Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk; U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banking Organizations, 12049-12059 [2019-06063]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). This final rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply. I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. J. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights’’ The Department has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this rule would not result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. L. Review Under Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This final rule, which incorporates recently-enacted statutory provisions into DOE’s regulations, would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. M. Congressional Notification As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule. List of Subjects in 2 CFR Part 910 Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PO 00000 12049 Signed in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2019. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy. S. Keith Hamilton, Deputy Associate Administrator, Acquisition and Project Management, National Nuclear Security Administration. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE hereby amends chapter IX, subchapter B, of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 910—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS 1. The authority citation for part 910 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 6301–6308; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 2 CFR part 200. 2. Section 910.130 is amended by: a. Removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (b)(1). ■ b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(2) and adding in its place ‘‘; or’’. ■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(3). The addition reads as follows: ■ ■ § 910.130 Cost sharing (EPACT). * * * * * (b) * * * (3) The research or development activity is to be performed by an institution of higher education or nonprofit institution (as defined in section 4 of the Stevenson–Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703)) during the two-year period ending September 27, 2020. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2019–06263 Filed 3–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. OP–1589] Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk; U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banking Organizations Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Policy statement. AGENCY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (‘‘Board’’) has approved changes to part II of the SUMMARY: Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 12050 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk (‘‘PSR policy’’) related to procedures for determining the net debit cap and maximum daylight overdraft capacity of a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign banking organization (‘‘FBO’’). The changes remove references to the Strength of Support Assessment (‘‘SOSA’’) ranking; remove references to FBOs’ financial holding company (‘‘FHC’’) status; and adopt alternative methods for determining an FBO’s eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft capacity. DATES: The changes are effective April 1, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Walker, Deputy Associate Director (202–721–4559); Jason Hinkle, Manager (202–912–7805); Alex So, Senior Financial Institution and Policy Analyst (202–452–2230); Brajan Kola, Senior Financial Institution and Policy Analyst (202–736–5683), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; or Evan Winerman, Senior Counsel (202–872–7578), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, please call 202–263–4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 14, 2017, the Board requested comment on potential changes to Part II of the PSR policy, which establishes the maximum levels of daylight overdrafts that depository institutions (‘‘institutions’’) may incur in their Federal Reserve accounts.1 Under Part II of the PSR policy, an FBO’s SOSA ranking—which assesses an FBO’s ability to provide financial, liquidity, and management support to its U.S. operations—can affect an FBO’s daylight overdraft capacity. Similarly, an FBO’s status as an FHC can affect its daylight overdraft capacity. As described further below, the Board proposed to (1) remove references in the PSR policy to SOSA rankings and FHC status and (2) adopt alternative methods for determining an FBO’s daylight overdraft capacity. A. Current Use of SOSA Ranking and FHC Status in the PSR Policy 1. Net Debit Caps An institution’s net debit cap is the maximum value of uncollateralized daylight overdrafts that the institution can incur in its Federal Reserve account. 1 82 FR 58764 (Dec. 14, 2017). VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 The PSR policy generally requires that an institution be ‘‘financially healthy’’ to be eligible for a positive net debit cap.2 To that end, the Guide to the Federal Reserve’s Payment System Risk Policy (‘‘Guide’’) 3 clarifies that most FBOs with a SOSA ranking of 3 or a U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Rating of marginal or unsatisfactory do not qualify for a positive net debit cap.4 Assuming that an institution qualifies for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit cap equals the institution’s ‘‘capital measure’’ multiplied by its ‘‘cap multiple.’’ 5 As described further below, an institution’s capital measure is a number derived (under most circumstances) from the size of its capital base. An institution’s cap multiple is determined by the institution’s ‘‘cap category,’’ which generally reflects, among other things, the institution’s financial condition. An institution with a higher capital measure or a higher cap category (and thus a higher cap multiple) will qualify for a higher net debit cap than an institution with a lower capital measure or lower cap category. An FBO’s SOSA ranking can affect both its cap category and its capital measure. An FBO’s status as an FHC can affect its capital measure.6 (a) Cap Categories and Cap Multiples Under Section II.D.2 of the PSR policy, an institution’s ‘‘cap category’’ is one of six classifications—high, above average, average, de minimis, exemptfrom-filing, and zero. In order to establish a cap category of high, above average, or average, an institution must perform a self-assessment of its own creditworthiness, intraday funds management and control, customer 2 See Part II.D.1 of the PSR policy. Guide to the Federal Reserve’s Payment System Risk Policy (the Guide) contains detailed information on the steps necessary for institutions to comply with the Federal Reserve’s intraday credit policies. 4 Section VI.A.1 of the Guide states that most SOSA 3-ranked institutions do not qualify for a positive net debit cap, though it clarifies that ‘‘[i]n limited circumstances, a Reserve Bank may grant a net debit cap or extend intraday credit to a financially healthy SOSA 3-ranked FBO.’’ Separately, Table VII–2 of the Guide states that SOSA 3-ranked FBOs and FBOs that receive a U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Rating of marginal or unsatisfactory have ‘‘below standard’’ creditworthiness, and Table VII–3 of the Guide states that institutions with below standard creditworthiness cannot incur daylight overdrafts. 5 See Part II.D.1 of the PSR policy. All net debit caps are granted at the discretion of the institution’s administrative Reserve Bank, which is the Reserve Bank that is responsible for managing an institution’s account relationship with the Federal Reserve. 6 In contrast, the FHC status of a domestic bank holding company does not affect its capital measure. 3 The PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 credit policies and controls, and operating controls and contingency procedures. Other cap categories do not require a self-assessment.7 Each cap category corresponds to a ‘‘cap multiple.’’ 8 As noted above, an institution’s net debit cap generally equals its capital measure multiplied by its cap multiple. An FBO’s SOSA ranking can affect its cap category (and thus its cap multiple). As noted above, an institution that wishes to establish a net debit cap category of high, above average, or average must perform a self-assessment of, among other things, its own creditworthiness. Under Part II.D.2.a of the PSR policy, ‘‘[t]he assessment of creditworthiness is based on the institution’s supervisory rating and Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) designation.’’ Part VII.A of the Guide includes a matrix for assessing domestic institutions’ creditworthiness that incorporates an institution’s supervisory rating and PCA designation. Because FBOs do not receive PCA designations, however, Part VII.A of the Guide includes a separate matrix for assessing FBO creditworthiness that incorporates an FBO’s U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Rating and—in lieu of a PCA designation—SOSA ranking.9 Similarly, while an FBO is not required to perform a self-assessment if it requests a cap category of de minimis or wishes to be assigned a cap category of exempt-from-filing by the Reserve Bank, the Reserve Banks rely on the minimum standards set by the creditworthiness matrix when they evaluate FBO requests for any cap category greater than zero. Accordingly, the Reserve Banks generally do not allow FBOs to qualify for a positive net debit cap, including the de minimis or exempt-from-filing cap category, if the FBO has a SOSA ranking of 3 or a U.S. 7 An institution that meets reasonable safety and soundness standards can request a de minimis cap category, without performing a self-assessment, by submitting a board of directors resolution to its administrative Reserve Bank. An institution that only rarely incurs daylight overdrafts in its Federal Reserve account that exceed the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of its capital measure can be assigned an ‘‘exempt-from-filing’’ cap category without performing a self-assessment or filing a board of directors resolution with its administrative Reserve Bank. 8 Under Section II.D.1 of the PSR policy, the cap multiple for the ‘‘high’’ category is 2.25, for the ‘‘above average’’ category is 1.875, for the ‘‘average’’ category is 1.125, for the ‘‘de minimis’’ category is 0.4, for the ‘‘exempt-from-filing’’ category is 0.2 or $10 million, and for the ‘‘zero’’ category is 0. Note that the net debit cap for the exempt-from-filing category is equal to the lesser of $10 million or 0.2 multiplied by the capital measure. 9 Under Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831o, PCA designations apply only to insured depository institutions. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Operations Supervisory Composite Rating of marginal or unsatisfactory. In certain situations, the Reserve Banks require institutions to perform a full assessment of their creditworthiness instead of using the relevant selfassessment matrix (e.g., when an institution has experienced a significant development that may materially affect its financial condition). The Guide includes procedures for full assessments of creditworthiness. (b) Capital Measures Under Section II.D.3 of the PSR policy, an institution’s ‘‘capital measure’’ is a number derived (under most circumstances) from the size of its capital base. The determination of the capital measure, however, differs between domestic institutions and FBOs. A domestic institution’s capital measure equals 100 percent of the institution’s risk-based capital. Conversely, an FBO’s capital measure (also called ‘‘U.S. capital equivalency’’) 10 equals a percentage of (under most circumstances) the FBO’s worldwide capital base 11 ranging from 5 percent to 35 percent, with the exact percentage depending on (1) the FBO’s SOSA ranking and (2) whether the FBO is an FHC. Specifically, the capital measure of an FBO that is an FHC is 35 percent of its capital; an FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 1 is 25 percent of its capital; and an FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 2 is 10 percent of its capital. The capital measure of an FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 3 equals 5 percent of its ‘‘net due to related depository institutions’’ (although, as noted above, FBOs with a SOSA ranking of 3 generally do not qualify for a positive net debit cap).12 2. Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity Section II.E of the PSR policy allows certain institutions with self-assessed net debit caps to pledge collateral to their administrative Reserve Bank to secure daylight overdraft capacity in 10 The term ‘‘U.S. capital equivalency’’ is used in this context to refer to the particular capital measure used to calculate net debit caps and does not necessarily represent an appropriate capital measure for supervisory or other purposes. 11 FBOs that wish to establish a non-zero net debit cap must report their worldwide capital on the Annual Daylight Overdraft Capital Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 2225). The instructions for FR 2225 explain how FBOs should calculate their worldwide capital. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/ reportdetail.aspx?sOoYJ+5BzDZ1kLYTc+ZpEQ==. 12 An FBO reports its ‘‘net due to related depository institutions’’ on the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002). VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 excess of their net debit caps. An institution’s maximum daylight overdraft capacity (‘‘max cap’’) equals its net debit cap plus its additional collateralized capacity. Section II.E of the PSR policy states that max caps are ‘‘intended to provide extra liquidity through the pledge of collateral by the few institutions that might otherwise be constrained from participating in riskreducing payment system initiatives.’’ Institutions that wish to obtain a max cap must generally provide (1) documentation of the business need for collateralized capacity and (2) an annual board of directors’ resolution approving any collateralized capacity. Under Section II.E.2 of the PSR policy, however, an FBO that has a SOSA ranking of 1 or is an FHC may request a streamlined procedure for obtaining a max cap.13 Such an FBO is not required to document its business need for collateralized capacity, nor is it required to obtain a board of directors’ resolution approving collateralized capacity, as long as the FBO requests a max cap that is 100 percent or less of the FBO’s worldwide capital multiplied by its selfassessed cap multiple.14 B. Proposed Changes The Board proposed to remove references to the SOSA ranking in the PSR policy. The SOSA ranking was originally established for supervisory purposes, but Federal Reserve supervisory staff now have more timely access to information regarding FBO parent banks, home-country accounting practices and financial systems, and international supervisory and regulatory developments.15 The Federal Reserve currently uses SOSA rankings only in setting guidelines related to FBO access to Reserve Bank intraday credit and the discount window.16 The Board 13 Even under the streamlined procedure, the administrative Reserve Bank retains the right to assess an FBO’s financial and supervisory information, including the FBO’s ability to manage intraday credit. 14 As described above, for example, the capital measure of an FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 1 is currently 25 percent of worldwide capital. The net debit cap of such an FBO equals its capital measure times the cap multiple that corresponds to its cap category. The streamlined max cap procedure therefore allows the FBO to request additional collateralized capacity of 75 percent of worldwide capital times its cap multiple. If the FBO requests a max cap in excess of 100 percent of worldwide capital times its cap multiple, the FBO would be ineligible for the streamlined max cap procedure. 15 See SR 17–13 (Dec. 7, 2017) https:// www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/ sr1713.pdf (explaining why the Board intends to eliminate the SOSA ranking). 16 In addition to the PSR policy’s use of SOSA rankings, the Reserve Banks use SOSA rankings to determine whether an FBO can receive discount PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 12051 explained in the proposal that providing SOSA rankings for these purposes is an inefficient use of the Federal Reserve’s supervisory resources. The Board proposed that the Federal Reserve would continue to provide SOSA rankings until the Board removes references to SOSA rankings in the PSR policy. The Board also proposed to remove references to FBOs’ FHC status in the PSR policy. The Board explained in the proposal that, when it incorporated FHC status into the PSR policy, it believed that an FBO’s status as an FHC indicated that the FBO was financially and managerially strong. The Board further explained that it now recognizes the limitations of FHC status in measuring an FBO’s health—in particular, FBOs can maintain nominal FHC status (though with reduced ability to use their FHC powers) even when they are out of compliance with the requirement that they remain well capitalized. Accordingly, the Board explained that it no longer believes an FBO’s status as an FHC should increase the FBO’s capital measure or allow the FBO to request a streamlined procedure to obtain a max cap. The Board proposed alternative methods for determining an FBO’s eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain a max cap. The Board requested comment on all aspects of the proposal, including whether FBOs would require a transition period to adjust to the proposed changes. 1. Net Debit Cap Eligibility The Board proposed that many undercapitalized FBOs, and all significantly or critically undercapitalized FBOs, would have ‘‘below standard’’ creditworthiness and on that basis would generally be ineligible for a positive net debit cap. To assess whether it is undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized, an FBO would compare the Regulation H ratios for total risk-based capital, tier 1 riskbased capital, common equity tier 1 risk-based capital, and leverage to the equivalent ratios that the FBO has calculated under its home-country standards or on a pro forma basis. Currently, SOSA–3 ranked institutions have ‘‘below standard’’ creditworthiness window loans. See https:// www.frbdiscountwindow.org/en/Pages/GeneralInformation/The-Discount-Window.aspx. The Reserve Banks will adjust their standards for determining FBO access to primary credit before the SOSA ranking is discontinued on January 1, 2020. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 12052 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations and are generally ineligible for a positive net debit cap.17 2. Creditworthiness Self-Assessment The Board proposed that an FBO’s creditworthiness self-assessment would generally be based on the FBO’s U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Rating and (in lieu of the FBO’s SOSA ranking) the PCA designation that would apply to the FBO if it were subject to the Board’s Regulation H (an ‘‘equivalent PCA designation’’).18 The Board noted that replacing the SOSA ranking with an equivalent PCA designation would align the creditworthiness self-assessment for FBOs with the existing creditworthiness self-assessment for domestic institutions, which is based on an institution’s PCA designation and supervisory rating. The Board proposed to implement this change by incorporating FBO creditworthiness self-assessments into the Guide’s existing matrix for assessing domestic institutions’ creditworthiness.19 The Board proposed that an FBO that is not based in a country that has implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 20 (a ‘‘Basel jurisdiction’’) would be required to perform a full assessment of its creditworthiness instead of using the matrix approach to assessing creditworthiness.21 3. Capital Measures The Board proposed that the capital measure of an FBO would equal 10 percent of its worldwide capital, in lieu of the current tiered system in which an FBO’s capital measure depends on its 17 See n. 4, supra. The PSR policy and the Guide would continue to provide that FBOs that have U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Ratings of ‘‘marginal’’ or ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ have ‘‘below standard’’ creditworthiness and are generally ineligible for a positive net debit cap. 18 See 12 CFR 208.43(b). 19 See Table VII–1 of the Guide. 20 The proposal referred in a number of places to jurisdictions that adhere to the Basel Capital Accords (BCA)’’ or ‘‘adhere to BCA-based standards, while the amendments adopted in this Federal Register notice instead refer to jurisdictions that have implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Board does not intend for this change to have any substantive effect. 21 The requirement to perform a full assessment of creditworthiness would apply to FBOs based in non-Basel jurisdictions that request any net debit cap greater than the exempt-from-filing category, including FBOs that request a de minimis cap category. Additionally, a Reserve Bank could request that an FBO based in a non-Basel jurisdiction perform a full assessment of creditworthiness before assigning the FBO an exempt-from-filing cap category. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 SOSA ranking and FHC status. The Board explained in the proposal that it believed it was unnecessary to replace the SOSA ranking with an alternative supervisory rating in the capital measure calculation, noting that (1) including a point-in-time supervisory rating such as SOSA is less important than in the past because the Reserve Banks now receive, on an ongoing basis, better supervisory information regarding FBOs and (2) other elements of the net debit cap calculation already consider an FBO’s supervisory ratings and overall financial condition. 4. Max Caps The Board proposed that an FBO that is well capitalized could request the streamlined procedure for obtaining a max cap. Currently, the PSR policy allows SOSA–1 ranked FBOs and FBOs that are FHCs to request the streamlined procedure. The Board explained in the proposal that it believed it would not be appropriate to substitute another supervisory rating for the SOSA–1 ranking in determining FBO eligibility for the streamlined max cap procedure, because non-SOSA supervisory ratings focus only on the U.S. operations of FBOs. II. Discussion of Public Comments The Board received one responsive comment, from an association of international banks. The commenter did not object to removing references to the SOSA rankings and FHC status from the PSR policy, nor did the commenter object to incorporating equivalent PCA designations into the PSR policy. The commenter believed, however, that the Board should not implement these changes in a manner that reduces FBOs’ current net debit caps. The commenter also argued that, when an FBO determines its equivalent PCA designation, the FBO should be able to rely on home-country standards for the leverage measure component of that determination. Finally, the commenter requested that the Board delay the effective date of the proposed changes by at least 12 months from the date of publication in the Federal Register. For the reasons set forth below, the Board has adopted the changes substantially as proposed. However, the Board has (1) replaced the term ‘‘equivalent PCA designation’’ with ‘‘FBO PSR capital category’’ and (2) clarified the manner in which an FBO will determine its FBO PSR capital category. The changes will be effective on April 1, 2020. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 A. Reductions in FBO Capital Measures/ Net Debit Caps The commenter raised a number of concerns regarding the Board’s proposal to set the capital measure of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO’s worldwide capital. 1. Effects on U.S.-Dollar Clearing Activities of FBOs The commenter argued that the proposal to set the capital measures of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO’s worldwide capital would reduce FBOs’ net debit caps and would negatively affect FBOs’ U.S.-dollar clearing activity. The commenter suggested that the Board may have underestimated the proposal’s effects on FBOs by assuming that payment levels from 2003 to 2007 would be predictive of future payment levels and that reserve levels will revert to those from 2003 to 2007, stating that ‘‘if events prove contrary to the [Board’s] assumption the results could significantly alter the analysis and related policy conclusions.’’ The commenter further suggested that lower net debit caps might cause an FBO to ‘‘throttle’’ payments during the day (i.e., restrict and delay funds transfers until sufficient funds are available) to ensure that it stays within its net debit cap, which would diminish liquidity. Finally, the commenter argued that relying on collateral to cover intraday exposure to a Reserve Bank would be costly to an FBO and might result in (1) increased transaction costs to customers and (2) an increase in ‘‘systemic operational risk’’ in the event of constraints on the availability of ‘‘sufficiently high-quality liquid assets.’’ The Board has evaluated FBOs’ intraday credit usage under a wide range of scenarios, including the current high reserves environment (2015– present), an extreme stress environment (2007–2009), and a low reserves environment (2003–2007). The Board’s analysis indicates that most FBOs would retain sufficient daylight overdraft capacity even when reserves are low and liquidity pressures are high. For example, during the 2007–09 financial crisis, when the use of intraday credit spiked amid the market turmoil near the end of 2008, 51 of 58 FBOs with a positive net debit cap used overdraft capacity, the highest average cap utilization was 65 percent, and only 7 FBOs had an average cap utilization greater than 25 percent.22 During the same period, 1 of 27 FBOs that currently maintain a cap category higher than 22 In this context, average cap utilization equals an institution’s average daily peak daylight overdraft divided by the FBO’s net debit cap. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations exempt-from-filing 23 regularly incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded its projected net debit cap under the single-rate capital measure calculation that the Board is adopting, 7 of 27 incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected net debit caps in limited instances, and 19 of 27 never incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected caps.24 Accordingly, the Board believes that the projected net debit caps would have provided most FBOs with sufficient capacity during the financial crisis. Similarly, between 2003 and 2007, when FBOs generally maintained lower reserves, 51 of 57 FBOs with a positive net debit cap used overdraft capacity, the highest average cap utilization was 44 percent, and only 7 FBOs had an average cap utilization greater than 25 percent. During the same period, 2 of 27 FBOs that currently maintain a cap category higher than exempt-from-filing regularly incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected net debit caps under the single-rate capital measure calculation that the Board is adopting, 5 of 27 incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected net debit caps in limited instances, and 20 of 27 never incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected caps.25 Accordingly, the Board believes that the projected net debit caps would have provided most FBOs with sufficient capacity during the low reserves environment from 2003– 2007.26 The Board recognizes that setting the capital measures of all FBOs at 10 23 Most FBOs with a cap category of exempt-fromfiling receive the maximum net debit cap of $10 million and would not be affected by the changes to the FBO capital measure calculation that the Board is adopting in the notice. 24 In this context, ‘‘regularly incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded its projected net debit cap’’ means that an FBO’s daylight overdrafts would have exceeded its projected net debit cap, on average, more than once per two-week reserve maintenance period (‘‘RMP’’) over the period; ‘‘limited instances’’ means that an FBO’s daylight overdrafts would have exceeded its projected net debit cap, on average, less than once per every six two-week RMPs over the period. Data current as of Q4 2018. 25 Data current as of Q4 2018. 26 The projected net debit caps under the singlerate capital measure calculation that the Board is adopting would also provide FBOs with sufficient capacity in the current high-reserves environment. Since 2015, none of the 27 FBOs that currently maintain a cap category higher than exempt-fromfiling have regularly incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected net debit caps, 1 of 27 incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded its projected net debit caps in limited instances, and 26 of 27 never incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected caps. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 percent of an FBO’s worldwide capital may increase the instances in which FBOs need additional daylight overdraft capacity, but the Board believes that FBOs’ projected net debit caps would be better tailored to their actual usage of intraday credit. Additionally, as the Board noted in the proposal, an FBO with a de minimis cap could also request a higher net debit cap by applying for a self-assessed cap.27 Similarly, an FBO with a self-assessed cap could apply for a max cap in order to obtain additional collateralized capacity. While the Board recognizes that relying on collateralized overdrafts might be more operationally complex for FBOs than relying on uncollateralized overdrafts, the Board notes that the Reserve Banks allow accountholders to post a wide array of collateral of varying degrees of liquidity, including various types of loans.28 Importantly, the Board also notes that relying on collateralized intraday credit would reduce the credit risk that the Reserve Banks incur when they provide intraday credit to FBOs. 2. National Treatment Considerations The commenter further argued that the proposal to set the capital measures of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO’s worldwide capital is inconsistent with the principle of national treatment. Under the principle of national treatment, FBOs operating in the United States should be, generally, treated no less favorably than similarly situated U.S. banking organizations.29 The commenter argued that because a U.S. branch is an office of a foreign bank, it can draw on the global resources of the foreign bank to support its liabilities, including intraday credit that it receives from a Reserve Bank. As 27 As noted above, most FBOs with a cap category of exempt-from-filing receive the maximum net debit cap of $10 million and would not be affected by the changes to the FBO capital measure calculation that the Board is adopting in this notice. 28 See the Federal Reserve’s Discount Window Margins and Collateral Guidelines, https:// www.frbdiscountwindow.org/en/Pages/Collateral/ Discount%20Window%20Margins%20and%20 Collateral%20Guidelines.aspx. These margin and collateral guidelines apply to discount window loans and intraday credit under the PSR policy. Currently, more than half of the collateral posted at the Reserve Banks are loans, none of which would qualify as high-quality liquid assets for purposes of the Federal banking regulators’ rules establishing a liquidity coverage ratio for banking organizations. See, e.g., 12 CFR 249.20 (Board regulation establishing high-quality liquid asset criteria). 29 See, e.g., International Banking Act of 1978, Public Law 95–369, 12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq; S. Rep. No. 95–1073 (Aug. 8, 1978) (legislative history of the International Banking Act of 1978); GrammLeach-Bliley Act of 1999, Public Law 106–102, section 141, 12 U.S.C. 3106(c); Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111–203, section 165(b)(2), 12 U.S.C. 5365(b)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 12053 described in the proposal, however, FBOs that incur daylight overdrafts present special legal risks to the Reserve Banks because of differences in insolvency laws in the various FBOs’ home countries. In particular, the proposal quoted a 2001 Federal Register notice in which the Board explained that insolvent FBOs posed a heightened risk to the Reserve Banks because ‘‘[t]he insolvent party’s national law . . . may permit the liquidator to subordinate other parties’ claims (such as by permitting the home country tax authorities to have first priority in bankruptcy), may reclassify or impose a stay on the right the nondefaulting party has to collateral pledged by the defaulting party in support of a particular transaction, or may require a separate proceeding to be initiated against the head office in addition to any proceeding against the branch.’’ 30 The 2001 Federal Register notice further stated that ‘‘[i]t is not practicable for the Federal Reserve to undertake and keep current extensive analysis of the legal risks presented by the insolvency law(s) applicable to each FBO with a Federal Reserve account in order to quantify precisely the legal risk that the Federal Reserve incurs by providing intraday credit to that institution. It is reasonable, however, for the Federal Reserve to recognize that FBOs generally present additional legal risks to the payments system and, accordingly, limit its exposure to these institutions.’’ 31 The Board continues to believe that FBOs may pose heightened risks to the Reserve Banks relative to domestic institutions, and that it is reasonable to calculate an FBO’s capital measure as a fraction of its worldwide capital, notwithstanding that the capital measure of a domestic institution generally equals 100 percent of the institution’s risk-based capital. The Board also notes that, although Federal Reserve supervisors have gained access to new internal and external resources since 2002 (when the Board adopted the current capital measure calculation) that allow the Federal Reserve to better monitor FBOs on an ongoing basis, the Board’s authority over FBOs generally extends only to FBOs’ U.S. operations. As a result, Federal Reserve supervisors have less insight into the financial health of FBOs compared to domestic bank holding companies, for which the Board serves as the global supervisory authority. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the Board believes that FBOs’ 30 82 FR at 58769 (quoting 66 FR 30205, 30206 (Aug. 6, 2001)). 31 Id. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 12054 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations projected net debit caps would be well tailored to FBOs’ actual usage of intraday credit and would not constrain most FBOs’ U.S. operations under a wide range of scenarios. The Board further notes that, as discussed in the proposal, FBO net debit caps are currently large when compared to the net debit caps of peer domestic institutions. For example, the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $1 billion and $10 billion in U.S.-based assets is $3.9 billion, while the average net debit cap of a domestic institution with between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets is $209 million; the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $10 billion and $50 billion in U.S.-based assets is $7.7 billion, while the average net debit cap of a domestic institution with between $10 billion and $50 billion in assets is $1.4 billion; and the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $50 billion and $150 billion in U.S.-based assets is $24.5 billion, while the average net debit cap of a domestic institution with between $50 billion and $150 billion in assets is $11.3 billion.32 After the changes adopted in this Federal Register notice take effect, the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $1 billion and $10 billion would be $1.4 billion, the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $10 billion and $50 billion in U.S.-based assets would be $2.8 billion, and the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $50 billion and $150 billion in U.S.-based assets would be $7.7 billion.33 As discussed above, the Board’s analysis indicates that these projected net debit caps would provide most FBOs with sufficient daylight overdraft capacity even when reserves are low and liquidity pressures are high.34 3. Other Concerns About Reducing FBO Net Debit Caps The commenter raised a number of other concerns regarding the proposal to set the capital measures of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO’s worldwide capital. The commenter argued that the proposal would effectively penalize 32 The Board excluded institutions with a cap category of exempt-from-filing from these comparisons because these institutions are limited to a $10 million net debit cap. No FBO currently has U.S.-based assets above $150 billion. Data current as of Q4 2018. 33 The Board recognizes that, based on certain FBOs’ business models, the volume and value of payments flowing through an FBO with a particular level of U.S.-based assets may be higher than that of a domestic institution with a similar level of assets. 34 As the Board further explained above, certain FBOs may request additional daylight overdraft capacity by applying for a self-assessed cap and/or a max cap. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 those FBOs that, under the current, tiered system for determining FBO capital measures, ‘‘are considered to present the lesser risk to the Federal Reserve.’’ The Board notes that, even after the changes to the capital measure calculation take effect, FBOs that are more creditworthy will continue to be eligible for more daylight overdraft capacity than FBOs that are less creditworthy—specifically, an FBO’s cap category will continue to be based, in part, on the FBO’s creditworthiness, which (as described above) will be determined based on the FBO’s U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Rating and its FBO PSR capital category. The Board also emphasizes that the intent of this policy change is not to penalize FBOs or constrain FBOs’ U.S. operations. Rather, the Board believes that FBOs may pose heightened risks to the Reserve Banks relative to domestic institutions, and that it is prudent to manage these risks by limiting FBOs’ net debit caps to levels that are better tailored to FBOs’ actual usage of intraday credit. The commenter also argued that the proposal does not consider the protections that the Reserve Banks receive under federal and state laws that ‘‘ringfence’’ FBO assets for the benefit of third-party creditors. Federal and state laws require that U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks pledge assets in segregated accounts that are intended to benefit the creditors of such branches and agencies.35 Publicly reported data show that U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks generally pledge assets equal only to a small percentage of their liabilities in such segregated accounts.36 For example, only 2 of 44 FBOs with a positive net debit cap have pledged sufficient assets to cover all of their liabilities to nonrelated parties, while 36 35 For example, an uninsured New York statelicensed branch is required to deposit an amount of high-quality assets in a segregated account that is pledged to the state to cover the cost of the branch’s liquidation and to repay creditors. N.Y. Banking Law § 202–b(1); 3 NYCRR 51. The amount of the required deposit is the greater of (1) $2 million or (2) one percent of average total liabilities of the branch or agency for the previous month, subject to certain caps for well-rated foreign banking corporations. 3 NYCRR 322.1. The New York Superintendent of Financial Services may also require a New York state branch to maintain additional assets relative to some percentage of liabilities if the Superintendent deems it necessary or desirable for the maintenance of a sound financial condition, the protection of depositors and the public interest, and to maintain public confidence in the branch. N.Y. Banking Law § 202– b(1). See also 12 U.S.C. 3102(g); 12 CFR 28.15 and 28.20. 36 See Reporting Form FFIEC 002, ‘‘Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks,’’ Schedule RAL, Items S.1 and S.2. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 of these FBOs have pledged assets equal to less than 10 percent of their liabilities to nonrelated parties.37 Similarly, only 1 of 27 FBOs that currently maintain a cap category higher than exempt-fromfiling 38 has pledged sufficient assets to cover its net debit cap, 6 have pledged assets that would cover between 10 percent and 60 percent of their net debit caps, and 20 have pledged assets that would cover less than 10 percent of their net debit caps.39 Accordingly, if an FBO becomes insolvent during a period in which a Reserve Bank has extended intraday credit to that FBO, the pledged assets of the FBO’s U.S. branches and agencies would very likely be insufficient to repay the Reserve Banks and other unsecured creditors. The Board recognizes that, in some jurisdictions, a U.S. supervisory authority (or a receiver appointed by a U.S. supervisory authority) that liquidates a U.S. branch or agency of an insolvent foreign bank may take possession of all assets of the foreign bank—including non-branch assets of the foreign bank—located in the jurisdiction of that supervisory authority.40 These provisions may expand the pool of assets available to repay the creditors of a U.S. branch or agency if the foreign bank maintains other assets in the United States (if the branch is federally licensed) or in the state in which the branch is located (if the branch is state-licensed). The Board notes, however, that it is uncertain whether available assets will be sufficient to repay creditors when a supervisory authority or receiver takes possession of such U.S. branches and agencies. Finally, the commenter argued that there is no compelling reason to reduce FBO net debit caps at this time. The commenter noted, in this regard, that the special legal risks that FBOs pose to the Reserve Banks have not changed since 2001, when the Board established the current method for calculating FBO capital measures. The commenter also noted that U.S. and foreign regulators have improved their supervision and regulation of foreign banks and their U.S. branches since 2001, suggesting that these efforts have enhanced foreign banks’ resiliency and resolvability and should provide the Reserve Banks with more comfort that U.S. branches are creditworthy. The Board recognizes that 37 Data current as of Q4 2018. Board has excluded institutions with a cap category of exempt-from-filing from this analysis because such institutions’ net debit caps are limited to a maximum of $10 million. 39 Data current as of Q4 2018. 40 See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 3102(j)(1); N.Y. Banking Law section 606(4)(a). 38 The E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations foreign banks (including U.S. branches of foreign banks) are—like U.S.chartered institutions—subject to more robust oversight than they were in 2001.41 The Board also appreciates that intraday credit helps to facilitate payments by Reserve Bank accountholders and can promote the smooth functioning of the payment system. Nevertheless, because intraday credit to FBOs (relative to domestic institutions) may pose heightened risks to the Reserve Banks, the Board believes that the Reserve Banks should tailor FBO net debit caps more closely to FBOs’ actual usage of intraday credit and should not provide unnecessarily large net debit caps to FBOs. Setting the capital measures of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO’s worldwide capital would better tailor FBO net debit caps to FBOs’ actual usage of intraday credit. B. Use of Home-Country Leverage Ratio Under Regulation H, a bank’s PCA designation is determined by four capital measures: Total risk-based capital, tier 1 risk-based capital, common equity tier 1 risk-based capital, and leverage.42 The leverage measure utilizes two ratios: The leverage ratio (‘‘U.S. leverage ratio’’) and the supplementary leverage ratio (‘‘SLR’’). The key difference between the two ratios is that the U.S. leverage ratio calculation incorporates only onbalance-sheet activity, while the SLR calculation incorporates both onbalance-sheet assets and certain offbalance-sheet exposures.43 Under Regulation H, banks must meet a minimum U.S. leverage ratio of 4 or 5 percent to qualify as, respectively, adequately capitalized or well capitalized.44 Regulation H also requires that certain banks meet additional SLR standards to qualify as adequately or well capitalized.45 Finally, Regulation H 41 See, e.g., Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111–203, section 165, 12 U.S.C. 5365 (requiring enhanced supervision and prudential standards for certain bank holding companies, including certain FBOs). 42 The Board’s Regulation H applies to state member banks. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) have promulgated functionally identical PCA regulations applicable to OCCregulated and FDIC-regulated institutions, respectively. See 12 CFR part 6 (OCC); 12 CFR part 324, subpart H (FDIC). 43 See 12 CFR 208.41(h) and (j); 12 CFR 217.10(b)(4) and (c)(4). 44 12 CFR 208.43(b)(2)(iv)(A) and (b)(1)(iv)(A). 45 Specifically, a bank that qualifies as an ‘‘advanced approaches bank’’ must meet a minimum SLR of 3 percent to qualify as adequately capitalized and a bank that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important bank holding company (GSIB) must maintain an SLR of at least 6 percent to qualify as well capitalized. See 12 CFR 208.41(a) and 217.100(b)(1) (definition of ‘‘advanced approaches bank’’); 12 CFR 208.41(g), VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 establishes leverage measures for the undercapitalized and significantly undercapitalized PCA categories.46 The commenter argued that ‘‘in determining an FBO’s equivalent PCA designation, reference should be made only to the [SLR] and not to the U.S. leverage ratio, and, consistent with that approach, the leverage measure under the PCA regime should be calibrated by reference to the home country leverage ratio.’’ The commenter noted that under Regulation H, ‘‘PCA categories apply various combinations of the U.S. leverage ratio and the U.S. supplementary ratio, whereas the corresponding measure for FBOs’’ from Basel jurisdictions is the SLR. The commenter therefore argued that, for purposes of calculating an FBO’s equivalent PCA designation, the leverage measure should be based solely on the FBO’s leverage ratio as calculated under home-country standards (‘‘homecountry leverage ratio’’)—i.e., that the U.S. leverage ratio, as distinct from the SLR, should have ‘‘no relevance to the determination.’’ The commenter also suggested that an FBO should be able to qualify as well capitalized or adequately capitalized if it meets its home country’s 3 percent leverage ratio expectation (assuming the FBO also meets the relevant risk-based capital ratios in Regulation H). FBOs currently report their tier 1 capital and total consolidated assets to the Federal Reserve on the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y–7Q). The Board recognizes, however, that it might be burdensome for an FBO to calculate a functional equivalent to the U.S. leverage ratio due to differences between home-country accounting standards and U.S. accounting standards. Additionally, the Board recognizes that, because of definitional ambiguities in Regulation H, it might be difficult for an FBO to determine the precise SLR standards to which it is subject. Accordingly, the Board is clarifying the manner in which an FBO will determine its FBO PSR capital 217.2, and 217.402 (definition of GSIB); 12 CFR 208.43(b)(1)(iv)(B) and 208.43(b)(2)(iv)(B) (Regulation H SLR standards). The Board has issued a proposal to change the 6 percent SLR requirement for banks that are subsidiaries of GSIBs to equal 3 percent plus 50 percent of the GSIB risk-based surcharge applicable to such a bank’s top-tier holding company. 83 FR 17317 (April 19, 2018). 46 Under Regulation H, a bank is deemed to be undercapitalized if its U.S. leverage ratio is less than 4 percent or, if applicable, its SLR is less than 3 percent. A bank is deemed to be significantly undercapitalized if its U.S. leverage ratio is less than 3 percent, i.e., more than 100 basis points lower than the U.S. leverage ratio needed to qualify as adequately capitalized. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 12055 category.47 The four PSR capital categories for FBOs will be ‘‘highly capitalized,’’ ‘‘sufficiently capitalized,’’ ‘‘undercapitalized,’’ and ‘‘intraday credit ineligible.’’ To assess whether it is highly capitalized or sufficiently capitalized, an FBO would compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding ratios in Regulation H for, respectively, well-capitalized and adequately capitalized banks. Additionally, an FBO would need a home-country leverage ratio of 4 percent or 3 percent to qualify as, respectively, highly capitalized or sufficiently capitalized. Under Regulation H, a bank must meet a minimum U.S. leverage ratio of 5 percent to qualify as well capitalized, which is 100 basis points higher than the 4 percent U.S. leverage ratio required to qualify as adequately capitalized. Similarly, in order for an FBO to be considered highly capitalized for purposes of the PSR policy, it will need to meet a home-country leverage ratio (which, as noted above, corresponds to the SLR) of 4 percent, which is 100 basis points higher than the 3 percent home-country leverage ratio needed to be considered sufficiently capitalized. The Board believes that this approach will treat FBOs and U.S. institutions equivalently. To determine whether its FBO PSR capital category is undercapitalized, an FBO would compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding ratios in Regulation H. Additionally, an FBO would be deemed undercapitalized if its home-country leverage ratio is less than 3 percent. Some undercapitalized FBOs with supervisory composite ratings of ‘‘strong’’ or ‘‘satisfactory’’ may qualify for positive net debit caps. Finally, to determine whether its FBO PSR capital category is ‘‘intraday credit ineligible,’’ an FBO would compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding Regulation H ratios for significantly undercapitalized banks. Stated differently, an FBO with riskbased capital thresholds below the levels required to qualify as undercapitalized will be deemed ineligible for intraday credit. Additionally, an FBO will be deemed ineligible for intraday credit if its homecountry leverage ratio is less than 2 percent.48 47 As noted above, the Board is replacing the term ‘‘equivalent PCA designation’’ with ‘‘FBO PSR capital category.’’ An FBO not based in a Basel jurisdiction would be required to perform a full assessment of its creditworthiness instead of using the matrix approach to assessing creditworthiness. 48 Under Regulation H, a bank is deemed to be significantly undercapitalized if its U.S. leverage ratio is less than 3 percent (i.e., more than 100 basis E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM Continued 01APR1 12056 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations The following table illustrates the capital ratios that an FBO will use to determine its FBO PSR capital category.49 Total riskbased capital (%) FBO PSR capital category Highly capitalized ............................................................................................. Sufficiently capitalized ..................................................................................... Undercapitalized .............................................................................................. Intraday credit ineligible ................................................................................... As noted above, the Board proposed to incorporate FBO creditworthiness self-assessments into the Guide’s Tier 1 riskbased capital (%) 10 8 <8 <6 existing matrix for assessing domestic institutions’ creditworthiness. The Common equity (%) 8 6 <6 <4 Home-country leverage ratio (%) 6.5 4.5 <4.5 <3 4 3 2 <2 revised creditworthiness self-assessment matrix will appear as follows: Supervisory composite rating 50 Domestic capital category/ FBO PSR capital category Well capitalized/Highly capitalized .................................... Adequately capitalized/Sufficiently capitalized .................. Undercapitalized ................................................................ Significantly or critically undercapitalized/Intraday credit ineligible. Relatedly, as discussed above, the Board proposed that a well-capitalized FBO would be eligible to request the streamlined max cap procedure. The amendments adopted in this notice use the new nomenclature discussed above and instead provide that a highly capitalized FBO will be eligible to request the streamlined max cap procedure. C. Delay in Effective Date The commenter requested that the Board delay the effective date of any changes to the PSR policy by at least 12 months. The Board believes that a transition period would help FBOs adjust to these changes. Accordingly, the changes will be effective on April 1, 2020. The Federal Reserve will continue to provide SOSA rankings until that date. III. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to address concerns related to the effects of agency rules on small entities, and the Board is sensitive to the impact its rules may impose on small entities. The RFA requires agencies either to points lower than the 4 percent U.S. leverage ratio required to qualify as adequately capitalized). Under the PSR policy, a significantly undercapitalized institution is ineligible for intraday credit. The Board believes that deeming an FBO ineligible for intraday credit if its homecountry leverage ratio is less than 2 percent—which would be more than 100 basis points lower than the 3 percent home-country leverage ratio needed to qualify as sufficiently capitalized—would treat FBOs and U.S. institutions equivalently. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 Strong Satisfactory Fair Excellent .............. Very good ............ ** 51 ...................... Below standard .... Very good ............ Very good ............ ** 52 ...................... Below standard .... Adequate ............. Adequate ............. Below standard .... Below standard .... Marginal or unsatisfactory Below Below Below Below standard. standard. standard. standard. provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis with a final rule or to certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this case, the relevant provisions of the PSR policy apply to all FBOs that maintain accounts at Federal Reserve Banks. While the Board does not believe that the changes adopted in this notice would have a significant impact on small entities, and regardless of whether the RFA applies to the PSR policy per se, the Board has nevertheless prepared the following Final Regulatory Flexibility analysis in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604. 1. Statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule. As discussed above, the Board is removing references to the SOSA ranking and FBOs’ FHC status in the PSR policy. Discontinuing the SOSA ranking will streamline the Federal Reserve’s FBO supervision program by eliminating the need for Federal Reserve supervisors to provide supervisory rankings that only serve a purpose for Reserve Bank credit decisions. Removing references to FHC status in the PSR policy will align the policy with the Board’s view that an FBO’s status as an FHC is not a suitable factor for determining the FBO’s eligibility for intraday credit. 2. Description of comments. The Board did not receive any comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility analysis from members of the public or from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’). 3. Small entities affected by the proposed rule. Pursuant to regulations issued by the SBA (13 CFR 121.201), a ‘‘small entity’’ includes an entity that engages in commercial banking and has assets of $550 million or less (NAICS code 522110). Forty-one FBOs that maintain Federal Reserve accounts are small entities. Six of those FBOs maintain positive net debit caps.53 4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The changes to the PSR policy will alter the procedures by which FBOs obtain intraday credit from the Reserve Banks. The most important new requirement is that an FBO will need to determine an FBO PSR capital category, based on its worldwide capital ratios, to establish its 49 The risk-based capital ratios in the table are based on the ratios currently codified in Regulation H and will change correspondingly with any future revisions to Regulation H. 50 Supervisory composite ratings, such as the Uniform Bank Rating System (CAMELS), are generally assigned on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the strongest rating. Thus, for the purposes of the Creditworthiness Matrix, a supervisory rating of 1 is considered Strong; a rating of 2 is considered Satisfactory; a rating of 3 is considered Fair; and so on. 51 Institutions that fall into this category should perform a full assessment of creditworthiness. A full assessment of creditworthiness includes an assessment of capital adequacy, key performance measures (including asset quality, earnings performance, and liquidity), and the condition of affiliated institutions. 52 Id. 53 Data current as of Q4 2018. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations creditworthiness under the PSR policy. Additionally, an FBO will need to determine that it is highly capitalized, based on worldwide capital ratios, in order to qualify for a streamlined procedure for requesting collateralized intraday credit. The Board does not believe that it will be burdensome for an FBO to calculate its FBO PSR capital category or determine whether it is highly capitalized, nor does it believe that FBO employees will need any specialized professional skills to prepare such calculations. The Board’s FR Y–7Q report currently requires that FBOs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more report the numerators and denominators needed to calculate all of the risk-based capital ratios in the FBO PSR capital category determination. The FR Y–7Q report also requires that FBOs with total consolidated assets below $50 billion report the numerators and denominators needed to calculate all ratios in the FBO PSR capital category determination except the common equity tier 1 capital ratio. FBOs with total consolidated assets below $50 billion that are based in Basel jurisdictions already calculate their common equity tier 1 capital ratios under home-country standards. Additionally, as discussed above, the Board has clarified that the leverage measure component of the FBO PSR capital category will be based solely on the FBO’s leverage ratio as calculated under home-country standards. 5. Steps taken to minimize economic impact and discussion of significant alternatives. The Board does not believe that alternatives to these changes would better accomplish the objectives of limiting credit risk to the Reserve Banks while minimizing any economic impact on small entities. The Board believes, as described above, that the revised procedures will allow FBOs to maintain net debit caps that are well tailored to FBOs’ actual usage of intraday credit and will not constrain most FBOs’ U.S. operations under a wide range of scenarios. While one alternative would be to continue providing SOSA rankings to FBOs and leave the PSR policy in its present form, the Board believes that Federal Reserve supervisory resources should be allocated to other matters. Similarly, the Board could continue to allow FBOs that are FHCs to qualify for higher levels of intraday credit than FBOs that are not FHCs, but (as described above) the Board does not believe that an FBO’s status as an FHC should determine the FBO’s eligibility for intraday credit. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 In two places—specifically, in the capital measure calculation process and in the eligibility criteria for a streamlined max cap procedure—the Board has deleted references to SOSA without replacing those references with an alternative supervisory rating. As described above, the Board believes that it is unnecessary to substitute another supervisory rating in either area.54 Finally, the Board has replaced SOSA rankings in the creditworthiness selfassessment matrix with the FBO PSR capital category. This change will require an FBO to calculate its FBO PSR capital category using worldwide capital ratios. Alternatively, the Board could have simply deleted the SOSA ranking and provided that an FBO’s creditworthiness would depend solely on its U.S. operations supervisory composite rating. The Board believes, however, that using the FBO PSR capital category in conjunction with an FBO’s supervisory ratings will better protect the Reserve Banks from credit risk, because the FBO PSR capital category will provide insight into an FBO’s worldwide financial profile and its ability to support its U.S. branches and agencies. As discussed above, the Board has clarified that an FBO will calculate the leverage measure component of the FBO PSR capital category under homecountry standards. IV. Competitive Impact Analysis The Board conducts a competitive impact analysis when it considers a rule or policy change that may have a substantial effect on payment system participants. Specifically, the Board determines whether there would be a direct or material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete with the Federal Reserve due to differing legal powers or due to the Federal Reserve’s dominant market position deriving from such legal differences.55 The Board did not receive any comments regarding its competitive impact analysis in the proposal. The Board believes that the modifications to the PSR policy will have no adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete with the Reserve Banks in providing similar services. While the Board expects that the modifications will reduce net debit caps for many FBOs, the Board does not believe this will have a significant effect on FBOs because (as explained above) the Board believes that most FBOs would retain access to sufficient amounts of Reserve Bank intraday credit. Accordingly, the Board not 54 See sections I.B.3 and I.B.4, supra. Reserve Regulatory Service, 9–1558. 55 Federal PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 12057 expect the modifications will have a significant effect on FBOs’ use of Federal Reserve Bank services. Additionally, the proposed modifications will have no effect on intraday credit access for domestic institutions, which comprise the vast majority of Reserve Bank account holders. V. Paperwork Reduction Act Certain provisions of the PSR policy contain ‘‘collection of information’’ requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’).56 In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) control number. The Board has reviewed the amendments to the PSR policy adopted in this notice under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB. The amendments require revisions to the Annual Report of Net Debit Cap (FR 2226; OMB No. 7100– 0217). In addition, as permitted by the PRA, the Board proposes to extend for three years, with revision, the Annual Report of Net Debit Cap (FR 2226; OMB No. 7100–0217). The Board received no comments on the PRA analysis in the proposal. The Board has a continuing interest in the public’s opinions of collections of information. At any time, commenters may submit comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Nuha Elmaghrabi, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer: By mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, # 10235, Washington, DC 20503; by facsimile to (202) 395–5806; or by email to: oira_submission@ omb.eop.gov, Attention, Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer. Proposed Revision, With Extension for Three Years, of the Following Information Collection: Title of Information Collection: Annual Report of Net Debit Cap. Agency Form Number: FR 2226. OMB Control Number: 7100–0217. Frequency of Response: Annually. Respondents: Depository institutions’ board of directors. 56 44 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM U.S.C. 3501–3521. 01APR1 12058 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Abstract: Federal Reserve Banks collect these data annually to provide information that is essential for their administration of the PSR policy. The reporting panel includes all financially healthy depository institutions with access to the discount window. The Report of Net Debit Cap comprises three resolutions, which are filed by a depository institution’s board of directors depending on its needs. The first resolution is used to establish a de minimis net debit cap and the second resolution is used to establish a selfassessed net debit cap.57 The third resolution is used to establish simultaneously a self-assessed net debit cap and maximum daylight overdraft capacity. Under the PSR policy, an FBO’s SOSA ranking can affect its eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft capacity. Additionally, an FBO’s status as an FHC can affect the size of its net debit cap and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft capacity. The amendments to the PSR policy adopted in this notice (1) remove references to the SOSA ranking, (2) remove references to FBOs’ FHC status, and (3) adopt alternative methods for determining an FBO’s eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft capacity. The amendments will increase the estimated average hours per response for FR 2226 self-assessment and de minimis respondents that are FBOs by half an hour. Estimated number of respondents: De Minimis Cap: Non-FBOs, 893 respondents and FBOs, 18 respondents; Self-Assessment Cap: Non-FBOs, 106 respondents and FBOs, 9 respondents; and Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity, 2 respondents. Estimated average hours per response: De Minimis Cap—Non-FBOs, 1 hour and FBOs, 1.5 hour; Self-Assessment Cap—Non-FBOs, 1 hour and FBOs, 1.5 hours, and Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity, 1 hour. Estimated annual burden hours: De Minimis Cap: Non-FBOs, 893 hours and 57 Institutions use these two resolutions to establish a capacity for daylight overdrafts above the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of the institution’s capital measure. Financially healthy U.S. chartered institutions that rarely incur daylight overdrafts in excess of the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of the institution’s capital measure do not need to file board of directors’ resolutions or self-assessments with their Reserve Bank. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 FBOs, 27 hours; Self-Assessment Cap: Non-FBOs, 106 hours and FBOs, 13.5 hours; and Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity, 2 hours. VI. Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk Revisions to Section II.D of the PSR Policy Section II.D of the PSR policy is revised as follows: D. Net debit caps * * * * * 2. Cap Categories * * * * * a. Self-Assessed In order to establish a net debit cap category of high, above average, or average, an institution must perform a self-assessment of its own creditworthiness, intraday funds management and control, customer credit policies and controls, and operating controls and contingency procedures.61 For domestic institutions, the assessment of creditworthiness is based on the institution’s supervisory rating and Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) designation.62 For U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the assessment of creditworthiness is based on the institution’s supervisory rating and its FBO PSR capital category.63 An 61 This assessment should be done on an individual-institution basis, treating as separate entities each commercial bank, each Edge corporation (and its branches), each thrift institution, and so on. An exception is made in the case of U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs. Because these entities have no existence separate from the FBO, all the U.S. offices of FBOs (excluding U.S.-chartered bank subsidiaries and U.S.-chartered Edge subsidiaries) should be treated as a consolidated family relying on the FBO’s capital. 62 An insured depository institution is (1) ‘‘well capitalized’’ if it significantly exceeds the required minimum level for each relevant capital measure, (2) ‘‘adequately capitalized’’ if it meets the required minimum level for each relevant capital measure, (3) ‘‘undercapitalized’’ if it fails to meet the required minimum level for any relevant capital measure, (4) ‘‘significantly undercapitalized’’ if it is significantly below the required minimum level for any relevant capital measure, or (5) ‘‘critically undercapitalized’’ if it fails to meet any leverage limit (the ratio of tangible equity to total assets) specified by the appropriate federal banking agency, in consultation with the FDIC, or any other relevant capital measure established by the agency to determine when an institution is critically undercapitalized (12 U.S.C. 1831o). 63 The four FBO PSR capital categories for FBOs are ‘‘highly capitalized,’’ ‘‘sufficiently capitalized,’’ ‘‘undercapitalized,’’ and ‘‘intraday credit ineligible.’’ To determine whether it is highly PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 institution may perform a full assessment of its creditworthiness in certain limited circumstances—for example, if its condition has changed significantly since its last examination or if it possesses additional substantive information regarding its financial condition. Additionally, U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs based in jurisdictions that have not implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision are required to perform a full assessment of creditworthiness to determine their ratings for the creditworthiness component. An institution performing a self-assessment must also evaluate its intraday fundsmanagement procedures and its procedures for evaluating the financial condition of and establishing intraday credit limits for its customers. Finally, the institution must evaluate its operating controls and contingency procedures to determine if they are sufficient to prevent losses due to fraud or system failures. The Guide includes a detailed explanation of the selfassessment process. * * * * * * * * b. De Minimis Many institutions incur relatively small overdrafts and thus pose little risk to the Federal Reserve. To ease the burden on these small overdrafters of engaging in the self-assessment process and to ease the burden on the Federal Reserve of administering caps, the Board allows institutions that meet reasonable safety and soundness standards to incur de minimis amounts of daylight overdrafts without performing a self-assessment.67 An capitalized or sufficiently capitalized, an FBO should compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding ratios in Regulation H for wellcapitalized and adequately capitalized banks. 12 CFR 208.43(b). Additionally, an FBO must have a leverage ratio of 4 percent or 3 percent (calculated under home-country standards) to qualify as, respectively, highly capitalized or sufficiently capitalized. To determine whether it is undercapitalized, an FBO would compare its riskbased capital ratios to the corresponding ratios in Regulation H. Additionally, an FBO would be deemed undercapitalized if its home-country leverage ratio is less than 3 percent. Finally, to determine whether it is intraday credit ineligible, an FBO should compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding ratios in Regulation H for significantly undercapitalized banks. Additionally, an FBO would be deemed intraday credit ineligible if its home-country leverage ratio is less than 2 percent. 67 U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have not implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision are required to perform a full assessment of creditworthiness to determine whether they meet reasonable safety and soundness E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations institution may incur daylight overdrafts of up to 40 percent of its capital measure if the institution submits a board of directors resolution. * * * * * * * * c. Exempt-From-Filing Institutions that only rarely incur daylight overdrafts in their Federal Reserve accounts that exceed the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of their capital measure are excused from performing self-assessments and filing board of directors resolutions with their Reserve Banks.68 This dual test of dollar amount and percent of capital measure is designed to limit the filing exemption to institutions that create only lowdollar risks to the Reserve Banks and that incur small overdrafts relative to their capital measure. * * * * * * * * 3. Capital Measure * * * * * b. U.S. Branches and Agencies for Foreign Banks For U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, net debit caps on daylight overdrafts in Federal Reserve accounts are calculated by applying the cap multiples for each cap category to the FBO’s U.S. capital equivalency measure.69 U.S. capital equivalency is equal to 10 percent of worldwide capital for FBOs.70 standards. These FBOs must submit an assessment of creditworthiness with their board of directors resolution requesting a de minimis cap category. U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision are not required to complete an assessment of creditworthiness, but Reserve Banks will assess such an FBO’s creditworthiness based on the FBO’s supervisory rating and its FBO PSR capital category. 68 The Reserve Bank may require U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have not implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to perform a full assessment of creditworthiness to determine whether the FBO meets reasonable safety and soundness standards. U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision will not be required to complete an assessment of creditworthiness, but Reserve Banks will assess such an FBO’s creditworthiness based on the FBO’s supervisory rating and the FBO PSR capital category. 69 The term ‘‘U.S. capital equivalency’’ is used in this context to refer the particular measure calculate net debit caps and does not necessarily represent an appropriate for supervisory or other purposes. 70 FBOs that wish to establish a non-zero net debit cap must report their worldwide capital on the Annual Daylight Overdraft Capital Report for U.S. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:56 Mar 29, 2019 Jkt 247001 An FBO that is highly capitalized 71 may be eligible for a streamlined procedure (see section II.E.) for obtaining additional collateralized intraday credit under the maximum daylight overdraft capacity provision. * * * * * Revisions to Section II.E of the PSR Policy The Board will revise Section II.E of the PSR policy as follows: E. Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity * * * * * 1. General Procedure An institution with a self-assessed net debit cap that wishes to expand its daylight overdraft capacity by pledging collateral should consult with its administrative Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank will work with an institution that requests additional daylight overdraft capacity to determine the appropriate maximum daylight overdraft capacity level. In considering the institution’s request, the Reserve Bank will evaluate the institution’s rationale for requesting additional daylight overdraft capacity as well as its financial and supervisory information. The financial and supervisory information considered may include, but is not limited to, capital and liquidity ratios, the composition of balance sheet assets, and CAMELS or other supervisory ratings and assessments. An institution approved for a maximum daylight overdraft capacity level must submit at least once in each twelve-month period a board of directors resolution indicating its board’s approval of that level. * * * * * * * * 2. Streamlined Procedure for Certain FBOs An FBO that is highly capitalized 75 and has a self-assessed net debit cap may request from its Reserve Bank a streamlined procedure to obtain a maximum daylight overdraft capacity. These FBOs are not required to provide documentation of the business need or obtain the board of directors’ resolution for collateralized capacity in an amount that exceeds its current net debit cap (which is based on 10 percent worldwide capital times its cap multiple), as long as the requested total Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 2225). The instructions for FR explain how FBOs should calculate their worldwide capital. See https:// www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/ reportdetail.aspx?sOoYJ+5BzDZ1kLYTc+ZpEQ==. 71 See n. 63, supra. 75 See n. 63, supra. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 12059 capacity is 100 percent or less of worldwide capital times a self-assessed cap multiple.76 In order to ensure that intraday liquidity risk is managed appropriately and that the FBO will be able to repay daylight overdrafts, eligible FBOs under the streamlined procedure will be subject to initial and periodic reviews of liquidity plans that are analogous to the liquidity reviews undergone by U.S. institutions.77 If an eligible FBO requests capacity in excess of 100 percent of worldwide capital times the self-assessed cap multiple, it would be subject to the general procedure. * * * * * By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 26, 2019. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2019–06063 Filed 3–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 107, 120, 142, and 146 RIN 3245–AH03 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending its regulations to adjust for inflation the amount of certain civil monetary penalties that are within the jurisdiction of the agency. These adjustments comply with the requirement in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, to make annual adjustments to the penalties. The rule also makes a technical amendment to ensure that a reference to the penalty amount imposed on SBA Supervised Lenders for failure to file reports is consistent with current and future adjustments. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective April 1, 2019. SUMMARY: 76 For example, an FBO that is well capitalized is eligible for uncollateralized capacity of 10 percent of worldwide capital times the cap multiple. The streamlined max cap procedure would provide such an institution with additional collateralized capacity of 90 percent of worldwide capital times the cap multiple. As noted above, FBOs report their worldwide capital on the Annual Daylight Overdraft Capital Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 2225). 77 The liquidity reviews will be conducted by the administrative Reserve Bank, in consultation with each FBO’s home country supervisor. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12049-12059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06063]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Chapter II

[Docket No. OP-1589]


Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk; U.S. Branches and 
Agencies of Foreign Banking Organizations

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(``Board'') has approved changes to part II of the

[[Page 12050]]

Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk (``PSR policy'') related 
to procedures for determining the net debit cap and maximum daylight 
overdraft capacity of a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign banking 
organization (``FBO''). The changes remove references to the Strength 
of Support Assessment (``SOSA'') ranking; remove references to FBOs' 
financial holding company (``FHC'') status; and adopt alternative 
methods for determining an FBO's eligibility for a positive net debit 
cap, the size of its net debit cap, and its eligibility to request a 
streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft capacity.

DATES: The changes are effective April 1, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Walker, Deputy Associate 
Director (202-721-4559); Jason Hinkle, Manager (202-912-7805); Alex So, 
Senior Financial Institution and Policy Analyst (202-452-2230); Brajan 
Kola, Senior Financial Institution and Policy Analyst (202-736-5683), 
Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; or Evan 
Winerman, Senior Counsel (202-872-7578), Legal Division, Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For users of 
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, please call 202-263-
4869.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On December 14, 2017, the Board requested comment on potential 
changes to Part II of the PSR policy, which establishes the maximum 
levels of daylight overdrafts that depository institutions 
(``institutions'') may incur in their Federal Reserve accounts.\1\ 
Under Part II of the PSR policy, an FBO's SOSA ranking--which assesses 
an FBO's ability to provide financial, liquidity, and management 
support to its U.S. operations--can affect an FBO's daylight overdraft 
capacity. Similarly, an FBO's status as an FHC can affect its daylight 
overdraft capacity. As described further below, the Board proposed to 
(1) remove references in the PSR policy to SOSA rankings and FHC status 
and (2) adopt alternative methods for determining an FBO's daylight 
overdraft capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 82 FR 58764 (Dec. 14, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Current Use of SOSA Ranking and FHC Status in the PSR Policy

1. Net Debit Caps
    An institution's net debit cap is the maximum value of 
uncollateralized daylight overdrafts that the institution can incur in 
its Federal Reserve account. The PSR policy generally requires that an 
institution be ``financially healthy'' to be eligible for a positive 
net debit cap.\2\ To that end, the Guide to the Federal Reserve's 
Payment System Risk Policy (``Guide'') \3\ clarifies that most FBOs 
with a SOSA ranking of 3 or a U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite 
Rating of marginal or unsatisfactory do not qualify for a positive net 
debit cap.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Part II.D.1 of the PSR policy.
    \3\ The Guide to the Federal Reserve's Payment System Risk 
Policy (the Guide) contains detailed information on the steps 
necessary for institutions to comply with the Federal Reserve's 
intraday credit policies.
    \4\ Section VI.A.1 of the Guide states that most SOSA 3-ranked 
institutions do not qualify for a positive net debit cap, though it 
clarifies that ``[i]n limited circumstances, a Reserve Bank may 
grant a net debit cap or extend intraday credit to a financially 
healthy SOSA 3-ranked FBO.'' Separately, Table VII-2 of the Guide 
states that SOSA 3-ranked FBOs and FBOs that receive a U.S. 
Operations Supervisory Composite Rating of marginal or 
unsatisfactory have ``below standard'' creditworthiness, and Table 
VII-3 of the Guide states that institutions with below standard 
creditworthiness cannot incur daylight overdrafts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming that an institution qualifies for a positive net debit 
cap, the size of its net debit cap equals the institution's ``capital 
measure'' multiplied by its ``cap multiple.'' \5\ As described further 
below, an institution's capital measure is a number derived (under most 
circumstances) from the size of its capital base. An institution's cap 
multiple is determined by the institution's ``cap category,'' which 
generally reflects, among other things, the institution's financial 
condition. An institution with a higher capital measure or a higher cap 
category (and thus a higher cap multiple) will qualify for a higher net 
debit cap than an institution with a lower capital measure or lower cap 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Part II.D.1 of the PSR policy. All net debit caps are 
granted at the discretion of the institution's administrative 
Reserve Bank, which is the Reserve Bank that is responsible for 
managing an institution's account relationship with the Federal 
Reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An FBO's SOSA ranking can affect both its cap category and its 
capital measure. An FBO's status as an FHC can affect its capital 
measure.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In contrast, the FHC status of a domestic bank holding 
company does not affect its capital measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Cap Categories and Cap Multiples
    Under Section II.D.2 of the PSR policy, an institution's ``cap 
category'' is one of six classifications--high, above average, average, 
de minimis, exempt-from-filing, and zero. In order to establish a cap 
category of high, above average, or average, an institution must 
perform a self-assessment of its own creditworthiness, intraday funds 
management and control, customer credit policies and controls, and 
operating controls and contingency procedures. Other cap categories do 
not require a self-assessment.\7\ Each cap category corresponds to a 
``cap multiple.'' \8\ As noted above, an institution's net debit cap 
generally equals its capital measure multiplied by its cap multiple.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An institution that meets reasonable safety and soundness 
standards can request a de minimis cap category, without performing 
a self-assessment, by submitting a board of directors resolution to 
its administrative Reserve Bank. An institution that only rarely 
incurs daylight overdrafts in its Federal Reserve account that 
exceed the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of its capital 
measure can be assigned an ``exempt-from-filing'' cap category 
without performing a self-assessment or filing a board of directors 
resolution with its administrative Reserve Bank.
    \8\ Under Section II.D.1 of the PSR policy, the cap multiple for 
the ``high'' category is 2.25, for the ``above average'' category is 
1.875, for the ``average'' category is 1.125, for the ``de minimis'' 
category is 0.4, for the ``exempt-from-filing'' category is 0.2 or 
$10 million, and for the ``zero'' category is 0. Note that the net 
debit cap for the exempt-from-filing category is equal to the lesser 
of $10 million or 0.2 multiplied by the capital measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An FBO's SOSA ranking can affect its cap category (and thus its cap 
multiple). As noted above, an institution that wishes to establish a 
net debit cap category of high, above average, or average must perform 
a self-assessment of, among other things, its own creditworthiness. 
Under Part II.D.2.a of the PSR policy, ``[t]he assessment of 
creditworthiness is based on the institution's supervisory rating and 
Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) designation.'' Part VII.A of the Guide 
includes a matrix for assessing domestic institutions' creditworthiness 
that incorporates an institution's supervisory rating and PCA 
designation. Because FBOs do not receive PCA designations, however, 
Part VII.A of the Guide includes a separate matrix for assessing FBO 
creditworthiness that incorporates an FBO's U.S. Operations Supervisory 
Composite Rating and--in lieu of a PCA designation--SOSA ranking.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 
U.S.C. 1831o, PCA designations apply only to insured depository 
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, while an FBO is not required to perform a self-
assessment if it requests a cap category of de minimis or wishes to be 
assigned a cap category of exempt-from-filing by the Reserve Bank, the 
Reserve Banks rely on the minimum standards set by the creditworthiness 
matrix when they evaluate FBO requests for any cap category greater 
than zero. Accordingly, the Reserve Banks generally do not allow FBOs 
to qualify for a positive net debit cap, including the de minimis or 
exempt-from-filing cap category, if the FBO has a SOSA ranking of 3 or 
a U.S.

[[Page 12051]]

Operations Supervisory Composite Rating of marginal or unsatisfactory.
    In certain situations, the Reserve Banks require institutions to 
perform a full assessment of their creditworthiness instead of using 
the relevant self-assessment matrix (e.g., when an institution has 
experienced a significant development that may materially affect its 
financial condition). The Guide includes procedures for full 
assessments of creditworthiness.
(b) Capital Measures
    Under Section II.D.3 of the PSR policy, an institution's ``capital 
measure'' is a number derived (under most circumstances) from the size 
of its capital base. The determination of the capital measure, however, 
differs between domestic institutions and FBOs. A domestic 
institution's capital measure equals 100 percent of the institution's 
risk-based capital. Conversely, an FBO's capital measure (also called 
``U.S. capital equivalency'') \10\ equals a percentage of (under most 
circumstances) the FBO's worldwide capital base \11\ ranging from 5 
percent to 35 percent, with the exact percentage depending on (1) the 
FBO's SOSA ranking and (2) whether the FBO is an FHC. Specifically, the 
capital measure of an FBO that is an FHC is 35 percent of its capital; 
an FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 1 is 25 percent of 
its capital; and an FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 2 
is 10 percent of its capital. The capital measure of an FBO that is not 
an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 3 equals 5 percent of its ``net due to 
related depository institutions'' (although, as noted above, FBOs with 
a SOSA ranking of 3 generally do not qualify for a positive net debit 
cap).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``U.S. capital equivalency'' is used in this 
context to refer to the particular capital measure used to calculate 
net debit caps and does not necessarily represent an appropriate 
capital measure for supervisory or other purposes.
    \11\ FBOs that wish to establish a non-zero net debit cap must 
report their worldwide capital on the Annual Daylight Overdraft 
Capital Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 
2225). The instructions for FR 2225 explain how FBOs should 
calculate their worldwide capital. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/reportdetail.aspx?sOoYJ+5BzDZ1kLYTc+ZpEQ==.
    \12\ An FBO reports its ``net due to related depository 
institutions'' on the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. 
Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity
    Section II.E of the PSR policy allows certain institutions with 
self-assessed net debit caps to pledge collateral to their 
administrative Reserve Bank to secure daylight overdraft capacity in 
excess of their net debit caps. An institution's maximum daylight 
overdraft capacity (``max cap'') equals its net debit cap plus its 
additional collateralized capacity. Section II.E of the PSR policy 
states that max caps are ``intended to provide extra liquidity through 
the pledge of collateral by the few institutions that might otherwise 
be constrained from participating in risk-reducing payment system 
initiatives.''
    Institutions that wish to obtain a max cap must generally provide 
(1) documentation of the business need for collateralized capacity and 
(2) an annual board of directors' resolution approving any 
collateralized capacity. Under Section II.E.2 of the PSR policy, 
however, an FBO that has a SOSA ranking of 1 or is an FHC may request a 
streamlined procedure for obtaining a max cap.\13\ Such an FBO is not 
required to document its business need for collateralized capacity, nor 
is it required to obtain a board of directors' resolution approving 
collateralized capacity, as long as the FBO requests a max cap that is 
100 percent or less of the FBO's worldwide capital multiplied by its 
self-assessed cap multiple.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Even under the streamlined procedure, the administrative 
Reserve Bank retains the right to assess an FBO's financial and 
supervisory information, including the FBO's ability to manage 
intraday credit.
    \14\ As described above, for example, the capital measure of an 
FBO that is not an FHC and has a SOSA ranking of 1 is currently 25 
percent of worldwide capital. The net debit cap of such an FBO 
equals its capital measure times the cap multiple that corresponds 
to its cap category. The streamlined max cap procedure therefore 
allows the FBO to request additional collateralized capacity of 75 
percent of worldwide capital times its cap multiple. If the FBO 
requests a max cap in excess of 100 percent of worldwide capital 
times its cap multiple, the FBO would be ineligible for the 
streamlined max cap procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes

    The Board proposed to remove references to the SOSA ranking in the 
PSR policy. The SOSA ranking was originally established for supervisory 
purposes, but Federal Reserve supervisory staff now have more timely 
access to information regarding FBO parent banks, home-country 
accounting practices and financial systems, and international 
supervisory and regulatory developments.\15\ The Federal Reserve 
currently uses SOSA rankings only in setting guidelines related to FBO 
access to Reserve Bank intraday credit and the discount window.\16\ The 
Board explained in the proposal that providing SOSA rankings for these 
purposes is an inefficient use of the Federal Reserve's supervisory 
resources. The Board proposed that the Federal Reserve would continue 
to provide SOSA rankings until the Board removes references to SOSA 
rankings in the PSR policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See SR 17-13 (Dec. 7, 2017) https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1713.pdf (explaining why the Board 
intends to eliminate the SOSA ranking).
    \16\ In addition to the PSR policy's use of SOSA rankings, the 
Reserve Banks use SOSA rankings to determine whether an FBO can 
receive discount window loans. See https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/en/Pages/General-Information/The-Discount-Window.aspx. The Reserve Banks will adjust their standards for 
determining FBO access to primary credit before the SOSA ranking is 
discontinued on January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also proposed to remove references to FBOs' FHC status in 
the PSR policy. The Board explained in the proposal that, when it 
incorporated FHC status into the PSR policy, it believed that an FBO's 
status as an FHC indicated that the FBO was financially and 
managerially strong. The Board further explained that it now recognizes 
the limitations of FHC status in measuring an FBO's health--in 
particular, FBOs can maintain nominal FHC status (though with reduced 
ability to use their FHC powers) even when they are out of compliance 
with the requirement that they remain well capitalized. Accordingly, 
the Board explained that it no longer believes an FBO's status as an 
FHC should increase the FBO's capital measure or allow the FBO to 
request a streamlined procedure to obtain a max cap.
    The Board proposed alternative methods for determining an FBO's 
eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit 
cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain a 
max cap. The Board requested comment on all aspects of the proposal, 
including whether FBOs would require a transition period to adjust to 
the proposed changes.
1. Net Debit Cap Eligibility
    The Board proposed that many undercapitalized FBOs, and all 
significantly or critically undercapitalized FBOs, would have ``below 
standard'' creditworthiness and on that basis would generally be 
ineligible for a positive net debit cap. To assess whether it is 
undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically 
undercapitalized, an FBO would compare the Regulation H ratios for 
total risk-based capital, tier 1 risk-based capital, common equity tier 
1 risk-based capital, and leverage to the equivalent ratios that the 
FBO has calculated under its home-country standards or on a pro forma 
basis. Currently, SOSA-3 ranked institutions have ``below standard'' 
creditworthiness

[[Page 12052]]

and are generally ineligible for a positive net debit cap.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See n. 4, supra. The PSR policy and the Guide would 
continue to provide that FBOs that have U.S. Operations Supervisory 
Composite Ratings of ``marginal'' or ``unsatisfactory'' have ``below 
standard'' creditworthiness and are generally ineligible for a 
positive net debit cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Creditworthiness Self-Assessment
    The Board proposed that an FBO's creditworthiness self-assessment 
would generally be based on the FBO's U.S. Operations Supervisory 
Composite Rating and (in lieu of the FBO's SOSA ranking) the PCA 
designation that would apply to the FBO if it were subject to the 
Board's Regulation H (an ``equivalent PCA designation'').\18\ The Board 
noted that replacing the SOSA ranking with an equivalent PCA 
designation would align the creditworthiness self-assessment for FBOs 
with the existing creditworthiness self-assessment for domestic 
institutions, which is based on an institution's PCA designation and 
supervisory rating. The Board proposed to implement this change by 
incorporating FBO creditworthiness self-assessments into the Guide's 
existing matrix for assessing domestic institutions' 
creditworthiness.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 12 CFR 208.43(b).
    \19\ See Table VII-1 of the Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board proposed that an FBO that is not based in a country that 
has implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those 
established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision \20\ (a 
``Basel jurisdiction'') would be required to perform a full assessment 
of its creditworthiness instead of using the matrix approach to 
assessing creditworthiness.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The proposal referred in a number of places to 
jurisdictions that adhere to the Basel Capital Accords (BCA)'' or 
``adhere to BCA-based standards, while the amendments adopted in 
this Federal Register notice instead refer to jurisdictions that 
have implemented capital standards substantially consistent with 
those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The 
Board does not intend for this change to have any substantive 
effect.
    \21\ The requirement to perform a full assessment of 
creditworthiness would apply to FBOs based in non-Basel 
jurisdictions that request any net debit cap greater than the 
exempt-from-filing category, including FBOs that request a de 
minimis cap category. Additionally, a Reserve Bank could request 
that an FBO based in a non-Basel jurisdiction perform a full 
assessment of creditworthiness before assigning the FBO an exempt-
from-filing cap category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Capital Measures
    The Board proposed that the capital measure of an FBO would equal 
10 percent of its worldwide capital, in lieu of the current tiered 
system in which an FBO's capital measure depends on its SOSA ranking 
and FHC status. The Board explained in the proposal that it believed it 
was unnecessary to replace the SOSA ranking with an alternative 
supervisory rating in the capital measure calculation, noting that (1) 
including a point-in-time supervisory rating such as SOSA is less 
important than in the past because the Reserve Banks now receive, on an 
ongoing basis, better supervisory information regarding FBOs and (2) 
other elements of the net debit cap calculation already consider an 
FBO's supervisory ratings and overall financial condition.
4. Max Caps
    The Board proposed that an FBO that is well capitalized could 
request the streamlined procedure for obtaining a max cap. Currently, 
the PSR policy allows SOSA-1 ranked FBOs and FBOs that are FHCs to 
request the streamlined procedure. The Board explained in the proposal 
that it believed it would not be appropriate to substitute another 
supervisory rating for the SOSA-1 ranking in determining FBO 
eligibility for the streamlined max cap procedure, because non-SOSA 
supervisory ratings focus only on the U.S. operations of FBOs.

II. Discussion of Public Comments

    The Board received one responsive comment, from an association of 
international banks. The commenter did not object to removing 
references to the SOSA rankings and FHC status from the PSR policy, nor 
did the commenter object to incorporating equivalent PCA designations 
into the PSR policy. The commenter believed, however, that the Board 
should not implement these changes in a manner that reduces FBOs' 
current net debit caps. The commenter also argued that, when an FBO 
determines its equivalent PCA designation, the FBO should be able to 
rely on home-country standards for the leverage measure component of 
that determination. Finally, the commenter requested that the Board 
delay the effective date of the proposed changes by at least 12 months 
from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    For the reasons set forth below, the Board has adopted the changes 
substantially as proposed. However, the Board has (1) replaced the term 
``equivalent PCA designation'' with ``FBO PSR capital category'' and 
(2) clarified the manner in which an FBO will determine its FBO PSR 
capital category.
    The changes will be effective on April 1, 2020.

A. Reductions in FBO Capital Measures/Net Debit Caps

    The commenter raised a number of concerns regarding the Board's 
proposal to set the capital measure of all FBOs at 10 percent of an 
FBO's worldwide capital.
1. Effects on U.S.-Dollar Clearing Activities of FBOs
    The commenter argued that the proposal to set the capital measures 
of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO's worldwide capital would reduce 
FBOs' net debit caps and would negatively affect FBOs' U.S.-dollar 
clearing activity. The commenter suggested that the Board may have 
underestimated the proposal's effects on FBOs by assuming that payment 
levels from 2003 to 2007 would be predictive of future payment levels 
and that reserve levels will revert to those from 2003 to 2007, stating 
that ``if events prove contrary to the [Board's] assumption the results 
could significantly alter the analysis and related policy 
conclusions.'' The commenter further suggested that lower net debit 
caps might cause an FBO to ``throttle'' payments during the day (i.e., 
restrict and delay funds transfers until sufficient funds are 
available) to ensure that it stays within its net debit cap, which 
would diminish liquidity. Finally, the commenter argued that relying on 
collateral to cover intraday exposure to a Reserve Bank would be costly 
to an FBO and might result in (1) increased transaction costs to 
customers and (2) an increase in ``systemic operational risk'' in the 
event of constraints on the availability of ``sufficiently high-quality 
liquid assets.''
    The Board has evaluated FBOs' intraday credit usage under a wide 
range of scenarios, including the current high reserves environment 
(2015-present), an extreme stress environment (2007-2009), and a low 
reserves environment (2003-2007). The Board's analysis indicates that 
most FBOs would retain sufficient daylight overdraft capacity even when 
reserves are low and liquidity pressures are high. For example, during 
the 2007-09 financial crisis, when the use of intraday credit spiked 
amid the market turmoil near the end of 2008, 51 of 58 FBOs with a 
positive net debit cap used overdraft capacity, the highest average cap 
utilization was 65 percent, and only 7 FBOs had an average cap 
utilization greater than 25 percent.\22\ During the same period, 1 of 
27 FBOs that currently maintain a cap category higher than

[[Page 12053]]

exempt-from-filing \23\ regularly incurred daylight overdrafts that 
would have exceeded its projected net debit cap under the single-rate 
capital measure calculation that the Board is adopting, 7 of 27 
incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected 
net debit caps in limited instances, and 19 of 27 never incurred 
daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected caps.\24\ 
Accordingly, the Board believes that the projected net debit caps would 
have provided most FBOs with sufficient capacity during the financial 
crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In this context, average cap utilization equals an 
institution's average daily peak daylight overdraft divided by the 
FBO's net debit cap.
    \23\ Most FBOs with a cap category of exempt-from-filing receive 
the maximum net debit cap of $10 million and would not be affected 
by the changes to the FBO capital measure calculation that the Board 
is adopting in the notice.
    \24\ In this context, ``regularly incurred daylight overdrafts 
that would have exceeded its projected net debit cap'' means that an 
FBO's daylight overdrafts would have exceeded its projected net 
debit cap, on average, more than once per two-week reserve 
maintenance period (``RMP'') over the period; ``limited instances'' 
means that an FBO's daylight overdrafts would have exceeded its 
projected net debit cap, on average, less than once per every six 
two-week RMPs over the period. Data current as of Q4 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, between 2003 and 2007, when FBOs generally maintained 
lower reserves, 51 of 57 FBOs with a positive net debit cap used 
overdraft capacity, the highest average cap utilization was 44 percent, 
and only 7 FBOs had an average cap utilization greater than 25 percent. 
During the same period, 2 of 27 FBOs that currently maintain a cap 
category higher than exempt-from-filing regularly incurred daylight 
overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected net debit caps 
under the single-rate capital measure calculation that the Board is 
adopting, 5 of 27 incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded 
their projected net debit caps in limited instances, and 20 of 27 never 
incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their projected 
caps.\25\ Accordingly, the Board believes that the projected net debit 
caps would have provided most FBOs with sufficient capacity during the 
low reserves environment from 2003-2007.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Data current as of Q4 2018.
    \26\ The projected net debit caps under the single-rate capital 
measure calculation that the Board is adopting would also provide 
FBOs with sufficient capacity in the current high-reserves 
environment. Since 2015, none of the 27 FBOs that currently maintain 
a cap category higher than exempt-from-filing have regularly 
incurred daylight overdrafts that would have exceeded their 
projected net debit caps, 1 of 27 incurred daylight overdrafts that 
would have exceeded its projected net debit caps in limited 
instances, and 26 of 27 never incurred daylight overdrafts that 
would have exceeded their projected caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board recognizes that setting the capital measures of all FBOs 
at 10 percent of an FBO's worldwide capital may increase the instances 
in which FBOs need additional daylight overdraft capacity, but the 
Board believes that FBOs' projected net debit caps would be better 
tailored to their actual usage of intraday credit. Additionally, as the 
Board noted in the proposal, an FBO with a de minimis cap could also 
request a higher net debit cap by applying for a self-assessed cap.\27\ 
Similarly, an FBO with a self-assessed cap could apply for a max cap in 
order to obtain additional collateralized capacity. While the Board 
recognizes that relying on collateralized overdrafts might be more 
operationally complex for FBOs than relying on uncollateralized 
overdrafts, the Board notes that the Reserve Banks allow accountholders 
to post a wide array of collateral of varying degrees of liquidity, 
including various types of loans.\28\ Importantly, the Board also notes 
that relying on collateralized intraday credit would reduce the credit 
risk that the Reserve Banks incur when they provide intraday credit to 
FBOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As noted above, most FBOs with a cap category of exempt-
from-filing receive the maximum net debit cap of $10 million and 
would not be affected by the changes to the FBO capital measure 
calculation that the Board is adopting in this notice.
    \28\ See the Federal Reserve's Discount Window Margins and 
Collateral Guidelines, https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/en/Pages/Collateral/Discount%20Window%20Margins%20and%20Collateral%20Guidelines.aspx. 
These margin and collateral guidelines apply to discount window 
loans and intraday credit under the PSR policy. Currently, more than 
half of the collateral posted at the Reserve Banks are loans, none 
of which would qualify as high-quality liquid assets for purposes of 
the Federal banking regulators' rules establishing a liquidity 
coverage ratio for banking organizations. See, e.g., 12 CFR 249.20 
(Board regulation establishing high-quality liquid asset criteria).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. National Treatment Considerations
    The commenter further argued that the proposal to set the capital 
measures of all FBOs at 10 percent of an FBO's worldwide capital is 
inconsistent with the principle of national treatment. Under the 
principle of national treatment, FBOs operating in the United States 
should be, generally, treated no less favorably than similarly situated 
U.S. banking organizations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., International Banking Act of 1978, Public Law 
95-369, 12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq; S. Rep. No. 95-1073 (Aug. 8, 1978) 
(legislative history of the International Banking Act of 1978); 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, Public Law 106-102, section 141, 12 
U.S.C. 3106(c); Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111-203, section 
165(b)(2), 12 U.S.C. 5365(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argued that because a U.S. branch is an office of a 
foreign bank, it can draw on the global resources of the foreign bank 
to support its liabilities, including intraday credit that it receives 
from a Reserve Bank. As described in the proposal, however, FBOs that 
incur daylight overdrafts present special legal risks to the Reserve 
Banks because of differences in insolvency laws in the various FBOs' 
home countries. In particular, the proposal quoted a 2001 Federal 
Register notice in which the Board explained that insolvent FBOs posed 
a heightened risk to the Reserve Banks because ``[t]he insolvent 
party's national law . . . may permit the liquidator to subordinate 
other parties' claims (such as by permitting the home country tax 
authorities to have first priority in bankruptcy), may reclassify or 
impose a stay on the right the nondefaulting party has to collateral 
pledged by the defaulting party in support of a particular transaction, 
or may require a separate proceeding to be initiated against the head 
office in addition to any proceeding against the branch.'' \30\ The 
2001 Federal Register notice further stated that ``[i]t is not 
practicable for the Federal Reserve to undertake and keep current 
extensive analysis of the legal risks presented by the insolvency 
law(s) applicable to each FBO with a Federal Reserve account in order 
to quantify precisely the legal risk that the Federal Reserve incurs by 
providing intraday credit to that institution. It is reasonable, 
however, for the Federal Reserve to recognize that FBOs generally 
present additional legal risks to the payments system and, accordingly, 
limit its exposure to these institutions.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 82 FR at 58769 (quoting 66 FR 30205, 30206 (Aug. 6, 2001)).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board continues to believe that FBOs may pose heightened risks 
to the Reserve Banks relative to domestic institutions, and that it is 
reasonable to calculate an FBO's capital measure as a fraction of its 
worldwide capital, notwithstanding that the capital measure of a 
domestic institution generally equals 100 percent of the institution's 
risk-based capital. The Board also notes that, although Federal Reserve 
supervisors have gained access to new internal and external resources 
since 2002 (when the Board adopted the current capital measure 
calculation) that allow the Federal Reserve to better monitor FBOs on 
an ongoing basis, the Board's authority over FBOs generally extends 
only to FBOs' U.S. operations. As a result, Federal Reserve supervisors 
have less insight into the financial health of FBOs compared to 
domestic bank holding companies, for which the Board serves as the 
global supervisory authority. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the 
Board believes that FBOs'

[[Page 12054]]

projected net debit caps would be well tailored to FBOs' actual usage 
of intraday credit and would not constrain most FBOs' U.S. operations 
under a wide range of scenarios.
    The Board further notes that, as discussed in the proposal, FBO net 
debit caps are currently large when compared to the net debit caps of 
peer domestic institutions. For example, the average net debit cap of 
an FBO with between $1 billion and $10 billion in U.S.-based assets is 
$3.9 billion, while the average net debit cap of a domestic institution 
with between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets is $209 million; the 
average net debit cap of an FBO with between $10 billion and $50 
billion in U.S.-based assets is $7.7 billion, while the average net 
debit cap of a domestic institution with between $10 billion and $50 
billion in assets is $1.4 billion; and the average net debit cap of an 
FBO with between $50 billion and $150 billion in U.S.-based assets is 
$24.5 billion, while the average net debit cap of a domestic 
institution with between $50 billion and $150 billion in assets is 
$11.3 billion.\32\ After the changes adopted in this Federal Register 
notice take effect, the average net debit cap of an FBO with between $1 
billion and $10 billion would be $1.4 billion, the average net debit 
cap of an FBO with between $10 billion and $50 billion in U.S.-based 
assets would be $2.8 billion, and the average net debit cap of an FBO 
with between $50 billion and $150 billion in U.S.-based assets would be 
$7.7 billion.\33\ As discussed above, the Board's analysis indicates 
that these projected net debit caps would provide most FBOs with 
sufficient daylight overdraft capacity even when reserves are low and 
liquidity pressures are high.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Board excluded institutions with a cap category of 
exempt-from-filing from these comparisons because these institutions 
are limited to a $10 million net debit cap. No FBO currently has 
U.S.-based assets above $150 billion. Data current as of Q4 2018.
    \33\ The Board recognizes that, based on certain FBOs' business 
models, the volume and value of payments flowing through an FBO with 
a particular level of U.S.-based assets may be higher than that of a 
domestic institution with a similar level of assets.
    \34\ As the Board further explained above, certain FBOs may 
request additional daylight overdraft capacity by applying for a 
self-assessed cap and/or a max cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Concerns About Reducing FBO Net Debit Caps
    The commenter raised a number of other concerns regarding the 
proposal to set the capital measures of all FBOs at 10 percent of an 
FBO's worldwide capital. The commenter argued that the proposal would 
effectively penalize those FBOs that, under the current, tiered system 
for determining FBO capital measures, ``are considered to present the 
lesser risk to the Federal Reserve.'' The Board notes that, even after 
the changes to the capital measure calculation take effect, FBOs that 
are more creditworthy will continue to be eligible for more daylight 
overdraft capacity than FBOs that are less creditworthy--specifically, 
an FBO's cap category will continue to be based, in part, on the FBO's 
creditworthiness, which (as described above) will be determined based 
on the FBO's U.S. Operations Supervisory Composite Rating and its FBO 
PSR capital category. The Board also emphasizes that the intent of this 
policy change is not to penalize FBOs or constrain FBOs' U.S. 
operations. Rather, the Board believes that FBOs may pose heightened 
risks to the Reserve Banks relative to domestic institutions, and that 
it is prudent to manage these risks by limiting FBOs' net debit caps to 
levels that are better tailored to FBOs' actual usage of intraday 
credit.
    The commenter also argued that the proposal does not consider the 
protections that the Reserve Banks receive under federal and state laws 
that ``ringfence'' FBO assets for the benefit of third-party creditors. 
Federal and state laws require that U.S. branches and agencies of 
foreign banks pledge assets in segregated accounts that are intended to 
benefit the creditors of such branches and agencies.\35\ Publicly 
reported data show that U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks 
generally pledge assets equal only to a small percentage of their 
liabilities in such segregated accounts.\36\ For example, only 2 of 44 
FBOs with a positive net debit cap have pledged sufficient assets to 
cover all of their liabilities to nonrelated parties, while 36 of these 
FBOs have pledged assets equal to less than 10 percent of their 
liabilities to nonrelated parties.\37\ Similarly, only 1 of 27 FBOs 
that currently maintain a cap category higher than exempt-from-filing 
\38\ has pledged sufficient assets to cover its net debit cap, 6 have 
pledged assets that would cover between 10 percent and 60 percent of 
their net debit caps, and 20 have pledged assets that would cover less 
than 10 percent of their net debit caps.\39\ Accordingly, if an FBO 
becomes insolvent during a period in which a Reserve Bank has extended 
intraday credit to that FBO, the pledged assets of the FBO's U.S. 
branches and agencies would very likely be insufficient to repay the 
Reserve Banks and other unsecured creditors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For example, an uninsured New York state-licensed branch is 
required to deposit an amount of high-quality assets in a segregated 
account that is pledged to the state to cover the cost of the 
branch's liquidation and to repay creditors. N.Y. Banking Law Sec.  
202-b(1); 3 NYCRR 51. The amount of the required deposit is the 
greater of (1) $2 million or (2) one percent of average total 
liabilities of the branch or agency for the previous month, subject 
to certain caps for well-rated foreign banking corporations. 3 NYCRR 
322.1. The New York Superintendent of Financial Services may also 
require a New York state branch to maintain additional assets 
relative to some percentage of liabilities if the Superintendent 
deems it necessary or desirable for the maintenance of a sound 
financial condition, the protection of depositors and the public 
interest, and to maintain public confidence in the branch. N.Y. 
Banking Law Sec.  202-b(1). See also 12 U.S.C. 3102(g); 12 CFR 28.15 
and 28.20.
    \36\ See Reporting Form FFIEC 002, ``Report of Assets and 
Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks,'' 
Schedule RAL, Items S.1 and S.2.
    \37\ Data current as of Q4 2018.
    \38\ The Board has excluded institutions with a cap category of 
exempt-from-filing from this analysis because such institutions' net 
debit caps are limited to a maximum of $10 million.
    \39\ Data current as of Q4 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board recognizes that, in some jurisdictions, a U.S. 
supervisory authority (or a receiver appointed by a U.S. supervisory 
authority) that liquidates a U.S. branch or agency of an insolvent 
foreign bank may take possession of all assets of the foreign bank--
including non-branch assets of the foreign bank--located in the 
jurisdiction of that supervisory authority.\40\ These provisions may 
expand the pool of assets available to repay the creditors of a U.S. 
branch or agency if the foreign bank maintains other assets in the 
United States (if the branch is federally licensed) or in the state in 
which the branch is located (if the branch is state-licensed). The 
Board notes, however, that it is uncertain whether available assets 
will be sufficient to repay creditors when a supervisory authority or 
receiver takes possession of such U.S. branches and agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 3102(j)(1); N.Y. Banking Law section 
606(4)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter argued that there is no compelling reason to 
reduce FBO net debit caps at this time. The commenter noted, in this 
regard, that the special legal risks that FBOs pose to the Reserve 
Banks have not changed since 2001, when the Board established the 
current method for calculating FBO capital measures. The commenter also 
noted that U.S. and foreign regulators have improved their supervision 
and regulation of foreign banks and their U.S. branches since 2001, 
suggesting that these efforts have enhanced foreign banks' resiliency 
and resolvability and should provide the Reserve Banks with more 
comfort that U.S. branches are creditworthy. The Board recognizes that

[[Page 12055]]

foreign banks (including U.S. branches of foreign banks) are--like 
U.S.-chartered institutions--subject to more robust oversight than they 
were in 2001.\41\ The Board also appreciates that intraday credit helps 
to facilitate payments by Reserve Bank accountholders and can promote 
the smooth functioning of the payment system. Nevertheless, because 
intraday credit to FBOs (relative to domestic institutions) may pose 
heightened risks to the Reserve Banks, the Board believes that the 
Reserve Banks should tailor FBO net debit caps more closely to FBOs' 
actual usage of intraday credit and should not provide unnecessarily 
large net debit caps to FBOs. Setting the capital measures of all FBOs 
at 10 percent of an FBO's worldwide capital would better tailor FBO net 
debit caps to FBOs' actual usage of intraday credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111-203, section 165, 
12 U.S.C. 5365 (requiring enhanced supervision and prudential 
standards for certain bank holding companies, including certain 
FBOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Use of Home-Country Leverage Ratio

    Under Regulation H, a bank's PCA designation is determined by four 
capital measures: Total risk-based capital, tier 1 risk-based capital, 
common equity tier 1 risk-based capital, and leverage.\42\ The leverage 
measure utilizes two ratios: The leverage ratio (``U.S. leverage 
ratio'') and the supplementary leverage ratio (``SLR''). The key 
difference between the two ratios is that the U.S. leverage ratio 
calculation incorporates only on-balance-sheet activity, while the SLR 
calculation incorporates both on-balance-sheet assets and certain off-
balance-sheet exposures.\43\ Under Regulation H, banks must meet a 
minimum U.S. leverage ratio of 4 or 5 percent to qualify as, 
respectively, adequately capitalized or well capitalized.\44\ 
Regulation H also requires that certain banks meet additional SLR 
standards to qualify as adequately or well capitalized.\45\ Finally, 
Regulation H establishes leverage measures for the undercapitalized and 
significantly undercapitalized PCA categories.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Board's Regulation H applies to state member banks. The 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) have promulgated functionally 
identical PCA regulations applicable to OCC-regulated and FDIC-
regulated institutions, respectively. See 12 CFR part 6 (OCC); 12 
CFR part 324, subpart H (FDIC).
    \43\ See 12 CFR 208.41(h) and (j); 12 CFR 217.10(b)(4) and 
(c)(4).
    \44\ 12 CFR 208.43(b)(2)(iv)(A) and (b)(1)(iv)(A).
    \45\ Specifically, a bank that qualifies as an ``advanced 
approaches bank'' must meet a minimum SLR of 3 percent to qualify as 
adequately capitalized and a bank that is a subsidiary of a global 
systemically important bank holding company (GSIB) must maintain an 
SLR of at least 6 percent to qualify as well capitalized. See 12 CFR 
208.41(a) and 217.100(b)(1) (definition of ``advanced approaches 
bank''); 12 CFR 208.41(g), 217.2, and 217.402 (definition of GSIB); 
12 CFR 208.43(b)(1)(iv)(B) and 208.43(b)(2)(iv)(B) (Regulation H SLR 
standards). The Board has issued a proposal to change the 6 percent 
SLR requirement for banks that are subsidiaries of GSIBs to equal 3 
percent plus 50 percent of the GSIB risk-based surcharge applicable 
to such a bank's top-tier holding company. 83 FR 17317 (April 19, 
2018).
    \46\ Under Regulation H, a bank is deemed to be undercapitalized 
if its U.S. leverage ratio is less than 4 percent or, if applicable, 
its SLR is less than 3 percent. A bank is deemed to be significantly 
undercapitalized if its U.S. leverage ratio is less than 3 percent, 
i.e., more than 100 basis points lower than the U.S. leverage ratio 
needed to qualify as adequately capitalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argued that ``in determining an FBO's equivalent PCA 
designation, reference should be made only to the [SLR] and not to the 
U.S. leverage ratio, and, consistent with that approach, the leverage 
measure under the PCA regime should be calibrated by reference to the 
home country leverage ratio.'' The commenter noted that under 
Regulation H, ``PCA categories apply various combinations of the U.S. 
leverage ratio and the U.S. supplementary ratio, whereas the 
corresponding measure for FBOs'' from Basel jurisdictions is the SLR. 
The commenter therefore argued that, for purposes of calculating an 
FBO's equivalent PCA designation, the leverage measure should be based 
solely on the FBO's leverage ratio as calculated under home-country 
standards (``home-country leverage ratio'')--i.e., that the U.S. 
leverage ratio, as distinct from the SLR, should have ``no relevance to 
the determination.'' The commenter also suggested that an FBO should be 
able to qualify as well capitalized or adequately capitalized if it 
meets its home country's 3 percent leverage ratio expectation (assuming 
the FBO also meets the relevant risk-based capital ratios in Regulation 
H).
    FBOs currently report their tier 1 capital and total consolidated 
assets to the Federal Reserve on the Capital and Asset Report for 
Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7Q). The Board recognizes, however, 
that it might be burdensome for an FBO to calculate a functional 
equivalent to the U.S. leverage ratio due to differences between home-
country accounting standards and U.S. accounting standards. 
Additionally, the Board recognizes that, because of definitional 
ambiguities in Regulation H, it might be difficult for an FBO to 
determine the precise SLR standards to which it is subject.
    Accordingly, the Board is clarifying the manner in which an FBO 
will determine its FBO PSR capital category.\47\ The four PSR capital 
categories for FBOs will be ``highly capitalized,'' ``sufficiently 
capitalized,'' ``undercapitalized,'' and ``intraday credit 
ineligible.'' To assess whether it is highly capitalized or 
sufficiently capitalized, an FBO would compare its risk-based capital 
ratios to the corresponding ratios in Regulation H for, respectively, 
well-capitalized and adequately capitalized banks. Additionally, an FBO 
would need a home-country leverage ratio of 4 percent or 3 percent to 
qualify as, respectively, highly capitalized or sufficiently 
capitalized. Under Regulation H, a bank must meet a minimum U.S. 
leverage ratio of 5 percent to qualify as well capitalized, which is 
100 basis points higher than the 4 percent U.S. leverage ratio required 
to qualify as adequately capitalized. Similarly, in order for an FBO to 
be considered highly capitalized for purposes of the PSR policy, it 
will need to meet a home-country leverage ratio (which, as noted above, 
corresponds to the SLR) of 4 percent, which is 100 basis points higher 
than the 3 percent home-country leverage ratio needed to be considered 
sufficiently capitalized. The Board believes that this approach will 
treat FBOs and U.S. institutions equivalently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ As noted above, the Board is replacing the term 
``equivalent PCA designation'' with ``FBO PSR capital category.'' An 
FBO not based in a Basel jurisdiction would be required to perform a 
full assessment of its creditworthiness instead of using the matrix 
approach to assessing creditworthiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether its FBO PSR capital category is 
undercapitalized, an FBO would compare its risk-based capital ratios to 
the corresponding ratios in Regulation H. Additionally, an FBO would be 
deemed undercapitalized if its home-country leverage ratio is less than 
3 percent. Some undercapitalized FBOs with supervisory composite 
ratings of ``strong'' or ``satisfactory'' may qualify for positive net 
debit caps.
    Finally, to determine whether its FBO PSR capital category is 
``intraday credit ineligible,'' an FBO would compare its risk-based 
capital ratios to the corresponding Regulation H ratios for 
significantly undercapitalized banks. Stated differently, an FBO with 
risk-based capital thresholds below the levels required to qualify as 
undercapitalized will be deemed ineligible for intraday credit. 
Additionally, an FBO will be deemed ineligible for intraday credit if 
its home-country leverage ratio is less than 2 percent.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Under Regulation H, a bank is deemed to be significantly 
undercapitalized if its U.S. leverage ratio is less than 3 percent 
(i.e., more than 100 basis points lower than the 4 percent U.S. 
leverage ratio required to qualify as adequately capitalized). Under 
the PSR policy, a significantly undercapitalized institution is 
ineligible for intraday credit. The Board believes that deeming an 
FBO ineligible for intraday credit if its home-country leverage 
ratio is less than 2 percent--which would be more than 100 basis 
points lower than the 3 percent home-country leverage ratio needed 
to qualify as sufficiently capitalized--would treat FBOs and U.S. 
institutions equivalently.

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

[[Page 12056]]

    The following table illustrates the capital ratios that an FBO will 
use to determine its FBO PSR capital category.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The risk-based capital ratios in the table are based on the 
ratios currently codified in Regulation H and will change 
correspondingly with any future revisions to Regulation H.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Total risk-    Tier 1 risk-                    Home-country
            FBO PSR capital category               based capital   based capital   Common equity  leverage ratio
                                                        (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly capitalized..............................              10               8             6.5               4
Sufficiently capitalized........................               8               6             4.5               3
Undercapitalized................................              <8              <6            <4.5               2
Intraday credit ineligible......................              <6              <4              <3              <2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Board proposed to incorporate FBO 
creditworthiness self-assessments into the Guide's existing matrix for 
assessing domestic institutions' creditworthiness. The revised 
creditworthiness self-assessment matrix will appear as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Supervisory composite rating \50\
  Domestic capital category/  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   FBO PSR capital category         Strong         Satisfactory          Fair         Marginal or unsatisfactory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well capitalized/Highly        Excellent.......  Very good.......  Adequate........  Below standard.
 capitalized.
Adequately capitalized/        Very good.......  Very good.......  Adequate........  Below standard.
 Sufficiently capitalized.
Undercapitalized.............  ** \51\.........  ** \52\.........  Below standard..  Below standard.
Significantly or critically    Below standard..  Below standard..  Below standard..  Below standard.
 undercapitalized/Intraday
 credit ineligible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, as discussed above, the Board proposed that a well-
capitalized FBO would be eligible to request the streamlined max cap 
procedure. The amendments adopted in this notice use the new 
nomenclature discussed above and instead provide that a highly 
capitalized FBO will be eligible to request the streamlined max cap 
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Supervisory composite ratings, such as the Uniform Bank 
Rating System (CAMELS), are generally assigned on a scale from 1 to 
5, with 1 being the strongest rating. Thus, for the purposes of the 
Creditworthiness Matrix, a supervisory rating of 1 is considered 
Strong; a rating of 2 is considered Satisfactory; a rating of 3 is 
considered Fair; and so on.
    \51\ Institutions that fall into this category should perform a 
full assessment of creditworthiness. A full assessment of 
creditworthiness includes an assessment of capital adequacy, key 
performance measures (including asset quality, earnings performance, 
and liquidity), and the condition of affiliated institutions.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Delay in Effective Date

    The commenter requested that the Board delay the effective date of 
any changes to the PSR policy by at least 12 months. The Board believes 
that a transition period would help FBOs adjust to these changes. 
Accordingly, the changes will be effective on April 1, 2020. The 
Federal Reserve will continue to provide SOSA rankings until that date.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) to address concerns related to the effects of agency rules 
on small entities, and the Board is sensitive to the impact its rules 
may impose on small entities. The RFA requires agencies either to 
provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis with a final rule or to 
certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. In this case, the relevant 
provisions of the PSR policy apply to all FBOs that maintain accounts 
at Federal Reserve Banks. While the Board does not believe that the 
changes adopted in this notice would have a significant impact on small 
entities, and regardless of whether the RFA applies to the PSR policy 
per se, the Board has nevertheless prepared the following Final 
Regulatory Flexibility analysis in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604.
    1. Statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule. As 
discussed above, the Board is removing references to the SOSA ranking 
and FBOs' FHC status in the PSR policy. Discontinuing the SOSA ranking 
will streamline the Federal Reserve's FBO supervision program by 
eliminating the need for Federal Reserve supervisors to provide 
supervisory rankings that only serve a purpose for Reserve Bank credit 
decisions. Removing references to FHC status in the PSR policy will 
align the policy with the Board's view that an FBO's status as an FHC 
is not a suitable factor for determining the FBO's eligibility for 
intraday credit.
    2. Description of comments. The Board did not receive any comments 
on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility analysis from members of the 
public or from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'').
    3. Small entities affected by the proposed rule. Pursuant to 
regulations issued by the SBA (13 CFR 121.201), a ``small entity'' 
includes an entity that engages in commercial banking and has assets of 
$550 million or less (NAICS code 522110). Forty-one FBOs that maintain 
Federal Reserve accounts are small entities. Six of those FBOs maintain 
positive net debit caps.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Data current as of Q4 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements. The changes to the PSR policy will alter the procedures 
by which FBOs obtain intraday credit from the Reserve Banks. The most 
important new requirement is that an FBO will need to determine an FBO 
PSR capital category, based on its worldwide capital ratios, to 
establish its

[[Page 12057]]

creditworthiness under the PSR policy. Additionally, an FBO will need 
to determine that it is highly capitalized, based on worldwide capital 
ratios, in order to qualify for a streamlined procedure for requesting 
collateralized intraday credit.
    The Board does not believe that it will be burdensome for an FBO to 
calculate its FBO PSR capital category or determine whether it is 
highly capitalized, nor does it believe that FBO employees will need 
any specialized professional skills to prepare such calculations. The 
Board's FR Y-7Q report currently requires that FBOs with total 
consolidated assets of $50 billion or more report the numerators and 
denominators needed to calculate all of the risk-based capital ratios 
in the FBO PSR capital category determination. The FR Y-7Q report also 
requires that FBOs with total consolidated assets below $50 billion 
report the numerators and denominators needed to calculate all ratios 
in the FBO PSR capital category determination except the common equity 
tier 1 capital ratio. FBOs with total consolidated assets below $50 
billion that are based in Basel jurisdictions already calculate their 
common equity tier 1 capital ratios under home-country standards. 
Additionally, as discussed above, the Board has clarified that the 
leverage measure component of the FBO PSR capital category will be 
based solely on the FBO's leverage ratio as calculated under home-
country standards.
    5. Steps taken to minimize economic impact and discussion of 
significant alternatives. The Board does not believe that alternatives 
to these changes would better accomplish the objectives of limiting 
credit risk to the Reserve Banks while minimizing any economic impact 
on small entities. The Board believes, as described above, that the 
revised procedures will allow FBOs to maintain net debit caps that are 
well tailored to FBOs' actual usage of intraday credit and will not 
constrain most FBOs' U.S. operations under a wide range of scenarios.
    While one alternative would be to continue providing SOSA rankings 
to FBOs and leave the PSR policy in its present form, the Board 
believes that Federal Reserve supervisory resources should be allocated 
to other matters. Similarly, the Board could continue to allow FBOs 
that are FHCs to qualify for higher levels of intraday credit than FBOs 
that are not FHCs, but (as described above) the Board does not believe 
that an FBO's status as an FHC should determine the FBO's eligibility 
for intraday credit.
    In two places--specifically, in the capital measure calculation 
process and in the eligibility criteria for a streamlined max cap 
procedure--the Board has deleted references to SOSA without replacing 
those references with an alternative supervisory rating. As described 
above, the Board believes that it is unnecessary to substitute another 
supervisory rating in either area.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See sections I.B.3 and I.B.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Board has replaced SOSA rankings in the 
creditworthiness self-assessment matrix with the FBO PSR capital 
category. This change will require an FBO to calculate its FBO PSR 
capital category using worldwide capital ratios. Alternatively, the 
Board could have simply deleted the SOSA ranking and provided that an 
FBO's creditworthiness would depend solely on its U.S. operations 
supervisory composite rating. The Board believes, however, that using 
the FBO PSR capital category in conjunction with an FBO's supervisory 
ratings will better protect the Reserve Banks from credit risk, because 
the FBO PSR capital category will provide insight into an FBO's 
worldwide financial profile and its ability to support its U.S. 
branches and agencies. As discussed above, the Board has clarified that 
an FBO will calculate the leverage measure component of the FBO PSR 
capital category under home-country standards.

IV. Competitive Impact Analysis

    The Board conducts a competitive impact analysis when it considers 
a rule or policy change that may have a substantial effect on payment 
system participants. Specifically, the Board determines whether there 
would be a direct or material adverse effect on the ability of other 
service providers to compete with the Federal Reserve due to differing 
legal powers or due to the Federal Reserve's dominant market position 
deriving from such legal differences.\55\ The Board did not receive any 
comments regarding its competitive impact analysis in the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Federal Reserve Regulatory Service, 9-1558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board believes that the modifications to the PSR policy will 
have no adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to 
compete with the Reserve Banks in providing similar services. While the 
Board expects that the modifications will reduce net debit caps for 
many FBOs, the Board does not believe this will have a significant 
effect on FBOs because (as explained above) the Board believes that 
most FBOs would retain access to sufficient amounts of Reserve Bank 
intraday credit. Accordingly, the Board not expect the modifications 
will have a significant effect on FBOs' use of Federal Reserve Bank 
services. Additionally, the proposed modifications will have no effect 
on intraday credit access for domestic institutions, which comprise the 
vast majority of Reserve Bank account holders.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of the PSR policy contain ``collection of 
information'' requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\56\ In accordance with the 
requirements of the PRA, the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection 
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') control number. The Board has reviewed the amendments to the 
PSR policy adopted in this notice under the authority delegated to the 
Board by OMB. The amendments require revisions to the Annual Report of 
Net Debit Cap (FR 2226; OMB No. 7100-0217). In addition, as permitted 
by the PRA, the Board proposes to extend for three years, with 
revision, the Annual Report of Net Debit Cap (FR 2226; OMB No. 7100-
0217). The Board received no comments on the PRA analysis in the 
proposal. The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions 
of collections of information. At any time, commenters may submit 
comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this 
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden, to Nuha Elmaghrabi, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, 
Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. A copy of the comments may also 
be submitted to the OMB desk officer: By mail to U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, # 10235, Washington, DC 
20503; by facsimile to (202) 395-5806; or by email to: 
[email protected], Attention, Federal Banking Agency Desk 
Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Revision, With Extension for Three Years, of the Following 
Information Collection:
    Title of Information Collection: Annual Report of Net Debit Cap.
    Agency Form Number: FR 2226.
    OMB Control Number: 7100-0217.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Respondents: Depository institutions' board of directors.

[[Page 12058]]

    Abstract: Federal Reserve Banks collect these data annually to 
provide information that is essential for their administration of the 
PSR policy. The reporting panel includes all financially healthy 
depository institutions with access to the discount window. The Report 
of Net Debit Cap comprises three resolutions, which are filed by a 
depository institution's board of directors depending on its needs. The 
first resolution is used to establish a de minimis net debit cap and 
the second resolution is used to establish a self-assessed net debit 
cap.\57\ The third resolution is used to establish simultaneously a 
self-assessed net debit cap and maximum daylight overdraft capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Institutions use these two resolutions to establish a 
capacity for daylight overdrafts above the lesser of $10 million or 
20 percent of the institution's capital measure. Financially healthy 
U.S. chartered institutions that rarely incur daylight overdrafts in 
excess of the lesser of $10 million or 20 percent of the 
institution's capital measure do not need to file board of 
directors' resolutions or self-assessments with their Reserve Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the PSR policy, an FBO's SOSA ranking can affect its 
eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit 
cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain 
maximum daylight overdraft capacity. Additionally, an FBO's status as 
an FHC can affect the size of its net debit cap and its eligibility to 
request a streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft 
capacity. The amendments to the PSR policy adopted in this notice (1) 
remove references to the SOSA ranking, (2) remove references to FBOs' 
FHC status, and (3) adopt alternative methods for determining an FBO's 
eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit 
cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain 
maximum daylight overdraft capacity. The amendments will increase the 
estimated average hours per response for FR 2226 self-assessment and de 
minimis respondents that are FBOs by half an hour.
    Estimated number of respondents: De Minimis Cap: Non-FBOs, 893 
respondents and FBOs, 18 respondents; Self-Assessment Cap: Non-FBOs, 
106 respondents and FBOs, 9 respondents; and Maximum Daylight Overdraft 
Capacity, 2 respondents.
    Estimated average hours per response: De Minimis Cap--Non-FBOs, 1 
hour and FBOs, 1.5 hour; Self-Assessment Cap--Non-FBOs, 1 hour and 
FBOs, 1.5 hours, and Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity, 1 hour.
    Estimated annual burden hours: De Minimis Cap: Non-FBOs, 893 hours 
and FBOs, 27 hours; Self-Assessment Cap: Non-FBOs, 106 hours and FBOs, 
13.5 hours; and Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity, 2 hours.

VI. Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk

Revisions to Section II.D of the PSR Policy

    Section II.D of the PSR policy is revised as follows:

D. Net debit caps

* * * * *

2. Cap Categories

* * * * *
a. Self-Assessed
    In order to establish a net debit cap category of high, above 
average, or average, an institution must perform a self-assessment of 
its own creditworthiness, intraday funds management and control, 
customer credit policies and controls, and operating controls and 
contingency procedures.\61\ For domestic institutions, the assessment 
of creditworthiness is based on the institution's supervisory rating 
and Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) designation.\62\ For U.S. branches 
and agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have 
implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those 
established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the 
assessment of creditworthiness is based on the institution's 
supervisory rating and its FBO PSR capital category.\63\ An institution 
may perform a full assessment of its creditworthiness in certain 
limited circumstances--for example, if its condition has changed 
significantly since its last examination or if it possesses additional 
substantive information regarding its financial condition. 
Additionally, U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs based in jurisdictions 
that have not implemented capital standards substantially consistent 
with those established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 
are required to perform a full assessment of creditworthiness to 
determine their ratings for the creditworthiness component. An 
institution performing a self-assessment must also evaluate its 
intraday funds-management procedures and its procedures for evaluating 
the financial condition of and establishing intraday credit limits for 
its customers. Finally, the institution must evaluate its operating 
controls and contingency procedures to determine if they are sufficient 
to prevent losses due to fraud or system failures. The Guide includes a 
detailed explanation of the self-assessment process. * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ This assessment should be done on an individual-institution 
basis, treating as separate entities each commercial bank, each Edge 
corporation (and its branches), each thrift institution, and so on. 
An exception is made in the case of U.S. branches and agencies of 
FBOs. Because these entities have no existence separate from the 
FBO, all the U.S. offices of FBOs (excluding U.S.-chartered bank 
subsidiaries and U.S.-chartered Edge subsidiaries) should be treated 
as a consolidated family relying on the FBO's capital.
    \62\ An insured depository institution is (1) ``well 
capitalized'' if it significantly exceeds the required minimum level 
for each relevant capital measure, (2) ``adequately capitalized'' if 
it meets the required minimum level for each relevant capital 
measure, (3) ``undercapitalized'' if it fails to meet the required 
minimum level for any relevant capital measure, (4) ``significantly 
undercapitalized'' if it is significantly below the required minimum 
level for any relevant capital measure, or (5) ``critically 
undercapitalized'' if it fails to meet any leverage limit (the ratio 
of tangible equity to total assets) specified by the appropriate 
federal banking agency, in consultation with the FDIC, or any other 
relevant capital measure established by the agency to determine when 
an institution is critically undercapitalized (12 U.S.C. 1831o).
    \63\ The four FBO PSR capital categories for FBOs are ``highly 
capitalized,'' ``sufficiently capitalized,'' ``undercapitalized,'' 
and ``intraday credit ineligible.'' To determine whether it is 
highly capitalized or sufficiently capitalized, an FBO should 
compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding ratios in 
Regulation H for well-capitalized and adequately capitalized banks. 
12 CFR 208.43(b). Additionally, an FBO must have a leverage ratio of 
4 percent or 3 percent (calculated under home-country standards) to 
qualify as, respectively, highly capitalized or sufficiently 
capitalized. To determine whether it is undercapitalized, an FBO 
would compare its risk-based capital ratios to the corresponding 
ratios in Regulation H. Additionally, an FBO would be deemed 
undercapitalized if its home-country leverage ratio is less than 3 
percent. Finally, to determine whether it is intraday credit 
ineligible, an FBO should compare its risk-based capital ratios to 
the corresponding ratios in Regulation H for significantly 
undercapitalized banks. Additionally, an FBO would be deemed 
intraday credit ineligible if its home-country leverage ratio is 
less than 2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
b. De Minimis
    Many institutions incur relatively small overdrafts and thus pose 
little risk to the Federal Reserve. To ease the burden on these small 
overdrafters of engaging in the self-assessment process and to ease the 
burden on the Federal Reserve of administering caps, the Board allows 
institutions that meet reasonable safety and soundness standards to 
incur de minimis amounts of daylight overdrafts without performing a 
self-assessment.\67\ An

[[Page 12059]]

institution may incur daylight overdrafts of up to 40 percent of its 
capital measure if the institution submits a board of directors 
resolution. * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs that are based in 
jurisdictions that have not implemented capital standards 
substantially consistent with those established by the Basel 
Committee on Banking Supervision are required to perform a full 
assessment of creditworthiness to determine whether they meet 
reasonable safety and soundness standards. These FBOs must submit an 
assessment of creditworthiness with their board of directors 
resolution requesting a de minimis cap category. U.S. branches and 
agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have 
implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those 
established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision are not 
required to complete an assessment of creditworthiness, but Reserve 
Banks will assess such an FBO's creditworthiness based on the FBO's 
supervisory rating and its FBO PSR capital category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
c. Exempt-From-Filing
    Institutions that only rarely incur daylight overdrafts in their 
Federal Reserve accounts that exceed the lesser of $10 million or 20 
percent of their capital measure are excused from performing self-
assessments and filing board of directors resolutions with their 
Reserve Banks.\68\ This dual test of dollar amount and percent of 
capital measure is designed to limit the filing exemption to 
institutions that create only low-dollar risks to the Reserve Banks and 
that incur small overdrafts relative to their capital measure. * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The Reserve Bank may require U.S. branches and agencies of 
FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have not implemented 
capital standards substantially consistent with those established by 
the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to perform a full 
assessment of creditworthiness to determine whether the FBO meets 
reasonable safety and soundness standards. U.S. branches and 
agencies of FBOs that are based in jurisdictions that have 
implemented capital standards substantially consistent with those 
established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision will not 
be required to complete an assessment of creditworthiness, but 
Reserve Banks will assess such an FBO's creditworthiness based on 
the FBO's supervisory rating and the FBO PSR capital category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

3. Capital Measure

* * * * *
b. U.S. Branches and Agencies for Foreign Banks
    For U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, net debit caps on 
daylight overdrafts in Federal Reserve accounts are calculated by 
applying the cap multiples for each cap category to the FBO's U.S. 
capital equivalency measure.\69\ U.S. capital equivalency is equal to 
10 percent of worldwide capital for FBOs.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The term ``U.S. capital equivalency'' is used in this 
context to refer the particular measure calculate net debit caps and 
does not necessarily represent an appropriate for supervisory or 
other purposes.
    \70\ FBOs that wish to establish a non-zero net debit cap must 
report their worldwide capital on the Annual Daylight Overdraft 
Capital Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 
2225). The instructions for FR explain how FBOs should calculate 
their worldwide capital. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/reportdetail.aspx?sOoYJ+5BzDZ1kLYTc+ZpEQ==.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An FBO that is highly capitalized \71\ may be eligible for a 
streamlined procedure (see section II.E.) for obtaining additional 
collateralized intraday credit under the maximum daylight overdraft 
capacity provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See n. 63, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Revisions to Section II.E of the PSR Policy

    The Board will revise Section II.E of the PSR policy as follows:

E. Maximum Daylight Overdraft Capacity

* * * * *

1. General Procedure

    An institution with a self-assessed net debit cap that wishes to 
expand its daylight overdraft capacity by pledging collateral should 
consult with its administrative Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank will 
work with an institution that requests additional daylight overdraft 
capacity to determine the appropriate maximum daylight overdraft 
capacity level. In considering the institution's request, the Reserve 
Bank will evaluate the institution's rationale for requesting 
additional daylight overdraft capacity as well as its financial and 
supervisory information. The financial and supervisory information 
considered may include, but is not limited to, capital and liquidity 
ratios, the composition of balance sheet assets, and CAMELS or other 
supervisory ratings and assessments. An institution approved for a 
maximum daylight overdraft capacity level must submit at least once in 
each twelve-month period a board of directors resolution indicating its 
board's approval of that level. * * *
* * * * *

2. Streamlined Procedure for Certain FBOs

    An FBO that is highly capitalized \75\ and has a self-assessed net 
debit cap may request from its Reserve Bank a streamlined procedure to 
obtain a maximum daylight overdraft capacity. These FBOs are not 
required to provide documentation of the business need or obtain the 
board of directors' resolution for collateralized capacity in an amount 
that exceeds its current net debit cap (which is based on 10 percent 
worldwide capital times its cap multiple), as long as the requested 
total capacity is 100 percent or less of worldwide capital times a 
self-assessed cap multiple.\76\ In order to ensure that intraday 
liquidity risk is managed appropriately and that the FBO will be able 
to repay daylight overdrafts, eligible FBOs under the streamlined 
procedure will be subject to initial and periodic reviews of liquidity 
plans that are analogous to the liquidity reviews undergone by U.S. 
institutions.\77\ If an eligible FBO requests capacity in excess of 100 
percent of worldwide capital times the self-assessed cap multiple, it 
would be subject to the general procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See n. 63, supra.
    \76\ For example, an FBO that is well capitalized is eligible 
for uncollateralized capacity of 10 percent of worldwide capital 
times the cap multiple. The streamlined max cap procedure would 
provide such an institution with additional collateralized capacity 
of 90 percent of worldwide capital times the cap multiple. As noted 
above, FBOs report their worldwide capital on the Annual Daylight 
Overdraft Capital Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign 
Banks (FR 2225).
    \77\ The liquidity reviews will be conducted by the 
administrative Reserve Bank, in consultation with each FBO's home 
country supervisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, March 26, 2019.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2019-06063 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P