Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions With $50 Billion or More in Total Assets

Citation84 FR 16620
Record Number2019-08077
Published date22 April 2019
CourtFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 16620-16628]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2019-08077]
                ========================================================================
                Proposed Rules
                 Federal Register
                ________________________________________________________________________
                This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
                the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
                notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
                the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
                ========================================================================
                Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 /
                Proposed Rules
                [[Page 16620]]
                FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
                12 CFR Part 360
                RIN 3064-AF05
                Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions
                With $50 Billion or More in Total Assets
                AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
                ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: The FDIC invites comments on this advance notice of proposed
                rulemaking (ANPR) concerning how to tailor and improve its rule
                requiring certain insured depository institutions to submit resolution
                plans.
                DATES: Comments must be received by June 21, 2019.
                ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AF05, by any
                of the following methods:
                 Agency website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency
                website.
                 Email: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 3064-AF05'' on the
                subject line of the message.
                 Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention:
                Comments/RIN 3064-AF05, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
                Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
                 Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments may be hand delivered to
                the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located
                on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
                 All comments received must include the agency name (FDIC) and RIN
                3064-AF05 and will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal, including any personal information provided.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F. Angus Tarpley III, Counsel, (703)
                562-2434, [email protected], James P. Sheesley, Counsel, (703) 562-
                2047, [email protected], Ryan M. Rappa, Counsel, (202) 898-6767, Legal
                Division; Lori J. Quigley, Deputy Director, (202) 898-3799, Robert C.
                Connors, Associate Director, (202) 898-3834, Division of Risk
                Management Supervision; Marc Steckel, Deputy Director, (571) 858-8224,
                Division of Resolutions and Receiverships; Jason C. Cave, Corporate
                Expert, (202) 898-3548, Office of Complex Financial Institutions.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                I. Introduction
                 The FDIC is undertaking a review of its rule requiring certain
                insured depository institutions (IDIs) to submit resolution plans (IDI
                Rule).\1\ This ANPR is part of that review process. The FDIC is
                considering how to tailor and improve the IDI Rule, as described below.
                Specifically, the FDIC invites comments on certain approaches under
                consideration: (1) Creation of tiered resolution planning requirements
                based on institution size, complexity, and other factors; (2) revisions
                to the frequency and required content of plan submissions, including
                elimination of plan submissions for a category of smaller and less
                complex IDIs; and (3) improvements to the process for periodic
                engagement between the FDIC and institutions on resolution-related
                matters. The FDIC is also seeking comment on whether to revise the $50
                billion asset size threshold in the IDI Rule.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \1\ 12 CFR 360.10.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The FDIC is currently considering several approaches for revising
                the IDI Rule. Specifically, under one alternative approach, the FDIC is
                considering categorizing IDIs subject to the IDI Rule into three
                groups. The IDIs in the first group, Group A (as defined below),
                comprising the largest and most complex IDIs, would be required to
                submit Resolution Plans (as defined below) with content requirements
                that would be streamlined compared to the current IDI Rule. IDIs in the
                second group, Group B (as defined below), which would include larger,
                more complex regional IDIs, would be required to submit further
                streamlined Resolution Plans, reduced in content compared to the
                Resolution Plans required for Group A. The IDIs in the third group,
                Group C (as defined below) would be smaller and less complex than those
                in Group A or Group B, and would no longer be required to submit
                Resolution Plans. The FDIC would engage with Group A, Group B, and
                Group C IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a limited number of items
                related to resolution planning; these IDIs also would continue to be
                subject to periodic testing of certain capabilities relating to
                resolution planning and implementation.
                 Under a second alternative approach, the FDIC is considering
                grouping IDIs subject to the IDI Rule into two groups: Larger IDIs
                (comprising Group A and Group B IDIs) and Group C IDIs. Larger IDIs
                would be required to submit Resolution Plans with streamlined content
                requirements individually targeted to each institution's size,
                complexity, and other factors related to resolvability. For example,
                where a complex, larger IDI operates multiple business lines involving
                affiliated, interconnected legal entities and an extensive, globally
                dispersed branch network, the Resolution Plan for this large IDI would
                provide relatively greater content on complexity and cross-border
                elements. For a larger IDI that has a simpler footprint with minimal
                cross-jurisdictional exposures, the relevant content requirements would
                be streamlined or omitted. As in the first alternative approach, the
                IDIs in Group C would no longer be required to submit Resolution Plans.
                Also as in the first alternative approach, the FDIC would engage with
                larger IDIs and Group C IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a limited
                number of items related to resolution planning; these IDIs also would
                continue to be subject to periodic testing of certain capabilities
                relating to resolution planning and implementation.
                II. Background
                A. The IDI Rule
                 The IDI Rule was proposed in 2010 \2\ and became effective in
                2012.\3\ The IDI Rule requires IDIs with $50 billion or more in total
                assets (covered insured depository institutions or CIDIs) to
                periodically submit plans (Resolution Plans) that should enable the
                FDIC, as receiver, to resolve the CIDI in the event of its insolvency
                under the Federal
                [[Page 16621]]
                Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) in a manner that ensures that
                depositors receive access to their insured deposits within one business
                day of the CIDI's failure (two business days if the failure occurs on a
                day other than Friday), maximizes the net present value return from the
                sale or disposition of its assets, and minimizes the amount of any loss
                realized by the creditors in the resolution.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \2\ 75 FR 27464 (May 17, 2010).
                 \3\ Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 58379 (September 21, 2011) and
                Final Rule, 77 FR 3075 (January 23, 2012).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The FDIC proposed the IDI Rule in response to challenges identified
                in the resolution of IDIs during the 2008 financial crisis, prior to
                enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
                Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The IDI Rule was intended to ensure that the FDIC
                has timely access to information concerning a CIDI's structure,
                operations, business practices, financial responsibilities, and risk
                exposure, which the FDIC would need to handle a resolution of a CIDI
                under the FDI Act.
                 Separate from the FDI Act and IDI Rule requirements, section 165(d)
                of the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that certain bank holding companies and
                nonbank financial companies (Covered Companies) submit resolution plans
                (DFA Resolution Plans) for the rapid and orderly resolution of the
                Covered Company under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.\4\ DFA Resolution Plans
                have a specific goal different from that of Resolution Plans under the
                IDI Rule: To reduce the likelihood that the financial distress or
                failure of a Covered Company would have serious adverse effects on
                financial stability in the United States. The interim final IDI Rule
                and the final rule regarding DFA Resolution Plans (Section 165(d) Rule)
                \5\ were issued concurrently with aligned asset thresholds for CIDIs
                and Covered Companies. Since then, the Dodd-Frank Act has been amended
                to revise the threshold for DFA Resolution Plans.\6\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \4\ The DFA Resolution Plan of a foreign-based Covered Company
                provides for the resolution of its U.S. operations and entities.
                 \5\ 12 CFR parts 243 & 381; 76 FR 67323 (January 23, 2012). On
                April 8 and 16, 2019, respectively, the Board of Governors of the
                Federal Reserve System and the FDIC's Board of Directors considered
                proposed amendments to the Section 165(d) Rule to reflect
                improvements identified during the eight years the Section 165(d)
                Rule has been in effect and to address amendments to the Dodd-Frank
                Act made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
                Protection Act.
                 \6\ Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection
                Act, Sec. 401, Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296. See further
                discussion in section II.E.3. below.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Since issuing the final IDI Rule, the FDIC and CIDIs have been
                through multiple Resolution Plan submission cycles. Through this
                experience, the FDIC has learned what aspects of the resolution
                planning process are most valuable and has gained an understanding of
                the resources, internal and external, that CIDIs expend in meeting the
                requirements of the IDI Rule. The FDIC has also gained additional
                resolution capabilities relevant to CIDI resolution through rulemakings
                subsequent to the issuance of the IDI Rule that provide information
                related to that called for under the IDI Rule. Given what the FDIC has
                learned, now is an appropriate time to review the IDI Rule in light of
                these changes.
                B. Distinctions Between IDI Rule and Section 165(d) Rule
                 Though the IDI Rule and the Section 165(d) Rule both require
                planning for resolution of large, complex financial institutions to
                minimize the cost and disruption of failures, resolution planning under
                the two rules involves distinct entities, objectives, and legal
                frameworks. The IDI Rule applies only to IDIs and involves resolution
                under the FDI Act by the FDIC. The Section 165(d) Rule focuses on the
                resolution of Covered Companies. Currently, all Covered Companies are
                bank holding companies, which would be resolved under the U.S.
                Bankruptcy Code.
                 The IDI Rule's objective is to ensure that the FDIC can effectively
                resolve a CIDI under the FDI Act, protecting its insured depositors and
                the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and maximizing value for the benefit
                of creditors of the CIDI. The Section 165(d) Rule's aim is ensuring
                that the bankruptcy of a Covered Company can be accomplished in a
                manner that substantially mitigates the risk that the failure of the
                Covered Company would have serious adverse effects on financial
                stability in the United States.
                 Under an FDI Act resolution, a CIDI's legal existence would
                terminate upon entry into resolution, and its management would not
                control the resolution. By contrast, under the resolution strategies
                used in the DFA Resolution Plans, a Covered Company in bankruptcy
                generally could continue its corporate existence, in which case some of
                its most senior management may remain in place to manage the
                reorganization.
                 The largest, most complex U.S. firms and a number of foreign-based
                banking organizations present a single point of entry resolution
                strategy in their DFA Resolution Plans. The single point of entry
                resolution strategy does not anticipate that an IDI subsidiary will
                enter resolution proceedings; instead an explicit goal of the single
                point of entry strategy is to keep certain material subsidiaries,
                including each IDI subsidiary, open and operating. However, the single
                point of entry strategy remains untested, and may not be available
                under all failure scenarios. For those reasons, a separate plan for the
                CIDI is important.
                 For other DFA Resolution Plan filers where a single point of entry
                resolution strategy is not proposed, especially in cases in which the
                vast majority of the consolidated firm's total assets and business
                lines are within the IDI, IDI resolution is likely to be a component of
                any resolution involving the Covered Company.
                C. Resolutions Under the FDI Act
                 The FDIC is charged by Congress with the responsibility for
                insuring the deposits of IDIs in the United States and with serving as
                receiver of such institutions following failure. To fulfill its
                responsibilities, the FDIC has developed strategies and capabilities to
                manage the failure of any IDI. Since 2008, the FDIC has served as
                receiver for over 525 failed IDIs. These failures caused the DIF
                temporarily to become insolvent and threatened its liquidity, yet the
                FDIC remained able to discharge its duties through collection of
                prepaid and special assessments and recoveries from failed bank
                receiverships. Appropriate resolution planning is important to ensure
                that the FDIC maintains the capabilities required to ensure depositors
                have access to insured deposits as soon as possible and to minimize
                potential losses to the DIF and other creditors. The FDIC's primary
                resolution strategies for resolving an IDI are outlined below.
                1. The Purchase and Assumption Transaction
                 Approximately 95 percent of resolutions conducted by the FDIC since
                2007 involved the sale of the IDI's franchise and assets to an open
                institution in an assisted transaction, generally involving a single
                acquirer assuming nearly all of the failed IDI's liabilities. This
                transaction, termed a purchase and assumption or ``P&A'' transaction,
                is often both the easiest for the FDIC to execute and the least
                disruptive to the depositors of the failed IDI. This is especially so
                where the transaction involves the assumption of all the failed IDI's
                deposits by the assuming institution (an all-deposit transaction).
                 The P&A option is not always available to the FDIC. P&A
                transactions require lead time to identify potential buyers and allow
                investigation and auction of the failing IDI's assets and banking
                business, also termed its franchise. These transactions may only
                [[Page 16622]]
                be conducted following a determination, required by statute, that such
                transaction results in the least cost to the DIF of all possible
                resolution options,\7\ including paying out the insured deposits of the
                failed IDI.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \7\ 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(A).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2. Other Resolution Strategies
                 If no P&A transaction that meets the least costly resolution
                requirement can be accomplished, the FDIC must pursue an alternative
                resolution strategy. The primary alternative resolution strategies are
                the payout liquidation and the bridge bank. Both of these strategies
                present significant operational challenges and the potential for
                significant disruption in the case of large IDIs.
                 Payout. The FDIC conducts payout liquidations by paying insured
                deposits in cash or transferring the insured deposits to an existing
                institution or a new institution organized by the FDIC to assume the
                insured deposits.\8\ In payout liquidations, the FDIC as receiver
                retains substantially all of the failed IDI's assets for later sale,
                and the franchise value of the failed IDI is lost.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \8\ See 12 U.S.C. 1821(f), (m).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Bridge Bank. If the FDIC determines that continuing the operations
                of the failed IDI is less costly than a payout liquidation, it may
                organize a nationally-chartered IDI of limited duration (a bridge bank)
                to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the failed
                IDI, in what may be either an all-deposit transaction or a transaction
                in which the acquirer assumes only the insured deposits (an insured
                deposit only transaction). Once the FDIC has transferred assets from
                the failed bank to the newly established bridge bank, the FDIC will
                manage and operate the new institution, potentially for a significant
                length of time.
                D. Challenges to Resolving CIDIs
                 The FDIC's sole experience with resolving a failed institution over
                the current asset size threshold for a CIDI, Washington Mutual Bank,
                involved an all-deposit P&A transaction that resulted in no losses to
                the DIF. The availability of this low-risk, efficient resolution
                strategy cannot be assumed for future CIDI failures. The largest bank
                failure resolved by the FDIC without use of a P&A transaction was that
                of IndyMac Bank, a complicated resolution that caused significant
                losses for the DIF and posed considerable operational challenges. The
                overall risk profile associated with the size, complexity, and funding
                structure of some CIDIs reduces the likelihood that they could be
                resolved through a P&A transaction, whether an all-deposit transaction
                or an insured deposit only transaction. Further, these factors also
                present significant challenges to conducting a resolution involving use
                of a bridge bank. The purpose of IDI resolution planning is to prepare
                for the failure of such IDIs, with a focus on the challenges that
                resolution involving a bridge bank would entail.
                1. Size
                 The size of a failing CIDI may restrict the FDIC's resolution
                options by significantly reducing the number of potential P&A
                acquirers. Certain CIDIs may be too large to be acquired by any other
                open institution in a P&A transaction, due to legal limitations on
                liability concentration or operational or economic conditions.\9\
                Alternatively, a failed CIDI's concentration within certain market
                areas may raise antitrust issues or otherwise preclude potential
                acquirers from bidding.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \9\ See, e.g. 12 U.S.C. 1852 (concentration limits on large
                financial firms).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2. Complexity
                 Many CIDIs exhibit a degree of complexity not found in smaller IDIs
                which the FDIC has usually resolved through use of a P&A transaction.
                This complexity manifests within the CIDI's operations and in its
                relationships with affiliates, counterparties, and the economy. CIDIs
                generally operate multiple business lines, frequently involving
                affiliated, interconnected legal entities and extensive, geographically
                dispersed branch networks. Many CIDIs rely on affiliate legal entities,
                foreign branches, or contractual counterparties to carry out one or
                more critical services necessary for continuing day-to-day operations.
                In addition, many CIDIs conduct capital markets activities in multiple
                jurisdictions, and may participate in multiple payment, clearing, and
                settlement systems. These activities all rely on a larger workforce
                containing a higher number of specialized, key personnel than the
                typical IDI, and necessitate use of specialized management information
                systems for risk management, accounting, and reporting.
                 CIDI complexity presents challenges to resolution by P&A or bridge
                bank. Use of either resolution strategy generally requires separation
                of the CIDI from its parent and affiliate entities, including both
                organizational and contractual connections, in a manner that preserves
                the value and allows the continuation of the business of the CIDI
                either by a bridge bank or as a component of an acquirer's business.
                This task requires both a comprehensive understanding of these
                relationships and the capabilities to carry out a plan that effects
                such separation. Absent planning and preparation, CIDI complexity may
                present too great a challenge for any potential acquirer to value,
                especially in a time of financial distress or market disruption.
                Similarly, incomplete awareness of interconnectedness and key
                dependencies in the CIDI's organizational structure and the lack of
                arrangements necessary for organizational separation and operational
                continuity in resolution would greatly impact a bridge bank resolution,
                where the FDIC would be tasked with continuing these operations to
                avoid disruptions to depositors and to maximize value to the
                receivership in the ultimate disposition of the bridge bank.
                3. Funding
                 Larger IDIs tend to rely to a greater extent than smaller IDIs on
                uninsured deposits and market funding. This funding structure impacts
                both the timing of a resolution and the availability of resolution
                options. Funding structures less reliant on insured deposits generally
                compress the failure timeline. Uninsured deposits and market funding
                are more likely to be withdrawn rapidly should an IDI exhibit signs of
                financial distress. While IDI failures resulting solely from capital
                inadequacy typically unfold over months (or longer), a failure
                triggered by an IDI's lack of liquidity can arise much more quickly,
                requiring advance planning to facilitate an orderly resolution.
                Liquidity issues may also require the resolution to occur on a day
                other than Friday, which could further complicate the FDIC's ability to
                complete a successful resolution transaction.
                 A larger share of liabilities in the form of uninsured deposits
                makes an all-deposit transaction less likely because an assuming
                institution would need to pay a greater premium to effect an all-
                deposit transaction that satisfies the least costly resolution
                requirement. An insured deposit only transaction requires an insurance
                determination. While the FDIC's recordkeeping rule for timely deposit
                insurance determinations (described below) will improve the FDIC's
                ability to conduct such a determination for certain IDIs over the
                weekend following the IDI's closing, such a determination for a CIDI
                would still be complex and would be the largest in FDIC history.
                [[Page 16623]]
                 The FDIC must also make determinations regarding the transfer of
                non-deposit liabilities in a P&A or bridge bank resolution. Some
                liabilities would be transferred to the acquirer or bridge bank,
                generally resulting in the counterparty receiving full payment and
                performance of those obligations, while other non-deposit liabilities
                would likely be left with the receivership, to be satisfied from any
                proceeds of the receiver's asset disposition efforts (including the
                ultimate disposition of a bridge bank, if this strategy is used)
                available for distribution after satisfaction of administrative and
                deposit claims. The FDIC must be in a position to estimate the value of
                these liabilities and determine which should be transferred. Settlement
                of claims left with the receiver requires advance planning and
                capabilities enhancement on the FDIC's part. The FDIC has an
                established process for receiving proofs of receivership claims and
                making final claims determinations, but it has never utilized that
                process in a bridge bank resolution in excess of the size of IndyMac.
                The FDIC expects that a CIDI claims process would be significantly more
                complex.
                E. Resolution Plan Experience and Recent Developments
                 In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC
                instituted several rulemakings that support its mission as deposit
                insurer to make timely insured deposit payments and as resolution
                authority to resolve a failed IDI in the manner that is least costly to
                the DIF. In addition to the current IDI Rule, these include
                Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination (Part 370) and
                Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part
                371). These rules address certain of the difficulties the FDIC could
                face in the closing of a large, complex IDI. As noted in section II.A.
                above, changes to the Dodd-Frank Act enacted since issuance of the IDI
                Rule also warrant reconsideration of IDI resolution planning
                requirements.
                1. Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination (Part 370)
                 Part 370 requires covered institutions, IDIs with two million or
                more deposit accounts, to put in place mechanisms to facilitate prompt
                deposit insurance determinations. Covered institutions must (a)
                configure their information technology systems to be able to calculate
                the insured and uninsured portion of each deposit account by ownership
                right and capacity; and (b) maintain complete and accurate information
                needed by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance coverage for each
                deposit account. These requirements are designed to assist the FDIC in
                fulfilling its statutory mandate in promptly making insurance
                determinations, providing liquidity to insured depositors, and
                administering the claims process for uninsured depositors. The
                capabilities to be implemented by CIDIs subject to Part 370 would
                enhance the ability of the FDIC to conduct a resolution of any type,
                potentially reducing the importance of some Resolution Plan content
                relating to deposit accounts.
                2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part
                371)
                 Part 371 requires institutions in troubled condition to keep
                enhanced records in standard format regarding their qualified financial
                contracts. This information would be used by the FDIC, were it
                appointed receiver, in making a determination of whether to transfer
                qualified financial contracts entered into by the failed institution
                within the brief statutory window. Part 371 provides significantly
                greater requirements for larger institutions in recognition of the
                informational and logistical needs that the FDIC, as receiver, would
                have as a result of the significant and more complex qualified
                financial contract portfolios that such institutions are likely to
                hold. This rule improves the ability of the FDIC to make a timely
                qualified financial contract determination, potentially reducing the
                scope of information and planning required to be included in a
                Resolution Plan relating to qualified financial contracts.
                3. Changes to DFA Resolution Plan Requirements Under the Economic
                Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
                 The filing threshold established in the IDI Rule was initially
                aligned to the filing threshold established by the Dodd-Frank Act for
                bank holding companies required to submit DFA Resolution Plans, and the
                IDI Rule was intended to complement the Dodd-Frank Act and the Section
                165(d) Rule.
                 On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and
                Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) was enacted. Among other changes,
                EGRRCPA raised the $50 billion minimum asset threshold for general
                application of the resolution planning requirement of Section 165(d) of
                the Dodd-Frank Act to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, and
                provided the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with
                discretion to apply the resolution planning requirement to bank holding
                companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, but
                less than $250 billion. As noted in section II.A. above, while the
                resolution planning conducted pursuant to Section 165(d) of the Dodd-
                Frank Act and the resolution planning required by the IDI Rule are
                distinct in many ways, nevertheless this change in filing threshold
                warrants that the IDI Rule's $50 billion threshold be revisited.
                III. Request for Comment
                 In light of the changes discussed and lessons learned, it is
                appropriate to review the IDI Rule requirements and consider certain
                updates. The FDIC is better prepared today to handle larger resolutions
                than it was during and in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial
                crisis. This is in part because of what has been learned through the
                resolution plan review process established by the IDI Rule and the
                complementary enhancements implemented through the issuance of Part 370
                and the revisions to Part 371. In addition, seven years and multiple
                submissions from CIDIs have allowed the FDIC to identify best practices
                and to contemplate ways to enhance the utility of information provided
                by CIDIs. The FDIC feedback and guidance \10\ provided since issuance
                of the IDI Rule indicate that the FDIC's experience in administering
                the IDI Rule has led to overall changes in its expectations regarding
                the process, as well as the value it places on individual components
                required in the Resolution Plans.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \10\ See, e.g., Guidance for Covered Insured Depository
                Institution Resolution Plan Submissions (Dec. 17, 2014), https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2014/pr14109a.pdf.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Experience with the IDI Rule indicates that in many cases, the
                greatest value of resolution planning comes from the insights into each
                CIDI's idiosyncratic risk profile and information on the particular
                CIDI that the Resolution Plans provide, rather than the strategies that
                each CIDI develops for resolution. Further, the FDIC's experience shows
                that the distinctions among individual CIDIs make certain elements
                called for in the IDI Rule more or less valuable, such that a one-size-
                fits-all approach may no longer be the best approach for specifying
                Resolution Plan content.
                 Moreover, the FDIC is aware of the considerable time and resources
                devoted by CIDIs to meet the requirements of the IDI Rule, as well as
                the requirements of Parts 370 and 371. Given the cumulative experience
                of the
                [[Page 16624]]
                Resolution Plan review process and the new capabilities required by
                Parts 370 and 371, revisions to the requirements of the IDI Rule are
                warranted.
                 The agency is seeking comment on a number of questions intended to
                determine how the IDI Rule could be streamlined and otherwise improved
                to support the FDIC's mandate to administer orderly and least-costly
                resolutions of CIDIs while reducing the overall burden on CIDIs.
                 The FDIC is soliciting feedback from the public on potential
                changes to the IDI Rule to:
                 Create tiered groups to tailor the requirements of the IDI
                rule based upon size, complexity, and other relevant factors;
                 Improve the content requirements of the IDI Rule,
                including through the modification of certain items;
                 Under one alternative, for the larger, more complex CIDIs,
                replace the requirement for a full resolution plan with two streamlined
                versions;
                 Under a second alternative, maintain a single group of the
                larger, more complex global and regional CIDIs and require them to
                provide streamlined Resolution Plan information targeted to their size,
                complexity, and other factors;
                 For the smaller, less complex regional-sized CIDIs,
                replace the requirement for a Resolution Plan with periodic engagement
                with the FDIC on certain specified resolution planning matters; and
                 Reduce the frequency of requirements imposed by the IDI
                Rule.
                 This section III is divided into four parts, covering: Tiered
                approach; content; engagement and capabilities testing; and frequency.
                In addition to the initial proposals within each part, more specific
                questions are provided.
                 The FDIC also seeks comments from interested parties on all aspects
                of its large IDI resolution planning activities and process, this ANPR,
                and the IDI Rule. Commenters are invited to respond to the questions
                presented and to offer comments, data, or suggestions on any other
                issues related to IDI resolution planning requirements, including
                developments in the industry or broader economy that may impact how the
                FDIC evaluates comments provided. Comments should be as specific as
                possible.
                A. Tiered Approach
                1. Alternative One
                 The FDIC is considering revising the IDI Rule to provide for a
                tiered approach to resolution planning requirements. This tiered
                approach would comprise three groups:
                 Group A CIDIs: ``Group A'' would include the largest, most
                complex, internationally active IDIs. Due to the size of a Group A
                CIDI, the global nature of its business, the critical importance of its
                operations, and its interconnections with affiliates, resolution
                planning would be required. A P&A transaction with an assuming
                institution is highly unlikely. Therefore, preparation for the
                potential use of a bridge bank transaction is needed. A Group A CIDI
                would submit a streamlined Resolution Plan as discussed below under
                ``Content.''
                 Group B CIDIs: ``Group B'' would include larger, more
                complex regional IDIs. Due to the size of a Group B CIDI, the
                complexity of its operations, or the specialized nature of its
                business, it may be unlikely that an assuming institution would be
                available to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the
                failed CIDI at the time of its failure. Resolution planning is
                necessary to assist the FDIC in marketing the institution or preparing
                to continue its operations in a bridge bank. Because these institutions
                do not share certain of the characteristics of the Group A CIDIs, they
                would submit a further streamlined Resolution Plan as discussed below
                under ``Content.''
                 Group C CIDIs: ``Group C'' would include smaller, less
                complex regional IDIs. Due to the relative lack of complexity of these
                institutions, there is a higher degree of likelihood that, given
                adequate advance preparation, an assuming institution would purchase
                the assets and assume the liabilities of the institution at the time of
                failure. Advance resolution planning would be an important factor in
                the success of such a resolution transaction for an institution of this
                size and complexity, including whether a Group C CIDI could be
                successfully marketed to an assuming institution or would need to be
                resolved using a bridge bank. Group C CIDIs would not be required to
                submit a Resolution Plan.
                2. Alternative Two
                 As an alternative to the approach described immediately above, the
                FDIC is considering revising the IDI Rule to provide for a tiered
                approach comprising two groups:
                 Larger CIDIs: Group A and Group B CIDIs (together, Larger
                CIDIs) would be subject to a continuum of disclosure obligations for
                their Resolution Plan submissions based upon the size, complexity, and
                other factors of the specific IDI, instead of the two Groups having
                distinct informational requirements. Larger CIDIs would be required to
                provide Resolution Plan information based upon their components of
                complexity,\11\ as discussed below under ``Content--Alternative Two.''
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \11\ Components of complexity include those features of an IDI
                which could have a bearing on its resolvability, triggering a
                corresponding informational requirement in the Resolution Plan.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Group C CIDIs: Group C CIDIs would not have a Resolution
                Plan filing requirement under either Alternative.
                 Under both Alternative One and Alternative Two, all CIDIs subject
                to the IDI Rule would periodically engage with the FDIC on planning
                matters and undergo periodic capabilities testing to support the FDIC's
                resolution planning efforts, as discussed below under ``Engagement and
                capabilities testing.''
                3. Solicitation for Input
                 The FDIC welcomes comments related to the tiered submission groups
                in response to these questions:
                 1. As mentioned above, an IDI is currently subject to the IDI Rule
                if it has $50 billion or more in total assets. How should the FDIC
                determine which institutions are subject to the IDI Rule? Should the
                FDIC continue to use a specific asset threshold? If so, what should the
                asset threshold be? Are there other specific metrics or criteria the
                FDIC should use? Are there specific metrics that measure complexity or
                risk that the FDIC should use?
                 2. Under both alternatives, how should the FDIC determine which
                CIDIs are in which group? Are there specific metrics or criteria the
                FDIC should use? Should the FDIC rely solely on asset thresholds or
                should the FDIC use additional or other metrics to measure relative
                complexity and risk? If so, what are the other metrics? Should the FDIC
                consider a measure of funding structure impact on resolution as a
                metric? Should the FDIC endeavor to align the groups with the
                categories being proposed for bank holding companies under the Section
                165(d) Rule?
                 3. What are the pros and cons of Alternative One and Alternative
                Two? Which approach should the FDIC implement, and why? Are there other
                variations of either approach that the FDIC should consider?
                 4. Under Alternative Two, the FDIC is considering approaching size,
                complexity, and other factors related to resolvability as they arise in
                individual components at each CIDI, such that a particular
                informational Resolution Plan element would not be required unless a
                corresponding metric crossed a threshold. Is this a useful way to
                consider resolvability? Why or why not?
                 5. Is Alternative Two feasible? If so, what specific criteria
                should the FDIC
                [[Page 16625]]
                consider for purposes of considering the size, complexity, and other
                factors related to resolvability of Larger CIDIs and mapping such
                factors to content requirements?
                 6. Should the FDIC have discretion to move a CIDI to a different
                group based on specific characteristics of the CIDI? If so, what
                factors should the FDIC consider in making such a determination? Does
                the appropriateness of such a discretionary authority vary depending on
                whether the groups are distinguished by asset thresholds alone or in
                combination with other factors?
                B. Content
                1. Alternative One
                 In line with the tiered approach to resolution planning
                requirements discussed in ``Tiered Approach--Alternative One,'' above,
                the FDIC is considering an approach whereby Resolution Plan
                requirements would align more closely to the size, complexity, and
                other factors of the subject CIDIs. Content requirements would differ
                substantially between Group A and Group B CIDIs. Group C CIDIs would
                not be required to file a formal Resolution Plan. All CIDIs would be
                required to periodically engage with FDIC resolution staff on certain
                specified resolution planning matters and would continue to be subject
                to capabilities testing, as discussed below under ``Engagement and
                capabilities testing.''
                Group A CIDIs
                 Group A CIDIs would be subject to all content requirements
                specified in the amended IDI Rule. The content requirements would be
                modified from those in the current IDI Rule.
                 The current IDI Rule requires CIDIs to develop strategies for
                resolution of the CIDI, including a strategy to unwind its operations
                from the organizational structure of its parent \12\ and a strategy for
                the sale or other disposition of the deposit franchise.\13\ Because the
                FDIC manages FDI Act resolutions, the FDIC is considering modifying
                these content requirements to clarify that the FDIC would develop the
                strategies and make the least cost test determination, with information
                provided by the CIDI.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \12\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(v).
                 \13\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(vi).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The current IDI Rule also requires the CIDI to describe any
                contingency planning or other exercises undertaken to assess the
                viability of or to improve the resolution plan.\14\ Contingency
                planning is an important component of resolution planning, and one for
                which CIDIs are an integral part. CIDIs may not be in the best
                position, however, to assess their Resolution Plan, and the contingency
                planning exercises should not necessarily be seen as a reflection of
                the merit of the Resolution Plan submissions. Similarly, while there is
                value in confirming that a CIDI treats preparation of the Resolution
                Plan with the appropriate degree of commitment and level of attention,
                detailed information concerning the corporate governance structure for
                developing, approving, and filing the Resolution Plan may have limited
                relevance to the FDIC's resolution planning efforts.\15\ Information
                concerning how resolution planning is integrated into the CIDI's
                corporate governance structure may be of greater utility.\16\
                Accordingly, the FDIC is reconsidering these content requirements.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \14\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xxi).
                 \15\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(B) and (C).
                 \16\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(A).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 As noted above, it is expected that a Group A CIDI would
                participate in resolution planning through the DFA Resolution Plan
                filed by its parent or affiliate. That DFA Resolution Plan may include
                important analysis relating to the IDI, for example, interconnections
                and interdependencies among the parent company, the CIDI, and certain
                other subsidiaries that, if disrupted, would materially affect the
                CIDI's funding or operations.\17\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \17\ See 12 CFR 381.4(g).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 To promote efficiency and reduce burden, the FDIC is encouraging
                the use of incorporation by reference to DFA Resolution Plan filings
                where practicable. In the past, the FDIC also has encouraged CIDIs to
                eliminate content not required in a particular submission through
                incorporating such content by reference to the prior submission.
                 In the past, the FDIC has provided waivers on Resolution Plan
                informational content where appropriate. This practice could be
                expanded for Group A (and Group B) CIDIs.
                Group B CIDIs
                 The content requirements for a Group B CIDI would be further
                streamlined such that Group B CIDIs would submit a subset of the
                Resolution Plan required of Group A CIDIs. In addition to the content
                requirement modifications noted above, which would apply to both Group
                A and Group B CIDIs, certain informational requirements may be less
                relevant for certain Group B CIDIs due to their size, complexity, and
                other factors. The specific informational requirements would be
                determined in tandem with the determination of the scope of the Group B
                CIDIs, as discussed above under ``Tiered approach.''
                Group C CIDIs
                 Group C CIDIs would no longer be required to file a Resolution
                Plan.
                2. Alternative Two
                 The FDIC is considering a second approach under which there would
                be no bright-line distinction with regard to the informational
                requirements for Larger CIDIs. Under this approach, content
                requirements would exist along a continuum based upon the size,
                complexity, and other factors of the particular CIDI. This would
                naturally reduce plan content the most for CIDIs who operate less
                complex franchises, versus the more structured approach outlined in
                Alternative One.
                 Informational requirements that may in particular be impacted could
                include: Information concerning major counterparties of the CIDI; \18\
                a description of off-balance-sheet exposures; \19\ information
                concerning the CIDI's pledged collateral; \20\ information on the
                CIDI's trading, derivatives, and hedging activities; \21\ a description
                of the systemically important functions of the CIDI and its affiliates;
                \22\ and a description of cross-border elements of the CIDI's
                operations.\23\ The FDIC is considering modifying these content
                requirements for Larger CIDIs for whom some of this information may be
                less material.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \18\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ix).
                 \19\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(x).
                 \20\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xi).
                 \21\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii).
                 \22\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xvii).
                 \23\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xviii).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Informational requirements would be dictated by the components of
                complexity of the particular Larger CIDI. For example, a Larger CIDI
                which engages in significant cross-border operations would present the
                corresponding metrics for complexity that would trigger the requirement
                to include a robust discussion of those activities in its Resolution
                Plan.\24\ This same institution may not have a significant qualified
                financial contract business or one that imposes significant risk on its
                business, and also may not provide systemically important
                functions.\25\ Because those requirements relating to qualified
                financial contracts and systemically important functions would not be
                triggered, the Resolution Plan for this Larger CIDI potentially could
                provide streamlined content on
                [[Page 16626]]
                these items, or would not be required to respond to the informational
                item. Further, the FDIC is considering describing in regulatory text
                the specific metrics it would use to determine which specific
                informational requirements would be required.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \24\ See id.
                 \25\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii) and (xvii).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 As under Alternative One, Group C CIDIs would not file a Resolution
                Plan under Alternative Two. Also as under Alternative One, all CIDIs
                subject to the IDI Rule would be required to periodically engage with
                FDIC resolution staff on certain specified resolution planning matters
                and would continue to be subject to capabilities testing, as discussed
                below under ``Engagement and capabilities testing.''
                3. Solicitation for Input
                 The FDIC welcomes comments related to content requirements in
                response to these questions:
                 7. What are the costs and benefits of the current IDI plan content
                requirements?
                 8. What current aspects of the resolution planning requirements are
                the most burdensome for CIDIs? Are there specific resolution planning
                requirements that commenters believe do not provide sufficient benefit
                to the FDIC to justify the cost, and if so, which ones and why?
                 9. How should the FDIC consider the costs and benefits of requiring
                Resolution Plans from CIDIs whose parent companies have adopted a
                single point of entry resolution strategy? What are the costs of
                requiring the submission of Resolution Plans for such CIDIs, and what
                is the expected value of the benefits of such advanced planning in the
                event that a resolution of a CIDI is necessary for such an institution?
                 10. Are there specific requirements of the IDI Rule that may not be
                necessary for CIDIs that have adopted a single point of entry
                resolution strategy specifically because they have adopted such a
                strategy?
                 11. Are there additional steps that the FDIC should take to remove
                duplication between the DFA Resolution Plans and the Resolution Plans
                for CIDIs without reducing the effectiveness of each Plan? If so, what
                are they and why would taking such steps be appropriate?
                 12. What content requirements should be modified for Larger CIDIs
                (under both Alternatives)? Why and in what manner?
                 13. What content requirements should be modified solely for Group B
                CIDIs under Alternative One? Why and in what manner?
                 14. Are waivers useful to help streamline and customize the
                informational requirements for CIDIs? Should the FDIC consider
                expanding the use of waivers, and if so how?
                 15. In Alternative Two, the FDIC is proposing to base informational
                requirements for the Larger CIDIs upon the components of complexity for
                each such institution. Should the FDIC base the informational
                requirements off of the individual characteristics of the CIDI? Why or
                why not?
                 16. Is there content not presently required by the IDI Rule that
                could improve the effectiveness of Resolution Plan submissions and
                resolution planning for all CIDIs or for one or more Groups of CIDIs?
                 17. Should the FDIC make any changes to help foster a transparent
                set of content requirements? What steps can the FDIC take to ensure
                transparency, while also exploring potential changes to the IDI Rule
                discussed above providing for a streamlined set of informational
                requirements based upon the nature of a CIDI's operations?
                 18. What changes (if any) should be required to the public portions
                of Resolution Plans to make the resolution planning process more
                transparent? Why?
                 19. Should the FDIC make any feedback letters it issues as part of
                the Resolution Plan process public? Why or why not?
                 20. What else should the FDIC consider that would tailor the burden
                involved in preparing and submitting Resolution Plan information
                without reducing the IDI Rule's effectiveness? Are there ways that the
                FDIC could use automated collection techniques or other forms of
                information technology to facilitate transmission of resolution
                planning information?
                C. Engagement and Capabilities Testing
                1. Discussion
                Engagement
                 The current IDI Rule requires each CIDI to make its personnel
                available to assist the FDIC in assessing the credibility of the
                Resolution Plan and the ability of the CIDI to implement the Resolution
                Plan.\26\ As discussed above, while the FDIC would retain a Resolution
                Plan submission requirement for Larger CIDIs under both Alternatives,
                certain informational requirements may be modified or eliminated. Among
                those may be informational requirements related to resolution
                strategies, which would instead be developed by the FDIC using
                information it receives from the CIDI. Accordingly, the FDIC is
                considering modifying the IDI Rule's requirement related to access to
                personnel from facilitating the FDIC's assessment of the Resolution
                Plan to engaging with the FDIC to provide feedback on the development
                of the FDIC's resolution strategy for the particular CIDI. Areas of
                focus likely would include:
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \26\ See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(1).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Operational continuity (for example, critical services,
                back office applications, and key personnel retention);
                 Disposition of the CIDI's franchise component(s)
                (including treatment of interconnections and dependencies);
                 Management information systems reporting capabilities
                (that is, the CIDI's ability to provide key information needed for
                resolution when the institution is in financial distress and throughout
                resolution); and
                 Liquidity needs and liquidity management practices
                (particularly significant off-balance sheet activities, large intraday
                needs, foreign currency dependencies, and international time-zone
                funding books).
                 The direct engagement with CIDI staff would provide an opportunity
                for the FDIC to solicit feedback on the resolution strategy it develops
                for the institution. It would provide an opportunity to identify gaps
                in the FDIC's understanding of the particular institution and its
                potential challenges in resolution. The FDIC could use this opportunity
                to explore how identified gaps could be mitigated through additional
                data and analysis, future Resolution Plan submissions, or additional
                resolution strategy development.
                 The format for this engagement could include in-person meetings
                between FDIC staff and personnel from the CIDI; requests for data and
                analysis; or other in-person or electronic outreach.
                 In the case of Larger CIDIs, the engagement would cover the general
                informational requirements of their respective Resolution Plans. The
                FDIC would envision having an initial outreach session following the
                first Resolution Plan submission under the revised IDI Rule, followed
                by regular outreach sessions, in addition to any potential conditions-
                based supplemental resolution planning as discussed below under
                ``Frequency--Conditions-based supplemental resolution planning.'' The
                FDIC would also continue to make itself available to answer questions
                about Resolution Plan requirements.
                 For Group C CIDIs, the requirement to submit a Resolution Plan
                would be eliminated; instead, the FDIC would engage in periodic
                resolution planning outreach with Group C CIDIs in lieu of the
                submission. Due to the size,
                [[Page 16627]]
                complexity, and operations of the Group C CIDIs, it is expected that
                the outreach would cover a limited number of items such as:
                 Information on the structure and core business lines
                (including segmented financial analysis); \27\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \27\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ii).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information about critical services and providers of those
                services; \28\ and
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \28\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(iii).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Management information systems.\29\
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \29\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xix).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Capabilities Testing
                 Additionally, all CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule would continue to
                be subject to periodic capabilities testing.\30\ Capabilities testing
                would be intended to verify the accuracy of the Resolution Plan
                information provided to the FDIC, in the case of CIDIs that submit
                Resolution Plans, and the ability of the CIDI promptly to provide
                critical information if required to do so in exigent circumstances, in
                the case of all CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule. The capabilities testing
                would also be tailored according to the size, complexity, and other
                factors of the CIDI, based on the tiers described above.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \30\ See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(2).
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Examples of areas that could be covered through capabilities
                testing could include:
                 Liabilities data.
                 Operational continuity and bridge bank management:
                Critical services; key personnel; subsidiaries and affiliates; key
                accounting processes; and key operational processes.
                 Determination of franchise value: Capability to produce
                marketing plan; segmented financial reporting; and due diligence room.
                2. Solicitation for Input
                 The FDIC welcomes comments related to engagement and capabilities
                testing in response to these questions:
                 21. What are the costs and benefits if the FDIC replaces the plan
                submission requirement with the engagement as described above for Group
                C CIDIs?
                 22. If the FDIC engages with the CIDIs to solicit their feedback on
                resolution strategies and plans developed by the FDIC, do commenters
                have specific recommendations regarding the format of that engagement?
                 23. The FDIC is considering undertaking regular capabilities
                testing to help ensure that a CIDI will be able to provide critical
                information promptly if called upon to do so in exigent circumstances.
                How should the FDIC approach testing of CIDI capabilities? For Group A
                CIDIs and potentially some Group B CIDIs, how should the FDIC approach
                such testing given the additional challenges posed by increased
                operational complexity? For Group C CIDIs, how should the FDIC approach
                such testing given the relatively reduced level of operational
                complexity?
                 24. Should the FDIC conduct simulations with CIDIs? If so, should
                any aspects of the simulations be made public?
                D. Frequency
                1. Discussion
                Larger CIDIs
                 Currently, a CIDI is required to submit an initial Resolution Plan
                followed by a Resolution Plan submission on an annual basis, unless the
                submission date is extended by the FDIC. In recognition of the
                challenges associated with an annual resolution plan submission, over
                the last few submission cycles the FDIC has extended plan filing
                deadlines to provide generally at least two years between resolution
                plan submissions.
                 Under Alternative One, the FDIC is considering replacing the
                concurrent cycle with a staggered biennial/triennial cycle. Under this
                approach, Group A CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans biennially and
                Group B CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans every third year. Under
                Alternative Two, Larger CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans either
                biennially or triennially based on the characteristics of the CIDI.
                 The FDIC is also considering a schedule in which the filing cycle
                would alternate between Resolution Plan submissions and further
                streamlined content submissions (focusing, for example, on a subset of
                informational requirements).
                Group C CIDIs
                 Group C CIDIs would no longer be required to submit Resolution
                Plans. Instead, the FDIC would engage with those institutions on
                certain resolution planning matters, as discussed above under
                ``Engagement and capabilities testing.'' That engagement would occur on
                a periodic basis, in addition to any conditions-based supplemental
                resolution planning as discussed immediately below.
                Conditions-Based Supplemental Resolution Planning
                 While a CIDI is in a healthy, well-capitalized condition, the FDIC
                can reasonably limit its resolution readiness efforts to understanding
                and preparing for the general challenges that any type of failure or
                resolution of that CIDI would present. Once a CIDI begins to experience
                stress or becomes troubled, however, the particular circumstances
                surrounding these events may indicate a more specific and likely
                pathway to resolution. As these details become clear, the FDIC would
                need to quickly enhance its general readiness to resolve the
                institution to account for these actual circumstances. To ensure that
                the FDIC is prepared to resolve a CIDI, the FDIC is considering
                implementing supplemental resolution planning outreach and engagement
                if the FDIC determines that a CIDI is in stress or becomes troubled.
                The trigger could be linked to ratings, liquidity measures, market
                indicators, or other indicators.
                 Following such a triggering event, the FDIC would be able promptly
                to re-engage with the CIDI on resolution planning matters, even if the
                CIDI is not at the point in the cycle at which such engagement
                ordinarily would occur. The FDIC would retain discretion in determining
                whether to reengage with the CIDI following such a triggering event,
                depending on the condition of the CIDI. The conditions-based
                supplemental engagement would include the activities and subject
                matters described above under ``Engagement and capabilities testing.''
                This would allow the FDIC to refresh its resolution strategy for the
                CIDI and update key data and analysis through direct engagement with
                the CIDI at the time when resolution planning and preparedness is most
                time-sensitive, useful, and cost-effective.
                2. Solicitation for Input
                 The FDIC welcomes comments related to frequency in response to
                these questions:
                 25. How frequently should the FDIC require Resolution Plan
                submissions from Larger CIDIs under both alternatives? Under
                Alternative Two, what measures of complexity, risk, or other
                characteristics should be considered in determining a CIDI's filing
                frequency?
                 26. How frequently should the FDIC conduct resolution planning
                outreach with Larger CIDIs under both alternatives? How should this
                timeline coincide with the Resolution Plan submission timeline?
                 27. How frequently should the FDIC conduct resolution planning
                outreach with Group C CIDIs?
                 28. What are the costs and benefits of requiring Larger CIDIs to
                submit plans once every two/three years?
                 29. Should the FDIC consider a schedule of alternating between
                Resolution Plan submissions and streamlined content submissions (for
                example, focusing on a subset of
                [[Page 16628]]
                informational requirements)? Why or why not?
                 30. Should the FDIC endeavor to sync the Resolution Plan submission
                timeline for CIDIs with the timeline for DFA Resolution Plans for DFA
                Resolution Plan filers? If so, how?
                 31. Should the FDIC consider utilizing an ad hoc submission program
                with information regarding each pertinent content area due at various
                times throughout the submission cycle (similar to an ongoing large bank
                continuous examination program) instead of maintaining the requirement
                for a Resolution Plan submission due on a single date? Why or why not?
                 32. The FDIC is considering one or more conditions-based triggers
                to increase resolution planning engagement with a CIDI experiencing
                stress or in troubled condition. If the FDIC were to adopt such an
                approach, what condition-based trigger or triggers should the FDIC use,
                and why?
                Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
                 By order of the Board of Directors.
                 Dated at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2019.
                Valerie Best,
                Assistant Executive Secretary.
                [FR Doc. 2019-08077 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT