Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions With $50 Billion or More in Total Assets, 16620-16628 [2019-08077]
Download as PDF
16620
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 77
Monday, April 22, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 360
RIN 3064–AF05
Resolution Plans Required for Insured
Depository Institutions With $50 Billion
or More in Total Assets
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The FDIC invites comments
on this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) concerning how to
tailor and improve its rule requiring
certain insured depository institutions
to submit resolution plans.
DATES: Comments must be received by
June 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3064–AF05, by any of
the following methods:
• Agency website: https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the Agency website.
• Email: Comments@FDIC.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 3064–AF05’’ on the
subject line of the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments/RIN
3064–AF05, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments
may be hand delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
Building (located on F Street) on
business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
All comments received must include
the agency name (FDIC) and RIN 3064–
AF05 and will be posted without change
to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/
federal, including any personal
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F.
Angus Tarpley III, Counsel, (703) 562–
2434, ftarpley@fdic.gov, James P.
Sheesley, Counsel, (703) 562–2047,
jsheesley@fdic.gov, Ryan M. Rappa,
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
Counsel, (202) 898–6767, Legal
Division; Lori J. Quigley, Deputy
Director, (202) 898–3799, Robert C.
Connors, Associate Director, (202) 898–
3834, Division of Risk Management
Supervision; Marc Steckel, Deputy
Director, (571) 858–8224, Division of
Resolutions and Receiverships; Jason C.
Cave, Corporate Expert, (202) 898–3548,
Office of Complex Financial
Institutions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The FDIC is undertaking a review of
its rule requiring certain insured
depository institutions (IDIs) to submit
resolution plans (IDI Rule).1 This ANPR
is part of that review process. The FDIC
is considering how to tailor and
improve the IDI Rule, as described
below. Specifically, the FDIC invites
comments on certain approaches under
consideration: (1) Creation of tiered
resolution planning requirements based
on institution size, complexity, and
other factors; (2) revisions to the
frequency and required content of plan
submissions, including elimination of
plan submissions for a category of
smaller and less complex IDIs; and (3)
improvements to the process for
periodic engagement between the FDIC
and institutions on resolution-related
matters. The FDIC is also seeking
comment on whether to revise the $50
billion asset size threshold in the IDI
Rule.
The FDIC is currently considering
several approaches for revising the IDI
Rule. Specifically, under one alternative
approach, the FDIC is considering
categorizing IDIs subject to the IDI Rule
into three groups. The IDIs in the first
group, Group A (as defined below),
comprising the largest and most
complex IDIs, would be required to
submit Resolution Plans (as defined
below) with content requirements that
would be streamlined compared to the
current IDI Rule. IDIs in the second
group, Group B (as defined below),
which would include larger, more
complex regional IDIs, would be
required to submit further streamlined
Resolution Plans, reduced in content
compared to the Resolution Plans
required for Group A. The IDIs in the
third group, Group C (as defined below)
would be smaller and less complex than
1 12
PO 00000
CFR 360.10.
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
those in Group A or Group B, and
would no longer be required to submit
Resolution Plans. The FDIC would
engage with Group A, Group B, and
Group C IDIs on a periodic basis
regarding a limited number of items
related to resolution planning; these
IDIs also would continue to be subject
to periodic testing of certain capabilities
relating to resolution planning and
implementation.
Under a second alternative approach,
the FDIC is considering grouping IDIs
subject to the IDI Rule into two groups:
Larger IDIs (comprising Group A and
Group B IDIs) and Group C IDIs. Larger
IDIs would be required to submit
Resolution Plans with streamlined
content requirements individually
targeted to each institution’s size,
complexity, and other factors related to
resolvability. For example, where a
complex, larger IDI operates multiple
business lines involving affiliated,
interconnected legal entities and an
extensive, globally dispersed branch
network, the Resolution Plan for this
large IDI would provide relatively
greater content on complexity and crossborder elements. For a larger IDI that
has a simpler footprint with minimal
cross-jurisdictional exposures, the
relevant content requirements would be
streamlined or omitted. As in the first
alternative approach, the IDIs in Group
C would no longer be required to submit
Resolution Plans. Also as in the first
alternative approach, the FDIC would
engage with larger IDIs and Group C
IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a
limited number of items related to
resolution planning; these IDIs also
would continue to be subject to periodic
testing of certain capabilities relating to
resolution planning and
implementation.
II. Background
A. The IDI Rule
The IDI Rule was proposed in 2010 2
and became effective in 2012.3 The IDI
Rule requires IDIs with $50 billion or
more in total assets (covered insured
depository institutions or CIDIs) to
periodically submit plans (Resolution
Plans) that should enable the FDIC, as
receiver, to resolve the CIDI in the event
of its insolvency under the Federal
2 75
FR 27464 (May 17, 2010).
Final Rule, 76 FR 58379 (September 21,
2011) and Final Rule, 77 FR 3075 (January 23,
2012).
3 Interim
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) in a
manner that ensures that depositors
receive access to their insured deposits
within one business day of the CIDI’s
failure (two business days if the failure
occurs on a day other than Friday),
maximizes the net present value return
from the sale or disposition of its assets,
and minimizes the amount of any loss
realized by the creditors in the
resolution.
The FDIC proposed the IDI Rule in
response to challenges identified in the
resolution of IDIs during the 2008
financial crisis, prior to enactment of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank
Act). The IDI Rule was intended to
ensure that the FDIC has timely access
to information concerning a CIDI’s
structure, operations, business practices,
financial responsibilities, and risk
exposure, which the FDIC would need
to handle a resolution of a CIDI under
the FDI Act.
Separate from the FDI Act and IDI
Rule requirements, section 165(d) of the
Dodd-Frank Act mandates that certain
bank holding companies and nonbank
financial companies (Covered
Companies) submit resolution plans
(DFA Resolution Plans) for the rapid
and orderly resolution of the Covered
Company under the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.4 DFA Resolution Plans have a
specific goal different from that of
Resolution Plans under the IDI Rule: To
reduce the likelihood that the financial
distress or failure of a Covered Company
would have serious adverse effects on
financial stability in the United States.
The interim final IDI Rule and the final
rule regarding DFA Resolution Plans
(Section 165(d) Rule) 5 were issued
concurrently with aligned asset
thresholds for CIDIs and Covered
Companies. Since then, the Dodd-Frank
Act has been amended to revise the
threshold for DFA Resolution Plans.6
Since issuing the final IDI Rule, the
FDIC and CIDIs have been through
multiple Resolution Plan submission
cycles. Through this experience, the
FDIC has learned what aspects of the
4 The DFA Resolution Plan of a foreign-based
Covered Company provides for the resolution of its
U.S. operations and entities.
5 12 CFR parts 243 & 381; 76 FR 67323 (January
23, 2012). On April 8 and 16, 2019, respectively,
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System and the FDIC’s Board of Directors
considered proposed amendments to the Section
165(d) Rule to reflect improvements identified
during the eight years the Section 165(d) Rule has
been in effect and to address amendments to the
Dodd-Frank Act made by the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
6 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act, Sec. 401, Public Law
115–174, 132 Stat. 1296. See further discussion in
section II.E.3. below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
resolution planning process are most
valuable and has gained an
understanding of the resources, internal
and external, that CIDIs expend in
meeting the requirements of the IDI
Rule. The FDIC has also gained
additional resolution capabilities
relevant to CIDI resolution through
rulemakings subsequent to the issuance
of the IDI Rule that provide information
related to that called for under the IDI
Rule. Given what the FDIC has learned,
now is an appropriate time to review the
IDI Rule in light of these changes.
B. Distinctions Between IDI Rule and
Section 165(d) Rule
Though the IDI Rule and the Section
165(d) Rule both require planning for
resolution of large, complex financial
institutions to minimize the cost and
disruption of failures, resolution
planning under the two rules involves
distinct entities, objectives, and legal
frameworks. The IDI Rule applies only
to IDIs and involves resolution under
the FDI Act by the FDIC. The Section
165(d) Rule focuses on the resolution of
Covered Companies. Currently, all
Covered Companies are bank holding
companies, which would be resolved
under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The IDI Rule’s objective is to ensure
that the FDIC can effectively resolve a
CIDI under the FDI Act, protecting its
insured depositors and the Deposit
Insurance Fund (DIF) and maximizing
value for the benefit of creditors of the
CIDI. The Section 165(d) Rule’s aim is
ensuring that the bankruptcy of a
Covered Company can be accomplished
in a manner that substantially mitigates
the risk that the failure of the Covered
Company would have serious adverse
effects on financial stability in the
United States.
Under an FDI Act resolution, a CIDI’s
legal existence would terminate upon
entry into resolution, and its
management would not control the
resolution. By contrast, under the
resolution strategies used in the DFA
Resolution Plans, a Covered Company
in bankruptcy generally could continue
its corporate existence, in which case
some of its most senior management
may remain in place to manage the
reorganization.
The largest, most complex U.S. firms
and a number of foreign-based banking
organizations present a single point of
entry resolution strategy in their DFA
Resolution Plans. The single point of
entry resolution strategy does not
anticipate that an IDI subsidiary will
enter resolution proceedings; instead an
explicit goal of the single point of entry
strategy is to keep certain material
subsidiaries, including each IDI
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16621
subsidiary, open and operating.
However, the single point of entry
strategy remains untested, and may not
be available under all failure scenarios.
For those reasons, a separate plan for
the CIDI is important.
For other DFA Resolution Plan filers
where a single point of entry resolution
strategy is not proposed, especially in
cases in which the vast majority of the
consolidated firm’s total assets and
business lines are within the IDI, IDI
resolution is likely to be a component of
any resolution involving the Covered
Company.
C. Resolutions Under the FDI Act
The FDIC is charged by Congress with
the responsibility for insuring the
deposits of IDIs in the United States and
with serving as receiver of such
institutions following failure. To fulfill
its responsibilities, the FDIC has
developed strategies and capabilities to
manage the failure of any IDI. Since
2008, the FDIC has served as receiver for
over 525 failed IDIs. These failures
caused the DIF temporarily to become
insolvent and threatened its liquidity,
yet the FDIC remained able to discharge
its duties through collection of prepaid
and special assessments and recoveries
from failed bank receiverships.
Appropriate resolution planning is
important to ensure that the FDIC
maintains the capabilities required to
ensure depositors have access to insured
deposits as soon as possible and to
minimize potential losses to the DIF and
other creditors. The FDIC’s primary
resolution strategies for resolving an IDI
are outlined below.
1. The Purchase and Assumption
Transaction
Approximately 95 percent of
resolutions conducted by the FDIC since
2007 involved the sale of the IDI’s
franchise and assets to an open
institution in an assisted transaction,
generally involving a single acquirer
assuming nearly all of the failed IDI’s
liabilities. This transaction, termed a
purchase and assumption or ‘‘P&A’’
transaction, is often both the easiest for
the FDIC to execute and the least
disruptive to the depositors of the failed
IDI. This is especially so where the
transaction involves the assumption of
all the failed IDI’s deposits by the
assuming institution (an all-deposit
transaction).
The P&A option is not always
available to the FDIC. P&A transactions
require lead time to identify potential
buyers and allow investigation and
auction of the failing IDI’s assets and
banking business, also termed its
franchise. These transactions may only
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
16622
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
be conducted following a determination,
required by statute, that such
transaction results in the least cost to
the DIF of all possible resolution
options,7 including paying out the
insured deposits of the failed IDI.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Other Resolution Strategies
If no P&A transaction that meets the
least costly resolution requirement can
be accomplished, the FDIC must pursue
an alternative resolution strategy. The
primary alternative resolution strategies
are the payout liquidation and the
bridge bank. Both of these strategies
present significant operational
challenges and the potential for
significant disruption in the case of
large IDIs.
Payout. The FDIC conducts payout
liquidations by paying insured deposits
in cash or transferring the insured
deposits to an existing institution or a
new institution organized by the FDIC
to assume the insured deposits.8 In
payout liquidations, the FDIC as
receiver retains substantially all of the
failed IDI’s assets for later sale, and the
franchise value of the failed IDI is lost.
Bridge Bank. If the FDIC determines
that continuing the operations of the
failed IDI is less costly than a payout
liquidation, it may organize a
nationally-chartered IDI of limited
duration (a bridge bank) to purchase
certain assets and assume certain
liabilities of the failed IDI, in what may
be either an all-deposit transaction or a
transaction in which the acquirer
assumes only the insured deposits (an
insured deposit only transaction). Once
the FDIC has transferred assets from the
failed bank to the newly established
bridge bank, the FDIC will manage and
operate the new institution, potentially
for a significant length of time.
D. Challenges to Resolving CIDIs
The FDIC’s sole experience with
resolving a failed institution over the
current asset size threshold for a CIDI,
Washington Mutual Bank, involved an
all-deposit P&A transaction that resulted
in no losses to the DIF. The availability
of this low-risk, efficient resolution
strategy cannot be assumed for future
CIDI failures. The largest bank failure
resolved by the FDIC without use of a
P&A transaction was that of IndyMac
Bank, a complicated resolution that
caused significant losses for the DIF and
posed considerable operational
challenges. The overall risk profile
associated with the size, complexity,
and funding structure of some CIDIs
reduces the likelihood that they could
7 12
U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(A).
12 U.S.C. 1821(f), (m).
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
1. Size
The size of a failing CIDI may restrict
the FDIC’s resolution options by
significantly reducing the number of
potential P&A acquirers. Certain CIDIs
may be too large to be acquired by any
other open institution in a P&A
transaction, due to legal limitations on
liability concentration or operational or
economic conditions.9 Alternatively, a
failed CIDI’s concentration within
certain market areas may raise antitrust
issues or otherwise preclude potential
acquirers from bidding.
2. Complexity
Many CIDIs exhibit a degree of
complexity not found in smaller IDIs
which the FDIC has usually resolved
through use of a P&A transaction. This
complexity manifests within the CIDI’s
operations and in its relationships with
affiliates, counterparties, and the
economy. CIDIs generally operate
multiple business lines, frequently
involving affiliated, interconnected legal
entities and extensive, geographically
dispersed branch networks. Many CIDIs
rely on affiliate legal entities, foreign
branches, or contractual counterparties
to carry out one or more critical services
necessary for continuing day-to-day
operations. In addition, many CIDIs
conduct capital markets activities in
multiple jurisdictions, and may
participate in multiple payment,
clearing, and settlement systems. These
activities all rely on a larger workforce
containing a higher number of
specialized, key personnel than the
typical IDI, and necessitate use of
specialized management information
systems for risk management,
accounting, and reporting.
CIDI complexity presents challenges
to resolution by P&A or bridge bank.
Use of either resolution strategy
generally requires separation of the CIDI
from its parent and affiliate entities,
including both organizational and
contractual connections, in a manner
that preserves the value and allows the
continuation of the business of the CIDI
either by a bridge bank or as a
9 See, e.g. 12 U.S.C. 1852 (concentration limits on
large financial firms).
8 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
be resolved through a P&A transaction,
whether an all-deposit transaction or an
insured deposit only transaction.
Further, these factors also present
significant challenges to conducting a
resolution involving use of a bridge
bank. The purpose of IDI resolution
planning is to prepare for the failure of
such IDIs, with a focus on the
challenges that resolution involving a
bridge bank would entail.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
component of an acquirer’s business.
This task requires both a comprehensive
understanding of these relationships
and the capabilities to carry out a plan
that effects such separation. Absent
planning and preparation, CIDI
complexity may present too great a
challenge for any potential acquirer to
value, especially in a time of financial
distress or market disruption. Similarly,
incomplete awareness of
interconnectedness and key
dependencies in the CIDI’s
organizational structure and the lack of
arrangements necessary for
organizational separation and
operational continuity in resolution
would greatly impact a bridge bank
resolution, where the FDIC would be
tasked with continuing these operations
to avoid disruptions to depositors and to
maximize value to the receivership in
the ultimate disposition of the bridge
bank.
3. Funding
Larger IDIs tend to rely to a greater
extent than smaller IDIs on uninsured
deposits and market funding. This
funding structure impacts both the
timing of a resolution and the
availability of resolution options.
Funding structures less reliant on
insured deposits generally compress the
failure timeline. Uninsured deposits and
market funding are more likely to be
withdrawn rapidly should an IDI exhibit
signs of financial distress. While IDI
failures resulting solely from capital
inadequacy typically unfold over
months (or longer), a failure triggered by
an IDI’s lack of liquidity can arise much
more quickly, requiring advance
planning to facilitate an orderly
resolution. Liquidity issues may also
require the resolution to occur on a day
other than Friday, which could further
complicate the FDIC’s ability to
complete a successful resolution
transaction.
A larger share of liabilities in the form
of uninsured deposits makes an alldeposit transaction less likely because
an assuming institution would need to
pay a greater premium to effect an alldeposit transaction that satisfies the
least costly resolution requirement. An
insured deposit only transaction
requires an insurance determination.
While the FDIC’s recordkeeping rule for
timely deposit insurance determinations
(described below) will improve the
FDIC’s ability to conduct such a
determination for certain IDIs over the
weekend following the IDI’s closing,
such a determination for a CIDI would
still be complex and would be the
largest in FDIC history.
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
The FDIC must also make
determinations regarding the transfer of
non-deposit liabilities in a P&A or
bridge bank resolution. Some liabilities
would be transferred to the acquirer or
bridge bank, generally resulting in the
counterparty receiving full payment and
performance of those obligations, while
other non-deposit liabilities would
likely be left with the receivership, to be
satisfied from any proceeds of the
receiver’s asset disposition efforts
(including the ultimate disposition of a
bridge bank, if this strategy is used)
available for distribution after
satisfaction of administrative and
deposit claims. The FDIC must be in a
position to estimate the value of these
liabilities and determine which should
be transferred. Settlement of claims left
with the receiver requires advance
planning and capabilities enhancement
on the FDIC’s part. The FDIC has an
established process for receiving proofs
of receivership claims and making final
claims determinations, but it has never
utilized that process in a bridge bank
resolution in excess of the size of
IndyMac. The FDIC expects that a CIDI
claims process would be significantly
more complex.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Resolution Plan Experience and
Recent Developments
In the years following the 2008
financial crisis, the FDIC instituted
several rulemakings that support its
mission as deposit insurer to make
timely insured deposit payments and as
resolution authority to resolve a failed
IDI in the manner that is least costly to
the DIF. In addition to the current IDI
Rule, these include Recordkeeping for
Timely Deposit Insurance
Determination (Part 370) and
Recordkeeping Requirements for
Qualified Financial Contracts (Part 371).
These rules address certain of the
difficulties the FDIC could face in the
closing of a large, complex IDI. As noted
in section II.A. above, changes to the
Dodd-Frank Act enacted since issuance
of the IDI Rule also warrant
reconsideration of IDI resolution
planning requirements.
1. Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit
Insurance Determination (Part 370)
Part 370 requires covered institutions,
IDIs with two million or more deposit
accounts, to put in place mechanisms to
facilitate prompt deposit insurance
determinations. Covered institutions
must (a) configure their information
technology systems to be able to
calculate the insured and uninsured
portion of each deposit account by
ownership right and capacity; and (b)
maintain complete and accurate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
information needed by the FDIC to
determine deposit insurance coverage
for each deposit account. These
requirements are designed to assist the
FDIC in fulfilling its statutory mandate
in promptly making insurance
determinations, providing liquidity to
insured depositors, and administering
the claims process for uninsured
depositors. The capabilities to be
implemented by CIDIs subject to Part
370 would enhance the ability of the
FDIC to conduct a resolution of any
type, potentially reducing the
importance of some Resolution Plan
content relating to deposit accounts.
2. Recordkeeping Requirements for
Qualified Financial Contracts (Part 371)
Part 371 requires institutions in
troubled condition to keep enhanced
records in standard format regarding
their qualified financial contracts. This
information would be used by the FDIC,
were it appointed receiver, in making a
determination of whether to transfer
qualified financial contracts entered
into by the failed institution within the
brief statutory window. Part 371
provides significantly greater
requirements for larger institutions in
recognition of the informational and
logistical needs that the FDIC, as
receiver, would have as a result of the
significant and more complex qualified
financial contract portfolios that such
institutions are likely to hold. This rule
improves the ability of the FDIC to make
a timely qualified financial contract
determination, potentially reducing the
scope of information and planning
required to be included in a Resolution
Plan relating to qualified financial
contracts.
3. Changes to DFA Resolution Plan
Requirements Under the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act
The filing threshold established in the
IDI Rule was initially aligned to the
filing threshold established by the
Dodd-Frank Act for bank holding
companies required to submit DFA
Resolution Plans, and the IDI Rule was
intended to complement the DoddFrank Act and the Section 165(d) Rule.
On May 24, 2018, the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA)
was enacted. Among other changes,
EGRRCPA raised the $50 billion
minimum asset threshold for general
application of the resolution planning
requirement of Section 165(d) of the
Dodd-Frank Act to $250 billion in total
consolidated assets, and provided the
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System with discretion to apply
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16623
the resolution planning requirement to
bank holding companies with total
consolidated assets of $100 billion or
more, but less than $250 billion. As
noted in section II.A. above, while the
resolution planning conducted pursuant
to Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act
and the resolution planning required by
the IDI Rule are distinct in many ways,
nevertheless this change in filing
threshold warrants that the IDI Rule’s
$50 billion threshold be revisited.
III. Request for Comment
In light of the changes discussed and
lessons learned, it is appropriate to
review the IDI Rule requirements and
consider certain updates. The FDIC is
better prepared today to handle larger
resolutions than it was during and in
the immediate aftermath of the 2008
financial crisis. This is in part because
of what has been learned through the
resolution plan review process
established by the IDI Rule and the
complementary enhancements
implemented through the issuance of
Part 370 and the revisions to Part 371.
In addition, seven years and multiple
submissions from CIDIs have allowed
the FDIC to identify best practices and
to contemplate ways to enhance the
utility of information provided by CIDIs.
The FDIC feedback and guidance 10
provided since issuance of the IDI Rule
indicate that the FDIC’s experience in
administering the IDI Rule has led to
overall changes in its expectations
regarding the process, as well as the
value it places on individual
components required in the Resolution
Plans.
Experience with the IDI Rule
indicates that in many cases, the
greatest value of resolution planning
comes from the insights into each CIDI’s
idiosyncratic risk profile and
information on the particular CIDI that
the Resolution Plans provide, rather
than the strategies that each CIDI
develops for resolution. Further, the
FDIC’s experience shows that the
distinctions among individual CIDIs
make certain elements called for in the
IDI Rule more or less valuable, such that
a one-size-fits-all approach may no
longer be the best approach for
specifying Resolution Plan content.
Moreover, the FDIC is aware of the
considerable time and resources
devoted by CIDIs to meet the
requirements of the IDI Rule, as well as
the requirements of Parts 370 and 371.
Given the cumulative experience of the
10 See, e.g., Guidance for Covered Insured
Depository Institution Resolution Plan Submissions
(Dec. 17, 2014), https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/
press/2014/pr14109a.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
16624
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Resolution Plan review process and the
new capabilities required by Parts 370
and 371, revisions to the requirements
of the IDI Rule are warranted.
The agency is seeking comment on a
number of questions intended to
determine how the IDI Rule could be
streamlined and otherwise improved to
support the FDIC’s mandate to
administer orderly and least-costly
resolutions of CIDIs while reducing the
overall burden on CIDIs.
The FDIC is soliciting feedback from
the public on potential changes to the
IDI Rule to:
• Create tiered groups to tailor the
requirements of the IDI rule based upon
size, complexity, and other relevant
factors;
• Improve the content requirements
of the IDI Rule, including through the
modification of certain items;
• Under one alternative, for the
larger, more complex CIDIs, replace the
requirement for a full resolution plan
with two streamlined versions;
• Under a second alternative,
maintain a single group of the larger,
more complex global and regional CIDIs
and require them to provide streamlined
Resolution Plan information targeted to
their size, complexity, and other factors;
• For the smaller, less complex
regional-sized CIDIs, replace the
requirement for a Resolution Plan with
periodic engagement with the FDIC on
certain specified resolution planning
matters; and
• Reduce the frequency of
requirements imposed by the IDI Rule.
This section III is divided into four
parts, covering: Tiered approach;
content; engagement and capabilities
testing; and frequency. In addition to
the initial proposals within each part,
more specific questions are provided.
The FDIC also seeks comments from
interested parties on all aspects of its
large IDI resolution planning activities
and process, this ANPR, and the IDI
Rule. Commenters are invited to
respond to the questions presented and
to offer comments, data, or suggestions
on any other issues related to IDI
resolution planning requirements,
including developments in the industry
or broader economy that may impact
how the FDIC evaluates comments
provided. Comments should be as
specific as possible.
A. Tiered Approach
1. Alternative One
The FDIC is considering revising the
IDI Rule to provide for a tiered approach
to resolution planning requirements.
This tiered approach would comprise
three groups:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
• Group A CIDIs: ‘‘Group A’’ would
include the largest, most complex,
internationally active IDIs. Due to the
size of a Group A CIDI, the global nature
of its business, the critical importance of
its operations, and its interconnections
with affiliates, resolution planning
would be required. A P&A transaction
with an assuming institution is highly
unlikely. Therefore, preparation for the
potential use of a bridge bank
transaction is needed. A Group A CIDI
would submit a streamlined Resolution
Plan as discussed below under
‘‘Content.’’
• Group B CIDIs: ‘‘Group B’’ would
include larger, more complex regional
IDIs. Due to the size of a Group B CIDI,
the complexity of its operations, or the
specialized nature of its business, it may
be unlikely that an assuming institution
would be available to purchase the
assets and assume the liabilities of the
failed CIDI at the time of its failure.
Resolution planning is necessary to
assist the FDIC in marketing the
institution or preparing to continue its
operations in a bridge bank. Because
these institutions do not share certain of
the characteristics of the Group A CIDIs,
they would submit a further streamlined
Resolution Plan as discussed below
under ‘‘Content.’’
• Group C CIDIs: ‘‘Group C’’ would
include smaller, less complex regional
IDIs. Due to the relative lack of
complexity of these institutions, there is
a higher degree of likelihood that, given
adequate advance preparation, an
assuming institution would purchase
the assets and assume the liabilities of
the institution at the time of failure.
Advance resolution planning would be
an important factor in the success of
such a resolution transaction for an
institution of this size and complexity,
including whether a Group C CIDI could
be successfully marketed to an assuming
institution or would need to be resolved
using a bridge bank. Group C CIDIs
would not be required to submit a
Resolution Plan.
2. Alternative Two
As an alternative to the approach
described immediately above, the FDIC
is considering revising the IDI Rule to
provide for a tiered approach
comprising two groups:
• Larger CIDIs: Group A and Group B
CIDIs (together, Larger CIDIs) would be
subject to a continuum of disclosure
obligations for their Resolution Plan
submissions based upon the size,
complexity, and other factors of the
specific IDI, instead of the two Groups
having distinct informational
requirements. Larger CIDIs would be
required to provide Resolution Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information based upon their
components of complexity,11 as
discussed below under ‘‘Content—
Alternative Two.’’
• Group C CIDIs: Group C CIDIs
would not have a Resolution Plan filing
requirement under either Alternative.
Under both Alternative One and
Alternative Two, all CIDIs subject to the
IDI Rule would periodically engage with
the FDIC on planning matters and
undergo periodic capabilities testing to
support the FDIC’s resolution planning
efforts, as discussed below under
‘‘Engagement and capabilities testing.’’
3. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related
to the tiered submission groups in
response to these questions:
1. As mentioned above, an IDI is
currently subject to the IDI Rule if it has
$50 billion or more in total assets. How
should the FDIC determine which
institutions are subject to the IDI Rule?
Should the FDIC continue to use a
specific asset threshold? If so, what
should the asset threshold be? Are there
other specific metrics or criteria the
FDIC should use? Are there specific
metrics that measure complexity or risk
that the FDIC should use?
2. Under both alternatives, how
should the FDIC determine which CIDIs
are in which group? Are there specific
metrics or criteria the FDIC should use?
Should the FDIC rely solely on asset
thresholds or should the FDIC use
additional or other metrics to measure
relative complexity and risk? If so, what
are the other metrics? Should the FDIC
consider a measure of funding structure
impact on resolution as a metric?
Should the FDIC endeavor to align the
groups with the categories being
proposed for bank holding companies
under the Section 165(d) Rule?
3. What are the pros and cons of
Alternative One and Alternative Two?
Which approach should the FDIC
implement, and why? Are there other
variations of either approach that the
FDIC should consider?
4. Under Alternative Two, the FDIC is
considering approaching size,
complexity, and other factors related to
resolvability as they arise in individual
components at each CIDI, such that a
particular informational Resolution
Plan element would not be required
unless a corresponding metric crossed a
threshold. Is this a useful way to
consider resolvability? Why or why not?
5. Is Alternative Two feasible? If so,
what specific criteria should the FDIC
11 Components of complexity include those
features of an IDI which could have a bearing on
its resolvability, triggering a corresponding
informational requirement in the Resolution Plan.
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
consider for purposes of considering the
size, complexity, and other factors
related to resolvability of Larger CIDIs
and mapping such factors to content
requirements?
6. Should the FDIC have discretion to
move a CIDI to a different group based
on specific characteristics of the CIDI? If
so, what factors should the FDIC
consider in making such a
determination? Does the
appropriateness of such a discretionary
authority vary depending on whether
the groups are distinguished by asset
thresholds alone or in combination with
other factors?
B. Content
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Alternative One
In line with the tiered approach to
resolution planning requirements
discussed in ‘‘Tiered Approach—
Alternative One,’’ above, the FDIC is
considering an approach whereby
Resolution Plan requirements would
align more closely to the size,
complexity, and other factors of the
subject CIDIs. Content requirements
would differ substantially between
Group A and Group B CIDIs. Group C
CIDIs would not be required to file a
formal Resolution Plan. All CIDIs would
be required to periodically engage with
FDIC resolution staff on certain
specified resolution planning matters
and would continue to be subject to
capabilities testing, as discussed below
under ‘‘Engagement and capabilities
testing.’’
Group A CIDIs
Group A CIDIs would be subject to all
content requirements specified in the
amended IDI Rule. The content
requirements would be modified from
those in the current IDI Rule.
The current IDI Rule requires CIDIs to
develop strategies for resolution of the
CIDI, including a strategy to unwind its
operations from the organizational
structure of its parent 12 and a strategy
for the sale or other disposition of the
deposit franchise.13 Because the FDIC
manages FDI Act resolutions, the FDIC
is considering modifying these content
requirements to clarify that the FDIC
would develop the strategies and make
the least cost test determination, with
information provided by the CIDI.
The current IDI Rule also requires the
CIDI to describe any contingency
planning or other exercises undertaken
to assess the viability of or to improve
the resolution plan.14 Contingency
planning is an important component of
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(v).
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(vi).
14 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xxi).
resolution planning, and one for which
CIDIs are an integral part. CIDIs may not
be in the best position, however, to
assess their Resolution Plan, and the
contingency planning exercises should
not necessarily be seen as a reflection of
the merit of the Resolution Plan
submissions. Similarly, while there is
value in confirming that a CIDI treats
preparation of the Resolution Plan with
the appropriate degree of commitment
and level of attention, detailed
information concerning the corporate
governance structure for developing,
approving, and filing the Resolution
Plan may have limited relevance to the
FDIC’s resolution planning efforts.15
Information concerning how resolution
planning is integrated into the CIDI’s
corporate governance structure may be
of greater utility.16 Accordingly, the
FDIC is reconsidering these content
requirements.
As noted above, it is expected that a
Group A CIDI would participate in
resolution planning through the DFA
Resolution Plan filed by its parent or
affiliate. That DFA Resolution Plan may
include important analysis relating to
the IDI, for example, interconnections
and interdependencies among the
parent company, the CIDI, and certain
other subsidiaries that, if disrupted,
would materially affect the CIDI’s
funding or operations.17
To promote efficiency and reduce
burden, the FDIC is encouraging the use
of incorporation by reference to DFA
Resolution Plan filings where
practicable. In the past, the FDIC also
has encouraged CIDIs to eliminate
content not required in a particular
submission through incorporating such
content by reference to the prior
submission.
In the past, the FDIC has provided
waivers on Resolution Plan
informational content where
appropriate. This practice could be
expanded for Group A (and Group B)
CIDIs.
Group B CIDIs
The content requirements for a Group
B CIDI would be further streamlined
such that Group B CIDIs would submit
a subset of the Resolution Plan required
of Group A CIDIs. In addition to the
content requirement modifications
noted above, which would apply to both
Group A and Group B CIDIs, certain
informational requirements may be less
relevant for certain Group B CIDIs due
to their size, complexity, and other
factors. The specific informational
12 See
15 See
13 See
16 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(B) and (C).
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(A).
17 See 12 CFR 381.4(g).
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16625
requirements would be determined in
tandem with the determination of the
scope of the Group B CIDIs, as discussed
above under ‘‘Tiered approach.’’
Group C CIDIs
Group C CIDIs would no longer be
required to file a Resolution Plan.
2. Alternative Two
The FDIC is considering a second
approach under which there would be
no bright-line distinction with regard to
the informational requirements for
Larger CIDIs. Under this approach,
content requirements would exist along
a continuum based upon the size,
complexity, and other factors of the
particular CIDI. This would naturally
reduce plan content the most for CIDIs
who operate less complex franchises,
versus the more structured approach
outlined in Alternative One.
Informational requirements that may
in particular be impacted could include:
Information concerning major
counterparties of the CIDI; 18 a
description of off-balance-sheet
exposures; 19 information concerning
the CIDI’s pledged collateral; 20
information on the CIDI’s trading,
derivatives, and hedging activities; 21 a
description of the systemically
important functions of the CIDI and its
affiliates; 22 and a description of crossborder elements of the CIDI’s
operations.23 The FDIC is considering
modifying these content requirements
for Larger CIDIs for whom some of this
information may be less material.
Informational requirements would be
dictated by the components of
complexity of the particular Larger CIDI.
For example, a Larger CIDI which
engages in significant cross-border
operations would present the
corresponding metrics for complexity
that would trigger the requirement to
include a robust discussion of those
activities in its Resolution Plan.24 This
same institution may not have a
significant qualified financial contract
business or one that imposes significant
risk on its business, and also may not
provide systemically important
functions.25 Because those requirements
relating to qualified financial contracts
and systemically important functions
would not be triggered, the Resolution
Plan for this Larger CIDI potentially
could provide streamlined content on
18 See
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ix).
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(x).
20 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xi).
21 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii).
22 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xvii).
23 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xviii).
24 See id.
25 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii) and (xvii).
19 See
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
16626
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
these items, or would not be required to
respond to the informational item.
Further, the FDIC is considering
describing in regulatory text the specific
metrics it would use to determine which
specific informational requirements
would be required.
As under Alternative One, Group C
CIDIs would not file a Resolution Plan
under Alternative Two. Also as under
Alternative One, all CIDIs subject to the
IDI Rule would be required to
periodically engage with FDIC
resolution staff on certain specified
resolution planning matters and would
continue to be subject to capabilities
testing, as discussed below under
‘‘Engagement and capabilities testing.’’
3. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related
to content requirements in response to
these questions:
7. What are the costs and benefits of
the current IDI plan content
requirements?
8. What current aspects of the
resolution planning requirements are
the most burdensome for CIDIs? Are
there specific resolution planning
requirements that commenters believe
do not provide sufficient benefit to the
FDIC to justify the cost, and if so, which
ones and why?
9. How should the FDIC consider the
costs and benefits of requiring
Resolution Plans from CIDIs whose
parent companies have adopted a single
point of entry resolution strategy? What
are the costs of requiring the submission
of Resolution Plans for such CIDIs, and
what is the expected value of the
benefits of such advanced planning in
the event that a resolution of a CIDI is
necessary for such an institution?
10. Are there specific requirements of
the IDI Rule that may not be necessary
for CIDIs that have adopted a single
point of entry resolution strategy
specifically because they have adopted
such a strategy?
11. Are there additional steps that the
FDIC should take to remove duplication
between the DFA Resolution Plans and
the Resolution Plans for CIDIs without
reducing the effectiveness of each Plan?
If so, what are they and why would
taking such steps be appropriate?
12. What content requirements should
be modified for Larger CIDIs (under both
Alternatives)? Why and in what
manner?
13. What content requirements should
be modified solely for Group B CIDIs
under Alternative One? Why and in
what manner?
14. Are waivers useful to help
streamline and customize the
informational requirements for CIDIs?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
Should the FDIC consider expanding
the use of waivers, and if so how?
15. In Alternative Two, the FDIC is
proposing to base informational
requirements for the Larger CIDIs upon
the components of complexity for each
such institution. Should the FDIC base
the informational requirements off of
the individual characteristics of the
CIDI? Why or why not?
16. Is there content not presently
required by the IDI Rule that could
improve the effectiveness of Resolution
Plan submissions and resolution
planning for all CIDIs or for one or more
Groups of CIDIs?
17. Should the FDIC make any
changes to help foster a transparent set
of content requirements? What steps can
the FDIC take to ensure transparency,
while also exploring potential changes
to the IDI Rule discussed above
providing for a streamlined set of
informational requirements based upon
the nature of a CIDI’s operations?
18. What changes (if any) should be
required to the public portions of
Resolution Plans to make the resolution
planning process more transparent?
Why?
19. Should the FDIC make any
feedback letters it issues as part of the
Resolution Plan process public? Why or
why not?
20. What else should the FDIC
consider that would tailor the burden
involved in preparing and submitting
Resolution Plan information without
reducing the IDI Rule’s effectiveness?
Are there ways that the FDIC could use
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology to
facilitate transmission of resolution
planning information?
C. Engagement and Capabilities Testing
1. Discussion
Engagement
The current IDI Rule requires each
CIDI to make its personnel available to
assist the FDIC in assessing the
credibility of the Resolution Plan and
the ability of the CIDI to implement the
Resolution Plan.26 As discussed above,
while the FDIC would retain a
Resolution Plan submission requirement
for Larger CIDIs under both
Alternatives, certain informational
requirements may be modified or
eliminated. Among those may be
informational requirements related to
resolution strategies, which would
instead be developed by the FDIC using
information it receives from the CIDI.
Accordingly, the FDIC is considering
modifying the IDI Rule’s requirement
26 See
PO 00000
12 CFR 360.10(d)(1).
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
related to access to personnel from
facilitating the FDIC’s assessment of the
Resolution Plan to engaging with the
FDIC to provide feedback on the
development of the FDIC’s resolution
strategy for the particular CIDI. Areas of
focus likely would include:
• Operational continuity (for
example, critical services, back office
applications, and key personnel
retention);
• Disposition of the CIDI’s franchise
component(s) (including treatment of
interconnections and dependencies);
• Management information systems
reporting capabilities (that is, the CIDI’s
ability to provide key information
needed for resolution when the
institution is in financial distress and
throughout resolution); and
• Liquidity needs and liquidity
management practices (particularly
significant off-balance sheet activities,
large intraday needs, foreign currency
dependencies, and international timezone funding books).
The direct engagement with CIDI staff
would provide an opportunity for the
FDIC to solicit feedback on the
resolution strategy it develops for the
institution. It would provide an
opportunity to identify gaps in the
FDIC’s understanding of the particular
institution and its potential challenges
in resolution. The FDIC could use this
opportunity to explore how identified
gaps could be mitigated through
additional data and analysis, future
Resolution Plan submissions, or
additional resolution strategy
development.
The format for this engagement could
include in-person meetings between
FDIC staff and personnel from the CIDI;
requests for data and analysis; or other
in-person or electronic outreach.
In the case of Larger CIDIs, the
engagement would cover the general
informational requirements of their
respective Resolution Plans. The FDIC
would envision having an initial
outreach session following the first
Resolution Plan submission under the
revised IDI Rule, followed by regular
outreach sessions, in addition to any
potential conditions-based
supplemental resolution planning as
discussed below under ‘‘Frequency—
Conditions-based supplemental
resolution planning.’’ The FDIC would
also continue to make itself available to
answer questions about Resolution Plan
requirements.
For Group C CIDIs, the requirement to
submit a Resolution Plan would be
eliminated; instead, the FDIC would
engage in periodic resolution planning
outreach with Group C CIDIs in lieu of
the submission. Due to the size,
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
complexity, and operations of the Group
C CIDIs, it is expected that the outreach
would cover a limited number of items
such as:
• Information on the structure and
core business lines (including
segmented financial analysis); 27
• Information about critical services
and providers of those services; 28 and
• Management information systems.29
Capabilities Testing
Additionally, all CIDIs subject to the
IDI Rule would continue to be subject to
periodic capabilities testing.30
Capabilities testing would be intended
to verify the accuracy of the Resolution
Plan information provided to the FDIC,
in the case of CIDIs that submit
Resolution Plans, and the ability of the
CIDI promptly to provide critical
information if required to do so in
exigent circumstances, in the case of all
CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule. The
capabilities testing would also be
tailored according to the size,
complexity, and other factors of the
CIDI, based on the tiers described above.
Examples of areas that could be
covered through capabilities testing
could include:
• Liabilities data.
• Operational continuity and bridge
bank management: Critical services; key
personnel; subsidiaries and affiliates;
key accounting processes; and key
operational processes.
• Determination of franchise value:
Capability to produce marketing plan;
segmented financial reporting; and due
diligence room.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related
to engagement and capabilities testing
in response to these questions:
21. What are the costs and benefits if
the FDIC replaces the plan submission
requirement with the engagement as
described above for Group C CIDIs?
22. If the FDIC engages with the CIDIs
to solicit their feedback on resolution
strategies and plans developed by the
FDIC, do commenters have specific
recommendations regarding the format
of that engagement?
23. The FDIC is considering
undertaking regular capabilities testing
to help ensure that a CIDI will be able
to provide critical information promptly
if called upon to do so in exigent
circumstances. How should the FDIC
approach testing of CIDI capabilities?
For Group A CIDIs and potentially some
27 See
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ii).
12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(iii).
29 See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xix).
30 See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(2).
28 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
Group B CIDIs, how should the FDIC
approach such testing given the
additional challenges posed by
increased operational complexity? For
Group C CIDIs, how should the FDIC
approach such testing given the
relatively reduced level of operational
complexity?
24. Should the FDIC conduct
simulations with CIDIs? If so, should
any aspects of the simulations be made
public?
D. Frequency
1. Discussion
Larger CIDIs
Currently, a CIDI is required to submit
an initial Resolution Plan followed by a
Resolution Plan submission on an
annual basis, unless the submission date
is extended by the FDIC. In recognition
of the challenges associated with an
annual resolution plan submission, over
the last few submission cycles the FDIC
has extended plan filing deadlines to
provide generally at least two years
between resolution plan submissions.
Under Alternative One, the FDIC is
considering replacing the concurrent
cycle with a staggered biennial/triennial
cycle. Under this approach, Group A
CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans
biennially and Group B CIDIs would
submit Resolution Plans every third
year. Under Alternative Two, Larger
CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans
either biennially or triennially based on
the characteristics of the CIDI.
The FDIC is also considering a
schedule in which the filing cycle
would alternate between Resolution
Plan submissions and further
streamlined content submissions
(focusing, for example, on a subset of
informational requirements).
Group C CIDIs
Group C CIDIs would no longer be
required to submit Resolution Plans.
Instead, the FDIC would engage with
those institutions on certain resolution
planning matters, as discussed above
under ‘‘Engagement and capabilities
testing.’’ That engagement would occur
on a periodic basis, in addition to any
conditions-based supplemental
resolution planning as discussed
immediately below.
Conditions-Based Supplemental
Resolution Planning
While a CIDI is in a healthy, wellcapitalized condition, the FDIC can
reasonably limit its resolution readiness
efforts to understanding and preparing
for the general challenges that any type
of failure or resolution of that CIDI
would present. Once a CIDI begins to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16627
experience stress or becomes troubled,
however, the particular circumstances
surrounding these events may indicate a
more specific and likely pathway to
resolution. As these details become
clear, the FDIC would need to quickly
enhance its general readiness to resolve
the institution to account for these
actual circumstances. To ensure that the
FDIC is prepared to resolve a CIDI, the
FDIC is considering implementing
supplemental resolution planning
outreach and engagement if the FDIC
determines that a CIDI is in stress or
becomes troubled. The trigger could be
linked to ratings, liquidity measures,
market indicators, or other indicators.
Following such a triggering event, the
FDIC would be able promptly to reengage with the CIDI on resolution
planning matters, even if the CIDI is not
at the point in the cycle at which such
engagement ordinarily would occur.
The FDIC would retain discretion in
determining whether to reengage with
the CIDI following such a triggering
event, depending on the condition of
the CIDI. The conditions-based
supplemental engagement would
include the activities and subject
matters described above under
‘‘Engagement and capabilities testing.’’
This would allow the FDIC to refresh its
resolution strategy for the CIDI and
update key data and analysis through
direct engagement with the CIDI at the
time when resolution planning and
preparedness is most time-sensitive,
useful, and cost-effective.
2. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related
to frequency in response to these
questions:
25. How frequently should the FDIC
require Resolution Plan submissions
from Larger CIDIs under both
alternatives? Under Alternative Two,
what measures of complexity, risk, or
other characteristics should be
considered in determining a CIDI’s filing
frequency?
26. How frequently should the FDIC
conduct resolution planning outreach
with Larger CIDIs under both
alternatives? How should this timeline
coincide with the Resolution Plan
submission timeline?
27. How frequently should the FDIC
conduct resolution planning outreach
with Group C CIDIs?
28. What are the costs and benefits of
requiring Larger CIDIs to submit plans
once every two/three years?
29. Should the FDIC consider a
schedule of alternating between
Resolution Plan submissions and
streamlined content submissions (for
example, focusing on a subset of
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
16628
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
informational requirements)? Why or
why not?
30. Should the FDIC endeavor to sync
the Resolution Plan submission timeline
for CIDIs with the timeline for DFA
Resolution Plans for DFA Resolution
Plan filers? If so, how?
31. Should the FDIC consider utilizing
an ad hoc submission program with
information regarding each pertinent
content area due at various times
throughout the submission cycle
(similar to an ongoing large bank
continuous examination program)
instead of maintaining the requirement
for a Resolution Plan submission due on
a single date? Why or why not?
32. The FDIC is considering one or
more conditions-based triggers to
increase resolution planning
engagement with a CIDI experiencing
stress or in troubled condition. If the
FDIC were to adopt such an approach,
what condition-based trigger or triggers
should the FDIC use, and why?
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, on April 16,
2019.
Valerie Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–08077 Filed 4–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0249; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–010–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Examining the AD Docket
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017–25–
12, which applies to all The Boeing
Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C,
–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes.
AD 2017–25–12 requires repetitive
inspections for cracking of the webs of
the stub beams at certain fuselage
stations, and applicable on-condition
actions. Since we issued AD 2017–25–
12, we have received reports of
horizontal cracking in the station (STA)
685 stub beam at the inboard end of the
upper chord and the outboard end of the
lower chord. AD 2017–25–12 did not
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 19, 2019
require an inspection of the area where
the horizontal cracks were found. This
proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections at certain fuselage stations
for cracking of the stub beams, and
applicable on-condition actions. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by June 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster
Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717;
internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
It is also available on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–
0249.
Jkt 247001
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–
0249; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles
ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137;
phone: 562–627–5324; fax: 562 627
5210; email: galib.abumeri@faa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2019–0249; Product Identifier 2019–
NM–010–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this NPRM. We will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this NPRM
because of those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued AD 2017–25–12,
Amendment 39–19126 (82 FR 59967,
December 18, 2017) (‘‘AD 2017–25–
12’’), for all The Boeing Company Model
737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and
–500 series airplanes. AD 2017–25–12
requires repetitive inspections for
cracking of the webs of the stub beams
at certain fuselage stations, and
applicable on-condition actions. AD
2017–25–12 resulted from reports of
cracking in the webs of the stub beams
at certain fuselage stations. These cracks
are a result of fatigue caused by cyclical
loading from pressurization, wing loads,
and landing loads. We issued AD 2017–
25–12 to address cracking in the webs
of the stub beams at certain fuselage
stations, which, if not corrected, could
result in the loss of structural integrity
of the airframe during flight, collapse of
the main landing gear, and failure of the
pressure deck.
Actions Since AD 2017–25–12 Was
Issued
Since we issued AD 2017–25–12, we
have received reports of horizontal
cracking in the STA 685 stub beam at
the inboard end of the upper chord and
the outboard end of the lower chord.
These cracks were caused by overload of
the stub beams, leading to ductile
separation. Cracks have occurred in the
stub beam webs at STA 685 on the left
and right sides of airplanes having total
flight cycles ranging between 11,167
and 45,892 at the time of the crack
finding. If left undetected, such cracking
could lead to the loss of structural
integrity of the airframe during flight,
collapse of the main landing gear, and
possible failure of the pressure deck. AD
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16620-16628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08077]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 16620]]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 360
RIN 3064-AF05
Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions
With $50 Billion or More in Total Assets
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FDIC invites comments on this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) concerning how to tailor and improve its rule
requiring certain insured depository institutions to submit resolution
plans.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AF05, by any
of the following methods:
Agency website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency
website.
Email: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 3064-AF05'' on the
subject line of the message.
Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments/RIN 3064-AF05, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments may be hand delivered to
the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located
on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
All comments received must include the agency name (FDIC) and RIN
3064-AF05 and will be posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal, including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F. Angus Tarpley III, Counsel, (703)
562-2434, [email protected], James P. Sheesley, Counsel, (703) 562-
2047, [email protected], Ryan M. Rappa, Counsel, (202) 898-6767, Legal
Division; Lori J. Quigley, Deputy Director, (202) 898-3799, Robert C.
Connors, Associate Director, (202) 898-3834, Division of Risk
Management Supervision; Marc Steckel, Deputy Director, (571) 858-8224,
Division of Resolutions and Receiverships; Jason C. Cave, Corporate
Expert, (202) 898-3548, Office of Complex Financial Institutions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The FDIC is undertaking a review of its rule requiring certain
insured depository institutions (IDIs) to submit resolution plans (IDI
Rule).\1\ This ANPR is part of that review process. The FDIC is
considering how to tailor and improve the IDI Rule, as described below.
Specifically, the FDIC invites comments on certain approaches under
consideration: (1) Creation of tiered resolution planning requirements
based on institution size, complexity, and other factors; (2) revisions
to the frequency and required content of plan submissions, including
elimination of plan submissions for a category of smaller and less
complex IDIs; and (3) improvements to the process for periodic
engagement between the FDIC and institutions on resolution-related
matters. The FDIC is also seeking comment on whether to revise the $50
billion asset size threshold in the IDI Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 12 CFR 360.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC is currently considering several approaches for revising
the IDI Rule. Specifically, under one alternative approach, the FDIC is
considering categorizing IDIs subject to the IDI Rule into three
groups. The IDIs in the first group, Group A (as defined below),
comprising the largest and most complex IDIs, would be required to
submit Resolution Plans (as defined below) with content requirements
that would be streamlined compared to the current IDI Rule. IDIs in the
second group, Group B (as defined below), which would include larger,
more complex regional IDIs, would be required to submit further
streamlined Resolution Plans, reduced in content compared to the
Resolution Plans required for Group A. The IDIs in the third group,
Group C (as defined below) would be smaller and less complex than those
in Group A or Group B, and would no longer be required to submit
Resolution Plans. The FDIC would engage with Group A, Group B, and
Group C IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a limited number of items
related to resolution planning; these IDIs also would continue to be
subject to periodic testing of certain capabilities relating to
resolution planning and implementation.
Under a second alternative approach, the FDIC is considering
grouping IDIs subject to the IDI Rule into two groups: Larger IDIs
(comprising Group A and Group B IDIs) and Group C IDIs. Larger IDIs
would be required to submit Resolution Plans with streamlined content
requirements individually targeted to each institution's size,
complexity, and other factors related to resolvability. For example,
where a complex, larger IDI operates multiple business lines involving
affiliated, interconnected legal entities and an extensive, globally
dispersed branch network, the Resolution Plan for this large IDI would
provide relatively greater content on complexity and cross-border
elements. For a larger IDI that has a simpler footprint with minimal
cross-jurisdictional exposures, the relevant content requirements would
be streamlined or omitted. As in the first alternative approach, the
IDIs in Group C would no longer be required to submit Resolution Plans.
Also as in the first alternative approach, the FDIC would engage with
larger IDIs and Group C IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a limited
number of items related to resolution planning; these IDIs also would
continue to be subject to periodic testing of certain capabilities
relating to resolution planning and implementation.
II. Background
A. The IDI Rule
The IDI Rule was proposed in 2010 \2\ and became effective in
2012.\3\ The IDI Rule requires IDIs with $50 billion or more in total
assets (covered insured depository institutions or CIDIs) to
periodically submit plans (Resolution Plans) that should enable the
FDIC, as receiver, to resolve the CIDI in the event of its insolvency
under the Federal
[[Page 16621]]
Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) in a manner that ensures that
depositors receive access to their insured deposits within one business
day of the CIDI's failure (two business days if the failure occurs on a
day other than Friday), maximizes the net present value return from the
sale or disposition of its assets, and minimizes the amount of any loss
realized by the creditors in the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 75 FR 27464 (May 17, 2010).
\3\ Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 58379 (September 21, 2011) and
Final Rule, 77 FR 3075 (January 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC proposed the IDI Rule in response to challenges identified
in the resolution of IDIs during the 2008 financial crisis, prior to
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The IDI Rule was intended to ensure that the FDIC
has timely access to information concerning a CIDI's structure,
operations, business practices, financial responsibilities, and risk
exposure, which the FDIC would need to handle a resolution of a CIDI
under the FDI Act.
Separate from the FDI Act and IDI Rule requirements, section 165(d)
of the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that certain bank holding companies and
nonbank financial companies (Covered Companies) submit resolution plans
(DFA Resolution Plans) for the rapid and orderly resolution of the
Covered Company under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.\4\ DFA Resolution Plans
have a specific goal different from that of Resolution Plans under the
IDI Rule: To reduce the likelihood that the financial distress or
failure of a Covered Company would have serious adverse effects on
financial stability in the United States. The interim final IDI Rule
and the final rule regarding DFA Resolution Plans (Section 165(d) Rule)
\5\ were issued concurrently with aligned asset thresholds for CIDIs
and Covered Companies. Since then, the Dodd-Frank Act has been amended
to revise the threshold for DFA Resolution Plans.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The DFA Resolution Plan of a foreign-based Covered Company
provides for the resolution of its U.S. operations and entities.
\5\ 12 CFR parts 243 & 381; 76 FR 67323 (January 23, 2012). On
April 8 and 16, 2019, respectively, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System and the FDIC's Board of Directors considered
proposed amendments to the Section 165(d) Rule to reflect
improvements identified during the eight years the Section 165(d)
Rule has been in effect and to address amendments to the Dodd-Frank
Act made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act.
\6\ Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection
Act, Sec. 401, Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296. See further
discussion in section II.E.3. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since issuing the final IDI Rule, the FDIC and CIDIs have been
through multiple Resolution Plan submission cycles. Through this
experience, the FDIC has learned what aspects of the resolution
planning process are most valuable and has gained an understanding of
the resources, internal and external, that CIDIs expend in meeting the
requirements of the IDI Rule. The FDIC has also gained additional
resolution capabilities relevant to CIDI resolution through rulemakings
subsequent to the issuance of the IDI Rule that provide information
related to that called for under the IDI Rule. Given what the FDIC has
learned, now is an appropriate time to review the IDI Rule in light of
these changes.
B. Distinctions Between IDI Rule and Section 165(d) Rule
Though the IDI Rule and the Section 165(d) Rule both require
planning for resolution of large, complex financial institutions to
minimize the cost and disruption of failures, resolution planning under
the two rules involves distinct entities, objectives, and legal
frameworks. The IDI Rule applies only to IDIs and involves resolution
under the FDI Act by the FDIC. The Section 165(d) Rule focuses on the
resolution of Covered Companies. Currently, all Covered Companies are
bank holding companies, which would be resolved under the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.
The IDI Rule's objective is to ensure that the FDIC can effectively
resolve a CIDI under the FDI Act, protecting its insured depositors and
the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and maximizing value for the benefit
of creditors of the CIDI. The Section 165(d) Rule's aim is ensuring
that the bankruptcy of a Covered Company can be accomplished in a
manner that substantially mitigates the risk that the failure of the
Covered Company would have serious adverse effects on financial
stability in the United States.
Under an FDI Act resolution, a CIDI's legal existence would
terminate upon entry into resolution, and its management would not
control the resolution. By contrast, under the resolution strategies
used in the DFA Resolution Plans, a Covered Company in bankruptcy
generally could continue its corporate existence, in which case some of
its most senior management may remain in place to manage the
reorganization.
The largest, most complex U.S. firms and a number of foreign-based
banking organizations present a single point of entry resolution
strategy in their DFA Resolution Plans. The single point of entry
resolution strategy does not anticipate that an IDI subsidiary will
enter resolution proceedings; instead an explicit goal of the single
point of entry strategy is to keep certain material subsidiaries,
including each IDI subsidiary, open and operating. However, the single
point of entry strategy remains untested, and may not be available
under all failure scenarios. For those reasons, a separate plan for the
CIDI is important.
For other DFA Resolution Plan filers where a single point of entry
resolution strategy is not proposed, especially in cases in which the
vast majority of the consolidated firm's total assets and business
lines are within the IDI, IDI resolution is likely to be a component of
any resolution involving the Covered Company.
C. Resolutions Under the FDI Act
The FDIC is charged by Congress with the responsibility for
insuring the deposits of IDIs in the United States and with serving as
receiver of such institutions following failure. To fulfill its
responsibilities, the FDIC has developed strategies and capabilities to
manage the failure of any IDI. Since 2008, the FDIC has served as
receiver for over 525 failed IDIs. These failures caused the DIF
temporarily to become insolvent and threatened its liquidity, yet the
FDIC remained able to discharge its duties through collection of
prepaid and special assessments and recoveries from failed bank
receiverships. Appropriate resolution planning is important to ensure
that the FDIC maintains the capabilities required to ensure depositors
have access to insured deposits as soon as possible and to minimize
potential losses to the DIF and other creditors. The FDIC's primary
resolution strategies for resolving an IDI are outlined below.
1. The Purchase and Assumption Transaction
Approximately 95 percent of resolutions conducted by the FDIC since
2007 involved the sale of the IDI's franchise and assets to an open
institution in an assisted transaction, generally involving a single
acquirer assuming nearly all of the failed IDI's liabilities. This
transaction, termed a purchase and assumption or ``P&A'' transaction,
is often both the easiest for the FDIC to execute and the least
disruptive to the depositors of the failed IDI. This is especially so
where the transaction involves the assumption of all the failed IDI's
deposits by the assuming institution (an all-deposit transaction).
The P&A option is not always available to the FDIC. P&A
transactions require lead time to identify potential buyers and allow
investigation and auction of the failing IDI's assets and banking
business, also termed its franchise. These transactions may only
[[Page 16622]]
be conducted following a determination, required by statute, that such
transaction results in the least cost to the DIF of all possible
resolution options,\7\ including paying out the insured deposits of the
failed IDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Other Resolution Strategies
If no P&A transaction that meets the least costly resolution
requirement can be accomplished, the FDIC must pursue an alternative
resolution strategy. The primary alternative resolution strategies are
the payout liquidation and the bridge bank. Both of these strategies
present significant operational challenges and the potential for
significant disruption in the case of large IDIs.
Payout. The FDIC conducts payout liquidations by paying insured
deposits in cash or transferring the insured deposits to an existing
institution or a new institution organized by the FDIC to assume the
insured deposits.\8\ In payout liquidations, the FDIC as receiver
retains substantially all of the failed IDI's assets for later sale,
and the franchise value of the failed IDI is lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 12 U.S.C. 1821(f), (m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Bank. If the FDIC determines that continuing the operations
of the failed IDI is less costly than a payout liquidation, it may
organize a nationally-chartered IDI of limited duration (a bridge bank)
to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the failed
IDI, in what may be either an all-deposit transaction or a transaction
in which the acquirer assumes only the insured deposits (an insured
deposit only transaction). Once the FDIC has transferred assets from
the failed bank to the newly established bridge bank, the FDIC will
manage and operate the new institution, potentially for a significant
length of time.
D. Challenges to Resolving CIDIs
The FDIC's sole experience with resolving a failed institution over
the current asset size threshold for a CIDI, Washington Mutual Bank,
involved an all-deposit P&A transaction that resulted in no losses to
the DIF. The availability of this low-risk, efficient resolution
strategy cannot be assumed for future CIDI failures. The largest bank
failure resolved by the FDIC without use of a P&A transaction was that
of IndyMac Bank, a complicated resolution that caused significant
losses for the DIF and posed considerable operational challenges. The
overall risk profile associated with the size, complexity, and funding
structure of some CIDIs reduces the likelihood that they could be
resolved through a P&A transaction, whether an all-deposit transaction
or an insured deposit only transaction. Further, these factors also
present significant challenges to conducting a resolution involving use
of a bridge bank. The purpose of IDI resolution planning is to prepare
for the failure of such IDIs, with a focus on the challenges that
resolution involving a bridge bank would entail.
1. Size
The size of a failing CIDI may restrict the FDIC's resolution
options by significantly reducing the number of potential P&A
acquirers. Certain CIDIs may be too large to be acquired by any other
open institution in a P&A transaction, due to legal limitations on
liability concentration or operational or economic conditions.\9\
Alternatively, a failed CIDI's concentration within certain market
areas may raise antitrust issues or otherwise preclude potential
acquirers from bidding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g. 12 U.S.C. 1852 (concentration limits on large
financial firms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Complexity
Many CIDIs exhibit a degree of complexity not found in smaller IDIs
which the FDIC has usually resolved through use of a P&A transaction.
This complexity manifests within the CIDI's operations and in its
relationships with affiliates, counterparties, and the economy. CIDIs
generally operate multiple business lines, frequently involving
affiliated, interconnected legal entities and extensive, geographically
dispersed branch networks. Many CIDIs rely on affiliate legal entities,
foreign branches, or contractual counterparties to carry out one or
more critical services necessary for continuing day-to-day operations.
In addition, many CIDIs conduct capital markets activities in multiple
jurisdictions, and may participate in multiple payment, clearing, and
settlement systems. These activities all rely on a larger workforce
containing a higher number of specialized, key personnel than the
typical IDI, and necessitate use of specialized management information
systems for risk management, accounting, and reporting.
CIDI complexity presents challenges to resolution by P&A or bridge
bank. Use of either resolution strategy generally requires separation
of the CIDI from its parent and affiliate entities, including both
organizational and contractual connections, in a manner that preserves
the value and allows the continuation of the business of the CIDI
either by a bridge bank or as a component of an acquirer's business.
This task requires both a comprehensive understanding of these
relationships and the capabilities to carry out a plan that effects
such separation. Absent planning and preparation, CIDI complexity may
present too great a challenge for any potential acquirer to value,
especially in a time of financial distress or market disruption.
Similarly, incomplete awareness of interconnectedness and key
dependencies in the CIDI's organizational structure and the lack of
arrangements necessary for organizational separation and operational
continuity in resolution would greatly impact a bridge bank resolution,
where the FDIC would be tasked with continuing these operations to
avoid disruptions to depositors and to maximize value to the
receivership in the ultimate disposition of the bridge bank.
3. Funding
Larger IDIs tend to rely to a greater extent than smaller IDIs on
uninsured deposits and market funding. This funding structure impacts
both the timing of a resolution and the availability of resolution
options. Funding structures less reliant on insured deposits generally
compress the failure timeline. Uninsured deposits and market funding
are more likely to be withdrawn rapidly should an IDI exhibit signs of
financial distress. While IDI failures resulting solely from capital
inadequacy typically unfold over months (or longer), a failure
triggered by an IDI's lack of liquidity can arise much more quickly,
requiring advance planning to facilitate an orderly resolution.
Liquidity issues may also require the resolution to occur on a day
other than Friday, which could further complicate the FDIC's ability to
complete a successful resolution transaction.
A larger share of liabilities in the form of uninsured deposits
makes an all-deposit transaction less likely because an assuming
institution would need to pay a greater premium to effect an all-
deposit transaction that satisfies the least costly resolution
requirement. An insured deposit only transaction requires an insurance
determination. While the FDIC's recordkeeping rule for timely deposit
insurance determinations (described below) will improve the FDIC's
ability to conduct such a determination for certain IDIs over the
weekend following the IDI's closing, such a determination for a CIDI
would still be complex and would be the largest in FDIC history.
[[Page 16623]]
The FDIC must also make determinations regarding the transfer of
non-deposit liabilities in a P&A or bridge bank resolution. Some
liabilities would be transferred to the acquirer or bridge bank,
generally resulting in the counterparty receiving full payment and
performance of those obligations, while other non-deposit liabilities
would likely be left with the receivership, to be satisfied from any
proceeds of the receiver's asset disposition efforts (including the
ultimate disposition of a bridge bank, if this strategy is used)
available for distribution after satisfaction of administrative and
deposit claims. The FDIC must be in a position to estimate the value of
these liabilities and determine which should be transferred. Settlement
of claims left with the receiver requires advance planning and
capabilities enhancement on the FDIC's part. The FDIC has an
established process for receiving proofs of receivership claims and
making final claims determinations, but it has never utilized that
process in a bridge bank resolution in excess of the size of IndyMac.
The FDIC expects that a CIDI claims process would be significantly more
complex.
E. Resolution Plan Experience and Recent Developments
In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC
instituted several rulemakings that support its mission as deposit
insurer to make timely insured deposit payments and as resolution
authority to resolve a failed IDI in the manner that is least costly to
the DIF. In addition to the current IDI Rule, these include
Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination (Part 370) and
Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part
371). These rules address certain of the difficulties the FDIC could
face in the closing of a large, complex IDI. As noted in section II.A.
above, changes to the Dodd-Frank Act enacted since issuance of the IDI
Rule also warrant reconsideration of IDI resolution planning
requirements.
1. Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination (Part 370)
Part 370 requires covered institutions, IDIs with two million or
more deposit accounts, to put in place mechanisms to facilitate prompt
deposit insurance determinations. Covered institutions must (a)
configure their information technology systems to be able to calculate
the insured and uninsured portion of each deposit account by ownership
right and capacity; and (b) maintain complete and accurate information
needed by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance coverage for each
deposit account. These requirements are designed to assist the FDIC in
fulfilling its statutory mandate in promptly making insurance
determinations, providing liquidity to insured depositors, and
administering the claims process for uninsured depositors. The
capabilities to be implemented by CIDIs subject to Part 370 would
enhance the ability of the FDIC to conduct a resolution of any type,
potentially reducing the importance of some Resolution Plan content
relating to deposit accounts.
2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part
371)
Part 371 requires institutions in troubled condition to keep
enhanced records in standard format regarding their qualified financial
contracts. This information would be used by the FDIC, were it
appointed receiver, in making a determination of whether to transfer
qualified financial contracts entered into by the failed institution
within the brief statutory window. Part 371 provides significantly
greater requirements for larger institutions in recognition of the
informational and logistical needs that the FDIC, as receiver, would
have as a result of the significant and more complex qualified
financial contract portfolios that such institutions are likely to
hold. This rule improves the ability of the FDIC to make a timely
qualified financial contract determination, potentially reducing the
scope of information and planning required to be included in a
Resolution Plan relating to qualified financial contracts.
3. Changes to DFA Resolution Plan Requirements Under the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
The filing threshold established in the IDI Rule was initially
aligned to the filing threshold established by the Dodd-Frank Act for
bank holding companies required to submit DFA Resolution Plans, and the
IDI Rule was intended to complement the Dodd-Frank Act and the Section
165(d) Rule.
On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) was enacted. Among other changes,
EGRRCPA raised the $50 billion minimum asset threshold for general
application of the resolution planning requirement of Section 165(d) of
the Dodd-Frank Act to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, and
provided the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with
discretion to apply the resolution planning requirement to bank holding
companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, but
less than $250 billion. As noted in section II.A. above, while the
resolution planning conducted pursuant to Section 165(d) of the Dodd-
Frank Act and the resolution planning required by the IDI Rule are
distinct in many ways, nevertheless this change in filing threshold
warrants that the IDI Rule's $50 billion threshold be revisited.
III. Request for Comment
In light of the changes discussed and lessons learned, it is
appropriate to review the IDI Rule requirements and consider certain
updates. The FDIC is better prepared today to handle larger resolutions
than it was during and in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial
crisis. This is in part because of what has been learned through the
resolution plan review process established by the IDI Rule and the
complementary enhancements implemented through the issuance of Part 370
and the revisions to Part 371. In addition, seven years and multiple
submissions from CIDIs have allowed the FDIC to identify best practices
and to contemplate ways to enhance the utility of information provided
by CIDIs. The FDIC feedback and guidance \10\ provided since issuance
of the IDI Rule indicate that the FDIC's experience in administering
the IDI Rule has led to overall changes in its expectations regarding
the process, as well as the value it places on individual components
required in the Resolution Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Guidance for Covered Insured Depository
Institution Resolution Plan Submissions (Dec. 17, 2014), https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2014/pr14109a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience with the IDI Rule indicates that in many cases, the
greatest value of resolution planning comes from the insights into each
CIDI's idiosyncratic risk profile and information on the particular
CIDI that the Resolution Plans provide, rather than the strategies that
each CIDI develops for resolution. Further, the FDIC's experience shows
that the distinctions among individual CIDIs make certain elements
called for in the IDI Rule more or less valuable, such that a one-size-
fits-all approach may no longer be the best approach for specifying
Resolution Plan content.
Moreover, the FDIC is aware of the considerable time and resources
devoted by CIDIs to meet the requirements of the IDI Rule, as well as
the requirements of Parts 370 and 371. Given the cumulative experience
of the
[[Page 16624]]
Resolution Plan review process and the new capabilities required by
Parts 370 and 371, revisions to the requirements of the IDI Rule are
warranted.
The agency is seeking comment on a number of questions intended to
determine how the IDI Rule could be streamlined and otherwise improved
to support the FDIC's mandate to administer orderly and least-costly
resolutions of CIDIs while reducing the overall burden on CIDIs.
The FDIC is soliciting feedback from the public on potential
changes to the IDI Rule to:
Create tiered groups to tailor the requirements of the IDI
rule based upon size, complexity, and other relevant factors;
Improve the content requirements of the IDI Rule,
including through the modification of certain items;
Under one alternative, for the larger, more complex CIDIs,
replace the requirement for a full resolution plan with two streamlined
versions;
Under a second alternative, maintain a single group of the
larger, more complex global and regional CIDIs and require them to
provide streamlined Resolution Plan information targeted to their size,
complexity, and other factors;
For the smaller, less complex regional-sized CIDIs,
replace the requirement for a Resolution Plan with periodic engagement
with the FDIC on certain specified resolution planning matters; and
Reduce the frequency of requirements imposed by the IDI
Rule.
This section III is divided into four parts, covering: Tiered
approach; content; engagement and capabilities testing; and frequency.
In addition to the initial proposals within each part, more specific
questions are provided.
The FDIC also seeks comments from interested parties on all aspects
of its large IDI resolution planning activities and process, this ANPR,
and the IDI Rule. Commenters are invited to respond to the questions
presented and to offer comments, data, or suggestions on any other
issues related to IDI resolution planning requirements, including
developments in the industry or broader economy that may impact how the
FDIC evaluates comments provided. Comments should be as specific as
possible.
A. Tiered Approach
1. Alternative One
The FDIC is considering revising the IDI Rule to provide for a
tiered approach to resolution planning requirements. This tiered
approach would comprise three groups:
Group A CIDIs: ``Group A'' would include the largest, most
complex, internationally active IDIs. Due to the size of a Group A
CIDI, the global nature of its business, the critical importance of its
operations, and its interconnections with affiliates, resolution
planning would be required. A P&A transaction with an assuming
institution is highly unlikely. Therefore, preparation for the
potential use of a bridge bank transaction is needed. A Group A CIDI
would submit a streamlined Resolution Plan as discussed below under
``Content.''
Group B CIDIs: ``Group B'' would include larger, more
complex regional IDIs. Due to the size of a Group B CIDI, the
complexity of its operations, or the specialized nature of its
business, it may be unlikely that an assuming institution would be
available to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the
failed CIDI at the time of its failure. Resolution planning is
necessary to assist the FDIC in marketing the institution or preparing
to continue its operations in a bridge bank. Because these institutions
do not share certain of the characteristics of the Group A CIDIs, they
would submit a further streamlined Resolution Plan as discussed below
under ``Content.''
Group C CIDIs: ``Group C'' would include smaller, less
complex regional IDIs. Due to the relative lack of complexity of these
institutions, there is a higher degree of likelihood that, given
adequate advance preparation, an assuming institution would purchase
the assets and assume the liabilities of the institution at the time of
failure. Advance resolution planning would be an important factor in
the success of such a resolution transaction for an institution of this
size and complexity, including whether a Group C CIDI could be
successfully marketed to an assuming institution or would need to be
resolved using a bridge bank. Group C CIDIs would not be required to
submit a Resolution Plan.
2. Alternative Two
As an alternative to the approach described immediately above, the
FDIC is considering revising the IDI Rule to provide for a tiered
approach comprising two groups:
Larger CIDIs: Group A and Group B CIDIs (together, Larger
CIDIs) would be subject to a continuum of disclosure obligations for
their Resolution Plan submissions based upon the size, complexity, and
other factors of the specific IDI, instead of the two Groups having
distinct informational requirements. Larger CIDIs would be required to
provide Resolution Plan information based upon their components of
complexity,\11\ as discussed below under ``Content--Alternative Two.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Components of complexity include those features of an IDI
which could have a bearing on its resolvability, triggering a
corresponding informational requirement in the Resolution Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group C CIDIs: Group C CIDIs would not have a Resolution
Plan filing requirement under either Alternative.
Under both Alternative One and Alternative Two, all CIDIs subject
to the IDI Rule would periodically engage with the FDIC on planning
matters and undergo periodic capabilities testing to support the FDIC's
resolution planning efforts, as discussed below under ``Engagement and
capabilities testing.''
3. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related to the tiered submission groups
in response to these questions:
1. As mentioned above, an IDI is currently subject to the IDI Rule
if it has $50 billion or more in total assets. How should the FDIC
determine which institutions are subject to the IDI Rule? Should the
FDIC continue to use a specific asset threshold? If so, what should the
asset threshold be? Are there other specific metrics or criteria the
FDIC should use? Are there specific metrics that measure complexity or
risk that the FDIC should use?
2. Under both alternatives, how should the FDIC determine which
CIDIs are in which group? Are there specific metrics or criteria the
FDIC should use? Should the FDIC rely solely on asset thresholds or
should the FDIC use additional or other metrics to measure relative
complexity and risk? If so, what are the other metrics? Should the FDIC
consider a measure of funding structure impact on resolution as a
metric? Should the FDIC endeavor to align the groups with the
categories being proposed for bank holding companies under the Section
165(d) Rule?
3. What are the pros and cons of Alternative One and Alternative
Two? Which approach should the FDIC implement, and why? Are there other
variations of either approach that the FDIC should consider?
4. Under Alternative Two, the FDIC is considering approaching size,
complexity, and other factors related to resolvability as they arise in
individual components at each CIDI, such that a particular
informational Resolution Plan element would not be required unless a
corresponding metric crossed a threshold. Is this a useful way to
consider resolvability? Why or why not?
5. Is Alternative Two feasible? If so, what specific criteria
should the FDIC
[[Page 16625]]
consider for purposes of considering the size, complexity, and other
factors related to resolvability of Larger CIDIs and mapping such
factors to content requirements?
6. Should the FDIC have discretion to move a CIDI to a different
group based on specific characteristics of the CIDI? If so, what
factors should the FDIC consider in making such a determination? Does
the appropriateness of such a discretionary authority vary depending on
whether the groups are distinguished by asset thresholds alone or in
combination with other factors?
B. Content
1. Alternative One
In line with the tiered approach to resolution planning
requirements discussed in ``Tiered Approach--Alternative One,'' above,
the FDIC is considering an approach whereby Resolution Plan
requirements would align more closely to the size, complexity, and
other factors of the subject CIDIs. Content requirements would differ
substantially between Group A and Group B CIDIs. Group C CIDIs would
not be required to file a formal Resolution Plan. All CIDIs would be
required to periodically engage with FDIC resolution staff on certain
specified resolution planning matters and would continue to be subject
to capabilities testing, as discussed below under ``Engagement and
capabilities testing.''
Group A CIDIs
Group A CIDIs would be subject to all content requirements
specified in the amended IDI Rule. The content requirements would be
modified from those in the current IDI Rule.
The current IDI Rule requires CIDIs to develop strategies for
resolution of the CIDI, including a strategy to unwind its operations
from the organizational structure of its parent \12\ and a strategy for
the sale or other disposition of the deposit franchise.\13\ Because the
FDIC manages FDI Act resolutions, the FDIC is considering modifying
these content requirements to clarify that the FDIC would develop the
strategies and make the least cost test determination, with information
provided by the CIDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(v).
\13\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current IDI Rule also requires the CIDI to describe any
contingency planning or other exercises undertaken to assess the
viability of or to improve the resolution plan.\14\ Contingency
planning is an important component of resolution planning, and one for
which CIDIs are an integral part. CIDIs may not be in the best
position, however, to assess their Resolution Plan, and the contingency
planning exercises should not necessarily be seen as a reflection of
the merit of the Resolution Plan submissions. Similarly, while there is
value in confirming that a CIDI treats preparation of the Resolution
Plan with the appropriate degree of commitment and level of attention,
detailed information concerning the corporate governance structure for
developing, approving, and filing the Resolution Plan may have limited
relevance to the FDIC's resolution planning efforts.\15\ Information
concerning how resolution planning is integrated into the CIDI's
corporate governance structure may be of greater utility.\16\
Accordingly, the FDIC is reconsidering these content requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xxi).
\15\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(B) and (C).
\16\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, it is expected that a Group A CIDI would
participate in resolution planning through the DFA Resolution Plan
filed by its parent or affiliate. That DFA Resolution Plan may include
important analysis relating to the IDI, for example, interconnections
and interdependencies among the parent company, the CIDI, and certain
other subsidiaries that, if disrupted, would materially affect the
CIDI's funding or operations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 12 CFR 381.4(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To promote efficiency and reduce burden, the FDIC is encouraging
the use of incorporation by reference to DFA Resolution Plan filings
where practicable. In the past, the FDIC also has encouraged CIDIs to
eliminate content not required in a particular submission through
incorporating such content by reference to the prior submission.
In the past, the FDIC has provided waivers on Resolution Plan
informational content where appropriate. This practice could be
expanded for Group A (and Group B) CIDIs.
Group B CIDIs
The content requirements for a Group B CIDI would be further
streamlined such that Group B CIDIs would submit a subset of the
Resolution Plan required of Group A CIDIs. In addition to the content
requirement modifications noted above, which would apply to both Group
A and Group B CIDIs, certain informational requirements may be less
relevant for certain Group B CIDIs due to their size, complexity, and
other factors. The specific informational requirements would be
determined in tandem with the determination of the scope of the Group B
CIDIs, as discussed above under ``Tiered approach.''
Group C CIDIs
Group C CIDIs would no longer be required to file a Resolution
Plan.
2. Alternative Two
The FDIC is considering a second approach under which there would
be no bright-line distinction with regard to the informational
requirements for Larger CIDIs. Under this approach, content
requirements would exist along a continuum based upon the size,
complexity, and other factors of the particular CIDI. This would
naturally reduce plan content the most for CIDIs who operate less
complex franchises, versus the more structured approach outlined in
Alternative One.
Informational requirements that may in particular be impacted could
include: Information concerning major counterparties of the CIDI; \18\
a description of off-balance-sheet exposures; \19\ information
concerning the CIDI's pledged collateral; \20\ information on the
CIDI's trading, derivatives, and hedging activities; \21\ a description
of the systemically important functions of the CIDI and its affiliates;
\22\ and a description of cross-border elements of the CIDI's
operations.\23\ The FDIC is considering modifying these content
requirements for Larger CIDIs for whom some of this information may be
less material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ix).
\19\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(x).
\20\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xi).
\21\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii).
\22\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xvii).
\23\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xviii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Informational requirements would be dictated by the components of
complexity of the particular Larger CIDI. For example, a Larger CIDI
which engages in significant cross-border operations would present the
corresponding metrics for complexity that would trigger the requirement
to include a robust discussion of those activities in its Resolution
Plan.\24\ This same institution may not have a significant qualified
financial contract business or one that imposes significant risk on its
business, and also may not provide systemically important
functions.\25\ Because those requirements relating to qualified
financial contracts and systemically important functions would not be
triggered, the Resolution Plan for this Larger CIDI potentially could
provide streamlined content on
[[Page 16626]]
these items, or would not be required to respond to the informational
item. Further, the FDIC is considering describing in regulatory text
the specific metrics it would use to determine which specific
informational requirements would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See id.
\25\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii) and (xvii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As under Alternative One, Group C CIDIs would not file a Resolution
Plan under Alternative Two. Also as under Alternative One, all CIDIs
subject to the IDI Rule would be required to periodically engage with
FDIC resolution staff on certain specified resolution planning matters
and would continue to be subject to capabilities testing, as discussed
below under ``Engagement and capabilities testing.''
3. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related to content requirements in
response to these questions:
7. What are the costs and benefits of the current IDI plan content
requirements?
8. What current aspects of the resolution planning requirements are
the most burdensome for CIDIs? Are there specific resolution planning
requirements that commenters believe do not provide sufficient benefit
to the FDIC to justify the cost, and if so, which ones and why?
9. How should the FDIC consider the costs and benefits of requiring
Resolution Plans from CIDIs whose parent companies have adopted a
single point of entry resolution strategy? What are the costs of
requiring the submission of Resolution Plans for such CIDIs, and what
is the expected value of the benefits of such advanced planning in the
event that a resolution of a CIDI is necessary for such an institution?
10. Are there specific requirements of the IDI Rule that may not be
necessary for CIDIs that have adopted a single point of entry
resolution strategy specifically because they have adopted such a
strategy?
11. Are there additional steps that the FDIC should take to remove
duplication between the DFA Resolution Plans and the Resolution Plans
for CIDIs without reducing the effectiveness of each Plan? If so, what
are they and why would taking such steps be appropriate?
12. What content requirements should be modified for Larger CIDIs
(under both Alternatives)? Why and in what manner?
13. What content requirements should be modified solely for Group B
CIDIs under Alternative One? Why and in what manner?
14. Are waivers useful to help streamline and customize the
informational requirements for CIDIs? Should the FDIC consider
expanding the use of waivers, and if so how?
15. In Alternative Two, the FDIC is proposing to base informational
requirements for the Larger CIDIs upon the components of complexity for
each such institution. Should the FDIC base the informational
requirements off of the individual characteristics of the CIDI? Why or
why not?
16. Is there content not presently required by the IDI Rule that
could improve the effectiveness of Resolution Plan submissions and
resolution planning for all CIDIs or for one or more Groups of CIDIs?
17. Should the FDIC make any changes to help foster a transparent
set of content requirements? What steps can the FDIC take to ensure
transparency, while also exploring potential changes to the IDI Rule
discussed above providing for a streamlined set of informational
requirements based upon the nature of a CIDI's operations?
18. What changes (if any) should be required to the public portions
of Resolution Plans to make the resolution planning process more
transparent? Why?
19. Should the FDIC make any feedback letters it issues as part of
the Resolution Plan process public? Why or why not?
20. What else should the FDIC consider that would tailor the burden
involved in preparing and submitting Resolution Plan information
without reducing the IDI Rule's effectiveness? Are there ways that the
FDIC could use automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology to facilitate transmission of resolution
planning information?
C. Engagement and Capabilities Testing
1. Discussion
Engagement
The current IDI Rule requires each CIDI to make its personnel
available to assist the FDIC in assessing the credibility of the
Resolution Plan and the ability of the CIDI to implement the Resolution
Plan.\26\ As discussed above, while the FDIC would retain a Resolution
Plan submission requirement for Larger CIDIs under both Alternatives,
certain informational requirements may be modified or eliminated. Among
those may be informational requirements related to resolution
strategies, which would instead be developed by the FDIC using
information it receives from the CIDI. Accordingly, the FDIC is
considering modifying the IDI Rule's requirement related to access to
personnel from facilitating the FDIC's assessment of the Resolution
Plan to engaging with the FDIC to provide feedback on the development
of the FDIC's resolution strategy for the particular CIDI. Areas of
focus likely would include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational continuity (for example, critical services,
back office applications, and key personnel retention);
Disposition of the CIDI's franchise component(s)
(including treatment of interconnections and dependencies);
Management information systems reporting capabilities
(that is, the CIDI's ability to provide key information needed for
resolution when the institution is in financial distress and throughout
resolution); and
Liquidity needs and liquidity management practices
(particularly significant off-balance sheet activities, large intraday
needs, foreign currency dependencies, and international time-zone
funding books).
The direct engagement with CIDI staff would provide an opportunity
for the FDIC to solicit feedback on the resolution strategy it develops
for the institution. It would provide an opportunity to identify gaps
in the FDIC's understanding of the particular institution and its
potential challenges in resolution. The FDIC could use this opportunity
to explore how identified gaps could be mitigated through additional
data and analysis, future Resolution Plan submissions, or additional
resolution strategy development.
The format for this engagement could include in-person meetings
between FDIC staff and personnel from the CIDI; requests for data and
analysis; or other in-person or electronic outreach.
In the case of Larger CIDIs, the engagement would cover the general
informational requirements of their respective Resolution Plans. The
FDIC would envision having an initial outreach session following the
first Resolution Plan submission under the revised IDI Rule, followed
by regular outreach sessions, in addition to any potential conditions-
based supplemental resolution planning as discussed below under
``Frequency--Conditions-based supplemental resolution planning.'' The
FDIC would also continue to make itself available to answer questions
about Resolution Plan requirements.
For Group C CIDIs, the requirement to submit a Resolution Plan
would be eliminated; instead, the FDIC would engage in periodic
resolution planning outreach with Group C CIDIs in lieu of the
submission. Due to the size,
[[Page 16627]]
complexity, and operations of the Group C CIDIs, it is expected that
the outreach would cover a limited number of items such as:
Information on the structure and core business lines
(including segmented financial analysis); \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information about critical services and providers of those
services; \28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management information systems.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capabilities Testing
Additionally, all CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule would continue to
be subject to periodic capabilities testing.\30\ Capabilities testing
would be intended to verify the accuracy of the Resolution Plan
information provided to the FDIC, in the case of CIDIs that submit
Resolution Plans, and the ability of the CIDI promptly to provide
critical information if required to do so in exigent circumstances, in
the case of all CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule. The capabilities testing
would also be tailored according to the size, complexity, and other
factors of the CIDI, based on the tiers described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of areas that could be covered through capabilities
testing could include:
Liabilities data.
Operational continuity and bridge bank management:
Critical services; key personnel; subsidiaries and affiliates; key
accounting processes; and key operational processes.
Determination of franchise value: Capability to produce
marketing plan; segmented financial reporting; and due diligence room.
2. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related to engagement and capabilities
testing in response to these questions:
21. What are the costs and benefits if the FDIC replaces the plan
submission requirement with the engagement as described above for Group
C CIDIs?
22. If the FDIC engages with the CIDIs to solicit their feedback on
resolution strategies and plans developed by the FDIC, do commenters
have specific recommendations regarding the format of that engagement?
23. The FDIC is considering undertaking regular capabilities
testing to help ensure that a CIDI will be able to provide critical
information promptly if called upon to do so in exigent circumstances.
How should the FDIC approach testing of CIDI capabilities? For Group A
CIDIs and potentially some Group B CIDIs, how should the FDIC approach
such testing given the additional challenges posed by increased
operational complexity? For Group C CIDIs, how should the FDIC approach
such testing given the relatively reduced level of operational
complexity?
24. Should the FDIC conduct simulations with CIDIs? If so, should
any aspects of the simulations be made public?
D. Frequency
1. Discussion
Larger CIDIs
Currently, a CIDI is required to submit an initial Resolution Plan
followed by a Resolution Plan submission on an annual basis, unless the
submission date is extended by the FDIC. In recognition of the
challenges associated with an annual resolution plan submission, over
the last few submission cycles the FDIC has extended plan filing
deadlines to provide generally at least two years between resolution
plan submissions.
Under Alternative One, the FDIC is considering replacing the
concurrent cycle with a staggered biennial/triennial cycle. Under this
approach, Group A CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans biennially and
Group B CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans every third year. Under
Alternative Two, Larger CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans either
biennially or triennially based on the characteristics of the CIDI.
The FDIC is also considering a schedule in which the filing cycle
would alternate between Resolution Plan submissions and further
streamlined content submissions (focusing, for example, on a subset of
informational requirements).
Group C CIDIs
Group C CIDIs would no longer be required to submit Resolution
Plans. Instead, the FDIC would engage with those institutions on
certain resolution planning matters, as discussed above under
``Engagement and capabilities testing.'' That engagement would occur on
a periodic basis, in addition to any conditions-based supplemental
resolution planning as discussed immediately below.
Conditions-Based Supplemental Resolution Planning
While a CIDI is in a healthy, well-capitalized condition, the FDIC
can reasonably limit its resolution readiness efforts to understanding
and preparing for the general challenges that any type of failure or
resolution of that CIDI would present. Once a CIDI begins to experience
stress or becomes troubled, however, the particular circumstances
surrounding these events may indicate a more specific and likely
pathway to resolution. As these details become clear, the FDIC would
need to quickly enhance its general readiness to resolve the
institution to account for these actual circumstances. To ensure that
the FDIC is prepared to resolve a CIDI, the FDIC is considering
implementing supplemental resolution planning outreach and engagement
if the FDIC determines that a CIDI is in stress or becomes troubled.
The trigger could be linked to ratings, liquidity measures, market
indicators, or other indicators.
Following such a triggering event, the FDIC would be able promptly
to re-engage with the CIDI on resolution planning matters, even if the
CIDI is not at the point in the cycle at which such engagement
ordinarily would occur. The FDIC would retain discretion in determining
whether to reengage with the CIDI following such a triggering event,
depending on the condition of the CIDI. The conditions-based
supplemental engagement would include the activities and subject
matters described above under ``Engagement and capabilities testing.''
This would allow the FDIC to refresh its resolution strategy for the
CIDI and update key data and analysis through direct engagement with
the CIDI at the time when resolution planning and preparedness is most
time-sensitive, useful, and cost-effective.
2. Solicitation for Input
The FDIC welcomes comments related to frequency in response to
these questions:
25. How frequently should the FDIC require Resolution Plan
submissions from Larger CIDIs under both alternatives? Under
Alternative Two, what measures of complexity, risk, or other
characteristics should be considered in determining a CIDI's filing
frequency?
26. How frequently should the FDIC conduct resolution planning
outreach with Larger CIDIs under both alternatives? How should this
timeline coincide with the Resolution Plan submission timeline?
27. How frequently should the FDIC conduct resolution planning
outreach with Group C CIDIs?
28. What are the costs and benefits of requiring Larger CIDIs to
submit plans once every two/three years?
29. Should the FDIC consider a schedule of alternating between
Resolution Plan submissions and streamlined content submissions (for
example, focusing on a subset of
[[Page 16628]]
informational requirements)? Why or why not?
30. Should the FDIC endeavor to sync the Resolution Plan submission
timeline for CIDIs with the timeline for DFA Resolution Plans for DFA
Resolution Plan filers? If so, how?
31. Should the FDIC consider utilizing an ad hoc submission program
with information regarding each pertinent content area due at various
times throughout the submission cycle (similar to an ongoing large bank
continuous examination program) instead of maintaining the requirement
for a Resolution Plan submission due on a single date? Why or why not?
32. The FDIC is considering one or more conditions-based triggers
to increase resolution planning engagement with a CIDI experiencing
stress or in troubled condition. If the FDIC were to adopt such an
approach, what condition-based trigger or triggers should the FDIC use,
and why?
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2019.
Valerie Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08077 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P