# FDIC FIL-23-2019: Deposit Insurance Coverage Seminars

> Federal · Agency guidance · Superseded

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL19023

## Section

- **Citation:** FDIC FIL-23-2019
- **Heading:** Deposit Insurance Coverage Seminars
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** Superseded
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FDIC Financial Institution Letters / Deposit Insurance Coverage Seminars

## Text

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.
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
13143
Vol. 84, No. 65
Thursday, April 4, 2019
1 See Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance
Determination, 81 FR 87734 (Dec. 5, 2016); 12 CFR
part 370.
2 The Recordkeeping Rule generally applies to
IDIs that have 2 million or more deposit accounts.
12 CFR 370.2(c).
3 Insured depository institutions that are not
subject to the Recordkeeping Rule are not required
to perform Legacy Data Cleanup, but may choose to
do so to provide added certainty regarding deposit
insurance coverage to their depositors.
4 12 U.S.C. 1819(Tenth); 1820(g).
5 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1).
6 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(B), (C).
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 330
RIN 3064–AF04
Joint Ownership Deposit Accounts
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seeking
comment on a proposed rule that would
amend the regulation governing one of
the requirements for an account to be
separately insured as a joint account.
Specifically, the proposed rule would
provide an alternative method to satisfy
the ‘‘signature card’’ requirement. Under
the proposal, the ‘‘signature card’’
requirement could be satisfied by
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account, such
as evidence that the institution has
issued a mechanism for accessing the
account to each co-owner or evidence of
usage of the deposit account by each co-
owner.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
May 6, 2019
irement could be satisfied by
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account, such
as evidence that the institution has
issued a mechanism for accessing the
account to each co-owner or evidence of
usage of the deposit account by each co-
owner.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
May 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the notice of proposed rulemaking
using 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: comments@fdic.gov. Include
RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject line of
the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• 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.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• Public Inspection: All comments
received, including any personal
information provided, will be posted
generally without change to https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Watts, Counsel, Legal Division,
Street
Building (located on F Street) on
business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• Public Inspection: All comments
received, including any personal
information provided, will be posted
generally without change to https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Watts, Counsel, Legal Division,
(202) 898–6678, jwatts@fdic.gov; Teresa
Franks, Associate Director, Division of
Resolutions and Receiverships, (571)
858–8226, tfranks@fdic.gov; Martin
Becker, Chief, Deposit Insurance,
Division of Depositor and Consumer
Protection, (202) 898–7207, mbecker@
fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Policy Objectives
The FDIC is proposing to amend its
regulation governing the requirements
for a deposit account to be insured as a
joint account, 12 CFR 330.9, and
specifically, the requirement that each
co-owner of a joint account has
personally signed a deposit account
signature card. The FDIC periodically
receives inquiries regarding this
requirement. Those inquiries have
increased following the issuance of a
rule (Recordkeeping Rule) 1 that requires
certain large insured depository
institutions (covered institutions) to
configure their information technology
systems to be capable of calculating
insurance coverage for deposit accounts
in the event of the institution’s failure.
The Recordkeeping Rule has introduced
an element of pre-judgment involving
identification of account categories and
satisfaction of recordkeeping
requirements for the institutions subject
to that Rule.2 In particular, for purposes
of that Rule, covered institutions are
required to review their records and
update missing and erroneous deposit
account information (Legacy Data
Cleanup).3 As part of the Legacy Data
Cleanup, covered institutions must
obtain signature cards for owners of
accounts with multiple co-owners that
are missing one or more required
signature cards (affected joint accounts)
ticular, for purposes
of that Rule, covered institutions are
required to review their records and
update missing and erroneous deposit
account information (Legacy Data
Cleanup).3 As part of the Legacy Data
Cleanup, covered institutions must
obtain signature cards for owners of
accounts with multiple co-owners that
are missing one or more required
signature cards (affected joint accounts).
Staff at the FDIC has engaged in
discussions with these covered
institutions as part of the
implementation process, and these
discussions have brought to light certain
issues concerning the application of the
signature card requirement, leading the
FDIC to reconsider the methods by
which joint ownership may be
established for purposes of deposit
insurance.
The proposed rule is intended to
reduce the regulatory burden associated
with obtaining deposit account
signature cards for all insured
depository institutions (IDIs). For
covered institutions (i.e., IDIs subject to
the Recordkeeping Rule) discussed
above, the proposed rule also would
reduce the burden of obtaining signature
cards for owners of affected joint
accounts. The proposed rule is intended
to facilitate the prompt payment of
deposit insurance in the event of an
IDI’s failure by providing alternative
methods that the FDIC could use to
determine the owners of joint accounts,
consistent with its statutory authority.
These changes would promote
confidence in FDIC-insured deposits.
Finally, the proposal embodies a
forward-looking approach that would
permit the use of new and innovative
technologies and processes to meet the
FDIC’s policy objectives
IDI’s failure by providing alternative
methods that the FDIC could use to
determine the owners of joint accounts,
consistent with its statutory authority.
These changes would promote
confidence in FDIC-insured deposits.
Finally, the proposal embodies a
forward-looking approach that would
permit the use of new and innovative
technologies and processes to meet the
FDIC’s policy objectives.
Background: Current Regulatory
Approach
The FDIC is authorized to prescribe
rules and regulations as it may deem
necessary to carry out the provisions of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI
Act).4 Under the FDI Act, the FDIC is
responsible for paying deposit insurance
in the event of an IDI’s failure up to the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount, which is currently set at
$250,000.5 The statute provides that
deposits maintained by each depositor
in the same capacity and the same right
at the same IDI generally must be
aggregated and insured up to the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount.6 Because the statute does not
define ‘‘capacity’’ or ‘‘right,’’ the FDIC
has implemented these terms by issuing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS

13144
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
7 See 12 CFR part 330.
8 12 CFR 330.9(a).
9 12 CFR 330.9(c)(1). The signature card
requirement does not apply to certificates of
deposit, deposits evidenced by negotiable
instruments, or accounts maintained by an agent,
nominee, guardian, or conservator on behalf of two
or more persons. 12 CFR 330.9(c)(2).
10 12 CFR 330.9(d)
ter / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
7 See 12 CFR part 330.
8 12 CFR 330.9(a).
9 12 CFR 330.9(c)(1). The signature card
requirement does not apply to certificates of
deposit, deposits evidenced by negotiable
instruments, or accounts maintained by an agent,
nominee, guardian, or conservator on behalf of two
or more persons. 12 CFR 330.9(c)(2).
10 12 CFR 330.9(d).
11 See 32 FR 10408, 10409 (July 14, 1967) (‘‘A
joint deposit account shall be deemed to exist, for
purposes of insurance of accounts, only if each co-
owner has personally executed a deposit account
signature card and possesses withdrawal rights.’’)
12 The FDIC stated that its purpose was to ‘‘carry
out the concept of limited insurance coverage
intended by Federal deposit insurance,’’ and it
interpreted the FDI Act to ‘‘limit the various devices
commonly used to increase such coverage beyond
that meant to be provided by law.’’ 32 FR 10408
(July 14, 1967).
13 See, e.g., 55 FR 20111, 20113 (May 15, 1990).
14 See FDIC Financial Institution Employee’s
Guide to Deposit Insurance, 2016 ed., at 34.
15 See 12 CFR 330.5.
16 Public Law 106–229; 15 U.S.C. 7001(a).
regulations recognizing particular
categories of accounts, such as single
ownership accounts and joint
ownership accounts.7 If a deposit meets
the requirements for a particular
category, the deposit is insured up to
the $250,000 limit separately from
deposits held by the depositor in a
different category at the same IDI. For
example, deposits in the single
ownership category will be separately
insured from deposits in the joint
ownership category held by the same
depositor at the same IDI.
Section 330.9 of the FDIC’s
regulations governs insurance coverage
for joint ownership accounts. Joint
ownership accounts include deposit
accounts held pursuant to various forms
of co-ownership under state law. For
example, joint tenants could each hold
an equal, undivided interest in a deposit
account
deposits in the joint
ownership category held by the same
depositor at the same IDI.
Section 330.9 of the FDIC’s
regulations governs insurance coverage
for joint ownership accounts. Joint
ownership accounts include deposit
accounts held pursuant to various forms
of co-ownership under state law. For
example, joint tenants could each hold
an equal, undivided interest in a deposit
account. Section 330.9 provides that
only ‘‘qualifying joint accounts’’
(whether owned as joint tenants with
the right of survivorship, as tenants in
common, or as tenants by the entirety)
are insured separately from
individually-owned deposit accounts
maintained by the co-owners.8
‘‘Qualifying joint accounts’’ generally
must satisfy three requirements: (1) All
co-owners of the funds in the account
are ‘‘natural persons,’’ as defined in
section 330.1(l) of the regulations; (2)
each co-owner has personally signed a
deposit account signature card; and (3)
each co-owner possesses withdrawal
rights on the same basis.9 If a joint
deposit account is not a qualifying joint
account, each co-owner’s actual
ownership interest in the account is
aggregated with other single ownership
accounts of such individual or other
accounts of such entity.10 This may
result in some uninsured deposits if a
depositor’s single ownership accounts at
the same IDI, including deposits in any
non-qualifying joint accounts, exceed
$250,000
deposit account is not a qualifying joint
account, each co-owner’s actual
ownership interest in the account is
aggregated with other single ownership
accounts of such individual or other
accounts of such entity.10 This may
result in some uninsured deposits if a
depositor’s single ownership accounts at
the same IDI, including deposits in any
non-qualifying joint accounts, exceed
$250,000.
The requirement that each co-owner
of a joint account has personally signed
a deposit account signature card
(signature card requirement) in order for
the account to be insured as a joint
account has been included in the
regulation governing insurance coverage
since 1967.11 This requirement was
intended to address practices such as
the addition of nominal co-owners to an
account solely to increase deposit
insurance coverage.12 The FDIC has
periodically considered whether the
signature card requirement should be
eliminated, but retained the
requirement, concluding that signature
cards are reliable indicators of deposit
ownership.13 The FDIC continues to
view the signature card requirement as
important to ensuring consistency with
the FDI Act, which expressly limits the
amount of deposit insurance coverage
available to each depositor at a
particular IDI based on the right and
capacity in which funds are held.
Neither the FDI Act nor the FDIC’s
regulations define the term ‘‘signature
card.’’ FDIC staff has taken the position
that section 330.9 does not require any
particular format for a deposit account
signature card. Therefore, staff has
previously concluded that IDIs may
satisfy the requirement through various
forms of documentation used in their
account opening processes. For
example, staff has concluded that a
deposit account agreement signed by
each of an account’s co-owners would
satisfy the signature card requirement
9 does not require any
particular format for a deposit account
signature card. Therefore, staff has
previously concluded that IDIs may
satisfy the requirement through various
forms of documentation used in their
account opening processes. For
example, staff has concluded that a
deposit account agreement signed by
each of an account’s co-owners would
satisfy the signature card requirement.
Published guidance also states that
electronic signatures satisfy the
requirement.14
Description of the Proposed Rule
The FDIC is proposing to amend
section 330.9 to provide an alternative
method to satisfy the signature card
requirement. The proposed rule would
allow the signature card requirement to
be satisfied by information contained in
the deposit account records of the IDI
establishing co-ownership of the deposit
account, such as evidence that the
institution has issued a mechanism for
accessing the account to each co-owner
or evidence of usage of the deposit
account by each co-owner. For example,
under this proposal, the requirement
could be satisfied by evidence that an
IDI has issued a debit card to each co-
owner of the account or evidence that
each co-owner of the account has
transacted using the deposit account.
These examples, however, are not
intended to define the only forms of
evidence of co-ownership that could
satisfy the signature card requirement.
The proposed rule only would affect
a requirement in the FDIC’s regulations
that must be satisfied for a deposit
account to be separately insured as a
joint account; it would not affect any
other legal requirements applicable to
IDIs. IDIs may, for legal or other reasons,
find it appropriate or necessary to
continue collecting customers’
signatures
satisfy the signature card requirement.
The proposed rule only would affect
a requirement in the FDIC’s regulations
that must be satisfied for a deposit
account to be separately insured as a
joint account; it would not affect any
other legal requirements applicable to
IDIs. IDIs may, for legal or other reasons,
find it appropriate or necessary to
continue collecting customers’
signatures.
The proposed rule also would not
affect the general provisions contained
in the FDIC’s deposit insurance
regulations regarding recognition of
deposit ownership.15 These general
rules concerning recognition of deposit
ownership would continue to apply to
all deposit accounts, including joint
accounts.
The proposed rule would not
introduce new requirements with
respect to the requirements for an
account to be insured as a joint account,
and would not reduce or affect
insurance coverage for any account for
which the existing joint account
requirements are satisfied. The
proposed rule simply would provide an
alternative method to satisfy the existing
signature card requirement. If each co-
owner of a joint account signs, or has
previously signed, a deposit account
signature card in accordance with the
existing requirement, the alternative
method provided by the proposed rule
would be unnecessary. Assuming that
the remaining joint account
requirements are satisfied—that is, all
co-owners of the account are natural
persons and possess equal withdrawal
rights—the account would be insured as
a joint account.
The FDIC is also proposing a
conforming amendment to section 330.9
consistent with the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (E-Sign Act).16
Specifically, the FDIC proposes to
amend the regulation to state expressly
that the signature card requirement may
be satisfied electronically
and possess equal withdrawal
rights—the account would be insured as
a joint account.
The FDIC is also proposing a
conforming amendment to section 330.9
consistent with the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (E-Sign Act).16
Specifically, the FDIC proposes to
amend the regulation to state expressly
that the signature card requirement may
be satisfied electronically. The current
requirement that each depositor has
personally signed a deposit account
signature card would be amended to
require that each depositor has
personally signed, which may include
signing electronically, a deposit account
signature card. This amendment would
clarify for IDIs and depositors the
manner in which the signature card
requirement may be satisfied, and is
consistent with published guidance and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS

13145
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
17 See FDIC Financial Institution Employee’s
Guide to Deposit Insurance, 2016 ed., at 34.
18 See 81 FR 87742–43. The analysis for the
Recordkeeping Rule estimated that approximately 5
percent of the approximately 416 million deposit
accounts held by covered institutions would require
manual data cleanup.
19 The $226 million estimate includes both costs
incurred by the institutions and costs incurred by
depositors to update missing account information.
See 81 FR 87747.
20 81 FR 87742.
21 FDIC Consolidated Reports of Condition and
Income, as of December 31, 2018.
22 According to recent Census estimates,
approximately 60 percent of Americans live with a
spouse or partner (U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic
Supplement, 1967 to 2018)
costs incurred by
depositors to update missing account information.
See 81 FR 87747.
20 81 FR 87742.
21 FDIC Consolidated Reports of Condition and
Income, as of December 31, 2018.
22 According to recent Census estimates,
approximately 60 percent of Americans live with a
spouse or partner (U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic
Supplement, 1967 to 2018). In addition, according
to a recent banking survey, 58 to 76 percent of
Americans in relationships have at least one joint
account (TD Love & Money, Report of Findings,
Customer Insights, July 2017). Based on these
figures, the FDIC estimates that between 35 and 46
percent of Americans hold a joint account.
Assuming that joint accounts have two owners on
average, the FDIC estimates that between 21 and 30
percent of deposit accounts are joint. (For example,
if 35 percent of Americans share a joint account
with another American and the remaining 65
percent each has a personal account, then (35/2)/
(35/2 + 65) = 21 percent of accounts are joint). For
this analysis, the FDIC assumes the middle value
of 25% as an estimate of the percent of accounts
that are joint.
23 Following the analysis in the Recordkeeping
Rule, the FDIC assumes that 5% of accounts will
require data cleanup.
staff interpretations of section 330.9.17 It
would not substantively alter the
regulatory requirements for joint
accounts.
Expected Effects
The proposed rule would apply to all
IDIs and is expected to broaden the
types of documentation that would be
acceptable to satisfy the signature card
requirement at the time of an IDI’s
failure. In this way, for all IDIs, the
proposed rule is intended to reduce the
regulatory burden associated with
obtaining deposit account signature
cards. It would not impose any new
recordkeeping requirements for joint
accounts.
The proposed rule would, however,
have a more immediate regulatory
burden relief impact on the covered
institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule
IDI’s
failure. In this way, for all IDIs, the
proposed rule is intended to reduce the
regulatory burden associated with
obtaining deposit account signature
cards. It would not impose any new
recordkeeping requirements for joint
accounts.
The proposed rule would, however,
have a more immediate regulatory
burden relief impact on the covered
institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule. For purposes of
that Rule, as discussed above, covered
institutions are currently engaged in
Legacy Data Cleanup. As part of the
Legacy Data Cleanup, covered
institutions must obtain signature cards
for owners of affected joint accounts. By
providing an alternative method to
satisfy the signature card requirement
that relies on other information in the
institution’s deposit account records,
the proposed rule should reduce the
Legacy Data Cleanup burden associated
with obtaining missing signature cards
for covered institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule.
To estimate the burden reduction of
the proposed rule relating to Legacy
Data Cleanup, the FDIC estimates: (1)
The cost of obtaining signature cards for
an affected joint account; and (2) the
total number of affected joint accounts
held at covered institutions subject to
the Recordkeeping Rule. The product of
these two figures is the estimated cost
burden of collecting missing signatures.
The proposed rule would reduce that
burden by allowing covered institutions
subject to the Recordkeeping Rule to
satisfy the signature card requirement
using other information in their deposit
account records establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account.
The FDIC’s estimate of the cost of
obtaining missing signature cards for an
affected joint account is based on cost
estimates used in connection with the
Recordkeeping Rule
by allowing covered institutions
subject to the Recordkeeping Rule to
satisfy the signature card requirement
using other information in their deposit
account records establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account.
The FDIC’s estimate of the cost of
obtaining missing signature cards for an
affected joint account is based on cost
estimates used in connection with the
Recordkeeping Rule. Legacy Data
Cleanup costs for the Recordkeeping
Rule were estimated at $226 million to
address approximately 21 million
deposit accounts held in covered
institutions.18 19 This represents an
average of approximately $11 per
account. Although accounts may require
Legacy Data Cleanup for a variety of
reasons, the Recordkeeping Rule
estimates that ‘‘more than 90 percent of
the legacy data cleanup costs are
associated with manually collecting
account information from customers
and entering it into the covered
institution’s systems.’’ 20 The process of
obtaining a missing signature fits this
description, and the FDIC believes that
$11 per account is a reasonable estimate
of the average cost of obtaining
signatures for an affected joint account.
The cost estimates used in the
Recordkeeping Rule are based on data
from the institutions covered by the
Recordkeeping Rule at the time that
Rule was issued. As of December 31,
2018, 36 covered institutions subject to
the Recordkeeping Rule held
approximately 418 million deposit
accounts.21 Assuming that 25 percent of
those accounts are joint,22 and assuming
that 5 percent of joint accounts are
missing at least one required
signature,23 there are a total of
approximately 5.2 (= 418 * 25% * 5%)
million affected joint accounts. At an
estimated cost of $11 per affected joint
account, the FDIC estimates a total cost
burden of $57 million for covered
institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule to update deposit
account records related to affected joint
accounts
oint accounts are
missing at least one required
signature,23 there are a total of
approximately 5.2 (= 418 * 25% * 5%)
million affected joint accounts. At an
estimated cost of $11 per affected joint
account, the FDIC estimates a total cost
burden of $57 million for covered
institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule to update deposit
account records related to affected joint
accounts. The proposed rule would
reduce this burden, resulting in an
estimated cost savings for these
institutions of $57 million.
IDIs that are not subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule are not required to
perform Legacy Data Cleanup, but some
may, nonetheless, choose to do so to
provide added certainty regarding
deposit insurance coverage to their
depositors. As of December 31, 2018,
there were approximately 162 million
deposit accounts held at 5,379 IDIs not
covered by the Recordkeeping Rule.
Given the same assumptions outlined in
the previous paragraph, the FDIC
estimates there are a total of 2.0 (= 162
* 25% * 5%) million affected joint
accounts held at these IDIs. The
proposed rule would alleviate some of
the burden of addressing these affected
joint accounts, resulting in estimated
cost savings of up to $22 ($11 * 2.0)
million.
The total estimated burden reduction
for the industry associated with
updating deposit account records for
joint accounts is estimated to be
between $57 and $79 million,
depending on the number of IDIs not
subject to the Recordkeeping Rule that
choose to update their deposit account
records. In addition, the proposed rule
could alleviate some of the burden of
obtaining signature cards for new joint
accounts at all IDIs. The FDIC expects
this benefit to be de minimis because
electronic signatures may be used to
satisfy the signature card requirement
pursuant to the E-Sign Act.
The rule also provides non-
quantifiable benefits to owners of joint
accounts
osit account
records. In addition, the proposed rule
could alleviate some of the burden of
obtaining signature cards for new joint
accounts at all IDIs. The FDIC expects
this benefit to be de minimis because
electronic signatures may be used to
satisfy the signature card requirement
pursuant to the E-Sign Act.
The rule also provides non-
quantifiable benefits to owners of joint
accounts. By providing alternative
methods that the FDIC could use to
determine the owners of joint accounts,
the proposed rule would further support
a prompt deposit insurance
determination in the event of an IDI’s
failure, alleviating delays in the
recognition of account ownership and
uncertainty regarding the extent of
deposit insurance coverage. These
benefits would promote depositor
confidence in the nation’s banking
system and particularly in FDIC-insured
deposits.
The FDIC is also proposing a
conforming amendment to section 330.9
consistent with the E-Sign Act. This
conforming amendment is not expected
to result in any discernable economic
effect, as current FDIC practice already
permits IDIs to use electronic signatures.
The effects of the conforming
amendment would be limited to
eliminating uncertainty regarding the
regulation.
The FDIC invites comments on all
aspects of the information provided in
this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
ermits IDIs to use electronic signatures.
The effects of the conforming
amendment would be limited to
eliminating uncertainty regarding the
regulation.
The FDIC invites comments on all
aspects of the information provided in
this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS

13146
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
24 See 12 CFR 370.8.
25 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
26 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
27 The SBA defines a small banking organization
as having $550 million or less in assets, where an
organization’s ‘‘assets are determined by averaging
Alternatives Considered
The FDIC has considered alternatives
to the proposed rule that could achieve
its policy objectives. A few of these
alternatives are described below.
Alternative 1: Status Quo. The FDIC
considered maintaining the current
requirements for accounts to be insured
as joint accounts. To address burden
issues raised by covered institutions
currently conducting Legacy Data
Cleanup pursuant to the Recordkeeping
Rule, the FDIC notes that such
institutions may request relief pursuant
to that Rule for existing accounts for
which the owners seek deposit
insurance coverage as a joint account.24
However, as discussed above, the
proposed rule would reduce the burden
associated with Legacy Data Cleanup, so
the potential cost savings to covered
institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule would result in a
greater benefit. The proposed rule also
may result in cost savings for IDIs that
are not subject to the Recordkeeping
Rule, but nonetheless choose to perform
Legacy Data Cleanup.
As a subset of Alternative 1, the FDIC
considered whether covered institutions
could simply focus on or prioritize
accounts with balances of more than
$250,000 for purposes of their Legacy
Data Cleanup
ult in a
greater benefit. The proposed rule also
may result in cost savings for IDIs that
are not subject to the Recordkeeping
Rule, but nonetheless choose to perform
Legacy Data Cleanup.
As a subset of Alternative 1, the FDIC
considered whether covered institutions
could simply focus on or prioritize
accounts with balances of more than
$250,000 for purposes of their Legacy
Data Cleanup. This approach may
address regulatory burden to some
degree, but could also be interpreted as
introducing a distinction between large
IDIs and small IDIs with respect to
deposit insurance coverage. Due to this
concern, the expected benefits of this
alternative are smaller than those of the
proposed rule.
Alternative 2: Amend Certification
Requirement for Institutions Subject to
Part 370. As discussed above, the
covered institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule are required to
collect missing signatures for joint
accounts. The FDIC considered
amending the Recordkeeping Rule’s
certification requirements to allow
covered institutions to certify their
compliance based on substantial or good
faith compliance with the deposit
insurance rules with respect to their
joint deposit accounts. This would
allow institutions subject to the
Recordkeeping Rule to certify
compliance with that Rule while
continuing to address data cleanup for
affected deposit accounts. Because
institutions would still incur costs
associated with obtaining missing
signatures, however, the expected
benefits of this alternative are smaller
than the expected benefits of the
proposed rule.
Alternative 3: Eliminate Signature
Card Requirement for Qualifying Joint
Accounts. The FDIC considered
amending section 330.9 to eliminate the
signature card requirement for joint
accounts
ause
institutions would still incur costs
associated with obtaining missing
signatures, however, the expected
benefits of this alternative are smaller
than the expected benefits of the
proposed rule.
Alternative 3: Eliminate Signature
Card Requirement for Qualifying Joint
Accounts. The FDIC considered
amending section 330.9 to eliminate the
signature card requirement for joint
accounts. As discussed above, however,
the FDIC continues to view the
signature card requirement as important
to ensuring consistency with the FDI
Act, particularly, the requirement to
insure depositors based on the right and
capacity in which funds are held. The
signature card requirement is intended
to address practices such as the addition
of nominal co-owners to a deposit
account without their knowledge solely
for the purpose of increasing deposit
insurance coverage. The proposed rule
is intended to retain consistency with
the FDI Act while providing a method
of satisfying the signature card
requirement that reduces regulatory
burden. Given the benefits of keeping
the signature card requirement, the
expected benefits of this alternative are
smaller than those of the proposed rule.
Alternative 4: Leverage Bank Secrecy
Act/Anti-Money Laundering Processes.
The FDIC considered amending section
330.9 to allow IDIs to satisfy the
signature card requirement based on
existing Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money
Laundering (BSA/AML) processes. This
could reduce regulatory burden by
leveraging existing compliance
processes. However, while BSA/AML
processes serve a valuable purpose in
identifying the individuals opening
accounts, these processes do not address
the purpose of the signature card
requirement, which is to indicate actual
ownership of the funds in the deposit
account. This approach would
intertwine deposit insurance coverage
with a compliance regime that serves a
different purpose
nce
processes. However, while BSA/AML
processes serve a valuable purpose in
identifying the individuals opening
accounts, these processes do not address
the purpose of the signature card
requirement, which is to indicate actual
ownership of the funds in the deposit
account. This approach would
intertwine deposit insurance coverage
with a compliance regime that serves a
different purpose. Moreover, exceptions
to BSA/AML requirements may apply to
many of the older deposit accounts for
which signature cards are less likely to
be available. Thus, it is unclear that
compliance with BSA/AML
requirements would provide additional
assurance that a deposit account’s titled
co-owners actually own the funds in the
account. In addition, this approach
could allow weaknesses in BSA/AML
compliance to affect deposit insurance
coverage for the IDI’s customers. Due to
the concerns discussed above, the
expected benefits of this alternative are
smaller than those of the proposed rule.
Request for Comment
The FDIC is requesting comment on
all aspects of the proposed rule,
including the alternatives presented.
Comment is specifically invited with
respect to the following questions:
• Can IDIs, including IDIs that rely on
deposit account systems designed or
maintained by third-party vendors,
obtain information on account usage or
access by the co-owners of an account?
• Would the proposed rule
sufficiently address satisfaction of the
signature card requirement through
electronic methods, given the variety of
account opening procedures used by
IDIs? If not, what clarifications or
changes are necessary?
• Is any data available concerning the
cost or effort that might be required for
IDIs to obtain deposit account signature
cards for co-owners where a signature
card is currently not available in the
deposit account records of the IDI?
• How should the FDIC approach
ensuring that a depositor does not use
another person’s personally identifiable
information to establish a deposit
account
• Is any data available concerning the
cost or effort that might be required for
IDIs to obtain deposit account signature
cards for co-owners where a signature
card is currently not available in the
deposit account records of the IDI?
• How should the FDIC approach
ensuring that a depositor does not use
another person’s personally identifiable
information to establish a deposit
account without the other person’s
knowledge simply to increase deposit
insurance coverage?
• Are there any additional factors that
the FDIC should consider in
determining whether the alternatives to
the proposed rule described above
would better satisfy the agency’s policy
objectives of reducing regulatory burden
and promoting the prompt payment of
deposit insurance consistent with the
FDI Act in the event of an IDI’s failure?
• Are there other alternatives that the
FDIC should consider that would better
satisfy those objectives?
• Does the proposed rule minimize
the potential for depositor confusion
over the requirements for joint
accounts?
Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency, in
connection with a proposed rule, to
prepare and make available for public
comment an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the impact of a
proposed rule on small entities.25
However, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required if the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.26
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) has defined ‘‘small entities’’ to
include banking organizations with total
assets of less than or equal to $550
million.27 For the reasons described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
pact on a
substantial number of small entities.26
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) has defined ‘‘small entities’’ to
include banking organizations with total
assets of less than or equal to $550
million.27 For the reasons described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS

13147
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the assets reported on its four quarterly financial
statements for the preceding year.’’ See 13 CFR
121.201 (as amended, effective December 2, 2014).
In its determination, the SBA ‘‘counts the receipts,
employees, or other measure of size of the concern
whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and
foreign affiliates.’’ 13 CFR 121.103. Following these
regulations, the FDIC uses a covered entity’s
affiliated and acquired assets, averaged over the
preceding four quarters, to determine whether the
covered entity is ‘‘small’’ for the purposes of RFA.
28 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income
for the quarter ending September 30, 2018.
29 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
30 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).
below, the FDIC certifies pursuant to
section 605(b) of the RFA that the
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
As of September 30, 2018, the FDIC
insured 5,486 institutions, of which
4,047 are considered small entities for
the purposes of RFA.28 These small IDIs
hold approximately 31 million deposit
accounts, with an average of 7,700
deposit accounts and a maximum of
approximately 143,000 deposit accounts
held at a single small IDI.
The proposed rule would amend
section 330.9 to provide an alternative
method to satisfy the signature card
requirement for joint accounts based on
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account
deposit accounts and a maximum of
approximately 143,000 deposit accounts
held at a single small IDI.
The proposed rule would amend
section 330.9 to provide an alternative
method to satisfy the signature card
requirement for joint accounts based on
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account. As
discussed in Expected Effects section,
because no small IDIs are covered by the
Recordkeeping Rule, a small IDI would
only experience burden relief from the
proposed rule if it first chose to update
its account records. In this case, the
proposed rule is estimated to reduce
burden in the amount of $11 per
affected joint account. This potential
burden reduction is conditional on the
IDI’s choice to update its records.
Following the burden reduction
estimation outlined in the Expected
Effects section, the FDIC estimates the
burden reduction for each of the 4,047
small IDIs covered by this proposed rule
by multiplying the number of deposit
accounts held at each small IDI by 25
percent to estimate the number of joint
accounts, then by 5 percent to estimate
the number of affected joint accounts,
and finally by $11 to estimate the cost
of addressing those affected joint
accounts. The potential burden
reduction for each institution ranges
from less than a dollar to approximately
twenty thousand dollars, with an
average of approximately one thousand
dollars per small IDI. Expressed as a
proportion of assets, the potential
burden reduction ranges from less than
a millionth of one percent to less than
two hundredths of one percent of total
assets.
The proposed rule would apply to all
IDIs, affecting a substantial number of
small entities. However, the economic
impact on each small entity is
insignificant, with no entity affected by
more than two hundredths of one
percent of total assets held
the potential
burden reduction ranges from less than
a millionth of one percent to less than
two hundredths of one percent of total
assets.
The proposed rule would apply to all
IDIs, affecting a substantial number of
small entities. However, the economic
impact on each small entity is
insignificant, with no entity affected by
more than two hundredths of one
percent of total assets held.
Accordingly, the FDIC certifies that the
proposal will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The FDIC invites comments on all
aspects of the supporting information
provided in this section, and in
particular, whether the proposed rule
would have any significant effects on
small entities that the FDIC has not
identified.
Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act
Section 302 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act (RCDRIA) requires
that the Federal banking agencies,
including the FDIC, in determining the
effective date and administrative
compliance requirements of new
regulations that impose additional
reporting, disclosure, or other
requirements on insured depository
institutions, consider, consistent with
principles of safety and soundness and
the public interest, any administrative
burdens that such regulations would
place on depository institutions,
including small depository institutions,
and customers of depository
institutions, as well as the benefits of
such regulations.29 Subject to certain
exceptions, new regulations and
amendments to regulations prescribed
by a Federal banking agency which
impose additional reporting,
disclosures, or other new requirements
on insured depository institutions shall
take effect on the first day of a calendar
quarter which begins on or after the date
on which the regulations are published
in final form.30
The proposed rule would not impose
additional reporting or disclosure
requirements on insured depository
institutions, including small depository
e additional reporting,
disclosures, or other new requirements
on insured depository institutions shall
take effect on the first day of a calendar
quarter which begins on or after the date
on which the regulations are published
in final form.30
The proposed rule would not impose
additional reporting or disclosure
requirements on insured depository
institutions, including small depository
institutions, or on the customers of
depository institutions. It would
provide an alternative method to satisfy
the existing signature card requirement
for joint deposit accounts based on
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution. Accordingly,
section 302 of RCDRIA does not apply.
Nevertheless, the requirements of
RCDRIA will be considered as part of
the overall rulemaking process, and the
FDIC invites comments that will further
inform its consideration of RCDRIA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, the FDIC
may not conduct or sponsor, and the
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. The proposed rule would not
require any information collections for
purposes of the PRA, and therefore, no
submission to OMB is required.
The Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment
of Federal Regulations and Policies on
Families
The FDIC has determined that the
proposed rule will not affect family
well-being within the meaning of
section 654 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act,
enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of
1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, Public Law 106–102, 113
Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov
that the
proposed rule will not affect family
well-being within the meaning of
section 654 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act,
enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of
1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, Public Law 106–102, 113
Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999),
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. For example:
• Has the FDIC organized the material
to suit your needs? If not, how could the
material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the
proposed regulation clearly stated? If
not, how could the regulation be stated
more clearly?
• Does the proposed regulation
contain language or jargon that is
unclear? If so, which language requires
clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the regulation
easier to understand?
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 330
Bank deposit insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Savings associations.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR
part 330 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS

13148
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
PART 330—DEPOSIT INSURANCE
COVERAGE
■1. The authority citation for Part 330
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1813(l), 1813(m),
1817(i), 1818(q), 1819(a)(Tenth), 1820(f),
1820(g), 1821(a), 1821(d), 1822(c).
■2. Revise § 330.9(c) to read as follows:
§ 330.9
Joint ownership accounts.
*
*
*
*
*
deral Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
PART 330—DEPOSIT INSURANCE
COVERAGE
■1. The authority citation for Part 330
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1813(l), 1813(m),
1817(i), 1818(q), 1819(a)(Tenth), 1820(f),
1820(g), 1821(a), 1821(d), 1822(c).
■2. Revise § 330.9(c) to read as follows:
§ 330.9
Joint ownership accounts.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Qualifying joint accounts. (1)
Qualification requirements. A joint
deposit account shall be deemed to be
a qualifying joint account, for purposes
of this section, only if:
(i) All co-owners of the funds in the
account are ‘‘natural persons’’ (as
defined in § 330.1(l));
(ii) Each co-owner has personally
signed, which may include signing
electronically, a deposit account
signature card; and
(iii) Each co-owner possesses
withdrawal rights on the same basis.
(2) Limited exceptions. The signature-
card requirement of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
of this section shall not apply to
certificates of deposit, to any deposit
obligation evidenced by a negotiable
instrument, or to any account
maintained by an agent, nominee,
guardian, custodian, or conservator on
behalf of two or more persons.
(3) Evidence of deposit ownership. All
deposit accounts that satisfy the criteria
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and
those accounts that come within the
exception provided for in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, shall be deemed to
be jointly owned provided that, in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 330.5(a), the FDIC determines that the
deposit account records of the insured
depository institution are clear and
unambiguous as to the ownership of the
accounts. If the deposit account records
are ambiguous or unclear as to the
manner in which the deposit accounts
are owned, then the FDIC may, in its
sole discretion, consider evidence other
than the deposit account records of the
insured depository institution for the
purpose of establishing the manner in
which the funds are owned
ion are clear and
unambiguous as to the ownership of the
accounts. If the deposit account records
are ambiguous or unclear as to the
manner in which the deposit accounts
are owned, then the FDIC may, in its
sole discretion, consider evidence other
than the deposit account records of the
insured depository institution for the
purpose of establishing the manner in
which the funds are owned. The
signatures of two or more persons on the
deposit account signature card or the
names of two or more persons on a
certificate of deposit or other deposit
instrument shall be conclusive evidence
that the account is a joint account
(although not necessarily a qualifying
joint account) unless the deposit records
as a whole are ambiguous and some
other evidence indicates, to the
satisfaction of the FDIC, that there is a
contrary ownership capacity.
(4) Alternative method to satisfy
signature-card requirement. The
signature-card requirement of paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section also may be
satisfied by information contained in
the deposit account records of the
insured depository institution
establishing co-ownership of the deposit
account, such as evidence that the
institution has issued a mechanism for
accessing the account to each co-owner
or evidence of usage of the deposit
account by each co-owner.
*
*
*
*
*
By order of the Board of Directors of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dated at Washington, DC, on March 29,
2019.
Valerie Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–06534 Filed 4–3–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0189; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–001–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc., Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)
cutive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–06534 Filed 4–3–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0189; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–001–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc., Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–102,
–103, and –106 airplanes; DHC–8–200
series airplanes; and DHC–8–300 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by the reported loss of an
elevator spring tab balance weight prior
to takeoff. This proposed AD would
require inspecting the two balance
weights and the two hinge arms on each
elevator spring tab, and corrective
actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc.,
Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123
Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario
M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–
4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com;
internet http://www.bombardier.com.
You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA
ervice information identified in
this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc.,
Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123
Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario
M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–
4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com;
internet http://www.bombardier.com.
You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 206–231–3195.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at http://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–
0189; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–
228–7330; fax 516–794–5531; email
9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2019–0189; Product Identifier 2019–
NM–001–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this NPRM. We will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this NPRM
because of those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide
he beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this NPRM. We will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this NPRM
because of those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Apr 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS

## Nearby sections

- [FDIC FIL-1-2002 FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL ACT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL02001.md)
- [FDIC FIL-1-2010 Employee Compensation Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL10001.md)
- [FDIC FIL-1-2024 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for Fourth Quarter 2023](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL24001.md)
- [FDIC FIL-2-2004 Foreign Assets Control Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL04002.md)
- [FDIC FIL-2-2020 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for Fourth Quarter 2019](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL20002.md)
- [FDIC FIL-3-2003 FILING PROCEDURES](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03003.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2006 Commercial Real Estate Lending Proposed Interagency Guidance](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL06004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2021 Revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL21004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2023 Guidance to Help Financial Institutions and Facilitate Recovery in Areas of California Affected by Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL23004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-4-2025 FDIC Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL25004.md)
- [FDIC FIL-5-2000 Consumer Credit Reporting Practices](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL00005.md)
- [FDIC FIL-5-2003 LETTER TO STAKEHOLDERS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL03005.md)
- [FDIC FIL-5-2021 Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Suspicious Activity Reporting and Other Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Considerations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL21005.md)
- [FDIC FIL-6-2000 Special Alert](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL00006.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL19023. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.