Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-22495

Proposed Rule2026-22495

Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization

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

November 4, 2026

Issuing agencies

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Abstract

The FDIC is seeking comment on a proposal that would: remove the regulation regarding recordkeeping for timely deposit insurance determination; revise the regulation regarding large-bank deposit insurance determination modernization to modify the requirements that, following rescission of the preceding regulation, would generally apply to institutions currently subject to the preceding regulation, with certain modifications, and clarify its requirements to better align the burdens of the rule with the benefits; and revise the regulation regarding indexing of specified regulatory thresholds to index the thresholds to inflation in the regulation regarding large-bank deposit insurance determination modernization.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 212 (Wednesday, November 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 4, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69642-69684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22495]

[[Page 69641]]

Vol. 91

Wednesday,

No. 212

November 4, 2026

Part II

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

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

12 CFR Parts 314, 360, and 370

Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 4, 2026 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 69642]]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Parts 314, 360, and 370

RIN 3064-AG35

Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FDIC is seeking comment on a proposal that would: remove
the regulation regarding recordkeeping for timely deposit insurance
determination; revise the regulation regarding large-bank deposit
insurance determination modernization to modify the requirements that,
following rescission of the preceding regulation, would generally apply
to institutions currently subject to the preceding regulation, with
certain modifications, and clarify its requirements to better align the
burdens of the rule with the benefits; and revise the regulation
regarding indexing of specified regulatory thresholds to index the
thresholds to inflation in the regulation regarding large-bank deposit
insurance determination modernization.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 4, 2027.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the notice of proposed
rulemaking, identified by RIN 3064-AG35, by any of the following
methods:
<bullet> Agency website: <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/">https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/</a>. Follow instructions for
submitting comments on the FDIC's website.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0939f9d9d959e8483b096949993de979f86">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include ``RIN 3064-AG35'' in the
subject line of the message.
<bullet> Mail: Jennifer M. Jones, Deputy Executive Secretary,
Attention: Comments/Legal OES (RIN 3064-AG35), Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
<bullet> Hand Delivery/Courier: 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 7:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.
Public Inspection: All comments received, including any personal
information provided, will 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.
This proposal, all comments received, and a summary of not more
than 100 words of the proposal pursuant to the Providing Accountability
Through Transparency Act of 2023 are available at <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications">https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shivali Nangia, Deputy Director,
Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2d1ccc3ccc5cbc3e2c4c6cbc18cc5cdd4">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Eli
Engelbourg, Chief, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, 703-562-
6341, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4a1a1aaa3a1a8a6abb1b6a384a2a0ada7eaa3abb2">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Ryan P. Tetrick, Deputy Director, Division
of Complex Institution Supervision and Resolution, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deacaabbaaacb7bdb59eb8bab7bdf0b9b1a8">[email&#160;protected]</a>;
Luis A. Mayorga, Chief, Division of Complex Institution Supervision and
Resolution, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cda1a0acb4a2bfaaac8daba9a4aee3aaa2bb">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Karen L. Main, Senior Counsel, Legal
Division, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#177c767a767e795771737e7439707861">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Shane Kiernan, Counsel, Legal Division,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1b2aaa8a4b3afa0af81a7a5a8a2efa6aeb7">[email&#160;protected]</a>; F. Angus Tarpley III, Counsel, Legal Division,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c3d1c4d7d5c9c0dce5c3c1ccc68bc2cad3">[email&#160;protected]</a>; Andrew J. Yu, Counsel, Legal Division,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1a0afb8b481a7a5a8a2efa6aeb7">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Policy Objectives
II. Background
A. Section 360.9
B. Part 370
III. Rescission of Part 370
IV. Amendments to Section 360.9
A. Scope and Purpose
B. Modified and New Definitions
C. Posting and Removing Provisional Holds
D. Depositor and Customer Data in a Standard Format
E. Actions Required by Larger Covered Institutions for Certain
Deposit Accounts With Transactional Features
F. Implementation Requirements
G. Extensions, Exemptions, and Release
H. Records Retention
I. Indexing Thresholds
V. Expected Effects
A. Introduction and Baseline Assumptions
B. Scope of Affected Entities
C. Effects Specific to Part 370 IDIs
D. Effects on Covered Institutions, the Deposit Insurance Fund,
and Depositors
E. Indexing Thresholds
F. Conclusion
VI. Alternatives Considered
VII. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act
D. Plain Language
E. Executive Orders 12866 and 14192

I. Policy Objectives

The policy objective of the proposal is to rebalance the FDIC's
framework for making prompt deposit insurance determinations in the
event of a failure of a large insured depository institution (IDI).
Specifically, the proposal would remove 12 CFR part 370, the FDIC's
rule entitled ``Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance
Determination'' (part 370), and no longer require IDIs subject to that
rule to configure their information technology systems (IT systems) to
be capable of calculating deposit insurance coverage, while preserving
measures intended to enable the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance
coverage for such IDIs ``as soon as possible'' in the event of their
failure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See 12 U.S.C. 1821(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC also proposes to amend 12 CFR 360.9, the FDIC's rule
entitled ``Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization''
(Sec. 360.9) in order to improve the FDIC's ability to meet its
statutory obligations, particularly its obligation to pay deposit
insurance as soon as possible either by cash or by making available to
each depositor a transferred deposit in a new insured depository
institution.\2\ This proposed amendment would not add additional burden
or affect the requirements applicable to IDIs currently subject to
Sec. 360.9, but would, among other things, require an IDI having at
least $2 billion in deposits and two million or more deposit accounts
(generally, IDIs currently subject to part 370) to maintain and provide
to the FDIC certain depositor and customer data needed for the FDIC to
calculate deposit insurance in the event of the IDI's failure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See id.
\3\ Currently, when an IDI becomes subject to part 370 by having
two million or more deposit accounts and submits its part 370
compliance certification to the FDIC, the IDI is released from the
requirements of Sec. 360.9. 12 CFR 370.8(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since first adopting part 370 in 2016, the FDIC has enhanced its
own systems and capabilities related to calculating deposit insurance
and making deposit insurance determinations. The FDIC believes that
with this improvement to

[[Page 69643]]

its internal capacity, the FDIC can reduce regulatory burden by
rescinding part 370 without materially impeding the FDIC's ability to
calculate deposit insurance. Part 370 is generally a more burdensome
regulatory framework than Sec. 360.9, especially for new entrants to
part 370, who must build and maintain their own IT systems capable of
calculating deposit insurance in-house and maintain a broader set of
information in deposit account records than is required under Sec.
360.9.

II. Background

A. Section 360.9

When the FDIC began the rulemaking process to develop the current
Sec. 360.9, the FDIC recognized that the increased number of deposit
accounts, greater geographic dispersion of depositors, more diversity
of data systems, and potential data consistency challenges at larger
institutions created challenges for the FDIC in conducting a deposit
insurance determination in the event of failure. In addition, the FDIC
understood that the process of deposit insurance determination was
inherently complex and dependent upon the complete and accurate deposit
account records of the failed IDI. Consistent with the statutory
requirement to provide access to insured deposits ``as soon as
possible,'' the FDIC has typically been able to allow most depositors
access to their insured deposits on the next business day after a
bank's failure. In an effort to maintain this standard, the FDIC began
considering new methods to modernize the deposit insurance
determination process and stated in a 2005 advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) that its goals were to ``minimize disruption to
depositors and communities, and maximize recoveries'' for the Deposit
Insurance Fund (DIF) in the event of a failure of a large IDI.\4\ The
FDIC considered the limitations of its then current processes in light
of the larger institutions resulting from mergers and internal growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 70 FR 73652 (Dec. 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2005 ANPR requested comment on options for enhancing the speed
at which depositors at more complex IDIs would receive access to their
funds in the event of failure.\5\ In response to public comment, the
FDIC published a second ANPR focusing on less costly and less
burdensome alternatives.\6\ In January 2008, the FDIC then published a
notice of proposed rulemaking composed of two parts addressing (1)
issues involving the FDIC's practices for determining deposit and other
liability account balances at a failed IDI, and (2) a requirement for
certain IDIs to adopt mechanisms that would, in the event of the IDI's
failure, provide the FDIC with standard depositor and customer
information and allow the FDIC to place and release holds on liability
accounts, including deposits.\7\ In July 2008, the FDIC adopted a final
rule in a form similar to the proposal.\8\ Currently, Sec. 360.9
applies only to an IDI if, based on its Reports of Condition and Income
(Call Report), it has at least $2 billion in deposits and at least
either: 250,000 deposit accounts or $20 billion in total assets,
regardless of the number of deposit accounts (these IDIs are defined as
``covered institutions'' in Sec. 360.9).\9\ Section 360.9 requires
covered institutions to have in place mechanisms that would, in the
event of the IDI's failure, provide the FDIC with depositor and
customer information in a standard data format and allow the automated
placement and release of provisional holds on liability accounts,
including deposits.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Id.
\6\ 71 FR 74857 (Dec. 13, 2006).
\7\ 73 FR 2364 (Jan. 14, 2008).
\8\ 73 FR 41180 (July 17, 2008).
\9\ 12 CFR 360.9(b)(1).
\10\ 12 CFR 360.9(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC's ability to provide depositors prompt access to insured
deposits and determine the insurance status of depositors in a failed
IDI in a timely manner is a critical element for ensuring a least-
costly resolution and maintaining public confidence. The requirements
of Sec. 360.9 provide essential support for the FDIC to meet its
statutory obligations, including paying deposit insurance ``as soon as
possible'' following the failure of an IDI and resolving the IDI in the
manner least costly to the DIF.\11\ The FDIC believes that the proposed
amendments to Sec. 360.9 will help the FDIC to continue to meet these
objectives, especially for larger and more complex IDIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 12 U.S.C. 1821(f)(1); 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Part 370

In 2015, the FDIC issued an ANPR seeking comment on whether certain
IDIs such as those that have two million or more deposit accounts
should be required to take steps to ensure that depositors would have
access to their FDIC-insured funds in a timely manner (usually within
one business day after failure) if one of these institutions were to
fail.\12\ Specifically, the FDIC sought comment on whether these IDIs
should be required to enhance their recordkeeping to maintain, and be
able to provide, substantially more accurate and complete data on each
depositor's ownership interest by right and capacity for all, or a
large subset, of the institution's deposit accounts. The FDIC also
sought comment on whether these IDIs' IT systems should have the
capability to calculate the insured and uninsured amounts for each
depositor by deposit insurance category for all, or a substantial
subset of, deposit accounts at the end of any business day. The FDIC
then published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking,\13\ considered all of the comments received, and adopted a
final rule in 2016 to facilitate prompt payment of FDIC-insured
deposits when IDIs with two million or more deposit accounts fail.\14\
This 2016 final rule required each IDI that has two million or more
deposit accounts to configure its IT system to be capable of
calculating deposit insurance in the event of the IDI's failure and
maintain complete and accurate information needed by the FDIC to
determine deposit insurance coverage with respect to each deposit
account. These IDIs were released from the requirements of Sec. 360.9
upon complying with the requirements of part 370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 80 FR 23478 (April 28, 2015).
\13\ 81 FR 10026 (Feb. 26, 2016).
\14\ 81 FR 87734 (Dec. 5, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In April 2019, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
soliciting public comment on its proposal to make certain substantive
revisions to part 370 to clarify the requirements, better align its
burdens with its benefits, and make technical changes.\15\ The FDIC
then promulgated a final rule seeking to address many of the issues
identified by commenters regarding components of part 370 that were
unclear or unduly burdensome.\16\ Part 370 requires each IDI that has
two million or more deposit accounts to develop its IT systems to be
capable of calculating the insured and uninsured amount in each deposit
account by ownership right and capacity, which would be used by the
FDIC to make deposit insurance determinations in the event of the IDI's
failure.\17\ Part 370 also requires these IDIs to maintain complete and
accurate information needed by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance
coverage with respect to each deposit account.\18\ However, alternative
recordkeeping standards are permitted for certain types of accounts for
which the covered institution does not otherwise maintain complete
information needed for a

[[Page 69644]]

deposit insurance determination.\19\ Part 370 also prescribes the file
types, data fields, and allowable values the IDIs' IT systems must
produce.\20\ Additionally, part 370 provides for regular certification
of compliance and periodic FDIC compliance testing.\21\ Once an IDI
submits its compliance certification under part 370, it is
automatically released from having to comply with Sec. 360.9.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 84 FR 14814 (April 11, 2019).
\16\ 84 FR 37020 (July 30, 2019).
\17\ See id.
\18\ See id.
\19\ See 12 CFR 370.4 (recordkeeping requirements) and 12 CFR
370.5 (certain deposit accounts with transactional features).
\20\ See 12 CFR part 370, Appendices A through C.
\21\ See 12 CFR 370.10.
\22\ See 12 CFR 370.8(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC adopted part 370 to enhance the FDIC's ability to pay
deposit insurance ``as soon as possible'' as required under section
11(f) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) for these larger
and more complex IDIs. Though section 11(f) of the FDI Act does not
specify a time limit for paying insured deposits, the FDIC strives to
pay deposit insurance promptly after an IDI failure and expects to make
most insured deposits available by the next business day after IDI
failure.\23\ The FDIC adopted part 370 to address concerns that, at the
time of an IDI's failure, deposit account records and data may be
inconsistent, incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to support timely
and accurate deposit insurance determinations. The rule also was
intended to mitigate limitations in FDIC systems to process the volume
of accounts associated with the failure of a large IDI. To address
these concerns, part 370 requires covered institutions to develop and
maintain the recordkeeping and information technology capabilities
necessary to support the FDIC's resolution functions in the event of
failure. The dual problems of incomplete depositor records and a much
larger and more complex IDI could result in deposit insurance
determinations being significantly delayed, particularly if a very
large IDI fails with little warning.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ See 81 FR 87734 at 87735.
\24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed below, the FDIC believes that the significant
advancements in the FDIC's capabilities and systems, together with
planned expansion of those capabilities, have improved the FDIC's
ability to promptly determine deposit insurance coverage for depositors
of large and complex failed IDIs to the point that, when coupled with
the requirements in the proposed revised Sec. 360.9, the FDIC would be
able to perform the deposit insurance determination promptly without
the need for the requirements set forth in part 370.

III. Rescission of Part 370

The FDIC is proposing to remove and reserve part 370 of the FDIC's
regulations. The FDIC believes that advancements in the FDIC's own
capabilities and systems related to deposit insurance determinations
render it unnecessary for the largest IDIs to build and maintain their
own IT systems capable of calculating deposit insurance coverage if
they comply with the provisions of Sec. 360.9 as outlined in this
proposal. When combined with the revision of Sec. 360.9 as outlined in
this proposal, part 370 can therefore be removed from the FDIC's
regulations without materially impeding the FDIC's ability to calculate
deposit insurance. The FDIC believes that removing part 370 would also
reduce the net burden on the IDIs currently subject to part 370. For
example, these IDIs will no longer have to maintain certain depositor
and customer data and operate, maintain, continuously enhance, and
remediate deficiencies in their IT systems to be capable of calculating
deposit insurance coverage within 24 hours after the appointment of the
FDIC as receiver.\25\ As described in greater detail below, specified
recordkeeping requirements for certain deposit account information
under part 370 would be preserved for larger and more complex IDIs
under the proposal.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See 12 CFR 370.3.
\26\ 12 CFR part 360, Appendices C through G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 370 provides that an IDI that is subject to part 370 is
released from the provisional hold and standard data format
requirements of Sec. 360.9 upon submitting to the FDIC its part 370
compliance certification.\27\ Such an IDI that is released from Sec.
360.9 under part 370 remains released for so long as it is subject to
part 370. If part 370 were to be removed as the FDIC is now proposing,
then an IDI that was a covered institution under part 370 would no
longer be subject to part 370 and would need to comply with Sec. 360.9
despite its prior release, including the development or redevelopment
of provisional hold capabilities (provided such IDI is a covered
institution as defined under Sec. 360.9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ 12 CFR 370.8(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rescission
of part 370. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the following
aspects of the proposal:
(1) What are the anticipated impacts of transitioning to a Sec.
360.9 format and data structure?
(2) Are there any reasons why the FDIC should consider not
rescinding part 370? If so, please explain.

IV. Amendments to Section 360.9

A. Scope and Purpose

The FDIC is undertaking this notice of proposed rulemaking to amend
Sec. 360.9. Section 360.9 would apply to all IDIs that have at least
$2 billion in deposits and at least either: 250,000 deposit accounts;
or $20 billion in total assets, regardless of the number of deposit
accounts (covered institutions). The proposal would add a new defined
term, larger covered institution, to Sec. 360.9. A larger covered
institution would be defined as a covered institution with at least $2
billion in deposits and two million or more deposit accounts.\28\ The
proposal would, among other things:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Under the proposal, larger covered institutions are a
subset of covered institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Apply the requirements of Sec. 360.9 to larger covered
institutions;
<bullet> Require larger covered institutions to collect and
maintain complete and accurate depositor and customer data for certain
mandatory data fields unless otherwise provided for;
<bullet> Provide for a larger covered institution to request an
exemption from the standard data requirements;
<bullet> Include a safe harbor provision for covered institutions
that have submitted a request for exemption or extension while awaiting
the FDIC's response;
<bullet> Provide for automatic release from the requirements of
Sec. 360.9 if it falls below the covered institution threshold for
three consecutive quarters;
<bullet> Clarify the definition of foreign deposits and related
terminology to conform with 12 CFR part 330; and
<bullet> Make corrections and technical and conforming changes.
The proposal would index, but not otherwise change, the thresholds
for an IDI to become a covered institution. The proposal would neither
include any new requirement nor impose any additional burden on any IDI
currently subject to Sec. 360.9.
The FDIC proposes to include IDIs that are currently subject to
part 370 within the scope of the revised Sec. 360.9 to facilitate
prompt payment of FDIC-insured deposits should one of these
institutions fail and to reduce compliance burdens for these IDIs. As
noted above, these IDIs would no longer be required to operate and
maintain IT systems capable of promptly calculating deposit insurance
coverage, as the FDIC would instead rely on its own internal IT system
to calculate deposit insurance. These IDIs would also become subject to
the recordkeeping

[[Page 69645]]

and provisional hold requirements of Sec. 360.9 if revised as
proposed.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the scope of the
proposal. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the following
aspects of the proposal:
(3) Do commenters agree with the proposed threshold for larger
covered institutions? Should the FDIC consider an alternative
threshold? If so, why and how should the larger covered institution
threshold be changed?
(4) Should the FDIC consider changing the threshold for covered
institutions that would not be larger covered institutions? If so, why
and how should the threshold be changed?

B. Modified and New Definitions

Section 360.9(b) contains the definition of terms used throughout
Sec. 360.9. The proposal would add or revise the following
definitions:
Deposit. The term ``deposit'' would be added as a defined term and
would have the same meaning as provided under section 3(l) of the FDI
Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)).
Deposit account records. The term ``deposit account records'' would
be added as a defined term and would have the meaning given that term
in 12 CFR 330.1(e).
Foreign deposits and related terminology. The FDIC proposes to
revise the definition of foreign deposits and add new definitions for
``dually payable deposit,'' ``domestic deposit,'' ``domestic deposit
account,'' and ``foreign deposit account.'' Subsequent to the
promulgation of the current Sec. 360.9, the FDIC clarified the
treatment of liabilities in foreign offices of U.S. IDIs for the
purpose of insurance coverage and priority in resolution.\29\ That
rulemaking clarified the treatment of a ``dually payable deposit,''
which is a liability held in a foreign office of a U.S. IDI that (1)
would be a deposit if carried on the books and records of the IDI in
the United States and (2) is expressly payable in the United States.
Such dually payable deposits receive treatment as deposits for purposes
of priority in resolution, but do not receive deposit insurance
coverage. Under this proposed rulemaking, ``foreign deposits'' would
include any dually payable deposit together with any liability held in
a foreign office of a U.S. IDI that (1) would be a deposit if carried
on the books and records of the IDI in the United States and (2) is not
expressly payable in the United States. Foreign deposits that are not
dually payable are not treated as deposits for purposes of priority in
resolution and do not receive deposit insurance coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See final rule Deposit Insurance Regulations; Definition of
Insured Deposits, 78 FR 56583 (Sept. 13, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term ``domestic deposit'' in this proposal would be defined as
any deposit other than a dually payable deposit. New definitions have
also been added for ``deposit account,'' ``domestic deposit account,''
and ``foreign deposit account.'' These new and revised terms correspond
to reporting requirements throughout the rule, including in Sec.
360.9(c), ``Posting and removing provisional holds;'' Appendix C,
``Deposit File Structure;'' and Appendix D, ``Sweep/Automated Credit
Account File Structure.'' The distinction between domestic deposits,
foreign deposits, domestic deposit accounts, and foreign deposit
accounts is intended to correspond to how covered institutions maintain
their deposits and deposit accounts within the United States and at
foreign offices, and therefore how covered institutions can most easily
report on such activities for purposes of Appendices C and D.
Transactional features. The term ``transactional features'' would
be added as a defined term and would have substantively the same
meaning as the definition contained in 12 CFR 370.2(j). Transactional
features with respect to a deposit account would mean that the account
holder or the beneficial owner of deposits can make a transfer from the
deposit account to a party other than the account holder, beneficial
owner of deposits, or the larger covered institution itself, by a
method that may result in such transfer being reflected in the end-of-
day ledger balance for such deposit account on a day that is later than
the day that such transfer is initiated, even if initiated prior to the
larger covered institution's normal cutoff time for such transaction. A
deposit account also has transactional features if preauthorized or
automatic instructions provide for transfer of deposits in the deposit
account to another deposit account at the same institution, if such
other deposit account itself has transactional features.
Notwithstanding the proposed rescission of part 370, the FDIC continues
to recognize the importance of timely deposit insurance determinations
for accounts with transactional features and proposes to require larger
covered institutions to take actions for certain deposit accounts with
transactional features, as discussed in Section IV.E.
Account holder. The term ``account holder'' would be added as a
defined term and would have the same meaning as in 12 CFR 370.2(a), and
would, therefore, mean the person or entity who has opened a deposit
account with a covered institution and with whom the covered
institution has a direct legal and contractual relationship with
respect to the deposit.
The proposal would make technical edits to the definitions,
including ``covered institution'' and ``international banking facility
deposit'' (IBF deposit), but these changes would not substantively
affect the definitions or the requirements of Sec. 360.9.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the proposed
definitions. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the following
aspects of the proposal:
(5) Are there any other terms that should be defined or clarified
in the proposal? If so, how should the term be defined and how would it
provide clarity to the proposal?

C. Posting and Removing Provisional Holds

The proposal would not change any of the provisional hold
requirements of Sec. 360.9 for covered institutions. However, the
proposal would require IDIs currently subject to part 370 to transition
to complying with Sec. 360.9. Therefore, the proposal would require
larger covered institutions to be able to place and remove provisional
holds in the manner specified under Sec. 360.9.
One of the FDIC's chief objectives in adopting Sec. 360.9 was to
require covered institutions to develop a mechanism to facilitate the
FDIC's ability to provide liquidity to the failed bank's depositors
soon after the IDI's failure while the FDIC completed its deposit
insurance determinations. All IDIs currently subject to part 370 that
would become larger covered institutions were previously subject to the
requirements of Sec. 360.9 and therefore should be familiar with this
requirement. However, since becoming part 370 covered institutions,
these larger institutions have not been required to maintain the
provisional hold capabilities required under Sec. 360.9.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Part 370 requires a part 370 IDI to have an IT system
capable of restricting access to some or all of the deposits in a
deposit account until the FDIC has made its deposit insurance
determination. 12 CFR 370.3(b)(3). This requirement is similar to,
but not the same as, the Sec. 360.9 provisional hold requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the FDIC adopted part 370, the FDIC did not retain the
provisional hold requirements for part 370 IDIs in light of the facts
that (1) IDIs covered by part 370 would be subject to substantial
additional burden to develop and maintain IT systems capable of
calculating deposit insurance and (2) the FDIC believed provisional
hold

[[Page 69646]]

capabilities would be less likely to be needed due to an enhanced
ability to complete prompt deposit insurance determinations. However,
under part 370, IDIs still are not able to calculate deposit insurance
for all accounts promptly upon failure, suggesting that provisional
hold capabilities may still be relevant. As noted below, the FDIC is
seeking comment on applying the provisional hold requirements to larger
covered institutions.
The FDIC invites comments on the proposal to apply the requirement
to post and remove provisional holds to larger covered institutions. In
particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the following aspects of the
proposal:
(6) Should the FDIC consider any changes to the provisional hold
requirements? If so, how should the provisional hold requirements be
amended?
(7) Do commenters agree that larger covered institutions should be
subject to the provisional hold requirements of the proposal? Should
larger covered institutions be subject to a different hold requirement
that is similar to part 370? If so, why?

D. Depositor and Customer Data in a Standard Format

The proposal would not change the ``standard'' \31\ depositor and
customer data required under Sec. 360.9 for covered institutions.
However, the proposal would require larger covered institutions to meet
the standard data requirements as well as additional data requirements,
as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ 12 CFR 360.9(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 360.9 requires a covered institution to have in place
practices and procedures to provide the FDIC with depositor and
customer data in a standard format following the close of any day's
business. Consistent with the description in the 2008 final rule
preamble, the FDIC expects the depositor and customer data to be
provided as soon as practicable, but no later than the following
calendar day, and to reflect the end-of-day ledger balances customarily
shown on the covered institution's books and records as of the day the
data are requested.\32\ Additionally, all other depositor and customer
data provided must be current as of the close of business on that day.
As stated in the 2008 final rule preamble, ``[c]overed [i]nstitutions
are not required to collect or generate new depositor or customer
information. The standard data files are created through a mapping of
pre-existing data elements and internal institution codes into standard
data formats.'' \33\ Under Sec. 360.9, covered institutions must
provide the depositor and customer data in the required standard data
format prescribed by the FDIC if the covered institution has the
information, but it does not need to collect this information if it
does not already maintain it. Data is to be provided on all non-closed
domestic deposit accounts or foreign deposit accounts as well as sweep
account arrangements and automated credit account arrangements. Under
the proposal, the data files still must be provided to the FDIC in the
most expeditious manner. Additional data that may be helpful to the
FDIC's deposit insurance determination process but not required by the
regulation may also be provided by a covered institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ 73 FR 41180 at 41191.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larger covered institutions would be required to comply with
additional standard data requirements; specifically, 26 data fields
would be mandatory for these IDIs. These data fields are the ones that
are most critical for the FDIC to conduct a prompt deposit insurance
determination. Of the 26 data fields, 21 fields are currently required
to be populated in the part 370 output files. The remaining five
mandatory data fields are currently included in Sec. 360.9 but are not
explicitly required by part 370. Considering that part 370 generally
requires banks to maintain complete and accurate information needed to
calculate deposit insurance coverage with respect to each deposit
account except as otherwise provided in the rule, the FDIC expects that
larger covered institutions already have this information readily
available as part of their customary banking operations. These five
data fields are: (1) deposit type indicator (domestic vs foreign
deposit); (2) customer ownership indicator at the account level (which
is very similar to a part 370 requirement); (3) account title (as
titled on the bank records); (4) relationship code to identify how
customers are related to the account; and (5) beneficiary code to
identify the type of account used for agent, custodian, or trustee
relationships. Overall, the FDIC expects that the aggregate data
reporting requirements under revised Sec. 360.9 would be materially
less burdensome than under part 370.
These mandatory data fields would be required only for larger
covered institutions under the proposal.\34\ If a larger covered
institution does not have the required depositor and customer data
needed to populate these 26 mandatory data fields, then the larger
covered institution must collect and maintain such data in its deposit
account records for each account, except for certain types of accounts.
The FDIC believes that given the size and complexity of the larger
covered institutions, obtaining this information will facilitate the
FDIC's ability to calculate deposit insurance using its own internal IT
systems and make a deposit insurance determination. A larger covered
institution should, in the normal course of business, already have in
its deposit account records the necessary information to populate these
mandatory data fields for, among others, deposit accounts that would be
insured as: single ownership accounts; joint ownership accounts;
accounts owned by a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated
association; or informal revocable trust (i.e., ``payable-on-death'' or
``in-trust-for'') accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ The proposal includes a new column in Appendices C through
G of part 360 identifying whether the data fields are mandatory for
the larger covered institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although this proposed requirement to populate fields in the
additional column would not apply to covered institutions that are not
larger covered institutions, historical experience suggests covered
institutions will generally have most or all of the information for
these 26 mandatory data fields. A covered institution that is not a
larger covered institution would not be required to collect additional
information that it does not already have in its deposit account
records in order to populate any of the Sec. 360.9 data fields.
Covered institutions must provide information for all the data fields
if the covered institution already maintains the information needed to
populate the data fields. Similarly, a larger covered institution would
be required to provide the information in the standard data format for
the non-mandatory data fields if the larger covered institution already
has this information. The larger covered institution does not need to
collect any information that it does not already have in order to
populate these non-mandatory data fields.
The proposal recognizes that under the FDIC's deposit insurance
coverage rule, 12 CFR part 330, if an IDI's deposit account records
disclose the existence of a relationship that might provide a basis for
additional deposit insurance, then the details of the relationship must
be ascertainable from either the IDI's deposit account records or from
records maintained by the depositor or by a

[[Page 69647]]

third party that has undertaken to maintain such records for the
depositor.\35\ Accordingly, under the proposal, to the extent that a
larger covered institution does not already maintain the information
needed to populate the mandatory data fields in the files required
under Sec. 360.9, the larger covered institution would not be required
to collect additional depositor and customer data to populate the
mandatory data fields for: (1) deposit accounts for which a larger
covered institution's deposit account records disclose the existence of
a relationship which might provide a basis for additional deposit
insurance in accordance with 12 CFR 330.5 or 330.7; and (2) formal
revocable trust accounts and irrevocable trust accounts insured as
described in 12 CFR 330.10 and irrevocable trust accounts insured as
described in 12 CFR 330.12. This proposed provision is similar to the
alternative recordkeeping provision of part 370.\36\ Larger covered
institutions would populate the data fields in Appendices C through G
with the information they already maintain for these types of deposit
accounts and would not need to collect additional information. If a
larger covered institution maintains the information needed to populate
the 26 mandatory data fields for these accounts, then Sec.
360.9(d)(1)(iii) would not apply and the larger covered institution
would be required to report in the appendices the information necessary
for deposit insurance determination in accordance with Sec.
360.9(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See 12 CFR 330.5 concerning recognition of deposit
ownership and fiduciary relationships; 12 CFR 330.7 concerning
accounts held by an agent, nominee, guardian, custodian, or
conservator; and 12 CFR 330.10 concerning revocable and irrevocable
trust accounts.
\36\ See 12 CFR 370.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposal also adds two new non-mandatory data fields that would
apply only to larger covered institutions in Appendix C of part 360.
IDIs that would be larger covered institutions under the proposal are
currently required to maintain this information in their deposit
account records under part 370, so these fields would not be new to the
initial larger covered institutions. These fields are indicators
showing (1) whether a customer owes debt to the covered institution for
FDIC offset purposes and (2) for government customers, whether the
institution has pledged securities to cover any deposit-insurance
shortfall. If a larger covered institution does not maintain the
information in its deposit account records to populate these non-
mandatory data fields, then the institution does not need to collect
this information solely for compliance with Sec. 360.9.
The FDIC proposal does not change the existing Sec. 360.9
requirements for covered institutions currently subject to those
requirements. The FDIC also has added a standard data exemption
provision for larger covered institutions as described below in Section
IV.G.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the proposed standard
depositor and customer data requirements. In particular, the FDIC seeks
comment on the following aspects of the proposal:
(8) Should the FDIC require larger covered institutions to maintain
any other data fields in the proposal? If so, what data fields should
be included and how would this information be useful? Are there any
data fields the FDIC should not require?
(9) Are there any data fields that the FDIC should consider
revising or clarifying without adding burden on covered institutions?
If so, how should these fields be changed?
(10) Are there any other types of deposit accounts for which the
FDIC should change the requirement for larger covered institutions to
populate mandatory data fields? What types of deposit accounts would
those be? How should they be described or defined to ensure clarity?

E. Actions Required by Larger Covered Institutions for Certain Deposit
Accounts With Transactional Features

The proposal would require that larger covered institutions take
certain actions reasonably calculated to ensure that account holders
who have certain types of deposit accounts with transactional features
are aware of the requirement to promptly provide to the FDIC the
information needed for the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance with
respect to each of those accounts in the event of the larger covered
institution's failure. This proposed requirement would be similar to
the requirement set forth in 12 CFR 370.5, but it would be less
burdensome and narrower in scope. Its focus would be on providing
depositors instruction for claiming deposit insurance. It would not
obligate larger covered institutions to validate data format and
delivery capabilities. Larger covered institutions could satisfy the
proposed requirement by either (1) making a good faith effort to enter
into contractual arrangements with the account holder that obligate the
account holder to deliver information needed for deposit insurance
calculation to the FDIC in a format prescribed in a new Appendix I of
part 360 within 24 hours after the appointment of the FDIC as receiver;
or (2) providing the account holder with a written disclosure
specifying the information and format requirements of new Appendix I to
part 360 and stating that, if the larger covered institution fails and
the FDIC is appointed receiver, then the account holder might not have
access to deposits before the account holder delivers information to
the FDIC in the format prescribed in that new appendix. Although part
370 currently requires both actions, the FDIC believes that a less
burdensome requirement focused on informing these account holders that
they will likely need to provide additional information to the FDIC in
a predefined format in order for the FDIC to make prompt payment of
deposit insurance, and that access to deposit insurance may be limited
before that information is provided, would be sufficient. These actions
are intended to inform larger covered institutions' account holders
that the process for calculating deposit insurance can be dependent
upon receipt of information that is not in the larger covered
institutions' deposit account records and production of that
information to the FDIC is the account holder's responsibility. New
Appendix I would be added to part 360 to demonstrate the deposit
information and format for submission to the FDIC. Larger covered
institutions would be required to include or reference the elements of
Appendix I in their agreements with, or disclosures to, account holders
who have accounts with transactional features.
This requirement would be limited to certain types of deposit
accounts with ``transactional features'' because prompt calculation and
payment of deposit insurance on those deposit accounts is vital to
orderly payment processing. Delays to deposit insurance calculation and
payment on those deposit accounts could delay or disrupt the payment
instruction clearing and settlement process for ``in flight''
transactions. If depositors are aware of this fact and are proactive in
facilitating the FDIC's prompt payment of deposit insurance, then this
disruption could be minimized. That is the intent of this proposed
requirement.
New Appendix I would be completed by account holders who hold
deposits on behalf of others (e.g., a deposit broker, a deposit
placement service, or some other agent who acts in a representative
capacity for the beneficial owner of the deposit) and who expect their
deposit accounts to be insured on a pass-through basis. Appendix I
would be filled out by the account holder (not

[[Page 69648]]

by the IDI) and only in the event of failure. The FDIC anticipates
that, for these deposit accounts, there will be a full set of
subaccounts represented in Appendix I naming the beneficial owners of
deposits in the account.
Under the proposal, larger covered institutions would not need to
take these actions with respect to certain types of deposit accounts
with transactional features. Among these would be: deposit accounts
maintained by a mortgage servicer, in a custodial or other fiduciary
capacity, which are comprised of payments by mortgagors; accounts
maintained by real estate brokers, real estate agents, or title
companies in which funds from multiple clients are deposited and held
for a short period of time in connection with a real estate
transaction; accounts established by an attorney or law firm as
Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts, or functionally equivalent
accounts; accounts held in connection with an employee benefit plan (as
defined in 12 CFR 330.14); and accounts maintained by account holders
for the benefit of others, to the extent that the deposits in the
account are held for the benefit of a formal revocable trust or
irrevocable trust that would be insured as described in 12 CFR 330.10,
or an irrevocable trust that is insured as described in 12 CFR 330.12.
The FDIC believes that the account holders who have authority and
control over these types of accounts have a responsibility to the
principals for whom they serve as agents to diligently maintain records
of deposit ownership in good faith and in the regular course of
business, and to understand the conditions for FDIC deposit insurance
coverage sufficiently to take the actions needed to claim deposit
insurance promptly.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of this proposed
requirement that larger covered institutions take specified actions for
certain types of deposit accounts with transactional features. In
particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the following aspects of the
proposal:
(11) Should this proposed requirement apply to all deposit accounts
for which larger covered institutions may have less information than is
needed for a complete deposit insurance determination or should it be
limited to only those with transactional features?
(12) Would a disclosure requirement alone be sufficient to
accomplish the FDIC's objective to ensure account holder awareness of
FDIC's deposit information and format needs? To what extent would
larger covered institutions make an effort to enter into contractual
arrangements with the account holder that obligate the account holder
to deliver information needed for the FDIC to calculate deposit
insurance with respect to each of those accounts in the event of a
larger covered institution's failure?
(13) What challenges would larger covered institutions face in
taking the actions described in this aspect of the proposal?
(14) Are the types of accounts excepted from this requirement
sufficiently described? Should other types of accounts be added to this
list of exceptions? Should any be removed from this list of exceptions
because the account holder would benefit from a larger covered
institution taking those actions intended to make account holders aware
of the need to promptly provide to the FDIC the information needed for
the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance in the event of a larger
covered institution's failure?

F. Implementation Requirements

Section 360.9 currently provides that an institution must comply
with the requirements of Sec. 360.9 no later than 18 months following
the end of the second calendar quarter for which it meets the criteria
to be a covered institution. The proposal would generally maintain this
18-month implementation timeframe for institutions that become covered
institutions. Any IDI that is a larger covered institution as of the
effective date of the revised rule would be required to comply with (1)
all requirements of Sec. 360.9 other than the provisional hold
requirements no later than six months after the effective date of the
revised rule and (2) the provisional hold requirements within 18 months
after the effective date of the revised rule. An IDI that is not a
covered institution as of the effective date of the final rule and that
becomes a larger covered institution after the effective date of the
final rule would be given an 18-month implementation period following
the end of the second calendar quarter for which it meets the criteria
for a larger covered institution.
The FDIC is proposing that, for IDIs that (1) became covered
institutions before the effective date of the final rule and (2) have a
compliance date that occurs after the effective date of the final rule,
the 18-month implementation period would not be shortened or extended
as a consequence of a revision of Sec. 360.9. Each such covered
institution would be required to comply with the requirements of Sec.
360.9 no later than 18 months following the end of the second calendar
quarter for which it met the criteria for a covered institution because
the proposal would not impose any new requirement on such an IDI. The
FDIC also does not expect that any of these covered institutions would
become a larger covered institution as of the effective date if Sec.
360.9 is revised as proposed. However, such IDIs would be permitted to
submit an extension request, as described below.
The proposal would provide a 12-month implementation period to a
covered institution that becomes a larger covered institution after
meeting the larger covered institution threshold for two consecutive
quarters. The FDIC understands that it may take time for such a covered
institution to obtain the additional information required for the
mandatory data fields and to take actions required for certain deposit
accounts with transactional features, as described in Section IV.E. The
FDIC believes that one year would be sufficient time for a covered
institution to comply with these requirements after becoming a larger
covered institution. Most covered institutions already provide the
information for the mandatory data fields, so the FDIC does not expect
the transition to be a significant burden. The FDIC also believes that
no implementation time would be needed for a larger covered institution
to adjust its compliance efforts after the number of its deposit
accounts falls below two million accounts because the larger covered
institution would already be complying with the requirements of Sec.
360.9.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the proposed
implementation requirements. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment on
the following aspects of the proposal:
(15) Do commenters agree with the proposed implementation period
for larger covered institutions? Should larger covered institutions be
given more or less time to comply? Do commenters agree with bifurcating
the implementation period for the provisional hold requirements and
other requirements? Are there any specific requirements other than the
provisional hold requirements that commenters believe would take longer
than six months after the effective date for larger covered
institutions to comply with? Please explain.

[[Page 69649]]

(16) Do commenters agree that 12 months would be a sufficient
amount of time for a covered institution to comply with the additional
requirements after it becomes a larger covered institution? If not, how
much time would be needed and why?
(17) Should a covered institution that merges with either another
covered institution or a non-covered institution and becomes a larger
covered institution be given 12 months or 18 months to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 360.9? Why would the recommended implementation
timeframe be required?

G. Extensions, Exemptions, and Release

Section 360.9 permits a covered institution to request relief from
certain requirements. Covered institutions may request that the FDIC
extend the deadline for complying with the requirements of Sec. 360.9.
Covered institutions may also submit a request for an exemption from
certain of the automated provisional hold requirements.\37\ This
request may be to develop a provisional hold process involving memo
holds or alternative account mechanisms or to exempt from the
provisional hold requirements those account systems servicing accounts
where the manual application of provisional holds is feasible.
Additionally, Sec. 360.9 allows a covered institution to request an
exemption from its requirements if the institution has a high
concentration of deposits incidental to credit card operations.\38\ The
proposal would not change these exemption provisions or previously
granted exemptions. Any covered institution can submit such requests,
including larger covered institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ 12 CFR 360.9(c)(9).
\38\ 12 CFR 360.9(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC is aware of the challenges IDIs subject to part 370
experienced in obtaining missing depositor information and complying
with part 370's recordkeeping requirements. The FDIC intends to publish
certain existing applicable part 370 frequently asked questions as
Sec. 360.9 guidance that would address some of these challenges for
larger covered institutions. The FDIC also proposes to enable larger
covered institutions to seek relief where necessary and appropriate in
the form of a full or partial exemption from the requirements of Sec.
360.9(d)(1) for a relatively small number of accounts if circumstances
exist that would make it impracticable or overly burdensome to meet
those requirements with respect to certain types of accounts. As with
any exemption request, the FDIC would consider such requests on a case-
by-case basis in light of the objectives of the rule.
With respect to covered institutions, including larger covered
institutions, that submit a request for an exemption or extension, the
proposal would provide that such covered institutions would not be
considered to be noncompliant with Sec. 360.9 with regard to the
requirements from which relief is sought while awaiting the FDIC's
response to such request. The FDIC intends to respond to such requests
promptly and covered institutions would not be penalized while a
request for relief is pending.
Section 360.9 currently does not have a codified provision that
releases an IDI from the requirements of Sec. 360.9 when it no longer
satisfies the criteria to be a covered institution. The FDIC has been
notifying IDIs when they fall below the threshold for a covered
institution for three consecutive quarters that they are no longer
subject to the requirements of Sec. 360.9. The proposal would codify a
provision that would automatically release a covered institution from
the requirements of Sec. 360.9 if it does not meet the criteria to be
a covered institution for three consecutive quarters. Moreover, the
proposal would automatically release a larger covered institution from
the additional requirements of Sec. 360.9(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) and
(d)(5) if it does not meet the criteria to be a larger covered
institution for three consecutive quarters. The FDIC would not expect a
larger covered institution to be released directly from the
requirements of Sec. 360.9 without first becoming a covered
institution. The FDIC believes that a covered institution's release
after three quarters of not meeting the criteria to be a covered
institution would provide greater certainty that the institution will
remain below the threshold for coverage. From past experience with both
Sec. 360.9 and part 370, the FDIC is aware of circumstances in which
an IDI has moved in and out of scope of one of these rules over the
course of one or two quarters. The FDIC may still inform a covered
institution when it is released but the release would occur
automatically regardless.
Like any other IDI, an institution released under Sec. 360.9(j)(1)
could become a covered institution again if it were to have at least $2
billion in deposits and at least either 250,000 deposit accounts, or
$20 billion in total assets (regardless of the number of deposit
accounts), for two consecutive quarters. Similarly, a covered
institution released under Sec. 360.9(j)(2) from the additional
requirements applicable to larger covered institutions could become
subject to those requirements again if it were to have at least $2
billion in deposits and two million or more deposit accounts for two
consecutive quarters.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the proposed exemption
and release provision. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the
following aspects of the proposal:
(18) Do commenters agree with the proposed standard data exemption
provision for larger covered institutions? What types of data or
information would larger covered institutions have difficulty
collecting in order to comply with the requirements of the proposal?
(19) Do commenters agree with the proposed provision regarding
effect of pending requests? Are there any other considerations that the
FDIC should evaluate in providing this safe harbor?
(20) Do commenters agree with the proposed approach to
automatically release a covered institution if the IDI does not meet
the criteria of a covered institution for three consecutive quarters?
Should covered institutions be required to request release that could
be granted or denied by the FDIC? If so, what standards should apply to
a decision by the FDIC to grant or deny release?
(21) Do commenters agree with the proposed approach to
automatically release a larger covered institution from the additional
requirements under the proposal applicable to larger covered
institutions if it reports below the larger covered institution
threshold for three consecutive quarters?
(22) Which part 370 guidance, including frequently asked questions,
should be reframed and published as Sec. 360.9 guidance? Why would
this guidance be helpful?

H. Records Retention

Alongside the proposal, the FDIC intends to change its practice
with respect to retaining depositor and customer data that it receives
from covered institutions, including larger covered institutions, in
connection with the FDIC's Sec. 360.9 compliance reviews. Currently,
this data is retained by the FDIC for each covered institution until
the next Sec. 360.9 compliance review. The FDIC has maintained this
data to compare results from previous compliance reviews and to assist
the FDIC in having baseline data in the event of a covered
institution's failure. For part 370 compliance tests, the FDIC has been
retaining deposit account data up to 120 days after providing testing
results via the final management letter, with most data being deleted
in practice within 60 days of distribution of the

[[Page 69650]]

letter. Once deleted, the FDIC maintains a summary of the data to
support the testing results.
The FDIC recognizes the importance of minimizing the volume of
sensitive information it holds and ensuring that it only holds such
information when needed. As a result, first, effective immediately, the
FDIC will fully delete all depositor and customer data no later than 60
days following a Sec. 360.9 or part 370 compliance review. The FDIC
believes that this would reduce the risks and sensitivity associated
with maintaining sensitive information while still providing the FDIC
with the opportunity to validate results for purposes of achieving the
goal of prompt deposit insurance determinations.
Second, the FDIC will no longer require covered institutions to
provide the FDIC with customers' social security and tax identification
numbers (SSN/TINs) in connection with Sec. 360.9 compliance reviews,
given the highly sensitive nature of such information. Instead, the
FDIC would assign synthetic SSN/TINs to each individual customer, to
replicate the FDIC's deposit insurance determination process. The FDIC
would then validate the bank's process of assigning unique customer
identification numbers to ensure that individual customers are each
assigned one unique identification number.
The FDIC will also, upon request, engage with covered institutions
on a bilateral basis to address any additional concerns related to
sensitive information.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of data retention for
Sec. 360.9 compliance reviews. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment
on the following:
(23) Should the FDIC consider a different approach to the retention
of depositor and customer data in connection with FDIC conducted Sec.
360.9 compliance reviews for covered institutions and larger covered
institutions? If so, in what aspects and why?

I. Indexing Thresholds

The FDIC proposes to index the dollar amounts used in the
definitions of covered institution and larger covered institution. As
noted by the FDIC previously, the use of thresholds allows the FDIC to
differentiate and tailor regulatory requirements based on an
institution's size, risk profile, and level of complexity. However,
static dollar-based thresholds can lead to unintended policy
consequences if threshold levels are not periodically updated or
indexed to inflation. For this reason, the proposal would provide for
indexing of the baseline dollar threshold to be a covered institution
and a larger covered institution. This is consistent with the FDIC's
agency-wide initiative to index dollar values in the FDIC's Rules and
Regulations to ensure the FDIC's regulatory expectations are
appropriately tailored.
The thresholds would also be measured from a baseline date. The
baseline date would be the effective date on which the proposal becomes
a final rule. The first adjustment would be effective on October 1,
2029. Thereafter, biennial adjustments would be effective on October 1
following each consecutive two-year period ending on August 30.
Adjustments would be calculated by multiplying the applicable baseline
threshold value by one plus the cumulative percentage change in the
non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers (CPI-W). An annual adjustment would occur if the non-
seasonally adjusted CPI-W increased by more than 8 percent over the 12-
month period ending August 30 of the year following the year in which
the most recent adjustment was made. No adjustment would be made if
multiplying the applicable baseline threshold by one plus the
cumulative percentage change in non-seasonally adjusted CPI-W from the
applicable baseline date, and rounding the result as prescribed, would
not increase the then-current threshold.
Under the proposal, the FDIC generally would announce threshold
adjustments pursuant to the indexing methodology by publishing a final
rule in the Federal Register. Such final rules would amend the Code of
Federal Regulations to reflect the adjusted thresholds for the
definitions of covered institution and larger covered institution and
would not be subject to a notice and comment period. Although the FDIC
would fully expect to publish a final rule in the Federal Register, the
adjustment would occur even in the absence of a publication in the
Federal Register.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of indexing in the
proposal. In particular, the FDIC seeks comment on the following
aspects of the proposal:
(24) Should the proposed rule index the dollar amounts for purposes
of the definitions of covered institution and larger covered
institution in the proposed rule? Why or why not? Should the FDIC
consider alternate approaches for indexing these definitions?

V. Expected Effects

A. Introduction and Baseline Assumptions

As discussed above, the proposal would rescind part 370, subject
larger covered institutions to the requirements of Sec. 360.9, and
clarify certain Sec. 360.9 requirements to reduce regulatory burden
and relieve larger covered institutions of the requirements to build
and maintain deposit insurance calculation systems. The FDIC estimates
the impact of these proposed changes by comparing economic outcomes
under the proposal relative to a baseline in which the proposal is not
adopted and the current regulations are in effect. For its estimates
under both the proposal and the baseline, the FDIC is utilizing all
other relevant laws and regulations in effect, as well as the financial
and economic conditions of affected entities, as of March 31, 2026.
Although not all of the effects of the proposal can be quantified,
the analysis provides monetary estimates of the most material effects
based on current and historical labor burden estimates for part 370 and
Sec. 360.9.39 40 To convert labor burden (as measured in
hours) to 2026 dollars, the FDIC uses an estimated labor compensation
rate of $125 per hour.\41\ Given that the most material effects of the
proposal would fall upon IDIs that are currently subject to part 370
(part 370 IDIs), much of the discussion will focus on the quantified
effects on this group of IDIs. To account for the variation of
compliance costs across IDIs, this analysis classifies each part 370
IDI as either a Lowest Complexity, Middle Complexity, or Highest
Complexity IDI.\42\ This

[[Page 69651]]

classification allows the analysis to account for the fact that larger
and more complex IDIs are expected to incur more labor hours and other
costs than smaller or less complex IDIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ The FDIC published such estimates during notice and comment
of rulemakings for both regulations. See 73 FR 41180 (July 17, 2008)
and 84 FR 37020 (July 30, 2019) for the final rules adopting Sec.
360.9 and amending part 370, respectively.
\40\ The FDIC recognizes that many IDIs contract out the
compliance activities related to part 370 and/or Sec. 360.9.
Although much of the analysis is based on estimated or assumed labor
burdens, the per-IDI dollar cost estimates can be interpreted as
either the internal labor cost of compliance or the contracted
external cost of compliance.
\41\ A wage rate of $125 in 2026 dollars is similar to those
estimated for recent OMB Paperwork Reduction Act clearances for
Sec. 360.9 ($103 per hour in 2023 dollars) and part 370 ($104 per
hour in 2025 dollars) after adjusting for inflation. See supporting
statements for OMB Control No. 3064-0162 and OMB Control No. 3064-
0202.
\42\ This classification system is the same as that used in the
2016 final rule preamble for part 370. See 81 FR 87734. The FDIC
stated several factors in the 2016 final rule preamble to determine
complexity, including number of deposit accounts, geographic reach,
number of legal entities, number of deposit platforms, a deposit
account sweep option, and the number of lines of business. See id.
The 2025 PRA analysis used number of deposit accounts. See
supporting statements for OMB Control No. 3064-0202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC analyzes the monetized effects of the proposal, relative
to the baseline, over a 10-year period. The 10-year analysis horizon is
sufficiently long to illustrate the net expected effects of the
proposal, while avoiding potential uncertainties related to future
economic conditions that may arise with longer time horizons.
Given the uncertainties involved in estimating costs and benefits
to IDIs across a 10-year horizon, this analysis assumes the financial
conditions of affected IDIs are fixed to those reported as of the
quarter ending March 31, 2026. In addition, any new IDI qualifying for
part 370 under the baseline is assumed to be a Lowest Complexity IDI
under the baseline and the proposal and to maintain those conditions
throughout the 10-year period. To the extent that this assumption is
violated and deposit accounts grow, the estimates of burden under the
baseline would be larger than estimated, and the resulting cost savings
would be higher than estimated. As such, this assumption provides a
conservative estimate of the monetized cost savings provided by the
proposal.
This section also discusses the qualitative effects of the proposal
on all affected institutions, as well as on the FDIC, the DIF, and the
public at large.

B. Scope of Affected Entities

As of March 31, 2026, the FDIC insures 4,287 IDIs.\43\ Of these,
the FDIC estimates that 148 IDIs would be affected by the proposal,
including 31 part 370 IDIs that would be affected by the proposed
rescission of part 370. Of these IDIs, 29 would be ``larger covered
institutions'' \44\ and be subject to the proposed revisions to Sec.
360.9. Proposed amendments to Sec. 360.9 would also affect 117 IDIs
currently subject to Sec. 360.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ FFIEC Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call
Reports), March 31, 2026.
\44\ See proposed Sec. 360.9(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, this analysis separately accounts for the effects
of the proposal across three classifications of part 370 IDIs. Of the
31 part 370 IDIs, five--with approximately $6.8 trillion in domestic
deposits--are considered Highest Complexity, 13--with approximately
$3.6 trillion in domestic deposits--are considered Middle Complexity,
and 13--with approximately $1.4 trillion in domestic deposits--are
considered Lowest Complexity.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ FDIC Call Report data as of March 31, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the baseline, all 31 IDIs currently subject to part 370 would
remain subject to it. The FDIC estimates that, under the baseline, one
Lowest Complexity IDI would become newly covered each year.\46\ Under
the baseline, a newly covered part 370 IDI has three years to comply
with part 370 requirements and would incur implementation costs during
that period. All IDIs that have passed the implementation period would
continue to incur ongoing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ To inform these estimates, the FDIC examined the historical
number of IDIs covered by part 370. Between 2021 and 2025, nine IDIs
were added to part 370, with six new IDIs that remained subject to
part 370 for at least a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed coverage criteria of Sec. 360.9 would subject all but
two of the part 370 IDIs to Sec. 360.9 requirements as larger covered
institutions.
Based on the assumption that the financial conditions of affected
IDIs are fixed to those reported as of the quarter ending March 31,
2026, the total number of IDIs subject to part 370 or Sec. 360.9 would
remain the same under both the baseline and the proposal.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ The total number of IDIs subject to part 370 between 2021
and 2025 has remained relatively constant at 30<plus-minus>1 IDIs,
even while an average of two IDIs each year have newly met the
criteria to be part 370 IDIs. See Call Reports for 2021-2025. To the
extent that this assumption undercounts the number of affected IDIs,
the resulting benefits to the industry would be higher than
estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The estimated populations of part 370 IDIs under the baseline and
under the proposal are summarized in Table 1:

Table 1--Estimated Populations of Current Part 370 Institutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 360.9 Part 370, by complexity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larger covered Total
institution Lowest (new) Middle Highest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 0 13 (1) 13 5 31
Proposal........................ 29 0 0 0 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Call Report data as of March 31, 2026, and FDIC calculations based on current counts of 31 covered part
370 IDIs.
Parentheses indicate the number of insured depository institutions (IDIs) that newly meet the criteria for Sec.
360.9 or part 370, respectively, in each year.
Complexity classifications are based on the number of deposit accounts (checking, savings, and retirement) with
Lowest Complexity IDIs having fewer than six million accounts, Middle Complexity IDIs having between six
million and 30 million accounts, and Highest Complexity IDIs having more than 30 million accounts. The FDIC
estimates that, each year under the baseline, one Lowest Complexity IDI would newly meet the criteria to be
subject to part 370.

C. Effects Specific to Part 370 IDIs

The proposal would directly benefit the 31 part 370 IDIs by
eliminating compliance costs associated with part 370. These benefits
would be attenuated by the additional requirements of amended Sec.
360.9 for the 29 part 370 IDIs that would be larger covered
institutions. These 29 larger covered institutions would also incur
one-time costs to implement Sec. 360.9 provisional hold and
recordkeeping requirements. This section calculates the benefits or
costs of each of these effects and totals them to estimate the total
net monetized effect of the proposal on part 370 IDIs.
Benefits
Under the proposal, larger covered institutions would benefit by
experiencing a reduction in annual compliance costs. For purposes of
this analysis, the FDIC conservatively estimates that these IDIs would
experience savings equal to approximately $625 thousand per year for a
Lowest Complexity IDI, $875 thousand per year for a Middle Complexity
IDI, and $2.125 million per year for a Highest Complexity IDI due to
the rescission of part 370 under the proposal, relative to the
baseline. The FDIC expects the actual cost savings to be much greater
than these estimates.
The proposal would also benefit certain IDIs in future periods by
removing the need to newly comply with part 370 and thereby reduce
associated compliance costs. As noted above, the FDIC estimates that,
under the baseline, one Lowest Complexity IDI

[[Page 69652]]

each year would meet the criteria to be subject to part 370. The
proposed rescission of part 370 would eliminate the implementation
burden of one Lowest Complexity IDI each year, at an average estimated
implementation cost of approximately $3.5 million per Lowest Complexity
IDI per year.\48\ As above, the FDIC expects these estimates to
substantially understate the actual compliance costs associated with
part 370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ $3,538,000 = $125 per hour * 28,304 hours. The 28,304
hourly burden estimate is taken from the 2019 final rule preamble's
estimated average hours for a Lowest Complexity Institution to
implement part 370. See 84 FR 37020 at 37039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
As noted in Table 1, 29 of the 31 part 370 IDIs would be subject to
Sec. 360.9 under the proposal, if adopted. This analysis
conservatively assumes all 29 would incur one-time costs to update
their IT and recordkeeping systems to comply with Sec. 360.9.\49\
Given the disparities in both size and complexity between the average
current Sec. 360.9 IDI and the average current part 370 IDI, the FDIC
does not expect transition costs for the 29 larger covered institutions
to be similar to implementation costs for other covered institutions.
To estimate transition costs, this analysis uses historical hourly
burdens for the Data Extraction and Reporting components of the
implementation costs of part 370.\50\ The scope of some of these part
370 implementation activities is likely similar to Sec. 360.9
implementation activities, while other components (such as Insurance
Calculation) would not be part of Sec. 360.9 compliance. Based on
these historical burdens, the FDIC estimates transition costs would
average approximately $210 thousand for each of the 12 transitioning
Lowest Complexity IDIs, $254 thousand for each of the 12 transitioning
Middle Complexity IDIs, and $1.7 million for each of the five
transitioning Highest Complexity IDIs. Aggregate transition costs for
the industry would total approximately $14 million.\51\ As noted above,
the FDIC acknowledges these estimates likely understate actual expected
costs. Although the proposal provides 18 months for the transition,
this analysis assumes all 29 IDIs would incur all of their transition
cost in the first year that the proposal would be effective. The FDIC
estimates that annual ongoing costs for larger covered institutions
subject to amended Sec. 360.9 would be approximately $23 thousand per
IDI.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ To the extent that some of the 29 part 370 IDIs may already
have existing Sec. 360.9 compliance systems, their transition costs
would be lower.
\50\ For the 2016 and 2019 rulemakings, the FDIC estimated per-
IDI implementation burden involved with Data Extraction and
Reporting to be 1,681, 2,028, and 13,347 hours for lowest, middle,
and highest complexity IDIs, respectively. See ``FDIC Large Bank
Deposit Insurance Determination Cost Estimation Methodology'' at
<a href="https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/2016/2016-recordkeeping-3064-ae33-report.pdf">https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/2016/2016-recordkeeping-3064-ae33-report.pdf</a>.
\51\ $13,905,500 = $210,125 transition costs for Lowest
Complexity IDIs * 12 Lowest Complexity IDIs + $253,531 transition
costs for Middle Complexity IDIs * 12 Middle Complexity IDIs +
$1,668,325 transition costs for Highest Complexity IDIs * 5 Highest
Complexity IDIs.
\52\ $23,125 = $125 per hour * 185 hours for annual activities
including an annual questionnaire, compliance review, remediation,
system maintenance, recordkeeping, annual testing, and annual
reporting. The FDIC expects that hourly burden would be similar for
Lowest Complexity, Middle Complexity, and Highest Complexity
institutions after all larger covered institutions have fully
implemented their Sec. 360.9 compliance systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These estimates are summarized in Table 2:

Table 2--Estimated Costs per Part 370 IDI
[In $ thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDI classification
-----------------------------------------------
Lowest Middle Highest
complexity $ complexity $ complexity $
(#) (#) (#)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings from Part 370 Rescission:
Part 370 Implementation Savings (each year)................. $3,538 (1) .............. ..............
Part 370 Ongoing Savings (each year)........................ $625 (12) $875 (13) $2,125 (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs from Sec. 360.9 Adoption:
Section 360.9 Transition Costs--(one-time).................. $210 (12) $254 (12) $1,668 (5)
-----------------------------------------------
Section 360.9 Ongoing Costs--(185 hours per IDI per year)... $23 (29)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FDIC.
Parentheses ``(#)'' indicate the number of insured depository institutions (IDIs) in each Complexity Category.
Dollar values are based on estimated burden hours for each activity and an estimated hourly labor compensation
rate of $125 per hour. Part 370 Implementation and Ongoing Savings are due to the elimination, under the
proposal, of implementation and ongoing costs for IDIs subject to part 370 each year. Section 360.9 Transition
Costs are one-time transition costs for all part 370 IDIs covered by Sec. 360.9 as amended. Section 360.9
Ongoing Costs are based on FDIC's estimates of 185 annual burden hours for each IDI.

Net Annualized Benefits
As detailed above, the FDIC estimates that the proposed rescission
of part 370 would result in aggregate industry savings of approximately
$33 million per year. In the first year that the proposed rule would be
effective, these savings are offset by $14 million of implementation
costs to transition to Sec. 360.9, for a net savings of $19
million.\53\ In each subsequent year after the larger covered
institutions fully transition, net industry savings from the proposal
would total approximately $32 million per year. To estimate the total
net benefit resulting from the proposal, the FDIC annualizes these
values using a discount rate of 3.7 percent across a 10-year analysis
horizon.\54\ Based on these calculations, the FDIC estimates that the
proposal would result in annualized savings of approximately $31
million. Details are provided in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ For calculation of each year's total cost to the industry,
the analysis assumes that, under the baseline, each new part 370 IDI
would incur all of its implementation costs in its first year. An
alternative calculation would incorporate a rotating cohort of new
IDIs each year across overlapping three-year implementation cycles.
Given that the two calculations arrive at similar results, the
analysis presents the first one for expositional simplicity.
\54\ See <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/M-26-09-2026-Discount-Rates-for-OMB-Circular-No.-A-94.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/M-26-09-2026-Discount-Rates-for-OMB-Circular-No.-A-94.pdf</a>.

[[Page 69653]]

Table 3--Summary of Estimated Industry Cost Savings
[In $ Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (10
Year 1 Years 2-10 years) Annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings from Part 370 Rescission................ $33.0 $33.0 $330 $33.0
Costs from Sec. 360.9 Adoption *.............. 13.9 0.7 19.9 2.2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits (Rescission-Adoption).......... 19.1 32.4 310 30.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FDIC.
These estimates are the benefits accrued from rescinding part 370 for 31 IDIs, net of the costs of adopting Sec.
360.9 for 29 IDIs, for each of 10 years in the analysis horizon.
* The estimated annual ongoing costs of Sec. 360.9 in years 2 to 10 are $670,625.
Annualized Values are the equal annual values that, taken together over the 10-year analysis horizon, have the
same present value as the stream of actual costs and benefits, at a 3.7 percent discount rate. Annualizing
costs and benefits is necessary to calculate the net effect of rules that have costs in some years and
benefits in other years.

D. Effects on Covered Institutions, the Deposit Insurance Fund, and
Depositors

In addition to the effects on current part 370 IDIs described
above, the proposal would have effects on all covered institutions, the
DIF, and depositors.
The proposal would revise certain provisions in Sec. 360.9 to
clarify definitions and codify existing practices. These revisions are
expected to provide modest benefits to covered institutions. Covered
institutions may pass along some or all of the cost savings provided by
the proposal to their customers through lower fees or higher deposit
interest rates.
Direct costs of the proposal on covered institutions include minor
updates of systems or practices to align with the proposed revisions.
While it is difficult to quantify these effects, the FDIC expects that
these effects are much less material than the effects discussed above.
If the proposal were to result in delays in insurance
determinations in the event of the failure of a part 370 IDI, this
would result in indirect costs. Any such delay may result in either
inaccurate deposit insurance payouts, which could lead to a loss in the
DIF, or prolongation of the waiting period before the payouts, which
could lead to disruptions for account holders and a loss in consumer
confidence. However, such an outcome would be highly unlikely under the
proposal; since part 370 was adopted in 2016, the FDIC has
significantly enhanced its own claims processing and deposit insurance
determination capabilities, so the FDIC can now readily process many
more insurance determinations than it could in 2016. In addition, the
proposed requirements for larger covered institutions in Sec. 360.9
would incorporate those requirements in part 370 most critical to such
insurance determinations.

E. Indexing Thresholds

The proposal would index the dollar amounts in Sec. 360.9. The
indexing provision would preserve the level of thresholds set forth in
the proposed rule in real dollar terms, thereby avoiding the
undesirable and unintended outcome where the asset threshold changes
due solely to inflation rather than actual changes in an institution's
size, risk profile, or level of complexity.

F. Conclusion

Based on the analysis described above, the FDIC has determined that
the expected benefits of the proposal justify its expected costs. The
FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information
provided in this analysis, and, in particular, whether the proposal
would have any material effects that the FDIC has not identified.

VI. Alternatives Considered

The FDIC considered alternatives to the proposal to meet the
objectives of this rulemaking. For the reasons described below, the
FDIC views the proposal as the most appropriate and effective means of
achieving the policy objectives described in Section I. The FDIC
considered not promulgating any regulatory action to amend Sec. 360.9
and rescind part 370. As previously discussed, however, the FDIC has
determined that the rescission of part 370 and amendment to Sec. 360.9
would reduce regulatory burden for IDIs subject to part 370 while
maintaining measures that facilitate the FDIC's ability to promptly
make a deposit insurance determination by relying on its own IT systems
to accurately calculate deposit insurance. As discussed above, the
proposal would provide cost savings and other benefits relative to this
no-action alternative.
The FDIC also considered modifying the threshold for coverage under
Sec. 360.9 but concluded that the requirements of Sec. 360.9 promote
the FDIC's ability to meet its statutory obligations in resolving
institutions covered at the current thresholds. The FDIC considered
requiring all the data fields in Appendices C through G of part 360 as
mandatory for all covered institutions. The FDIC did not pursue this
approach because it believes the benefits would not outweigh the
additional burdens on covered institutions. The FDIC has determined
that the proposal strikes an appropriate balance by removing the
requirement for an IDI subject to part 370 to maintain an IT system to
calculate deposit insurance and enhancing the FDIC's ability to meet
its statutory obligation to pay deposit insurance ``as soon as
possible'' following failure. The proposal would help enable the FDIC
to resolve IDIs subject to Sec. 360.9 in the manner least costly to
the DIF by preserving franchise value through prompt deposit insurance
determination and maintenance of continuity of a failed covered
institution's deposit operations.
The FDIC invites comments on all possible alternatives to the
proposal and will reconsider all of its preliminary determinations in
the proposal after review of comments.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency,
in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, to prepare and make
available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the impact of the proposal on small entities.\55\
However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if
the agency certifies that the proposal would 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

[[Page 69654]]

include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal
to $850 million.\56\ As detailed in the following statement of factual
basis, the FDIC certifies that the proposal would not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\56\ The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $850
million or less in assets and determines an organization's assets 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 Dec. 19, 2022). Following these regulations,
the FDIC uses an FDIC-supervised institution's affiliated and
acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four quarters, to
determine whether the FDIC-supervised institution is ``small'' for
the purposes of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of the quarter ending March 31, 2026, the FDIC insures 4,287
IDIs, of which 2,954 are small entities for the purposes of RFA.\57\
The proposal would apply to all small entities that meet the criteria
for being subject to either Sec. 360.9 or part 370, which include
minimum thresholds of at least $2 billion in deposits or two million
deposit accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ Call Reports, March 31, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is currently a single small entity that meets the criteria
for being an IDI subject to part 370.\58\ This IDI would benefit from
the rescission of part 370. In addition, this IDI would not meet the
criteria for being a covered institution under Sec. 360.9. As such,
the proposal would impose no direct costs on this small entity. Even if
the impact to this single IDI were significant, this single IDI,
constituting less than a tenth of a percent of regulated small
entities, would not be a substantial number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ There are no small entities that currently meet the
criteria for being a covered institution under Sec. 360.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the preceding statement of factual basis, the FDIC
certifies that the proposal would not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) \60\ states that no
agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to
respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC
has reviewed this proposal and determined that it revises or removes
certain information collection requests previously cleared by OMB under
the following OMB Control Nos.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title of Information Collection: Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit
Insurance Determination.
OMB Control No.: 3064-0202.
Affected Public: Insured Depository Institutions subject to 12 CFR
part 370.
Proposed Action: Upon publication of the final rule, the FDIC will
submit a request to discontinue this information collection request.
Description: The FDIC has reviewed this proposed rule and
preliminarily determined that rescinding part 370 would eliminate all
recordkeeping and reporting requirements approved under OMB Control No.
3064-0202. Because this rule proposes to remove part 370 in its
entirety, the FDIC expects that the information collection associated
with part 370 would no longer be necessary. If the rule is finalized as
proposed, the FDIC would submit a discontinuance request to OMB to
retire OMB Control No. 3064-0202.
The FDIC estimates that rescinding part 370 and discontinuing OMB
Control No.3064-0202 would eliminate an annual paperwork burden of
approximately 10,169 hours, as reported in the most recent ICR
inventory.
Title of Information Collection: Large-Bank Deposit Insurance
Programs.
OMB Control No.: 3064-0162.
Affected Public: Insured depository institutions having at least $2
billion in deposits and at least either: (a) 250,000 Deposit accounts;
or (b) $20 billion in total assets, regardless of the number of deposit
accounts.
Proposed Action: The proposal would revise the currently approved
information collection as follows:
Description: The proposal would expand Sec. 360.9 to require IDIs
having at least $2 billion in deposits and two million or more deposit
accounts to maintain and provide to the FDIC certain depositor and
customer data needed for the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance in the
event of the IDI's failure. Accordingly, the FDIC would add additional
information collections to account for the new PRA requirements imposed
on larger covered institutions, and revise the existing information
collections to better align with the proposal as follows:

Summary of Estimated Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Disclosure Annual Burden
[OMB Control No. 3064-0162]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Total annual
Information collection Type of burden Obligation to number of frequency of Estimated time Frequency of estimated
respond respondents responses per response response burden (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Implementation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting and removing Recordkeeping.... Mandatory........ 18 1 150 One time......... 2,700
provisional holds--Sec.
360.9(c)(1) and (2)--
Implementation.
Providing standard data format Recordkeeping.... Mandatory........ 8 1 110 One time......... 880
for deposit account and
customer information--Sec.
360.9(d)(1)(i)--Covered
Institutions (that are not
Larger Covered Institutions).
Providing standard data format Recordkeeping.... Mandatory........ 10 1 200 One time......... 2,000
for deposit account and
customer information--Sec.
360.9(d)(1)(i) and (ii)--
Larger Covered Institutions.
Request for extension of Reporting........ Required to 4 1 20 On occasion...... 80
compliance deadline--Sec. Obtain Benefit.
360.9(e)(7).
------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Total Implementation Burden ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. ................. 5,660
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69655]]

Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification of identity of Reporting........ Mandatory........ 146 1 8 On occasion...... 1,168
person responsible for
producing standard data
downloads--Sec. 360.9(c)(3).
Requests for exemptions--Sec. Reporting........ Required to 1 1 20 On occasion...... 20
360.9(c)(9), (d)(6), and (f). Obtain Benefit.
Ongoing recordkeeping--Sec. Recordkeeping.... Mandatory........ 117 1 50 Annual........... 5,850
360.9--Covered Institutions
(that are not Larger Covered
Institutions).
Ongoing recordkeeping--Sec. Recordkeeping.... Mandatory........ 29 1 80 Annual........... 2,320
360.9--Larger Covered
Institutions.
Providing deposit account and Reporting........ Mandatory........ 8 1 40 On occasion...... 320
customer information in
required standard format--Sec.
360.9(d)(3).
Disclosures and arrangements Third-party Mandatory........ 29 1 8 Annual........... 232
with the account holder disclosure.
specifying format
requirements, and obligating
them to deliver information
needed for deposit insurance
calculations--Sec.
360.9(d)(5).
Test compliance with Sec. Reporting........ Mandatory........ 30 1 80 On occasion...... 2,400
360.9 (c) and (d)--Sec.
360.9(h).
------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Total Ongoing Burden....... ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. ................. 12,310
------------------------------------------------ ---------------
Total Estimated Annual ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. ................. 17,970
Burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the expansion of Sec. 360.9 to include institutions
currently covered by part 370, and the PRA burden of implementing the
appropriate technology systems to comply with Sec. 360.9, FDIC
estimates an increased PRA burden of 12,022 hours under the most recent
OMB submission for Sec. 360.9. Rescission of part 370 would eliminate
the PRA burden of 10,169 hours reported under OMB Control No. 3064-
0202. Based on these estimates, the net increase across both
collections would be 1,853 annual burden hours. The increased overall
burden is caused in part by the implementation costs of institutions
adjusting their information technology systems to Sec. 360.9
requirements. However, after larger covered institutions complete a
one-time implementation of the requirements of this proposal, the
estimated ongoing burden of this information collection request will be
reduced on a long-term basis relative to the ongoing burden of the
previous information collection requests under Sec. 360.9 and part
370.
The FDIC will submit the proposed revisions to these information
collections to the OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA,\61\
and 5 CFR 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
\62\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the revisions to existing collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions,
including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information
collections, 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. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA),\63\ 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 comments that further will inform its
consideration of the RCDRIA.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
\64\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).

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

[[Page 69656]]

D. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act \65\ requires the Federal
banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final
rulemakings published in the Federal Register after January 1, 2000.
The FDIC invites your comments on how to make this proposal easier to
understand, including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ Public Law 106-102, section 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471
(1999), 12 U.S.C. 4809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If
not, how could the proposal be more clearly stated?
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
If not, how could the proposal be more clearly stated?
<bullet> Does the proposal contain language or jargon that is not
clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
<bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposal easier to understand?
If so, what changes to the format would make the proposal easier to
understand?
<bullet> What else could the FDIC do to make the proposal easier to
understand?

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 14192

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, titled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as amended, requires the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget to determine whether a
proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' prior to the
disclosure of the proposed rule to the public. If OIRA finds the
proposed rule to be a ``significant regulatory action,'' E.O. 12866
requires an agency to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed
rule. E.O. 12866 defines ``significant regulatory action'' to mean a
regulatory action that is likely to: (1) have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
E.O. 12866. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and
therefore is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
E.O. 14192, titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,''
was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(a) of E.O. 14192 requires an
agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing
regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice
and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance
of this standard, section 3(c) of E.O. 14192 requires that the new
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs
associated with at least ten prior regulations. This proposal, if
finalized as proposed, is expected to be a deregulatory action under
E.O. 14192.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 314

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

12 CFR Part 360

Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Holding companies, National
banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

12 CFR Part 370

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

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 12 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 314--INDEXING OF SPECIFIED REGULATORY THRESHOLDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 314 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819,
1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1821, 1821(p), 1823, 1828, 1829,
1831a, 1831e, 1831m, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3103,
3104, 3105, 3108, 3109, 3207, 5385(h), 5389, 5390(s)(3),
5390(b)(1)(C), 5390(a)(7)(D), 5381(b), 5390(r), 5390(a)(16)(D),
5412, 5414, 5415, and 15 U.S.C. 78j-1, 78l(i), 78m, 78n, 78p, 78w,
1601-1607, 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7261, 7262, 7264, and 7265; Pub
L. No. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010)
(codified 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).

0
2. In Sec. 314.1, revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 314.1 Threshold indexing

(a) Methodology. The dollar thresholds specified in paragraph (c)
of this section shall be adjusted by multiplying the baseline threshold
values specified in paragraph (c) of this section by one plus the
cumulative percent change in the non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, measured from the
baseline dates specified in paragraph (c), as applicable, as further
described in paragraph (b) of this section, and shall be rounded in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Frequency.
(1) In general--biennial adjustments. Except as otherwise provided
in paragraph (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) of this section, the adjustments
described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be effective on
October 1 following each consecutive two-year period ending August 30,
using the non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers as of August 30 of that year.
(2) First adjustments after baseline dates.
(i) The first adjustment described in paragraph (a) of this section
shall, with respect to the thresholds specified in paragraph (c)(1), be
effective on October 1, 2027, and shall be made using one plus the
cumulative percent change in the non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers through August 30,
2027.
(ii) The first adjustment described in paragraph (a) of this
section shall, with respect to the thresholds specified in paragraph
(c)(2), be effective on October 1, 2029, and shall be made using one
plus the cumulative percent change in the non-seasonally adjusted
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
through August 30, 2029.
(3) Periods of high inflation--annual adjustments. If the
cumulative percent change of the non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, measured over the
12-month period ending August 30 following the year in which the most
recent adjustment was made exceeds 8 percent, then the dollar
thresholds shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section using the cumulative percent change of the non-seasonally
adjusted Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers, measured over the 12-month period ending August 30 with an
effective date of October 1 following the year in which the most recent
adjustment was made.
(4) Periods of negative inflation--no adjustments. Notwithstanding
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section,

[[Page 69657]]

if an adjustment of dollar thresholds using the cumulative percent
change of the non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers from the applicable baseline date, or
the most recent adjustment, as applicable, would not result in an
increase from the current dollar thresholds, no adjustment will be made
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Specified thresholds.
(1) The thresholds in the following sections shall be adjusted in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section relative to the baseline
threshold values as of a baseline date of January 1, 2026, specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (xxxi) of this section:
(i) Section 303.227(a)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$3,500;
(ii) Section 303.227(b)(3)(i) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $1,225;
(iii) Section 335.801(d) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$10,000,000;
(iv) Section 340.2(h)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$100,000;
(v) Section 340.2(h)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$100,000;
(vi) Section 340.2(h)(3) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$100,000;
(vii) Section 340.2(h)(4) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$100,000;
(viii) Section 347.111(a)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $120,000,000;
(ix) Section 347.111(b)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $60,000,000;
(x) Section 363.1(a) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$1,000,000,000;
(xi) Section 363.2(b)(3) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$5,000,000,000;
(xii) Section 363.3(b) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$5,000,000,000;
(xiii) Section 363.4(a)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $5,000,000,000;
(xiv) Section 363.4(c)(3) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$5,000,000,000;
(xv) Section 363.5(a)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$5,000,000,000;
(xvi) Both thresholds in Sec. 363.5(a)(2) of this chapter,
baseline threshold values of $1,000,000,000 or more but less than
$5,000,000,000;
(xvii) Section 363.5(b) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$5,000,000,000;
(xviii) Both thresholds in paragraph (8)(A) of appendix A of part
363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xix) Paragraph (10) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xx) Paragraph (18)A of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xxi) All three thresholds in paragraph (27) of appendix A of part
363 of this chapter, with the first baseline threshold value being
$5,000,000,000 or more and the second and third baseline threshold
values being $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000,000;
(xxii) Paragraph (30)(b) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xxiii) Both thresholds in paragraph (30)(c) of appendix A of part
363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $1,000,000,000 or more
but less than $5,000,000,000;
(xxiv) Paragraph (35)(a) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $1,000,000,000;
(xxv) Paragraph (35)(b) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xxvi) Paragraph (35)(c) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xxvii) Paragraph 2(b) of appendix B of part 363 of this chapter,
baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(xxviii) Section 380.13(b)(6)(i) of this chapter, baseline
threshold value $100,000;
(xxix) Section 380.13(b)(6)(ii) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $100,000;
(xxx) Section 380.13(b)(6)(iii) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $100,000; and
(xxxi) Section 380.13(b)(6)(iv) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $100,000.
(2) The thresholds in the following sections shall be adjusted in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section relative to the baseline
threshold values as of a baseline date of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) Section 360.9(b)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$2,000,000,000;
(ii) Section 360.9(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, baseline threshold
value $20,000,000,000; and
(iii) Section 360.9(b)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold value
$2,000,000,000.
* * * * *

PART 360--RESOLUTION AND RECEIVERSHIP RULES

0
3. The authority citation for part 360 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq., 1817(a)(2)(B), 1817(b),
1818(a)(2), 1818(t), 1819(a) Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth,
1820(b)(3) and (4), 1820(g), 1821(d)(1), (4), (10)(C), and (11),
1821(e)(1) and (8)(D)(i), 1821(f)(1), 1823(c)(4), and 1823(e)(2).
0
4. Amend Sec. 360.9 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(4) introductory text, (c)(5) through (7), (d)(1) through (4),
(e)(1), and (e)(2), and adding paragraphs (d)(5) and (6), (i), and (j)
to read as follows:

Sec. 360.9 Large-bank deposit insurance determination modernization.

(a) Purpose and scope. This section is intended to allow the FDIC
as receiver to continue to utilize the deposit and other operations of
a large insured depository institution (defined as a ``covered
institution'') following failure. It also is intended to permit the
FDIC to fulfill its legal mandates regarding the resolution of failed
insured depository institutions to provide liquidity to depositors
promptly and reduce the FDIC's costs by preserving the franchise value
of a failed institution.
(b) Definitions.
(1) A covered institution means an insured depository institution
which, based on items as defined in Reports of Condition and Income
filed with the appropriate Federal banking agency, has at least $2
billion in deposits and at least either:
(i) 250,000 deposit accounts; or
(ii) $20 billion in total assets, regardless of the number of
deposit accounts.
(2) A larger covered institution is a covered institution which,
based on items as defined in its Reports of Condition and Income filed
with the appropriate Federal banking agency, has at least $2 billion in
deposits and two million or more deposit accounts.
(3) Number of deposit accounts and total assets are as defined in
the instructions for the filing of Reports of Condition and Income, as
applicable to the insured depository institution for determining
whether it qualifies as a covered institution or as a larger covered
institution. Deposit has the same meaning as provided under section
3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)). A dually
payable deposit means any liability held in a foreign office of a U.S.
insured depository institution that (1) would be a deposit if carried
on the books and records of the insured depository institution in the
United

[[Page 69658]]

States and (2) is expressly payable in the United States. A domestic
deposit means any deposit other than a dually payable deposit. A
domestic deposit account means any account that holds a domestic
deposit. A foreign deposit means any dually payable deposit together
with any liability held in a foreign office of a U.S. insured
depository institution that (1) would be a deposit if carried on the
books and records of the insured depository institution in the United
States and (2) is not expressly payable in the United States. A foreign
deposit account means any account that holds a foreign deposit. A
deposit account means all domestic deposit accounts and all foreign
deposit accounts, collectively. An international banking facility
deposit has the same meaning as provided under section 3(l)(5)(B) of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)). A demand deposit
account, NOW account, money market deposit account, savings deposit
account and time deposit account are as defined in the instructions for
the filing of Reports of Condition and Income.
(4) Sweep account arrangements consist of a deposit account linked
to an interest-bearing investment vehicle whereby funds are swept to
and from the deposit account according to prearranged rules, usually on
a daily basis, where the sweep investment vehicle is not a deposit and
is reflected on the books and records of the covered institution.
(5) Automated credit account arrangements consist of a deposit
account into which funds are automatically credited from an interest-
bearing investment vehicle where the funds in the interest-bearing
investment vehicle were not invested by prearranged rules.
(6) Non-covered institution means an insured depository institution
that does not meet the definition of a covered institution.
(7) Provisional hold means an effective restriction on access to
some or all of a deposit or other liability account after the failure
of an insured depository institution.
(8) Account holder means the person or entity who has opened a
deposit account with a covered institution and with whom the covered
institution has a direct legal and contractual relationship with
respect to the deposit.
(9) Deposit account records has the same meaning as provided in
Sec. 330.1(e) of this chapter.
(10) Transactional features with respect to a deposit account means
that the account holder or the beneficial owner of deposits can make a
transfer from the deposit account to a party other than the account
holder, beneficial owner of deposits, or the larger covered institution
itself, by a method that may result in such transfer being reflected in
the end-of-day ledger balance for such deposit account on a day that is
later than the day that such transfer is initiated, even if initiated
prior to the larger covered institution's normal cutoff time for such
transaction. A deposit account also has transactional features if
preauthorized or automatic instructions provide for transfer of
deposits in the deposit account to another deposit account at the same
institution, if such other deposit account itself has transactional
features.
(c) * * *
(1) A covered institution shall have in place an automated process
for implementing a provisional hold on domestic deposit accounts,
foreign deposit accounts, sweep account arrangements, and automated
credit account arrangements immediately following the determination of
the close-of-business account balances, as defined in Sec.
360.8(b)(3), at the failed covered institution.
(2) The system requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
must have the capability of placing the provisional holds prescribed
under that provision no later than 9 a.m. local time the day following
the FDIC cutoff point, as defined in Sec. 360.8(b)(1).
* * * * *
(4) For domestic deposit accounts, the provisional hold algorithm
must be designed to exempt accounts below a specific account balance
threshold, as determined by the FDIC. * * *
* * * * *
(5) For foreign deposit accounts, other than those connected to a
sweep account arrangement or automated credit account arrangement, the
provisional hold algorithm will apply a provisional hold percentage to
the entire account balance. For foreign deposit accounts the
provisional hold percentage may differ from that applied to domestic
deposit accounts. Also, the provisional hold percentage would not vary
by account category (i.e., consumer versus non-consumer and transaction
versus non-transaction) as is the case with domestic deposit accounts.
(6) For international banking facility deposits, other than those
connected to a sweep account arrangement or automated credit account
arrangement, the provisional hold algorithm will apply a provisional
hold percentage to the entire account balance. For international
banking facility deposits the provisional hold percentage may differ
from that applied to domestic deposit accounts or foreign deposit
accounts. Also, the provisional hold percentage would not vary by
account category (i.e., consumer versus non-consumer, and transaction
versus non-transaction) as is the case with domestic deposit accounts.
(7) For the interest-bearing investment vehicle of a sweep account
arrangement, the provisional hold algorithm must be designed with the
capability to place a provisional hold on the interest-bearing
investment vehicle with possibly a different account balance threshold
and a different hold percentage according to the type of interest-
bearing investment vehicle.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1)(i) A covered institution must have in place practices and
procedures for providing the FDIC in a standard format upon the close
of any day's business with required depositor and customer data for all
deposit accounts held in domestic and foreign offices and interest-
bearing investment accounts connected with sweep and automated credit
account arrangements. Such standard data files are to be created
through a mapping of pre-existing data elements and internal
institution codes into standard data formats. Deposit account and
customer data provided must be current as of the close of business for
that day. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, a
covered institution is not required to collect or generate depositor or
customer data needed for deposit insurance calculation purposes that it
does not ordinarily maintain in its records but must provide the data
that it does maintain in its deposit account records in the required
file format. A covered institution that is not a larger covered
institution is not required to populate the outstanding debt flag or
security pledge flag fields in lines 49 or 50 of appendix C to this
part, even if the covered institution ordinarily maintains such
records.
(ii) A larger covered institution must populate the mandatory data
fields as indicated in appendices C through G to this part. If the
larger covered institution does not have the required depositor and
customer data needed to populate the mandatory data fields, then the
larger covered institution must collect and maintain such data in its
deposit account records for each account.
(iii) Notwithstanding the requirement set forth in paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section, a larger covered institution need not
collect additional depositor and customer data and may, for

[[Page 69659]]

purposes of this part, maintain in its deposit account records less
information than is required under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section
for the following types of deposit accounts:
(A) For each deposit account for which a larger covered
institution's deposit account records disclose the existence of a
relationship which might provide a basis for additional deposit
insurance in accordance with 12 CFR 330.5 or 330.7, and for which the
larger covered institution does not maintain information that would be
needed to meet the requirement set forth in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of
this section; and
(B) For each formal revocable trust account and each irrevocable
trust account that is insured as described in 12 CFR 330.10 and for
each irrevocable trust account that is insured as described in 12 CFR
330.12, and for which the larger covered institution does not maintain
information that would be needed to meet the requirement set forth in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) The requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section shall be provided in five separate files, as indicated in
appendices C through G to this part.
(3) Upon request by the FDIC, a covered institution must submit the
data required by paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section to
the FDIC, in a manner prescribed by the FDIC.
(4) In providing the data required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section to the FDIC, the covered institution must
be able to reconcile the total deposit balances and the number of
deposit accounts to the institution's subsidiary system control totals.
(5)(i) For each deposit account with transactional features for
which a larger covered institution maintains its deposit account
records as provided for under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section,
the larger covered institution must take steps reasonably calculated to
ensure that the account holder will promptly provide to the FDIC the
information needed for the FDIC to calculate deposit insurance with
respect to each of those accounts. At a minimum, ``steps reasonably
calculated'' shall include:
(A) A good faith effort to enter into contractual arrangements with
the account holder that obligate the account holder to deliver
information needed for deposit insurance calculation to the FDIC in a
format prescribed in appendix I to this part within 24 hours after the
appointment of the FDIC as receiver in order for the account holder to
have access to deposits on the next business day after failure; or
(B) Providing the account holder with a written disclosure stating
that, if the larger covered institution fails and the FDIC is appointed
as receiver, then the account holder may not have access to deposits
before delivery of information in a format prescribed in appendix I to
this part.
(ii) A larger covered institution need not take the steps required
pursuant to paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section with respect to:
(A) Accounts maintained by a mortgage servicer, in a custodial or
other fiduciary capacity, which are comprised of payments by
mortgagors;
(B) Accounts maintained by real estate brokers, real estate agents,
or title companies in which funds from multiple clients are deposited
and held for a short period of time in connection with a real estate
transaction;
(C) Accounts established by an attorney or law firm as Interest on
Lawyers Trust Accounts, or functionally equivalent accounts;
(D) Accounts held in connection with an employee benefit plan (as
defined in 12 CFR 330.14); and
(E) An account maintained by an account holder for the benefit of
others, to the extent that the deposits in the account are held for the
benefit of:
(1) A formal revocable trust or irrevocable trust that would be
insured as described in 12 CFR 330.10; or
(2) An irrevocable trust that is insured as described in 12 CFR
330.12.
(6) A larger covered institution may submit a request to the FDIC,
using the address indicated in paragraph (g) of this section, for an
exemption from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section for
a relatively small number of accounts if circumstances exist that would
make it impracticable or overly burdensome to meet those requirements
with respect to certain types of accounts. Such requests may be in the
form of a letter and must include a justification for the request and
address the relative impact on customers' access to deposits in the
event of failure. The FDIC will consider such requests on a case-by-
case basis in light of the objectives of this section.
(e) Implementation requirements.
(1) An insured depository institution that is a covered institution
but not a larger covered institution as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE] must be in compliance with the requirements of this section as of
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. An insured depository institution
that is a covered institution and a larger covered institution as of
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] must comply with all the
requirements of this section except the requirements under paragraph
(c) of this section no later than [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] and the requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE]. Notwithstanding the prior two sentences, for any covered
institution that became a covered institution before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE] and has an initial compliance date that is after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], such institution must be in
compliance with the requirements of this section no later than the
relevant initial compliance date.
(2)(i) An insured depository institution not within the definition
of a covered institution on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] must
comply with the requirements of this section no later than eighteen
months following the end of the second calendar quarter for which it
meets the criteria for a covered institution.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4) or (5) of this section,
an insured depository institution that is a covered institution but not
a larger covered institution on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] must
comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and
(iii) and (d)(5) of this section no later than twelve months following
the end of the second calendar quarter for which it meets the criteria
for a larger covered institution.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, an
insured depository institution that is not within the definition of a
covered institution on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] must comply
with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) and
(d)(5) of this section no later than twelve months following the end of
the second calendar quarter for which it meets the criteria for a
larger covered institution, except that if the insured depository
institution was not a covered institution immediately prior to becoming
a larger covered institution, the insured depository institution must
comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and
(iii) and (d)(5) of this section no later than eighteen months
following the end of the second calendar quarter for which it meets the
criteria for a larger covered institution.
* * * * *
(i) Effect of pending requests. A covered institution that has
submitted a request for exemption or extension will not be considered
to be noncompliant

[[Page 69660]]

with this section as to the requirements that are the subject of the
request while awaiting the FDIC's response to such request.
(j) Release.
(1) A covered institution is released from the requirements of this
section if it does not meet the criteria to be a covered institution
for three consecutive quarters.
(2) A larger covered institution is released from the additional
requirements set forth in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) and (d)(5) of
this section if it does not meet the criteria to be a larger covered
institution for three consecutive quarters.
0
5. Revise the table in appendix A to part 360 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 360--Non-Monetary Transaction File Structure

* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larger CI
Field No. Field name Field description requirement Comments Validation File linkage Format
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r. Identifier. combined with other only, must be r in Deposit (C). Character (25).
The primary field Account Identifier unique when
used to identify fields in this file) combined with
the account. is the unique all other
This field may be identifier that is Account
the Account the primary key for Identifier
Number. the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
2.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-2. Identifier-2. combined with other only, must be r-2 in Deposit Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier unique when (C).
second element fields in this file) combined with
used to identify is the unique all other
the account. identifier that is Account
the primary key for Identifier
the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
3.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-3. Identifier-3. combined with other only, must be r-3 in Deposit Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier unique when (C).
third element fields in this file) combined with
used to identify is the unique all other
the account. identifier that is Account
the primary key for Identifier
the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
4.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-4. Identifier-4. combined with other only, must be r-4 in Deposit Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier unique when (C).
fourth element fields in this file) combined with
used to identify is the unique all other
the account. identifier that is Account
the primary key for Identifier
the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
5.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-5. Identifier-5. combined with other only, must be r-5 in Deposit Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier unique when (C).
fifth element fields in this file) combined with
used to identify is the unique all other
the account. identifier that is Account
the primary key for Identifier
the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.

[[Page 69661]]

6.......... DP_Sub_Acct_Ident Sub-Account .................... The Sub-Account For FDIC Holds DP_Sub_Acct_Ident Variable
ifier. Identifier. Identifier may only, must be ifier in Deposit Character (25).
If available, the identify separate unique when (C).
sub-account deposits tied to this combined with
identifier for account where there all other
the account. are different Account
processing parameters Identifier
such as interest fields.
rates or maturity
dates, but all owners
are the same.
7.......... PH_Hold_Action... Hold Action...... If Applicable....... ...................... ................. Mandatory (if Character (1).
The requested there is a HOLD
hold action to file).
be taken for
this account or
sub-account.
Possible values
are:.
<bullet> R =
Remove.
<bullet> A = Add.
8.......... PH_Hold_Amt...... Hold Amount...... If Applicable....... Hold Reason Code is ................. Mandatory (if Decimal (14,2).
Dollar amount of required if there is there is a HOLD
the FDIC hold to a non-zero hold file).
be removed or amount.
added.
9.......... PH_Hold_Desc..... Hold Description. If Applicable....... ...................... ................. Mandatory (if Character (225).
FDIC hold to be there is a HOLD
removed or added. file).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
6. Revise the table in appendix B to part 360 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 360--Debit/Credit File Structure

* * * * *

[[Page 69662]]

4.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-4. Identifier-4. combined with other only, must be r-4 in Deposit Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier unique when (C).
fourth element fields in this file) combined with
used to identify is the unique all other
the account. identifier that is Account
the primary key for Identifier
the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
5.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account .................... This field (when For FDIC Holds DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-5. Identifier-5. combined with other only, must be r-5 in Deposit Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier unique when (C).
fifth element fields in this file) combined with
used to identify is the unique all other
the account. identifier that is Account
the primary key for Identifier
the depositor data fields.
record. The Account
Identifier may be
composed of more than
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
6.......... DP_Sub_Acct_Ident Sub-Account .................... The Sub-Account For FDIC Holds DP_Sub_Acct_Ident Variable
ifier. Identifier. Identifier may only, must be ifier in Deposit Character (25).
If available, the identify separate unique when (C).
sub-account deposits tied to this combined with
identifier for account where there all other
the account. are different Account
processing parameters Identifier
such as interest fields.
rates or maturity
dates, but all owners
are the same.
7.......... DC_Debit_Amt..... Debit Amount..... .................... ...................... ................. ................. Decimal (14,2).
Dollar amount of
the debit to be
applied to the
account or sub-
account.
8.......... DC_Credit_Amt.... Credit Amount.... .................... ...................... ................. ................. Decimal (14,2).
Dollar amount of
the credit to be
applied to the
account or sub-
account.
9.......... DC_Transaction_De Debit/Credit .................... ...................... ................. ................. Character (225).
sc. Description.
FDIC message
associated with
the debit or
credit
transaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
7. Revise the table in appendix C to part 360 to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 360--Deposit File Structure

* * * * *

[[Page 69663]]

2.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account Optional............ This field (when <bullet> Must be DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-2. Identifier-2. combined with other unique when r-2 in Deposit- Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier combined with Customer Join
second element fields in this file) all other (G).
used to identify is the unique Account
the account. identifier that is Identifier
the primary key for fields.
the depositor data <bullet> Must
record. The Account have matching
Identifier may be Deposit-Customer
composed of more than Join (G) record.
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
3.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account Optional............ This field (when <bullet> Must be DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-3. Identifier-3. combined with other unique when r-3 in Deposit- Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier combined with Customer Join
third element fields in this file) all other (G).
used to identify is the unique Account
the account. identifier that is Identifier
the primary key for fields.
the depositor data <bullet> Must
record. The Account have matching
Identifier may be Deposit-Customer
composed of more than Join (G) record.
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
4.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account Optional............ This field (when <bullet> Must be DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-4. Identifier-4. combined with other unique when r-4 in Deposit- Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier combined with Customer Join
fourth element fields in this file) all other (G).
used to identify is the unique Account
the account. identifier that is Identifier
the primary key for fields.
the depositor data <bullet> Must
record. The Account have matching
Identifier may be Deposit-Customer
composed of more than Join (G) record.
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
5.......... DP_Acct_Identifie Account Optional............ This field (when <bullet> Must be DP_Acct_Identifie Variable
r-5. Identifier-5. combined with other unique when r-5 in Deposit- Character (25).
If necessary, the Account Identifier combined with Customer Join
fifth element fields in this file) all other (G).
used to identify is the unique Account
the account. identifier that is Identifier
the primary key for fields.
the depositor data <bullet> Must
record. The Account have matching
Identifier may be Deposit-Customer
composed of more than Join (G) record.
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account.
6.......... DP_Sub_Acct_Ident Sub-Account Optional............ This field (when <bullet> Must be DP_Sub_Acct_Ident Variable
ifier. Identifier. combined with other unique when ifier in Deposit- Character (25).
If available, the Account Identifier combined with Customer Join
sub-account fields in this file) all other (G).
identifier for is the unique Account
the account. identifier that is Identifier
the primary key for fields.
the depositor data <bullet> Must
record. The Account have matching
Identifier may be Deposit-Customer
composed of more than Join (G) record.
one physical data
element. If multiple
fields are required
to identify the
account, data should
be placed in separate
fields and the FDIC
instructed how these
fields are combined
to uniquely identify
the account..
7.......... DP_Bank_No....... Bank Number...... .................... ...................... ................. ................. Variable
The bank number Character (15).
assigned to the
deposit account.

[[Page 69664]]

8.......... DP_Tax_ID........ Tax ID........... Mandatory........... For consumer accounts, <bullet> 9-11 ................. Variable
The tax typically, this would digits. Character (15).
identification be the primary <bullet> Numeric
number account holder's values (may
maintained on social security contain hyphens).
the account. number (``SSN''). For
business accounts it
would be the federal
tax identification
number (``TIN'').
Hyphens are optional
in this field. If no
Tax ID, leave blank.
9.......... DP_Tax_Code...... Tax ID Code...... Mandatory........... Generally deposit <bullet> No null/ ................. Variable
The type of the systems have flags or blank values. Character (1).
tax indicators set to <bullet> Unique
identification indicate whether the Tax ID values
number. number is an SSN or are assigned
Values:.......... TIN. only one Tax
<bullet> S = Code.
Social Security
Number..
<bullet> T =
Federal Tax
Identification
Number..
<bullet> O =
Other..
10......... DP_Branch........ Branch Number.... .................... In lieu of a branch ................. ................. Variable
The branch or number this field may Character (15).
office represent a specialty
associated with department or
the account. division.
11......... DP_GL_Code....... G/L Code......... Mandatory........... This field ties to the No null/blank ................. Variable
The identifier general ledger values. Character (20).
used to tie the accounts.
deposit account
to the General
Ledger.
12......... DP_Dep_Type...... Deposit Type Mandatory........... A domestic deposit No null/blank ................. Variable
Indicator. means any deposit values. Character (1).
The type of other than a dually
deposit by payable deposit. A
office location. foreign deposit means
Values:.......... any dually payable
<bullet> D = deposit together with
Domestic any liability held in
deposit.. a foreign office of a
<bullet> F = U.S. IDI that (1)
Dually payable would be a deposit if
deposit.. carried on the books
<bullet> N = Non- and records of the
dually payable IDI in the United
foreign deposit.. States and (2) is not
expressly payable in
the United States.
13......... DP_Currency_Type. Currency Type.... .................... ...................... ................. ................. Variable
The ISO 4217 Character (3).
currency code.
14......... DP_Ownership_Ind. Customer Mandatory........... ...................... <bullet> No null/ ................. Variable
Ownership blank values. Character (4).
Indicator. <bullet> Must
The type of represent the
ownership right ownership rights
and capacity at and capacity of
the account the account.
level.
Values:..........
<bullet> S = .................... Single: Accounts owned
Single. by an individual and
those accounts held
as Minor Accounts,
Estate Accounts, Non-
Minor Custodian/
Guardian Accounts,
Attorney in Fact
Accounts and Sole
Proprietorships.
<bullet> J = .................... Joint Account:
Joint Account. Accounts owned by two
or more individuals,
but does not include
the ownership of a
Payable-on-Death
Account or Trust
Account.
<bullet> P = .................... Partnership Account:
Partnership Accounts owned by a
account. Partnership.
<bullet> C = .................... Corporation: Accounts ................. ................. .................
Corporation. owned by a
Corporation (e.g.,
Inc., L.L.C., or
P.C.).
<bullet> B = .................... Brokered Deposits:
Brokered Accounts placed by a
Deposits. deposit broker who
acts as an
intermediary for the
actual owner or sub
broker.
<bullet> I = IRA .................... IRA Accounts: Accounts
Accounts. for which the owner
has the right to
direct how the funds
are invested
including Keoghs and
other Self-Directed
Retirement Accounts.

[[Page 69665]]

<bullet> U = .................... Unincorporated
Unincorporated Association: An
Association. account owned by an
association of two or
more persons formed
for some religious,
educational,
charitable, social or
other non-commercial
purpose.
<bullet> R = .................... Revocable Trusts:
Revocable Trust. Including Payable-on-
Death Accounts (PODs)
and formal revocable

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 4, 2026.

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.