# FDIC FIL-34-2024: Final Rulemaking on Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions with $100 Billion or More in Total Assets

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FDIC_FIL24034

## Section

- **Citation:** FDIC FIL-34-2024
- **Heading:** Final Rulemaking on Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions with $100 Billion or More in Total Assets
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FDIC Financial Institution Letters / Final Rulemaking on Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions with $100 Billion or More in Total Assets

## Text

56620
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
1 12 CFR 360.10. The 2012 rule was published as
an interim final rule with an effective date of
January 1, 2012, 76 FR 2011 (Sept. 11, 2011); the
2012 rule was effective April 1, 2012, 77 FR 3075
(Jan. 23, 2012).
2 The failure of Washington Mutual Bank in 2008
remains the largest bank failure in U.S. history. At
the time of its failure, its assets totaled
approximately $300 billion. First Republic, SVB,
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 360
RIN 3064–AF90
Resolution Plans Required for Insured
Depository Institutions With $100
Billion or More in Total Assets;
Informational Filings Required for
Insured Depository Institutions With at
Least $50 Billion but Less Than $100
Billion in Total Assets
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is adopting this
final rule to require the submission of
resolution plans by insured depository
institutions (IDIs) with $100 billion or
more in total assets and informational
filings by IDIs with at least $50 billion
but less than $100 billion in total assets.
The final rule modifies the current rule
requirements regarding the content and
timing of full resolution submissions, as
well as interim supplements to those
submissions provided to the FDIC, in
order to support the FDIC’s resolution
readiness in the event of material
distress and failure of these large IDIs.
The final rule also enhances how the
credibility of full resolution
submissions will be assessed, expands
expectations regarding engagement and
capabilities testing, and explains
expectations regarding the FDIC’s
review, feedback, and enforcement of
IDIs’ compliance with the rule.
DATES: The rule is effective October 1,
2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent
R
of these large IDIs.
The final rule also enhances how the
credibility of full resolution
submissions will be assessed, expands
expectations regarding engagement and
capabilities testing, and explains
expectations regarding the FDIC’s
review, feedback, and enforcement of
IDIs’ compliance with the rule.
DATES: The rule is effective October 1,
2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent
R. Bergey, Associate Director, Division
of Complex Institution Supervision and
Resolution, 917–320–2834, kebergey@
fdic.gov; Laura Porfiris, Associate
Director, Division of Complex
Institution Supervision and Resolution,
212–657–9974, lporfiris@fdic.gov;
Elizabeth Falloon, Senior Advisor,
Division of Complex Institution
Supervision and Resolution, 202–898–
6626, efalloon@fdic.gov; Mark Haley,
Chief, Policy Analysis, Division of
Complex Institution Supervision and
Resolution, 917–320–2911, mahaley@
fdic.gov; Dora Douglass Kochman,
Senior CFI Policy Specialist, Division of
Complex Institution Supervision and
Resolution, 202–898–3633,
ddouglasskochman@fdic.gov; Audra
Cast, Deputy Director, Division of
Resolutions and Receiverships, 312–
382–7577, acast@fdic.gov; Varanessa
Marshall, Assistant Director, Division of
Resolution and Receiverships, 678–916–
2233, vamarshall@fdic.gov; Benjamin
M. DeMaria, Counsel, Legal Division,
202–898–7391, bdemaria@fdic.gov;
Vickie R. Olafson, Counsel, Legal
Division, 703–489–5873, volafson@
fdic.gov; Esther Rabin, Counsel, Legal
Division, 202–898–6860, erabin@
fdic.gov; F. Angus Tarpley, III, Counsel,
Legal Division, 202–898–8521,
ftarpley@fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
II. Overview of Comments
III. Final Rule
A. Scope and Purpose
B. Definitions
C. Full Resolution Submissions Required
D. Content of the Full Resolution
Submissions for CIDIs
E. Interim Supplement
F. Credibility; Review of Full Resolution
Submissions; Engagement and
Capabilities Testing
G
RY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
II. Overview of Comments
III. Final Rule
A. Scope and Purpose
B. Definitions
C. Full Resolution Submissions Required
D. Content of the Full Resolution
Submissions for CIDIs
E. Interim Supplement
F. Credibility; Review of Full Resolution
Submissions; Engagement and
Capabilities Testing
G. No Limiting Effect on FDIC
H. Form of Full Resolution Submissions;
Confidential Treatment of Full
Resolution Submissions and Interim
Supplements
I. Extensions and exemptions
J. Enforcement
IV. Expected Effects
A. Review of Comments
B. Changes From the Proposed Rule to the
Final Rule
C. Marginal Effect of Changes Compared to
the 2012 Rule
D. Effects on Insured Deposits and the
Deposit Insurance Fund
E. Additional Economic Consideration and
Effects
F. Overall Effects
V. Alternatives Considered
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Procedures
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Plain Language
D. Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
E. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
The FDIC’s regulation ‘‘Resolution
plans required for insured depository
institutions with $50 billion or more in
total assets,’’ issued in 2012 1 (2012
rule), requires IDIs with $50 billion or
more in total assets (CIDIs) to submit
resolution plans periodically. This
resolution plan requirement was
established to facilitate the FDIC’s
readiness to resolve a CIDI under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950,
as amended (FDI Act), in the event of its
insolvency.
This final rulemaking to amend and
restate the 2012 rule builds on the
FDIC’s more than a decade-long
experience implementing the 2012 rule,
providing guidance and feedback to
CIDIs, and leveraging the content of
submissions for the FDIC’s development
of resolution strategies
ve a CIDI under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950,
as amended (FDI Act), in the event of its
insolvency.
This final rulemaking to amend and
restate the 2012 rule builds on the
FDIC’s more than a decade-long
experience implementing the 2012 rule,
providing guidance and feedback to
CIDIs, and leveraging the content of
submissions for the FDIC’s development
of resolution strategies. Through this
process, the FDIC has gained a better
understanding of the challenges of
resolving CIDIs and the essential
information needed in resolution plans
and other related submissions to
facilitate the FDIC’s readiness in the
event of a failure of one of these CIDIs.
Therefore, this final rule supersedes all
prior guidance, including the Statement
(as defined below).
Part of the challenge in resolving
CIDIs arises from the wide range of
business models and structures among
these banks. While many of the CIDIs
are engaged largely in traditional
commercial and retail banking
activities, with nearly all assets and
activities conducted within the CIDI or
its subsidiaries (the bank chain), others
conduct significant non-banking
activities. Many of the CIDIs have a
broker-dealer subsidiary or affiliate that
provides services to bank customers.
The CIDIs also include banks primarily
engaged in a particular business
segment, such as credit card services, as
well as U.S. IDIs that are part of large
foreign banking organizations. There is
no one-size-fits-all resolution approach
for these institutions; rather, the FDIC
must be prepared to execute a range of
resolution options, recognizing the
trade-offs among those options. The
FDIC’s development of resolution
strategies—and its assessment of the
options and trade-offs that inform
them—benefit from the CIDI’s
knowledge of its own firm, an
understanding of the CIDI’s relevant
capabilities, and an awareness of the
impediments to executing an orderly
resolution of the CIDI
execute a range of
resolution options, recognizing the
trade-offs among those options. The
FDIC’s development of resolution
strategies—and its assessment of the
options and trade-offs that inform
them—benefit from the CIDI’s
knowledge of its own firm, an
understanding of the CIDI’s relevant
capabilities, and an awareness of the
impediments to executing an orderly
resolution of the CIDI. Across the
different CIDI business models and
structures, there is a variety of factors
that increases the challenges and
complexity of resolution in the event of
the failure of one of these large banks.
Key factors include size, organizational
complexity, and deposit profile, among
others.
The importance of advance resolution
planning was recently underscored in
the failures of three large banks—all
over $100 billion in size 2—in the spring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56621
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and Signature Bank, respectively, were the second,
third, and fourth largest bank failures in history.
3 FDIC Consolidated Reports of Condition and
Income data as of March 31, 2024.
4 Id.
5 84 FR 16620 (April 22, 2019).
6 Statement on Resolution Plans for Insured
Depository Institutions (June 25, 2021), https://
www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/resolution-
authority/idi-statement-06-25-2021.pdf.
7 88 FR 64579 (Sept. 19, 2023).
of 2023: Silicon Valley Bank (SVB),
Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank
(First Republic).
The failures of SVB and Signature
Bank on March 10 and 12, 2023,
respectively, were triggered by
illiquidity resulting from withdrawals
by uninsured depositors at
unprecedented speed and volumes. As a
result of the sudden failures, there was
no opportunity for pre-failure
marketing
19, 2023).
of 2023: Silicon Valley Bank (SVB),
Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank
(First Republic).
The failures of SVB and Signature
Bank on March 10 and 12, 2023,
respectively, were triggered by
illiquidity resulting from withdrawals
by uninsured depositors at
unprecedented speed and volumes. As a
result of the sudden failures, there was
no opportunity for pre-failure
marketing. For both IDIs, the FDIC
established a bridge depository
institution (bridge bank) to continue
bank operations post-failure to allow
time to market the bank. Less than two
months following those failures, First
Republic was placed in receivership and
sold. First Republic’s failure was largely
a result of contagion from the prior two
failures and the bank was able to
manage its liquidity for several weeks
prior to failure, which allowed
additional time to market the bank. The
FDIC facilitated a transaction that
resulted in transfer of all of the assets
and liabilities to a single acquirer
without establishing a bridge bank,
although the FDIC stood ready to
exercise the authority to form a bridge
bank, if needed.
The challenges associated with the
rapidity of the failures were exacerbated
because the FDIC lacked important
resolution planning information to
facilitate marketing for SVB and
Signature Bank. While SVB and First
Republic had filed resolution plans just
a few months before their failures, the
FDIC neither had completed review nor
had the opportunity to provide feedback
on those plans. Signature Bank had not
yet filed any resolution plan at the time
of its failure; its first submission would
have been due in June 2023. Current
and thorough resolution planning
information would have facilitated the
FDIC’s preparations to effectively and
efficiently market the failed IDIs.
The size of an IDI can significantly
impact the resolution options available
to the FDIC under the FDI Act
re Bank had not
yet filed any resolution plan at the time
of its failure; its first submission would
have been due in June 2023. Current
and thorough resolution planning
information would have facilitated the
FDIC’s preparations to effectively and
efficiently market the failed IDIs.
The size of an IDI can significantly
impact the resolution options available
to the FDIC under the FDI Act. In
particular, as IDIs increase in size, the
likelihood of a timely sale to a single
acquirer diminishes. Currently, there are
45 CIDIs, of which 33 have total assets
over $100 billion. As a group, these 45
CIDIs represent approximately $12.9
trillion in total deposits.3 While a
closing weekend sale may be an option
in some cases, its availability cannot be
assumed in view of the size, complexity,
and potential speed of failure of a CIDI.
This is particularly true for the largest
CIDIs with $100 billion or more in total
assets because the pool of potential
acquirers for these institutions is
limited, and any possible transaction
would be complex. While there is a
larger pool of possible acquiring
institutions for CIDIs in the $50 to $100
billion total asset range, some of these
institutions engage in highly complex
activities and pose similar levels of
operational complexity as those over
$100 billion in total assets.
The CIDIs also tend to have a more
significant proportion of uninsured
deposits as compared to smaller banks.
In the aggregate, more than 43.4 percent
of deposits of IDIs with over $50 billion
in total assets are uninsured.4 Under the
FDI Act, any transaction using FDIC
assistance—including where assistance
is provided in connection with the
establishment of a bridge bank—must
meet the least-cost test, absent a
systemic risk exception. Under the least-
cost test, the cost to the deposit
insurance fund (DIF) resulting from any
resolution needs to be less than the cost
to the DIF than all other alternatives
.4 Under the
FDI Act, any transaction using FDIC
assistance—including where assistance
is provided in connection with the
establishment of a bridge bank—must
meet the least-cost test, absent a
systemic risk exception. Under the least-
cost test, the cost to the deposit
insurance fund (DIF) resulting from any
resolution needs to be less than the cost
to the DIF than all other alternatives.
Where the proportion of insured
deposits is very low, the potential cost
to the DIF of a resolution in which only
insured deposits are protected is more
likely to be less costly than a resolution
in which all deposits are protected.
These and other characteristics of
large banks add to resolution challenges
and increase the importance of robust
and ongoing resolution planning for the
CIDIs. The content of the full resolution
submissions under this final rule will
support planning for strategic options,
including use of a bridge bank, and is
important to the FDIC’s readiness to
resolve these banks.
A. Background
Since issuing the 2012 rule, the FDIC
has provided guidance and feedback to
CIDIs to assist in development of their
resolution plans.
In 2014, following the first
submissions, the FDIC provided
guidance and direction for the
preparation of subsequent CIDI
resolution plans with a focus on the
discussion of failure scenario, resolution
strategies, least-cost analysis, and
identified obstacles. In addition,
following each resolution plan
submission cycle, the FDIC issued
feedback letters to CIDIs with
information for the subsequent plan
submission.
After several plan submission cycles,
in 2018, the FDIC instituted a
moratorium on the 2012 rule’s
requirements for all CIDIs pending
completion of a new rulemaking
olution
strategies, least-cost analysis, and
identified obstacles. In addition,
following each resolution plan
submission cycle, the FDIC issued
feedback letters to CIDIs with
information for the subsequent plan
submission.
After several plan submission cycles,
in 2018, the FDIC instituted a
moratorium on the 2012 rule’s
requirements for all CIDIs pending
completion of a new rulemaking. At the
time the moratorium was adopted, the
FDIC also published an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR),5 which
requested comment on how to tailor and
improve the 2012 rule, including how to
reduce the burden associated with the
least-cost test analysis and whether
requirements should be tiered based on
size or complexity factors of cohorts of
CIDIs. The ANPR also requested
comment on potential enhancement of
engagement and capabilities testing. At
that time, the FDIC extended the due
date for future plan submissions
pending completion of the rulemaking
process.
Following the issuance of the ANPR,
the FDIC continued to develop its
thinking regarding resolution planning
for large IDIs, including how to
maximize the FDIC’s resolution
readiness. In 2020 and 2021, the FDIC
undertook targeted engagement with
select CIDIs on their 2018 plan
submissions, a step consistent with the
enhanced emphasis on engagement and
capabilities testing envisioned under the
ANPR.
In January 2021, the FDIC Board took
action to lift the moratorium on the
resolution plan requirement for CIDIs
with $100 billion or more in assets and,
in June 2021, the FDIC issued a policy
statement (Statement) 6 to describe how
it planned to implement certain aspects
of the 2012 rule. The Statement
superseded all prior guidance and
feedback. For CIDIs with total assets of
at least $50 billion and less than $100
billion, the moratorium on submission
of resolution plans remained in effect
CIDIs
with $100 billion or more in assets and,
in June 2021, the FDIC issued a policy
statement (Statement) 6 to describe how
it planned to implement certain aspects
of the 2012 rule. The Statement
superseded all prior guidance and
feedback. For CIDIs with total assets of
at least $50 billion and less than $100
billion, the moratorium on submission
of resolution plans remained in effect.
CIDIs with $100 billion or more in total
assets submitted resolution plans in
accordance with a schedule established
by the FDIC from December 1, 2022
through December 1, 2023. Consistent
with the Statement, each of these CIDIs
received exemptions from certain
content requirements under the 2012
rule and could submit streamlined
resolution plans for review.
On September 19, 2023, the FDIC
published for comment a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Resolution
Plans Required for Insured Depository
Institutions with $100 Billion or More
in Total Assets; Informational Filings
Required for Insured Depository
Institutions with At Least $50 Billion
but Less Than $100 Billion in Total
Assets’’ (NPR).7 The FDIC received and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56622
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
8 FDIC staff also met with staff of two
commenters.
9 Codified at 12 CFR part 370 and 12 CFR part
371, respectively.
10 12 U.S.C. 5365(d).
11 84 FR 59194 (Nov. 1, 2019), codified at 12 CFR
381 (FDIC) and 243 (FRB).
12 As defined by rules promulgated by the FRB,
see 12 CFR 217.402 (Identification as a global
systemically important BHC)
. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
8 FDIC staff also met with staff of two
commenters.
9 Codified at 12 CFR part 370 and 12 CFR part
371, respectively.
10 12 U.S.C. 5365(d).
11 84 FR 59194 (Nov. 1, 2019), codified at 12 CFR
381 (FDIC) and 243 (FRB).
12 As defined by rules promulgated by the FRB,
see 12 CFR 217.402 (Identification as a global
systemically important BHC).
considered 12 comment letters, which
are discussed below.8
In addition to enacting and
implementing the 2012 rule, the FDIC
has instituted several rulemakings that
support its mission as deposit insurer to
make timely insured deposit payments
and to resolve a failed IDI in the manner
that is least costly to the DIF. These
separate rulemakings address certain
difficulties the FDIC could face in the
closing of a large, complex IDI, and
include Recordkeeping for Timely
Deposit Insurance Determination (part
370) and Recordkeeping Requirements
for Qualified Financial Contracts (part
371).9 Part 370 requires covered
institutions, namely IDIs with two
million or more deposit accounts, to put
in place mechanisms to facilitate
prompt deposit insurance
determinations. Part 371 requires IDIs in
a troubled condition to keep detailed
records in a specified, standard format
regarding their qualified financial
contracts. This information would be
used by the FDIC, were it appointed
receiver, in making a determination of
which qualified financial contracts
entered into by the failed institution (if
any) will be transferred within the brief
statutory window
Part 371 requires IDIs in
a troubled condition to keep detailed
records in a specified, standard format
regarding their qualified financial
contracts. This information would be
used by the FDIC, were it appointed
receiver, in making a determination of
which qualified financial contracts
entered into by the failed institution (if
any) will be transferred within the brief
statutory window.
Separate from the FDI Act and this
rule’s requirements, section 165(d) of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, as amended
(Dodd-Frank Act),10 and the related
joint rulemaking published by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (FRB) and the FDIC in
November 2019 (DFA rule) 11 mandate
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.
There are some noteworthy
differences between the DFA rule
requirements and this rule. First of all,
Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act
and the DFA rule focus on resolution of
the organization by the organization
itself under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or
other ordinary resolution regime. While
some DFA resolution plans utilize a
strategy where the IDI is resolved under
the FDI Act, they must address
resolution of the organization as a
whole, including the holding company
and non-bank affiliates. In addition, the
statutory purpose of a DFA resolution
plan is 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 by requiring covered
companies to submit plans for rapid and
orderly resolution without any
assumptions of reliance on public
support
any
and non-bank affiliates. In addition, the
statutory purpose of a DFA resolution
plan is 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 by requiring covered
companies to submit plans for rapid and
orderly resolution without any
assumptions of reliance on public
support. By contrast, this rule focuses
only on the CIDI itself, and the strategic
analysis and information needed to
support a resolution using the FDIC’s
traditional resolution tools under the
FDI Act.
Presently, all U.S. global systemically
important banking organizations 12 (U.S.
GSIBs), which are the largest and most
systemic and interconnected banking
organizations in the United States, have
developed DFA resolution plans that
use a single-point-of-entry (SPOE)
strategy. Under an SPOE strategy, the
top tier holding company is placed into
bankruptcy and generally all material
operating subsidiaries, including any
IDIs in the group, remain open and
operating. In an SPOE resolution, the
FDIC would not be called upon to
resolve the IDI under the FDI Act. The
SPOE approach may minimize
disruption and preserve franchise value,
as well as reduce systemic risk,
particularly in a firm with a complex
structure that includes multiple material
operating entities outside of the bank
chain. In contrast, most other banking
organizations subject to the DFA
resolution plan submission
requirements currently utilize a strategy
in which the top tier holding company
is placed into bankruptcy and the IDI is
resolved under the FDI Act.
Firms that have submitted DFA
resolution plans adopting an SPOE
strategy must have or develop the
capabilities and may need to make
improvements to their organizational
structures to support implementation of
that strategy
n plan submission
requirements currently utilize a strategy
in which the top tier holding company
is placed into bankruptcy and the IDI is
resolved under the FDI Act.
Firms that have submitted DFA
resolution plans adopting an SPOE
strategy must have or develop the
capabilities and may need to make
improvements to their organizational
structures to support implementation of
that strategy. However, the FDIC still
must be prepared to use its resolution
authorities if necessary to achieve an
orderly resolution of the firm, including
its authority to resolve a CIDI under the
FDI Act, or, if necessary, the
extraordinary backup orderly resolution
authorities provided in Title II of the
Dodd-Frank Act.
A resolution using Title II orderly
liquidation authorities, which supports
a group-wide SPOE approach, is a
backup authority to be used, if
necessary, to resolve a financial
company whose resolution under the
Bankruptcy Code would have serious
adverse effects on U.S. financial
stability. That extraordinary authority
may not be called upon to resolve the
firm, however, if the resolution of the
IDI under the FDI Act would avoid the
serious adverse effects of the firm’s
failure. By the same token, a resolution
under the FDI Act is particularly likely
for large regional banks with less
significant non-bank activities,
predominately domestic operations, and
few or no systemically important
identified critical operations.
The requirements of the DFA rule and
this rule support their respective
differing purposes; at the same time,
both rules serve the broader objective of
facilitating orderly resolutions.
Consistent with the proposal, this final
rule specifically allows the
incorporation of information from an
affiliate’s DFA resolution plan into a
CIDI’s full resolution submission or
interim supplement
.
The requirements of the DFA rule and
this rule support their respective
differing purposes; at the same time,
both rules serve the broader objective of
facilitating orderly resolutions.
Consistent with the proposal, this final
rule specifically allows the
incorporation of information from an
affiliate’s DFA resolution plan into a
CIDI’s full resolution submission or
interim supplement. In providing
feedback or making determinations with
respect to any submission under this
final rule, the FDIC will consider
feedback and determinations provided
with respect to DFA resolution plans
with similar content, to promote
consistency across the two planning
requirements, and, where appropriate,
taking into account the differences in
the requirements of the two rules and
the approaches to resolution strategy
and regime.
B. Overview of the Proposed Rule
The proposal provided for two
distinct groups of CIDIs based on size,
with differing obligations for each
group. The first group comprised those
IDIs with $100 billion or more in total
assets (group A CIDIs). The proposed
rule would have required group A CIDIs
to submit full resolution plans
containing an identified strategy
appropriate to the CIDI for its orderly
and efficient resolution, as well as
providing all other content elements
described in the proposed rule.
The second group comprised those
IDIs with at least $50 billion but less
than $100 billion in total assets (group
B CIDIs). The proposed rule would have
required full resolution submissions
from group B CIDIs with more limited
requirements, in the form of an
informational filing
rly
and efficient resolution, as well as
providing all other content elements
described in the proposed rule.
The second group comprised those
IDIs with at least $50 billion but less
than $100 billion in total assets (group
B CIDIs). The proposed rule would have
required full resolution submissions
from group B CIDIs with more limited
requirements, in the form of an
informational filing.
The proposal was intended to:
• Clarify and enhance requirements
applicable to IDIs with $50 billion or
more in total assets, including
resolution plans submitted by group A
CIDIs and informational filings
submitted by group B CIDIs;
• Require each group A CIDI to
provide an identified strategy for
resolution that ensures timely access to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56623
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
insured deposits, maximizes value from
the sale or disposition of assets,
minimizes any losses realized by
creditors of the group A CIDI in
resolution, and addresses potential risks
of adverse effects on U.S. economic
conditions or financial stability;
• Clarify requirements with respect to
the assumptions for the failure scenario
used by group A CIDIs in resolution
plans and reserve the ability of the FDIC
to provide additional parameters for the
failure scenario for all group A CIDIs or
specific individual group A CIDIs in
future plan submission cycles;
• Strengthen full resolution
submission content elements and
associated requirements regarding
capabilities to support optionality
available to the FDIC and ensure that
the FDIC’s development of resolution
strategies reflects considerations related
to the characteristics of the individual
CIDI and potential challenges that could
be faced in resolution;
• Refine the requirements for group A
CIDIs with respect to least-cost analysis
and focus on ensuring th
ed requirements regarding
capabilities to support optionality
available to the FDIC and ensure that
the FDIC’s development of resolution
strategies reflects considerations related
to the characteristics of the individual
CIDI and potential challenges that could
be faced in resolution;
• Refine the requirements for group A
CIDIs with respect to least-cost analysis
and focus on ensuring that the FDIC has
the building blocks and capabilities it
needs to undertake the least-cost test in
resolution in the event of failure of a
group A CIDI;
• Establish an enhanced credibility
standard for full resolution submissions
and clarify the process for review and
feedback to identify and address
weaknesses in full resolution
submissions and enforce the rule;
• Establish a requirement for
informational filings to be submitted by
group B CIDIs that is focused on
information most important and
appropriate for resolution of those
CIDIs;
• Adjust the frequency of full
resolution submissions to a two-year
cycle for all CIDIs to accommodate
engagement and capabilities testing as
part of the resolution planning process,
and establish periodic interim
supplements containing specified
resolution submission content items;
and
• Codify certain aspects of guidance
and feedback previously issued to IDIs
subject to the 2012 rule.
II. Overview of Comments
The FDIC received 12 comment letters
to the proposal from banking
organizations, industry and trade groups
representing the banking and financial
services industry, a law firm, and
consumer groups.
The comments received generally
were responsive to questions posed by
the FDIC in the NPR. The majority of
commenters suggested changes to
reduce the costs of submission
preparation for filers, including by
adjusting the proposed submission
cycle, narrowing the proposed scope
and content requirements, and
enhancing alignment with relevant
resolution planning requirements of the
DFA rule
The comments received generally
were responsive to questions posed by
the FDIC in the NPR. The majority of
commenters suggested changes to
reduce the costs of submission
preparation for filers, including by
adjusting the proposed submission
cycle, narrowing the proposed scope
and content requirements, and
enhancing alignment with relevant
resolution planning requirements of the
DFA rule. Several commenters raised
concerns about the enhanced credibility
standard, and asked for greater clarity
on engagement and capability testing.
Three commenters offered broad
support for the proposed rule as written.
The comments received are summarized
below.
Scope of Rule
Most commenters agreed with the
overall scope of the rule. Two
commenters suggested creating a new
group of filers that would include only
firms with $100 billion to $250 billion
in total assets, and reducing
requirements for that new group, as
compared to the CIDIs with at least $250
billion in total assets. As for group B
CIDIs, several commenters noted the
content requirements of the
informational filings varied in a limited
manner from a full resolution plan and
asserted that the FDIC should more
significantly reduce the burden for
group B CIDIs with further tailoring or
elimination of requirements for group B
CIDIs. Two other commenters
recommended that group B CIDIs
should be subject to the same
requirements as group A CIDIs.
Several commenters addressed the
relationship between IDI resolution
plans and DFA resolution plans. Two
commenters supported changes to better
harmonize these resolution planning
efforts. One commenter suggested CIDIs
with parent banking organizations that
are biennial filers or triennial full filers
of DFA resolution plans should be
exempted from IDI resolution plan
requirements
IDIs.
Several commenters addressed the
relationship between IDI resolution
plans and DFA resolution plans. Two
commenters supported changes to better
harmonize these resolution planning
efforts. One commenter suggested CIDIs
with parent banking organizations that
are biennial filers or triennial full filers
of DFA resolution plans should be
exempted from IDI resolution plan
requirements. That commenter also
argued for streamlining requirements if
IDI resolution plans continue to be
required for CIDIs in addition to the
DFA resolution plans required of their
parent banking organizations. Regarding
consistency across these two programs,
two commenters emphasized the need
to use consistent definitions with regard
to IDI resolution plans and DFA
resolution plans, and cited the
definition of ‘‘material change’’ as an
example where there could be better
alignment. Another commenter
highlighted that the scope of the virtual
data room capabilities requirement
should be aligned with the equivalent
requirement for DFA resolution plans.
Additionally, two commenters
emphasized the importance of
consistency between credibility
determinations on DFA resolution plans
by the FDIC and FRB, and on IDI
resolution plans by the FDIC, as well as
any other feedback on common
elements of these two submissions.
Submission Cycle and Transition Period
Two commenters broadly supported
the cycle as proposed, while four argued
to reduce the frequency of full
resolution submissions. Commenters
arguing for a longer submission cycle
generally supported a three-year cycle,
which they noted would take into
account the cycle for certain DFA
resolution plans, allow for adequate
review and feedback by FDIC staff, and
provide time for CIDIs to incorporate
that feedback. However, one commenter
noted that a two-year cycle with no
interim supplements could be
appropriate for CIDIs whose parent
companies are biennial filers of DFA
resolution plans
hree-year cycle,
which they noted would take into
account the cycle for certain DFA
resolution plans, allow for adequate
review and feedback by FDIC staff, and
provide time for CIDIs to incorporate
that feedback. However, one commenter
noted that a two-year cycle with no
interim supplements could be
appropriate for CIDIs whose parent
companies are biennial filers of DFA
resolution plans. In terms of the dates of
submissions, one commenter suggested
July, while two others proposed
December.
With respect to the first full resolution
submissions or interim supplements
following the effective date of the final
rule, five commenters suggested a
period of 12 months or longer, rather
than the proposed 270-day period. In
particular, with respect to group B
CIDIs, commenters suggested a
transition period of 18 months, since
none of these CIDIs has submitted a
resolution plan under the 2012 rule
since implementation of the
moratorium.
Regarding the interim supplements,
three commenters recommended
narrowing the scope of information
required. Commenters recommended
reducing or eliminating requirements
for narrative or description, and to limit
the required content to information that
has materially changed. Another
commenter suggested that narrative
commentary in the interim supplement
should be limited to a summary of
material changes in the information
provided in the prior full resolution
submission. One commenter suggested
that interim supplements, like full
resolution submissions, should use data
as of the end of the prior year, rather
than the prior quarter.
Several commenters emphasized the
importance of the FDIC providing
meaningful feedback to CIDIs and
adequate time for that feedback to be
incorporated into subsequent
submissions, with one commenter
recommending feedback be provided at
least 12 months before the next
submission is due and two others noting
the need for the FDIC to build internal
capacity and capabilities to support this
Several commenters emphasized the
importance of the FDIC providing
meaningful feedback to CIDIs and
adequate time for that feedback to be
incorporated into subsequent
submissions, with one commenter
recommending feedback be provided at
least 12 months before the next
submission is due and two others noting
the need for the FDIC to build internal
capacity and capabilities to support this.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56624
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Rule Requirements
Commenters generally supported the
FDIC’s focus on increasing optionality
available to it in preparing for
resolution. Four agreed that a bridge
bank may be helpful in this respect, to
provide more time to sell all or parts of
the institution, reduce reliance on
strategies involving a single buyer, and
expand the universe of potential
acquirers. Two commenters supported
the identified strategy requirement as
proposed, with one noting it would be
among the most critical pieces of
information in a resolution plan and
plans without this element would not
likely be credible or effective. Three
other commenters favored elimination
or modification of the scenario and
identified strategy requirement. One of
these commenters suggested that some
CIDIs with more than $100 billion but
less than $250 billion in total assets may
have less complex structures that make
an FDIC-arranged sale feasible. They
noted that, by requiring just one
identified strategy, the proposal restricts
CIDIs from presenting a full range of
options for resolution. Another
commenter argued that, based on the
lessons learned from recent failures, the
FDIC should be more focused on
maximizing the likelihood of a
resolution weekend sale, including by
emphasizing real-time capability for
IDIs to produce necessary information
for potential buyers
e
identified strategy, the proposal restricts
CIDIs from presenting a full range of
options for resolution. Another
commenter argued that, based on the
lessons learned from recent failures, the
FDIC should be more focused on
maximizing the likelihood of a
resolution weekend sale, including by
emphasizing real-time capability for
IDIs to produce necessary information
for potential buyers. A third commenter
expressed concern that the proposed
requirement for the identified strategy to
have ‘‘meaningful optionality’’ is too
vague.
Two commenters addressed aspects of
assumptions in the proposed failure
scenario, with one arguing against the
assumption that the CIDI’s parent
holding company enters bankruptcy,
and the other supporting the
assumption of continued Federal Home
Loan Bank lending to a bridge bank.
Regarding the proposed approach to
valuation to facilitate the FDIC’s
assessment of least-costly resolution
method, three commenters emphasized
the importance of valuation to
resolution planning and another
expressed support for replacing the
least-cost test requirement of the 2012
rule with the proposed valuation
requirement. Three commenters
suggested modifications to the
approach; specifically, these
commenters favored elimination of the
requirement for quantitative valuation
analysis. These commenters argued that
such analysis would be overly
burdensome, more expensive for CIDIs
that do not maintain in-house expertise,
and of little value to the FDIC in an
actual resolution scenario.
Engagement and Capabilities Testing
Commenters were generally
supportive of engagement and
capabilities testing. One commenter
suggested increasing the expected
frequency of engagement, while another
advocated for committing more
resources toward engagement and
capabilities testing while decreasing the
emphasis on full resolution submission
documentation
an
actual resolution scenario.
Engagement and Capabilities Testing
Commenters were generally
supportive of engagement and
capabilities testing. One commenter
suggested increasing the expected
frequency of engagement, while another
advocated for committing more
resources toward engagement and
capabilities testing while decreasing the
emphasis on full resolution submission
documentation. Four commenters
suggested that the FDIC should provide
advance notice of the timing for
engagement and capabilities testing, and
the process for the testing and feedback.
Two of these commenters indicated the
FDIC should provide CIDIs with a
comprehensive list of capabilities it
expects a CIDI to maintain, and
suggested this should be done through
a notice and comment period to enable
input from the industry. One of these
commenters also noted that CIDIs—
especially, group B CIDIs—will need
time to build, improve, and test
capabilities prior to undergoing
capabilities testing with the FDIC, and
suggested capabilities testing should not
occur during a CIDI’s initial submission
cycle under this Rule.
Credibility Standard
Two commenters expressed support
for the proposed enhancement of the
credibility standard. Three other
commenters recommended eliminating
the credibility determination, granting
CIDIs latitude on the standard’s
application, or foregoing any
enforcement action based on a
credibility determination. They argued
that the standard, particularly the first
prong, is subjective and susceptible to
being applied inconsistently over time.
Another commenter observed that any
credibility standard is necessarily
subjective.
Several commenters emphasized the
importance of a collaborative approach
to resolution planning, with one
emphasizing the role communications
can play to support this, including
related to the timing and scope of
capabilities testing
s subjective and susceptible to
being applied inconsistently over time.
Another commenter observed that any
credibility standard is necessarily
subjective.
Several commenters emphasized the
importance of a collaborative approach
to resolution planning, with one
emphasizing the role communications
can play to support this, including
related to the timing and scope of
capabilities testing. In addition, several
commenters expressed concerns about
any enforcement actions related to
engagement and capabilities testing,
with one commenter stressing that full
resolution submissions should only be
deemed non-credible due to
fundamental resolvability issues and not
because of issues with CIDIs’ resolution
capabilities that fall short.
Expected Effects
One commenter indicated that the
proposal would substantially add to the
time and resources required to prepare
IDI resolution plans. Another two
commenters argued that the analysis of
the compliance burden understates the
true cost of the burden. A fourth
commenter suggested that the estimated
time required to develop an IDI full
resolution submission is not
unreasonable and the cost of
compliance would pale in comparison
to the costs of potential bank failures
and banking crises.
III. Final Rule
The FDIC considered all comments
received and has adopted certain
changes to the proposed rule as
discussed below. In addition, the FDIC
made certain technical, non-substantive
changes throughout, including
corrections to paragraph numbering and
grammar, improving word choice for
readability, and eliminating
redundancy.
A. Scope and Purpose
The scope and purpose of the final
rule are substantively unchanged from
the proposal
d and has adopted certain
changes to the proposed rule as
discussed below. In addition, the FDIC
made certain technical, non-substantive
changes throughout, including
corrections to paragraph numbering and
grammar, improving word choice for
readability, and eliminating
redundancy.
A. Scope and Purpose
The scope and purpose of the final
rule are substantively unchanged from
the proposal. This rule is intended to
ensure that each group A CIDI develops
a credible strategy to facilitate the
FDIC’s resolution of the institution
across a range of possible scenarios and,
with respect to each group A CIDI and
each group B CIDI, that the FDIC has
access to all of the material information
and analysis it needs to efficiently
resolve the CIDI in the event of its
failure.
Consistent with the 2012 rule and the
proposal, the final rule applies to all
IDIs with at least $50 billion in total
assets based upon the average total
assets reported over the previous four
quarters. Like the proposal, the final
rule will differentiate the requirements
pertaining to group A CIDIs and group
B CIDIs. Each group A CIDI is required
to periodically submit a resolution plan
to the FDIC, including an identified
strategy for its resolution under the
specified failure scenario. Each group B
CIDI is required to periodically submit
an informational filing to the FDIC that
would consist of certain informational
content, but would not be required to
include an identified strategy or to
develop capabilities necessary to
produce valuations needed to support
least-cost test analysis.
Comments received by the FDIC
included letters from two commenters
who recommended that group B CIDIs
should file resolution plans with no
distinction between group A CIDIs and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
produce valuations needed to support
least-cost test analysis.
Comments received by the FDIC
included letters from two commenters
who recommended that group B CIDIs
should file resolution plans with no
distinction between group A CIDIs and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56625
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
13 See 12 U.S.C. 5365(a)(2)(C). The threshold for
enhanced prudential standards under that provision
was established through passage of the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act in 2018.
14 See, e.g., 84 FR 59230 (Nov. 1, 2019) (codified
at 12 CFR parts 3, 50, 217, 249, 324, 329).
group B CIDIs. Two other comment
letters suggested that group A CIDIs
should consist only of CIDIs with at
least $250 billion in total assets and that
there should be further tiering of
requirements for CIDIs between $100–
250 billion in total assets and those
between $50–$100 billion in total assets.
One commenter recommended that
group B CIDIs not be required to make
any full resolution submissions.
The FDIC has retained the distinction
between group A CIDIs and group B
CIDIs, and the requirement that group B
CIDIs provide informational filings. The
FDIC believes that the approach taken
for group B CIDIs appropriately
recognizes the additional complexity
and greater resolution challenges
applicable to the group A CIDIs. The
threshold of $100 billion in total assets,
which is also used in the Dodd-Frank
Act 13 and other rulemakings as a basis
for assessing a banking organization’s
financial stability and safety and
soundness risks,14 is an appropriate
threshold to distinguish full resolution
submission requirements for group A
CIDIs and group B CIDIs, and is retained
in the final rule
the group A CIDIs. The
threshold of $100 billion in total assets,
which is also used in the Dodd-Frank
Act 13 and other rulemakings as a basis
for assessing a banking organization’s
financial stability and safety and
soundness risks,14 is an appropriate
threshold to distinguish full resolution
submission requirements for group A
CIDIs and group B CIDIs, and is retained
in the final rule.
While all group A CIDIs have the
same requirements for submission of
full resolution plans, in response to
comments discussed further below, the
group A CIDIs are further divided into
two filing categories: triennial and
biennial filers. While most group A
CIDIs will file on a triennial cycle under
the final rule, those CIDIs that are part
of the largest and most systemic and
interconnected U.S. banking
organizations—those affiliated with U.S.
GSIBs—will file biennially.
The FDIC considered comments
proposing specific changes to the
content of informational filings for
group B CIDIs, which are addressed
below.
B. Definitions
The proposal included definitions of
terms used in the proposed rule, which
are included without change in the final
rule, except as noted below.
Several comments were received with
respect to certain defined terms. Two
commenters emphasized the importance
of consistency in the definitions of
equivalent terms between the proposed
rule and the DFA rule, and ‘‘core
business line’’ and ‘‘material change’’
were cited as specific examples.
Additionally, two comment letters
argued that the proposed definition of
‘‘material change’’ was overly inclusive
and used in a manner that might result
in triggering the notice requirements
contained in the proposal upon
relatively minor events, noting a
narrower approach to events triggering
such a notice in the DFA rule.
Accordingly, the definitions for ‘‘core
business lines’’ and ‘‘material change’’
are revised in the final rule to be more
consistent with similar concepts in the
DFA rule
lusive
and used in a manner that might result
in triggering the notice requirements
contained in the proposal upon
relatively minor events, noting a
narrower approach to events triggering
such a notice in the DFA rule.
Accordingly, the definitions for ‘‘core
business lines’’ and ‘‘material change’’
are revised in the final rule to be more
consistent with similar concepts in the
DFA rule. The definition of ‘‘core
business lines’’ is revised to conform
more closely to the DFA rule. The
definition covers the CIDI’s business
lines whose failure would result in a
material loss of the CIDI’s revenue,
profit, or franchise value.
The definition of ‘‘material change’’ is
revised to combine concepts from the
definition in the proposed rule and from
the definition in the DFA rule. As
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, in administering the
2012 rule, the FDIC has observed that
not all CIDIs have interpreted the
material change concept similarly.
Accordingly, the intent of revising the
defined term is to use an approach
similar to the DFA rule, while
improving clarity as to how to apply the
concept in the context of this rule.
Given differences in the purpose and
scope of the two rules, the final rule
focuses on changes that are important
for CIDIs. Thus, the definition of
material change in the final rule focuses
on events that relate to the requirements
of the rule, such as changes to overall
deposit structure, identification or de-
identification of a franchise component,
and acquisition or disposition of a
material asset portfolio, among other
things. The usage of the term ‘‘material
change’’ was modified as well, to be
more consistent with the approach
taken under the DFA rule
al rule focuses
on events that relate to the requirements
of the rule, such as changes to overall
deposit structure, identification or de-
identification of a franchise component,
and acquisition or disposition of a
material asset portfolio, among other
things. The usage of the term ‘‘material
change’’ was modified as well, to be
more consistent with the approach
taken under the DFA rule. As discussed
below, the final rule uses the phrase
‘‘extraordinary event,’’ borrowed from
the DFA rule, in the context of the
notice requirement instead of the term
‘‘material change.’’
One commenter noted that the
proposed definition of ‘‘material entity’’
is over-inclusive, which might be
inconsistent with the goal of focusing on
the material aspects of the organization,
and noted that this approach diverges
from the approach taken in the DFA
rule. The FDIC agrees with the comment
that including all entities that are
material to franchise components may
result in relatively insignificant entities
being captured within the definition.
Accordingly, the reference to franchise
components is omitted from the
definition in the final rule. However,
including all IDIs as material entities,
regardless of size, is important for
FDIC’s resolution planning, as it is
likely that all may enter resolution
under the FDI Act, due to statutory
cross-guarantees. No change is being
made to the inclusion of all IDIs as
material entities.
In the definition of ‘‘franchise
component,’’ the term ‘‘asset pool’’ was
replaced by the term ‘‘material asset
portfolio’’ to utilize a defined term from
the rule. A similar change was made to
the definition of ‘‘multiple acquirer
exit’’ in using the defined term
‘‘material asset portfolios’’ instead of
‘‘asset portfolios.’’
Throughout the final rule, the term
‘‘resolution submission’’ was replaced
by the term ‘‘full resolution submission’’
and the term ‘‘BDI’’ was replaced by the
term ‘‘bridge depository institution’’ for
clarity
m from
the rule. A similar change was made to
the definition of ‘‘multiple acquirer
exit’’ in using the defined term
‘‘material asset portfolios’’ instead of
‘‘asset portfolios.’’
Throughout the final rule, the term
‘‘resolution submission’’ was replaced
by the term ‘‘full resolution submission’’
and the term ‘‘BDI’’ was replaced by the
term ‘‘bridge depository institution’’ for
clarity.
The definitions of ‘‘group A CIDI’’ and
‘‘group B CIDI’’ were revised to be more
consistent with the approach used in
the DFA rule for determining filing
groups.
The definition of United States was
revised to be consistent with the
definition under the FDI Act.
New defined terms were added for
clarity, including ‘‘PCS service
provider,’’ ‘‘DIF,’’ ‘‘biennial filer,’’ and
‘‘triennial filer.’’
C. Full Resolution Submissions
Required
Biennial Filers and Triennial Filers
Under the proposal, each CIDI would
have been required to provide a full
resolution submission to the FDIC every
two years. The FDIC would have
retained the discretion to alter the
submission dates upon written notice to
the CIDI. An interim supplement would
have been required in any year in which
the CIDI is not required to file a full
resolution submission.
Four commenters recommended a
three-year submission cycle consistent
with the Statement. Commenters
supporting the three-year cycle
emphasized the importance of receiving
timely feedback and having sufficient
time to incorporate improvements in the
full resolution submissions with each
cycle. These commenters also cited an
increased cost in more frequent filings.
Commenters flagged the importance of
the coordination of filing resolution
submissions, submission review, and
engagement and capabilities testing, as
well as filing interim supplements over
the course of the cycle. Two
commenters supported the proposed
biennial submission
full resolution submissions with each
cycle. These commenters also cited an
increased cost in more frequent filings.
Commenters flagged the importance of
the coordination of filing resolution
submissions, submission review, and
engagement and capabilities testing, as
well as filing interim supplements over
the course of the cycle. Two
commenters supported the proposed
biennial submission. One commenter
recommended that if the FDIC were to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56626
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
move to a triennial submission cycle for
most CIDIs, the biennial cycle should be
retained for the CIDI affiliates of U.S.
GSIBs, which are biennial filers under
the DFA rule. The commenter suggested
that this approach would be more
efficient for the U.S. GSIBs and for the
FDIC, as interim supplements would not
be necessary because either a DFA
resolution plan or a resolution plan
under this rule would be submitted in
alternating years.
The final rule adopts the
recommended three-year submission
cycle for most CIDIs. The FDIC agrees
with commenters that timely and
fulsome feedback for each CIDI is an
important priority, and ensuring time
for engagement and capabilities testing
between full resolution submissions is
of significant value. In addition, the
FDIC expects that key components of
the full resolution submission will
remain relatively constant over a three-
year cycle, including the identified
strategy for group A CIDIs. Important
information that is more likely to
change over that period will be updated
annually through the interim
supplement
testing
between full resolution submissions is
of significant value. In addition, the
FDIC expects that key components of
the full resolution submission will
remain relatively constant over a three-
year cycle, including the identified
strategy for group A CIDIs. Important
information that is more likely to
change over that period will be updated
annually through the interim
supplement. In addition, the FDIC will
receive notices of extraordinary events
that will provide information of
significant changes at the CIDI, such as
through merger and acquisition or
divestiture, and the FDIC would be in a
position to request additional
information if needed.
With respect to the CIDI affiliates of
U.S. GSIBs, the FDIC agrees with the
commenter that a full resolution
submission cycle that is complimentary
with the DFA resolution plan cycle will
improve efficiency, and will ensure
timeliness of content needed for
contingency planning for an FDI Act
resolution. The biennial filing is
appropriate for these CIDIs, which are
part of the largest and most systemic
and interconnected U.S. banking
organizations. Accordingly, the final
rule establishes a two-year cycle for
CIDIs that are affiliates of U.S. GSIBs.
Consistent with the proposal, the FDIC
retains the discretion to change filing
dates for any CIDI.
The FDIC received several comments
with respect to the preferred submission
date. One commenter suggested July 1,
while two commenters recommended
December dates. One of these
commenters suggested that CIDIs with
parent banking organizations that are
triennial filers of DFA resolution plans
should submit full resolution
submissions under this rule in
December of the same year in which the
DFA resolution plan is filed. The final
rule does not specify a calendar date for
submissions, to retain flexibility over
the life of the rule
d
December dates. One of these
commenters suggested that CIDIs with
parent banking organizations that are
triennial filers of DFA resolution plans
should submit full resolution
submissions under this rule in
December of the same year in which the
DFA resolution plan is filed. The final
rule does not specify a calendar date for
submissions, to retain flexibility over
the life of the rule. While July 1, January
1, and December 1 dates have been used
in the past, the most suitable dates may
be different for different cohorts of CIDIs
and may change over time. The FDIC
considers the annual cadence for
information required by this rule to be
provided by most CIDIs, including those
with parent banking organizations that
are triennial filers of DFA resolution
plans—whether via full resolution
submissions or interim supplements—to
be appropriate from a resolution
planning workflow perspective for both
the FDIC and CIDIs. The FDIC also
expects to establish a regular cadence of
review, testing, and engagement across
two cohorts of group B CIDIs, and may
establish different calendar dates for
submissions by those group B CIDI
cohorts.
With respect to the first full resolution
submissions or interim supplements
following the effective date of the final
rule, five commenters suggested a
period of 12 months or longer, rather
than the proposed 270-day period. In
particular, with respect to group B
CIDIs, commenters suggested a
transition period of 18 months, since
none of these CIDIs have submitted a
resolution plan under the 2012 rule
since implementation of the
moratorium.
The FDIC will notify CIDIs of the date
when their first full resolution
submissions or interim supplements are
due under the final rule. Consistent
with the proposal, for group A CIDIs,
that date will be at least 270 days from
the effective date of the rule
f 18 months, since
none of these CIDIs have submitted a
resolution plan under the 2012 rule
since implementation of the
moratorium.
The FDIC will notify CIDIs of the date
when their first full resolution
submissions or interim supplements are
due under the final rule. Consistent
with the proposal, for group A CIDIs,
that date will be at least 270 days from
the effective date of the rule. The FDIC
believes that 270 days following the
effective date is sufficient time for group
A CIDIs to prepare a resolution plan or
interim supplement that conforms to the
final rule. This timing reflects the
urgency of resolution planning for these
largest CIDIs, and supports the
establishment of a regular cadence of
full resolution submissions and interim
supplements across three cohorts of
group A CIDIs for purposes of full
resolution submission review,
horizontal capabilities testing, and firm-
specific engagement. The text of the
final rule will be publicly available
following action by the FDIC Board of
Directors, and will be published in the
Federal Register well before the
effective date, giving CIDIs notice of the
final rule’s requirements.
For group B CIDIs, the initial
submission due dates will be at least
one year from the effective date of the
final rule. This is appropriate because
the group B CIDIs are generally new to
the resolution planning process—or
have not filed for an extended period
due to the moratorium—and because the
resolution challenges associated with
the group B CIDIs are somewhat
reduced.
Full Resolution Submissions by New
CIDIs
Consistent with the proposal, the final
rule indicates that an IDI that becomes
a CIDI after the effective date of the final
rule is required to provide its initial full
resolution submission on or before the
date specified in writing by the FDIC,
which will be no earlier than 270 days
after the IDI became a CIDI
oup B CIDIs are somewhat
reduced.
Full Resolution Submissions by New
CIDIs
Consistent with the proposal, the final
rule indicates that an IDI that becomes
a CIDI after the effective date of the final
rule is required to provide its initial full
resolution submission on or before the
date specified in writing by the FDIC,
which will be no earlier than 270 days
after the IDI became a CIDI. As these
firms are aware of such transition well
in advance, 270 days after the change of
status is an appropriate length of time
to submit a new full resolution
submission. As IDIs grow, whether
through merger or business strategy or
otherwise, it is important that the FDIC
receive prompt and timely information
for resolution planning. The 270-day
period balances the urgency of
resolution readiness against the time
needed for a new CIDI to complete a
thorough and responsive full resolution
submission.
The final rule adds language to
address submissions subsequent to a
CIDI transitioning between groups. A
CIDI that transitions from group B to
group A or from group A to group B,
will file a full resolution submission or
interim supplement, as applicable,
pursuant to the requirements relevant to
its new filing group on or before the
date that its next full resolution
submission or interim supplement is
due, unless it receives written notice of
a different date from the FDIC.
The final rule contains language
changes from the proposal for clarity
and consistency by providing for full
resolution submissions on or before the
submission date, rather than on the
submission date, for the biennial filers,
the triennial filers, and the new filers.
This is consistent with similar language
in the DFA rule
ss it receives written notice of
a different date from the FDIC.
The final rule contains language
changes from the proposal for clarity
and consistency by providing for full
resolution submissions on or before the
submission date, rather than on the
submission date, for the biennial filers,
the triennial filers, and the new filers.
This is consistent with similar language
in the DFA rule.
Notice of Extraordinary Event
The proposal would have required
that a CIDI provide the FDIC with a
notice and explanation of a material
change no later than 45 days after
certain events included in the proposed
definition of ‘‘material change.’’ The
proposal also would have allowed for an
exemption from this requirement if the
date on which the CIDI would be
required to submit the notice would be
within 90 days before the date on which
the CIDI is required to provide a full
resolution submission.
Commenters suggested that the
definition of material change was too
broad and would give rise to notices
that were not likely to significantly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56627
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
impact the full resolution submission.
Commenters suggested consideration of
the approach taken in the DFA rule,
which requires notice of a more limited
set of ‘‘extraordinary events.’’ The FDIC
considered those comments and
adopted the concept of an
‘‘extraordinary event’’ as the basis for
the 45-day notice, rather than a
‘‘material change.’’ The term ‘‘material
change’’ remains in the final rule, but is
no longer part of the notice requirement.
This is similar to the approach taken for
DFA resolution plans, with appropriate
adjustments for the differences in the
two rules
DIC
considered those comments and
adopted the concept of an
‘‘extraordinary event’’ as the basis for
the 45-day notice, rather than a
‘‘material change.’’ The term ‘‘material
change’’ remains in the final rule, but is
no longer part of the notice requirement.
This is similar to the approach taken for
DFA resolution plans, with appropriate
adjustments for the differences in the
two rules. The FDIC expects that this
approach will provide a focus on the
events that are significant enough to
warrant a notice, such as a merger,
acquisition or disposition of assets, or
fundamental change to the CIDI’s
organizational structure, core business
lines, size, or complexity. The final rule
retains the requirement of the notice
within 45 days of the event, and the
exemption from the requirement if the
event occurs within 90 days of the date
by which the next full resolution
submission is due. The impact of the
extraordinary event on resolution would
be discussed in the discussion of
material changes in the next
submission, whether a full resolution
submission or the interim supplement,
and the FDIC would be in a position to
request additional information if
needed. A CIDI is not exempt from the
requirement if the event occurs within
90 days of the date by which the next
interim supplement is due because of
the more limited content required in an
interim supplement.
Approval by the CIDI Board of Directors
The final rule adopts without change
the requirement that a CIDI’s board of
directors approve the full resolution
submission, and that this approval be
noted in the board’s minutes. For an
insured branch, the final rule allows a
submission to be approved by a delegee
acting under the express authority of the
board, and requires such delegation of
authority to be noted in the board’s
minutes. No comments were received
on this proposed provision. This
requirement does not apply to an
interim supplement
ubmission, and that this approval be
noted in the board’s minutes. For an
insured branch, the final rule allows a
submission to be approved by a delegee
acting under the express authority of the
board, and requires such delegation of
authority to be noted in the board’s
minutes. No comments were received
on this proposed provision. This
requirement does not apply to an
interim supplement.
Incorporation From Other Sources
The proposal would have allowed the
CIDI to incorporate certain information
or analysis without seeking the
authorization required under 12 CFR
part 309 for disclosure of FDIC
confidential information. The proposed
rule included certain proposed
requirements about the format and
process for incorporation of information
from other sources and would have
required certification that the
information or analysis remains
accurate in all respects that are material
to the CIDI’s full resolution submission.
The FDIC received no comments on this
proposed provision and there were no
substantive changes. However, the final
rule has been modified from the
proposal for consistency and clarity to
state that a CIDI may incorporate
information from other sources into its
interim supplement and the
‘‘confidential section’’ of the full
resolution submission and to allow
information from a regulatory filing of a
CIDI affiliate without seeking a separate
waiver.
D. Content of the Full Resolution
Submissions for CIDIs
The proposal would have required
each group A CIDI to submit a
resolution plan that includes all content
specified in § 360.10(d) of the proposed
rule. The proposal would have required
each group B CIDI to provide an
informational filing, which would not
include all of the content of a resolution
plan. As proposed, the informational
filing would not include the executive
summary, identified strategy and failure
scenario, or valuation to support least-
cost test analysis content elements that
are applicable to group A CIDI
resolution plans
e proposal would have required
each group B CIDI to provide an
informational filing, which would not
include all of the content of a resolution
plan. As proposed, the informational
filing would not include the executive
summary, identified strategy and failure
scenario, or valuation to support least-
cost test analysis content elements that
are applicable to group A CIDI
resolution plans.
The FDIC received comments related
to the content elements that would
apply to an informational filing. Two
commenters suggested that the
requirement to describe franchise
components be reduced or removed for
group B CIDIs, because, the commenters
argued, the proposed franchise
component content element included
information similar to resolution
planning that should not be required in
an informational filing. While the FDIC
continues to believe that the
identification of franchise components
is critical for resolution preparation,
particularly in situations where a whole
bank sale may be difficult to achieve,
the FDIC also agrees that some proposed
aspects of the franchise components
content element may inadvertently
require discussion of resolution strategy
by group B CIDIs. Accordingly, in
response to these comments, the final
rule exempts group B CIDIs from
reporting the portions of the franchise
component content element relating to
marketing process and capabilities, key
assumptions underpinning each
divestiture, and obstacles to execution.
All other proposed subparts of the
franchise component content element
are required for group B CIDIs in the
final rule.
Commenters also recommended the
reduction, removal, or amendment of
several other content elements for
informational filings
nent content element relating to
marketing process and capabilities, key
assumptions underpinning each
divestiture, and obstacles to execution.
All other proposed subparts of the
franchise component content element
are required for group B CIDIs in the
final rule.
Commenters also recommended the
reduction, removal, or amendment of
several other content elements for
informational filings. Some commenters
generally suggested changes to content
elements that they viewed as requiring
information that they did not believe to
be as relevant or applicable for group B
CIDIs as for group A CIDIs or to be
available from other sources aside from
the group B CIDIs, while one commenter
was generally supportive of the
proposed content element requirements.
After reviewing these comments, the
proposed content element requirements,
the availability of the information for
the proposed content elements, and the
FDIC’s resolution practices and
experience, the FDIC has determined
that all other informational filing
content elements should be maintained
as proposed. The content elements will
provide critical information at a level of
detail necessary for resolution planning
and execution that, in the FDIC’s
estimation and experience, is not
available in sufficient detail from other
sources to meet the FDIC’s needs in the
resolution context.
Under the final rule, a full resolution
submission, whether a resolution plan
for a group A CIDI, or an informational
filing for a group B CIDI, must include
a discussion of any material changes
from the prior full resolution
submission or interim supplement or an
affirmation that no material change has
occurred, and a discussion of changes to
the CIDI’s previous full resolution
submission resulting from any change in
law or regulation, guidance, or feedback
from the FDIC
oup A CIDI, or an informational
filing for a group B CIDI, must include
a discussion of any material changes
from the prior full resolution
submission or interim supplement or an
affirmation that no material change has
occurred, and a discussion of changes to
the CIDI’s previous full resolution
submission resulting from any change in
law or regulation, guidance, or feedback
from the FDIC. This requirement was
proposed as part of the executive
summary of the resolution plans
submitted by the group A CIDIs, and
while the group B CIDIs do not need to
include an executive summary as part of
their informational filings, the final rule
requires that the information filing
include a similar discussion of changes
since the prior submission. As
discussed above, the definition of
material change has been modified in
the final rule in response to comments,
providing additional context to this
requirement.
The FDIC considered all comments
related to the specific requirements of
the content elements described in
§ 360.10(d) of the proposed rule and
discusses these content elements below.
Identified Strategy
The proposal would have required
each group A CIDI to provide an
identified strategy, which describes the
resolution from the point of failure
through the sale or disposition of the
group A CIDI’s franchise (including all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
dentified Strategy
The proposal would have required
each group A CIDI to provide an
identified strategy, which describes the
resolution from the point of failure
through the sale or disposition of the
group A CIDI’s franchise (including all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56628
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
15 This task could be accomplished through a
Deposit Insurance National Bank established by the
FDIC pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(m).
of its core business lines and all other
business segments, branches, and assets
that constitute the CIDI and its
businesses as a whole) in a manner that
meets the credibility standard. The
proposal would have established the
bridge bank approach as the default
identified strategy, and indicated that a
bridge bank strategy must provide for
the establishment and stabilization of a
bridge bank and an exit strategy from
the bridge bank.
Recognizing that the bridge bank
approach may not be optimal for all
group A CIDIs, the proposal would have
permitted a different identified strategy
if that different strategy best addressed
the first prong of the credibility criteria,
could reasonably be executed by the
FDIC across a range of likely failure
scenarios, and would be more
appropriate for the size, complexity, and
risk profile of the specific group A CIDI.
However, the proposed rule would not
have permitted the identified strategy to
be based upon the sale of substantially
all assets and liabilities over closing
weekend. The proposal would have
required that any identified strategy
include meaningful optionality for
execution across a range of failure
scenarios.
Two commenters recommended
eliminating the requirement of a failure
scenario-based identified strategy in any
resolution plan
ted the identified strategy to
be based upon the sale of substantially
all assets and liabilities over closing
weekend. The proposal would have
required that any identified strategy
include meaningful optionality for
execution across a range of failure
scenarios.
Two commenters recommended
eliminating the requirement of a failure
scenario-based identified strategy in any
resolution plan. In addition, one
comment letter suggested that this
requirement should be based on factors
other than size, such as whether more
than 90 percent of the total consolidated
assets are within the CIDI, the extent of
cross-border activity, or the IDI’s role as
a financial utility or agent bank. Two
commenters supported the proposed
scope of the requirement; one
commenter suggested that it should
apply to group B CIDIs as well.
Two commenters supported the
identified strategy requirement as
proposed, with one noting it would be
among the most critical pieces of
information in a resolution plan and
plans without this element would not
likely be credible or effective. Three
other commenters favored elimination
or modification of the failure scenario
and identified strategy requirement.
Several commenters supported the
proposed rule’s emphasis on a bridge
bank approach as the default identified
strategy. Two commenters
recommended including a whole bank
sale as a permitted identified strategy
for group A CIDIs, suggesting that it is
a possible option even for large banks,
and its use may minimize losses to the
DIF and other creditors.
The FDIC considered the comments
and concludes that there are certainly
factors other than size that impact
challenges in resolution and availability
and likelihood of a closing weekend sale
as a strategic option, however, the FDIC
considers that size alone may present
significant challenges and make a
closing weekend sale less likely
e may minimize losses to the
DIF and other creditors.
The FDIC considered the comments
and concludes that there are certainly
factors other than size that impact
challenges in resolution and availability
and likelihood of a closing weekend sale
as a strategic option, however, the FDIC
considers that size alone may present
significant challenges and make a
closing weekend sale less likely. While
the FDIC will consider any feasible bid
for the sale of the IDI franchise over
closing weekend or as promptly as
possible post-failure, it cannot rely on
that option, and must have available
other strategic options. As explained in
the preamble to the proposal, the
proposed requirements related to the
identified strategy and failure scenario
are intended to provide the FDIC with
a strategic option that is adaptable
under a wide range of potential
scenarios, as the actual scenario is likely
to be materially different from any
hypothetical scenario construct.
Further, the development of an
identified strategy that takes into
account a group A CIDI’s organization,
structure, business lines, and other
characteristics provides significant
insight into the obstacles that the FDIC
might face in resolving the CIDI and
possible mitigating actions that may be
available to address those obstacles.
Accordingly, the final rule retains the
requirement that group A CIDIs develop
an identified strategy based on a failure
scenario.
In addition, the final rule adopts the
approach taken in the proposal with
respect to the strategic options to be
considered in each group A CIDI’s
identified strategy. The strategic option
that the FDIC considers most useful for
the group A CIDIs across the widest
range of failure scenarios is the
establishment of a bridge bank that can
continue the operations of the CIDI
ure
scenario.
In addition, the final rule adopts the
approach taken in the proposal with
respect to the strategic options to be
considered in each group A CIDI’s
identified strategy. The strategic option
that the FDIC considers most useful for
the group A CIDIs across the widest
range of failure scenarios is the
establishment of a bridge bank that can
continue the operations of the CIDI.
Generally, a bridge bank approach will
support the preservation of franchise
value and will also allow time for
restructuring and marketing to facilitate
the sale or disposition of the business
lines and related assets, while providing
insured depositors with prompt access
to their accounts.
Accordingly, the final rule establishes
the bridge bank approach as the default
identified strategy. A bridge bank
strategy must provide for the
establishment and stabilization of a
bridge bank and an exit strategy from
the bridge bank, such as a multiple
acquirer exit involving the regional
breakup of the group A CIDI or sale of
business segments, an orderly wind
down of certain business lines and asset
sales, an exit via restructuring and
subsequent initial public offering or
other capital markets transaction, or
another exit strategy appropriate to the
size, structure, and complexity of the
CIDI. If a multiple acquirer exit is
included as part of the identified
strategy, it may be appropriate for the
resolution plan to address the time
required for that exit option and any
restructuring or other actions needed to
address obstacles to separability of
divestiture options. If the identified
strategy assumes the sale of franchise
components or a multiple acquirer exit,
the resolution plan should take into
account all issues surrounding the
CIDI’s ability to sell in market
conditions present in the applicable
economic condition at the time of sale
ption and any
restructuring or other actions needed to
address obstacles to separability of
divestiture options. If the identified
strategy assumes the sale of franchise
components or a multiple acquirer exit,
the resolution plan should take into
account all issues surrounding the
CIDI’s ability to sell in market
conditions present in the applicable
economic condition at the time of sale.
Consistent with the proposed rule, in
addressing the establishment of the
bridge bank, the final rule does not
require that a resolution plan
demonstrate that the identified strategy
is the least-costly to the DIF of all
available strategies; in particular, the
resolution plan is not required to
demonstrate that the identified strategy
would be less costly to the DIF than
liquidation. Similarly, the resolution
plan is not required to include analysis
discussing whether the conditions for
chartering the bridge bank would be
satisfied. Rather, each group A CIDI is
required to support its estimation that
the identified strategy in the resolution
plan maximizes value and minimizes
losses to the creditors of the group A
CIDI. While commenters noted that this
necessarily would be subjective and
depend on a variety of factors, the CIDI’s
assessment of this item will be helpful
to the FDIC in making its own
assessment in the event of a failure. The
valuation analysis discussed below
supports the FDIC’s ability to evaluate
the strategy’s impact on value and its
potential costs to the DIF across a range
of options.
Recognizing that the bridge bank
approach may not be optimal for all
group A CIDIs, consistent with the
proposal, the final rule permits a
different identified strategy if it best
addresses the first prong of the
credibility standard (discussed in
credibility criteria below), could
reasonably be executed by the FDIC
across a range of likely failure scenarios,
and would be more appropriate for the
size, complexity, and risk profile of the
specific group A CIDI
p A CIDIs, consistent with the
proposal, the final rule permits a
different identified strategy if it best
addresses the first prong of the
credibility standard (discussed in
credibility criteria below), could
reasonably be executed by the FDIC
across a range of likely failure scenarios,
and would be more appropriate for the
size, complexity, and risk profile of the
specific group A CIDI. Also consistent
with the proposal, an alternative
identified strategy under the final rule
could include transferring some but not
all business lines and assets to a bridge
bank and liquidating others in a
receivership. For some group A CIDIs, a
payment of insured deposits 15 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56629
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
liquidation of all business lines and
assets in receivership may be the most
appropriate identified strategy.
Consistent with the proposed rule, the
final rule requires any identified
strategy to include meaningful
optionality for execution across a range
of scenarios and provide the
information and analysis to inform
decisions and support optionality for
the FDIC in undertaking a resolution of
the CIDI following its material financial
distress and failure. One commenter
stated that meaningful optionality is a
vague and difficult standard. As
explained in the preamble to the
proposal, meaningful optionality
reflects an expectation that an identified
strategy be flexible so that it can be
adapted to a change in the failure
scenario or an unexpected obstacle to its
execution. The nature and extent of
meaningful optionality will vary based
upon the size and complexity of the
CIDI
ptionality is a
vague and difficult standard. As
explained in the preamble to the
proposal, meaningful optionality
reflects an expectation that an identified
strategy be flexible so that it can be
adapted to a change in the failure
scenario or an unexpected obstacle to its
execution. The nature and extent of
meaningful optionality will vary based
upon the size and complexity of the
CIDI. For instance, a relatively smaller
and less complex CIDI with a focus on
traditional banking may identify only a
breakup between two business lines or
the spinoff or sale of a separable
business unit. For the largest or most
complex CIDIs, meaningful optionality
might include alternatives such as a
breakup by business lines and a regional
breakup, or by sale of one or more
identified franchise components as
options for a sale of the IDI franchise.
The final rule retains the expectation of
meaningful optionality as proposed.
Failure Scenario
The proposal would have required the
identified strategy to be based on a
failure scenario that demonstrates that
the CIDI is experiencing material
financial distress. The proposed rule
would have required the failure scenario
to assume and demonstrate that the CIDI
experienced a deterioration of its asset
base, and that its high quality assets
have been depleted or pledged due to
increased liquidity requirements from
counterparties and deposit outflows.
The proposal noted that, while the
immediate cause of failure may be based
on liquidity shortfalls, the failure
scenario also must consider the
likelihood of the depletion of capital
and losses in the assets of the CIDI,
which may include embedded losses
that may not have been recognized by
the CIDI for financial reporting
purposes. The FDIC has learned that a
submission is most valuable when it is
based on the assumption that the CIDI
has experienced material financial
distress such that its failure is a result
of the depletion of capital and/or
liquidity
f capital
and losses in the assets of the CIDI,
which may include embedded losses
that may not have been recognized by
the CIDI for financial reporting
purposes. The FDIC has learned that a
submission is most valuable when it is
based on the assumption that the CIDI
has experienced material financial
distress such that its failure is a result
of the depletion of capital and/or
liquidity. While the resolution strategy
may be based on an idiosyncratic event
or action, including a series of
compounding events, the firm should
justify all assumptions, consistent with
the conditions of the economic scenario
and the nature of the CIDI. These
proposed provisions remain
substantively unchanged in the final
rule.
Under the proposal, the failure
scenario would have been required to
assume that the U.S. parent holding
company is in bankruptcy and is
consistent with the approach taken in
DFA resolution plans. One commenter
objected to the assumption that the
parent is in bankruptcy, stating that this
assumption is not appropriate for all
firm structures and may overlook
potential sources of value in resolution
and limit the information available to
the FDIC. While the FDIC appreciates
that the CIDI’s parent and parent
affiliates may not be in bankruptcy in all
cases, experience shows that a bank
failure frequently occurs with
bankruptcy of the parent and parent
affiliates. For that reason, an
understanding of the impact of such a
failure scenario on the resolution of the
CIDI is important for the FDIC to
prepare for that possibility and the FDIC
believes that this baseline assumption is
useful and appropriate. The full
resolution submissions will contain
information to support an evaluation of
outcomes in the event that a
coordinated, group-wide approach is
feasible
ason, an
understanding of the impact of such a
failure scenario on the resolution of the
CIDI is important for the FDIC to
prepare for that possibility and the FDIC
believes that this baseline assumption is
useful and appropriate. The full
resolution submissions will contain
information to support an evaluation of
outcomes in the event that a
coordinated, group-wide approach is
feasible. For instance, consistent with
the proposal, the final rule requires
information on financial and
operational interconnections between
the IDI and the parent and parent
affiliates that will be helpful to the FDIC
in considering options should this
baseline assumption prove not to be the
case in an actual resolution scenario.
For these reasons, the FDIC has made no
change with respect to this assumption
in the final rule.
The FDIC made a clarifying change to
the failure scenario by deleting the
references to discount window
borrowing before or in resolution. While
assumptions regarding discount
window borrowing are included in the
scenarios described in prior DFA
resolution plan guidance, these
considerations are less important to the
FDI Act resolution scenario because of
the availability of the DIF for temporary
liquidity in resolution. The preamble to
the proposed rule noted that the
identified strategy may assume
continuation of Federal Home Loan
Bank (FHLB) advances as well as the
availability of short-term liquidity
advances from the DIF to meet
temporary liquidity needs in resolution,
if the identified strategy provides for
timely repayment of those funds, an
assumption that was supported by one
commenter. As the scenario specifically
permits the use of DIF liquidity in
resolution, provided that the identified
strategy may not assume use of the DIF
to avoid losses to creditors of the bridge
bank, and may assume the availability
of FHLB or other sources of liquidity on
applicable terms, it is less significant
whether the bridge bank borrows from
the discount window
pported by one
commenter. As the scenario specifically
permits the use of DIF liquidity in
resolution, provided that the identified
strategy may not assume use of the DIF
to avoid losses to creditors of the bridge
bank, and may assume the availability
of FHLB or other sources of liquidity on
applicable terms, it is less significant
whether the bridge bank borrows from
the discount window. To the extent that
the CIDI assumes that DIF funding is
used during the resolution by a bridge
bank, it must demonstrate the capacity
for such borrowing on a fully secured
basis and must demonstrate a source of
timely repayment.
In addition, the final rule retains the
proposal without change to allow
flexibility for the FDIC to devise specific
failure scenario assumptions with
respect to macroeconomic conditions or
the precipitating cause of failure. One
commenter stated that the FDIC should
provide any changes to failure scenario
assumptions at least 12 months before a
full resolution submission is due. The
FDIC will endeavor to provide a group
A CIDI notice of additional or
alternative parameters for the failure
scenario at least one year before the
applicable full resolution submission is
due. Other comments suggesting that
changes to the scenario must be public
and apply equally to all group A CIDIs
were not adopted. The FDIC has learned
in past plan reviews and resolution
experience that the path to failure is
different for different firms and may
depend on the particular business
structure of an individual CIDI or cohort
of CIDIs. Accordingly, the FDIC believes
that it is appropriate to retain options
for flexibility and confidentiality in the
development of scenarios.
Executive Summary
The proposed rule would have
required a group A CIDI to include an
executive summary describing the key
elements of its identified strategy
may
depend on the particular business
structure of an individual CIDI or cohort
of CIDIs. Accordingly, the FDIC believes
that it is appropriate to retain options
for flexibility and confidentiality in the
development of scenarios.
Executive Summary
The proposed rule would have
required a group A CIDI to include an
executive summary describing the key
elements of its identified strategy. It also
would have required a discussion of
changes to the group A CIDI’s
previously submitted resolution plan
resulting from any change in law or
regulation, guidance or feedback from
the FDIC, or any material change.
Finally, the proposed rule would have
required a discussion of any actions the
group A CIDI had taken since
submitting its most recent resolution
plan to improve the resolution plan’s
information and analysis, or to improve
its capabilities to develop and timely
deliver that information and analysis.
This provision of the final rule is
adopted as proposed. As discussed
above, the definition of material change
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56630
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
has been refined from the definition in
the proposal.
Organizational Structure: Legal Entities;
Core Business Lines; and Branches
The proposal would have required a
full resolution submission to describe
the CIDI’s domestic and foreign branch
organization and to provide addresses
and asset size. The proposed rule would
have also required the CIDI to identify
and describe the core business lines of
the CIDI, the parent company, and
parent company affiliates
tructure: Legal Entities;
Core Business Lines; and Branches
The proposal would have required a
full resolution submission to describe
the CIDI’s domestic and foreign branch
organization and to provide addresses
and asset size. The proposed rule would
have also required the CIDI to identify
and describe the core business lines of
the CIDI, the parent company, and
parent company affiliates. The proposed
rule would have introduced the
requirement to identify all regulated
subsidiaries, as this information will
assist the FDIC in identifying entities
with capital, liquidity, and other
requirements, and in assessing these
entities’ regulatory requirements when
it is resolving a CIDI using a bridge
bank. The proposed rule would have
modified the mapping requirements to
require that core business lines be
mapped to material entities, franchise
components, and regulated subsidiaries,
to improve the utility of mapping and
support the analysis of franchise
components. One commenter objected
to the level of informational detail
required for regulated subsidiaries, and
recommended that the final rule limit
the requirements to material entities, as
defined, or limit the information
required with respect to regulated
entities to a list of these subsidiaries and
their respective jurisdictions, regulators,
and asset sizes. The definition of
‘‘regulated subsidiaries’’ includes
registered brokers and dealers,
registered investment advisors,
registered investment companies,
insurance companies, futures
commission merchants and other
entities regulated by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, and other,
similar regulated entities. These entities,
even if relatively small in asset size or
income, present complexity in
resolution, and it is important to the
FDIC to understand their role in the
banking organization and the capital
and liquidity impacts of these entities if
they are maintained by a bridge bank.
Accordingly, the final rule adopts this
requirement as proposed
sion, and other,
similar regulated entities. These entities,
even if relatively small in asset size or
income, present complexity in
resolution, and it is important to the
FDIC to understand their role in the
banking organization and the capital
and liquidity impacts of these entities if
they are maintained by a bridge bank.
Accordingly, the final rule adopts this
requirement as proposed.
The proposed rule would have
required the full resolution submission
to describe whether any core business
line draws additional value from, or
relies on, the operations of the parent
company or a parent company affiliate,
and identify whether any such
operations are cross-border, to support
and inform the FDIC’s analysis of the
impact of breakup of the CIDI from its
parent company and parent company
affiliates. This requirement is retained
in the final rule.
Methodology for Material Entity
Designation
The proposed rule would have
required each CIDI to describe its
methodology for identifying material
entities, to afford each CIDI the
flexibility to develop a methodology
that is appropriate to the nature, size,
complexity, and scope of its operations.
The final rule adopts this proposed
requirement without change.
Separation From Parent; Potential
Barriers or Material Obstacles to Orderly
Resolution
The proposed requirements with
respect to actions needed to separate a
CIDI from the organizational structure of
its parent company and parent company
affiliates, as well as how to separate the
CIDI’s subsidiaries from this structure,
are adopted without substantive change.
The final rule, consistent with the
proposal, requires that a full resolution
submission address the CIDI’s ability to
operate separately from the parent
company’s organization, and that the
CIDI assume that its parent company
and the parent company affiliates have
filed for bankruptcy or are in resolution
under another insolvency regime
structure,
are adopted without substantive change.
The final rule, consistent with the
proposal, requires that a full resolution
submission address the CIDI’s ability to
operate separately from the parent
company’s organization, and that the
CIDI assume that its parent company
and the parent company affiliates have
filed for bankruptcy or are in resolution
under another insolvency regime. It also
requires addressing the impact on the
bridge bank’s value if the CIDI were
separated from the parent company’s
organization. These requirements are
intended to focus on whether the CIDI,
and therefore a bridge bank, can be a
viable stand-alone entity from the point
of view of economic value and viability
of business lines.
Consistent with the proposed rule, the
final rule requires identification of
potential barriers or other material
obstacles to an orderly resolution, the
identification of how such barriers or
obstacles could pose risks to a group A
CIDI’s identified strategy, and the
identification of inter-connections and
inter-dependencies that may hinder the
timely and effective resolution of the
CIDI. For clarification, the final rule
qualifies the potential barriers or other
material obstacles to an orderly
resolution as those that may occur upon
the CIDI’s separation from the parent
company’s organization. Like the
proposal, the final rule also provides for
the CIDI to identify any remediation
steps or mitigating responses necessary
to eliminate or minimize these barriers
or obstacles.
Overall Deposit Activities
Consistent with the proposal, the final
rule requires a full resolution
submission to include important
information about deposit activities.
One comment letter suggested that
instead of requiring this information,
the rule should focus on ensuring that
the CIDI has the capabilities to provide
the necessary information timely. The
FDIC agrees that the capabilities to
provide this information on a current
basis would be important in resolution
full resolution
submission to include important
information about deposit activities.
One comment letter suggested that
instead of requiring this information,
the rule should focus on ensuring that
the CIDI has the capabilities to provide
the necessary information timely. The
FDIC agrees that the capabilities to
provide this information on a current
basis would be important in resolution.
The CIDIs’ provision of the information
required would be one way to
demonstrate these capabilities. This
information would give the FDIC a
baseline view of the deposit activities of
each CIDI and assist the FDIC in
contingency planning activities for a
potential failure of the CIDI, recognizing
that updates would be needed in an
actual resolution event.
The final rule adopts the proposed
requirements with respect to deposit
activities, which include information
about insured and uninsured deposits.
While the proposal would have required
information on commercial deposits by
business line and unique aspects of the
deposit base or underlying systems, the
final rule provides clarification of that
particular aspect of the requirement.
The final rule specifies that the
requirement is to identify ‘‘particular
deposit concentrations,’’ in addition to
other aspects of the deposit base or
underlying systems that may increase
complexity in resolution. The final rule
retains the proposed requirement to
describe how types or groups of
deposits are related to a core business
line, business segment, or franchise
component and how they are identified
in the CIDI’s systems or records. As
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the deposits related to a
particular franchise component must be
readily identified to facilitate the
separation and sale of the franchise
component along with the associated
liabilities
of
deposits are related to a core business
line, business segment, or franchise
component and how they are identified
in the CIDI’s systems or records. As
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the deposits related to a
particular franchise component must be
readily identified to facilitate the
separation and sale of the franchise
component along with the associated
liabilities. Similarly, in a multiple
acquirer exit, which may involve
regional breakup of the CIDI or a
breakup of its business lines, it will be
important to understand how to identify
the deposits that would relate to the
various divestiture options in such a
breakup.
Consistent with the proposal, the final
rule requires a discussion of foreign
deposits and identification of deposits
dually payable in the U.S. The final rule
also adopts the proposed requirements
with respect to information about
deposit sweep arrangements with
affiliates and unaffiliated parties and the
contracts governing those arrangements.
The final rule clarifies the proposal by
stating that the FDIC needs information
about the CIDI’s reporting capabilities to
generate accurate and timely contact
information for omnibus, deposit sweep,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56631
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and pass-through accounts. The FDIC
intends this clarification to be a non-
substantive change.
The final rule adopts the proposed
requirements with respect to
identification of key depositors, which
are defined as depositors that hold or
control the largest deposits (whether in
one account or in multiple accounts)
that collectively are material to one or
more business segments. Each key
depositor must be identified by name,
business segment, and amount of
deposit, and the CIDI must identify
other services it provides to that
depositor
pect to
identification of key depositors, which
are defined as depositors that hold or
control the largest deposits (whether in
one account or in multiple accounts)
that collectively are material to one or
more business segments. Each key
depositor must be identified by name,
business segment, and amount of
deposit, and the CIDI must identify
other services it provides to that
depositor. One commenter stated that
the required information regarding
deposit activities should be narrowed,
but the commenter did not propose an
alternative approach. The FDIC asked
for feedback on the approach to
identification of key depositors but did
not receive feedback. Rather than
providing for a prescriptive approach,
the final rule simply requires a
description of the approach used by the
CIDI in identifying its key depositors.
While in some cases providing
information on the top 10 or 20 percent
of deposits may be the best approach, in
others it may be the top 50 or 400
depositors, or it may be that the nature
of the relationship is a crucial
identifying feature. Key depositors
should include those depositors that the
CIDI monitors most closely and may
want to engage with in a stress event.
Critical Services
The final rule adopts the proposed
requirements with respect to critical
services without substantive change.
This includes the requirement that the
CIDI be able to demonstrate capabilities
necessary to ensure continuity of critical
services in resolution. Under the final
rule, full resolution submissions are
required to identify critical services and
critical services support and include an
explanation of the criteria by which
critical services are identified in order
to clarify for the FDIC the CIDI’s
approach to this content element
IDI be able to demonstrate capabilities
necessary to ensure continuity of critical
services in resolution. Under the final
rule, full resolution submissions are
required to identify critical services and
critical services support and include an
explanation of the criteria by which
critical services are identified in order
to clarify for the FDIC the CIDI’s
approach to this content element. The
final rule requires the identification of
critical services and critical services
support provided by the parent
company or a parent company affiliate,
as well as the physical locations and
jurisdictions of critical service providers
and critical services support that are
located outside of the United States. The
full resolution submission must map
critical services support to legal entities
that provide those services directly or
indirectly through third parties. In
addition, a full resolution submission
must map critical services to the
material entities, core business lines,
and franchise components supported by
those critical services. It also must
include information about the critical
services and critical services support
that may be at risk of interruption if the
CIDI fails and the process the CIDI used
to make that determination. The full
resolution submission must also discuss
potential obstacles to maintaining
critical services that could occur in the
event of the CIDI’s failure and steps that
could be taken to remediate or
otherwise mitigate the risk of
interruption, describe the CIDI’s
approach for continuing critical services
in the event of the CIDI’s failure, and
provide information about the contracts
governing the provision of these
services. Consistent with the proposal,
the final rule requires a CIDI to provide
information about its process for
collecting and monitoring the contracts
governing critical services and critical
services support
, describe the CIDI’s
approach for continuing critical services
in the event of the CIDI’s failure, and
provide information about the contracts
governing the provision of these
services. Consistent with the proposal,
the final rule requires a CIDI to provide
information about its process for
collecting and monitoring the contracts
governing critical services and critical
services support. As noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule,
providing information about the systems
that store these contracts and how this
information is stored (e.g., centrally, by
business line or material entity, by
business function, etc.) would provide
the FDIC with valuable information
when seeking to understand a CIDI’s
operations and business relationships.
Key Personnel
The final rule adopts without change
the proposed requirements with respect
to key personnel, including that a CIDI
must identify key personnel and
describe its methodology for identifying
key personnel, and must furnish
information regarding the identification
of employee benefit programs provided
to key personnel and any applicable
collective bargaining agreements or
similar arrangements. Key personnel are
defined broadly in the rule, and should
include personnel tasked with an
essential role in support of a core
business line, franchise component, or
critical service, or having a function,
responsibility, or knowledge that may
be significant to the FDIC’s resolution of
the CIDI. Key personnel should include
personnel that hold or maintain
necessary licenses or permits for
domestic or foreign operations at the
CIDI or have been designated as key
personnel to domestic or foreign
authorities. Consistent with the
proposal, the final rule requires a CIDI
to provide a recommended approach for
retaining key personnel during its
resolution that, for example, may
specify retention bonuses and other
retention incentives
r maintain
necessary licenses or permits for
domestic or foreign operations at the
CIDI or have been designated as key
personnel to domestic or foreign
authorities. Consistent with the
proposal, the final rule requires a CIDI
to provide a recommended approach for
retaining key personnel during its
resolution that, for example, may
specify retention bonuses and other
retention incentives. This approach
should consider and address employees
most at risk for leaving the CIDI
promptly upon a failure event.
Franchise Components
The proposal included certain
requirements with respect to the
identification of franchise components
and related capabilities. Under the
proposal, a franchise component was
defined as a business segment, regional
branch network, major asset or asset
pool, or other key component of the IDI
franchise that could be separated and
sold or divested.
In response to comments, the final
rule makes certain adjustments to the
requirements with respect to franchise
components. The proposed rule
included the requirement that a CIDI
must be able to demonstrate the
capabilities to ensure that franchise
components are separable and
marketable in resolution. The final rule
eliminates the word separable from this
definition. Instead of referring to
separability as a required capability of a
CIDI, the emphasis of the final rule is on
the identification of franchise
components that are, in their current
circumstances, separable. The final rule
retains the requirement that a CIDI must
be able to demonstrate the capabilities
necessary to market the franchise
components.
In addition, the final rule makes an
express reference to the IDI franchise in
this sentence to make clear that this
capability also must support the
marketing of the IDI franchise as a
whole or in conjunction with the
marketing of its franchise components
rule
retains the requirement that a CIDI must
be able to demonstrate the capabilities
necessary to market the franchise
components.
In addition, the final rule makes an
express reference to the IDI franchise in
this sentence to make clear that this
capability also must support the
marketing of the IDI franchise as a
whole or in conjunction with the
marketing of its franchise components.
Although the final rule does not permit
a closing weekend sale as the identified
strategy for the reasons discussed above,
a sale of the IDI franchise, whether over
closing weekend or following a bridge
bank period, is an important option in
resolution. It is therefore essential that
CIDIs maintain the capabilities
necessary to support marketing of their
IDI franchises as well as their franchise
components.
The proposal included the
requirement that the full resolution
submission identify franchise
components that are currently separable
and marketable in a timely manner. The
proposed rule received one comment
with respect to this requirement. The
commenter stated that there should not
be a specified timing requirement for
the sale of franchise components and
that the imposition of a time period,
especially a short one, such as 60 or 90
days, would not be appropriate or
realistic. In particular, the commenter
stated that it would not work for
multiple acquirer exit strategies, which
require months to execute.
The final rule retains the proposed
definition of the term ‘‘franchise
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
would not be appropriate or
realistic. In particular, the commenter
stated that it would not work for
multiple acquirer exit strategies, which
require months to execute.
The final rule retains the proposed
definition of the term ‘‘franchise
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:19 Jul 08, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09JYR4.SGM
09JYR4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4

56632
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
16 Guidance for section 165(d) Resolution Plan
Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies
applicable to the Eight Largest, Complex U.S.
Banking Organizations, 84 FR 1438 (Feb. 4, 2019).
component’’ as discussed above and
retains text of the proposed rule with
respect to identification of franchise
components that are currently separable
and are marketable in a timely manner.
The intent is to identify franchise
components that can be marketed and
sold in their current state, i.e., without
significant obstacles or the need for
restructuring. This will enhance
optionality for the FDIC, creating the
potential for marketing of the IDI
franchise as a whole as quickly as
possible following the failure of the
CIDI. Thus, the phrase ‘‘timely manner’’
is retained. Although the FDIC did not
propose and is not now including a
specific time requirement, ‘‘timely’’
marketing capabilities should be
measured in days or weeks, not months.
The FDIC notes that the adopted
approach to separability and
marketability of franchise components
is distinguishable from the proposed
approach taken with respect to the
identification of divestiture options to
support a multiple acquirer exit from a
bridge bank. The multiple acquirer exit
is a possible element of an identified
strategy, a requirement that applies only
to group A CIDIs. Such an exit option
may require restructuring and
divestiture options that present greater
obstacles and that may require a longer
period than for a sale of the franchise
components
ion of divestiture options to
support a multiple acquirer exit from a
bridge bank. The multiple acquirer exit
is a possible element of an identified
strategy, a requirement that applies only
to group A CIDIs. Such an exit option
may require restructuring and
divestiture options that present greater
obstacles and that may require a longer
period than for a sale of the franchise
components. For example, an identified
franchise component might be a broker-
dealer or mortgage servicing subsidiary
within the bank chain, or a material
asset portfolio, that is readily separable
from the IDI and can be marketed as an
option at the time of failure. On the
other hand, divestiture options may be
the result of a regional breakup of the
CIDI or a breakup of business lines that
require significant restructuring in order
to market the regional or business line
segments separately.
The proposed rule would have
required franchise components
identified in a full resolution
submission to be sufficient to
implement the identified strategy (for
group A CIDIs) and to provide
meaningful optionality across a range of
scenarios if the preferred approach is
not available. The requirement to
provide meaningful optionality across a
range of scenarios is deleted from this
paragraph as superfluous. That
expectation is subsumed in the first
prong of the credibility standard
applicable to group A CIDIs, which is
discussed above.
Consistent with the proposed rule, the
final rule sets forth basic informational
elements required for each franchise
component, including identification of
responsible senior management and
provision of metrics depicting each
franchise component’s size and
significance. Useful metrics may
include total revenue, net income,
percentage market share, and, if
applicable and available, total assets
and liabilities
osed rule, the
final rule sets forth basic informational
elements required for each franchise
component, including identification of
responsible senior management and
provision of metrics depicting each
franchise component’s size and
significance. Useful metrics may
include total revenue, net income,
percentage market share, and, if
applicable and available, total assets
and liabilities. The full resolution
submission must also include a
description of the key assumptions for
each franchise component divestiture
and all significant impediments and
obstacles to execution of a franchise
component divestiture, including legal,
regulatory, cross-border, or operational
challenges.
The final rule retains these paragraphs
as proposed. The final rule makes no
change to the proposed requirement that
a full resolution submission must
include a description of the CIDI’s
capabilities and processes to initiate
marketing of the franchise component
and provide a description of necessary
actions and a timeline for the divestiture
supported by a description of the key
underlying assumptions. The final rule
also adopts the requirement in the
proposal that the CIDI describe the
process it would use to identify
prospective bidders for its franchise
components. The FDIC makes every
effort to market failed banks—and their
assets and business segments—as
widely as possible. A requirement that
CIDIs provide analysis on identification
of prospective bidders of franchise
components supports that effort. In
addition to describing the process for
id

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## 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_FIL24034. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.