Succession Planning, 104865-104877 [2024-30449]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English, and that are
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notification of
tentative determination and request for
comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on December 13,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December
16, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024–30274 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
104865
streamlines the required contents of the
succession plans and no longer requires
that deviations from approved
succession plans be documented in the
FICU board’s meeting minutes. Further,
to help ensure that FICUs have the
necessary time to develop their
succession plans, the Board is delaying
the effective date of the final rule until
January 1, 2026.
This final rule is effective on
January 1, 2026.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Office of Examination and Insurance:
John Berry, Policy Officer, at (703) 664–
3909 or at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria,
VA 22314. Office of General Counsel:
Ariel Pereira, Senior Attorney, Office of
General Counsel, at (703) 548–2778 or at
the above address.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
12 CFR Parts 701 and 741
I. Background
II. Discussion of Public Comments
A. The Comments, Generally
B. Comments Regarding Alternatives to
Rulemaking
C. Comments Regarding Data and the
Justification for Rulemaking
D. Comments Regarding Regulatory Burden
E. Comments Raising General Objections to
Rule
F. Comments Regarding the Inclusion of
FISCUs
G. Comments Raising Potential Privacy and
Discrimination Concerns
H. Comments Regarding Specific Rule
Provisions
I. Other Comments
III. Regulatory Procedures
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act/Congressional Review Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 13132 on Federalism
E. Assessment of Federal Regulations and
Policies on Families
Table of Contents
RIN 3133–AF42
Succession Planning
National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The NCUA Board (Board) is
issuing this final rule to further
strengthen succession planning efforts
for all consumer federally insured credit
unions (FICUs). This final rule requires
that a FICU board of directors establish
a written succession plan that addresses
specified positions and contains certain
information. In addition, the board of
directors is required to regularly review
the succession plan. The final rule also
requires that newly appointed members
of the board of directors have a working
familiarity with the succession plan no
later than six months after appointment.
The final rule follows publication of a
July 25, 2024, proposed rule and takes
into consideration the public comments
received on the proposed rule. In
response to comments, the Board has
amended the proposal to provide that a
credit union board must review its
succession plan no less than every 24
months, as opposed to the annual
review that would have been required
under the proposed rule. The Board has
also revised the proposed rule by
removing loan officers, credit committee
members, and supervisory committee
members from the list of FICU officials
that must be covered by the succession
plans. In addition, non-substantive
changes have been made to the wording
used in the list of covered officials for
purposes of clarity. The final rule also
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Background
At its July 18, 2024, meeting, the
Board approved a proposed rule to
address succession planning at FICUs.
The proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on July 25, 2024, and
provided for a 60-day public comment
period.1 The proposal followed
publication of the Board’s earlier 2022
proposed rule on the same topic.2 The
July 25, 2024, proposed rule was based
on that earlier proposed rule but
included several changes that the Board
believed would further strengthen
succession planning efforts for both
consumer federal credit unions (FCUs)
and consumer federally insured, state1 89
2 87
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
FR 60329 (July 25, 2024).
FR 6078 (Feb. 3, 2022).
26DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
104866
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
chartered credit unions (FISCUs), which
collectively are referred to as FICUs.
Under the July 25, 2024, proposed
rule a FICU board of directors would
have been required to establish a written
succession plan that addresses specified
positions and contains certain
information. In addition, the board of
directors would have been required to
review the succession plan in
accordance with an established
schedule, but no less than annually. The
proposed rule would also have required
that newly appointed members of the
board of directors have a working
familiarity with the FICU’s succession
plan no later than six months after
appointment. Interested readers are
referred to the preamble of the proposed
rule for additional details regarding the
proposed regulatory amendments.
Two ongoing factors highlighted the
need for rulemaking on succession
planning. The long-running trend of
consolidation across all depository
institutions has remained relatively
constant across all economic cycles for
more than three decades. Voluntary
mergers can be used to create economies
of scale to offer more or better products
and services to FICU members.
However, the Board is also aware of
numerous instances in recent years
where FICUs merged because of a lack
of succession planning. More emphasis
on succession planning would help
reduce the number of such mergers.
Another reason for a heightened focus
on succession planning are the ongoing
retirements of the ‘‘Baby Boomer’’
generation (individuals born between
1946 and 1964). According to some
sources, approximately 10 percent of
credit union chief executive officers
were expected to retire between 2019
and 2021.3 Succession planning is
critical to the continued operation of
those credit unions with board members
and executives that are part of this
retirement wave.
Given the importance of the topic, the
NCUA has taken several steps to
strengthen current succession planning
efforts of FICUs. For example, in March
2022 the NCUA issued Letter to Credit
Unions 22–CU–05, CAMELS Rating
System, which provides that
‘‘succession planning for key
management positions’’ is a key factor
considered when assessing the
Management CAMELS component
rating of a credit union.4 Letter to Credit
3 CUtoday.info, CUNA ACUC Coverage: What’s
Happening in Executive Compensation (June 19,
2019), https://www.cutoday.info/Fresh-Today/
CUNA-ACUC-Coverage-What-s-Happening-inExecutive-Compensation.
4 NCUA, Letter to Credit Unions 22–CU–05,
CAMELS Rating System (March 2022), https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
Unions 23–CU–01 included succession
planning as one of the NCUA’s
supervisory priorities for 2023.5 The
July 25, 2024, proposed rule was
designed to build upon these prior
NCUA efforts.
This final rule follows publication of
the July 25, 2024, proposed rule and
takes into consideration the public
comments received on the proposed
rule. In this final rule, the Board has
incorporated the following amendments
to the July 25, 2024, proposal:
1. In response to public comments,
the final rule provides that a board must
review its succession plan no less than
every 24 months, as opposed to the
annual review that would have been
required under the proposed rule.
2. Also in response to public
comments, the Board has revised the
proposed rule by removing loan officers,
credit committee members, and
supervisory committee members from
the list of FICU officials who must be
covered by the succession plans.
3. In addition, non-substantive
changes have been made to the wording
used in the list of covered officials for
purposes of clarity. Specifically, the
proposed rule listed ‘‘management
officials’’ (as defined in the model FCU
bylaws) and the ‘‘senior executive
officers’’ identified in 12 CFR
701.14(b)(2). Given the potential overlap
between these two categories of
officials, the final rule merges their
listing in a single paragraph of the
regulation. The final rule also simplifies
the regulatory text by cross referencing
to § 701.14(b)(2), rather than listing the
senior executive officers.
4. The final rule also streamlines the
required contents of the succession
plans. Specifically, the rule no longer
specifies that a succession plan must
address unexpected or temporary
vacancies in covered positions.
Although the Board encourages a FICU
to consider these types of vacancies in
its plan, it believes FICUs, and not the
NCUA, are best positioned to determine
how much detail is necessary to address
the required plan elements.
5. The final rule no longer requires
that deviations from approved
ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/letters-creditunions-other-guidance/camels-rating-system.
CAMELS is the acronym for the rating system used
by the NCUA to assess a FICU’s performance and
risk profile derived from the six critical elements
of a FICU’s operations: Capital adequacy, Asset
quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, and
Sensitivity to Market Risk.
5 NCUA, Letter to Credit Unions 23–CU–01,
NCUA’s 2023 Supervisory Priorities (January 2023),
https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/letterscredit-unions-other-guidance/ncuas-2023supervisory-priorities.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
succession plans be documented in the
FICU board’s meeting minutes.
6. The final rule also makes a few
technical, non-substantive, edits for
clarity and precision of language.
The final rule otherwise adopts the
proposed regulatory requirements.
FICUs are reminded that succession
plans should include an estimate of the
budgetary impacts of executing the
succession plan, including costs
associated with new hires, such as any
hiring of recruitment firms and any
increased compensation packages for
new hires. Credit unions are not
required to have an exact figure for any
such anticipated costs, but at a
minimum should provide an estimate to
allow for better planning.
To help ensure that FICUs have the
necessary time to develop their
succession plans, the Board is delaying
the effective date of the final rule until
January 1, 2026. This rule will be
reapproved three years after its effective
date for a term of the Board’s choosing.
II. Discussion of Public Comments
The comment period on the proposed
rule closed on September 23, 2024. The
NCUA received 187 public comments
on the proposal. Comments were
received from individual FICUs, state
and regional credit union organizations,
credit union trade organizations, credit
union consulting services providers,
and individuals. Approximately 116 of
the comments were form letters with
nearly identical wording. The issues
raised in the form letters were similar to
those made in many of the other
comment letters. This section of the
preamble summarizes the significant
issues raised by the commenters and the
Board’s responses to these comments.
A. The Comments, Generally
The majority of commenters, while
acknowledging the importance of
succession planning and agreeing with
the intent of the proposed rule, raised
concerns about the need for succession
planning regulations, as well as some of
the specifics of the proposed regulatory
amendments.
As discussed in greater detail in the
following paragraphs, the large majority
of the commenters questioned the need
for succession planning regulations.
Some of these commenters objected that
the NCUA was overstepping its
regulatory authority by issuing
regulations on internal management
matters best left to credit union
discretion. Other commenters wrote that
the NCUA already has tools capable of
addressing succession planning, or that
the topic could be better addressed
through non-regulatory guidance. These
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
commenters also noted that the other
federal banking regulatory agencies have
elected to address succession planning
through guidance. Commenters also
objected to the inclusion of FISCUs and
noted potential conflicts with state
requirements.
A majority of the commenters also
questioned the data cited in the
preamble of the proposed rule as
justification for the rulemaking. These
commenters objected that the data was
stale, and that more recent data did not
seem to support the need for succession
planning regulations to prevent FICU
consolidations. The commenters also
wrote that the NCUA had
underestimated the time and resources
required for complying with the
proposed requirements, and that the
rule would impose an undue
compliance burden. Many commenters
wrote that the burden of complying with
the rule would actually increase the
number of consolidations. Still others
wrote that the NCUA’s goal of reducing
FICU consolidations was misguided.
With regard to the specific
amendments, many commenters
objected to the list of officials covered
by the succession plans, writing that it
was overly inclusive for the stated
purposes of the rulemaking. Other
commenters were concerned about the
possibility that succession plans might
be publicly posted, potentially raising
privacy or age-discrimination issues.
Some commenters wrote that requiring
boards to review their succession plans
at least annually was unnecessarily
prescriptive. Commenters also
expressed concerns about the proposed
board education requirements and
requested clarification of other
provisions.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
B. Comments Regarding Alternatives to
Rulemaking
Comment: Guidance is more
appropriate than rulemaking. The
majority of commenters urged the Board
to consider issuing guidance regarding
succession planning as an alternative to
rulemaking. While generally agreeing
that succession planning is an important
element of a FICU’s overall strategic
planning process, the commenters wrote
that a rule would only add to growing
regulatory burden imposed on FICUs.
The commenters noted that the issuance
of guidance is consistent with the
approach taken by the other federal
banking regulatory agencies. The
commenters wrote that the banking
industry faces consolidation trends
similar to those of credit unions.
Nonetheless, the other banking agencies
have opted to issue guidance regarding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
succession planning instead of
undertaking rulemaking.
NCUA Response. The Board
continues to believe that rulemaking on
succession planning is appropriate and
necessary. While guidance can be
helpful in describing sound practices or
clarifying existing requirements, the
lack of a regulation means there is no
requirement that FICUs implement a
formal, written succession plan. As a
result, the NCUA lacks a full
complement of regulatory tools to help
address deficiencies in a FICU’s
succession planning process. The
absence of specific regulations on this
topic also means there are no
requirements as to what constitutes an
acceptable succession plan. A regulation
is therefore necessary to establish a
clearly articulated, consistent, and
enforceable set of succession planning
standards.
Comment: Succession planning is
already addressed under CAMELS.
Several commenters wrote that the rule
is redundant since succession planning
is part of every examination under the
CAMELS rating system. The
commenters noted that the CAMELS
‘‘Management’’ component already
considers succession planning for ‘‘key
management positions.’’ The
commenters wrote that this is consistent
with the practice of the other federal
banking regulatory agencies, which
require their examiners to conduct a
high-level assessment of banks’
succession planning in their rating of
the capability and performance of
management. The commenters noted
that the examination process is the ideal
time to discuss with a board of directors
any weaknesses that exist in this area.
NCUA Response. The NCUA does
assess succession planning as part of the
CAMELS Management component.
However, as supervisory guidance, the
Letter to Credit Unions that established
CAMELS does not provide the NCUA
with the authority necessary to fully
address any inadequacies in a FICU’s
succession planning practices and
procedures. Letter to Credit Unions 23–
CU–01 establishing the 2023
supervisory priorities acknowledges
these limitations. For example, the letter
makes clear that NCUA examiners are
precluded from evaluating ‘‘any formal
or informal succession plans developed
by credit unions beyond what would
normally be considered in assigning the
Management component of the
CAMELS rating.’’ 6 Moreover, examiners
may ‘‘not issue an Examiner’s Finding
or Document of Resolution if the credit
union has not conducted succession
planning, or the planning is not
adequate, unless the credit union is in
violation of its own policy for
conducting succession planning or
administering any such plan(s).’’ 7
Accordingly, the NCUA continues to
believe that rulemaking is necessary to
establish clear, consistent, and
enforceable succession planning
standards.
Comment: Succession plan
requirements are duplicative of disaster
program guidelines. Several
commenters noted that under the NCUA
guidelines codified in 12 CFR part 749,
appendix B, all FICUs are encouraged to
develop a program to prepare for a
catastrophic act. As a part of this
planning and program development,
FICUs distinguish the roles of the
FICU’s leadership and the board of
directors, as well as backup personnel
for various roles. The commenters wrote
that the succession plan requirements
are in many ways duplicative of the
disaster guidelines and therefore
unnecessarily add regulatory
compliance burden.
NCUA Response. The Board
acknowledges that, as a result of other
planning and documentation efforts,
many FICUs may already have data and
information that is useful to completing
their succession plans. FICUs are
encouraged to use such existing
information, where appropriate, in
preparing their succession plans.
Further, the preamble to the July 25,
2024, proposed rule notes that the
catastrophic act guidelines may address
several elements that are also relevant to
succession planning. These suggested
elements include a ‘‘business impact
analysis to evaluate potential threats,’’
the determination of ‘‘critical systems
and necessary resources,’’ and the
identification of the ‘‘[p]ersons with
authority to enact the plan.’’ 8
However, the Board does not agree
that these codified guidelines are a
suitable alternative to this final rule. For
one thing, the guidelines are nonregulatory in nature and therefore do
not establish the enforceable standards
that, as discussed in the preceding
responses, the Board has determined are
necessary for succession planning.
Further, the guidelines are broader in
scope than, and only tangentially
related to, succession planning. The
guidelines are intended to ensure the
continued operations of a FICU in
response to an external, unforeseen, and
hopefully infrequent event, whereas
succession planning is meant to address
the ongoing retention and recruitment
7 Id.
6 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
8 89
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
104867
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
FR 60329, at 60334.
26DER1
104868
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
cycle institutions face, including for
critical positions and those that have
significant influence and impact on a
FICU’s operations. The guidelines are
therefore not an adequate substitute for
regulations that specifically address
FICU succession planning practices.
Comment: The Call Report offers an
alternative means of implementing
succession planning. Several
commenters wrote that the NCUA could
determine the existence of a succession
plan at FICUs by asking the question on
the 5300 Call Report. Because Call
Reports must be submitted quarterly,
the NCUA will always have up-to-date
information on a FICU’s succession
plan. The Call Report is a way for FICUs
to report to the NCUA a big picture of
what is going on at their credit union
and to document any potential risk
areas.
NCUA Response. While the
suggestion made by the commenters
could potentially serve as a means of
notifying the NCUA whether a FICU has
adopted a succession plan, it fails to
ensure that FICUs adopt plans and
would not address the quality of those
plans. The final rule will clearly
communicate the NCUA’s expectations
regarding succession planning and
establish enforceable standards for
determining the sufficiency of the plans.
Accordingly, the Board has not revised
the proposed rule in response to these
comments.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C. Comments Regarding Data and the
Justification for Rulemaking
Comment: The NCUA relied on
outdated or limited data to justify the
proposed rule. The majority of
commenters objected to the data cited in
the preamble as justification for the
rulemaking. Among other data, the
preamble cites to a 2014 NCUA analysis
that found that poor succession
planning was either a primary or
secondary reason for almost a third (32
percent) of FICU consolidations.9 The
commenters objected to the fact that the
analysis dates from over a decade before
the publication of this proposed rule
and includes the years immediately
following the 2007–2008 global
financial crisis, which they said was
likely a compounding factor in FICU
consolidations. Several of the
commenters pointed to a more recent
NCUA analysis of mergers between 2017
and 2021, which found that an
‘‘inability to obtain officials’’ was the
primary cause for under 3 percent of
9 89
FR 60329, at 60330, footnote 16 citing to:
NCUA, Truth in Mergers: A Guide for Merging
Credit Unions, page 9, https://ncua.gov/files/
publications/Truth-In-Mergers.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
mergers.10 Other commenters wrote
that, based on NCUA data, of the 149
mergers occurring during the second
half of 2023 and first half of 2024, only
11 cited the inability to obtain officials
as the reason for the merger.
The commenters also objected to the
preamble language stating that the 2014
findings had been corroborated by
industry participants.11 The
commenters wrote that the article
includes information on only 10
mergers with only a few of the credit
unions citing a lack of succession
planning as a factor in the merger.
NCUA Response. As an initial matter,
and as noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the Board’s justification
for issuing this final rule is based not
only on the data but also on the Board’s
finding that ‘‘the need for succession
planning as a sound governance practice
[is] equally compelling.’’ 12 The Board
found ‘‘that a compelling safety and
soundness case exists for rulemaking in
this area,’’ because the failure to
adequately plan for changes in
leadership can jeopardize the continued
viability of a FICU and disrupt safe and
sound operations upon the departure of
key personnel.13 The safety and
soundness rationale for this rulemaking
remains even if the concerns raised by
the commenters were valid. However,
the commenters’ categorization of the
data cited in the preamble is incorrect.
The fact that some of the mergers
included in the NCUA’s 2014 analysis
occurred during the global financial
crisis in no way diminishes the validity
of the study. Indeed, the analysis
acknowledges that the FICU’s weak
financial condition was the primary or
secondary cause for 78 percent of the
consolidations, the largest cause for
mergers during the ten-year period
under review (2003 to 2012). The fact
that during that same period the lack of
adequate succession planning was still
cited as a primary or secondary cause
for 32 percent of mergers only serves to
underscore the need for rulemaking in
this area.
Neither does the Board believe that
the NCUA’s more recent analysis of
mergers between 2017 and 2021
undermines the earlier study. The 2014
study specifically analyzed succession
planning, while the more recent study
looked at ‘‘inability to obtain officials.’’
While this inability could be partially
due to the lack of a succession plan, it
might also encompass other factors
10 https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/
manuals-guides/lessons-learned-mergers.
11 89 FR 60329, at 60330.
12 89 FR 60329, at 60332.
13 89 FR 60329, at 60330.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
deterring potential candidates, such as
the FICU’s inability to offer a
competitive compensation package,
reputational and operational obstacles
to hiring, or geographic undesirability.
A succession plan is critical to
addressing such factors, but it is not a
guarantee, especially when the FICU is
faced with a sudden or unexpected
leadership vacancy. The more recent
study’s utility to inform this rulemaking
is thus limited by the fact that it does
not distinguish between those mergers
occurring because of a lack of
succession planning and those that
happened despite the FICU’s best efforts
in this regard.
The Board also rejects the objections
raised by the commenters regarding the
news articles cited in support of the
proposition that the merger ‘‘data has
been corroborated by industry
participants.’’ The commenters object to
the number of mergers discussed in the
articles. However, the footnote citation
was included simply to illustrate the
credit union industry’s general
recognition that a failure to plan for
succession is a contributing factor in
consolidations. The footnote was
included to complement the data and
rationale set forth in the main text of the
preamble rather than as an independent
data source for the rulemaking.
Comment: The proposed rule will
have the unintended consequence of
increasing the number of
consolidations. Many commenters wrote
that, contrary to the proposed rule’s
stated goal of mitigating the effects of
industry consolidation, it would
actually lead to an increased number of
mergers. The majority of these
commenters focused on the additional
regulatory burden of complying with the
proposed rule, especially on smaller
FICUs. The commenters wrote the
additional time and resources required
to comply with the proposed rule might
lead smaller FICUs to conclude that a
merger with a larger institution is the
most sustainable path forward. One
commenter wrote that the succession
planning process might force smaller
FICUs to confront challenging realities
about their future prospects, such as
their limited internal talent pools and
the inability to offer competitive salaries
or advancement opportunities. The
commenters also expressed concerns
that the preamble language noting that
smaller FICUs might benefit from the
assistance of larger FICUs in developing
and implementing their succession
plans could inadvertently result in
mergers.14
14 89
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
FR 60329, at 60334.
26DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
NCUA Response. The Board disagrees
with the commenters that
implementation of this final rule will
increase the number of FICU
consolidations. In the 2014 analysis of
mergers discussed previously, FICUs
did not identify regulatory compliance
burden as a cause of mergers. The
closest analogue among the listed
causes—‘‘recordkeeping burden’’—was
cited by only two percent of FICUs as
either a primary or secondary cause for
consolidation. In the more recent NCUA
analysis for mergers occurring between
2017 and 2021, regulatory burden was
not included among the 11 listed causes
for mergers (the term ‘‘recordkeeping
burden’’ also did not appear). The
NCUA is not aware of other data that
supports the claims made by the
commenters, and such data was not
offered in the comments.
The Board also notes that it has taken
several steps to ease the burden
imposed on FICUs by the new
requirements. For example, the NCUA
has posted a video series on succession
planning on the internet.15 In addition,
the Board has developed a sample
template for a succession plan that may
be appropriate for some smaller FICUs,
though all FICUs may benefit from it.
The Board has also revised the proposed
rule by removing loan officers, credit
committee members, and supervisory
committee members from the list of
FICU officials who must be covered by
succession plans. This should further
minimize burden by enabling FICUs to
develop more appropriately tailored
succession plans that better reflect their
unique circumstances. Further, the
Board is delaying effectiveness of the
final rule until January 1, 2026, which
should also decrease burden by
providing FICUs with additional time to
make any operational changes or
resource allocations necessary for
development of the succession plans.
As noted by the commenters, the
preamble to the proposed rule discussed
that smaller FICUs may also benefit
from seeking the assistance of larger and
more sophisticated FICUs in developing
and implementing their succession
plans. For example, a larger FICU may
provide technical expertise in the
drafting of the plan or may detail
personnel to temporarily fill a critical
vacancy in a smaller credit union until
such time as it is permanently filled.
The Board recognizes the concerns
raised by the commenters that such
strategic partnerships between a larger
and smaller FICU may sometimes lead
15 NCUA, Succession Planning (2021), https://
ncua.csod.com/LMS/catalog/Welcome.aspx?tab_
page_id=-67&tab_id=221000382.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
to a merger. However, that is an
individual decision that must be made
by the FICUs involved, based on their
specific facts and circumstances.
Comment: The goal of preventing
consolidations is misplaced. Several
commenters objected to the preamble
language citing increased consolidations
as a driving factor for the rule. The
commenters wrote that the NCUA has
historically been agnostic on the
appropriateness of a merger for a
particular FICU, leaving the decision to
the FICU’s management and
membership. One commenter noted that
there are situations where a smaller
FICU may propose a merger as a key
component of its succession plan. The
commenters wrote that in some
instances a merger may be the best
approach for a FICU and its members.
The commenters wrote that the decision
to merge should therefore be left to the
FICU.
NCUA Response. One of the Board’s
stated goals in undertaking this
rulemaking is to reduce the number of
unplanned or forced mergers resulting
from a FICU’s failure to adequately plan
for changes in leadership. However, the
Board agrees with the commenters that
voluntary mergers can be used by FICUs
to achieve various objectives, including
creating economies of scale to offer
more or better products and services to
members. The reasons for voluntarily
merging vary by FICU. For example,
mergers may be a strategic decision as
part of the continuing credit union’s
growth strategy, while the merging
credit union’s management may be
seeking to expand services for the
members. This final rule does not
change the Board’s longstanding
position that, to the extent any such
decision meets the applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements, the
determination of whether a merger is
appropriate is best left to the particular
FICU’s management and membership.
D. Comments Regarding Regulatory
Burden
Comment: The NCUA underestimated
the regulatory burden imposed by
succession planning. Many commenters
wrote that the proposed rule
underestimated the amount of time
FICUs would be required to spend
ensuring compliance with the
succession plan requirements. The
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
statement contained in the proposed
rule estimated about 10 hours per year
per FICU.16 The commenters wrote that
16 89 FR 60329, at 60335. The PRA is codified at
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, and the implementing
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
104869
this estimate failed to adequately
account for all of the time and cost that
would be incurred to understand the
regulatory requirements and formulate
strategies for filling vacancies. The
commenters also objected that the
estimate did not sufficiently consider
the resources required to regularly audit
and update the plans, including
examiner consultations. One commenter
pointed to a proposed rule issued by
another federal banking regulatory
agency addressing succession planning
and noted that agency estimated 40
annual hours for plan development and
20 hours for annual reviews.17
NCUA Response. The information
provided in the proposed rule
represents the NCUA’s best estimate of
the information collection burden
associated with the succession planning
requirements. As with all PRA
collections of information, the estimates
of the associated burden may change
over time as the agency and regulated
entities gain experience with
implementation. Under the PRA
regulations, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval of an agency
collection of information is subject to
periodic renewal through a notice and
comment process.18 The Board is
committed to ensuring the accuracy of
its PRA burden estimates, and the
information collections established by
this final rule are subject to such
process.
The estimate noted by the
commenters that was provided in the
proposed rule issued by another federal
banking agency does not provide a
useful comparison. Under its own
terms, that rulemaking applies solely to
covered institutions with total
consolidated assets of $10 billion or
more. According to the most recent
quarterly data available to the NCUA,
there were only 21 FICUs in this asset
category as of the second quarter in
2024.19 These institutions are far larger
than most FICUs, and their succession
plans would necessarily reflect their
regulations issued by the Office of Management and
Budget are located at 5 CFR part 1320.
17 See, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Guidelines Establishing Standards for Corporate
Governance and Risk Management for Covered
Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10
Billion or More, 88 FR 70391 (Oct. 11, 2023) (to be
codified at 12 CFR parts 308, 364). https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/11/
2023-22421/guidelines-establishing-standards-forcorporate-governance-and-risk-management-forcovered.
18 5 CFR 1320.10. Under § 1320.10(b), OMB will
not approve a collection of information for a period
longer than three years.
19 NCUA, Financial Trends in Federally Insured
Credit Unions 2024 Q2, page iii, available at:
https://ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/
quarterly-data-summary-2024-Q2.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
104870
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
size and operational complexity. In
contrast, the vast majority of FICUs
would have more streamlined
succession plans. Further, and as noted
in a preceding response, the NCUA has
made available several resources to ease
the burden imposed by this final rule,
including an optional plan template.
The estimated information collection
burden reflects the availability of these
resources.
Comment: The proposed rule will
unduly increase regulatory burden,
especially on smaller FICUs. Several
commenters wrote that FICU resources
are already under strain and the
proposed rule would only serve to add
to the cumulative regulatory burden
faced by FICUs. The commenters wrote
that, given the complexity of the
business environment over the past
several years and the pressures on the
industry’s business model in general,
the NCUA should tread lightly in
adding to the list of requirements. The
commenters expressing these concerns
were particularly focused on the
regulatory burden imposed on smaller
FICUs that lack the resources and staff
available to larger institutions.
NCUA Response: The Board is
mindful of the regulatory burden
imposed by its regulations and is
committed to providing assistance and
resources to help FICUs comply with
their regulatory obligations. The NCUA
currently offers training and other
resources to aid FICUs in developing
their succession plans. As noted, the
NCUA has posted a video series on
succession planning on the internet.20
FICUs with a low-income designation
may be able to apply for technical
assistance grants to support succession
planning or offset training costs through
the Community Development Revolving
Loan Fund. As also previously
discussed, FICUs may use already
existing information in preparing their
plans. FICUs are encouraged to make
use of these and other available
resources in complying with the
proposed rule. The Board has also
narrowed the list of FICU officials that
must be covered by the plans, enabling
FICUs to develop succession plans that
better reflect their unique
circumstances. Further, the Board is
delaying the effective date of the final
rule until January 1, 2026, which will
provide FICUs with additional time to
develop their succession plans.
The Board is especially mindful of the
burden imposed on smaller FICUs, as
they may lack the resources or expertise
to develop succession plans.
Accordingly, smaller FICUs may
20 Supra,
note 15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
especially benefit from the existing
resources identified above. The NCUA’s
Small Credit Union and Minority
Depository Institution Support Program
is another available resource through
which FICUs with less than $100
million in total assets and minority
depository institutions of any size may
seek assistance in a variety of areas,
including succession planning. In
addition, the Board again notes that it
has developed a sample template for a
succession plan that may be appropriate
for smaller FICUs, though all FICUs may
benefit from it. FISCUs electing to use
the template should consult applicable
state requirements to ensure their
succession plans are consistent with any
such requirements.
Comment: Classification of the rule as
‘‘major’’ under the Congressional
Review Act. One comment expressed
concern that the NCUA might not
classify the rule as ‘‘major’’ for purposes
of the Congressional Review Act
(CRA).21 A rule that is ‘‘major’’ under
the CRA may take effect no earlier than
60 calendar days after the Congress
receives the statutorily prescribed rule
report from the agency or the rule is
published in the Federal Register,
whichever is later. The commenter was
concerned that not classifying the rule
as ‘‘major’’ would underestimate the
true impact of the succession planning
requirements, particularly on smaller
FICUs.
NCUA Response. The NCUA
acknowledges its obligations under the
CRA. As required by the CRA, the
NCUA has submitted this final rule to
OMB for it to determine if the final rule
is a ‘‘major rule.’’ The NCUA also will
file appropriate reports with Congress
and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) so this rule may be
reviewed.
The CRA defines a major rule as one
that has resulted in or is likely to result
in (A) an annual effect on the economy
of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major
increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
federal, state, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or (C)
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets. The CRA vests the
ultimate decision as to whether this
final rule qualifies as ‘‘major’’ with
OMB. However, the Board does not
21 5 U.S.C. 801–808. The CRA was included as
part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
believe that this final rule meets the
definition of a ‘‘major rule’’ under the
CRA.
While the final rule may impose some
additional costs on FICUs, it is unlikely
that these costs would rise to the $100
million required under the CRA
definition of a ‘‘major rule.’’ The Board
also believes that several factors
mitigate the potential costs imposed on
FICUs. For example, the Board is
providing a sample template for a
simple succession plan that may be
appropriate for some FICUs. Many
FICUs have already adopted succession
plans, and these existing plans should
already address at least some of the
elements required by the final rule,
thereby minimizing the cost of
complying with the new requirements.
As previously noted, the NCUA also
offers training and other resources to aid
credit unions in developing their
succession plans. FICUs are also
encouraged to use already existing
information in preparing their plans,
such as the data used to develop the
recommended program to prepare for a
catastrophic act. These resources should
further reduce the costs of preparing
succession plans.
Neither does the Board believe that
the final rule meets the second and third
prongs of the CRA ‘‘major rule’’
definition. The final rule imposes new
reporting requirements that will not
directly impact consumer costs for the
financial products offered by FICUs. Nor
are these reporting requirements likely
to drive up costs for the credit union
industry, governments, or geographic
regions. The effects of the new
requirements are also unlikely to
significantly affect employment,
competition, investment, or innovation,
as contemplated under the CRA.
E. Comments Raising General
Objections to Rule
Comment: The proposed rule
constitutes regulatory overreach. Several
commenters wrote that, while it is the
NCUA’s responsibility to supervise
credit unions so as to protect the safety
and soundness of the credit union
system, the proposed rule oversteps the
agency’s regulatory authority. The
commenters wrote that succession
planning is appropriately the fiduciary
responsibility of a FICU’s board of
directors as only an individual FICU can
determine the appropriate timing and
extent of succession planning needed to
preserve the health of the FICU and its
members. The commenters worried that
the rule could lead to an unintended
consequence where NCUA examiners,
rather than focusing on the outcomes
and effectiveness of a succession plan,
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
might use their supervisory authority to
impose their own views on how
succession planning should be
managed. The commenters wrote that
such a scenario could lead to a
significant administrative workload,
diverting attention and resources away
from serving members.
NCUA Response. The Board
continues to believe that NCUA
rulemaking on succession planning is
both appropriate and consistent with
the agency’s statutory authority. While
the Board agrees that succession
planning is a responsibility of the
FICU’s board of directors, it also finds
that a compelling safety and soundness
case exists for rulemaking in this area.
The failure of FICUs to adequately plan
for succession poses a risk not only to
individual FICUs and their memberowners, but to the credit union system
as a whole and to the Share Insurance
Fund. Without adequate planning, key
operations could be impacted during
management transitions or leadership
vacuums, such as recordkeeping,
lending and other member services,
liquidity management, cybersecurity,
compliance with laws and regulations,
and other critical responsibilities.
The proposed regulatory changes are
designed to mitigate this risk and are
consistent with the Board’s statutory
duty to ensure a safe and sound system
of cooperative credit for its memberowners, as the proposed rule explained.
Under the FCU Act, the NCUA is the
chartering and supervisory authority for
FCUs and the federal supervisory
authority for FICUs.22 The FCU Act
grants the NCUA broad authority to
issue regulations governing both FCUs
and all FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU
Act is a general grant of regulatory
authority and authorizes the Board to
prescribe rules and regulations for the
administration of the FCU Act.23
Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific
grant of authority over share insurance
coverage, conservatorships, and
liquidations.24 Section 209 of the FCU
Act is a plenary grant of regulatory
authority to the Board to issue rules and
regulations necessary or appropriate to
carry out its role as share insurer for all
FICUs.25 Moreover, the NCUA has
statutory authority to determine
whether FICUs are operated in an
unsafe or unsound manner and
terminate a FICU’s insurance if a FICU
is not operated in a safe and sound
manner.26 This final rule will help to
22 12
U.S.C. 1752–1775.
U.S.C. 1766(a).
24 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(1).
25 12 U.S.C. 1789(a)(11).
26 12 U.S.C. 1786.
23 12
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
identify or prevent unsafe or unsound
practices. Accordingly, the FCU Act
grants the Board broad rulemaking
authority to ensure that the credit union
industry and the Share Insurance Fund
remain safe and sound and service to
members is maintained in compliance
with applicable laws and regulations.
In assessing compliance with this
rule, the NCUA will focus on whether
the FICU has developed a succession
plan that addresses the elements
required by the final rule and is
consistent with the FICU’s size and
complexity. The Board emphasizes that
FICUs, not the NCUA, are best
positioned to assess various risks and
opportunities related to succession
planning. A FICU will need to make its
own determinations as to how much
detail is necessary to address the
required plan elements and whether
additional factors, besides those
required by this final rule, should be
considered in its succession planning
process. The NCUA does not intend to
micromanage a FICU’s succession
planning process and may issue
guidance, as it deems necessary, to
clarify a FICU’s discretion in developing
its succession plans and further assist
FICU succession planning efforts.
Comment: A ‘‘one-size fits all’’
approach is inappropriate. Several
commenters objected to the broad
application of the proposed rule to all
FICUs, regardless of their size and
operational complexity. The
commenters wrote that individual
FICUs have unique challenges and
governance structures. The commenters
wrote that uniform requirements might
limit the ability of a FICU to design a
plan that best aligns with its strategic
objectives and long-term viability. Some
of these commenters focused on the
potential impacts of uniform
requirements on smaller FICUs that may
not have the resources to meet the
detailed requirements. The commenters
wrote that the diversity among FICUs—
ranging from small, community focused
institutions to larger, complex
organizations—requires flexibility in
succession planning that a rigid
regulatory mandate may not
accommodate.
NCUA Response. The Board agrees a
uniform approach to succession
planning would fail to account for the
diversity among FICUs. The final rule
accommodates such differences. For
example, in response to public
comment, the Board has revised the
proposed rule by narrowing the list of
FICU officials that must be covered by
the succession plans, thereby enabling
FICUs to develop more appropriately
tailored plans that better reflect their
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
104871
unique circumstances. So long as
succession plans address the elements
required by the final rule, FICUs may
adjust their plans to reflect operational
differences, varying governance
structures, and other unique
circumstances. FICUs may include
within the scope of their plans ‘‘other
personnel the board of directors deems
critical given the [FICU’s] size,
complexity, or risk of operations. This
includes new positions that may be
required due to planned changes in
operations, supervisory landscape, or
corporate structure.’’ 27
As the preamble to the proposed rule
noted, the expectation is for a FICU to
develop a succession plan that is
consistent with its size and complexity.
Therefore, smaller FICUs are more likely
to have a simple succession plan that
only addresses a few key leadership
positions. Larger and more sophisticated
FICUs are expected to have more
detailed plans. For example, smaller
FICUs may have fewer board members,
or have fewer staff that would qualify
for the positions listed in the proposed
rule for inclusion in the succession
plan. Likewise, smaller FICUs are likely
to have less expansive employee
recruitment, development, and retention
strategies.
F. Comments Regarding the Inclusion of
FISCUs
Comment: Inclusion of FISCUs is
inappropriate. Several commenters
objected to the inclusion of FISCUs
within the scope of the proposed
regulatory requirements. Some of the
commenters wrote that the inclusion of
FISCUs signals to the states that their
regulatory agencies are not equipped to
ensure that FISCUs are adequately
positioned for the future. These
commenters wrote that the assumption
is contrary to data that demonstrates
state charters have fewer failures, more
growth, and a history of strong
management performance. The
commenters urged the NCUA to narrow
the applicability of the rule to exclude
FISCUs as was the case in the Board’s
2022 proposal.
NCUA Response. As discussed above,
the Board finds that compelling safety
and soundness reasons exist for
undertaking rulemaking on succession
planning. The failure of FICUs—
whether federal or state-chartered—to
adequately plan for succession poses an
undue risk to the credit union system
and to the Share Insurance Fund. The
inclusion of FISCUs within the scope of
the final rule is consistent with the
27 Proposed § 701.4(e)(2)(vi), finalized as
§ 701.4(e)(2)(iii)
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
104872
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Board’s statutory authority to ensure a
safe and sound system of cooperative
credit for its member-owners. Under the
FCU Act, the NCUA is the chartering
and supervisory authority for FCUs and
the federal supervisory authority for
FICUs.28 The FCU Act also grants the
NCUA broad authority to issue
regulations governing all FICUs.
The Board emphasizes that, contrary
to the assertion made by the
commenters, this final rule does not
reflect a statement on the efficacy of
state efforts to address succession
planning. Specifically, the final rule
provides that for FISCUs in states that
have established succession planning
requirements, the NCUA will defer to
such requirements to the extent no
conflict exists between the final rule
and the state requirements.29
Comment: The FISCU carveout is
confusing. Several commenters, while
supportive of the proposed rule’s
carveout for FISCUs in states where
succession planning is addressed, found
the wording of the provision confusing.
The preamble of the proposed rule
stated that ‘‘to the extent that a FISCU
is subject to a state statutory or
regulatory requirement that conflicts
with the proposed rule, the NCUA will
defer to the state requirement.’’ 30 The
commenters wrote that this wording
implies that if a state rule addresses
succession planning, FISCUs in that
state would be exempt from the
proposed rule. However, the regulatory
text of the proposed rule at § 741.228
provides that a FISCU must adhere to
the succession planning requirements
‘‘to the extent these regulatory
provisions do not conflict with an
applicable state requirement.’’
According to the commenters, this
language implies only a partial
exemption from specific conflicting
provisions. These commenters wrote
that while a state may not have a
specific statutory or regulatory
requirement addressing succession
planning, it may use definitions or have
issued guidance that differs from that of
the NCUA proposed rule.
In addition, one commenter wrote
that neither the preamble nor the
proposed regulatory text uses the word
‘‘exempt’’ to describe the applicability
of the rule to a FISCU in a state that
addresses succession planning. Instead,
the preamble uses defer, and the
regulatory text is silent. The commenter
recommended that, absent a total
exclusion of FISCUs from the scope of
the rule, the Board should provide a
28 12
U.S.C. 1752–1775.
simplified exemption provision that
exempts FISCUs in a state upon notice
from the state regulator to the NCUA
regional director that the state
supervises succession planning by rule,
guidance, or through the examination
process. The commenter wrote that this
approach would reduce confusion, ease
administration, and presents no greater
risk of material loss to the Share
Insurance Fund.
NCUA Response. The Board has not
revised the rule in response to these
comments. Contrary to the assertions
made by the commenters, there is no
conflict between the preamble language
and the regulatory text. Both provide
that the NCUA’s deferral is contingent
on a lack of conflict between the rule
and the state requirement.31 Nowhere
does the preamble indicate, as the
commenter suggests, that the deferral
provision is intended as a complete
exemption for FISCUs from the
regulatory requirements. Further, as the
commenter writes, the deferral only
applies to legally enforceable state
requirements, such as statutes,
regulations, or other issuances that are
binding under state law. The deferral
does not apply to other issuances in the
form of guidance, which may be set
forth in policy statements, handbooks,
letters, or similar issuances. While these
guidance documents may represent
supervisory expectations, such as for
purposes of determining a credit union’s
CAMELS and risk ratings, FISCUs are
not required to comply with such
guidance because it is by definition nonbinding. The Board has also not elected
to adopt the alternate process suggested
by the commenter, because it continues
to believe that whether deferral applies
is best addressed on a case-by-case basis
during the examination process.
Comment: The NCUA should
consolidate the regulation applicable to
FISCUs. One commenter was concerned
regarding the structure of 12 CFR part
741, which identifies the regulatory
requirements applicable to FISCUs by
cross-referencing regulatory provisions
for FCUs codified elsewhere in title 12
of the Code of Federal Regulations. The
commenter wrote that, while this might
seem like a minor detail, it results in
confusion and inefficiency for many
FISCUs as they sift through FCU rules
to determine what may apply to them.
The commenter wrote that there is no
compelling argument against
consolidating FISCU regulations in a
single location.
NCUA Response. The suggestion
made by the commenter is outside the
scope of the rulemaking, Accordingly,
the rule has not been revised in
response to the comment. However, the
NCUA remains committed to working
with all FICUs to ensure the clarity of
their regulatory obligations.
G. Comments Raising Potential Privacy
and Discrimination Concerns
Comment: Concerns regarding
expected retirement and vacancy date
requirements. The proposed rule would
require that a succession plan identify
the anticipated vacancy date for each of
the covered positions, ‘‘such as the
incumbent’s retirement eligibility date
or announced departure date.’’ 32
Several commenters objected to this
provision, writing that it was unduly
burdensome and could potentially raise
privacy and age discrimination
concerns. The commenters wrote that
the shift from employee pensions based
on years of service to defined
contribution plans have dramatically
altered the concept of retirement and
made it difficult to estimate when an
individual will retire. Other
commenters wrote that many FICU
management officials operate under
employment agreements that may be
renewed or extended. Requiring that
FICUs publish such dates could lead to
charges of age discrimination or be used
by management to force an employee
out who has no intention of retiring.
NCUA Response. As an initial matter,
the Board notes that it is not requiring
that FICUs make their succession plans
public, nor does the Board intend to do
so. Succession plans will be reviewed
by examiners and will be treated as
confidential supervisory documents, as
with other supervisory matters.
The provision is intended solely as a
planning aid. In the case of elected
officials, such date is clearly the
expiration of the incumbent’s term.
However, the expected vacancy date for
non-elected officials can be less clear.
The final rule does not require the FICU
use a specific date, but suggests some
possible proxies, including the
individual’s anticipated retirement date
or announced departure date. A credit
union can also note that a retirement or
departure date is unknown. The
decision of what to reflect for the date
is at the FICU’s discretion.
The Board emphasizes that inclusion
of any known or estimated retirement or
departure date is not intended to create
a requirement that an individual will
retire or otherwise vacate a position on
a specific date. The Board, therefore,
understands that these dates may
evolve. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a
specific or approximate date will
29 § 741.228.
30 89
FR 60329, at 60332.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
31 89
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
FR 60329, at 60332; proposed § 741.228.
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32 Proposed
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
§ 701.4(e)(3)(i).
26DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
promote conversations within the FICU
and allow for better planning in advance
of a transition, thus accomplishing the
purpose of the final rule. Further, the
FICU should update the dates as
necessary to reflect changes in an
individual’s circumstances or plans.
Comment: Concerns regarding public
posting of succession plans. The
preamble to the proposed rule provided
that ‘‘succession plans should provide
sufficient detail and use language that is
reasonably understandable to the FICU’s
member-owners in describing its
strategies for filling vacancies and for
recruiting, developing, and retaining
employees.’’ 33 The preamble further
provided that succession plans should
be ‘‘clearly and concisely written, use
everyday language to the extent
possible, and avoid ambiguous phrasing
open to differing interpretations.’’ 34
Several commenters wrote that this
language implies the succession plans
will be publicly available, which raises
privacy concerns. The commenters
wrote that the succession plans may
include retirement information for
senior credit union management, which
should not be made public. Another
commenter wrote that succession plans
often reflect a FICUs strategy for
maintaining viability in a competitive
market. The public posting of plans
would enable other financial
institutions to access the information for
competitive advantage or potential
merger opportunities.
NCUA Response. The Board again
emphasizes that there is no requirement
that succession plans be posted or
otherwise made available to the public.
Neither does the final rule supersede
existing laws or FICU procedures
governing the public dissemination of
similar governance documents. The
public availability of the succession
plans should be treated similarly to
such documents. The preamble
language cited by the commenters was
intended solely to emphasize the
importance of clarity in drafting,
especially in those circumstances where
the plan, or portions thereof, may be
made available to member-owners.
H. Comments Regarding Specific Rule
Provisions
Comment: The scope of covered FICU
officials should be narrowed. Many
commenters recommended that the
NCUA narrow the scope of the positions
covered by the succession plans. The
commenters wrote that the proposed list
was overly prescriptive and would
impose an undue burden to administer.
33 89
FR 60329, at 60333.
34 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
Almost all of these commenters agreed
the scope should be limited to those
officials most directly responsible for
ensuring the FICU’s continuity of
operations but differed on the specific
positions this would include. Some
commenters suggested inclusion of the
members of the board, the members of
the supervisory and credit committees,
and key management officials, including
the chief executive officer. Other
commenters suggested the scope be
limited to the chief executive officer and
chief financial officer (or equivalent),
because the boards of directors are not
involved in the FICU’s day-to-day
operations. Still others suggested that
the rule not include a specific list at all,
but that FICUs should instead be
provided with the flexibility to
determine which critical positions
should be included in a succession plan
based on the specific risks associated
with unanticipated or extended
vacancies.
Despite their differing
recommendations, almost all the
commenters writing on this topic
suggested that loan officers and assistant
managers be excluded from the list.
Several of these commenters wrote that
larger FICUs may have hundreds of loan
officers involved in the daily review of
loans. The commenters wrote that, given
the decentralized lending structure of
many large FICUs, there is likely
minimal risk to the ability to serve
members if a loan officer vacancy
occurs. The commenters wrote the risk
is even less for assistant management
officials, who are not crucial to a FICU’s
continuity of operations.
NCUA Response. In response to these
comments, the Board has removed loan
officers, credit committee members, and
supervisory committee members from
the list of FICU officials that must be
covered by the succession plans. During
development of the July 25, 2024,
proposed rule, the Board relied on the
language of the FCU Act, the model FCU
bylaws, and the definition of ’’ senior
executive officer’’ in 12 CFR 701.14 as
a guide in identifying the list of officials
that should be covered by the
succession plans.35 As it did in the
35 Specifically, section 111 of the FCU Act
provides that ‘‘[t]he management of a Federal credit
union shall be by a board of directors, a supervisory
committee, and where the bylaws so provide, a
credit committee’’ (12 U.S.C. 1761). The model FCU
bylaws codified in Appendix A of 12 CFR part 701
expand the list of senior FCU officials to include
management officials, assistant management
officials, and loan officers. The NCUA regulation at
12 CFR 701.14 defines the term ‘‘senior executive
officer’’ to include the FICU’s chief executive officer
(typically this individual holds the title of president
or treasurer/manager), any assistant chief executive
officer (for example, any assistant president, any
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
104873
preamble to the proposed rule, the
Board emphasizes that succession plans
are intended to cover senior leadership
positions responsible for the oversight
of the FICU or its day-to-day
management.36 Upon consideration of
the comments and the issues involved,
the Board recognizes that loan officers
and members of credit and supervisory
committees may not always meet these
criteria depending on the size and
structure of a particular FICU. The
change will enable FICUs to develop
more appropriately tailored succession
plans that better reflect their unique
circumstances.
As noted in a preceding response,
FICUs may include within the scope of
their plans ‘‘other personnel the board
of directors deems critical given the
[FICU’s] size, complexity, or risk of
operations.’’ 37 FICUs should use the
flexibility provided by this provision to
assess whether the inclusion of loan
officers and members of the supervisory
and credit committees is appropriate
given the institution’s characteristics.
For example, a smaller FICU with few
loan officers may deem the position
critical given the impact a departure
would have on the institution’s
operations. In contrast, a larger FICU
that employs many loan officers may
determine its operations would not be
impacted by the loss of any specific
individual and choose to not include
this position in their plan.
Comment: The annual plan review
requirement is excessive. Several
commenters objected to the requirement
that a FICU board review the succession
plan ‘‘no less than annually.’’ 38 The
commenters wrote that this requirement
is burdensome and excessive. The
commenters wrote that succession plans
are not a dynamic and ever-evolving
document and, therefore, should only be
reviewed as needed. One of the
commenters recommended that FICUs
be provided the flexibility to review the
plans once every 24 months. Another
commenter suggested a review period of
every three years.
NCUA Response. Upon
reconsideration, the Board agrees that
the annual review of plans is
unnecessary. The final rule now
requires FICUs to review and update the
plan as necessary but at least once every
24 months. The Board believes this
change provides FICUs with additional
flexibility while still accomplishing the
vice president, or any assistant treasurer/manager)
and the chief financial officer (controller).
36 89 FR 60329, at 60333.
37 Proposed § 701.4(e)(2)(vi), finalized as
§ 701.4(e)(2)(iii).
38 Proposed § 701.4(e)(4)(ii).
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
104874
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
goal of the rulemaking of ensuring that
succession plans are regularly reviewed
and kept current.
Comment: Education requirements for
FICU board members. Several
commenters objected to the proposed
regulatory language requiring that
directors have a ‘‘working familiarity’’
with the FICU’s succession plan no later
than six months after appointment.39
The commenters wrote that the focus of
newly appointed directors should be on
gaining familiarity with items such as
the FICU’s operations, the products and
services being offered, and applicable
legal authorities. In contrast, a minority
of commenters supported the
requirement, writing that it is
appropriate for boards to maintain a
working knowledge of the latest
developments in all of the areas of risk
confronted by the FICU.
NCUA Response. The Board has not
revised the rule in response to these
comments. The Board continues to
believe that succession planning is one
of the most vital responsibilities of a
FICU’s board of directors. Succession
planning is a critical component of a
FICU’s overall strategic plan. It helps
ensure that the appropriate personnel
are available to execute the FICU’s
strategic plan and mission. A board’s
failure to plan for vacancies in elected
and appointed positions, as well as the
transition of its management, could
come with high costs. The FICU runs
the risk of creating a leadership vacuum,
disrupting operations, and potentially
jeopardizing the FICU’s ability to
adequately manage liquidity risk,
address cybersecurity threats, or ensure
continued compliance with consumer
protection, Bank Secrecy Act, and other
critical responsibilities. Accordingly,
and as recognized by the commenters
writing in support of the requirement,
succession planning merits inclusion
among the items new board members
must become familiar with.
Comment: The ‘‘working familiarity’’
requirement is vague. Several
commenters were concerned about a
perceived lack of clarity with the
proposed ‘‘working familiarity’’
language. The commenters wrote that,
unlike the Board’s 2022 proposal, the
proposed rule did not include language
stating that training is not mandated to
meet this requirement. The commenters
wrote that it is unclear what steps a
board of directors would be expected to
take to achieve a ‘‘working familiarity.’’
The commenters were concerned this
perceived ambiguity would leave the
door open for differing practices among
FICUs regarding training, as well as for
39 Proposed
§ 701.4(b)(3)(ii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
different interpretations of the
requirement between FICUs and
examiners. They wrote that this could
lead to inconsistencies in the
examination process and urged the
NCUA to clarify the meaning of the
provision.
NCUA Response. The Board has not
revised the rule in response to these
comments. The Board notes that the
‘‘working familiarity’’ language is not
new but comes from existing
§ 701.4(b)(3). This existing regulation
requires new credit union board
members to gain a ‘‘working familiarity
with basic finance and accounting
practices’’ within six months of election
or appointment. The final rule does not
revise this language but adds succession
planning to the list of items that
directors must have a working
familiarity with no later than six months
after appointment. The final rule does
not mandate the contents of training to
meet this requirement. A FICU may
incorporate succession planning into
whatever materials it currently uses to
comply with the education requirement.
Comment: Deviations from succession
plan. Several commenters wrote about
potential deviations from the succession
plan due to unforeseen circumstances.
The commenters wrote that requiring
documentation of such changes is
overly prescriptive and sometimes not
feasible given rapidly changing
circumstances. Another commenter
asked for additional clarity on the steps
a FICU should take if it is unable to
adhere to its succession plan, writing
that the proposed rule lacked sufficient
detail.
NCUA Response. As provided in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the
Board recognizes that circumstances
might necessitate deviations from the
succession plan in filling specific
vacancies. The final rule accommodates
such exigencies. In the event exigent
circumstances require a substantial
deviation from the board approved plan,
management and/or the FICU board has
the flexibility to do what it deems
necessary at the time, consistent with
their fiduciary duties and legal
responsibilities. To further emphasize
this flexibility, the final rule no longer
requires that such deviations be
documented in the board’s meeting
minutes. However, a substantial
deviation from the approved plan
should be reported to the board as soon
as practicable. Credit unions, not the
NCUA, are best positioned to assess
various risks and exigent circumstances.
The agency does not intend to
micromanage deviations from
succession plans made in response to
exigent circumstances. Further, FICU
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
boards have flexibility in determining
how to calculate the required 24-month
review period. A FICU may determine
that the review of a succession plan
necessitated by a change to address an
exigent circumstance satisfies the
required review, therefore restarting the
24-month review cycle.
I. Other Comments
Comment: Exemption for high
performing FICUs. One commenter
suggested that the Board include an
exemption for FICUs of all asset sizes
with a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or
2. The commenter wrote that bond
requirements for FICUs vary by
CAMELS rating, with a greater bond
being required for CAMELS 3, 4, and 5
rated FICUs due to the increased risk to
the Share Insurance Fund. The
commenter wrote that this logic should
extend to succession planning as well.
The commenter wrote that, at minimum,
the final rule should establish such an
exemption for FISCUs with a CAMELS
composite rating of 1 or 2 because the
NCUA is not the primary federal
regulator for FISCUs. The commenter
wrote that, given the lower risk to the
Share Insurance Fund, the NCUA does
not have as much standing to issue
regulations covering FISCUs ‘‘when it is
not necessary, but only a best practice.’’
NCUA Response. The suggestion
made by the commenter is outside the
scope of the proposed rule. The Board
did not propose or seek public comment
on a class-based exemption of this type.
Accordingly, the Board has not revised
the rule in response to this comment. As
discussed, the Board believes that
having clearly articulated, consistent,
and enforceable succession planning
requirements will benefit all FICUs,
irrespective of asset size and CAMELS
rating. Moreover, the establishment of a
succession plan in advance of a FICU
potentially becoming a composite
CAMELS code 3, 4, or 5 will allow the
FICU’s leadership to remain focused on
the most pressing problems that led to
the downgrade.
Comment: Additional resources are
necessary to aid compliance. Several
commenters wrote that FICUs would
require additional resources to comply
with the succession plan requirements.
While the majority of these commenters
focused on the challenges faced by
smaller FICUs, others wrote that all
FICUs, irrespective of size, would
require assistance. The commenters
suggested the NCUA develop a broad
range of resources to assist all FICUs in
developing succession planning. One
commenter recommended that the
NCUA work with state supervisory
authorities to develop recruitment
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
strategies and resources to assist FICUs
in developing and implementing their
succession plans.
NCUA Response. As discussed, the
NCUA makes available several resources
to aid FICU succession planning efforts,
including online training. The Board
has also developed a sample template
for a succession plan that may be
appropriate for some FICUs. Smaller
FICUs with less than $100 million in
total assets and minority depository
institutions of all sizes may also be
eligible for assistance in a variety of
areas, including succession planning,
through the agency’s Small Credit
Union and Minority Depository
Institution Support Program. FICUs
with a low-income designation may be
able to apply for technical assistance
grants to support succession planning or
offset training costs through the
Community Development Revolving
Loan Fund.
Comment: Additional clarity required
regarding examination expectations.
Several commenters wrote that the
proposed rule was unclear about the
potential impact on a FICU if an
examiner determines a succession plan
to be inadequate. The commenters urged
the NCUA to clarify the expectations of
the examination program to ensure
consistency in evaluations of FICU
regulatory compliance. The commenters
also suggested that the final rule should
identify a reasonable timeline for
remediation should a FICU’s succession
plan be deemed inadequate.
NCUA Response. The expectation is
for a FICU to develop a succession plan
that meets the regulatory requirements
and is consistent with the FICU’s size
and complexity. Potential examination
actions due to inadequate succession
plans and possible remediation
timelines are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. As is current practice,
examiners will use discretion and
judgment when working with FICUs to
remedy a potential negative finding
before issuing documents of resolution
or other negative findings. The NCUA
may, in its discretion, issue guidance on
the topic of succession planning as it
deems necessary.
III. Regulatory Procedures
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 40
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements, unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. If
the agency makes such a certification, it
shall publish the certification at the
time of publication of either the
proposed rule or the final rule, along
with a statement providing the factual
basis for such certification.41 For
purposes of this analysis, the NCUA
considers small credit unions to be
those having under $100 million in
assets.42 The Board fully considered the
potential economic impacts of the
regulatory amendments on small credit
unions.
The final rule requires that a FICU
board of directors establish, and comply
with, a written succession plan that
addresses certain specified positions
and contains specified elements. In
addition, the board of directors will be
required to review the succession plan
no less than every 24 months. These
requirements may impose some cost on
FICUs. However, the NCUA believes
several factors mitigate the potential
costs, especially for small FICUs with
assets of less than $100 million.
First, a FICU is expected to develop
a succession plan that is consistent with
its size and complexity. Therefore, small
FICUs may have a simple succession
plan that is less costly to prepare than
would be the case for larger and more
complex FICUs. Further, in recognition
that smaller FICUs may lack the
resources or expertise to develop
succession plans, the Board is providing
a sample template for a simple
succession plan that may be appropriate
for these FICUs. The Board is also aware
that many FICUs, including small
FICUs, have already adopted succession
plans. Many of these existing plans
should already address, either partially
or in their entirety, the elements that
would be required by the proposed rule.
This could minimize the burden of
complying with the new requirements.
In response to comments, the Board
has narrowed the list of FICU officials
that must be covered by the succession
plans. This should further minimize
burden by enabling FICUs to develop
more tailored succession plans that
reflect their unique circumstances.
Further, the Board is delaying the
effective date of the final rule until
January 1, 2026, which will provide
additional time to make any operational
changes or resource allocations
necessary for development of the
succession plans.
The NCUA also offers training and
other resources to aid credit unions in
developing their succession plans. For
example, the NCUA has posted a video
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
U.S.C. 605(b).
FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).
42 80
Jkt 265001
series on succession planning on the
internet. The NCUA’s Small Credit
Union and Minority Depository
Institution Support Program is an
available succession planning resource
for FICUs with less than $100 million in
total assets and minority depository
institutions of any size. Smaller FICUs
are also encouraged to seek assistance
from larger or more sophisticated FICUs
in the development of the required
succession plans.43 FICUs may also use
already existing information in
preparing their plans, such as the data
used to develop the recommended
program to prepare for a catastrophic
act. These resources should further
reduce the costs of preparing the
succession plans.
Accordingly, the NCUA certifies the
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small credit unions.
B. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act/
Congressional Review Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) 44 generally provides for
congressional review of agency rules. A
reporting requirement is triggered in
instances where the NCUA issues a final
rule as defined by section 551 of the
Administrative Procedure Act.45 An
agency rule, in addition to being subject
to congressional oversight, may also be
subject to a delayed effective date if the
rule is a ‘‘major rule.’’ The NCUA does
not believe this rule is a ‘‘major rule’’
within the meaning of the relevant
sections of SBREFA.
As required by SBREFA, the NCUA
has submitted this final rule to OMB for
it to determine if the final rule is a
‘‘major rule’’ for purposes of SBREFA.
The NCUA also will file appropriate
reports with Congress and the GAO so
this rule may be reviewed.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) applies to rulemaking in which
an agency creates a new or amends
existing information collection
requirements.46 For purposes of the
PRA, an information collection
requirement may take the form of a
reporting, recordkeeping, or a thirdparty disclosure requirement. The
NCUA may not conduct or sponsor, and
the respondent is not required to
respond to, an information collection
43 Supra,
note 15.
Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 147 (1996).
45 5 U.S.C. 551.
46 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520; 5 CFR part 1320.
44 Public
41 5
40 5
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
104875
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
104876
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
unless it displays a valid OMB control
number.
The final rule establishes new
information collections in the form of
succession policies and plans. The
NCUA estimates a total annual burden
of 46,750 hours as follows:
other key management officials. While
the final rule is intended to maintain
access to quality credit union services
by reducing unplanned or forced
consolidations, the potential positive
effect on family well-being, including
financial well-being is, at most, indirect.
Estimated PRA Burden
List of Subjects
• OMB Control Number: 3133–NEW.
• Title of Information Collection:
Succession Planning.
• Estimated number of respondents:
4,499.
• Estimated number of responses per
respondent: 1.
• Estimated total annual responses:
4,499.
• Estimated total annual burden
hours per response: 10.
• Estimated total annual burden
hours: 44,990.
The NCUA addressed comments on
the proposed PRA burden estimate
under section II. Discussion of Public
Comments. In accordance with the PRA,
the information collection requirements
included in this final rule have been
submitted to OMB for approval under
control number 3133–NEW.
12 CFR Part 701
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
D. Executive Order 13132 on Federalism
Executive Order 13132 encourages
independent regulatory agencies to
consider the impact of their actions on
state and local interests. The NCUA, an
independent regulatory agency as
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily
complies with the executive order to
adhere to fundamental federalism
principles. This final rule applies to
FCUs and to FISCUs. By law, FISCUs
are already subject to numerous
provisions of NCUA’s rules, based on
the agency’s role as the insurer of
member share accounts and the
significant interest NCUA has in the
safety and soundness of their
operations. The rulemaking may,
therefore, have an occasional direct
effect on the states, the relationship
between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
E. Assessment of Federal Regulations
and Policies on Families
The NCUA has determined that this
final rule will not affect family wellbeing within the meaning of Section 654
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act,
1999.47 The regulatory requirements are
exclusively concerned with succession
planning policies of FICUs for replacing
vacancies among board members and
47 Public
Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
12 CFR Part 741
Bank deposit insurance, Credit, Credit
unions, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By the National Credit Union
Administration Board, this 17th day of
December 2024.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12
CFR parts 701 and 741, as follows:
PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND
OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION
1. The authority citation for part 701
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756,
1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767,
1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789.
Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C.
3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601–
3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42
U.S.C. 4311–4312.
2. Amend § 701.4 by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(3).
b. Adding paragraph (e).
The addition and revision to read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 701.4 General authorities and duties of
Federal credit union directors.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) At the time of election or
appointment, or within a reasonable
time thereafter, not to exceed six
months, have at least a working
familiarity with, and to ask, as
appropriate, substantive questions of
management and the internal and
external auditors of:
(i) Basic finance and accounting
practices, including the ability to read
and understand the Federal credit
union’s balance sheet and income
statement; and
(ii) The Federal credit union’s
succession plan established pursuant to
paragraph (e) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Succession planning requirements.
(1) General. A federal credit union must
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
establish a written succession plan as
provided in this paragraph that is
approved by the board of directors and
consistent with the credit union’s size
and complexity. In evaluating whether a
succession plan meets the requirements
of this paragraph, the NCUA will
consider the size of the federal credit
union, as well as the complexity and
risk of its operations.
(2) Covered positions. The succession
plan shall, at a minimum, cover the
following positions, or their equivalent
if the federal credit union has adopted
different position titles:
(i) Members of the board of directors;
(ii) Management officials and assistant
management officials, as those terms are
defined in Appendix A, if provided for
in the federal credit union’s bylaws,
and, to the extent not already covered,
the senior executive officers identified
in § 701.14(b)(2); and
(iii) Any other personnel the board of
directors deems critical given the
federal credit union’s size, complexity,
or risk of operations. This includes new
positions that may be required due to
planned changes in operations,
supervisory landscape, or corporate
structure.
(3) Contents of succession plan. The
succession plan must, at minimum,
contain the following information
regarding each of the positions covered
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section:
(i) The title for each covered position
and the expiration of the incumbent’s
term (if serving in a term-limited
capacity) or other anticipated vacancy
date if known (such as the incumbent’s
retirement eligibility date or announced
departure date).
(ii) The federal credit union’s plan for
permanently filling vacancies for each
of the positions.
(iii) The federal credit union’s strategy
for recruiting candidates with the
potential to assume each of the
positions.The strategy must consider
how the selection and diversity of skills
among the employees covered by the
succession plan collectively and
individually promotes the safe and
sound operation of the federal credit
union.
(4) Board responsibilities. The board
of directors must:
(i) Approve a written succession plan
that meets the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this
section; and
(ii) Review, and update as necessary,
the succession plan in accordance with
a schedule established by the board of
directors but no less than every 24
months.
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–8783.
PART 741—REQUIREMENTS FOR
INSURANCE
3. The authority citation for part 741
continues to read as follows:
■
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766(a), 1781–
1790, and 1790d; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
■
4. Add § 741.228 to read as follows:
§ 741.228
Succession planning.
Any credit union that is insured
pursuant to Title II of the Act must
adhere to the requirements in
§ 701.4(b)(3) and (e) of this chapter, to
the extent these regulatory provisions
do not conflict with an applicable state
requirement.
[FR Doc. 2024–30449 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2024–2087; Airspace
Docket No. 23–ANM–22]
RIN 2120–AA66
Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Dubois, WY
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action establishes Class
E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Dubois Airport,
Dubois, WY, in support of the airport’s
transition from visual flight rules (VFR)
to instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations.
Effective date 0901 UTC,
February 20, 2025. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and
all background material may be viewed
online at www.regulations.gov using the
FAA Docket number. Electronic
retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed
online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
publications/. You may also contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Office of
Policy, Federal Aviation
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
DATES:
16:29 Dec 23, 2024
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of the airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it establishes
Class E airspace to support IFR
operations at Dubois Airport, Dubois,
WY.
History
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 2200 S.
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone (206) 231–2248.
Jkt 265001
The FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA–2024–2087 in the Federal Register
(89 FR 71863; September 4, 2024),
proposing to establish Class E airspace
at Dubois Airport, Dubois, WY.
Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. One person
submitted two similar comments in
support of the airspace action.
Incorporation by Reference
Class E5 airspace designations are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document amends the current version of
that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J,
dated July 31, 2024, and effective
September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO
7400.11J is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. These amendments will be
published in the next update to FAA
Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic
service routes, and reporting points.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
104877
The Rule
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by
establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Dubois Airport, Dubois, WY, in
support of the airport’s forthcoming
transition from VFR to IFR operations.
This airspace extends 8.2 miles
southeast and 4.5 miles north and
northwest of the airport. The
configuration is designed to contain
departing and missed approach IFR
operations until reaching 1,200 feet
above the surface and arriving IFR
operations below 1,500 feet.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current. It, therefore: (1) is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
The FAA has determined that this
action qualifies for categorical exclusion
under the National Environmental
Policy Act in accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’
paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action
is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and
no extraordinary circumstances exist
that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 104865-104877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Parts 701 and 741
RIN 3133-AF42
Succession Planning
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NCUA Board (Board) is issuing this final rule to further
strengthen succession planning efforts for all consumer federally
insured credit unions (FICUs). This final rule requires that a FICU
board of directors establish a written succession plan that addresses
specified positions and contains certain information. In addition, the
board of directors is required to regularly review the succession plan.
The final rule also requires that newly appointed members of the board
of directors have a working familiarity with the succession plan no
later than six months after appointment. The final rule follows
publication of a July 25, 2024, proposed rule and takes into
consideration the public comments received on the proposed rule. In
response to comments, the Board has amended the proposal to provide
that a credit union board must review its succession plan no less than
every 24 months, as opposed to the annual review that would have been
required under the proposed rule. The Board has also revised the
proposed rule by removing loan officers, credit committee members, and
supervisory committee members from the list of FICU officials that must
be covered by the succession plans. In addition, non-substantive
changes have been made to the wording used in the list of covered
officials for purposes of clarity. The final rule also streamlines the
required contents of the succession plans and no longer requires that
deviations from approved succession plans be documented in the FICU
board's meeting minutes. Further, to help ensure that FICUs have the
necessary time to develop their succession plans, the Board is delaying
the effective date of the final rule until January 1, 2026.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 1, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Examination and Insurance:
John Berry, Policy Officer, at (703) 664-3909 or at 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314. Office of General Counsel: Ariel Pereira, Senior
Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (703) 548-2778 or at the above
address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion of Public Comments
A. The Comments, Generally
B. Comments Regarding Alternatives to Rulemaking
C. Comments Regarding Data and the Justification for Rulemaking
D. Comments Regarding Regulatory Burden
E. Comments Raising General Objections to Rule
F. Comments Regarding the Inclusion of FISCUs
G. Comments Raising Potential Privacy and Discrimination
Concerns
H. Comments Regarding Specific Rule Provisions
I. Other Comments
III. Regulatory Procedures
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act/
Congressional Review Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 13132 on Federalism
E. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
I. Background
At its July 18, 2024, meeting, the Board approved a proposed rule
to address succession planning at FICUs. The proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2024, and provided for a
60-day public comment period.\1\ The proposal followed publication of
the Board's earlier 2022 proposed rule on the same topic.\2\ The July
25, 2024, proposed rule was based on that earlier proposed rule but
included several changes that the Board believed would further
strengthen succession planning efforts for both consumer federal credit
unions (FCUs) and consumer federally insured, state-
[[Page 104866]]
chartered credit unions (FISCUs), which collectively are referred to as
FICUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 89 FR 60329 (July 25, 2024).
\2\ 87 FR 6078 (Feb. 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the July 25, 2024, proposed rule a FICU board of directors
would have been required to establish a written succession plan that
addresses specified positions and contains certain information. In
addition, the board of directors would have been required to review the
succession plan in accordance with an established schedule, but no less
than annually. The proposed rule would also have required that newly
appointed members of the board of directors have a working familiarity
with the FICU's succession plan no later than six months after
appointment. Interested readers are referred to the preamble of the
proposed rule for additional details regarding the proposed regulatory
amendments.
Two ongoing factors highlighted the need for rulemaking on
succession planning. The long-running trend of consolidation across all
depository institutions has remained relatively constant across all
economic cycles for more than three decades. Voluntary mergers can be
used to create economies of scale to offer more or better products and
services to FICU members. However, the Board is also aware of numerous
instances in recent years where FICUs merged because of a lack of
succession planning. More emphasis on succession planning would help
reduce the number of such mergers.
Another reason for a heightened focus on succession planning are
the ongoing retirements of the ``Baby Boomer'' generation (individuals
born between 1946 and 1964). According to some sources, approximately
10 percent of credit union chief executive officers were expected to
retire between 2019 and 2021.\3\ Succession planning is critical to the
continued operation of those credit unions with board members and
executives that are part of this retirement wave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CUtoday.info, CUNA ACUC Coverage: What's Happening in
Executive Compensation (June 19, 2019), https://www.cutoday.info/Fresh-Today/CUNA-ACUC-Coverage-What-s-Happening-in-Executive-Compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the importance of the topic, the NCUA has taken several steps
to strengthen current succession planning efforts of FICUs. For
example, in March 2022 the NCUA issued Letter to Credit Unions 22-CU-
05, CAMELS Rating System, which provides that ``succession planning for
key management positions'' is a key factor considered when assessing
the Management CAMELS component rating of a credit union.\4\ Letter to
Credit Unions 23-CU-01 included succession planning as one of the
NCUA's supervisory priorities for 2023.\5\ The July 25, 2024, proposed
rule was designed to build upon these prior NCUA efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NCUA, Letter to Credit Unions 22-CU-05, CAMELS Rating System
(March 2022), https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/letters-credit-unions-other-guidance/camels-rating-system. CAMELS is the
acronym for the rating system used by the NCUA to assess a FICU's
performance and risk profile derived from the six critical elements
of a FICU's operations: Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management,
Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to Market Risk.
\5\ NCUA, Letter to Credit Unions 23-CU-01, NCUA's 2023
Supervisory Priorities (January 2023), https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/letters-credit-unions-other-guidance/ncuas-2023-supervisory-priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule follows publication of the July 25, 2024, proposed
rule and takes into consideration the public comments received on the
proposed rule. In this final rule, the Board has incorporated the
following amendments to the July 25, 2024, proposal:
1. In response to public comments, the final rule provides that a
board must review its succession plan no less than every 24 months, as
opposed to the annual review that would have been required under the
proposed rule.
2. Also in response to public comments, the Board has revised the
proposed rule by removing loan officers, credit committee members, and
supervisory committee members from the list of FICU officials who must
be covered by the succession plans.
3. In addition, non-substantive changes have been made to the
wording used in the list of covered officials for purposes of clarity.
Specifically, the proposed rule listed ``management officials'' (as
defined in the model FCU bylaws) and the ``senior executive officers''
identified in 12 CFR 701.14(b)(2). Given the potential overlap between
these two categories of officials, the final rule merges their listing
in a single paragraph of the regulation. The final rule also simplifies
the regulatory text by cross referencing to Sec. 701.14(b)(2), rather
than listing the senior executive officers.
4. The final rule also streamlines the required contents of the
succession plans. Specifically, the rule no longer specifies that a
succession plan must address unexpected or temporary vacancies in
covered positions. Although the Board encourages a FICU to consider
these types of vacancies in its plan, it believes FICUs, and not the
NCUA, are best positioned to determine how much detail is necessary to
address the required plan elements.
5. The final rule no longer requires that deviations from approved
succession plans be documented in the FICU board's meeting minutes.
6. The final rule also makes a few technical, non-substantive,
edits for clarity and precision of language.
The final rule otherwise adopts the proposed regulatory
requirements. FICUs are reminded that succession plans should include
an estimate of the budgetary impacts of executing the succession plan,
including costs associated with new hires, such as any hiring of
recruitment firms and any increased compensation packages for new
hires. Credit unions are not required to have an exact figure for any
such anticipated costs, but at a minimum should provide an estimate to
allow for better planning.
To help ensure that FICUs have the necessary time to develop their
succession plans, the Board is delaying the effective date of the final
rule until January 1, 2026. This rule will be reapproved three years
after its effective date for a term of the Board's choosing.
II. Discussion of Public Comments
The comment period on the proposed rule closed on September 23,
2024. The NCUA received 187 public comments on the proposal. Comments
were received from individual FICUs, state and regional credit union
organizations, credit union trade organizations, credit union
consulting services providers, and individuals. Approximately 116 of
the comments were form letters with nearly identical wording. The
issues raised in the form letters were similar to those made in many of
the other comment letters. This section of the preamble summarizes the
significant issues raised by the commenters and the Board's responses
to these comments.
A. The Comments, Generally
The majority of commenters, while acknowledging the importance of
succession planning and agreeing with the intent of the proposed rule,
raised concerns about the need for succession planning regulations, as
well as some of the specifics of the proposed regulatory amendments.
As discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs, the
large majority of the commenters questioned the need for succession
planning regulations. Some of these commenters objected that the NCUA
was overstepping its regulatory authority by issuing regulations on
internal management matters best left to credit union discretion. Other
commenters wrote that the NCUA already has tools capable of addressing
succession planning, or that the topic could be better addressed
through non-regulatory guidance. These
[[Page 104867]]
commenters also noted that the other federal banking regulatory
agencies have elected to address succession planning through guidance.
Commenters also objected to the inclusion of FISCUs and noted potential
conflicts with state requirements.
A majority of the commenters also questioned the data cited in the
preamble of the proposed rule as justification for the rulemaking.
These commenters objected that the data was stale, and that more recent
data did not seem to support the need for succession planning
regulations to prevent FICU consolidations. The commenters also wrote
that the NCUA had underestimated the time and resources required for
complying with the proposed requirements, and that the rule would
impose an undue compliance burden. Many commenters wrote that the
burden of complying with the rule would actually increase the number of
consolidations. Still others wrote that the NCUA's goal of reducing
FICU consolidations was misguided.
With regard to the specific amendments, many commenters objected to
the list of officials covered by the succession plans, writing that it
was overly inclusive for the stated purposes of the rulemaking. Other
commenters were concerned about the possibility that succession plans
might be publicly posted, potentially raising privacy or age-
discrimination issues. Some commenters wrote that requiring boards to
review their succession plans at least annually was unnecessarily
prescriptive. Commenters also expressed concerns about the proposed
board education requirements and requested clarification of other
provisions.
B. Comments Regarding Alternatives to Rulemaking
Comment: Guidance is more appropriate than rulemaking. The majority
of commenters urged the Board to consider issuing guidance regarding
succession planning as an alternative to rulemaking. While generally
agreeing that succession planning is an important element of a FICU's
overall strategic planning process, the commenters wrote that a rule
would only add to growing regulatory burden imposed on FICUs. The
commenters noted that the issuance of guidance is consistent with the
approach taken by the other federal banking regulatory agencies. The
commenters wrote that the banking industry faces consolidation trends
similar to those of credit unions. Nonetheless, the other banking
agencies have opted to issue guidance regarding succession planning
instead of undertaking rulemaking.
NCUA Response. The Board continues to believe that rulemaking on
succession planning is appropriate and necessary. While guidance can be
helpful in describing sound practices or clarifying existing
requirements, the lack of a regulation means there is no requirement
that FICUs implement a formal, written succession plan. As a result,
the NCUA lacks a full complement of regulatory tools to help address
deficiencies in a FICU's succession planning process. The absence of
specific regulations on this topic also means there are no requirements
as to what constitutes an acceptable succession plan. A regulation is
therefore necessary to establish a clearly articulated, consistent, and
enforceable set of succession planning standards.
Comment: Succession planning is already addressed under CAMELS.
Several commenters wrote that the rule is redundant since succession
planning is part of every examination under the CAMELS rating system.
The commenters noted that the CAMELS ``Management'' component already
considers succession planning for ``key management positions.'' The
commenters wrote that this is consistent with the practice of the other
federal banking regulatory agencies, which require their examiners to
conduct a high-level assessment of banks' succession planning in their
rating of the capability and performance of management. The commenters
noted that the examination process is the ideal time to discuss with a
board of directors any weaknesses that exist in this area.
NCUA Response. The NCUA does assess succession planning as part of
the CAMELS Management component. However, as supervisory guidance, the
Letter to Credit Unions that established CAMELS does not provide the
NCUA with the authority necessary to fully address any inadequacies in
a FICU's succession planning practices and procedures. Letter to Credit
Unions 23-CU-01 establishing the 2023 supervisory priorities
acknowledges these limitations. For example, the letter makes clear
that NCUA examiners are precluded from evaluating ``any formal or
informal succession plans developed by credit unions beyond what would
normally be considered in assigning the Management component of the
CAMELS rating.'' \6\ Moreover, examiners may ``not issue an Examiner's
Finding or Document of Resolution if the credit union has not conducted
succession planning, or the planning is not adequate, unless the credit
union is in violation of its own policy for conducting succession
planning or administering any such plan(s).'' \7\ Accordingly, the NCUA
continues to believe that rulemaking is necessary to establish clear,
consistent, and enforceable succession planning standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Succession plan requirements are duplicative of disaster
program guidelines. Several commenters noted that under the NCUA
guidelines codified in 12 CFR part 749, appendix B, all FICUs are
encouraged to develop a program to prepare for a catastrophic act. As a
part of this planning and program development, FICUs distinguish the
roles of the FICU's leadership and the board of directors, as well as
backup personnel for various roles. The commenters wrote that the
succession plan requirements are in many ways duplicative of the
disaster guidelines and therefore unnecessarily add regulatory
compliance burden.
NCUA Response. The Board acknowledges that, as a result of other
planning and documentation efforts, many FICUs may already have data
and information that is useful to completing their succession plans.
FICUs are encouraged to use such existing information, where
appropriate, in preparing their succession plans. Further, the preamble
to the July 25, 2024, proposed rule notes that the catastrophic act
guidelines may address several elements that are also relevant to
succession planning. These suggested elements include a ``business
impact analysis to evaluate potential threats,'' the determination of
``critical systems and necessary resources,'' and the identification of
the ``[p]ersons with authority to enact the plan.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 89 FR 60329, at 60334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Board does not agree that these codified guidelines
are a suitable alternative to this final rule. For one thing, the
guidelines are non-regulatory in nature and therefore do not establish
the enforceable standards that, as discussed in the preceding
responses, the Board has determined are necessary for succession
planning. Further, the guidelines are broader in scope than, and only
tangentially related to, succession planning. The guidelines are
intended to ensure the continued operations of a FICU in response to an
external, unforeseen, and hopefully infrequent event, whereas
succession planning is meant to address the ongoing retention and
recruitment
[[Page 104868]]
cycle institutions face, including for critical positions and those
that have significant influence and impact on a FICU's operations. The
guidelines are therefore not an adequate substitute for regulations
that specifically address FICU succession planning practices.
Comment: The Call Report offers an alternative means of
implementing succession planning. Several commenters wrote that the
NCUA could determine the existence of a succession plan at FICUs by
asking the question on the 5300 Call Report. Because Call Reports must
be submitted quarterly, the NCUA will always have up-to-date
information on a FICU's succession plan. The Call Report is a way for
FICUs to report to the NCUA a big picture of what is going on at their
credit union and to document any potential risk areas.
NCUA Response. While the suggestion made by the commenters could
potentially serve as a means of notifying the NCUA whether a FICU has
adopted a succession plan, it fails to ensure that FICUs adopt plans
and would not address the quality of those plans. The final rule will
clearly communicate the NCUA's expectations regarding succession
planning and establish enforceable standards for determining the
sufficiency of the plans. Accordingly, the Board has not revised the
proposed rule in response to these comments.
C. Comments Regarding Data and the Justification for Rulemaking
Comment: The NCUA relied on outdated or limited data to justify the
proposed rule. The majority of commenters objected to the data cited in
the preamble as justification for the rulemaking. Among other data, the
preamble cites to a 2014 NCUA analysis that found that poor succession
planning was either a primary or secondary reason for almost a third
(32 percent) of FICU consolidations.\9\ The commenters objected to the
fact that the analysis dates from over a decade before the publication
of this proposed rule and includes the years immediately following the
2007-2008 global financial crisis, which they said was likely a
compounding factor in FICU consolidations. Several of the commenters
pointed to a more recent NCUA analysis of mergers between 2017 and
2021, which found that an ``inability to obtain officials'' was the
primary cause for under 3 percent of mergers.\10\ Other commenters
wrote that, based on NCUA data, of the 149 mergers occurring during the
second half of 2023 and first half of 2024, only 11 cited the inability
to obtain officials as the reason for the merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 89 FR 60329, at 60330, footnote 16 citing to: NCUA, Truth in
Mergers: A Guide for Merging Credit Unions, page 9, https://ncua.gov/files/publications/Truth-In-Mergers.pdf.
\10\ https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/manuals-guides/lessons-learned-mergers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also objected to the preamble language stating that
the 2014 findings had been corroborated by industry participants.\11\
The commenters wrote that the article includes information on only 10
mergers with only a few of the credit unions citing a lack of
succession planning as a factor in the merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 89 FR 60329, at 60330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. As an initial matter, and as noted in the preamble
to the proposed rule, the Board's justification for issuing this final
rule is based not only on the data but also on the Board's finding that
``the need for succession planning as a sound governance practice [is]
equally compelling.'' \12\ The Board found ``that a compelling safety
and soundness case exists for rulemaking in this area,'' because the
failure to adequately plan for changes in leadership can jeopardize the
continued viability of a FICU and disrupt safe and sound operations
upon the departure of key personnel.\13\ The safety and soundness
rationale for this rulemaking remains even if the concerns raised by
the commenters were valid. However, the commenters' categorization of
the data cited in the preamble is incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 89 FR 60329, at 60332.
\13\ 89 FR 60329, at 60330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that some of the mergers included in the NCUA's 2014
analysis occurred during the global financial crisis in no way
diminishes the validity of the study. Indeed, the analysis acknowledges
that the FICU's weak financial condition was the primary or secondary
cause for 78 percent of the consolidations, the largest cause for
mergers during the ten-year period under review (2003 to 2012). The
fact that during that same period the lack of adequate succession
planning was still cited as a primary or secondary cause for 32 percent
of mergers only serves to underscore the need for rulemaking in this
area.
Neither does the Board believe that the NCUA's more recent analysis
of mergers between 2017 and 2021 undermines the earlier study. The 2014
study specifically analyzed succession planning, while the more recent
study looked at ``inability to obtain officials.'' While this inability
could be partially due to the lack of a succession plan, it might also
encompass other factors deterring potential candidates, such as the
FICU's inability to offer a competitive compensation package,
reputational and operational obstacles to hiring, or geographic
undesirability. A succession plan is critical to addressing such
factors, but it is not a guarantee, especially when the FICU is faced
with a sudden or unexpected leadership vacancy. The more recent study's
utility to inform this rulemaking is thus limited by the fact that it
does not distinguish between those mergers occurring because of a lack
of succession planning and those that happened despite the FICU's best
efforts in this regard.
The Board also rejects the objections raised by the commenters
regarding the news articles cited in support of the proposition that
the merger ``data has been corroborated by industry participants.'' The
commenters object to the number of mergers discussed in the articles.
However, the footnote citation was included simply to illustrate the
credit union industry's general recognition that a failure to plan for
succession is a contributing factor in consolidations. The footnote was
included to complement the data and rationale set forth in the main
text of the preamble rather than as an independent data source for the
rulemaking.
Comment: The proposed rule will have the unintended consequence of
increasing the number of consolidations. Many commenters wrote that,
contrary to the proposed rule's stated goal of mitigating the effects
of industry consolidation, it would actually lead to an increased
number of mergers. The majority of these commenters focused on the
additional regulatory burden of complying with the proposed rule,
especially on smaller FICUs. The commenters wrote the additional time
and resources required to comply with the proposed rule might lead
smaller FICUs to conclude that a merger with a larger institution is
the most sustainable path forward. One commenter wrote that the
succession planning process might force smaller FICUs to confront
challenging realities about their future prospects, such as their
limited internal talent pools and the inability to offer competitive
salaries or advancement opportunities. The commenters also expressed
concerns that the preamble language noting that smaller FICUs might
benefit from the assistance of larger FICUs in developing and
implementing their succession plans could inadvertently result in
mergers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 89 FR 60329, at 60334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 104869]]
NCUA Response. The Board disagrees with the commenters that
implementation of this final rule will increase the number of FICU
consolidations. In the 2014 analysis of mergers discussed previously,
FICUs did not identify regulatory compliance burden as a cause of
mergers. The closest analogue among the listed causes--``recordkeeping
burden''--was cited by only two percent of FICUs as either a primary or
secondary cause for consolidation. In the more recent NCUA analysis for
mergers occurring between 2017 and 2021, regulatory burden was not
included among the 11 listed causes for mergers (the term
``recordkeeping burden'' also did not appear). The NCUA is not aware of
other data that supports the claims made by the commenters, and such
data was not offered in the comments.
The Board also notes that it has taken several steps to ease the
burden imposed on FICUs by the new requirements. For example, the NCUA
has posted a video series on succession planning on the internet.\15\
In addition, the Board has developed a sample template for a succession
plan that may be appropriate for some smaller FICUs, though all FICUs
may benefit from it. The Board has also revised the proposed rule by
removing loan officers, credit committee members, and supervisory
committee members from the list of FICU officials who must be covered
by succession plans. This should further minimize burden by enabling
FICUs to develop more appropriately tailored succession plans that
better reflect their unique circumstances. Further, the Board is
delaying effectiveness of the final rule until January 1, 2026, which
should also decrease burden by providing FICUs with additional time to
make any operational changes or resource allocations necessary for
development of the succession plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NCUA, Succession Planning (2021), https://ncua.csod.com/LMS/catalog/Welcome.aspx?tab_page_id=-67&tab_id=221000382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by the commenters, the preamble to the proposed rule
discussed that smaller FICUs may also benefit from seeking the
assistance of larger and more sophisticated FICUs in developing and
implementing their succession plans. For example, a larger FICU may
provide technical expertise in the drafting of the plan or may detail
personnel to temporarily fill a critical vacancy in a smaller credit
union until such time as it is permanently filled. The Board recognizes
the concerns raised by the commenters that such strategic partnerships
between a larger and smaller FICU may sometimes lead to a merger.
However, that is an individual decision that must be made by the FICUs
involved, based on their specific facts and circumstances.
Comment: The goal of preventing consolidations is misplaced.
Several commenters objected to the preamble language citing increased
consolidations as a driving factor for the rule. The commenters wrote
that the NCUA has historically been agnostic on the appropriateness of
a merger for a particular FICU, leaving the decision to the FICU's
management and membership. One commenter noted that there are
situations where a smaller FICU may propose a merger as a key component
of its succession plan. The commenters wrote that in some instances a
merger may be the best approach for a FICU and its members. The
commenters wrote that the decision to merge should therefore be left to
the FICU.
NCUA Response. One of the Board's stated goals in undertaking this
rulemaking is to reduce the number of unplanned or forced mergers
resulting from a FICU's failure to adequately plan for changes in
leadership. However, the Board agrees with the commenters that
voluntary mergers can be used by FICUs to achieve various objectives,
including creating economies of scale to offer more or better products
and services to members. The reasons for voluntarily merging vary by
FICU. For example, mergers may be a strategic decision as part of the
continuing credit union's growth strategy, while the merging credit
union's management may be seeking to expand services for the members.
This final rule does not change the Board's longstanding position that,
to the extent any such decision meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements, the determination of whether a merger is
appropriate is best left to the particular FICU's management and
membership.
D. Comments Regarding Regulatory Burden
Comment: The NCUA underestimated the regulatory burden imposed by
succession planning. Many commenters wrote that the proposed rule
underestimated the amount of time FICUs would be required to spend
ensuring compliance with the succession plan requirements. The
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) statement contained in the proposed rule
estimated about 10 hours per year per FICU.\16\ The commenters wrote
that this estimate failed to adequately account for all of the time and
cost that would be incurred to understand the regulatory requirements
and formulate strategies for filling vacancies. The commenters also
objected that the estimate did not sufficiently consider the resources
required to regularly audit and update the plans, including examiner
consultations. One commenter pointed to a proposed rule issued by
another federal banking regulatory agency addressing succession
planning and noted that agency estimated 40 annual hours for plan
development and 20 hours for annual reviews.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 89 FR 60329, at 60335. The PRA is codified at 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520, and the implementing regulations issued by the Office of
Management and Budget are located at 5 CFR part 1320.
\17\ See, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Guidelines
Establishing Standards for Corporate Governance and Risk Management
for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $10
Billion or More, 88 FR 70391 (Oct. 11, 2023) (to be codified at 12
CFR parts 308, 364). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/11/2023-22421/guidelines-establishing-standards-for-corporate-governance-and-risk-management-for-covered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. The information provided in the proposed rule
represents the NCUA's best estimate of the information collection
burden associated with the succession planning requirements. As with
all PRA collections of information, the estimates of the associated
burden may change over time as the agency and regulated entities gain
experience with implementation. Under the PRA regulations, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval of an agency collection of
information is subject to periodic renewal through a notice and comment
process.\18\ The Board is committed to ensuring the accuracy of its PRA
burden estimates, and the information collections established by this
final rule are subject to such process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 5 CFR 1320.10. Under Sec. 1320.10(b), OMB will not approve
a collection of information for a period longer than three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimate noted by the commenters that was provided in the
proposed rule issued by another federal banking agency does not provide
a useful comparison. Under its own terms, that rulemaking applies
solely to covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $10
billion or more. According to the most recent quarterly data available
to the NCUA, there were only 21 FICUs in this asset category as of the
second quarter in 2024.\19\ These institutions are far larger than most
FICUs, and their succession plans would necessarily reflect their
[[Page 104870]]
size and operational complexity. In contrast, the vast majority of
FICUs would have more streamlined succession plans. Further, and as
noted in a preceding response, the NCUA has made available several
resources to ease the burden imposed by this final rule, including an
optional plan template. The estimated information collection burden
reflects the availability of these resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NCUA, Financial Trends in Federally Insured Credit Unions
2024 Q2, page iii, available at: https://ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2024-Q2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The proposed rule will unduly increase regulatory burden,
especially on smaller FICUs. Several commenters wrote that FICU
resources are already under strain and the proposed rule would only
serve to add to the cumulative regulatory burden faced by FICUs. The
commenters wrote that, given the complexity of the business environment
over the past several years and the pressures on the industry's
business model in general, the NCUA should tread lightly in adding to
the list of requirements. The commenters expressing these concerns were
particularly focused on the regulatory burden imposed on smaller FICUs
that lack the resources and staff available to larger institutions.
NCUA Response: The Board is mindful of the regulatory burden
imposed by its regulations and is committed to providing assistance and
resources to help FICUs comply with their regulatory obligations. The
NCUA currently offers training and other resources to aid FICUs in
developing their succession plans. As noted, the NCUA has posted a
video series on succession planning on the internet.\20\ FICUs with a
low-income designation may be able to apply for technical assistance
grants to support succession planning or offset training costs through
the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund. As also previously
discussed, FICUs may use already existing information in preparing
their plans. FICUs are encouraged to make use of these and other
available resources in complying with the proposed rule. The Board has
also narrowed the list of FICU officials that must be covered by the
plans, enabling FICUs to develop succession plans that better reflect
their unique circumstances. Further, the Board is delaying the
effective date of the final rule until January 1, 2026, which will
provide FICUs with additional time to develop their succession plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Supra, note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is especially mindful of the burden imposed on smaller
FICUs, as they may lack the resources or expertise to develop
succession plans. Accordingly, smaller FICUs may especially benefit
from the existing resources identified above. The NCUA's Small Credit
Union and Minority Depository Institution Support Program is another
available resource through which FICUs with less than $100 million in
total assets and minority depository institutions of any size may seek
assistance in a variety of areas, including succession planning. In
addition, the Board again notes that it has developed a sample template
for a succession plan that may be appropriate for smaller FICUs, though
all FICUs may benefit from it. FISCUs electing to use the template
should consult applicable state requirements to ensure their succession
plans are consistent with any such requirements.
Comment: Classification of the rule as ``major'' under the
Congressional Review Act. One comment expressed concern that the NCUA
might not classify the rule as ``major'' for purposes of the
Congressional Review Act (CRA).\21\ A rule that is ``major'' under the
CRA may take effect no earlier than 60 calendar days after the Congress
receives the statutorily prescribed rule report from the agency or the
rule is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later. The
commenter was concerned that not classifying the rule as ``major''
would underestimate the true impact of the succession planning
requirements, particularly on smaller FICUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 5 U.S.C. 801-808. The CRA was included as part of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, Public Law 104-121
(March 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. The NCUA acknowledges its obligations under the CRA.
As required by the CRA, the NCUA has submitted this final rule to OMB
for it to determine if the final rule is a ``major rule.'' The NCUA
also will file appropriate reports with Congress and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) so this rule may be reviewed.
The CRA defines a major rule as one that has resulted in or is
likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000
or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets. The CRA vests the ultimate
decision as to whether this final rule qualifies as ``major'' with OMB.
However, the Board does not believe that this final rule meets the
definition of a ``major rule'' under the CRA.
While the final rule may impose some additional costs on FICUs, it
is unlikely that these costs would rise to the $100 million required
under the CRA definition of a ``major rule.'' The Board also believes
that several factors mitigate the potential costs imposed on FICUs. For
example, the Board is providing a sample template for a simple
succession plan that may be appropriate for some FICUs. Many FICUs have
already adopted succession plans, and these existing plans should
already address at least some of the elements required by the final
rule, thereby minimizing the cost of complying with the new
requirements. As previously noted, the NCUA also offers training and
other resources to aid credit unions in developing their succession
plans. FICUs are also encouraged to use already existing information in
preparing their plans, such as the data used to develop the recommended
program to prepare for a catastrophic act. These resources should
further reduce the costs of preparing succession plans.
Neither does the Board believe that the final rule meets the second
and third prongs of the CRA ``major rule'' definition. The final rule
imposes new reporting requirements that will not directly impact
consumer costs for the financial products offered by FICUs. Nor are
these reporting requirements likely to drive up costs for the credit
union industry, governments, or geographic regions. The effects of the
new requirements are also unlikely to significantly affect employment,
competition, investment, or innovation, as contemplated under the CRA.
E. Comments Raising General Objections to Rule
Comment: The proposed rule constitutes regulatory overreach.
Several commenters wrote that, while it is the NCUA's responsibility to
supervise credit unions so as to protect the safety and soundness of
the credit union system, the proposed rule oversteps the agency's
regulatory authority. The commenters wrote that succession planning is
appropriately the fiduciary responsibility of a FICU's board of
directors as only an individual FICU can determine the appropriate
timing and extent of succession planning needed to preserve the health
of the FICU and its members. The commenters worried that the rule could
lead to an unintended consequence where NCUA examiners, rather than
focusing on the outcomes and effectiveness of a succession plan,
[[Page 104871]]
might use their supervisory authority to impose their own views on how
succession planning should be managed. The commenters wrote that such a
scenario could lead to a significant administrative workload, diverting
attention and resources away from serving members.
NCUA Response. The Board continues to believe that NCUA rulemaking
on succession planning is both appropriate and consistent with the
agency's statutory authority. While the Board agrees that succession
planning is a responsibility of the FICU's board of directors, it also
finds that a compelling safety and soundness case exists for rulemaking
in this area. The failure of FICUs to adequately plan for succession
poses a risk not only to individual FICUs and their member-owners, but
to the credit union system as a whole and to the Share Insurance Fund.
Without adequate planning, key operations could be impacted during
management transitions or leadership vacuums, such as recordkeeping,
lending and other member services, liquidity management, cybersecurity,
compliance with laws and regulations, and other critical
responsibilities.
The proposed regulatory changes are designed to mitigate this risk
and are consistent with the Board's statutory duty to ensure a safe and
sound system of cooperative credit for its member-owners, as the
proposed rule explained. Under the FCU Act, the NCUA is the chartering
and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal supervisory
authority for FICUs.\22\ The FCU Act grants the NCUA broad authority to
issue regulations governing both FCUs and all FICUs. Section 120 of the
FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the
Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the
FCU Act.\23\ Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of
authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and
liquidations.\24\ Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of
regulatory authority to the Board to issue rules and regulations
necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all
FICUs.\25\ Moreover, the NCUA has statutory authority to determine
whether FICUs are operated in an unsafe or unsound manner and terminate
a FICU's insurance if a FICU is not operated in a safe and sound
manner.\26\ This final rule will help to identify or prevent unsafe or
unsound practices. Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad
rulemaking authority to ensure that the credit union industry and the
Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound and service to members is
maintained in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 12 U.S.C. 1752-1775.
\23\ 12 U.S.C. 1766(a).
\24\ 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(1).
\25\ 12 U.S.C. 1789(a)(11).
\26\ 12 U.S.C. 1786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing compliance with this rule, the NCUA will focus on
whether the FICU has developed a succession plan that addresses the
elements required by the final rule and is consistent with the FICU's
size and complexity. The Board emphasizes that FICUs, not the NCUA, are
best positioned to assess various risks and opportunities related to
succession planning. A FICU will need to make its own determinations as
to how much detail is necessary to address the required plan elements
and whether additional factors, besides those required by this final
rule, should be considered in its succession planning process. The NCUA
does not intend to micromanage a FICU's succession planning process and
may issue guidance, as it deems necessary, to clarify a FICU's
discretion in developing its succession plans and further assist FICU
succession planning efforts.
Comment: A ``one-size fits all'' approach is inappropriate. Several
commenters objected to the broad application of the proposed rule to
all FICUs, regardless of their size and operational complexity. The
commenters wrote that individual FICUs have unique challenges and
governance structures. The commenters wrote that uniform requirements
might limit the ability of a FICU to design a plan that best aligns
with its strategic objectives and long-term viability. Some of these
commenters focused on the potential impacts of uniform requirements on
smaller FICUs that may not have the resources to meet the detailed
requirements. The commenters wrote that the diversity among FICUs--
ranging from small, community focused institutions to larger, complex
organizations--requires flexibility in succession planning that a rigid
regulatory mandate may not accommodate.
NCUA Response. The Board agrees a uniform approach to succession
planning would fail to account for the diversity among FICUs. The final
rule accommodates such differences. For example, in response to public
comment, the Board has revised the proposed rule by narrowing the list
of FICU officials that must be covered by the succession plans, thereby
enabling FICUs to develop more appropriately tailored plans that better
reflect their unique circumstances. So long as succession plans address
the elements required by the final rule, FICUs may adjust their plans
to reflect operational differences, varying governance structures, and
other unique circumstances. FICUs may include within the scope of their
plans ``other personnel the board of directors deems critical given the
[FICU's] size, complexity, or risk of operations. This includes new
positions that may be required due to planned changes in operations,
supervisory landscape, or corporate structure.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Proposed Sec. 701.4(e)(2)(vi), finalized as Sec.
701.4(e)(2)(iii)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the preamble to the proposed rule noted, the expectation is for
a FICU to develop a succession plan that is consistent with its size
and complexity. Therefore, smaller FICUs are more likely to have a
simple succession plan that only addresses a few key leadership
positions. Larger and more sophisticated FICUs are expected to have
more detailed plans. For example, smaller FICUs may have fewer board
members, or have fewer staff that would qualify for the positions
listed in the proposed rule for inclusion in the succession plan.
Likewise, smaller FICUs are likely to have less expansive employee
recruitment, development, and retention strategies.
F. Comments Regarding the Inclusion of FISCUs
Comment: Inclusion of FISCUs is inappropriate. Several commenters
objected to the inclusion of FISCUs within the scope of the proposed
regulatory requirements. Some of the commenters wrote that the
inclusion of FISCUs signals to the states that their regulatory
agencies are not equipped to ensure that FISCUs are adequately
positioned for the future. These commenters wrote that the assumption
is contrary to data that demonstrates state charters have fewer
failures, more growth, and a history of strong management performance.
The commenters urged the NCUA to narrow the applicability of the rule
to exclude FISCUs as was the case in the Board's 2022 proposal.
NCUA Response. As discussed above, the Board finds that compelling
safety and soundness reasons exist for undertaking rulemaking on
succession planning. The failure of FICUs--whether federal or state-
chartered--to adequately plan for succession poses an undue risk to the
credit union system and to the Share Insurance Fund. The inclusion of
FISCUs within the scope of the final rule is consistent with the
[[Page 104872]]
Board's statutory authority to ensure a safe and sound system of
cooperative credit for its member-owners. Under the FCU Act, the NCUA
is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the federal
supervisory authority for FICUs.\28\ The FCU Act also grants the NCUA
broad authority to issue regulations governing all FICUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 12 U.S.C. 1752-1775.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board emphasizes that, contrary to the assertion made by the
commenters, this final rule does not reflect a statement on the
efficacy of state efforts to address succession planning. Specifically,
the final rule provides that for FISCUs in states that have established
succession planning requirements, the NCUA will defer to such
requirements to the extent no conflict exists between the final rule
and the state requirements.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Sec. 741.228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The FISCU carveout is confusing. Several commenters, while
supportive of the proposed rule's carveout for FISCUs in states where
succession planning is addressed, found the wording of the provision
confusing. The preamble of the proposed rule stated that ``to the
extent that a FISCU is subject to a state statutory or regulatory
requirement that conflicts with the proposed rule, the NCUA will defer
to the state requirement.'' \30\ The commenters wrote that this wording
implies that if a state rule addresses succession planning, FISCUs in
that state would be exempt from the proposed rule. However, the
regulatory text of the proposed rule at Sec. 741.228 provides that a
FISCU must adhere to the succession planning requirements ``to the
extent these regulatory provisions do not conflict with an applicable
state requirement.'' According to the commenters, this language implies
only a partial exemption from specific conflicting provisions. These
commenters wrote that while a state may not have a specific statutory
or regulatory requirement addressing succession planning, it may use
definitions or have issued guidance that differs from that of the NCUA
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 89 FR 60329, at 60332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, one commenter wrote that neither the preamble nor the
proposed regulatory text uses the word ``exempt'' to describe the
applicability of the rule to a FISCU in a state that addresses
succession planning. Instead, the preamble uses defer, and the
regulatory text is silent. The commenter recommended that, absent a
total exclusion of FISCUs from the scope of the rule, the Board should
provide a simplified exemption provision that exempts FISCUs in a state
upon notice from the state regulator to the NCUA regional director that
the state supervises succession planning by rule, guidance, or through
the examination process. The commenter wrote that this approach would
reduce confusion, ease administration, and presents no greater risk of
material loss to the Share Insurance Fund.
NCUA Response. The Board has not revised the rule in response to
these comments. Contrary to the assertions made by the commenters,
there is no conflict between the preamble language and the regulatory
text. Both provide that the NCUA's deferral is contingent on a lack of
conflict between the rule and the state requirement.\31\ Nowhere does
the preamble indicate, as the commenter suggests, that the deferral
provision is intended as a complete exemption for FISCUs from the
regulatory requirements. Further, as the commenter writes, the deferral
only applies to legally enforceable state requirements, such as
statutes, regulations, or other issuances that are binding under state
law. The deferral does not apply to other issuances in the form of
guidance, which may be set forth in policy statements, handbooks,
letters, or similar issuances. While these guidance documents may
represent supervisory expectations, such as for purposes of determining
a credit union's CAMELS and risk ratings, FISCUs are not required to
comply with such guidance because it is by definition non-binding. The
Board has also not elected to adopt the alternate process suggested by
the commenter, because it continues to believe that whether deferral
applies is best addressed on a case-by-case basis during the
examination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 89 FR 60329, at 60332; proposed Sec. 741.228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NCUA should consolidate the regulation applicable to
FISCUs. One commenter was concerned regarding the structure of 12 CFR
part 741, which identifies the regulatory requirements applicable to
FISCUs by cross-referencing regulatory provisions for FCUs codified
elsewhere in title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The commenter
wrote that, while this might seem like a minor detail, it results in
confusion and inefficiency for many FISCUs as they sift through FCU
rules to determine what may apply to them. The commenter wrote that
there is no compelling argument against consolidating FISCU regulations
in a single location.
NCUA Response. The suggestion made by the commenter is outside the
scope of the rulemaking, Accordingly, the rule has not been revised in
response to the comment. However, the NCUA remains committed to working
with all FICUs to ensure the clarity of their regulatory obligations.
G. Comments Raising Potential Privacy and Discrimination Concerns
Comment: Concerns regarding expected retirement and vacancy date
requirements. The proposed rule would require that a succession plan
identify the anticipated vacancy date for each of the covered
positions, ``such as the incumbent's retirement eligibility date or
announced departure date.'' \32\ Several commenters objected to this
provision, writing that it was unduly burdensome and could potentially
raise privacy and age discrimination concerns. The commenters wrote
that the shift from employee pensions based on years of service to
defined contribution plans have dramatically altered the concept of
retirement and made it difficult to estimate when an individual will
retire. Other commenters wrote that many FICU management officials
operate under employment agreements that may be renewed or extended.
Requiring that FICUs publish such dates could lead to charges of age
discrimination or be used by management to force an employee out who
has no intention of retiring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Proposed Sec. 701.4(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. As an initial matter, the Board notes that it is not
requiring that FICUs make their succession plans public, nor does the
Board intend to do so. Succession plans will be reviewed by examiners
and will be treated as confidential supervisory documents, as with
other supervisory matters.
The provision is intended solely as a planning aid. In the case of
elected officials, such date is clearly the expiration of the
incumbent's term. However, the expected vacancy date for non-elected
officials can be less clear. The final rule does not require the FICU
use a specific date, but suggests some possible proxies, including the
individual's anticipated retirement date or announced departure date. A
credit union can also note that a retirement or departure date is
unknown. The decision of what to reflect for the date is at the FICU's
discretion.
The Board emphasizes that inclusion of any known or estimated
retirement or departure date is not intended to create a requirement
that an individual will retire or otherwise vacate a position on a
specific date. The Board, therefore, understands that these dates may
evolve. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a specific or approximate date
will
[[Page 104873]]
promote conversations within the FICU and allow for better planning in
advance of a transition, thus accomplishing the purpose of the final
rule. Further, the FICU should update the dates as necessary to reflect
changes in an individual's circumstances or plans.
Comment: Concerns regarding public posting of succession plans. The
preamble to the proposed rule provided that ``succession plans should
provide sufficient detail and use language that is reasonably
understandable to the FICU's member-owners in describing its strategies
for filling vacancies and for recruiting, developing, and retaining
employees.'' \33\ The preamble further provided that succession plans
should be ``clearly and concisely written, use everyday language to the
extent possible, and avoid ambiguous phrasing open to differing
interpretations.'' \34\ Several commenters wrote that this language
implies the succession plans will be publicly available, which raises
privacy concerns. The commenters wrote that the succession plans may
include retirement information for senior credit union management,
which should not be made public. Another commenter wrote that
succession plans often reflect a FICUs strategy for maintaining
viability in a competitive market. The public posting of plans would
enable other financial institutions to access the information for
competitive advantage or potential merger opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 89 FR 60329, at 60333.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. The Board again emphasizes that there is no
requirement that succession plans be posted or otherwise made available
to the public. Neither does the final rule supersede existing laws or
FICU procedures governing the public dissemination of similar
governance documents. The public availability of the succession plans
should be treated similarly to such documents. The preamble language
cited by the commenters was intended solely to emphasize the importance
of clarity in drafting, especially in those circumstances where the
plan, or portions thereof, may be made available to member-owners.
H. Comments Regarding Specific Rule Provisions
Comment: The scope of covered FICU officials should be narrowed.
Many commenters recommended that the NCUA narrow the scope of the
positions covered by the succession plans. The commenters wrote that
the proposed list was overly prescriptive and would impose an undue
burden to administer. Almost all of these commenters agreed the scope
should be limited to those officials most directly responsible for
ensuring the FICU's continuity of operations but differed on the
specific positions this would include. Some commenters suggested
inclusion of the members of the board, the members of the supervisory
and credit committees, and key management officials, including the
chief executive officer. Other commenters suggested the scope be
limited to the chief executive officer and chief financial officer (or
equivalent), because the boards of directors are not involved in the
FICU's day-to-day operations. Still others suggested that the rule not
include a specific list at all, but that FICUs should instead be
provided with the flexibility to determine which critical positions
should be included in a succession plan based on the specific risks
associated with unanticipated or extended vacancies.
Despite their differing recommendations, almost all the commenters
writing on this topic suggested that loan officers and assistant
managers be excluded from the list. Several of these commenters wrote
that larger FICUs may have hundreds of loan officers involved in the
daily review of loans. The commenters wrote that, given the
decentralized lending structure of many large FICUs, there is likely
minimal risk to the ability to serve members if a loan officer vacancy
occurs. The commenters wrote the risk is even less for assistant
management officials, who are not crucial to a FICU's continuity of
operations.
NCUA Response. In response to these comments, the Board has removed
loan officers, credit committee members, and supervisory committee
members from the list of FICU officials that must be covered by the
succession plans. During development of the July 25, 2024, proposed
rule, the Board relied on the language of the FCU Act, the model FCU
bylaws, and the definition of '' senior executive officer'' in 12 CFR
701.14 as a guide in identifying the list of officials that should be
covered by the succession plans.\35\ As it did in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the Board emphasizes that succession plans are intended
to cover senior leadership positions responsible for the oversight of
the FICU or its day-to-day management.\36\ Upon consideration of the
comments and the issues involved, the Board recognizes that loan
officers and members of credit and supervisory committees may not
always meet these criteria depending on the size and structure of a
particular FICU. The change will enable FICUs to develop more
appropriately tailored succession plans that better reflect their
unique circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Specifically, section 111 of the FCU Act provides that
``[t]he management of a Federal credit union shall be by a board of
directors, a supervisory committee, and where the bylaws so provide,
a credit committee'' (12 U.S.C. 1761). The model FCU bylaws codified
in Appendix A of 12 CFR part 701 expand the list of senior FCU
officials to include management officials, assistant management
officials, and loan officers. The NCUA regulation at 12 CFR 701.14
defines the term ``senior executive officer'' to include the FICU's
chief executive officer (typically this individual holds the title
of president or treasurer/manager), any assistant chief executive
officer (for example, any assistant president, any vice president,
or any assistant treasurer/manager) and the chief financial officer
(controller).
\36\ 89 FR 60329, at 60333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in a preceding response, FICUs may include within the
scope of their plans ``other personnel the board of directors deems
critical given the [FICU's] size, complexity, or risk of operations.''
\37\ FICUs should use the flexibility provided by this provision to
assess whether the inclusion of loan officers and members of the
supervisory and credit committees is appropriate given the
institution's characteristics. For example, a smaller FICU with few
loan officers may deem the position critical given the impact a
departure would have on the institution's operations. In contrast, a
larger FICU that employs many loan officers may determine its
operations would not be impacted by the loss of any specific individual
and choose to not include this position in their plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Proposed Sec. 701.4(e)(2)(vi), finalized as Sec.
701.4(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The annual plan review requirement is excessive. Several
commenters objected to the requirement that a FICU board review the
succession plan ``no less than annually.'' \38\ The commenters wrote
that this requirement is burdensome and excessive. The commenters wrote
that succession plans are not a dynamic and ever-evolving document and,
therefore, should only be reviewed as needed. One of the commenters
recommended that FICUs be provided the flexibility to review the plans
once every 24 months. Another commenter suggested a review period of
every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Proposed Sec. 701.4(e)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. Upon reconsideration, the Board agrees that the
annual review of plans is unnecessary. The final rule now requires
FICUs to review and update the plan as necessary but at least once
every 24 months. The Board believes this change provides FICUs with
additional flexibility while still accomplishing the
[[Page 104874]]
goal of the rulemaking of ensuring that succession plans are regularly
reviewed and kept current.
Comment: Education requirements for FICU board members. Several
commenters objected to the proposed regulatory language requiring that
directors have a ``working familiarity'' with the FICU's succession
plan no later than six months after appointment.\39\ The commenters
wrote that the focus of newly appointed directors should be on gaining
familiarity with items such as the FICU's operations, the products and
services being offered, and applicable legal authorities. In contrast,
a minority of commenters supported the requirement, writing that it is
appropriate for boards to maintain a working knowledge of the latest
developments in all of the areas of risk confronted by the FICU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Proposed Sec. 701.4(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCUA Response. The Board has not revised the rule in response to
these comments. The Board continues to believe that succession planning
is one of the most vital responsibilities of a FICU's board of
directors. Succession planning is a critical component of a FICU's
overall strategic plan. It helps ensure that the appropriate personnel
are available to execute the FICU's strategic plan and mission. A
board's failure to plan for vacancies in elected and appointed
positions, as well as the transition of its management, could come with
high costs. The FICU runs the risk of creating a leadership vacuum,
disrupting operations, and potentially jeopardizing the FICU's ability
to adequately manage liquidity risk, address cybersecurity threats, or
ensure continued compliance with consumer protection, Bank Secrecy Act,
and other critical responsibilities. Accordingly, and as recognized by
the commenters writing in support of the requirement, succession
planning merits inclusion among the items new board members must become
familiar with.
Comment: The ``working familiarity'' requirement is vague. Several
commenters were concerned about a perceived lack of clarity with the
proposed ``working familiarity'' language. The commenters wrote that,
unlike the Board's 2022 proposal, the proposed rule did not include
language stating that training is not mandated to meet this
requirement. The commenters wrote that it is unclear what steps a board
of directors would be expected to take to achieve a ``working
familiarity.'' The commenters were concerned this perceived ambiguity
would leave the door open for differing practices among FICUs regarding
training, as well as for different interpretations of the requirement
between FICUs and examiners. They wrote that this could lead to
inconsistencies in the examination process and urged the NCUA to
clarify the meaning of the provision.
NCUA Response. The Board has not revised the rule in response to
these comments. The Board notes that the ``working familiarity''
language is not new but comes from existing Sec. 701.4(b)(3). This
existing regulation requires new credit union board members to gain a
``working familiarity with basic finance and accounting practices''
within six months of election or appointment. The final rule does not
revise this language but adds succession planning to the list of items
that directors must have a working familiarity with no later than six
months after appointment. The final rule does not mandate the contents
of training to meet this requirement. A FICU may incorporate succession
planning into whatever materials it currently uses to comply with the
education requirement.
Comment: Deviations from succession plan. Several commenters wrote
about potential deviations from the succession plan due to unforeseen
circumstances. The commenters wrote that requiring documentation of
such changes is overly prescriptive and sometimes not feasible given
rapidly changing circumstances. Another commenter asked for additional
clarity on the steps a FICU should take if it is unable to adhere to
its succession plan, writing that the proposed rule lacked sufficient
detail.
NCUA Response. As provided in the preamble to the proposed rule,
the Board recognizes that circumstances might necessitate deviations
from the succession plan in filling specific vacancies. The final rule
accommodates such exigencies. In the event exigent circumstances
require a substantial deviation from the board approved plan,
management and/or the FICU board has the flexibility to do what it
deems necessary at the time, consistent with their fiduciary duties and
legal responsibilities. To further emphasize this flexibility, the
final rule no longer requires that such deviations be documented in the
board's meeting minutes. However, a substantial deviation from the
approved plan should be reported to the board as soon as practicable.
Credit unions, not the NCUA, are best positioned to assess various
risks and exigent circumstances. The agency does not intend to
micromanage deviations from succession plans made in response to
exigent circumstances. Further, FICU boards have flexibility in
determining how to calculate the required 24-month review period. A
FICU may determine that the review of a succession plan necessitated by
a change to address an exigent circumstance satisfies the required
review, therefore restarting the 24-month review cycle.
I. Other Comments
Comment: Exemption for high performing FICUs. One commenter
suggested that the Board include an exemption for FICUs of all asset
sizes with a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2. The commenter wrote
that bond requirements for FICUs vary by CAMELS rating, with a greater
bond being required for CAMELS 3, 4, and 5 rated FICUs due to the
increased risk to the Share Insurance Fund. The commenter wrote that
this logic should extend to succession planning as well. The commenter
wrote that, at minimum, the final rule should establish such an
exemption for FISCUs with a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2 because
the NCUA is not the primary federal regulator for FISCUs. The commenter
wrote that, given the lower risk to the Share Insurance Fund, the NCUA
does not have as much standing to issue regulations covering FISCUs
``when it is not necessary, but only a best practice.''
NCUA Response. The suggestion made by the commenter is outside the
scope of the proposed rule. The Board did not propose or seek public
comment on a class-based exemption of this type. Accordingly, the Board
has not revised the rule in response to this comment. As discussed, the
Board believes that having clearly articulated, consistent, and
enforceable succession planning requirements will benefit all FICUs,
irrespective of asset size and CAMELS rating. Moreover, the
establishment of a succession plan in advance of a FICU potentially
becoming a composite CAMELS code 3, 4, or 5 will allow the FICU's
leadership to remain focused on the most pressing problems that led to
the downgrade.
Comment: Additional resources are necessary to aid compliance.
Several commenters wrote that FICUs would require additional resources
to comply with the succession plan requirements. While the majority of
these commenters focused on the challenges faced by smaller FICUs,
others wrote that all FICUs, irrespective of size, would require
assistance. The commenters suggested the NCUA develop a broad range of
resources to assist all FICUs in developing succession planning. One
commenter recommended that the NCUA work with state supervisory
authorities to develop recruitment
[[Page 104875]]
strategies and resources to assist FICUs in developing and implementing
their succession plans.
NCUA Response. As discussed, the NCUA makes available several
resources to aid FICU succession planning efforts, including online
training. The Board has also developed a sample template for a
succession plan that may be appropriate for some FICUs. Smaller FICUs
with less than $100 million in total assets and minority depository
institutions of all sizes may also be eligible for assistance in a
variety of areas, including succession planning, through the agency's
Small Credit Union and Minority Depository Institution Support Program.
FICUs with a low-income designation may be able to apply for technical
assistance grants to support succession planning or offset training
costs through the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund.
Comment: Additional clarity required regarding examination
expectations. Several commenters wrote that the proposed rule was
unclear about the potential impact on a FICU if an examiner determines
a succession plan to be inadequate. The commenters urged the NCUA to
clarify the expectations of the examination program to ensure
consistency in evaluations of FICU regulatory compliance. The
commenters also suggested that the final rule should identify a
reasonable timeline for remediation should a FICU's succession plan be
deemed inadequate.
NCUA Response. The expectation is for a FICU to develop a
succession plan that meets the regulatory requirements and is
consistent with the FICU's size and complexity. Potential examination
actions due to inadequate succession plans and possible remediation
timelines are outside the scope of this rulemaking. As is current
practice, examiners will use discretion and judgment when working with
FICUs to remedy a potential negative finding before issuing documents
of resolution or other negative findings. The NCUA may, in its
discretion, issue guidance on the topic of succession planning as it
deems necessary.
III. Regulatory Procedures
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act \40\ generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it
shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either
the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing
the factual basis for such certification.\41\ For purposes of this
analysis, the NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having
under $100 million in assets.\42\ The Board fully considered the
potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit
unions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\41\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\42\ 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule requires that a FICU board of directors establish,
and comply with, a written succession plan that addresses certain
specified positions and contains specified elements. In addition, the
board of directors will be required to review the succession plan no
less than every 24 months. These requirements may impose some cost on
FICUs. However, the NCUA believes several factors mitigate the
potential costs, especially for small FICUs with assets of less than
$100 million.
First, a FICU is expected to develop a succession plan that is
consistent with its size and complexity. Therefore, small FICUs may
have a simple succession plan that is less costly to prepare than would
be the case for larger and more complex FICUs. Further, in recognition
that smaller FICUs may lack the resources or expertise to develop
succession plans, the Board is providing a sample template for a simple
succession plan that may be appropriate for these FICUs. The Board is
also aware that many FICUs, including small FICUs, have already adopted
succession plans. Many of these existing plans should already address,
either partially or in their entirety, the elements that would be
required by the proposed rule. This could minimize the burden of
complying with the new requirements.
In response to comments, the Board has narrowed the list of FICU
officials that must be covered by the succession plans. This should
further minimize burden by enabling FICUs to develop more tailored
succession plans that reflect their unique circumstances. Further, the
Board is delaying the effective date of the final rule until January 1,
2026, which will provide additional time to make any operational
changes or resource allocations necessary for development of the
succession plans.
The NCUA also offers training and other resources to aid credit
unions in developing their succession plans. For example, the NCUA has
posted a video series on succession planning on the internet. The
NCUA's Small Credit Union and Minority Depository Institution Support
Program is an available succession planning resource for FICUs with
less than $100 million in total assets and minority depository
institutions of any size. Smaller FICUs are also encouraged to seek
assistance from larger or more sophisticated FICUs in the development
of the required succession plans.\43\ FICUs may also use already
existing information in preparing their plans, such as the data used to
develop the recommended program to prepare for a catastrophic act.
These resources should further reduce the costs of preparing the
succession plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Supra, note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the NCUA certifies the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit
unions.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act/Congressional
Review Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) \44\ generally provides for congressional review of agency
rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA
issues a final rule as defined by section 551 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.\45\ An agency rule, in addition to being subject to
congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective
date if the rule is a ``major rule.'' The NCUA does not believe this
rule is a ``major rule'' within the meaning of the relevant sections of
SBREFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 147 (1996).
\45\ 5 U.S.C. 551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by SBREFA, the NCUA has submitted this final rule to
OMB for it to determine if the final rule is a ``major rule'' for
purposes of SBREFA. The NCUA also will file appropriate reports with
Congress and the GAO so this rule may be reviewed.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemaking in
which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection
requirements.\46\ For purposes of the PRA, an information collection
requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a
third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA may not conduct or
sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an
information collection
[[Page 104876]]
unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; 5 CFR part 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule establishes new information collections in the form
of succession policies and plans. The NCUA estimates a total annual
burden of 46,750 hours as follows:
Estimated PRA Burden
OMB Control Number: 3133-NEW.
Title of Information Collection: Succession Planning.
Estimated number of respondents: 4,499.
Estimated number of responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated total annual responses: 4,499.
Estimated total annual burden hours per response: 10.
Estimated total annual burden hours: 44,990.
The NCUA addressed comments on the proposed PRA burden estimate
under section II. Discussion of Public Comments. In accordance with the
PRA, the information collection requirements included in this final
rule have been submitted to OMB for approval under control number 3133-
NEW.
D. Executive Order 13132 on Federalism
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to
consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The
NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5),
voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental
federalism principles. This final rule applies to FCUs and to FISCUs.
By law, FISCUs are already subject to numerous provisions of NCUA's
rules, based on the agency's role as the insurer of member share
accounts and the significant interest NCUA has in the safety and
soundness of their operations. The rulemaking may, therefore, have an
occasional direct effect on the states, the relationship between the
national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
E. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family
well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.\47\ The regulatory
requirements are exclusively concerned with succession planning
policies of FICUs for replacing vacancies among board members and other
key management officials. While the final rule is intended to maintain
access to quality credit union services by reducing unplanned or forced
consolidations, the potential positive effect on family well-being,
including financial well-being is, at most, indirect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 701
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 CFR Part 741
Bank deposit insurance, Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board, this 17th day
of December 2024.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NCUA Board amends 12
CFR parts 701 and 741, as follows:
PART 701--ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
0
1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759,
1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789.
Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31
is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and
3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312.
0
2. Amend Sec. 701.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(3).
0
b. Adding paragraph (e).
The addition and revision to read as follows:
Sec. 701.4 General authorities and duties of Federal credit union
directors.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) At the time of election or appointment, or within a reasonable
time thereafter, not to exceed six months, have at least a working
familiarity with, and to ask, as appropriate, substantive questions of
management and the internal and external auditors of:
(i) Basic finance and accounting practices, including the ability
to read and understand the Federal credit union's balance sheet and
income statement; and
(ii) The Federal credit union's succession plan established
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Succession planning requirements. (1) General. A federal credit
union must establish a written succession plan as provided in this
paragraph that is approved by the board of directors and consistent
with the credit union's size and complexity. In evaluating whether a
succession plan meets the requirements of this paragraph, the NCUA will
consider the size of the federal credit union, as well as the
complexity and risk of its operations.
(2) Covered positions. The succession plan shall, at a minimum,
cover the following positions, or their equivalent if the federal
credit union has adopted different position titles:
(i) Members of the board of directors;
(ii) Management officials and assistant management officials, as
those terms are defined in Appendix A, if provided for in the federal
credit union's bylaws, and, to the extent not already covered, the
senior executive officers identified in Sec. 701.14(b)(2); and
(iii) Any other personnel the board of directors deems critical
given the federal credit union's size, complexity, or risk of
operations. This includes new positions that may be required due to
planned changes in operations, supervisory landscape, or corporate
structure.
(3) Contents of succession plan. The succession plan must, at
minimum, contain the following information regarding each of the
positions covered under paragraph (e)(2) of this section:
(i) The title for each covered position and the expiration of the
incumbent's term (if serving in a term-limited capacity) or other
anticipated vacancy date if known (such as the incumbent's retirement
eligibility date or announced departure date).
(ii) The federal credit union's plan for permanently filling
vacancies for each of the positions.
(iii) The federal credit union's strategy for recruiting candidates
with the potential to assume each of the positions.The strategy must
consider how the selection and diversity of skills among the employees
covered by the succession plan collectively and individually promotes
the safe and sound operation of the federal credit union.
(4) Board responsibilities. The board of directors must:
(i) Approve a written succession plan that meets the requirements
of paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section; and
(ii) Review, and update as necessary, the succession plan in
accordance with a schedule established by the board of directors but no
less than every 24 months.
[[Page 104877]]
PART 741--REQUIREMENTS FOR INSURANCE
0
3. The authority citation for part 741 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766(a), 1781-1790, and 1790d; 31
U.S.C. 3717.
0
4. Add Sec. 741.228 to read as follows:
Sec. 741.228 Succession planning.
Any credit union that is insured pursuant to Title II of the Act
must adhere to the requirements in Sec. 701.4(b)(3) and (e) of this
chapter, to the extent these regulatory provisions do not conflict with
an applicable state requirement.
[FR Doc. 2024-30449 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
