Home/Federal/Federal Register/2025-13568

Proposed Rule2025-13568

Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 18, 2025

Issuing agencies

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Abstract

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes to amend the processes for an insured State nonmember bank to establish a branch or relocate a main office or branch by eliminating certain filing requirements, reducing processing timelines, and updating public notice procedures, and by making corresponding changes to the procedures applicable to the relocation of an insured branch of a foreign bank. The FDIC seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed rule.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 136 (Friday, July 18, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 136 (Friday, July 18, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33898-33910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13568]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 136 / Friday, July 18, 2025 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 33898]]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Parts 303 and 345

RIN 3064-AG10

Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes to
amend the processes for an insured State nonmember bank to establish a
branch or relocate a main office or branch by eliminating certain
filing requirements, reducing processing timelines, and updating public
notice procedures, and by making corresponding changes to the
procedures applicable to the relocation of an insured branch of a
foreign bank. The FDIC seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed
rule.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 16, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments,
identified by RIN 3064-AG10, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Agency website: <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-registerpublications/">https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-registerpublications/</a>. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the agency website.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e88b8785858d869c9ba88e8c818bc68f879e">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include RIN 3064-AG10 in the
subject line of the message.
<bullet> Mail: Jennifer Jones, Deputy Executive Secretary,
Attention: Comments RIN 3064-AG10, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW building (located on F
Street NW) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
<bullet> Public Inspection: Comments received, including any
personal information provided, may be posted without change to <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/">https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/</a>.
Commenters should submit only information that the commenter wishes to
make available publicly. The FDIC may review, redact, or refrain from
posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material.
The FDIC may post only a single representative example of identical or
substantially identical comments, and in such cases will generally
identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments
represented by the posted example. All comments that have been
redacted, as well as those that have not been posted, that contain
comments on the merits of this document will be retained in the public
comment file and will be considered as required under all applicable
laws. All comments may be accessible under the Freedom of Information
Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Macias, Chief, (202) 898-3642,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6859b97959f9785b690929f95d8919980">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Scott Leifer, Senior Review Examiner, (781) 794-5645,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#52213e373b3437201234363b317c353d24">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Division of Risk Management Supervision; Tara Oxley,
Associate Director, (202) 898-6722, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87f3e8ffebe2fec7c1c3cec4a9e0e8f1">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Division of
Depositor and Consumer Protection; Benjamin Klein, Supervisory Counsel,
(202) 898-7027, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2d0d9ded7dbdcf2f4f6fbf19cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Karlyn Hunter, (202) 515-6831,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab1bbb2afb4aebfa89a9c9e9399f4bdb5ac">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Julia Dempewolf, Senior Attorney, (202) 898-3645,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92f8f6f7ffe2f7e5fdfef4d2d4d6dbd1bcf5fde4">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Legal Division; Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Policy Objectives

The objectives of the proposed rule are to improve the speed and
certainty of, and reduce the regulatory burden associated with, the
filing process under 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations
\1\ for insured State nonmember banks seeking to establish a branch or
relocate a main office or branch and for foreign banks seeking to
relocate an insured branch. The proposed rule would also make certain
definitional clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 12 CFR part 303, subpart C (insured State nonmember banks)
and subpart J (insured branches of foreign banks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed further in sections III.A and III.C of this
Supplementary Information, the FDIC's experience with branch filings
has demonstrated that aspects of the filing process should be modified
or removed. For example, through its supervisory programs, the FDIC
already has access to much of the information that must be provided by
applicants under the existing regulation. In addition, branch filings
are subject to a public comment process that is not mandated by
statute, causes a meaningful delay in the amount of time to render a
final decision, and typically does not yield information that
materially aids the FDIC's evaluation of the statutory factors pursuant
to which these filings are considered. The FDIC also has found that the
agency's review of certain branch filings provide little supervisory
value, such as where a branch changes its address and the surviving
branch resides in approximately the same location. Accordingly, the
proposal would accelerate expedited processing for well-rated
institutions that satisfy certain criteria, remove certain information
elements required of applicants, eliminate the public comment process,
and exclude certain de minimis branch facility changes in approximately
the same location provided that the FDIC and customers of the branch
receive reasonably advance notice of such change. The revisions set
forth in the proposal are expected to reduce the volume of branch
filings and the resources required by banks and the FDIC to engage in
the filing process.

II. Background Information

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 18(d)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act)
requires the FDIC's prior written consent for an insured State
nonmember bank to establish and operate a new domestic branch or to
move its main office or any domestic branch from one location to
another.\2\ This section also prohibits a foreign bank from moving an
insured branch from one location to another without the FDIC's prior
written consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When considering whether to grant or withhold such consent, the
FDIC must consider the factors listed in section 6 of the FDI Act
(statutory factors). The statutory factors are as follows: (1) the
bank's financial history and condition;

[[Page 33899]]

(2) the adequacy of the bank's capital structure; (3) the bank's future
earnings prospects; (4) the general character and fitness of the bank's
management; (5) the risk presented by the bank to the Deposit Insurance
Fund; (6) the convenience and needs of the community to be served by
the bank; and (7) whether the bank's corporate powers are consistent
with the purposes of the FDI Act. In addition, when evaluating an
application to establish a branch, relocate a branch, or relocate a
main office, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires the FDIC to
take into consideration ``the institution's record of meeting the
credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of
such institution.'' \3\ Section 38 of the FDI Act imposes additional
requirements and restrictions on undercapitalized institutions seeking
to establish a branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 12 U.S.C. 2903(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. FDIC Rules and Regulations

Subpart C of 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations
(subpart C) implements section 18(d) of the FDI Act and sets forth the
filing requirements and procedures for insured State nonmember banks to
establish a branch, relocate a branch or main office, and retain
existing branches after the interstate relocation of a main office.
Subpart C requires all insured State nonmember banks to submit an
application to the appropriate FDIC office prior to establishing a new
branch, relocating a branch or a main office, or retaining a branch
after the interstate relocation of a main office subject to approval by
the FDIC.\4\ All applicants are required to submit the same information
regardless of the type of proposed change and regardless of the bank's
supervisory history, except that, consistent with section 38 of the FDI
Act, undercapitalized institutions are required to submit relatively
more information. Further, the FDIC retains the right to request
additional information to complete processing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 12 CFR 303.42(a).
\5\ See 12 CFR 303.42(b) through (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The application processing timeline depends primarily upon whether
the bank meets the definition of an ``eligible depository
institution.'' \6\ An application submitted by an ``eligible depository
institution'' is generally subject to expedited processing, and
applications submitted by all other insured State nonmember banks are
subject to standard processing. The FDIC defines an ``eligible
depository institution'' as a depository institution that meets the
following criteria: (1) received an FDIC-assigned composite rating of 1
or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) as
a result of its most recent Federal or State examination; (2) received
a satisfactory or better CRA rating from its primary Federal regulator
at its most recent examination, if the depository institution is
subject to examination under 12 CFR part 345 of the FDIC Rules and
Regulations; (3) received a compliance rating of 1 or 2 from its
primary Federal regulator at its most recent examination; (4) is well-
capitalized as defined in the appropriate capital regulation and
guidance of the institution's primary Federal regulator; and (5) is not
subject to a cease and desist order, consent order, prompt corrective
action directive, written agreement, memorandum of understanding, or
other administrative agreement with its primary Federal regulator or
chartering authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See 12 CFR 303.43.
\7\ 12 CFR 303.2(r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the current rule, the FDIC retains the right to move an
application from expedited processing to standard processing when
appropriate.\8\ Absent such removal, an application processed under
expedited processing is deemed approved the latest of (1) 21 days after
the FDIC receives a substantially complete application, (2) the 5th day
after the public comment period expires, or (3) in the case of an
interstate branch filing that represents new entry into a State where
the applicant does not maintain a branch, the 5th day after the FDIC
receives the requisite confirming information from the host State. The
FDIC must provide the applicant with written notification of the final
action when the decision is rendered.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 12 CFR 303.43(a).
\9\ 12 CFR 303.43(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart J of 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations
(subpart J) sets forth the procedures for an insured branch of a
foreign bank seeking the FDIC's consent to move from one location to
another at 12 CFR 303.184. The requirements in subpart J largely mirror
the requirements found in subpart C. A foreign bank seeking the FDIC's
consent to move an insured branch from one location to another must
submit a written application to the appropriate FDIC office with much
the same information as a State nonmember bank, publish a newspaper
notice, and await completion of a public comment period before a
decision is rendered on the application.

C. Branch Application Statistics

From 2015 to 2024, the FDIC received 6,641 branch applications:
5,059 applications to establish a branch, 461 to relocate a main
office, 1,120 to relocate a branch, and 1 application to relocate an
insured branch of a foreign bank, for an average of 664 applications
received per year. During this period, the FDIC approved an average of
630 branch applications annually (482 branch establishment
applications, 105 branch relocation applications, and 43 main office
relocation applications). On average, 537 applications per year were
approved under expedited processing (85 percent) and 93 were approved
under standard processing (15 percent). From 2015 to 2024, the average
time between the FDIC's receipt of an application to establish a
branch, relocate a main office, or relocate a branch, and the
application being approved, denied, returned to the applicant or
withdrawn, is 25 days for applications subject to expedited processing
and 69 days for applications subject to standard processing.

III. Description of the Proposed Rule

A. Rules of General Applicability (12 CFR Part 303, Subpart A)

1. Public Notice Requirements (12 CFR 303.7)
Applications submitted under subpart C are generally subject to
public comment and a related public notice period.\10\ Unlike the Bank
Merger Act, section 18(c) of the FDI Act,\11\ or the Change in Bank
Control Act, section 17(j) of the FDI Act,\12\ section 18(d) of the FDI
Act does not impose public notice or comment requirements on branch
establishments, branch relocations, or main office relocations.
Nonetheless, the FDIC has, by regulation, required that branch
applications be subject to public notice and comment.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 12 CFR 303.44.
\11\ 12 U.S.C. 1828(c)(3).
\12\ 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(2)(D).
\13\ 12 CFR 303.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the FDIC's view that branch applications are generally more
routine and less significant corporate transactions as compared to
deposit insurance applications, merger transactions, or change in
control transactions. This view is confirmed by the observation that
the FDIC has received a limited number of public comments in response
to subpart C applications. The regulatory comment

[[Page 33900]]

period can significantly prolong the length of time routine proposals
take to process. In addition, to the extent the FDIC has received
comments in response to a branch application, such comments generally
have not been specific to the application at hand and have, on balance,
yielded little benefit for the purposes of the FDIC's evaluation of the
statutory factors with respect to that application. Over the past five
years, the FDIC has received an average of seven comments per year on
branch applications, including multiple comments on separate branch
applications filed by the same institution. Generally, when the FDIC
has received multiple comments on separate filings by the same
institution, the comments have repeated concerns that are unrelated to
the application at hand.
Consequently, the historically limited benefit of the public notice
and related comment period to the FDIC's consideration of the statutory
factors when evaluating an application do not justify the prolonged
review process for branch applications. Therefore, the FDIC is
proposing to eliminate the public notice and related public comment
period from subpart C and to make conforming changes to subpart A of 12
CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations (subpart A).
Specifically, the FDIC proposes to strike the provisions in 12 CFR
303.7(a) and (c) that reference the establishment of a branch or a
branch relocation or main office relocation in the context of setting
forth generally applicable public notice requirements in subpart A.
In addition, under 12 CFR 345.29(c) of the FDIC CRA regulation, as
in effect on March 29, 2024 (FDIC CRA regulation),\14\ the FDIC takes
into account any views expressed by interested parties that are
submitted regarding a bank's CRA record of performance in considering
an application for approval of, among other things: (1) the
establishment of a domestic branch or other facility with the ability
to accept deposits, or (2) the relocation of the bank's main office or
a branch. As noted above, the FDIC will continue to comply with its
obligations under the CRA, but proposes to eliminate certain public
notice and public comment period requirements from subpart C and
related provisions in subpart A. The proposal would also include
technical conforming changes to 12 CFR part 345 of the FDIC Rules and
Regulations, which cross reference the public notice provisions of 12
CFR part 303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See 12 CFR 345.29(a) (Mar. 29, 2024), available at <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2024-03-29/title-12/section-345.29">https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2024-03-29/title-12/section-345.29</a>. The relevant
provisions also appear in appendix G to 12 CFR part 345, which
reproduces the FDIC CRA regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of whether the FDIC receives public comment regarding a
filing submitted under subpart C, the FDIC takes into consideration the
bank's CRA rating, as required under the CRA.\15\ As noted, an
institution's ability to qualify for expediting processing as an
``eligible depository institution'' depends on a satisfactory or better
CRA rating. The FDIC does not propose to alter this element of the
definition of ``eligible depository institution.'' Accordingly,
eliminating the public comment period would not be inconsistent with
the FDIC's obligations under the CRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See 12 U.S.C. 2902(3)(C) through (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Hearings and Other Meetings (12 CFR 303.10(a))
Applications submitted under subpart C are generally subject to the
FDIC Rules and Regulations of general applicability concerning
hearings. The FDIC rarely receives requests for hearings concerning
applications under subpart C and conducts such hearings even less
frequently. As noted above, the FDIC proposes to eliminate the public
notice requirement in subpart C because the FDIC has found the public
notice and related public comment period are not statutorily required
and do not materially aid the FDIC's consideration of the statutory
factors when evaluating an application to establish a domestic branch
or to relocate a main office or domestic branch. Similarly, the public
hearing process has not materially benefitted the FDIC's consideration
of a branch application in the context of the statutory factors.
Therefore, the FDIC proposes to eliminate from the public hearing
provisions of 12 CFR 303.10(a) the reference to an insured State
nonmember bank to establish a domestic branch or to relocate a main
office or domestic branch.

B. Definitions (12 CFR 303.41)

1. Branch (12 CFR 303.41(a))
The FDIC proposes to revise the definition of ``branch'' at 12 CFR
303.41(a) to clarify the scope of the exclusion of remote service units
from the definition of ``branch.'' The proposed rule's definition of
``branch'' would specify that a branch does not include a remote
service unit (RSU) or a financial education program that includes the
provision of bank products and services covered under subpart C, and
provide a definition for ``remote service unit.'' The proposed
definition of ``remote service unit'' is discussed below.
2. Branch Relocation (12 CFR 303.41(b))
The FDIC proposes to establish a rule of construction within the
definition of ``branch relocation'' at 12 CFR 303.41(b). Under the
proposed rule, a branch relocation would not include a de minimis
change in address. The rule of construction would define a ``de minimis
change in address'' as occurring when a branch exchanges one physical
facility for another within the same approximate location, such as
where (1) a direct line of sight exists between the two facilities, (2)
the facilities share the same parking area, or (3) the facilities are
located on contiguous properties or on the same block.
The FDIC has found that in some situations a change in facility may
be in a bank's best interest for a business, operational, or other
reason outside the control of a bank, such as the same landlord
expanding a shopping center and offering more advantageous lease terms
for the exchange of one suite in the shopping center for another, and
such changes are often subject to external time pressures. In the
FDIC's experience, the exchange of one physical facility for another
that results in such a de minimis change in address is not
appropriately contemplated under the current subpart C. The proposed
rule would recognize the absence of a significant supervisory purpose
to processing filings for such de minimis changes in address by
removing the requirement of a filing for such changes.
Although a de minimis change in address would not be subject to the
requirements in 12 CFR 303.42 through 303.44, a bank completing a de
minimis change in address would still be required to provide reasonable
advance written notice to customers of the branch undergoing a de
minimis change in address and advance notice to the appropriate FDIC
office.
3. De Novo Interstate Branch (12 CFR 303.41(c))
The FDIC proposes to replace the term ``de novo branch'' with ``de
novo interstate branch'' at 12 CFR 303.41(c). The term ``de novo
branch'' is defined in section 18(d)(4)(C) of the FDI Act within the
narrow context of interstate branching. However, the current definition
of ``de novo branch'' in subpart C does not account for the interstate
context of the statutory definition. The FDIC proposes to revise
subpart C to account for the statutory interstate context by changing
the defined term to ``de novo interstate

[[Page 33901]]

branch'' and updating the definition to indicate a branch of a bank
that is established by the bank as a branch in a State other than the
bank's home State or one in which the bank does not maintain a branch,
and does not become a branch of such bank as a result of (1) the
acquisition by the bank of an insured depository institution or a
branch of an insured depository institution, or (2) the conversion,
merger, or consolidation of any such institution or branch. The
proposed rule would make conforming changes to account for the new
defined term by replacing ``de novo branch'' with ``de novo interstate
branch'' where it is used in subpart C. Under the proposed rule, this
defined term would only be relevant in the context of ensuring that a
filing for a ``de novo interstate branch'' would be deemed approved
only after ensuring that relevant host State filing requirements have
been satisfied.
4. Remote Service Unit (12 CFR 303.41(f))
As noted above, the FDIC proposes to define the term ``remote
service unit'' at 12 CFR 303.41(f). Section 3(o) of the FDI Act
excludes automated teller machines (ATMs) and RSUs from the definition
of ``domestic branch'' but does not define either term. The FDIC
proposes to adopt a definition of RSU that would align the FDIC Rules
and Regulations with the regulations of the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (OCC).\16\ The proposed rule would define ``remote
service unit'' as an automated or unstaffed facility, operated by a
customer of a bank with at most delimited assistance from bank
personnel, that conducts banking functions such as receiving deposits,
paying withdrawals, or lending money. An RSU includes an automated
teller machine, automated loan machine, automated device for receiving
deposits, personal computer, telephone, other similar electronic
devices, and drop boxes. An RSU may be equipped with a telephone or
tele-video device that allows contact with bank personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See 12 CFR 7.1027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule would exclude a drop box from the definition of
``branch'' by including a drop box in the definition of ``RSU'' to
avoid the incongruous result where the definition of ``branch''
encompasses a drop box but not an ATM.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See also OCC, ``Activities and Operations of National Banks
and Federal Savings Associations,'' 85 FR 83686, 83703 (Dec. 22,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC's proposed definition of ``RSU'' encompasses automated,
unstaffed facilities that are operated by the customer with at most
delimited assistance from bank personnel, and that allow for telephonic
or video connectivity with bank personnel. This is intended to
accommodate most facilities commonly referred to as ``interactive
teller machines'' (ITMs). In 2024, the FDIC issued a Financial
Institutions Letter stating that an ITM would qualify for the RSU
exclusion, and thus not be a branch, under the following circumstances:
(1) the ITM is an automated, unstaffed banking facility owned or
operated by, or operated exclusively for, the bank, which is equipped
to enable existing customers to initiate an interactive session with
remotely located bank personnel, and, (2) to the extent that bank
personnel have the ability to remotely assist the customer with the
operation of the ITM to perform core banking functions, customers must
also be able to perform such transactions without the involvement of
bank personnel and must have the sole discretion to initiate and
terminate interactive sessions with bank personnel.\18\ As part of this
proposal, the FDIC is seeking comment on whether these criteria should
be retained or modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See FDIC, FIL-53-2024, ``Classification of Interactive
Teller Machines as Domestic Branches or Remote Service Units'' (Aug.
9, 2024), available at <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2024/classification-interactive-teller-machines-domestic">https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2024/classification-interactive-teller-machines-domestic</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Filing Procedures (12 CFR 303.42)

1. General (12 CFR 303.42(a))
Under 12 CFR 303.42(a), applicants are required to submit an
application to the appropriate FDIC office on the date the required
newspaper notice of the bank's proposal is published or within five
days after the date of the last required newspaper publication. Thus,
the timing requirement of the application is tied to the newspaper
publication requirement. The FDIC proposes to eliminate the newspaper
publication requirement in 12 CFR 303.44(a), as discussed in section
III.E of this document, and to revise related provisions, including 12
CFR 303.42(a).
Under the proposed rule, a bank would be required to submit a
letter filing to the appropriate FDIC office to establish a domestic
branch or complete a branch relocation or main office relocation. As
the public notice requirements have been stricken, the proposed rule
does not specify a submission deadline but retains the requirement to
submit a letter filing to the appropriate FDIC office in 12 CFR
303.42(a).
2. Content of Filing (12 CFR 303.42(b))
Applicants are currently required to submit the following
information to the appropriate FDIC office when applying to establish a
domestic branch or complete a branch relocation or main office
relocation:
<bullet> A statement of intent to establish a branch, or to
relocate the main office or a branch;
<bullet> The exact location of the proposed site, including the
street address;
<bullet> Details concerning any involvement in the proposal by an
insider of the bank, including any financial arrangements relating to
fees, the acquisition of property, leasing of property, and
construction contracts;
<bullet> Comments on any changes in services to be offered, the
community to be served, or any other effect the proposal may have on
the applicant's compliance with the CRA;
<bullet> A copy of each newspaper publication, the name and address
of the newspaper, and date of the publication; and
<bullet> When an application is submitted to relocate the main
office of the applicant from one State to another, a statement of the
applicant's intent regarding retention of branches in the State where
the main office exists prior to relocation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ 12 CFR 303.42(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The intent of the letter content requirements is to aid the FDIC in
satisfying its statutory obligation to consider the statutory factors
when determining whether to grant or withhold its consent for a bank to
establish a domestic branch or to move a main office or branch
location. The FDIC has found, however, that through its routine
examination and supervisory processes, it maintains sufficient
information to consider the statutory factors without requiring a bank
to compile and submit all the information currently required by subpart
C. Additionally, technological advances currently enable the FDIC to
more quickly access and analyze historic information regarding a bank
compared to when subpart C was initially promulgated. The proposed rule
would recognize these advances in information access and analysis
within the context of the statutory factors.
As discussed in section III.E of this document, the proposed rule
also would eliminate the newspaper publication requirement and public
comment period. Therefore, the corresponding filing content
requirements would be eliminated by the proposed rule as well.

[[Page 33902]]

Accordingly, the FDIC proposes to revise the filing content
requirement to require a bank to submit the following:
<bullet> A statement of intent to establish a branch, or to
relocate the main office or a branch;
<bullet> The exact location of the proposed site, including the
street address;
<bullet> When a filing is submitted to relocate the bank's main
office from one State to another, a statement of the bank's intent
regarding retention of branches in the State where the main office
exists prior to relocation; and
<bullet> With respect to a branch relocation or a main office
relocation, confirmation that advance written notice was provided to
customers of the branch or main office being relocated.

D. Processing (12 CFR 303.43)

1. Expedited Processing for Eligible Depository Institutions (12 CFR
303.43(a))
Under subpart C, an application submitted by an ``eligible
depository institution'' qualifies for expedited processing, subject to
removal by the FDIC for the reasons set forth in 12 CFR 303.11(c)(2).
An application processed under expedited processing is deemed approved
on the latest of the following: (1) the 21st day after receipt by the
FDIC of a substantially complete filing; (2) the 5th day after
expiration of the comment period described in 12 CFR 303.44; or (3) in
the case of an application to establish and operate a de novo branch in
a State that is not the applicant's home State and in which the
applicant does not maintain a branch, the 5th day after the FDIC
receives confirmation from the host State that the applicant has both
complied with the filing requirements of the host State and submitted a
copy of the application with the FDIC to the host State bank
supervisor.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 12 CFR 303.43(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC proposes to retain the definition of ``eligible depository
institution,'' shorten the approval period for expedited processing,
and eliminate the FDIC's discretion to remove a filing from expedited
processing.
Under 12 CFR 303.2(r) of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, to qualify
as an ``eligible depository institution,'' a bank must satisfy the
following criteria:
<bullet> Received an FDIC-assigned composite rating of 1 or 2 under
the UFIRS as a result of its most recent Federal or State examination;
<bullet> Received a satisfactory or better CRA rating from its
primary Federal regulator at its most recent examination;
<bullet> Received a compliance rating of 1 or 2 from its primary
Federal regulator at its most recent examination;
<bullet> Is well-capitalized as defined in the appropriate capital
regulation and guidance of the institution's primary Federal regulator;
and
<bullet> Is not subject to a cease and desist order, consent order,
prompt corrective action directive, written agreement, memorandum of
understanding, or other administrative agreement with its primary
federal regulator or chartering authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 12 CFR 303.2(r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The criteria to qualify as an ``eligible depository institution''
correspond with many of the statutory factors that must be satisfied to
establish or relocate a domestic branch. Accordingly, the FDIC has
determined that qualification as an ``eligible depository institution''
can, in many cases, facilitate the FDIC's consideration of a proposed
branch establishment or relocation within the context of the statutory
factors and allow for a more truncated expedited processing framework
than the one that exists today. The proposal would therefore shorten
the timeline for expedited processing.
Under the proposed rule, a filing submitted by an eligible
depository institution to establish a branch that is processed under
expedited processing would be deemed approved on the later of the
following: (1) the third business day after receipt by the FDIC of a
substantially complete filing; or (2) in the case of an application to
establish and operate a de novo interstate branch in a State that is
not the applicant's home State and in which the applicant does not
maintain a branch, the fifth day after the FDIC receives confirmation
from the host State that the applicant has both complied with the
filing requirements of the host State and submitted a copy of the
application with the FDIC to the host State bank supervisor.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Filings involving a de novo interstate branch typically
involve a lengthier approval timeline because they are subject to
additional statutory requirements. See 12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(4)(B).
Specifically, the bank must comply with state filing requirements,
satisfy concentration limits, be adequately capitalized, and be well
capitalized and well managed upon establishment of the branch. See
12 U.S.C. 1831u(b)(1), (3), and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, under subpart A of 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules and
Regulations, the FDIC retains discretion to remove a filing from
expedited processing for one of the following reasons:
<bullet> For filings subject to public notice, an adverse comment
is received that warrants additional investigation or review;
<bullet> For filings subject to evaluation of CRA performance, a
CRA protest is received that warrants additional investigation or
review, or the appropriate regional director determines that the filing
presents a significant CRA or compliance concern;
<bullet> For any filing, the appropriate regional director
determines that the filing presents a significant supervisory concern,
or raises a significant legal or policy issue; or
<bullet> For any filing, the appropriate regional director
determines that other good cause exists for removal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 12 CFR 303.11(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC exercises this discretion on a limited basis. If an
institution meets all the criteria for expedited processing, the
likelihood that opening a new branch would present material supervisory
concerns is extremely remote. Thus, under the proposal, any proposed
branch filing from an institution that satisfies the criteria for
expedited processing would be deemed approved in accordance with the
statutory factors, without discretion to remove the filing from
expedited processing. This aspect of the proposal is consistent with
the FDIC's goal to provide more certainty to filers who satisfy all the
criteria for expedited processing and ensure timely processing of such
filings.
2. Expedited Processing for Branch Relocations and Main Office
Relocations (12 CFR 303.43(b))
The FDIC proposes to establish a new category of expedited
processing for intrastate branch relocations and main office
relocations by certain banks under revised 12 CFR 303.43(b). Filings
for intrastate branch relocations or intrastate main office relocations
would be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC and would receive
expedited processing if the bank received an FDIC-assigned composite
rating of 3 or better under the UFIRS as a result of its most recent
Federal or State examination. Expedited processing would apply under 12
CFR 303.43(b) regardless of whether the institution satisfies the other
criteria in 12 CFR 303.2(r) for an eligible depository institution.
Subpart C of 12 CFR part 303 defines ``branch relocation'' narrowly
as a move within the same immediate neighborhood of the existing branch
that does not substantially affect the nature of the business of the
branch or the customers of the branch.\24\ The definition specifies
that moving a branch to a location outside its immediate neighborhood
is considered

[[Page 33903]]

the closing of an existing branch and the establishment of a new
branch. Thus, a branch relocation typically presents a limited set of
facts and circumstances for review and consideration within the context
of the statutory factors. Although not defined, main office relocations
present a similarly narrow set of facts and circumstances for review
and consideration. The FDIC considers the statutory factors within the
context of the application submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ 12 CFR 303.41(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because branch relocations and main office relocations typically
present a narrow scope of review and consideration, the FDIC proposes
to establish a new category of expedited processing for proposed
intrastate branch or main office relocations submitted by a bank that
received an FDIC-assigned composite rating of 3 or better under the
UFIRS as a result of its most recent Federal or State examination. The
FDIC has found that when a bank that has received an FDIC-assigned
composite rating of 3 or better under the UFIRS as a result of its most
recent Federal or State examination applies for a branch relocation or
main office relocation, the rating can serve as a meaningful proxy for
the statutory factors within the context of the application. Thus, the
FDIC proposes to establish a new eligibility criterion for intrastate
branch relocation or main office relocation filings to qualify for
expedited processing. The eligibility criterion is based on the FDIC's
particular experience and expertise and reflects the FDIC's
consideration of the statutory factors within the context of branch
relocations and main office relocations generally.
Under the proposed rule, a filing for an intrastate branch
relocation or main office relocation processed under expedited
processing would be deemed approved on the third business day after
receipt by the FDIC of a substantially complete filing. The proposed
rule also would eliminate the FDIC's authority to remove such filings
from expedited processing.
3. FDIC Internal Processes
In addition to publishing this proposed rule, the FDIC is
evaluating and updating its internal processes to further streamline
and expedite the review and consideration of applications submitted
under subpart C of 12 CFR part 303. The FDIC's Application Procedures
Manual (APM) provides direction for professional staff assigned to
review and process applications under subpart C and are available for
public review.\25\ Applications submitted under subpart C are received
and processed by the appropriate FDIC regional office (RO) pursuant to
the APM and the FDIC Board of Director's ``Delegations of Authority for
Supervisory Filings, Enforcement Matters, Capital Determinations, and
Information Sharing Agreements.'' \26\ The FDIC has published matrices
that summarize delegations to professional staff, circumstances that
may restrict the authority to act pursuant to such delegations, and
other information relevant to the exercise of authority.\27\ The FDIC
intends to review its delegations of authority to promote efficient
decisioning on applications, specifically by delegating additional
authority to ROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ FDIC, APM, available at <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/bank-examinations/applications-procedures-manual">https://www.fdic.gov/bank-examinations/applications-procedures-manual</a>.
\26\ FDIC, Resolution 086825, ``Delegations of Authority for
Supervisory Filings, Enforcement Matters, Capital Determinations,
and Information Sharing Agreements'' (Oct. 20, 2020), available at
<a href="https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/matrix/delegations-resolution.pdf">https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/matrix/delegations-resolution.pdf</a>.
\27\ See FDIC, Delegations of Authority, available at <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/bank-examinations/delegations-authority">https://www.fdic.gov/bank-examinations/delegations-authority</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC also intends to update its internal processes for
responding to an application submitted under subpart C that qualifies
for expedited processing. Currently, an applicant receives multiple
response letters from the FDIC, which may create confusion and delay.
After updates to internal processes, if an application is substantially
complete and qualifies for expedited processing, the RO would be
expected to issue a single letter to the applicant within three
business days to acknowledge receipt of the application and state that
the application would be deemed approved by the latest date applicable
under subpart C. The FDIC anticipates this change would enhance
certainty for applicants by reducing the number of potential
communications involved in the branch application process to a single
letter.

E. Public Notice Requirements (12 CFR 303.44)

Currently, a bank making a filing subject to subpart C must publish
a notice in a newspaper of general circulation. The FDIC proposes to
eliminate the newspaper publication requirement in 12 CFR 303.44(a) and
related provisions. The FDIC expects banks seeking to relocate a branch
to notify affected customers, and notes that elimination of the FDIC's
public notice requirement would not preempt any publication, customer
notification, or other similar requirements under applicable State law.

F. Moving an Insured Branch of a Foreign Bank (12 CFR 303.184)

As noted above, subpart J of 12 CFR part 303 governs an application
by an insured branch of a foreign bank seeking the FDIC's consent to
move from one location to another, and the requirements in subpart J
largely mirror those found in subpart C of 12 CFR part 303 for an
insured State nonmember bank. The proposed rule would make changes to
subpart J to correspond to those proposed for subpart C discussed
above.

IV. Expected Effects of the Proposed Rule

As previously discussed, the objective of the proposed rule is to
reduce the regulatory burden on insured State nonmember banks seeking
to establish a branch or relocate a main office or branch by shortening
the length of, as well as clarifying and reducing content requirements
for, associated filings, and to do the same for relocations of insured
branches of foreign banks.
This analysis utilizes all regulations and guidance applicable to
FDIC-supervised insured State nonmember banks and insured branches of
foreign banks (collectively, insured depository institutions or IDIs),
as well as information on the financial condition of FDIC-supervised
IDIs as of the quarter ending March 31, 2025, as the baseline to which
the effects of the proposed rule are estimated.
If adopted, the proposed rule would apply to FDIC-supervised State
nonmember banks seeking to establish a branch, relocate a main office
or branch, and to FDIC-supervised insured branches of foreign banks
seeking to relocate an insured branch of a foreign bank. As of the
quarter ending March 31, 2025, the FDIC supervises 2,835 State
nonmember banks or insured branches of foreign banks which collectively
operate 25,424 branches and main offices.\28\ In the period from 2015
to 2024, the FDIC received 6,641 branch applications: 5,059 to
establish a branch, 461 to relocate a main office, 1,120 to relocate a
branch, and 1 to relocate an insured branch of a foreign bank, for an
average of 664 filings per year.\29\ Based on this historical average,
the FDIC estimates that the proposed rule would affect approximately
700

[[Page 33904]]

branch applications per year on average.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ FDIC Call Report and Structure Data, March 31, 2025.
\29\ FDIC supervisory data.
\30\ Although the proposed rule would result in a decrease in
the burden for a branch application, the FDIC does not believe the
proposed rule would likely result in a material increase in the
number of branch applications. To the extent that the proposed rule
results in a greater number of branch applications, the historical
average of 664 branch applications per year may be an undercount of
the number of applications affected by the proposed rule. The FDIC
believes that using 700 as the number of branch applications per
year is a conservative estimate for purposes of estimating the
effects of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, the proposed rule would reduce the regulatory
requirements for branch applications. Specifically, it would establish
that State nonmember banks that seek to make a de minimis change in the
address of a branch would only need to notify the FDIC of such a
change, rather than submit an application. For all other branch
applications, the proposed rule would reduce filing content
requirements from six to four items. The proposed rule would also
eliminate or greatly reduce public notice requirements for
applications.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ A bank completing a de minimis change in address would
still be required to provide reasonable advance written notice to
customers of the branch per proposed 12 CFR 303.41(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For State nonmember banks that seek a de minimis relocation, the
FDIC estimates that the proposed rule would eliminate the entire
estimated five-hour burden of preparing and submitting a branch
application.\32\ At a conservative estimate of $200 per hour per
application,\33\ the resulting savings would be $1,000 per de minimis
relocation. Strictly for the purpose of estimating the number of de
minimis relocations per year, the FDIC assumes that the distances of
such relocations would be less than 0.1 miles.\34\ Of the 6,641 branch
applications used in this analysis, 299 involved a relocation distance
less than 0.1 miles. As such, the FDIC estimates that approximately 30
branch applications per year would involve a de minimis relocation,
resulting in an estimated aggregate benefit of $30,000 annually.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Based on Paperwork Reduction Act hourly burden estimates
for branch applications by state nonmember banks under Information
Collection Request OMB No. 3064-0070 (See <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAICList?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAICList?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006</a>). Hourly burden
estimates for branch applications by foreign banks under Information
Collection Request OMB No. 3064-0114 are not used for this analysis
because only 1 out of 6,641 historical branch applications was
submitted by a foreign bank.
\33\ In recent Information Collection Requests, the FDIC
estimated that the fully loaded costs of preparing and submitting
branch applications are approximately $147 per hour for state
nonmember banks and $135 per hour for foreign banks. See <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001</a>,
respectively.
\34\ de minimis relocations would only involve relocations
``within the same approximate location,'' as per proposed 12 CFR
303.41(b)(1)(i).
\35\ $30,000 savings annually = $1,000 per relocation
application x 30 applications per year; and 30 branch applications
per year = 299 applications/10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the remaining 670 branch applications that do not involve de
minimis relocations, the proposed rule would reduce the regulatory
requirements for preparing and submitting branch applications.
Specifically, it would reduce filing content requirements from six to
four items. The proposed rule would also eliminate public notice
requirements for these applications. The FDIC estimates these changes
would benefit applicants by reducing the time spent preparing and
submitting branch applications by approximately two hours, on
average.\36\ At a conservative hourly burden estimate of $200 per
hour,\37\ the proposed rule would result in aggregate cost savings of
approximately $268,000 per year.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Details of the time to prepare and submit branch
applications are provided in Section VII.B. Paperwork Reduction Act
of this document.
\37\ In recent Information Collection Requests, the FDIC
estimated that the fully loaded costs of preparing and submitting
branch applications are approximately $147 per hour for State
nonmember banks and $135 per hour for foreign banks. See <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006</a> and
<a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001</a>, respectively.
\38\ $268,000 cost savings per year = 670 branch applications
per year * 2 hours saved per application * $200 per hour saved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summing up the quantified effects for all 700 affected branch
applications, the FDIC estimates that the proposed rule would result in
approximately $300,000 in savings per year from the reduction of labor
costs associated with preparing and submitting branch applications.
As previously discussed, the proposed rule would generally reduce
the time it takes for the FDIC to process a filing. In particular, the
proposed rule would establish a deadline of three days for approval
after receipt of a substantially complete expedited intrastate branch
filing; a reduction of between 18 days and 28 days, respectively.\39\
Further, the proposed rule would expand expedited processing for
intrastate branch filings and main office relocations to a bank that
received an FDIC-assigned composite rating of 3 or better under the
UFIRS as a result of its most recent Federal or State examination.
Finally, the proposed rule would eliminate the FDIC's discretion to
remove a filing from expedited processing. According to FDIC
supervisory data, a filing to establish a branch, or to relocate a
branch or main office, subject to expedited processing takes an average
of 25 days to process.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ As noted above, intrastate branch filings are deemed
approved under expedited processing on the latest of: the 21st day
after receipt by the FDIC of a substantially complete filing, or the
5th day after expiration of the comment period described in 12 CFR
303.44, which at most could be 23 days (consisting of 8 days to meet
the newspaper publication requirement plus a 15 day comment period),
and 5 + 23 = 28. The proposal's deadline of three days (down from
21) for intrastate branch filings represents a decrease of 18 days
from baseline, and the proposed elimination of the public notice
requirements and associated five-day processing period represents a
decrease of 28 days from baseline.
\40\ Based on branch applications received from 2015 to 2024
which had received a final status of approved, denied, withdrawn or
returned as of June 24, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule's reduction in processing times for certain
branch applications would have clear benefits for eligible depository
institution applicants. Faster processing times would reduce the period
of uncertainty for applicants and reduce costs associated with downtime
while waiting for a decision from the FDIC. IDIs would be able to more
swiftly respond to changes in local economic conditions, such as a
change in landlord for an IDI's current location or a time-sensitive
opportunity to relocate to a more desirable location. The FDIC does not
have the information necessary to further quantify the benefit
associated with the reduction in the time it takes for the FDIC to
process filings, but believes that processing time reductions would
improve productivity and competitiveness for applicants.
As previously discussed, the proposed rule would clarify certain
definitions in the filing regulations. Specifically, the proposed rule
would clarify that the term branch does not include remote service
units, drop boxes, or financial education programs that include the
provision of bank products and services. In practice the FDIC has not
considered such locations covered by the filing requirements for
establishing a branch, relocating a main office or branch, or
relocating an insured branch of a foreign bank. Finally, the proposed
rule clarifies the definition of ``de novo interstate branch.'' The
FDIC does not have the information necessary to quantify the benefits
to prospective applicants associated with these aspects of the proposed
rule. However, the FDIC believes that these clarifications would
benefit applicants and the industry by reducing uncertainty among
prospective applicants.
As previously discussed, the FDIC does not believe that the
proposed rule

[[Page 33905]]

would pose any material direct costs to applicants. The FDIC
acknowledges that there may be ancillary costs to the public. For
example, the elimination of the public notice requirements and related
public comment period for branch and main office relocations \41\ may
result in some confusion among bank customers or other community
stakeholders. The proposed rule mitigates this by maintaining that IDIs
shall provide advance written notice to customers of the office
undergoing an address change. The FDIC does not have the data necessary
to quantify the effect of the proposed elimination of the public notice
requirements and related public comment period. However, given the
limited historical number of public comments in response to subpart C
applications, and the mitigation just mentioned, the FDIC does not
believe this effect to be material. Moreover, the proposed rule does
not affect the responsibility of FDIC-supervised institutions to help
meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are
headquartered or operate branches.\42\ Therefore, the FDIC believes
that the proposed rule would pose no substantiative indirect costs to
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Proposed 12 CFR 303.44.
\42\ See the FDIC CRA regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the FDIC believes that the proposal could provide indirect
benefits to customers of insured State nonmember banks and insured
branches of foreign banks. To the extent that the shorter processing
periods, reduced filing content requirements, and clarifications within
the proposed rule reduce the time it takes such institutions to begin
providing banking products and services at appliable locations,
customers may benefit. The FDIC does not have the necessary information
to quantify such benefits.

V. Alternatives Considered

The FDIC considered implementing internal process changes related
to the review of subpart C applications that would result in
abbreviated review periods without implementing a regulatory change.
However, the FDIC determined that improving the speed, certainty and
regulatory burden associated with the processes for branch filings
would be better achieved through a formal notice and comment rulemaking
that considers feedback from all stakeholders. As discussed above, the
FDIC also expects to implement changes to its internal processes for
branch filings in tandem with the amendments set forth in this proposal
to further support these objectives.

VI. Request for Comments

The FDIC seeks comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. The
FDIC also seeks specific comment on the following:
Question 1. Are the proposed filing content requirements
appropriate to garner sufficient information for the FDIC to evaluate
the statutory factors in the context of the establishment of a domestic
branch or branch or main office relocation? Are there additional
information elements the FDIC should consider or seek to remove? If so,
please explain how the addition or removal of such information would
facilitate the FDIC's consideration of the statutory factors.
Question 2. Is the FDIC's elimination of the public comment period
for branch applications appropriate? Please explain why or why not.
Question 2. Is the FDIC's criteria for a branch application to
satisfy ``expedited processing'' appropriate? Please explain why or why
not.
Question 3. Is the FDIC's proposed definition of ``branch
relocation'' appropriate? If not, what alternatives should the FDIC
consider? Is the FDIC's criteria for expedited processing for a branch
relocation appropriate?
Question 4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed ``de minimis'' exception to the definition of ``branch
relocation?'' Are there supervisory benefits to continuing to require a
filing for a branch facility change that would satisfy the proposed
``de minimis'' exception that the FDIC should consider? If so, please
explain those benefits and how they outweigh the burden associated with
requiring a filing for such branch facility changes.
Question 5. Is the FDIC's proposed definition of ``remote service
unit'' appropriate? Does the definition's ``delimited assistance''
standard provide clarity regarding whether an ITM would qualify for the
RSU exclusion? Is FDIC FIL-53-2024 consistent with this definition, and
what alternatives to FDIC FIL-53-2024 would provide greater clarity as
to the scope of the ``delimited assistance'' standard?
Question 6. Are there any other aspects of subpart C, 12 CFR
303.184, or the proposed rule the FDIC should consider amending? If so,
please explain those changes and how they would support the objectives
of this proposal.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency,
in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare and make available for
public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.\43\
However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if
the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined ``small
entities'' to include banking organizations with total assets of less
than or equal to $850 million.\44\ Generally, the FDIC considers a
significant economic impact to be a quantified effect in excess of 5
percent of total annual salaries and benefits or 2.5 percent of total
noninterest expenses. The FDIC believes that effects in excess of one
or more of these thresholds typically represent significant economic
impacts for FDIC-supervised institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\44\ The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $850
million or less in assets, where an organization's ``assets are
determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly
financial statements for the preceding year.'' See 13 CFR 121.201
(as amended by 87 FR 69118, effective December 19, 2022). In its
determination, the ``SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other
measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its
domestic and foreign affiliates.'' See 13 CFR 121.103. Following
these regulations, the FDIC uses an insured depository institution's
affiliated and acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four
quarters, to determine whether the insured depository institution is
``small'' for the purposes of RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If adopted, the proposed rule would apply to small entities seeking
to establish a branch, relocate a main office or branch, or relocate an
insured branch of a foreign bank. As of the quarter ending March 31,
2025, the FDIC supervised 2,835 IDIs, of which 2,109 are considered
``small'' for the purposes of RFA.\46\ These 2,109 small IDIs
collectively operated 8,412 branches and main offices.\45\ In the
period from 2015 to 2024, small IDIs submitted 2,020 applications to
establish a branch, 352 applications to relocate a branch, and 295
applications to relocate a main office, for a total of 2,667
applications across all 10 years, or an average of 267 applications per
year.\46\ Based on this historical average, the FDIC estimates the
proposed rule would affect

[[Page 33906]]

approximately 300 branch applications from small IDIs per year on
average.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ FDIC Call Report and Structure Data, March 31, 2025.
\46\ FDIC supervisory and Call Report data. For the purpose of
these application counts an IDI is considered ``small'' for purposes
of the RFA if it is identified in the FDIC's data as ``small'' as of
the quarter-end in which it sent a relevant application to the FDIC.
Note that no insured branches of foreign banks are considered
``small'' for purposes of the RFA.
\47\ Although the proposed rule would result in a decrease in
the burden imposed by a branch application, the FDIC does not
believe the proposed rule would likely result in a material increase
in the number of branch applications. To the extent that the
proposed rule results in a greater number of branch applications
from small IDIs, the historical average of 267 branch applications
per year may be an undercount of the number of applications affected
by the proposed rule. The FDIC believes that using 300 as the number
of branch applications from small IDIs per year is a conservative
estimate for purposes of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, the proposed rule would reduce the regulatory
requirements for establishing or relocating a branch. Specifically, it
would eliminate filing requirements for de minimis relocations and
reduce filing content requirements from six to four items for all other
applications. The proposed rule would also eliminate or greatly reduce
public notice requirements for all branch establishments and
relocations.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ A bank completing a de minimis change in address would
still be required to provide reasonable advance written notice to
customers of the branch per proposed 12 CFR 303.41(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in the Expected Effects section of this document, the
FDIC estimates that there would be upwards of 30 de minimis relocations
per year. Based on supervisory and Call Report data, the FDIC estimates
that upwards of 10 de minimis relocations would involve small IDIs. The
proposed rule would reduce the burden for these de minimis relocations
by five hours, or $1,000, per relocation.\49\ Based on Call Report data
for the quarter ending March 31, 2025, a cost savings of $1,000 is in
excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits or 2.5
percent of total noninterest expenses for one small IDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Based on a conservative hourly burden estimate of $200 per
hour. In recent Information Collection Requests, the FDIC estimated
that the fully loaded costs of preparing and submitting branch
applications are approximately $147 per hour for state nonmember
banks and $135 per hour for foreign banks. See <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006</a> and
<a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001</a>, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the remaining 290 branch applications from small IDIs that do
not involve de minimis relocations, the FDIC estimates the proposed
rule would benefit small applicants by reducing the time spent
preparing and submitting branch applications by approximately two
hours, on average, or $400 per application.\50\ Based on Call Report
data for the quarter ending March 31, 2025, a cost savings of $400 is
in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits or 2.5
percent of total noninterest expenses for one small IDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ Details of the time to prepare and submit branch
applications are provided in section VII.B., Paperwork Reduction
Act, of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the quantified effects of the proposed rule described
above, the FDIC estimates that the rule would not significantly affect
more than two small IDIs.
As discussed in the Expected Effects section of this document, the
proposed rule would also reduce the time it takes for the FDIC to
process a filing. In particular, the proposed rule would establish a
deadline of three days for approval after receipt of a substantially
complete expedited intrastate branch filing; a reduction of between 18
days and 28 days, respectively.\51\ Further, the proposed rule would
expand expedited processing for intrastate branch filings and main
office relocations to a bank that received an FDIC-assigned composite
rating of 3 or better under the UFIRS as a result of its most recent
federal or state examination. Finally, the proposed rule would
eliminate the FDIC's discretion to remove a filing from expedited
processing. According to FDIC supervisory data, a filing to establish a
branch, or to relocate a branch or main office, subject to expedited
processing takes an average of 25 days to process.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ As noted above, intrastate branch filings are deemed
approved under expedited processing on the latest of: the 21st day
after receipt by the FDIC of a substantially complete filing, or the
5th day after expiration of the comment period described in 12 CFR
303.44, which at most could be 23 days (consisting of 8 days to meet
the newspaper publication requirement plus a 15-day comment period),
and 5 + 23 = 28. The proposal's deadline of three days (down from
21) for intrastate branch filings represents a decrease of 18 days
from baseline, and the proposed elimination of the public notice
requirements and associated five-day processing period represents a
decrease of 28 days from baseline.
\52\ Based on branch applications received from 2015 to 2024
which had received a final status of approved, denied, withdrawn or
returned as of June 24, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule's reduction in processing times for certain
branch applications would have clear benefits for eligible small
depository institution applicants. Faster processing times would reduce
the period of uncertainty for applicants and reduce costs associated
with downtime while waiting for a decision from the FDIC. IDIs would be
able to more swiftly respond to changes in local economic conditions,
such as a change in landlord for an IDI's current location or a time-
sensitive opportunity to relocate to a more desirable location. The
FDIC does not have the information necessary to further quantify the
benefit associated with the reduction in the time it takes for the FDIC
to process filings, but believes that processing time reductions would
improve productivity and competitiveness for applicants.
As previously discussed, the proposed rule would clarify certain
definitions in the filing regulations. Specifically, the proposed rule
would clarify that ``branch'' does not include remote service units,
drop boxes, or financial education programs that include the provision
of bank products and services. In practice the FDIC has not considered
such locations covered by the filing requirements for establishing a
branch, relocating a main office or branch, or relocating an insured
branch of a foreign bank. Finally, the proposed rule clarifies the
definition of interstate branch, intrastate branch, and de novo
interstate branch for the purposes of the application requirements for
establishing a branch, relocating a main office or branch, or
relocating an insured branch of a foreign bank. The FDIC does not have
the information necessary to quantify the benefits to prospective
applicants associated with these aspects of the proposed rule. However,
the FDIC believes that these clarifications would benefit applicants
and the industry by reducing uncertainty among prospective applicants.
The unquantified benefits discussed above are additional to the
quantified benefits. Conservatively, if each branch application
affected by the proposed rule were submitted by a distinct small IDI,
then the proposed rule would affect 300 small IDIs. The FDIC does not
believe that the unquantified benefits would likely result in a
significant effect for the vast majority of the 300 affected IDIs.
Finally, the FDIC does not believe that the proposed rule would
pose any material direct costs to applicants.
In light of the foregoing, the FDIC certifies that the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting
information provided in this RFA section. The FDIC is particularly
interested in comments on any significant effects on small entities
that the agency has not identified.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain ``collections of
information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1995.\53\ In accordance with the

[[Page 33907]]

requirements of the PRA, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the
respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Budget and Management
(OMB) control number. The information collections contained in the
proposed rule have been submitted to OMB for review and approval by the
FDIC under section 3507(d) of the PRA \54\ and Sec. 1320.11 of OMB's
implementing regulations.\55\ The FDIC proposes to extend for three
years, with revision, the following information collections:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ 44 U.S.C. 3501.
\54\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
\55\ 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title of Information Collection: Application for a bank to
establish a branch or move its main office or branch.
OMB Control Number: 3064-0070.
Respondents: Insured State nonmember banks.
Current Actions: The proposed rule revises the currently-approved
information collection as follows:
Section 303.42, Application for a bank to establish a branch or
move its main office or Branch. Pursuant to sections 13(f), 13(k),
18(d) and 44 of the FDI Act, insured State nonmember banks must obtain
FDIC approval before establishing a branch, relocating a branch or main
office, or retaining existing branches after the interstate relocation
of the main office. This information collection represents the
occasional reporting requirement associated with those institutions'
application for FDIC approval. The proposed rule would reduce reporting
burden by eliminating the requirement that the applicant provide
information regarding insider involvement in the proposed branch
office, comments on changes in services offered or the effect the
proposal may have on the applicant's compliance with the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA), and a copy of and information related to the
required newspaper publication. As such, the FDIC estimates average
time per response would be reduced from 5 hours to 3 hours. However, to
account for additional applications that may result from changes in the
proposed rule as well as historical data since the most recent PRA
renewal, the FDIC also estimates an increase in respondents from 436 to
700. Thus, the total estimated annual burden for OMB No. 3064-0070 is
2,100 hours, a decrease of 80 hours from the most recent PRA
renewal.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ FDIC Application for a bank to establish a branch or move
its main office or branch, OMB No. 3064-0070, available at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title of Information Collection: Foreign Banks.
OMB Control Number: 3064-0114.
Respondents: Insured branches of foreign banks.
Current Actions: The proposed rule revises the currently-approved
information collection as follows:
The FDIC is proposing to remove the information collection
``Section 303.184, Moving a Branch'' from the ICR under the OMB Control
No. 3064-0114 and include it in the ICR under OMB Control No. 3064-
0070. Under 12 CFR 303.183, insured branches of foreign banks seeking
approval from the FDIC to move locations complete a substantially
similar application as domestic banks seeking FDIC approval to move
locations. To ensure consistent burden estimates between similar
respondents completing similar applications, the FDIC will include
burden estimates from the information collection ``Section 303.184,
Moving a Branch'' in the information collection ``Application for a
bank to establish a branch or move its main office or Branch.''
Combining these two information collections does not affect the FDIC
estimates of respondents for the information collection under OMB
Control No. 3064-0070 because historically the FDIC rarely receives
applications to move insured branches from foreign banks. In the most
recent PRA renewal for OMB Control No. 3064-0114, the FDIC used a
placeholder of a single respondent to maintain the information
collection.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the
information has practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information
collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will
become a matter of public record.
Comments on aspects of this document that may affect reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should
be sent to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Written comments and recommendations for this information
collection also should be sent within 60 days of publication of this
document to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 60-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

C. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leah-Bliley Act requires Federal banking
agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules
published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invites your comments on how
to make the proposed rule easier to understand. For example:
<bullet> Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If
not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?
<bullet> Does the proposed rule contain language or jargon that is
not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
<bullet> Would a different format (groupings and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the guidelines easier to
understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed
rule easier to understand?
<bullet> What else could the FDIC do to make the proposed rule
easier to understand?

D. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA),\57\ in determining the
effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new
regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other
requirements on IDIs, each Federal banking agency must consider,
consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public
interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place
on affected depository institutions, including small depository
institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the
benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of the RCDRIA
requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose
additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs
generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that
begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in
final form. The FDIC invites

[[Page 33908]]

comments that further will inform its consideration of the RCDRIA.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
\58\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023

The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 \59\
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet
address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a proposed
rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 12 U.S.C. 553(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC proposes to modify the procedures for an insured State
nonmember bank to establish a domestic branch or relocate a domestic
main office or branch. The proposed rule would eliminate certain filing
requirements, shorten processing timelines, and eliminate public notice
procedures. The FDIC proposes to make corresponding changes to the
procedures applicable to the relocation of an insured branch of a
foreign bank. The FDIC also proposes to update certain related
definitions to further streamline branch filing regulatory compliance
obligations.
The proposal and the required summary can be found at <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/index.html">https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/index.html</a>.

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 14192

Executive Order 12866, as amended, provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all ``significant
regulatory actions'' as defined therein. OIRA has determined that this
proposal is not a ``significant regulatory action'' for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. The proposal, if finalized as proposed, is not
expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 303

Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance,
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings
associations.

12 CFR Part 345

Banks, banking, Community development, Credit, Investments,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 303 and 345 as
follows:

PART 303--FILING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819(a)
(Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o,
1831p-1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105, 3108, 3207, 5414, 5415,
and 15 U.S.C. 1601-1607.

0
2. In Sec. 303.7, revise paragraphs (a) and (c)(1)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec. 303.7 Public notice requirements.

(a) General. The public must be provided with prior notice of a
filing to engage in a merger transaction, initiate a change of control
transaction, or request deposit insurance. The public has the right to
comment on, or to protest, these types of proposed transactions during
the relevant comment period. In order to fully apprise the public of
this right, an applicant shall publish a public notice of its filing in
a newspaper of general circulation. For specific publication
requirements, consult subparts B (Deposit Insurance), D (Merger
Transactions), and E (Change in Bank Control) of this part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) In the case of an application for deposit insurance for a de
novo depository institution, include the names of all organizers or
incorporators. In the case of a merger application, include the names
of all parties to the transaction. In the case of a notice of
acquisition of control, include the name(s) of the acquiring parties.
* * * * *

Sec. 303.10 [Amended]

0
3. In Sec. 303.10, remove paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and redesignate
paragraphs (a)(4) through (6) as paragraphs (a)(2) through (4),
respectively.

Sec. 303.40 [Amended]

0
4. In Sec. 303.40:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word ``application'' and add, in its
place, the word ``filing''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c), remove the word ``Applications'' and add, in its
place, the word ``Filings''.
0
5. Amend Sec. 303.41 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text,
revising and republishing paragraph (b), revising paragraph (c)
introductory text, and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec. 303.41 Definitions.

* * * * *
(a) Branch, except as provided in this paragraph, includes any
branch bank, branch office, additional office, or any branch place of
business located in any State of the United States or in any territory
of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern
Mariana Islands at which deposits are received or checks paid or money
lent. A branch does not include a remote service unit or a facility
described in Sec. 303.45. The term branch also includes the following:
* * * * *
(b) Branch relocation means a move within the same immediate
neighborhood of the existing branch that does not substantially affect
the nature of the business of the branch or the customers of the
branch. Moving a branch to a location outside its immediate
neighborhood is considered the closing of an existing branch and the
establishment of a new branch. Closing of a branch is covered in the
FDIC Statement of Policy Concerning Branch Closing Notices and
Policies. 1 FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts 5391; see Sec. 309.4
(a) and (b) of this chapter for availability.
(1) Rule of construction. For the purposes of this subpart, a de
minimis change in address is neither a branch establishment nor a
branch relocation.
(i) A de minimis change in address occurs when a branch exchanges
one physical facility for another within the same approximate location,
such as where:
(A) A direct line of sight exists between the two facilities;
(B) The facilities share the same parking area; or
(C) The facilities are located on contiguous properties or on the
same block.
(ii) Notice required. Notwithstanding the inapplicability of
Sec. Sec. 303.42 through 303.44, an insured State nonmember bank is
required to provide reasonable advance written notice to customers of
the branch undergoing a de minimis address change and advance notice to
the appropriate FDIC office.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) De novo interstate branch means a branch of a bank that is
established by the bank as a branch in a State other than the bank's
home State or one in which the bank does not maintain a branch, and
does not become a branch of such bank as a result of:
* * * * *
(f) Remote service unit (RSU) is an automated or unstaffed
facility, operated by a customer of a bank with at most delimited
assistance from bank personnel, that conducts banking

[[Page 33909]]

functions such as receiving deposits, paying withdrawals, or lending
money. An RSU includes an automated teller machine, automated loan
machine, automated device for receiving deposits, personal computer,
telephone, other similar electronic devices, and drop boxes. An RSU may
be equipped with a telephone or tele-video device that allows contact
with bank personnel.
0
6. Amend Sec. 303.42 by revising paragraph (a), revising and
republishing paragraph (b), and revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 303.42 Filing procedures.

(a) General. Filings shall be submitted to the appropriate FDIC
office.
(b) Content of filing. A complete letter filing shall include the
following information:
(1) A statement of intent to establish a branch, or to relocate the
main office or a branch;
(2) The exact location of the proposed site including the street
address. With regard to messenger services, specify the geographic area
in which the services will be available. With regard to a mobile branch
specify the community or communities in which the vehicle will operate
and the manner in which it will be used;
(3) When a filing is submitted to relocate the main office of the
bank from one State to another, a statement of the bank's intent
regarding retention of branches in the State where the main office
exists prior to relocation; and
(4) With respect to a branch relocation or a main office
relocation, confirmation that advance written notice was provided to
customers of the branch or main office being relocated.
(c) Undercapitalized institutions. Filings to establish a branch by
banks subject to section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o) also
should provide the information required by Sec. 303.204. Filings
pursuant to sections 38 and 18(d) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o and
1828(d)) may be filed concurrently or as a single filing.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 303.43 by revising paragraph (a), redesignating
paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (b), and
revising the newly redesignated paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 303.43 Processing.

(a) Expedited processing for branch establishments. Filings to
establish a branch by an eligible depository institution as defined in
Sec. 303.2(r) will be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC and will
receive expedited processing. A filing processed under expedited
processing will be deemed approved on the later of the following:
(1) The third business day after receipt by the FDIC of a
substantially complete filing; or
(2) In the case of a filing to establish and operate a de novo
interstate branch, the 5th day after the FDIC receives confirmation
from the host State that the bank has both complied with the filing
requirements of the host State and submitted a copy of its filing with
the FDIC to the host State bank supervisor.
(b) Expedited processing for branch relocations and main office
relocations. Filings for intrastate branch relocations or intrastate
main office relocations will be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC and
will receive expedited processing if the bank received an FDIC-assigned
composite rating of 3 or better under the Uniform Financial
Institutions Rating System as a result of its most recent federal or
state examination. A filing processed under expedited processing will
be deemed approved on the third business day after receipt by the FDIC
of a substantially complete filing.
(c) Standard processing. For those filings that are not processed
pursuant to the expedited procedures, the FDIC will provide the bank
with written notification of the final action when the decision is
rendered.
0
8. Remove Sec. 303.44, redesignate Sec. 303.45 as Sec. 303.44 and
revise to read as follows:

Sec. 303.44 Special provisions.

(a) Emergency or disaster events.
(1) In the case of an emergency or disaster at a main office or a
branch that requires that an office be immediately relocated to a
temporary location, banks shall notify the appropriate FDIC office
within 3 days of such temporary relocation.
(2) Within 10 days of the temporary relocation resulting from an
emergency or disaster, the bank shall submit a filing to the
appropriate FDIC office, that identifies the nature of the emergency or
disaster, specifies the location of the temporary branch, and provides
an estimate of the duration the bank plans to operate the temporary
branch.
(3) As part of the review process, the FDIC will determine on a
case by case basis whether additional information is necessary.
(b) Redesignation of main office and existing branch. In cases
where a bank desires to redesignate its main office as a branch and
redesignate an existing branch as the main office, a single filing
shall be submitted.
(c) Expiration of approval. Approval of a filing expires if within
18 months after the approval date a branch has not commenced business
or a relocation has not been completed.
0
9. Redesignate Sec. 303.46 as Sec. 303.45 and revise the introductory
text to read as follows:

Sec. 303.45 Financial education programs that include the provision
of bank products and services.

No filing or prior approval is required in order for a State
nonmember bank to participate in one or more financial education
programs that involve receiving deposits, paying withdrawals, or
lending money if:
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 303.184 by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d),
respectively; and
0
d. Revising and republishing newly redesignated paragraphs (c) and (d).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 303.184 Moving an insured branch of a foreign bank.

(a) Filing procedures--
(1) Where and when to file. A filing by an insured branch of a
foreign bank seeking the FDIC's consent to move from one location to
another, as required by section 18(d)(1) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
1828(d)(1)), shall be submitted in writing to the appropriate FDIC
office.
(2) Content of filing. A complete letter filing shall include the
exact location of the proposed site, including the street address.
(3) Comptroller's application. If the filer is submitting an
application with the Comptroller that contains the information required
by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the filer may submit a copy to the
FDIC in lieu of a separate filing.
(4) Additional information. The FDIC may request additional
information to complete processing.
(b) Processing--
(1) Expedited processing for eligible insured branches. A filing
submitted by an eligible insured branch as defined in Sec. 303.181(c)
will be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC and will receive expedited
processing if the filer is proposing to move within the same State. A
filing processed under expedited processing will be deemed approved on
the third business day after the FDIC's receipt of a substantially
complete filing.
(2) Standard processing. For those filings that are not processed
pursuant to the expedited procedures, the FDIC

[[Page 33910]]

will provide the filer with written notification of the final action as
soon as the decision is rendered.
(c) Other approval criteria.
(1) The FDIC may approve a filing under this section if the
criteria in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section are
satisfied.
(i) The factors set forth in section 6 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
1816) have been considered and favorably resolved;
(ii) The filer is at least adequately capitalized as defined in
subpart H of part 324 of this chapter;
(iii) Any financial arrangements that have been made in connection
with the proposed relocation and that involve the filer's directors,
officers, major shareholders, or their interests are fair and
reasonable in comparison to similar arrangements that could have been
made with independent third parties;
(iv) Compliance with the CRA and any applicable related
regulations, including part 345 of this chapter, has been considered
and favorably resolved;
(v) No CRA protest as defined in Sec. 303.2(l) has been filed that
remains unresolved or, where such a protest has been filed and remains
unresolved, the Director or designee concurs that approval is
consistent with the purposes of the CRA and the filer agrees in writing
to any conditions imposed regarding the CRA; and
(vi) The filer agrees in writing to comply with any conditions
imposed by the FDIC, other than the standard conditions defined in
Sec. 303.2(dd) that may be imposed without the filer's written
consent.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Relocation of insured branch from one State to another. If the
foreign bank proposes to relocate an insured State branch to a State
that is outside the State where the branch is presently located, in
addition to meeting the approval criteria contained in paragraph (c) of
this section, the foreign bank must:
(1) Comply with any applicable State laws or regulations of the
States affected by the proposed relocation; and
(2) Obtain any required regulatory approvals from the appropriate
State licensing authority of the State to which the insured branch
proposes to relocate before relocating the existing branch operations
and surrendering its existing license to the appropriate State
licensing authority of the State from which the branch is relocating.

PART 345--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT

0
11. The authority citation for part 345 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1814-1817, 1819-1820, 1828, 1831u, 2901-
2908, 3103-3104, and 3108(a).

0
12. In appendix G to part 345, revise Sec. 345.29(c) to read as
follows:

Appendix G to Part 345--Community Reinvestment Regulations

* * * * *

Sec. 345.29 Effect of CRA performance on applications.

* * * * *
(c) Interested parties. The FDIC takes into account any views
expressed by interested parties that are submitted in accordance with
the FDIC's procedures set forth in part 303 of this chapter in
considering CRA performance in an application listed in paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) and (b) of this section.
* * * * *

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, on July 15, 2025.
Debra A. Decker,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-13568 Filed 7-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 18, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.