Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Reporting Requirements, Regulatory Reports and Audits of State Savings Associations, 54045-54046 [2019-21966]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules reasons discussed below, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Based on March 31, 2019, Call Report data, the FDIC insures 5,371 depository institutions, of which 4,004 are considered small entities for the purposes of RFA.3 As of March 31, 2019, 20 small, FDIC-insured depository institutions were less than well capitalized.4 This represents less than two-fifths of one percent of all FDICinsured institutions as of March 31, 2019, and approximately one-half of one percent of small, FDIC-insured institutions. For 17 small institutions that were less than well capitalized as of March 31, 2019, and that reported rates to a private data aggregator, FDIC analysts compared the national rate caps calculated under the current methodology with the national rate caps which would have been in effect under the proposal during the month of March across 11 deposit products.5 As described in more detail below, the analysis shows that the proposed national rate caps are less restrictive than the current national rate caps, and would reduce the likelihood that less than well capitalized institutions would need to avail themselves of the local rate cap determination process. Five of the 17 (just under 30 percent) less than well capitalized institutions for which data were available reported offering rates above the national rate caps calculated under the current methodology for seven out of the 11 products considered.6 Under the proposed methodology, three institutions reported rates above the national rate caps on two products. Thus, the number of deposit products with rates constrained by the national rate cap is reduced for all five institutions, and two of those institutions would be relieved of the 3 March 31, 2019, FFIEC Call Report. The 20 institutions do not include any quantitatively well capitalized institutions that may have been administratively classified as less than well capitalized. 5 The 11 products are savings accounts, interest checking accounts, money market deposit accounts, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 12-month, 24-month, 36-month, 48-month, and 60-month CDs. Jumbo and non-jumbo rate caps reported for the week of March 4, 2019, were averaged for each of the 11 products to calculate a single rate cap per product under the current methodology. (https:// www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/rates/ historical/2019-03-04.html). 6 This is not meant to suggest that these institutions are not in compliance with the national rate caps, but rather that they have sought and received local rate determinations that allow them to offer certain products at rates above the national caps. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 4 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 08, 2019 Jkt 250001 need to avail themselves of the local rate cap determination process. For the 3-month, 6-month, 36-month, and 48-month CD products, two less than well capitalized small institutions reported offering rates above the national rate caps calculated under the current methodology. On average, the reported offering rates were 6, 13, 29, and 58 basis points above the national rate caps, respectively. Three institutions reported offering rates above the national rate caps calculated under the current methodology for the 12-month and 24month CD products, and four reported offering rates above the national rate caps as currently calculated for the 60month CD product. Rates offered on the 12-month and 24-month CD products were 37 and 45 basis points above the national rate caps, on average. Rates offered on the 60-month CD product averaged 26 basis points above the national rate cap for that product. Across all deposit products offered at rates above the national rate caps calculated under the current methodology, the rates offered were 30 basis points above the national rate caps on average. Had the national rate caps in effect at the time been calculated under the proposed methodology, then two less than well capitalized small institutions would have reported offering rates that averaged 11 basis points above the national rate cap for the 3-month CD product, and one institution would have reported offering a rate three basis points above the national rate cap for the 48-month CD product. Across all deposit products offered at rates above the national rate caps calculated under the proposed methodology, the rates offered were 7 basis points above the national rate caps on average. No less than well capitalized small institution reported offering a rate above the national rate caps calculated under the current or proposed methodology for savings, interest checking, MMDA, or 1month CD products during the timeframe considered. The number of small, less than well capitalized institutions with offered rates above the national rate caps falls from five under the current methodology to three under the proposed methodology. Thus, the number of small less than well capitalized institutions that need to rely on a local rate cap is expected to fall. The FDIC cannot more precisely quantify the effects of the proposed rule relative to the current methodology because it lacks data on the dollar amounts placed in deposit products PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 54045 broken down by the rates offered. However, few small institutions are less than well capitalized, and most of those small, less than well capitalized institutions for which data were available reported rates across the 11 deposit products considered that were below the national rate caps as calculated under both the current and proposed methodologies. For the few less than well capitalized institutions as of March 31, 2019 whose deposit interest rates are constrained by the current national rate cap but not the proposed rate cap, the effect of the rule would be burden reducing in the sense of reducing the need for local rate cap determinations. Based on the foregoing information, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. The FDIC welcomes comments on its analysis. Specifically, what data would help the FDIC better quantify the effects of the proposal compared with the current methodology? Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on September 26, 2019. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–21324 Filed 10–8–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714–01–P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 390 RIN 3064–AF13 Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Reporting Requirements, Regulatory Reports and Audits of State Savings Associations Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; supplemental notice. AGENCY: On October 2, 2019, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comments on a proposal that would rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR part 390, subpart R, entitled Regulatory Reporting Standards (part 390, subpart R). The FDIC is supplementing that notice of proposed rulemaking with an updated regulatory flexibility analysis to reflect a few typographical changes. DATES: Comments on the updated regulatory flexibility analysis must be received on or before November 8, 2019. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\09OCP1.SGM 09OCP1 54046 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • FDIC Website: https:// www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the agency website. • Email: Comments@fdic.gov. Include RIN 3064–AF13 on the subject line of the message. • Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429. • Hand Delivery to FDIC: 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. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Please include your name, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number(s) in your comment. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted generally without change to https://www.fdic.gov/ regulations/laws/federal/, including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan T. Singer, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Section, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898–7352, rsinger@ fdic.gov; Jennifer M. Jones, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898–6768, jennjones@fdic.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 2, 2019, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comments on a proposal that would rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR part 390, subpart R, entitled Regulatory Reporting Standards (part 390, subpart R). (See 84 FR 52387 (October 2, 2019).) The FDIC is supplementing that notice of proposed rulemaking with an updated regulatory flexibility analysis to reflect a few typographical changes. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS ADDRESSES: Updated Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.1 However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the 15 U.S.C. 601, et seq. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 08, 2019 Jkt 250001 agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined ‘‘small entities’’ to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $600 million.2 Generally, the FDIC considers a significant effect to be a quantified effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits per institution, or 2.5 percent of total noninterest expenses. The FDIC believes that effects in excess of these thresholds typically represent significant effects for FDIC-supervised institutions. For the reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small banking organizations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. As of March 31, 2019,3 the FDIC supervised 3,465 insured financial institutions, of which 2,705 are considered small banking organizations for the purposes of RFA. The proposed rule primarily affects regulations that govern State savings associations. There are 36 State savings associations considered to be small banking organizations for the purposes of the RFA.4 As explained previously, the proposed rule would remove sections 390.320, 390.321 and 390.332 of part 390, subpart R because these sections are redundant or otherwise unnecessary in light of applicable statutes and other FDIC regulations. As a result, rescinding the regulations would not have any substantive effects on small FDICsupervised institutions. Based on the information above, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 2 The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $600 million or less in assets, where an organization’s ‘‘assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.’’ See 13 CFR 121.201 (as amended, by 84 FR 34261, effective August 19, 2019). In its determination, ‘‘SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates.’’ See 13 CFR 121.103. Following these regulations, the FDIC uses a covered entity’s affiliated and acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four quarters, to determine whether the covered entity is ‘‘small’’ for the purposes of the RFA. 3 March 31, 2019, is the most recent period for which the FDIC’s ‘‘small entity’’ designations for depository institutions are available. 4 Based on data from the March 31, 2019, Call Report and FFIEC 002 Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Bank. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in this RFA section. In particular, would this rule have any significant effects on small entities that the FDIC has not identified? Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on October 3, 2019. Annmarie H. Boyd, Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–21966 Filed 10–8–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2019–0713; Product Identifier 2019–NM–116–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330–941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports indicating premature aging of certain chemical oxygen generators. This proposed AD would require repetitively removing the affected chemical oxygen generators and replacing them with serviceable parts, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. SUMMARY: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 25, 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 DATES: E:\FR\FM\09OCP1.SGM 09OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54045-54046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21966]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 390

RIN 3064-AF13


Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Reporting 
Requirements, Regulatory Reports and Audits of State Savings 
Associations

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; supplemental notice.

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

SUMMARY: On October 2, 2019, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(FDIC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comments 
on a proposal that would rescind and remove from the Code of Federal 
Regulations 12 CFR part 390, subpart R, entitled Regulatory Reporting 
Standards (part 390, subpart R). The FDIC is supplementing that notice 
of proposed rulemaking with an updated regulatory flexibility analysis 
to reflect a few typographical changes.

DATES: Comments on the updated regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
received on or before November 8, 2019.

[[Page 54046]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     FDIC Website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the agency 
website.
     Email: [email protected]. Include RIN 3064-AF13 on the 
subject line of the message.
     Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: 
Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20429.
     Hand Delivery to FDIC: 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.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Please include your name, affiliation, address, email address, and 
telephone number(s) in your comment. All statements received, including 
attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public 
record and are subject to public disclosure. You should submit only 
information that you wish to make publicly available.
    Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted generally 
without change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/, 
including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ryan T. Singer, Chief, Regulatory 
Analysis Section, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-7352, 
[email protected]; Jennifer M. Jones, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 
898-6768, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 2, 2019, the FDIC issued a notice 
of proposed rulemaking with request for comments on a proposal that 
would rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR 
part 390, subpart R, entitled Regulatory Reporting Standards (part 390, 
subpart R). (See 84 FR 52387 (October 2, 2019).) The FDIC is 
supplementing that notice of proposed rulemaking with an updated 
regulatory flexibility analysis to reflect a few typographical changes.

Updated Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), requires that, in connection 
with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make 
available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.\1\ 
However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its 
certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register 
together with the rule. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has 
defined ``small entities'' to include banking organizations with total 
assets of less than or equal to $600 million.\2\ Generally, the FDIC 
considers a significant effect to be a quantified effect in excess of 5 
percent of total annual salaries and benefits per institution, or 2.5 
percent of total non-interest expenses. The FDIC believes that effects 
in excess of these thresholds typically represent significant effects 
for FDIC-supervised institutions. For the reasons provided below, the 
FDIC certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
banking organizations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
    \2\ The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $600 
million or less in assets, where an organization's ``assets are 
determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly 
financial statements for the preceding year.'' See 13 CFR 121.201 
(as amended, by 84 FR 34261, effective August 19, 2019). In its 
determination, ``SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other 
measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its 
domestic and foreign affiliates.'' See 13 CFR 121.103. Following 
these regulations, the FDIC uses a covered entity's affiliated and 
acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four quarters, to 
determine whether the covered entity is ``small'' for the purposes 
of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of March 31, 2019,\3\ the FDIC supervised 3,465 insured 
financial institutions, of which 2,705 are considered small banking 
organizations for the purposes of RFA. The proposed rule primarily 
affects regulations that govern State savings associations. There are 
36 State savings associations considered to be small banking 
organizations for the purposes of the RFA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ March 31, 2019, is the most recent period for which the 
FDIC's ``small entity'' designations for depository institutions are 
available.
    \4\ Based on data from the March 31, 2019, Call Report and FFIEC 
002 Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies 
of Foreign Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained previously, the proposed rule would remove sections 
390.320, 390.321 and 390.332 of part 390, subpart R because these 
sections are redundant or otherwise unnecessary in light of applicable 
statutes and other FDIC regulations. As a result, rescinding the 
regulations would not have any substantive effects on small FDIC-
supervised institutions.
    Based on the information above, the FDIC certifies that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The FDIC invites comments on all 
aspects of the supporting information provided in this RFA section. In 
particular, would this rule have any significant effects on small 
entities that the FDIC has not identified?

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on October 3, 2019.
Annmarie H. Boyd,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21966 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.