Mutual Insurance Holding Company Treated as Insurance Company, 77442-77446 [2011-31885]
Download as PDF
77442
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Lead Agency during the pendency of
Federal authorization requests.
(e) Each cooperating agency will share
information and data with each other
and, to the maximum extent practicable,
submit information in a common
standard for electronic recordkeeping
and analysis.
(f) Cooperating agencies will ensure
that any issues or problems relating to
a Federal authorization request or
process are brought to the immediate
attention of the lead agency and DOE,
and will participate fully in seeking and
implementing resolutions to the issues
or problems.
(g) Cooperating Agencies may enter
into an interagency agreement with the
Lead Agency to allow for the recovery
of appropriate costs. The Cooperating
Agencies would be responsible for
providing the Lead Agency an
accounting of billable costs as a result
of the application and permitting
process.
§ 900.9
DOE responsibilities.
(a) DOE will lead the overall
coordination of activities related to
implementation of section 216(h) of the
FPA and pursuant to this part.
(b) DOE will coordinate the selection
of the Lead Agency as specified in this
part.
(c) DOE will provide expertise to
assist the Lead Agency as required and
ensure adherence to applicable
schedules.
(d) DOE will provide assistance to the
Lead Agency in establishing the
schedule and will approve any
deviation in the established project
schedule.
(e) DOE will develop a public Web
site to serve as a central source of
information about section 216(h) of the
FPA in general and links to the
information available from participating
and cooperating agencies, as well as
schedule information about the specific
transmission projects. The Web site can
be accessed via www.oe.energy.gov/
fed_transmission.htm.
established under this part, any
permitting entity subject to a deadline
shall inform the lead agency, DOE, and
the applicant if the deadline will not, or
is not likely to, be met.
(c) The Lead Agency, in consultation
with DOE and the permitting entity,
may, for good cause shown, extend an
interim or ultimate deadline.
§ 900.11 Deadlines for all permit decisions
and related environmental reviews pursuant
to the Federal Power Act.
Pursuant to section 216(h)(4)(B) of the
Federal Power Act:
(a) All permit decisions and related
environmental reviews under all
applicable Federal laws shall be
completed in accordance with the
following timelines, except as provided
in § 900.11(b):
(1) When a categorical exclusion
under NEPA is invoked, or an
environmental assessment (EA) finding
of no significant impact (FONSI) is
determined to be the appropriate level
of review under NEPA, within one year
of the categorical exclusion
determination or the publication of a
FONSI ; or
(2) When an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is required pursuant to
NEPA, one year and 30 days after the
close of the public comment period for
a Draft EIS.
(b) If a requirement in another
provision of Federal law does not
permit a final decision on the Federal
authorization request under the
schedule established in paragraph (a) of
this section, the permitting entity shall
inform the lead agency, DOE,
cooperating agencies, the applicant, and
other interested parties, cite the
provision of Federal law that prevents
the final decision on the Federal
authorization request from being issued
under the schedule established in
paragraph (a) of this section, and
provide a date when the final decision
on the authorization request can be
issued in compliance with Federal law.
[FR Doc. 2011–31759 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 900.10 Prompt and binding intermediate
milestones and ultimate deadlines under
the Federal Power Act.
Pursuant to section 216(h)(4)(A) of the
Federal Power Act:
(a) Permitting entities will work
diligently to comply with the agreedupon timeline, to the extent consistent
with applicable law. To ensure
adherence to applicable schedules, DOE
will provide assistance to the lead
agency in establishing the schedule and
will approve any deviation in the
established project schedule.
(b) No later than 30 days prior to any
intermediate or ultimate deadline
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Dec 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 380
RIN 3064–AD89
Mutual Insurance Holding Company
Treated as Insurance Company
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The FDIC is proposing a rule
(‘‘Proposed Rule’’), with request for
comments, that provides for the
treatment of a mutual insurance holding
company as an insurance company for
the purpose of Section 203(e) of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the ‘‘DoddFrank Act’’), 12 U.S.C. 5383(e). The
Proposed Rule clarifies that the
liquidation and rehabilitation of a
covered financial company that is a
mutual insurance holding company will
be conducted in the same manner as an
insurance company. The Proposed Rule
is intended to harmonize the treatment
of mutual insurance holding companies
under Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank
Act with the treatment of such
companies under state insolvency
regimes.
SUMMARY:
Written comments on the Rule
must be received by the FDIC no later
than February 13, 2012.
DATES:
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web Site: https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
Follow instructions for Submitting
comments on the Agency Web Site.
• Email: Comments@FDIC.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 3064–AD89’’ 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.
(EST).
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Public Inspection: All comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/
federal including any personal
information provided. Comments may
be inspected and photocopied in the
FDIC Public Information Center, 3501
North Fairfax Drive, Room E–I002,
Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. (EST) on business days.
Paper copies of public comments may
be ordered from the Public Information
Center by telephone at (877) 275–3342
or (703) 562–2200.
ADDRESSES:
R.
Penfield Starke, Acting Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Division, (703)
562–2422; Mark A. Thompson, Counsel
(703) 562–2529.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
I. Background
Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act
provides for the appointment of the
FDIC as receiver of a nonviable financial
company that poses significant risk to
the financial stability of the United
States (a ‘‘covered financial company’’),
outlines the process for the orderly
liquidation of a covered financial
company following the FDIC’s
appointment as receiver and provides
for additional implementation of the
orderly liquidation authority by
rulemaking. The Proposed Rule is being
promulgated pursuant to Section 209 1
of the Dodd-Frank Act, which
authorizes the FDIC, in consultation
with the FSOC, to prescribe such rules
and regulations as the FDIC considers
necessary or appropriate to implement
Title II. Section 209 of the Dodd-Frank
Act further provides that, to the extent
possible, the FDIC should seek to
harmonize rules and regulations
promulgated under Section 209 with the
insolvency laws that would otherwise
apply to a covered financial company.
On July 15, 2011, the FDIC published
in the Federal Register a final rule
regarding certain orderly liquidation
authority provisions under Title II of the
Dodd-Frank Act.2 In response to the
notice of proposed rulemaking 3 and
interim final 4 rule that preceded the
issuance of the final rule, commenters
from the insurance industry urged the
greatest possible deference to state
regulators and to state laws, rules and
regulations governing insurance
companies and, in particular, state laws
governing the liquidation and
rehabilitation of insurance companies.
Commenters urged the FDIC to treat
mutual insurance holding companies as
insurance companies for purposes of
Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act.5
In light of the comments received and
pursuant to the authority granted to it
by Section 209 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
the FDIC is issuing the Proposed Rule,
with a request for comments.
1 12
U.S.C. 5389.
FR 41626 (July 15, 2011).
3 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 64173
(October 19, 2010).
4 Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 4207 (January 25,
2011).
5 Letter dated January 18, 2011, to Robert E.
Feldman, Executive Secretary, FDIC from National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2010/
10Addcomment.PDF; Letter dated March 28, 2011,
to Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, FDIC
from Mutual Insurance Holding Company Coalition,
https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2011/
11c04Orderly.PDF.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2 76
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Dec 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
History of Mutual Insurance Holding
Company
The mutual insurance industry traces
its roots back to England, where, in
1696, the first mutual fire insurer was
established. The first American mutual
insurance company, the Philadelphia
Contributionship for the Insurance of
Houses from Loss by Fire, was founded
in 1752.6
Mutual insurance companies are
owned by their policyholders, not by
stockholders. Policyholders are entitled
to vote for members of the company’s
board of directors and may receive
special dividends in the form of capital
distributions or reductions of policy
premiums.
The mutual insurance holding
company structure was first created in
Iowa in 1995.7 A mutual insurance
holding company is created through the
restructuring of a mutual insurance
company into two entities, a mutual
insurance holding company and a stock
insurance company that is converted
from the original mutual insurance
company.
In a variation of this restructuring, a
third entity may be formed, an
intermediate insurance stock holding
company. In this three-entity structure,
initially the mutual insurance holding
company owns 100% of the
intermediate insurance stock holding
company, and the intermediate
insurance stock holding company owns
100% of the stock of the converted
mutual insurance company. The
purpose of the restructuring is to
preserve the benefits of a mutual form
of organization while allowing the
converted mutual insurance company
access to capital markets either through
sale of its stock or, in a three-entity
structure, the sale of the stock of the
intermediate insurance stock holding
company.
A mutual insurance holding company
is owned by the policyholders of the
converted mutual insurance company
who have rights similar to those they
had as policyholders of the mutual
insurance company before conversion.
Policyholders of the converted mutual
insurance company are entitled to vote
for members of the mutual insurance
holding company’s board of directors,
and may receive special dividends in
the form of capital distributions or
reductions of policy premiums.
A majority of the states have adopted
statutes providing for the formation of
mutual insurance holding companies.
6 The
Philadelphia Contributionship, History,
https://www.contributionship.com/history/
index.html.
7 Iowa Code Ann. (West) § 521A.14.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77443
Those statutes generally (a) Provide for
the regulation of a mutual insurance
holding company at the holding
company level by the insurance
commissioner of the domiciliary state;
(b) require that the mutual insurance
holding company maintain voting
control over the converted mutual
insurance company; and (c) specifically
subject a mutual insurance holding
company to liquidation or rehabilitation
under the state regime if the converted
mutual insurance company is placed in
liquidation or rehabilitation. In
addition, either by statute, rule or
regulation, in the liquidation of a
converted mutual insurance company,
the assets of the mutual insurance
holding company generally are included
in the estate of the converted mutual
insurance company being liquidated.8
Treatment of an Insurance Company
Under Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank
Act
In providing for the orderly
liquidation of a covered financial
company under Title II of the DoddFrank Act, Congress recognized that
insurance companies historically had
been liquidated and rehabilitated
pursuant to a state insolvency
framework. As a result, Congress
provided that ‘‘if an insurance company
is a covered financial company or a
subsidiary or affiliate of a covered
financial company, the liquidation or
rehabilitation of such insurance
company, and any subsidiary or affiliate
of such company that is [an insurance
company], shall be conducted as
provided under applicable State law.’’ 9
The term ‘‘insurance company’’ is
defined in Section 201(a)(13) of the
Dodd-Frank Act to mean ‘‘any entity
that is—(A) Engaged in the business of
insurance; (B) subject to regulation by a
State insurance regulator; and (C)
covered by a State law that is designed
to specifically deal with the
rehabilitation, liquidation, or insolvency
of an insurance company.’’ 10 The
identical definition is found in Section
380.1 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Concerns have been raised
with respect to the application of this
definition to mutual insurance holding
companies because, under applicable
state laws, a mutual insurance holding
company generally is prohibited from
engaging in the business of insurance,
that is, a mutual insurance holding
company may not sell policies of
8 E.g., Iowa Code Ann. (West) 521A.14(4), 215 Ill.
Comp. Stat. Ann. (West) 5/59.2(1)(f)(v), and Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 44–6125(6)(g).
9 12 U.S.C. 5383(e)(1).
10 12 U.S.C. 5381(a)(13).
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
77444
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
insurance. Thus, a mutual insurance
holding company arguably does not fit
squarely within a literal reading of the
statutory definition of insurance
company under the Dodd-Frank Act.
Given the process by which a mutual
insurance holding company is formed
from a converted mutual insurance
company, the continuing interest of the
policyholders of the converted mutual
insurance company in both the
converted mutual insurance company,
as its customers, and the mutual
insurance holding company, as equity
holders, the extensive regulation of the
mutual insurance holding company by
the insurance commissioner of its
domiciliary state, and the inclusion of
the mutual insurance holding company
and its assets in the liquidation of the
converted mutual insurance company, it
is consistent with the intent of the
Dodd-Frank Act to treat a mutual
insurance holding company, under
certain circumstances, as an insurance
company for the purpose of Section
203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act.11
II. The Proposed Rule
The Proposed Rule would modify part
380 of title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and would provide
generally that a mutual insurance
holding company that meets the
requirements of the Proposed Rule will
be treated as an insurance company for
the purpose of Section 203(e) of the
Dodd-Frank Act.
The Proposed Rule would add three
definitions to Section 380.1 of title 12 of
the Code of Federal Regulations:
intermediate insurance stock holding
company; mutual insurance company;
and mutual insurance holding company.
The Proposed Rule would add Section
380.11 to provide that a mutual
insurance holding company shall be
treated as an insurance company for the
purpose of Section 203(e) of the DoddFrank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5383(e); provided
that: (a) It is subject to the insurance
laws of the state of its domicile,
including specifically and without
limitation, a statutory regime for the
rehabilitation or liquidation of
insurance companies that are in default
or in danger of default; (b) it is not
subject to bankruptcy proceedings
under Title 11 of the United States
Code; (c) its largest United States
subsidiary (as measured by total assets
11 There is support in the legislative history of the
Dodd-Frank Act for interpreting the term
‘‘insurance company’’ under Section 201(a)(13) to
include a mutual insurance holding company. See
statement of Rep. Barney Frank, 111 Cong. Rec.
H5216 (daily ed. June 30, 2010) and statement of
Sen. Christopher Dodd, 111 Cong. Rec. S5903 (daily
ed. July 15, 2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Dec 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
as of the end of the previous calendar
quarter) is an insurance company or an
intermediate insurance stock holding
company; and (d) its investments are
limited to the securities of an
intermediate insurance stock holding
company, the securities of the converted
mutual insurance company and other
assets and securities of the type
authorized for holding and investment
by an insurance company domiciled in
its state of incorporation.
The first proviso requires that the
mutual insurance holding company be
subject to the insurance laws of the state
of its domicile, including specifically
and without limitation, a statutory
regime for the rehabilitation or
liquidation of insurance companies that
are in default or in danger of default,
and is included in the Proposed Rule to
be consistent with two of the three
prongs of the definition of ‘‘insurance
company’’ set forth in Section 201(a)(13)
of the Dodd-Frank Act. The reference to
companies that are ‘‘in default or in
danger of default’’ ensures that the state
resolution process will be applicable in
a time and manner comparable to the
Title II orderly liquidation process,
which applies to financial companies
that are in default or in danger of default
under Section 203(b)(1) of the DoddFrank Act.
The second proviso requires that it is
not subject to bankruptcy proceedings
under title 11 of the United States Code
and is included to emphasize that the
mutual insurance holding company
must not only be subject to the
applicable state insurance law but must
also be resolved under the applicable
state insurance law. Thus, the Proposed
Rule would ensure that there is no
ambiguity or conflict with respect to the
determination of which insolvency
regime is applicable to a mutual
insurance holding company.
The third proviso, which requires that
the mutual insurance holding
company’s largest United States
subsidiary (as measured by total assets
as of the end of the previous calendar
quarter) is an insurance company or an
intermediate insurance stock holding
company, is included to ensure that, if
a mutual insurance holding company
covered by the Proposed Rule is placed
in orderly liquidation under title II of
the Dodd-Frank Act, the Director of the
Federal Insurance Office would
participate in making the
recommendation to take such action in
accordance with the provisions of
Section 203(a)(1)(C) of the Dodd-Frank
Act. In addition, this requirement is
intended to emphasize that an insurance
company subsidiary of the mutual
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
insurance holding company must be its
most significant subsidiary by asset size.
The final proviso, which requires the
mutual insurance holding company to
limit its investments to the securities of
the intermediate insurance stock
holding company, the securities of the
converted mutual insurance company
and other assets and securities of the
type authorized for holding and
investment by an insurance company
domiciled in its state of incorporation,
is intended to ensure that the mutual
insurance holding company is operating
as a pure holding company and is not
itself actively engaged in operating noninsurance businesses.12
III. Request for Comments
The FDIC seeks comments on all
aspects of the Proposed Rule. Comments
will be considered by the FDIC and
appropriate revisions will be made to
the Proposed Rule, if necessary, before
a final rule is issued. Comments are
specifically requested on the following:
1. What terms defined by the Proposed
Rule require further clarification and how
should they be defined?
2. Are there other terms used in the
Proposed Rule that should be defined?
3. Are the conditions placed on a mutual
insurance holding company in order to be
treated as an insurance company
appropriate? Are the conditions consistent
with the goal of conforming to state regimes
governing the resolution of converted mutual
insurance companies and their related
mutual insurance holding companies?
4. Are there any situations in which an
intermediate insurance stock holding
company should be treated as an insurance
company under the Proposed Rule?
5. Are there other provisions of the DoddFrank Act and the existing regulations other
than Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act in
which the definition of insurance company
should expressly include mutual insurance
holding companies?
6. Is the approach taken in the Proposed
Rule too broad, i.e., does it affect covered
financial companies that would not
appropriately be treated as insurance
companies consistent with the intent of the
Dodd-Frank Act?
7. In addition to total assets, should the
rule define the largest United States
subsidiary as measured by total exposures to
gross or net loss? Should there be any other
measures?
8. Should the treatment of a mutual
insurance holding company as an insurance
company for the purpose of Section 203(e) of
the Dodd-Frank Act be limited to companies
that are materially, substantially or
predominantly engaged in the business of
12 The investments of the intermediate insurance
stock holding company, however, are not restricted
in this manner because, under the Proposed Rule,
the intermediate insurance stock holding company
is not treated as an insurance company for the
purpose of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
insurance? If so, on what basis should that
determination be made: an asset test, an
income or revenue test, a test relating to risk
exposures, or some other measure?
IV. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
(‘‘PRA’’), 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 Proposed
Rule would not involve any new
collections of information pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Consequently, no
information will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA) requires each
federal agency to prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis in
connection with the promulgation of a
final rule, or certify that the final rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.13 Pursuant to Section 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FDIC
certifies that the Proposed Rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Under regulations issued by the Small
Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’), a
‘‘small entity’’ includes those firms
within the ‘‘Finance and Insurance’’
sector with asset sizes that vary from $7
million or less in assets to $175 million
or less in assets.14
The Proposed Rule will clarify rules
and procedures for the liquidation of a
nonviable systemically important
financial company, which will provide
internal guidance to FDIC personnel
performing the liquidation of such a
company and will address any
uncertainty in the financial system as to
how the orderly liquidation of such a
company would operate. As such, the
Proposed Rule will not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
C. 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
13 See
14 13
5 U.S.C. 603, 604 and 605.
CFR 121.201.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Dec 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
Government Appropriations Act,
enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of
1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681).
D. Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act (Pub. L. 106–102, 113 Stat.
1338, 1471), requires the Federal
banking agencies to use plain language
in all proposed and final rules
published after January 1, 2000. The
FDIC has sought to present the Proposed
Rule in a simple and straightforward
manner.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 380
Holding companies, Insurance
companies, Mutual insurance holding
companies.
For the reasons stated above, the
Board of Directors of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes
to amend part 380 of title 12 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 380—ORDERLY LIQUIDATION
AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 380
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5383(e); 12 U.S.C.
5389; 12 U.S.C. 5390(s)(3); 12 U.S.C.
5390(b)(1)(C); 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(7)(D).
2. The heading for subpart A is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart A—General and Miscellaneous
Provisions
Sec.
380.1 Definitions.
380.2 [Reserved]
380.3 Treatment of personal service
agreements.
380.4 [Reserved]
380.5 Treatment of covered financial
companies that are subsidiaries of
insurance companies.
380.6 Limitation on liens on assets of
covered financial companies that are
insurance companies or covered
subsidiaries of insurance companies.
380.7 Recoupment of compensation from
senior executives and directors.
380.8 [Reserved]
380.9 Treatment of fraudulent and
preferential transfers.
380.10 Calculation of maximum obligation
limitation.
380.11 Treatment of mutual insurance
holding companies.
380.12–380.19 [Reserved]
3. Revise § 380.1 to read as follows:
§ 380.1
Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the
following terms are defined as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
Insurance Company. * * *
Intermediate insurance stock holding
company. For purposes of this subpart,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77445
the term ‘‘intermediate insurance stock
holding company’’ means a corporation
that (1) Is a subsidiary of a mutual
insurance holding company, (2) holds
all of the issued and outstanding voting
stock of the converted mutual insurance
company created at the time of
formation of the mutual insurance
holding company, and (3) holds, as its
largest United States subsidiary (as
measured by total assets as of the end
of the previous calendar quarter), an
insurance company.
Mutual insurance company. The term
‘‘mutual insurance company’’ means a
domestic insurance company organized
under the laws of a State that provides
for the formation of such an entity as a
non-stock mutual association in which
equity and voting rights are vested in
the policyholders.
Mutual insurance holding company.
The term ‘‘mutual insurance holding
company’’ means a corporation that (1)
Is lawfully organized under state law
authorizing its formation in connection
with the reorganization of a mutual
insurance company that converts the
mutual insurance company to a stock
insurance company, and (2) holds either
(i) At least 51% of the issued and
outstanding voting stock of the
intermediate insurance stock holding
company, if any, or (ii) if there is no
intermediate insurance stock holding
company, at least 51% of the issued and
outstanding voting stock of the
converted mutual insurance company.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Revise § 380.11 to read as follows:
§ 380.11 Treatment of Mutual Insurance
Holding Companies.
A mutual insurance holding company
shall be treated as an insurance
company for the purpose of section
203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C.
5383(e); provided that—
(a) The company is subject to the
insurance laws of the state of its
domicile, including, specifically and
without limitation, a statutory regime
for the rehabilitation or liquidation of
insurance companies that are in default
or in danger of default;
(b) the company is not subject to
bankruptcy proceedings under Title 11
of the United States Code;
(c) the largest United States subsidiary
of the company (as measured by total
assets as of the end of the previous
calendar quarter) is an insurance
company or an intermediate insurance
stock holding company; and
(d) the assets and investments of the
company are limited to the securities of
an intermediate insurance stock holding
company, the securities of the converted
mutual insurance company and other
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
77446
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules
assets and securities of the type
authorized for holding and investment
by an insurance company domiciled in
its state of incorporation.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 7th day of
December, 2011.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–31885 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Examining the AD Docket
[Docket No. FAA–2009–0330; Directorate
Identifier 2008–NE–43–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca
S.A. Turboshaft Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede an
existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arrius
2F turboshaft engines with P3 air pipe
(first section) part number (P/N) 0 319
71 918 0, installed. The existing AD
currently requires inspections of the P3
air pipe (first section) and right-hand
(RH) rear half-wall for proper clearance,
and readjustment of the pipe if
necessary. Since we issued that AD,
Turbomeca S.A. has redesigned the RH
rear half-wall to ensure sufficient
clearance between the P3 air pipe (first
section) and RH rear half-wall. This
proposed AD would require the same
inspections for installed engines,
eliminate readjusting of the P3 air pipe
(first section), require replacement of
the RH rear half-wall under certain
conditions, and adding an optional
terminating action. We are proposing
this AD to prevent an uncommanded
power loss to flight idle, which could
result in an emergency autorotation
landing or accident.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by February 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Dec 12, 2011
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Turbomeca, 40220
Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40
00; telex 570 042; fax 33 (0)5 59 74 45
15. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call (781) 238–7125.
Jkt 226001
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: (800) 647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone: (781) 238–7758; fax: (781) 238–
7199; email: mark.riley@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2009–0330; Directorate Identifier
2008–NE–43–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Discussion
On June 30, 2009, we issued AD
2009–14–11, Amendment 39–15961 (74
FR 34221, July 15, 2009), for Turbomeca
S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines with
P3 air pipe (first section), P/N 0 319 71
918 0, installed. That AD requires
inspections of the P3 air pipe (first
section) and RH rear half-wall for
sufficient clearance. That AD resulted
from Turbomeca S.A. concluding that
the tolerance of assembly established
during the system design, could result
in some rubbing between parts. Rubs
between the pipe and the RH rear halfwall may lead to premature wearing and
finally rupture of the P3 air pipe (first
section). The loss of P3 air pressure
would then force the fuel control system
to idle, which could have a detrimental
effect in critical phases of flight. We
issued that AD to prevent an
uncommanded power loss, which could
result in an emergency autorotation
landing or accident.
Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2009–14–11 (74
FR 34221, July 15, 2009), Turbomeca
determined that the clearance between
the P3 air pipe (first section) and the RH
rear half-wall might change during
installation of the engine on the
helicopter. Also since we issued that
AD, Turbomeca introduced a new
redesigned RH rear half-wall that
ensures clearance with the P3 air pipe
(first section). Also since we issued that
AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) superseded AD 2008–
0134R1, dated February 17, 2009,
EASA’s new AD, AD 2011–0182, dated
September 22, 2011, required the same
corrective actions as this proposed AD.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Turbomeca S.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No.
319 75 4810, Version B, dated January
25, 2011. The MSB describes procedures
for inspecting the clearance between the
P3 air pipe (first section) and the RH
rear half-wall. The MSB also requires
replacing the RH rear half-wall with a
redesigned RH rear half-wall, P/N 0319
99 008 0 for engines with no clearance
between the P3 air pipe (first section)
and the RH rear half-wall. Also,
installation of the redesigned RH rear
half-wall on any engine is terminating
action to the inspections. EASA
classified the MSB as mandatory and
issued AD 2011–0182, dated September
22, 2011.
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this AD
supersedure, because we evaluated all
the relevant information and
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77442-77446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31885]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 380
RIN 3064-AD89
Mutual Insurance Holding Company Treated as Insurance Company
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing a rule (``Proposed Rule''), with request
for comments, that provides for the treatment of a mutual insurance
holding company as an insurance company for the purpose of Section
203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(the ``Dodd-Frank Act''), 12 U.S.C. 5383(e). The Proposed Rule
clarifies that the liquidation and rehabilitation of a covered
financial company that is a mutual insurance holding company will be
conducted in the same manner as an insurance company. The Proposed Rule
is intended to harmonize the treatment of mutual insurance holding
companies under Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act with the treatment
of such companies under state insolvency regimes.
DATES: Written comments on the Rule must be received by the FDIC no
later than February 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Agency Web Site: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal. Follow instructions for Submitting comments on the Agency Web
Site.
Email: Comments@FDIC.gov. Include ``RIN 3064-AD89'' 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. (EST).
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal including any
personal information provided. Comments may be inspected and
photocopied in the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax
Drive, Room E-I002, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
(EST) on business days. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered
from the Public Information Center by telephone at (877) 275-3342 or
(703) 562-2200.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT: R. Penfield Starke, Acting Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562-2422; Mark A. Thompson,
Counsel (703) 562-2529.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 77443]]
I. Background
Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act provides for the appointment of the
FDIC as receiver of a nonviable financial company that poses
significant risk to the financial stability of the United States (a
``covered financial company''), outlines the process for the orderly
liquidation of a covered financial company following the FDIC's
appointment as receiver and provides for additional implementation of
the orderly liquidation authority by rulemaking. The Proposed Rule is
being promulgated pursuant to Section 209 \1\ of the Dodd-Frank Act,
which authorizes the FDIC, in consultation with the FSOC, to prescribe
such rules and regulations as the FDIC considers necessary or
appropriate to implement Title II. Section 209 of the Dodd-Frank Act
further provides that, to the extent possible, the FDIC should seek to
harmonize rules and regulations promulgated under Section 209 with the
insolvency laws that would otherwise apply to a covered financial
company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 12 U.S.C. 5389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2011, the FDIC published in the Federal Register a
final rule regarding certain orderly liquidation authority provisions
under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act.\2\ In response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking \3\ and interim final \4\ rule that preceded the
issuance of the final rule, commenters from the insurance industry
urged the greatest possible deference to state regulators and to state
laws, rules and regulations governing insurance companies and, in
particular, state laws governing the liquidation and rehabilitation of
insurance companies. Commenters urged the FDIC to treat mutual
insurance holding companies as insurance companies for purposes of
Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 76 FR 41626 (July 15, 2011).
\3\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 64173 (October 19,
2010).
\4\ Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 4207 (January 25, 2011).
\5\ Letter dated January 18, 2011, to Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary, FDIC from National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2010/10Addcomment.PDF; Letter dated March 28, 2011, to Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary, FDIC from Mutual Insurance Holding Company
Coalition, https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2011/11c04Orderly.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the comments received and pursuant to the authority
granted to it by Section 209 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC is issuing
the Proposed Rule, with a request for comments.
History of Mutual Insurance Holding Company
The mutual insurance industry traces its roots back to England,
where, in 1696, the first mutual fire insurer was established. The
first American mutual insurance company, the Philadelphia
Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire, was
founded in 1752.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Philadelphia Contributionship, History, https://www.contributionship.com/history/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual insurance companies are owned by their policyholders, not by
stockholders. Policyholders are entitled to vote for members of the
company's board of directors and may receive special dividends in the
form of capital distributions or reductions of policy premiums.
The mutual insurance holding company structure was first created in
Iowa in 1995.\7\ A mutual insurance holding company is created through
the restructuring of a mutual insurance company into two entities, a
mutual insurance holding company and a stock insurance company that is
converted from the original mutual insurance company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Iowa Code Ann. (West) Sec. 521A.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a variation of this restructuring, a third entity may be formed,
an intermediate insurance stock holding company. In this three-entity
structure, initially the mutual insurance holding company owns 100% of
the intermediate insurance stock holding company, and the intermediate
insurance stock holding company owns 100% of the stock of the converted
mutual insurance company. The purpose of the restructuring is to
preserve the benefits of a mutual form of organization while allowing
the converted mutual insurance company access to capital markets either
through sale of its stock or, in a three-entity structure, the sale of
the stock of the intermediate insurance stock holding company.
A mutual insurance holding company is owned by the policyholders of
the converted mutual insurance company who have rights similar to those
they had as policyholders of the mutual insurance company before
conversion. Policyholders of the converted mutual insurance company are
entitled to vote for members of the mutual insurance holding company's
board of directors, and may receive special dividends in the form of
capital distributions or reductions of policy premiums.
A majority of the states have adopted statutes providing for the
formation of mutual insurance holding companies. Those statutes
generally (a) Provide for the regulation of a mutual insurance holding
company at the holding company level by the insurance commissioner of
the domiciliary state; (b) require that the mutual insurance holding
company maintain voting control over the converted mutual insurance
company; and (c) specifically subject a mutual insurance holding
company to liquidation or rehabilitation under the state regime if the
converted mutual insurance company is placed in liquidation or
rehabilitation. In addition, either by statute, rule or regulation, in
the liquidation of a converted mutual insurance company, the assets of
the mutual insurance holding company generally are included in the
estate of the converted mutual insurance company being liquidated.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ E.g., Iowa Code Ann. (West) 521A.14(4), 215 Ill. Comp. Stat.
Ann. (West) 5/59.2(1)(f)(v), and Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 44-
6125(6)(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of an Insurance Company Under Section 203(e) of the Dodd-
Frank Act
In providing for the orderly liquidation of a covered financial
company under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress recognized that
insurance companies historically had been liquidated and rehabilitated
pursuant to a state insolvency framework. As a result, Congress
provided that ``if an insurance company is a covered financial company
or a subsidiary or affiliate of a covered financial company, the
liquidation or rehabilitation of such insurance company, and any
subsidiary or affiliate of such company that is [an insurance company],
shall be conducted as provided under applicable State law.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 12 U.S.C. 5383(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``insurance company'' is defined in Section 201(a)(13) of
the Dodd-Frank Act to mean ``any entity that is--(A) Engaged in the
business of insurance; (B) subject to regulation by a State insurance
regulator; and (C) covered by a State law that is designed to
specifically deal with the rehabilitation, liquidation, or insolvency
of an insurance company.'' \10\ The identical definition is found in
Section 380.1 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Concerns
have been raised with respect to the application of this definition to
mutual insurance holding companies because, under applicable state
laws, a mutual insurance holding company generally is prohibited from
engaging in the business of insurance, that is, a mutual insurance
holding company may not sell policies of
[[Page 77444]]
insurance. Thus, a mutual insurance holding company arguably does not
fit squarely within a literal reading of the statutory definition of
insurance company under the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 12 U.S.C. 5381(a)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the process by which a mutual insurance holding company is
formed from a converted mutual insurance company, the continuing
interest of the policyholders of the converted mutual insurance company
in both the converted mutual insurance company, as its customers, and
the mutual insurance holding company, as equity holders, the extensive
regulation of the mutual insurance holding company by the insurance
commissioner of its domiciliary state, and the inclusion of the mutual
insurance holding company and its assets in the liquidation of the
converted mutual insurance company, it is consistent with the intent of
the Dodd-Frank Act to treat a mutual insurance holding company, under
certain circumstances, as an insurance company for the purpose of
Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ There is support in the legislative history of the Dodd-
Frank Act for interpreting the term ``insurance company'' under
Section 201(a)(13) to include a mutual insurance holding company.
See statement of Rep. Barney Frank, 111 Cong. Rec. H5216 (daily ed.
June 30, 2010) and statement of Sen. Christopher Dodd, 111 Cong.
Rec. S5903 (daily ed. July 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Proposed Rule
The Proposed Rule would modify part 380 of title 12 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, and would provide generally that a mutual
insurance holding company that meets the requirements of the Proposed
Rule will be treated as an insurance company for the purpose of Section
203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Proposed Rule would add three definitions to Section 380.1 of
title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations: intermediate insurance
stock holding company; mutual insurance company; and mutual insurance
holding company.
The Proposed Rule would add Section 380.11 to provide that a mutual
insurance holding company shall be treated as an insurance company for
the purpose of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5383(e);
provided that: (a) It is subject to the insurance laws of the state of
its domicile, including specifically and without limitation, a
statutory regime for the rehabilitation or liquidation of insurance
companies that are in default or in danger of default; (b) it is not
subject to bankruptcy proceedings under Title 11 of the United States
Code; (c) its largest United States subsidiary (as measured by total
assets as of the end of the previous calendar quarter) is an insurance
company or an intermediate insurance stock holding company; and (d) its
investments are limited to the securities of an intermediate insurance
stock holding company, the securities of the converted mutual insurance
company and other assets and securities of the type authorized for
holding and investment by an insurance company domiciled in its state
of incorporation.
The first proviso requires that the mutual insurance holding
company be subject to the insurance laws of the state of its domicile,
including specifically and without limitation, a statutory regime for
the rehabilitation or liquidation of insurance companies that are in
default or in danger of default, and is included in the Proposed Rule
to be consistent with two of the three prongs of the definition of
``insurance company'' set forth in Section 201(a)(13) of the Dodd-Frank
Act. The reference to companies that are ``in default or in danger of
default'' ensures that the state resolution process will be applicable
in a time and manner comparable to the Title II orderly liquidation
process, which applies to financial companies that are in default or in
danger of default under Section 203(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The second proviso requires that it is not subject to bankruptcy
proceedings under title 11 of the United States Code and is included to
emphasize that the mutual insurance holding company must not only be
subject to the applicable state insurance law but must also be resolved
under the applicable state insurance law. Thus, the Proposed Rule would
ensure that there is no ambiguity or conflict with respect to the
determination of which insolvency regime is applicable to a mutual
insurance holding company.
The third proviso, which requires that the mutual insurance holding
company's largest United States subsidiary (as measured by total assets
as of the end of the previous calendar quarter) is an insurance company
or an intermediate insurance stock holding company, is included to
ensure that, if a mutual insurance holding company covered by the
Proposed Rule is placed in orderly liquidation under title II of the
Dodd-Frank Act, the Director of the Federal Insurance Office would
participate in making the recommendation to take such action in
accordance with the provisions of Section 203(a)(1)(C) of the Dodd-
Frank Act. In addition, this requirement is intended to emphasize that
an insurance company subsidiary of the mutual insurance holding company
must be its most significant subsidiary by asset size.
The final proviso, which requires the mutual insurance holding
company to limit its investments to the securities of the intermediate
insurance stock holding company, the securities of the converted mutual
insurance company and other assets and securities of the type
authorized for holding and investment by an insurance company domiciled
in its state of incorporation, is intended to ensure that the mutual
insurance holding company is operating as a pure holding company and is
not itself actively engaged in operating non-insurance businesses.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The investments of the intermediate insurance stock holding
company, however, are not restricted in this manner because, under
the Proposed Rule, the intermediate insurance stock holding company
is not treated as an insurance company for the purpose of Section
203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Request for Comments
The FDIC seeks comments on all aspects of the Proposed Rule.
Comments will be considered by the FDIC and appropriate revisions will
be made to the Proposed Rule, if necessary, before a final rule is
issued. Comments are specifically requested on the following:
1. What terms defined by the Proposed Rule require further
clarification and how should they be defined?
2. Are there other terms used in the Proposed Rule that should
be defined?
3. Are the conditions placed on a mutual insurance holding
company in order to be treated as an insurance company appropriate?
Are the conditions consistent with the goal of conforming to state
regimes governing the resolution of converted mutual insurance
companies and their related mutual insurance holding companies?
4. Are there any situations in which an intermediate insurance
stock holding company should be treated as an insurance company
under the Proposed Rule?
5. Are there other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the
existing regulations other than Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act
in which the definition of insurance company should expressly
include mutual insurance holding companies?
6. Is the approach taken in the Proposed Rule too broad, i.e.,
does it affect covered financial companies that would not
appropriately be treated as insurance companies consistent with the
intent of the Dodd-Frank Act?
7. In addition to total assets, should the rule define the
largest United States subsidiary as measured by total exposures to
gross or net loss? Should there be any other measures?
8. Should the treatment of a mutual insurance holding company as
an insurance company for the purpose of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-
Frank Act be limited to companies that are materially, substantially
or predominantly engaged in the business of
[[Page 77445]]
insurance? If so, on what basis should that determination be made:
an asset test, an income or revenue test, a test relating to risk
exposures, or some other measure?
IV. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) (``PRA''), 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 Proposed Rule would not involve any new collections
of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Consequently, no information will be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA) requires
each federal agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis
in connection with the promulgation of a final rule, or certify that
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.\13\ Pursuant to Section 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FDIC certifies that the Proposed
Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 5 U.S.C. 603, 604 and 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration
(``SBA''), a ``small entity'' includes those firms within the ``Finance
and Insurance'' sector with asset sizes that vary from $7 million or
less in assets to $175 million or less in assets.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proposed Rule will clarify rules and procedures for the
liquidation of a nonviable systemically important financial company,
which will provide internal guidance to FDIC personnel performing the
liquidation of such a company and will address any uncertainty in the
financial system as to how the orderly liquidation of such a company
would operate. As such, the Proposed Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities.
C. 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
(Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
D. Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113
Stat. 1338, 1471), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain
language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1,
2000. The FDIC has sought to present the Proposed Rule in a simple and
straightforward manner.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 380
Holding companies, Insurance companies, Mutual insurance holding
companies.
For the reasons stated above, the Board of Directors of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend part 380 of title 12 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 380--ORDERLY LIQUIDATION AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 380 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5383(e); 12 U.S.C. 5389; 12 U.S.C.
5390(s)(3); 12 U.S.C. 5390(b)(1)(C); 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(7)(D).
2. The heading for subpart A is revised to read as follows:
Subpart A--General and Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec.
380.1 Definitions.
380.2 [Reserved]
380.3 Treatment of personal service agreements.
380.4 [Reserved]
380.5 Treatment of covered financial companies that are subsidiaries
of insurance companies.
380.6 Limitation on liens on assets of covered financial companies
that are insurance companies or covered subsidiaries of insurance
companies.
380.7 Recoupment of compensation from senior executives and
directors.
380.8 [Reserved]
380.9 Treatment of fraudulent and preferential transfers.
380.10 Calculation of maximum obligation limitation.
380.11 Treatment of mutual insurance holding companies.
380.12-380.19 [Reserved]
3. Revise Sec. 380.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 380.1 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the following terms are defined as
follows:
* * * * *
Insurance Company. * * *
Intermediate insurance stock holding company. For purposes of this
subpart, the term ``intermediate insurance stock holding company''
means a corporation that (1) Is a subsidiary of a mutual insurance
holding company, (2) holds all of the issued and outstanding voting
stock of the converted mutual insurance company created at the time of
formation of the mutual insurance holding company, and (3) holds, as
its largest United States subsidiary (as measured by total assets as of
the end of the previous calendar quarter), an insurance company.
Mutual insurance company. The term ``mutual insurance company''
means a domestic insurance company organized under the laws of a State
that provides for the formation of such an entity as a non-stock mutual
association in which equity and voting rights are vested in the
policyholders.
Mutual insurance holding company. The term ``mutual insurance
holding company'' means a corporation that (1) Is lawfully organized
under state law authorizing its formation in connection with the
reorganization of a mutual insurance company that converts the mutual
insurance company to a stock insurance company, and (2) holds either
(i) At least 51% of the issued and outstanding voting stock of the
intermediate insurance stock holding company, if any, or (ii) if there
is no intermediate insurance stock holding company, at least 51% of the
issued and outstanding voting stock of the converted mutual insurance
company.
* * * * *
4. Revise Sec. 380.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 380.11 Treatment of Mutual Insurance Holding Companies.
A mutual insurance holding company shall be treated as an insurance
company for the purpose of section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12
U.S.C. 5383(e); provided that--
(a) The company is subject to the insurance laws of the state of
its domicile, including, specifically and without limitation, a
statutory regime for the rehabilitation or liquidation of insurance
companies that are in default or in danger of default;
(b) the company is not subject to bankruptcy proceedings under
Title 11 of the United States Code;
(c) the largest United States subsidiary of the company (as
measured by total assets as of the end of the previous calendar
quarter) is an insurance company or an intermediate insurance stock
holding company; and
(d) the assets and investments of the company are limited to the
securities of an intermediate insurance stock holding company, the
securities of the converted mutual insurance company and other
[[Page 77446]]
assets and securities of the type authorized for holding and investment
by an insurance company domiciled in its state of incorporation.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 7th day of December, 2011.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31885 Filed 12-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P