Statement of One-time 
Credit through FDICconnect and by mail in accordance with existing 
practices for assessment invoices.
    Under the proposal, if an institution has any question as to the 
calculation of its 1996 assessment base ratio or its credit amount, the 
institution would be advised to contact the Division of Finance. The 
FDIC encourages institutions to discuss and attempt to resolve 
perceived discrepancies due to an omission of a merger or 
consolidation, or due to disagreement about the size of an 
institution's 1996 assessment base while the notice of proposed 
rulemaking is out for comment.\9\ As described below, each institution 
would have the opportunity to challenge formally the amount of its one-
time credit, regardless of whether the institution sought an informal 
resolution during the rulemaking. Depending upon the definition of 
``successor'' ultimately adopted, some challenges may not be resolved 
prior to the collection of assessments after the effective date of the 
final rule. However, the FDIC proposes to make available any credit 
amounts that are not in controversy. For example, if an eligible 
institution argues that it may be entitled to a larger share of the 
one-time credit as a successor, the amount of its original 1996 base 
ratio and share will be available (assuming they are not in dispute), 
and any potential additional credit amounts would be frozen until 
resolution of the challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Staff believes that the information developed through the 
searchable database would be useful even if the final rule defines 
``successor'' in a way that follows deposits, because a ``follow-
the-deposit'' definition would include recognition of the deposits 
actually transferred as part of a merger or consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Requests for Review of Credit Amounts

    Section 7(e)(4) of the FDI Act requires the FDIC's credit 
regulations to include provisions allowing an institution a reasonable 
opportunity to challenge administratively the amount of its one-time 
credit. The FDIC's determination of the amount following any such 
challenge is to be final and not subject to judicial review. The 
proposed administrative procedures are intended generally to parallel 
the process for requesting revision of computation of quarterly 
assessment payments. Deadlines, however, would be shorter because of 
the need to resolve credit appeals quickly so institutions can use the 
credits to offset assessments.
    As noted above, the FDIC expects to notify each institution of its 
one-time credit share as soon as practicable after the issuance of the 
one-time assessment credit final rule through FDICconnect and by mail. 
The Statement of One-time Credit would include: The 1996 assessment 
base ratio for the institution; the amount of the assessment credit to 
be awarded to the institution based on the 1996 ratio; and a discussion 
of the basis for these calculations, based on the FDIC's definition of 
``successor'' and any other relevant factors.
    After this initial notification, it is proposed that an updated 
notice of the remaining amount of one-time credit, as well as any 
appropriate adjustment to an institution's 1996 assessment base ratio 
due to a subsequent merger or consolidation, would be included with 
each quarterly assessment invoice until an institution's credits have 
been exhausted. The initial Statement and any subsequent assessment 
invoices advising of the remaining credit amount or an adjustment to 
the assessment base ratio would also advise institutions of their right 
to challenge the calculation and the procedures to follow.
    The FDIC proposes that an institution could request review if (1) 
It disagrees with the FDIC's determination of eligibility or 
ineligibility for the credit; (2) it disagrees with the computation of 
the credit amount on the initial Statement or any subsequent invoice, 
or (3) it believes that the Statement or a subsequently updated invoice 
does not fully or accurately reflect appropriate adjustments to the 
institution's 1996 assessment base ratio. For example, the institution 
may believe that its 1996 assessment base ratio has not been adjusted 
to reflect its acquisition through merger of an eligible institution.
    The FDIC also proposes that an institution that disagrees with the 
FDIC's determination have 30 days from the date the FDIC made available 
its Statement of One-time Credit or adjusted invoice to file a request 
for review with the Division of Finance. The request would have to be 
accompanied by any documentation supporting the institution's claim. 
The FDIC proposes that, if an institution does not submit a timely 
request for review, the institution be barred from subsequently 
requesting review of its one-time assessment credit amount.
    In addition, the requesting institution would have to identify all 
other institutions of which it knew or had reason to believe would be 
directly and materially affected by granting the request for review and 
provide those institutions with copies of the request for review and 
supporting documentation, as well as the FDIC's procedures for these 
requests for review. The FDIC would make reasonable efforts, based on 
its official systems of records, to determine that such institutions 
have been identified and notified. These institutions would then have 
30 days to submit a response and any supporting documentation to the 
FDIC's Division of Finance, copying the institution making the original 
request

[[Page 28815]]

for review. If an institution identified and notified through this 
process does not submit a timely response, the FDIC proposes that the 
institution would be: (1) Foreclosed from subsequently disputing the 
information submitted by any other institution on the transaction(s) at 
issue in the review process; and (2) foreclosed from any appeal of the 
decision by the Director of the Division of Finance (discussed below).
    Under the proposal, the FDIC also would be able to request 
additional information as part of its review and require the 
institution to supply that information within 21 days of the date of 
the FDIC's request for additional information.
    The FDIC proposes to freeze temporarily the amount of the proposed 
credit in controversy for the institutions involved in the request for 
review until the request is resolved.
    The proposed rule would require a written response from the FDIC's 
Director of the Division of Finance (``Director''): (1) Within 60 days 
of receipt by the FDIC of the request for revision; (2) if additional 
institutions have been notified by the FDIC, within 60 days of the last 
response; or (3) if additional information has been requested by the 
FDIC, within 60 days of receipt of any additional information due to 
such request, whichever is later. Whenever feasible, the response would 
notify the requesting institution and any materially affected 
institutions of the determination of the Director as to whether the 
requested change is warranted. In all instances in which a timely 
request for review is submitted, the Director will make a determination 
on the request as promptly as possible and notify the requesting 
institution and any other materially affected institutions in writing 
of the determination. Notice of the procedures applicable to reviews 
will be included with the initial Statement and any subsequent 
assessment invoice providing notification of the amount of credit and 
any change to the institution's 1996 assessment base ratio.
    Under the proposed rule, the requesting institution, or an 
institution materially affected by the Director's decision, that 
disagrees with that decision may appeal its credit determination to the 
AAC. An appeal would have to be filed within 15 calendar days from the 
date of the Director's written determination. Notice of the procedures 
applicable to appeals will be included with that written determination. 
The AAC's determination would be final and not subject to judicial 
review.
    A number of challenges may arise in connection with the 
distribution of the one-time credit, in large part because many 
transactions occurred after 1996 and before the Reform Act provided for 
a one-time credit, and because this will be the first time that an 
institution's 1996 assessment base ratio is calculated. Once those 
challenges are resolved, and each institution's 1996 assessment base 
ratio for purposes of its one-time credit share is established, 
unforeseen circumstances or issues may lead to other challenges of 
credit share, and administrative procedures will remain in place to 
address those challenges.
    Once the Director or the AAC has made the final determination, as 
appropriate, the FDIC would adjust the affected institutions' 1996 
assessment base ratios consistent with that determination and 
correspondingly update each affected institution's share of the one-
time credit.

F. Using Credits

    The FDIC proposes that the FDIC track each institution's one-time 
credit amount and automatically apply an institution's credits to its 
assessment to the maximum extent allowed by law. For fiscal year 2007 
assessment periods, for most institutions, credits generally can offset 
100 percent of an institution's assessment. For assessments that become 
due for assessment periods beginning in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 
2010, the FDI Act provides that credits may not be applied to more than 
90 percent of an institution's assessment. Thus, under the proposal, 
credits would automatically apply to 90 percent of an institution's 
assessment, assuming the institution has sufficient credits, subject to 
the two other statutory limitations on usage. The statute does not 
define a ``fiscal year'' for these purposes. The FDIC, therefore, may 
define that term and proposes to define it as the calendar year.
    One of the other limitations is that, for an institution that 
exhibits financial, operational or compliance weaknesses ranging from 
moderately severe to unsatisfactory, or is not adequately capitalized 
at the beginning of an assessment period, the amount of any credit that 
may be applied against the institution's assessment for the period may 
not exceed the amount the institution would have been assessed had it 
been assessed at the average rate for all institutions for the period. 
The FDIC proposes to interpret the phrase ``average assessment rate'' 
to mean the aggregate assessment charged all institutions in a period 
divided by the aggregate assessment base for that period. The FDI Act 
does not define ``average assessment rate'' for these purposes, leaving 
that to the discretion of the FDIC. On balance, the FDIC views the 
proposed approach as preferable to an average calculated by the sum of 
all assessment rates divided by the number of institutions, because the 
proposed approach more accurately reflects the average rate actually 
charged all insured institutions.
    Section 7(e)(3)(E) of the FDI Act, as added by the Reform Act, also 
gives the FDIC the discretion to limit the application of the one-time 
credit, when the FDIC establishes a restoration plan to restore the 
reserve ratio of the DIF to the range established for it.\10\ That 
discretion, however, is restricted by the statute. During the time that 
a restoration plan is in effect, the FDIC shall apply one-time credit 
amounts against any assessment imposed on an institution for any 
assessment period in an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the amount of 
the assessment, or (2) the amount equal to three basis points of the 
institution's assessment base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Section 2105 of the Reform Act, amending section 7(b)(3) of 
the FDI Act to establish a range for the reserve ratio of the DIF, 
will take effect on the date that final regulations implementing the 
legislation with respect to the designated reserve ratio become 
effective. Those regulations are required to be prescribed within 
270 days of enactment. Section 2109(a)(1) of the Reform Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Credit amounts may not be used to pay FICO assessments pursuant to 
section 21(f) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1441(f). The 
Reform Act does not affect the authority of FICO to impose and collect, 
with the approval of the FDIC's Board, assessments for anticipated 
interest payments, issuance costs, and custodial fees on obligations 
issued by FICO.

G. Transferring Credits

    The FDI Act provides for transferring one-time credits through 
successors to eligible insured depository institutions. A successor 
institution, as defined by regulation, would succeed to the predecessor 
institution's credits and to its 1996 assessment base ratio for 
purposes of any future dividends.
    The FDIC is further proposing to allow transfer of credits and 
adjustments to 1996 assessment base ratios by express agreement between 
insured depository institutions prior to the FDIC's final determination 
of an eligible insured depository institution's 1996 assessment base 
ratio and one-time credit amount pursuant to these regulations. It is 
possible that such agreements might already be part of deposit transfer 
contracts drafted in anticipation of deposit insurance reform 
legislative changes. Alternatively,

[[Page 28816]]

institutions involved in a dispute over successorship, their 1996 
assessment base ratio, and their shares of the one-time credit might 
reach a settlement over the disposition of the one-time credit. In 
either case, under the proposal, the FDIC would require the 
institutions to submit a written agreement signed by legal 
representatives of the involved institutions. Upon the FDIC's receipt 
of the agreement, appropriate adjustments would be made to the 
institutions' affected one-time credit amounts and 1996 assessment base 
ratios. Adjustments to each institution's credit amount and 1996 
assessment base ratio would then be reflected with the next quarterly 
assessment invoice, so long as the institutions submit the written 
agreement, at least 10 business days prior to the FDIC's issuance of 
invoices for the next assessment period. If the FDIC does not receive 
the written agreement at least 10 days before the next assessment 
invoice, the FDIC shall retroactively adjust the invoice or invoices in 
later assessment periods.
    Similarly, after an institution's credit share has been finally 
determined and no request for review is pending with respect to that 
credit amount, the FDIC proposes to recognize an agreement between 
insured depository institutions to transfer any portion of the one-time 
credit from the eligible institution to another institution. 
Adjustments to each institution's credit amount would then be reflected 
with the next quarterly assessment invoice, so long as the institutions 
notify the FDIC of such agreement, through a written agreement signed 
by legal representatives of the institutions, at least 10 business days 
prior to the FDIC's issuance of invoices for the next assessment 
period. If the FDIC does not receive the written agreement at least 10 
days before the next assessment invoice, the FDIC shall retroactively 
adjust the invoice or invoices in later assessment periods.
    With respect to these transactions, occurring after the 
determination of each eligible institution's 1996 assessment base ratio 
and share of the one-time credit as of the effective date of these 
regulations, the FDIC proposes not to adjust the transferring 
institution's 1996 assessment base ratio. Adjustments to the 1996 
ratios would be made only to reflect mergers or consolidations 
occurring after the effective date of these regulations. There would 
seem to be less likelihood of disputes over successorship because 
institutions would be aware of the definition of ``successor'' and 
could take that into account when entering future contracts as the 
parties deem appropriate. Thus, there seems little need to allow the 
sale of an institution's 1996 assessment base ratio, which the FDIC 
would be required to track on an ongoing basis for dividend purposes.

III. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure

A. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. Law 106-102, 113 
Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies 
to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after 
January 1, 2000. We invite your comments on how to make this proposal 
easier to understand. For example:
     Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not, 
how could this material be better organized?
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly 
stated? If not, how could the regulation be more clearly stated?
     Does the proposed regulation contain language or jargon 
that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to 
understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the regulation 
easier to understand?
     What else could we do to make the regulation easier to 
understand?

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each federal 
agency either certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in 
final form, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
of the proposal and publish the analysis for comment. See 5 U.S.C. 603, 
604, 605. Certain types of rules, such as rules of particular 
applicability relating to rates or corporate or financial structures, 
or practices relating to such rates or structures, are expressly 
excluded from the definition of ``rule'' for purposes of the RFA. 5 
U.S.C. 601. The proposed one-time assessment credit rule relates 
directly to the rates imposed on insured depository institutions for 
deposit insurance, as they will offset future deposit insurance 
assessments. Nonetheless, the FDIC is voluntarily undertaking an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposal and seeking 
comment on it.
    As discussed in detail in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, 
the proposed rule is required by statute to implement the one-time 
assessment credit added to the FDI Act by the Reform Act, and if it is 
adopted in final form, would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those terms 
as used in the RFA. Section 7(e)(3) of the FDI Act provides for the 
allocation of the one-time credit among eligible insured depository 
institutions and their successors, based on each institution's 
assessment base as of December 31, 1996, as compared to the combined 
assessment bases of all eligible institutions. The statute defines 
``eligible insured depository institution'' and requires the FDIC to 
define ``successor'' for these purposes. These credits will be used to 
offset deposit insurance assessments collected after the effective date 
of the final rule.
    All insured depository institutions that are eligible, regardless 
of size, would be affected by this rule. Of the approximately 8,845 
insured depository institutions as of December 31, 2005, approximately 
5,360 institutions fell within the definition of ``small entity'' in 
the RFA--that is, having total assets of no more than $165 million. 
Approximately 4,390 small institutions appear to be eligible for the 
one-time credit under the FDI Act definition of ``eligible insured 
depository institution.'' These institutions would have approximately 
$241 million in one-time credits out of a total of approximately $4.7 
billion in one-time credits, given the FDI Act definition of ``eligible 
insured depository institution'' and the definition of ``successor'' 
proposed in this rulemaking.\11\ These one-time credits represent 
approximately 8 basis points of the combined assessment base of small 
institutions as of December 31, 2005. Assuming, for purposes of 
illustration, that small institutions were charged an average annual 
assessment rate of 2 basis points, these one-time credits would last, 
on average, approximately 4 years. In sum, most small, eligible 
institutions would benefit if the proposed rule were made final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The present value of these one-time credits depends upon 
when they are used, which in turn depends on the assessment rates 
charged. The one-time credits do not earn interest; therefore, the 
higher the assessment rate charged--and the faster credits are 
used--the greater their present value. The FDIC has proposed making 
one-time credits transferable, which could increase their present 
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule relies primarily on information already available 
to the FDIC and requires little new reporting or recordkeeping. If an 
eligible institution, regardless of size, disagrees with the FDIC's 
determination of its credit amount, it may request review of

[[Page 28817]]

that determination. The review procedures are required by the statute 
and largely parallel existing procedures for similar requests for 
review. Moreover, the FDIC proposes to recognize settlements between 
institutions if there is a disagreement as to an institution's 
eligibility or the amount of its credit. The FDIC would merely require 
the institutions' to demonstrate their agreement with the submission of 
a signed document. Neither the request for review nor the submission of 
agreement is required generally, but rather is aimed at responding to 
questions raised by individual institutions based on their particular 
circumstances. Thus, the FDIC does not view the proposed rule as 
imposing a significant burden on small institutions.
    Based on these findings, particularly the ability to offset future 
assessments for some period of time, the FDIC has concluded that the 
economic impact of the one-time credit rule would be largely positive 
and could be ``significant'' for some small, eligible institutions. One 
potentially negative economic impact could be felt by a small number of 
institutions that would not be eligible under the proposed definition 
of ``successor,'' but might be eligible if an alternative definition 
were adopted to recognize acquisitions of deposit or branches. As 
discussed more fully in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the FDIC 
concluded that the proposed definition of successor is more consistent 
with the purpose of the one-time credit and more operationally viable. 
It is particularly noted, for RFA purposes, that the proposed 
definition, for the most part, relies on existing data in the FDIC's 
official systems of records, while the alternatives considered would 
require collection of information from the industry. (The alternative 
definitions of ``successor'' also would not affect a substantial number 
of small institutions.\12\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Preliminary analysis suggests that the eligibility or 
credit amounts of some small institutions could be affected if the 
alternative definition of a ``successor'' as the acquirer of 
deposits, regardless of whether acquired through a merger or 
consolidation, were adopted. Compared to the proposed definition of 
``successor,'' at least 330 small institutions could gain or lose 
credits. However, the value of the gain or loss is not known because 
the FDIC does not maintain comprehensive records of deposit 
transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FDIC has been unable to identify any other relevant federal 
rules that may duplicate or conflict with this proposed rule, although 
the FDIC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the dividend 
requirements added by the Reform Act overlaps with this proposed rule 
because both statutory provisions rely to some extent on an 
institution's assessment base as of December 31, 1996. Commenters are 
invited to provide the FDIC with any information they may have about 
the likely quantitative effects of the proposal.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The collection of information contained in this proposed rule has been 
submitted to OMB for review.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
the FDIC concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act implications of this 
proposal. Such comments should refer to ``Notification of Credit 
Transfers, 3064-AD08.'' Comments may be submitted by any of the 
following methods:
     https://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.
     E-mail: comments@FDIC.gov. Include ``Notification of 
Credit Transfers, 3064-AD08'' in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: Steve Hanft (202-898-3907), Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.
     Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard 
station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), 
on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
     A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB 
desk officer for the FDIC, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    Comment is solicited on:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected;
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses; and
    (5) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, 
maintenance, and purchases of services to provide information.
    Summary of the collection: The information collection occurs when 
an institution participates in a transaction that results in the 
transfer of one-time credits or an institution's 1996 assessment base, 
as permitted under the proposed rule, and seeks the FDIC's recognition 
of that transfer. It is expected that most transactions will occur 
during the first year.
    Need and Use of the Information: Institutions are required to 
notify the FDIC of these transactions so that the FDIC can accurately 
track the transfer of credits, apply available credits appropriately 
against institutions' deposit insurance assessments, and determine an 
institution's 1996 assessment base if the transaction involved both the 
base and the credit amount. The need for credit transfer information 
will expire when the credit pool has been exhausted.
    Respondents: Insured depository institutions.
    Frequency of response: Occasional.
    Annual Burden Estimate:
    Number of responses: 200-500 during the first year with fewer than 
10 per year thereafter.
    Average number of hours to prepare a response: 2 hours.
    Total annual burden: 400-1,000 hours the first year, and fewer than 
100 hours thereafter.

D. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999--
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The FDIC has determined that the proposed 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 
(Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 327

    Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Banking, Savings associations.

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC proposes to 
amend chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

[[Page 28818]]

PART 327--ASSESSMENTS

    1. Revise subpart B, consisting of Sec.  327.30 through 327.36, to 
read as follows:
Subpart B--Implementation of One-time Assessment Credit
Sec.
327.30 Purpose and scope.
327.31 Definitions.
327.32 Determination of aggregate credit amount.
327.33 Determination of eligible institution's credit amount.
327.34 Transferability of credits.
327.35 Application of credits.
327.36 Requests for review of credit amount.

Subpart B--Implementation of One-time Assessment Credit

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(3).

Sec.  327.30  Purpose and scope.

    (a) Scope. This subpart B of part 327 implements the one-time 
assessment credit required by section 7(e)(3) of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1817(e)(3) and applies to insured depository 
institutions.
    (b) Purpose. Thi