Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules

Federal Register

33898

Vol. 90, No. 136

Friday, July 18, 2025

1 12 CFR part 303, subpart C (insured State

nonmember banks) and subpart J (insured branches

of foreign banks).

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Parts 303 and 345

RIN 3064–AG10

Establishment and Relocation of

Branches and Offices

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes

to amend the processes for an insured

State nonmember bank to establish a

branch or relocate a main office or

branch by eliminating certain filing

requirements, reducing processing

timelines, and updating public notice

procedures, and by making

corresponding changes to the

procedures applicable to the relocation

of an insured branch of a foreign bank.

The FDIC seeks comment on all aspects

of the proposed rule.

DATES: Send comments on or before

September 16, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are

invited to submit written comments,

identified by RIN 3064–AG10, by any of

the following methods:

• Agency website: https://

www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/

federal-registerpublications/. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments

on the agency website.

• Email: comments@fdic.gov. Include

RIN 3064–AG10 in the subject line of

the message.

• Mail: Jennifer Jones, Deputy

Executive Secretary, Attention:

Comments RIN 3064–AG10, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th

Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be

hand delivered to the guard station at

the rear of the 550 17th Street NW

building (located on F Street NW) on

business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m

10 in the subject line of

the message.

• Mail: Jennifer Jones, Deputy

Executive Secretary, Attention:

Comments RIN 3064–AG10, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th

Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be

hand delivered to the guard station at

the rear of the 550 17th Street NW

building (located on F Street NW) on

business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

• Public Inspection: Comments

received, including any personal

information provided, may be posted

without change to https://www.fdic.gov/

resources/regulations/federal-register-

publications/. Commenters should

submit only information that the

commenter wishes to make available

publicly. The FDIC may review, redact,

or refrain from posting all or any portion

of any comment that it may deem to be

inappropriate for publication, such as

irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC

may post only a single representative

example of identical or substantially

identical comments, and in such cases

will generally identify the number of

identical or substantially identical

comments represented by the posted

example. All comments that have been

redacted, as well as those that have not

been posted, that contain comments on

the merits of this document will be

retained in the public comment file and

will be considered as required under all

applicable laws. All comments may be

accessible under the Freedom of

Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Macias, Chief, (202) 898–3642,

smacias@fdic.gov; Scott Leifer, Senior

Review Examiner, (781) 794–5645,

sleifer@fdic.gov, Division of Risk

Management Supervision; Tara Oxley,

Associate Director, (202) 898–6722,

toxley@FDIC.gov, Division of Depositor

and Consumer Protection; Benjamin

Klein, Supervisory Counsel, (202) 898–

7027, bklein@FDIC.gov; Karlyn Hunter,

R INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Macias, Chief, (202) 898–3642,

smacias@fdic.gov; Scott Leifer, Senior

Review Examiner, (781) 794–5645,

sleifer@fdic.gov, Division of Risk

Management Supervision; Tara Oxley,

Associate Director, (202) 898–6722,

toxley@FDIC.gov, Division of Depositor

and Consumer Protection; Benjamin

Klein, Supervisory Counsel, (202) 898–

7027, bklein@FDIC.gov; Karlyn Hunter,

(202) 515–6831, kahunter@FDIC.gov;

Julia Dempewolf, Senior Attorney, (202)

898–3645, jdempewolf@FDIC.gov, Legal

Division; Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, 550 17th Street NW,

Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Policy Objectives

The objectives of the proposed rule

are to improve the speed and certainty

of, and reduce the regulatory burden

associated with, the filing process under

12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules and

Regulations 1 for insured State

nonmember banks seeking to establish a

branch or relocate a main office or

branch and for foreign banks seeking to

relocate an insured branch. The

proposed rule would also make certain

definitional clarifications.

As discussed further in sections III.A

and III.C of this Supplementary

Information, the FDIC’s experience with

branch filings has demonstrated that

aspects of the filing process should be

modified or removed. For example,

through its supervisory programs, the

FDIC already has access to much of the

information that must be provided by

applicants under the existing regulation.

In addition, branch filings are subject to

a public comment process that is not

mandated by statute, causes a

meaningful delay in the amount of time

to render a final decision, and typically

does not yield information that

materially aids the FDIC’s evaluation of

the statutory factors pursuant to which

these filings are considered

be provided by

applicants under the existing regulation.

In addition, branch filings are subject to

a public comment process that is not

mandated by statute, causes a

meaningful delay in the amount of time

to render a final decision, and typically

does not yield information that

materially aids the FDIC’s evaluation of

the statutory factors pursuant to which

these filings are considered. The FDIC

also has found that the agency’s review

of certain branch filings provide little

supervisory value, such as where a

branch changes its address and the

surviving branch resides in

approximately the same location.

Accordingly, the proposal would

accelerate expedited processing for

well-rated institutions that satisfy

certain criteria, remove certain

information elements required of

applicants, eliminate the public

comment process, and exclude certain

de minimis branch facility changes in

approximately the same location

provided that the FDIC and customers of

the branch receive reasonably advance

notice of such change. The revisions set

forth in the proposal are expected to

reduce the volume of branch filings and

the resources required by banks and the

FDIC to engage in the filing process.

II. Background Information

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 18(d)(1) of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) requires

the FDIC’s prior written consent for an

insured State nonmember bank to

establish and operate a new domestic

branch or to move its main office or any

domestic branch from one location to

another.2 This section also prohibits a

foreign bank from moving an insured

branch from one location to another

without the FDIC’s prior written

consent.

When considering whether to grant or

withhold such consent, the FDIC must

consider the factors listed in section 6

of the FDI Act (statutory factors)

omestic

branch or to move its main office or any

domestic branch from one location to

another.2 This section also prohibits a

foreign bank from moving an insured

branch from one location to another

without the FDIC’s prior written

consent.

When considering whether to grant or

withhold such consent, the FDIC must

consider the factors listed in section 6

of the FDI Act (statutory factors). The

statutory factors are as follows: (1) the

bank’s financial history and condition;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33899

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

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

4 12 CFR 303.42(a).

5 See 12 CFR 303.42(b) through (d).

6 See 12 CFR 303.43.

7 12 CFR 303.2(r).

8 12 CFR 303.43(a).

9 12 CFR 303.43(b).

10 12 CFR 303.44.

11 12 U.S.C. 1828(c)(3).

12 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(2)(D).

13 12 CFR 303.7(a).

(2) the adequacy of the bank’s capital

structure; (3) the bank’s future earnings

prospects; (4) the general character and

fitness of the bank’s management; (5)

the risk presented by the bank to the

Deposit Insurance Fund; (6) the

convenience and needs of the

community to be served by the bank;

and (7) whether the bank’s corporate

powers are consistent with the purposes

of the FDI Act. In addition, when

evaluating an application to establish a

branch, relocate a branch, or relocate a

main office, the Community

Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires the

FDIC to take into consideration ‘‘the

institution’s record of meeting the credit

needs of its entire community,

including low- and moderate-income

neighborhoods, consistent with the safe

and sound operation of such

institution.’’ 3 Section 38 of the FDI Act

imposes additional requirements and

restrictions on undercapitalized

institutions seeking to establish a

branch.

B

A) requires the

FDIC to take into consideration ‘‘the

institution’s record of meeting the credit

needs of its entire community,

including low- and moderate-income

neighborhoods, consistent with the safe

and sound operation of such

institution.’’ 3 Section 38 of the FDI Act

imposes additional requirements and

restrictions on undercapitalized

institutions seeking to establish a

branch.

B. FDIC Rules and Regulations

Subpart C of 12 CFR part 303 of the

FDIC Rules and Regulations (subpart C)

implements section 18(d) of the FDI Act

and sets forth the filing requirements

and procedures for insured State

nonmember banks to establish a branch,

relocate a branch or main office, and

retain existing branches after the

interstate relocation of a main office.

Subpart C requires all insured State

nonmember banks to submit an

application to the appropriate FDIC

office prior to establishing a new

branch, relocating a branch or a main

office, or retaining a branch after the

interstate relocation of a main office

subject to approval by the FDIC.4 All

applicants are required to submit the

same information regardless of the type

of proposed change and regardless of

the bank’s supervisory history, except

that, consistent with section 38 of the

FDI Act, undercapitalized institutions

are required to submit relatively more

information. Further, the FDIC retains

the right to request additional

information to complete processing.5

The application processing timeline

depends primarily upon whether the

bank meets the definition of an ‘‘eligible

depository institution.’’ 6 An application

submitted by an ‘‘eligible depository

institution’’ is generally subject to

expedited processing, and applications

submitted by all other insured State

nonmember banks are subject to

standard processing

ation to complete processing.5

The application processing timeline

depends primarily upon whether the

bank meets the definition of an ‘‘eligible

depository institution.’’ 6 An application

submitted by an ‘‘eligible depository

institution’’ is generally subject to

expedited processing, and applications

submitted by all other insured State

nonmember banks are subject to

standard processing. The FDIC defines

an ‘‘eligible depository institution’’ as a

depository institution that meets the

following criteria: (1) received an FDIC-

assigned composite rating of 1 or 2

under the Uniform Financial

Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) as a

result of its most recent Federal or State

examination; (2) received a satisfactory

or better CRA rating from its primary

Federal regulator at its most recent

examination, if the depository

institution is subject to examination

under 12 CFR part 345 of the FDIC

Rules and Regulations; (3) received a

compliance rating of 1 or 2 from its

primary Federal regulator at its most

recent examination; (4) is well-

capitalized as defined in the appropriate

capital regulation and guidance of the

institution’s primary Federal regulator;

and (5) is not subject to a cease and

desist order, consent order, prompt

corrective action directive, written

agreement, memorandum of

understanding, or other administrative

agreement with its primary Federal

regulator or chartering authority.7

Under the current rule, the FDIC

retains the right to move an application

from expedited processing to standard

processing when appropriate.8 Absent

such removal, an application processed

under expedited processing is deemed

approved the latest of (1) 21 days after

the FDIC receives a substantially

complete application, (2) the 5th day

after the public comment period

expires, or (3) in the case of an interstate

branch filing that represents new entry

into a State where the applicant does

not maintain a branch, the 5th day after

the FDIC receives the requisite

confirming infor

r expedited processing is deemed

approved the latest of (1) 21 days after

the FDIC receives a substantially

complete application, (2) the 5th day

after the public comment period

expires, or (3) in the case of an interstate

branch filing that represents new entry

into a State where the applicant does

not maintain a branch, the 5th day after

the FDIC receives the requisite

confirming information from the host

State. The FDIC must provide the

applicant with written notification of

the final action when the decision is

rendered.9

Subpart J of 12 CFR part 303 of the

FDIC Rules and Regulations (subpart J)

sets forth the procedures for an insured

branch of a foreign bank seeking the

FDIC’s consent to move from one

location to another at 12 CFR 303.184.

The requirements in subpart J largely

mirror the requirements found in

subpart C. A foreign bank seeking the

FDIC’s consent to move an insured

branch from one location to another

must submit a written application to the

appropriate FDIC office with much the

same information as a State nonmember

bank, publish a newspaper notice, and

await completion of a public comment

period before a decision is rendered on

the application.

C. Branch Application Statistics

From 2015 to 2024, the FDIC received

6,641 branch applications: 5,059

applications to establish a branch, 461

to relocate a main office, 1,120 to

relocate a branch, and 1 application to

relocate an insured branch of a foreign

bank, for an average of 664 applications

received per year. During this period,

the FDIC approved an average of 630

branch applications annually (482

branch establishment applications, 105

branch relocation applications, and 43

main office relocation applications). On

average, 537 applications per year were

approved under expedited processing

(85 percent) and 93 were approved

under standard processing (15 percent)

applications

received per year. During this period,

the FDIC approved an average of 630

branch applications annually (482

branch establishment applications, 105

branch relocation applications, and 43

main office relocation applications). On

average, 537 applications per year were

approved under expedited processing

(85 percent) and 93 were approved

under standard processing (15 percent).

From 2015 to 2024, the average time

between the FDIC’s receipt of an

application to establish a branch,

relocate a main office, or relocate a

branch, and the application being

approved, denied, returned to the

applicant or withdrawn, is 25 days for

applications subject to expedited

processing and 69 days for applications

subject to standard processing.

III. Description of the Proposed Rule

A. Rules of General Applicability (12

CFR Part 303, Subpart A)

1. Public Notice Requirements (12 CFR

303.7)

Applications submitted under subpart

C are generally subject to public

comment and a related public notice

period.10 Unlike the Bank Merger Act,

section 18(c) of the FDI Act,11 or the

Change in Bank Control Act, section

17(j) of the FDI Act,12 section 18(d) of

the FDI Act does not impose public

notice or comment requirements on

branch establishments, branch

relocations, or main office relocations.

Nonetheless, the FDIC has, by

regulation, required that branch

applications be subject to public notice

and comment.13

It is the FDIC’s view that branch

applications are generally more routine

and less significant corporate

transactions as compared to deposit

insurance applications, merger

transactions, or change in control

transactions. This view is confirmed by

the observation that the FDIC has

received a limited number of public

comments in response to subpart C

applications. The regulatory comment

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

pplications, merger

transactions, or change in control

transactions. This view is confirmed by

the observation that the FDIC has

received a limited number of public

comments in response to subpart C

applications. The regulatory comment

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33900

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

14 See 12 CFR 345.29(a) (Mar. 29, 2024), available

at https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2024-03-29/title-12/

section-345.29. The relevant provisions also appear

in appendix G to 12 CFR part 345, which

reproduces the FDIC CRA regulation.

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

period can significantly prolong the

length of time routine proposals take to

process. In addition, to the extent the

FDIC has received comments in

response to a branch application, such

comments generally have not been

specific to the application at hand and

have, on balance, yielded little benefit

for the purposes of the FDIC’s

evaluation of the statutory factors with

respect to that application. Over the past

five years, the FDIC has received an

average of seven comments per year on

branch applications, including multiple

comments on separate branch

applications filed by the same

institution. Generally, when the FDIC

has received multiple comments on

separate filings by the same institution,

the comments have repeated concerns

that are unrelated to the application at

hand.

Consequently, the historically limited

benefit of the public notice and related

comment period to the FDIC’s

consideration of the statutory factors

when evaluating an application do not

justify the prolonged review process for

branch applications

tiple comments on

separate filings by the same institution,

the comments have repeated concerns

that are unrelated to the application at

hand.

Consequently, the historically limited

benefit of the public notice and related

comment period to the FDIC’s

consideration of the statutory factors

when evaluating an application do not

justify the prolonged review process for

branch applications. Therefore, the

FDIC is proposing to eliminate the

public notice and related public

comment period from subpart C and to

make conforming changes to subpart A

of 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC Rules

and Regulations (subpart A).

Specifically, the FDIC proposes to strike

the provisions in 12 CFR 303.7(a) and

(c) that reference the establishment of a

branch or a branch relocation or main

office relocation in the context of setting

forth generally applicable public notice

requirements in subpart A.

In addition, under 12 CFR 345.29(c) of

the FDIC CRA regulation, as in effect on

March 29, 2024 (FDIC CRA

regulation),14 the FDIC takes into

account any views expressed by

interested parties that are submitted

regarding a bank’s CRA record of

performance in considering an

application for approval of, among other

things: (1) the establishment of a

domestic branch or other facility with

the ability to accept deposits, or (2) the

relocation of the bank’s main office or

a branch. As noted above, the FDIC will

continue to comply with its obligations

under the CRA, but proposes to

eliminate certain public notice and

public comment period requirements

from subpart C and related provisions in

subpart A. The proposal would also

include technical conforming changes to

12 CFR part 345 of the FDIC Rules and

Regulations, which cross reference the

public notice provisions of 12 CFR part

303

FDIC will

continue to comply with its obligations

under the CRA, but proposes to

eliminate certain public notice and

public comment period requirements

from subpart C and related provisions in

subpart A. The proposal would also

include technical conforming changes to

12 CFR part 345 of the FDIC Rules and

Regulations, which cross reference the

public notice provisions of 12 CFR part

303.

Regardless of whether the FDIC

receives public comment regarding a

filing submitted under subpart C, the

FDIC takes into consideration the bank’s

CRA rating, as required under the

CRA.15 As noted, an institution’s ability

to qualify for expediting processing as

an ‘‘eligible depository institution’’

depends on a satisfactory or better CRA

rating. The FDIC does not propose to

alter this element of the definition of

‘‘eligible depository institution.’’

Accordingly, eliminating the public

comment period would not be

inconsistent with the FDIC’s obligations

under the CRA.

2. Hearings and Other Meetings (12 CFR

303.10(a))

Applications submitted under subpart

C are generally subject to the FDIC Rules

and Regulations of general applicability

concerning hearings. The FDIC rarely

receives requests for hearings

concerning applications under subpart

C and conducts such hearings even less

frequently. As noted above, the FDIC

proposes to eliminate the public notice

requirement in subpart C because the

FDIC has found the public notice and

related public comment period are not

statutorily required and do not

materially aid the FDIC’s consideration

of the statutory factors when evaluating

an application to establish a domestic

branch or to relocate a main office or

domestic branch. Similarly, the public

hearing process has not materially

benefitted the FDIC’s consideration of a

branch application in the context of the

statutory factors

ic comment period are not

statutorily required and do not

materially aid the FDIC’s consideration

of the statutory factors when evaluating

an application to establish a domestic

branch or to relocate a main office or

domestic branch. Similarly, the public

hearing process has not materially

benefitted the FDIC’s consideration of a

branch application in the context of the

statutory factors. Therefore, the FDIC

proposes to eliminate from the public

hearing provisions of 12 CFR 303.10(a)

the reference to an insured State

nonmember bank to establish a

domestic branch or to relocate a main

office or domestic branch.

B. Definitions (12 CFR 303.41)

1. Branch (12 CFR 303.41(a))

The FDIC proposes to revise the

definition of ‘‘branch’’ at 12 CFR

303.41(a) to clarify the scope of the

exclusion of remote service units from

the definition of ‘‘branch.’’ The

proposed rule’s definition of ‘‘branch’’

would specify that a branch does not

include a remote service unit (RSU) or

a financial education program that

includes the provision of bank products

and services covered under subpart C,

and provide a definition for ‘‘remote

service unit.’’ The proposed definition

of ‘‘remote service unit’’ is discussed

below.

2. Branch Relocation (12 CFR 303.41(b))

The FDIC proposes to establish a rule

of construction within the definition of

‘‘branch relocation’’ at 12 CFR

303.41(b). Under the proposed rule, a

branch relocation would not include a

de minimis change in address. The rule

of construction would define a ‘‘de

minimis change in address’’ as

occurring when a branch exchanges one

physical facility for another within the

same approximate location, such as

where (1) a direct line of sight exists

between the two facilities, (2) the

facilities share the same parking area, or

osed rule, a

branch relocation would not include a

de minimis change in address. The rule

of construction would define a ‘‘de

minimis change in address’’ as

occurring when a branch exchanges one

physical facility for another within the

same approximate location, such as

where (1) a direct line of sight exists

between the two facilities, (2) the

facilities share the same parking area, or

(3) the facilities are located on

contiguous properties or on the same

block.

The FDIC has found that in some

situations a change in facility may be in

a bank’s best interest for a business,

operational, or other reason outside the

control of a bank, such as the same

landlord expanding a shopping center

and offering more advantageous lease

terms for the exchange of one suite in

the shopping center for another, and

such changes are often subject to

external time pressures. In the FDIC’s

experience, the exchange of one

physical facility for another that results

in such a de minimis change in address

is not appropriately contemplated under

the current subpart C. The proposed

rule would recognize the absence of a

significant supervisory purpose to

processing filings for such de minimis

changes in address by removing the

requirement of a filing for such changes.

Although a de minimis change in

address would not be subject to the

requirements in 12 CFR 303.42 through

303.44, a bank completing a de minimis

change in address would still be

required to provide reasonable advance

written notice to customers of the

branch undergoing a de minimis change

in address and advance notice to the

appropriate FDIC office.

3. De Novo Interstate Branch (12 CFR

303.41(c))

The FDIC proposes to replace the term

‘‘de novo branch’’ with ‘‘de novo

interstate branch’’ at 12 CFR 303.41(c).

The term ‘‘de novo branch’’ is defined

in section 18(d)(4)(C) of the FDI Act

within the narrow context of interstate

branching

branch undergoing a de minimis change

in address and advance notice to the

appropriate FDIC office.

3. De Novo Interstate Branch (12 CFR

303.41(c))

The FDIC proposes to replace the term

‘‘de novo branch’’ with ‘‘de novo

interstate branch’’ at 12 CFR 303.41(c).

The term ‘‘de novo branch’’ is defined

in section 18(d)(4)(C) of the FDI Act

within the narrow context of interstate

branching. However, the current

definition of ‘‘de novo branch’’ in

subpart C does not account for the

interstate context of the statutory

definition. The FDIC proposes to revise

subpart C to account for the statutory

interstate context by changing the

defined term to ‘‘de novo interstate

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33901

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

16 See 12 CFR 7.1027.

17 See also OCC, ‘‘Activities and Operations of

National Banks and Federal Savings Associations,’’

85 FR 83686, 83703 (Dec. 22, 2020).

18 See FDIC, FIL–53–2024, ‘‘Classification of

Interactive Teller Machines as Domestic Branches

or Remote Service Units’’ (Aug. 9, 2024), available

at https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-

letters/2024/classification-interactive-teller-

machines-domestic.

19 12 CFR 303.42(b).

branch’’ and updating the definition to

indicate a branch of a bank that is

established by the bank as a branch in

a State other than the bank’s home State

or one in which the bank does not

maintain a branch, and does not become

a branch of such bank as a result of (1)

the acquisition by the bank of an

insured depository institution or a

branch of an insured depository

institution, or (2) the conversion,

merger, or consolidation of any such

institution or branch

established by the bank as a branch in

a State other than the bank’s home State

or one in which the bank does not

maintain a branch, and does not become

a branch of such bank as a result of (1)

the acquisition by the bank of an

insured depository institution or a

branch of an insured depository

institution, or (2) the conversion,

merger, or consolidation of any such

institution or branch. The proposed rule

would make conforming changes to

account for the new defined term by

replacing ‘‘de novo branch’’ with ‘‘de

novo interstate branch’’ where it is used

in subpart C. Under the proposed rule,

this defined term would only be

relevant in the context of ensuring that

a filing for a ‘‘de novo interstate branch’’

would be deemed approved only after

ensuring that relevant host State filing

requirements have been satisfied.

4. Remote Service Unit (12 CFR

303.41(f))

As noted above, the FDIC proposes to

define the term ‘‘remote service unit’’ at

12 CFR 303.41(f). Section 3(o) of the FDI

Act excludes automated teller machines

(ATMs) and RSUs from the definition of

‘‘domestic branch’’ but does not define

either term. The FDIC proposes to adopt

a definition of RSU that would align the

FDIC Rules and Regulations with the

regulations of the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).16

The proposed rule would define

‘‘remote service unit’’ as an automated

or unstaffed facility, operated by a

customer of a bank with at most

delimited assistance from bank

personnel, that conducts banking

functions such as receiving deposits,

paying withdrawals, or lending money.

An RSU includes an automated teller

machine, automated loan machine,

automated device for receiving deposits,

personal computer, telephone, other

similar electronic devices, and drop

boxes. An RSU may be equipped with

a telephone or tele-video device that

allows contact with bank personnel

, that conducts banking

functions such as receiving deposits,

paying withdrawals, or lending money.

An RSU includes an automated teller

machine, automated loan machine,

automated device for receiving deposits,

personal computer, telephone, other

similar electronic devices, and drop

boxes. An RSU may be equipped with

a telephone or tele-video device that

allows contact with bank personnel.

The proposed rule would exclude a

drop box from the definition of

‘‘branch’’ by including a drop box in the

definition of ‘‘RSU’’ to avoid the

incongruous result where the definition

of ‘‘branch’’ encompasses a drop box but

not an ATM.17

The FDIC’s proposed definition of

‘‘RSU’’ encompasses automated,

unstaffed facilities that are operated by

the customer with at most delimited

assistance from bank personnel, and

that allow for telephonic or video

connectivity with bank personnel. This

is intended to accommodate most

facilities commonly referred to as

‘‘interactive teller machines’’ (ITMs). In

2024, the FDIC issued a Financial

Institutions Letter stating that an ITM

would qualify for the RSU exclusion,

and thus not be a branch, under the

following circumstances: (1) the ITM is

an automated, unstaffed banking facility

owned or operated by, or operated

exclusively for, the bank, which is

equipped to enable existing customers

to initiate an interactive session with

remotely located bank personnel, and,

Financial

Institutions Letter stating that an ITM

would qualify for the RSU exclusion,

and thus not be a branch, under the

following circumstances: (1) the ITM is

an automated, unstaffed banking facility

owned or operated by, or operated

exclusively for, the bank, which is

equipped to enable existing customers

to initiate an interactive session with

remotely located bank personnel, and,

(2) to the extent that bank personnel

have the ability to remotely assist the

customer with the operation of the ITM

to perform core banking functions,

customers must also be able to perform

such transactions without the

involvement of bank personnel and

must have the sole discretion to initiate

and terminate interactive sessions with

bank personnel.18 As part of this

proposal, the FDIC is seeking comment

on whether these criteria should be

retained or modified.

C. Filing Procedures (12 CFR 303.42)

1. General (12 CFR 303.42(a))

Under 12 CFR 303.42(a), applicants

are required to submit an application to

the appropriate FDIC office on the date

the required newspaper notice of the

bank’s proposal is published or within

five days after the date of the last

required newspaper publication. Thus,

the timing requirement of the

application is tied to the newspaper

publication requirement. The FDIC

proposes to eliminate the newspaper

publication requirement in 12 CFR

303.44(a), as discussed in section III.E of

this document, and to revise related

provisions, including 12 CFR 303.42(a).

Under the proposed rule, a bank

would be required to submit a letter

filing to the appropriate FDIC office to

establish a domestic branch or complete

a branch relocation or main office

relocation. As the public notice

requirements have been stricken, the

proposed rule does not specify a

submission deadline but retains the

requirement to submit a letter filing to

the appropriate FDIC office in 12 CFR

303.42(a).

2

bank

would be required to submit a letter

filing to the appropriate FDIC office to

establish a domestic branch or complete

a branch relocation or main office

relocation. As the public notice

requirements have been stricken, the

proposed rule does not specify a

submission deadline but retains the

requirement to submit a letter filing to

the appropriate FDIC office in 12 CFR

303.42(a).

2. Content of Filing (12 CFR 303.42(b))

Applicants are currently required to

submit the following information to the

appropriate FDIC office when applying

to establish a domestic branch or

complete a branch relocation or main

office relocation:

• A statement of intent to establish a

branch, or to relocate the main office or

a branch;

• The exact location of the proposed

site, including the street address;

• Details concerning any involvement

in the proposal by an insider of the

bank, including any financial

arrangements relating to fees, the

acquisition of property, leasing of

property, and construction contracts;

• Comments on any changes in

services to be offered, the community to

be served, or any other effect the

proposal may have on the applicant’s

compliance with the CRA;

• A copy of each newspaper

publication, the name and address of

the newspaper, and date of the

publication; and

• When an application is submitted

to relocate the main office of the

applicant from one State to another, a

statement of the applicant’s intent

regarding retention of branches in the

State where the main office exists prior

to relocation.19

The intent of the letter content

requirements is to aid the FDIC in

satisfying its statutory obligation to

consider the statutory factors when

determining whether to grant or

withhold its consent for a bank to

establish a domestic branch or to move

a main office or branch location

t’s intent

regarding retention of branches in the

State where the main office exists prior

to relocation.19

The intent of the letter content

requirements is to aid the FDIC in

satisfying its statutory obligation to

consider the statutory factors when

determining whether to grant or

withhold its consent for a bank to

establish a domestic branch or to move

a main office or branch location. The

FDIC has found, however, that through

its routine examination and supervisory

processes, it maintains sufficient

information to consider the statutory

factors without requiring a bank to

compile and submit all the information

currently required by subpart C.

Additionally, technological advances

currently enable the FDIC to more

quickly access and analyze historic

information regarding a bank compared

to when subpart C was initially

promulgated. The proposed rule would

recognize these advances in information

access and analysis within the context

of the statutory factors.

As discussed in section III.E of this

document, the proposed rule also would

eliminate the newspaper publication

requirement and public comment

period. Therefore, the corresponding

filing content requirements would be

eliminated by the proposed rule as well.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33902

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

20 12 CFR 303.43(a).

21 12 CFR 303.2(r).

22 Filings involving a de novo interstate branch

typically involve a lengthier approval timeline

because they are subject to additional statutory

requirements. See 12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(4)(B).

Specifically, the bank must comply with state filing

requirements, satisfy concentration limits, be

adequately capitalized, and be well capitalized and

well managed upon establishment of the branch.

See 12 U.S.C. 1831u(b)(1), (3), and (4).

23 12 CFR 303.11(c)(2).

24 12 CFR 303.41(b)

proval timeline

because they are subject to additional statutory

requirements. See 12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(4)(B).

Specifically, the bank must comply with state filing

requirements, satisfy concentration limits, be

adequately capitalized, and be well capitalized and

well managed upon establishment of the branch.

See 12 U.S.C. 1831u(b)(1), (3), and (4).

23 12 CFR 303.11(c)(2).

24 12 CFR 303.41(b).

Accordingly, the FDIC proposes to

revise the filing content requirement to

require a bank to submit the following:

• A statement of intent to establish a

branch, or to relocate the main office or

a branch;

• The exact location of the proposed

site, including the street address;

• When a filing is submitted to

relocate the bank’s main office from one

State to another, a statement of the

bank’s intent regarding retention of

branches in the State where the main

office exists prior to relocation; and

• With respect to a branch relocation

or a main office relocation, confirmation

that advance written notice was

provided to customers of the branch or

main office being relocated.

D. Processing (12 CFR 303.43)

1. Expedited Processing for Eligible

Depository Institutions (12 CFR

303.43(a))

Under subpart C, an application

submitted by an ‘‘eligible depository

institution’’ qualifies for expedited

processing, subject to removal by the

FDIC for the reasons set forth in 12 CFR

303.11(c)(2). An application processed

under expedited processing is deemed

approved on the latest of the following:

(1) the 21st day after receipt by the FDIC

of a substantially complete filing; (2) the

5th day after expiration of the comment

period described in 12 CFR 303.44; or

ion’’ qualifies for expedited

processing, subject to removal by the

FDIC for the reasons set forth in 12 CFR

303.11(c)(2). An application processed

under expedited processing is deemed

approved on the latest of the following:

(1) the 21st day after receipt by the FDIC

of a substantially complete filing; (2) the

5th day after expiration of the comment

period described in 12 CFR 303.44; or

(3) in the case of an application to

establish and operate a de novo branch

in a State that is not the applicant’s

home State and in which the applicant

does not maintain a branch, the 5th day

after the FDIC receives confirmation

from the host State that the applicant

has both complied with the filing

requirements of the host State and

submitted a copy of the application with

the FDIC to the host State bank

supervisor.20

The FDIC proposes to retain the

definition of ‘‘eligible depository

institution,’’ shorten the approval

period for expedited processing, and

eliminate the FDIC’s discretion to

remove a filing from expedited

processing.

Under 12 CFR 303.2(r) of the FDIC

Rules and Regulations, to qualify as an

‘‘eligible depository institution,’’ a bank

must satisfy the following criteria:

• Received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 1 or 2 under the

UFIRS as a result of its most recent

Federal or State examination;

• Received a satisfactory or better

CRA rating from its primary Federal

regulator at its most recent examination;

• Received a compliance rating of 1

or 2 from its primary Federal regulator

at its most recent examination;

• Is well-capitalized as defined in the

appropriate capital regulation and

guidance of the institution’s primary

Federal regulator; and

• Is not subject to a cease and desist

order, consent order, prompt corrective

action directive, written agreement,

memorandum of understanding, or

other administrative agreement with its

primary federal regulator or chartering

authority.21

The criteria to qualify as an ‘‘eligible

depository institution’’ corres

regulation and

guidance of the institution’s primary

Federal regulator; and

• Is not subject to a cease and desist

order, consent order, prompt corrective

action directive, written agreement,

memorandum of understanding, or

other administrative agreement with its

primary federal regulator or chartering

authority.21

The criteria to qualify as an ‘‘eligible

depository institution’’ correspond with

many of the statutory factors that must

be satisfied to establish or relocate a

domestic branch. Accordingly, the FDIC

has determined that qualification as an

‘‘eligible depository institution’’ can, in

many cases, facilitate the FDIC’s

consideration of a proposed branch

establishment or relocation within the

context of the statutory factors and

allow for a more truncated expedited

processing framework than the one that

exists today. The proposal would

therefore shorten the timeline for

expedited processing.

Under the proposed rule, a filing

submitted by an eligible depository

institution to establish a branch that is

processed under expedited processing

would be deemed approved on the later

of the following: (1) the third business

day after receipt by the FDIC of a

substantially complete filing; or (2) in

the case of an application to establish

and operate a de novo interstate branch

in a State that is not the applicant’s

home State and in which the applicant

does not maintain a branch, the fifth day

after the FDIC receives confirmation

from the host State that the applicant

has both complied with the filing

requirements of the host State and

submitted a copy of the application with

the FDIC to the host State bank

supervisor.22

Currently, under subpart A of 12 CFR

part 303 of the FDIC Rules and

Regulations, the FDIC retains discretion

to remove a filing from expedited

processing for one of the following

reasons:

• For filings subject to public notice,

an adverse comment is received that

warrants additional investigation or

review;

• For filings subject to evaluation

e FDIC to the host State bank

supervisor.22

Currently, under subpart A of 12 CFR

part 303 of the FDIC Rules and

Regulations, the FDIC retains discretion

to remove a filing from expedited

processing for one of the following

reasons:

• For filings subject to public notice,

an adverse comment is received that

warrants additional investigation or

review;

• For filings subject to evaluation of

CRA performance, a CRA protest is

received that warrants additional

investigation or review, or the

appropriate regional director determines

that the filing presents a significant CRA

or compliance concern;

• For any filing, the appropriate

regional director determines that the

filing presents a significant supervisory

concern, or raises a significant legal or

policy issue; or

• For any filing, the appropriate

regional director determines that other

good cause exists for removal.23

The FDIC exercises this discretion on

a limited basis. If an institution meets

all the criteria for expedited processing,

the likelihood that opening a new

branch would present material

supervisory concerns is extremely

remote. Thus, under the proposal, any

proposed branch filing from an

institution that satisfies the criteria for

expedited processing would be deemed

approved in accordance with the

statutory factors, without discretion to

remove the filing from expedited

processing. This aspect of the proposal

is consistent with the FDIC’s goal to

provide more certainty to filers who

satisfy all the criteria for expedited

processing and ensure timely processing

of such filings.

2. Expedited Processing for Branch

Relocations and Main Office Relocations

(12 CFR 303.43(b))

The FDIC proposes to establish a new

category of expedited processing for

intrastate branch relocations and main

office relocations by certain banks under

revised 12 CFR 303.43(b)

ainty to filers who

satisfy all the criteria for expedited

processing and ensure timely processing

of such filings.

2. Expedited Processing for Branch

Relocations and Main Office Relocations

(12 CFR 303.43(b))

The FDIC proposes to establish a new

category of expedited processing for

intrastate branch relocations and main

office relocations by certain banks under

revised 12 CFR 303.43(b). Filings for

intrastate branch relocations or

intrastate main office relocations would

be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC

and would receive expedited processing

if the bank received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 3 or better under the

UFIRS as a result of its most recent

Federal or State examination. Expedited

processing would apply under 12 CFR

303.43(b) regardless of whether the

institution satisfies the other criteria in

12 CFR 303.2(r) for an eligible

depository institution.

Subpart C of 12 CFR part 303 defines

‘‘branch relocation’’ narrowly as a move

within the same immediate

neighborhood of the existing branch that

does not substantially affect the nature

of the business of the branch or the

customers of the branch.24 The

definition specifies that moving a

branch to a location outside its

immediate neighborhood is considered

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

existing branch that

does not substantially affect the nature

of the business of the branch or the

customers of the branch.24 The

definition specifies that moving a

branch to a location outside its

immediate neighborhood is considered

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33903

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

25 FDIC, APM, available at https://www.fdic.gov/

bank-examinations/applications-procedures-

manual.

26 FDIC, Resolution 086825, ‘‘Delegations of

Authority for Supervisory Filings, Enforcement

Matters, Capital Determinations, and Information

Sharing Agreements’’ (Oct. 20, 2020), available at

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/matrix/

delegations-resolution.pdf.

27 See FDIC, Delegations of Authority, available at

https://www.fdic.gov/bank-examinations/

delegations-authority.

28 FDIC Call Report and Structure Data, March 31,

2025.

29 FDIC supervisory data.

the closing of an existing branch and the

establishment of a new branch. Thus, a

branch relocation typically presents a

limited set of facts and circumstances

for review and consideration within the

context of the statutory factors.

Although not defined, main office

relocations present a similarly narrow

set of facts and circumstances for review

and consideration. The FDIC considers

the statutory factors within the context

of the application submitted.

Because branch relocations and main

office relocations typically present a

narrow scope of review and

consideration, the FDIC proposes to

establish a new category of expedited

processing for proposed intrastate

branch or main office relocations

submitted by a bank that received an

FDIC-assigned composite rating of 3 or

better under the UFIRS as a result of its

most recent Federal or State

examination

relocations and main

office relocations typically present a

narrow scope of review and

consideration, the FDIC proposes to

establish a new category of expedited

processing for proposed intrastate

branch or main office relocations

submitted by a bank that received an

FDIC-assigned composite rating of 3 or

better under the UFIRS as a result of its

most recent Federal or State

examination. The FDIC has found that

when a bank that has received an FDIC-

assigned composite rating of 3 or better

under the UFIRS as a result of its most

recent Federal or State examination

applies for a branch relocation or main

office relocation, the rating can serve as

a meaningful proxy for the statutory

factors within the context of the

application. Thus, the FDIC proposes to

establish a new eligibility criterion for

intrastate branch relocation or main

office relocation filings to qualify for

expedited processing. The eligibility

criterion is based on the FDIC’s

particular experience and expertise and

reflects the FDIC’s consideration of the

statutory factors within the context of

branch relocations and main office

relocations generally.

Under the proposed rule, a filing for

an intrastate branch relocation or main

office relocation processed under

expedited processing would be deemed

approved on the third business day after

receipt by the FDIC of a substantially

complete filing. The proposed rule also

would eliminate the FDIC’s authority to

remove such filings from expedited

processing.

3. FDIC Internal Processes

In addition to publishing this

proposed rule, the FDIC is evaluating

and updating its internal processes to

further streamline and expedite the

review and consideration of

applications submitted under subpart C

of 12 CFR part 303

ally

complete filing. The proposed rule also

would eliminate the FDIC’s authority to

remove such filings from expedited

processing.

3. FDIC Internal Processes

In addition to publishing this

proposed rule, the FDIC is evaluating

and updating its internal processes to

further streamline and expedite the

review and consideration of

applications submitted under subpart C

of 12 CFR part 303. The FDIC’s

Application Procedures Manual (APM)

provides direction for professional staff

assigned to review and process

applications under subpart C and are

available for public review.25

Applications submitted under subpart C

are received and processed by the

appropriate FDIC regional office (RO)

pursuant to the APM and the FDIC

Board of Director’s ‘‘Delegations of

Authority for Supervisory Filings,

Enforcement Matters, Capital

Determinations, and Information

Sharing Agreements.’’ 26 The FDIC has

published matrices that summarize

delegations to professional staff,

circumstances that may restrict the

authority to act pursuant to such

delegations, and other information

relevant to the exercise of authority.27

The FDIC intends to review its

delegations of authority to promote

efficient decisioning on applications,

specifically by delegating additional

authority to ROs.

The FDIC also intends to update its

internal processes for responding to an

application submitted under subpart C

that qualifies for expedited processing.

Currently, an applicant receives

multiple response letters from the FDIC,

which may create confusion and delay.

After updates to internal processes, if an

application is substantially complete

and qualifies for expedited processing,

the RO would be expected to issue a

single letter to the applicant within

three business days to acknowledge

receipt of the application and state that

the application would be deemed

approved by the latest date applicable

under subpart C

may create confusion and delay.

After updates to internal processes, if an

application is substantially complete

and qualifies for expedited processing,

the RO would be expected to issue a

single letter to the applicant within

three business days to acknowledge

receipt of the application and state that

the application would be deemed

approved by the latest date applicable

under subpart C. The FDIC anticipates

this change would enhance certainty for

applicants by reducing the number of

potential communications involved in

the branch application process to a

single letter.

E. Public Notice Requirements (12 CFR

303.44)

Currently, a bank making a filing

subject to subpart C must publish a

notice in a newspaper of general

circulation. The FDIC proposes to

eliminate the newspaper publication

requirement in 12 CFR 303.44(a) and

related provisions. The FDIC expects

banks seeking to relocate a branch to

notify affected customers, and notes that

elimination of the FDIC’s public notice

requirement would not preempt any

publication, customer notification, or

other similar requirements under

applicable State law.

F. Moving an Insured Branch of a

Foreign Bank (12 CFR 303.184)

As noted above, subpart J of 12 CFR

part 303 governs an application by an

insured branch of a foreign bank seeking

the FDIC’s consent to move from one

location to another, and the

requirements in subpart J largely mirror

those found in subpart C of 12 CFR part

303 for an insured State nonmember

bank. The proposed rule would make

changes to subpart J to correspond to

those proposed for subpart C discussed

above.

IV

12 CFR

part 303 governs an application by an

insured branch of a foreign bank seeking

the FDIC’s consent to move from one

location to another, and the

requirements in subpart J largely mirror

those found in subpart C of 12 CFR part

303 for an insured State nonmember

bank. The proposed rule would make

changes to subpart J to correspond to

those proposed for subpart C discussed

above.

IV. Expected Effects of the Proposed

Rule

As previously discussed, the objective

of the proposed rule is to reduce the

regulatory burden on insured State

nonmember banks seeking to establish a

branch or relocate a main office or

branch by shortening the length of, as

well as clarifying and reducing content

requirements for, associated filings, and

to do the same for relocations of insured

branches of foreign banks.

This analysis utilizes all regulations

and guidance applicable to FDIC-

supervised insured State nonmember

banks and insured branches of foreign

banks (collectively, insured depository

institutions or IDIs), as well as

information on the financial condition

of FDIC-supervised IDIs as of the quarter

ending March 31, 2025, as the baseline

to which the effects of the proposed rule

are estimated.

If adopted, the proposed rule would

apply to FDIC-supervised State

nonmember banks seeking to establish a

branch, relocate a main office or branch,

and to FDIC-supervised insured

branches of foreign banks seeking to

relocate an insured branch of a foreign

bank

upervised IDIs as of the quarter

ending March 31, 2025, as the baseline

to which the effects of the proposed rule

are estimated.

If adopted, the proposed rule would

apply to FDIC-supervised State

nonmember banks seeking to establish a

branch, relocate a main office or branch,

and to FDIC-supervised insured

branches of foreign banks seeking to

relocate an insured branch of a foreign

bank. As of the quarter ending March

31, 2025, the FDIC supervises 2,835

State nonmember banks or insured

branches of foreign banks which

collectively operate 25,424 branches

and main offices.28 In the period from

2015 to 2024, the FDIC received 6,641

branch applications: 5,059 to establish a

branch, 461 to relocate a main office,

1,120 to relocate a branch, and 1 to

relocate an insured branch of a foreign

bank, for an average of 664 filings per

year.29 Based on this historical average,

the FDIC estimates that the proposed

rule would affect approximately 700

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33904

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

30 Although the proposed rule would result in a

decrease in the burden for a branch application, the

FDIC does not believe the proposed rule would

likely result in a material increase in the number

of branch applications. To the extent that the

proposed rule results in a greater number of branch

applications, the historical average of 664 branch

applications per year may be an undercount of the

number of applications affected by the proposed

rule. The FDIC believes that using 700 as the

number of branch applications per year is a

conservative estimate for purposes of estimating the

effects of the proposed rule.

31 A bank completing a de minimis change in

address would still be required to provide

reasonable advance written notice to customers of

the branch per proposed 12 CFR 303.41(b)

of applications affected by the proposed

rule. The FDIC believes that using 700 as the

number of branch applications per year is a

conservative estimate for purposes of estimating the

effects of the proposed rule.

31 A bank completing a de minimis change in

address would still be required to provide

reasonable advance written notice to customers of

the branch per proposed 12 CFR 303.41(b).

32 Based on Paperwork Reduction Act hourly

burden estimates for branch applications by state

nonmember banks under Information Collection

Request OMB No. 3064–0070 (See https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAICList?ref_

nbr=202301-3064-006). Hourly burden estimates for

branch applications by foreign banks under

Information Collection Request OMB No. 3064–

0114 are not used for this analysis because only 1

out of 6,641 historical branch applications was

submitted by a foreign bank.

33 In recent Information Collection Requests, the

FDIC estimated that the fully loaded costs of

preparing and submitting branch applications are

approximately $147 per hour for state nonmember

banks and $135 per hour for foreign banks. See

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001,

respectively.

34 de minimis relocations would only involve

relocations ‘‘within the same approximate

location,’’ as per proposed 12 CFR 303.41(b)(1)(i).

35 $30,000 savings annually = $1,000 per

relocation application × 30 applications per year;

and 30 branch applications per year = 299

applications/10 years.

36 Details of the time to prepare and submit

branch applications are provided in Section VII.B.

Paperwork Reduction Act of this document.

37 In recent Information Collection Requests, the

FDIC estimated that the fully loaded costs of

preparing and submitting branch applications are

approximately $147 per hour for State nonmember

banks and $135 per hour for foreign banks

lications/10 years.

36 Details of the time to prepare and submit

branch applications are provided in Section VII.B.

Paperwork Reduction Act of this document.

37 In recent Information Collection Requests, the

FDIC estimated that the fully loaded costs of

preparing and submitting branch applications are

approximately $147 per hour for State nonmember

banks and $135 per hour for foreign banks. See

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006 and https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_

nbr=202312-3064-001, respectively.

38 $268,000 cost savings per year = 670 branch

applications per year * 2 hours saved per

application * $200 per hour saved.

39 As noted above, intrastate branch filings are

deemed approved under expedited processing on

the latest of: the 21st day after receipt by the FDIC

of a substantially complete filing, or the 5th day

after expiration of the comment period described in

12 CFR 303.44, which at most could be 23 days

(consisting of 8 days to meet the newspaper

publication requirement plus a 15 day comment

period), and 5 + 23 = 28. The proposal’s deadline

of three days (down from 21) for intrastate branch

filings represents a decrease of 18 days from

baseline, and the proposed elimination of the

public notice requirements and associated five-day

processing period represents a decrease of 28 days

from baseline.

40 Based on branch applications received from

2015 to 2024 which had received a final status of

approved, denied, withdrawn or returned as of June

24, 2025.

branch applications per year on

average.30

In general, the proposed rule would

reduce the regulatory requirements for

branch applications. Specifically, it

would establish that State nonmember

banks that seek to make a de minimis

change in the address of a branch would

only need to notify the FDIC of such a

change, rather than submit an

application

rawn or returned as of June

24, 2025.

branch applications per year on

average.30

In general, the proposed rule would

reduce the regulatory requirements for

branch applications. Specifically, it

would establish that State nonmember

banks that seek to make a de minimis

change in the address of a branch would

only need to notify the FDIC of such a

change, rather than submit an

application. For all other branch

applications, the proposed rule would

reduce filing content requirements from

six to four items. The proposed rule

would also eliminate or greatly reduce

public notice requirements for

applications.31

For State nonmember banks that seek

a de minimis relocation, the FDIC

estimates that the proposed rule would

eliminate the entire estimated five-hour

burden of preparing and submitting a

branch application.32 At a conservative

estimate of $200 per hour per

application,33 the resulting savings

would be $1,000 per de minimis

relocation. Strictly for the purpose of

estimating the number of de minimis

relocations per year, the FDIC assumes

that the distances of such relocations

would be less than 0.1 miles.34 Of the

6,641 branch applications used in this

analysis, 299 involved a relocation

distance less than 0.1 miles. As such,

the FDIC estimates that approximately

30 branch applications per year would

involve a de minimis relocation,

resulting in an estimated aggregate

benefit of $30,000 annually.35

For the remaining 670 branch

applications that do not involve de

minimis relocations, the proposed rule

would reduce the regulatory

requirements for preparing and

submitting branch applications.

Specifically, it would reduce filing

content requirements from six to four

items. The proposed rule would also

eliminate public notice requirements for

these applications

of $30,000 annually.35

For the remaining 670 branch

applications that do not involve de

minimis relocations, the proposed rule

would reduce the regulatory

requirements for preparing and

submitting branch applications.

Specifically, it would reduce filing

content requirements from six to four

items. The proposed rule would also

eliminate public notice requirements for

these applications. The FDIC estimates

these changes would benefit applicants

by reducing the time spent preparing

and submitting branch applications by

approximately two hours, on average.36

At a conservative hourly burden

estimate of $200 per hour,37 the

proposed rule would result in aggregate

cost savings of approximately $268,000

per year.38

Summing up the quantified effects for

all 700 affected branch applications, the

FDIC estimates that the proposed rule

would result in approximately $300,000

in savings per year from the reduction

of labor costs associated with preparing

and submitting branch applications.

As previously discussed, the

proposed rule would generally reduce

the time it takes for the FDIC to process

a filing. In particular, the proposed rule

would establish a deadline of three days

for approval after receipt of a

substantially complete expedited

intrastate branch filing; a reduction of

between 18 days and 28 days,

respectively.39 Further, the proposed

rule would expand expedited

processing for intrastate branch filings

and main office relocations to a bank

that received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 3 or better under the

UFIRS as a result of its most recent

Federal or State examination. Finally,

the proposed rule would eliminate the

FDIC’s discretion to remove a filing

from expedited processing

ectively.39 Further, the proposed

rule would expand expedited

processing for intrastate branch filings

and main office relocations to a bank

that received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 3 or better under the

UFIRS as a result of its most recent

Federal or State examination. Finally,

the proposed rule would eliminate the

FDIC’s discretion to remove a filing

from expedited processing. According to

FDIC supervisory data, a filing to

establish a branch, or to relocate a

branch or main office, subject to

expedited processing takes an average of

25 days to process.40

The proposed rule’s reduction in

processing times for certain branch

applications would have clear benefits

for eligible depository institution

applicants. Faster processing times

would reduce the period of uncertainty

for applicants and reduce costs

associated with downtime while waiting

for a decision from the FDIC. IDIs would

be able to more swiftly respond to

changes in local economic conditions,

such as a change in landlord for an IDI’s

current location or a time-sensitive

opportunity to relocate to a more

desirable location. The FDIC does not

have the information necessary to

further quantify the benefit associated

with the reduction in the time it takes

for the FDIC to process filings, but

believes that processing time reductions

would improve productivity and

competitiveness for applicants.

As previously discussed, the

proposed rule would clarify certain

definitions in the filing regulations.

Specifically, the proposed rule would

clarify that the term branch does not

include remote service units, drop

boxes, or financial education programs

that include the provision of bank

products and services. In practice the

FDIC has not considered such locations

covered by the filing requirements for

establishing a branch, relocating a main

office or branch, or relocating an

insured branch of a foreign bank

oposed rule would

clarify that the term branch does not

include remote service units, drop

boxes, or financial education programs

that include the provision of bank

products and services. In practice the

FDIC has not considered such locations

covered by the filing requirements for

establishing a branch, relocating a main

office or branch, or relocating an

insured branch of a foreign bank.

Finally, the proposed rule clarifies the

definition of ‘‘de novo interstate

branch.’’ The FDIC does not have the

information necessary to quantify the

benefits to prospective applicants

associated with these aspects of the

proposed rule. However, the FDIC

believes that these clarifications would

benefit applicants and the industry by

reducing uncertainty among prospective

applicants.

As previously discussed, the FDIC

does not believe that the proposed rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33905

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

41 Proposed 12 CFR 303.44.

42 See the FDIC CRA regulation.

43 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

44 The SBA defines a small banking organization

as having $850 million or less in assets, where an

organization’s ‘‘assets are determined by averaging

the assets reported on its four quarterly financial

statements for the preceding year.’’ See 13 CFR

121.201 (as amended by 87 FR 69118, effective

December 19, 2022). In its determination, the ‘‘SBA

counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of

size of the concern whose size is at issue and all

of its domestic and foreign affiliates.’’ See 13 CFR

121.103. Following these regulations, the FDIC uses

an insured depository institution’s affiliated and

acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four

quarters, to determine whether the insured

depository institution is ‘‘small’’ for the purposes of

RFA.

45 FDIC Call Report and Structure Data, March 31,

2025

e size is at issue and all

of its domestic and foreign affiliates.’’ See 13 CFR

121.103. Following these regulations, the FDIC uses

an insured depository institution’s affiliated and

acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four

quarters, to determine whether the insured

depository institution is ‘‘small’’ for the purposes of

RFA.

45 FDIC Call Report and Structure Data, March 31,

2025.

46 FDIC supervisory and Call Report data. For the

purpose of these application counts an IDI is

considered ‘‘small’’ for purposes of the RFA if it is

identified in the FDIC’s data as ‘‘small’’ as of the

quarter-end in which it sent a relevant application

to the FDIC. Note that no insured branches of

foreign banks are considered ‘‘small’’ for purposes

of the RFA.

would pose any material direct costs to

applicants. The FDIC acknowledges that

there may be ancillary costs to the

public. For example, the elimination of

the public notice requirements and

related public comment period for

branch and main office relocations 41

may result in some confusion among

bank customers or other community

stakeholders. The proposed rule

mitigates this by maintaining that IDIs

shall provide advance written notice to

customers of the office undergoing an

address change. The FDIC does not have

the data necessary to quantify the effect

of the proposed elimination of the

public notice requirements and related

public comment period. However, given

the limited historical number of public

comments in response to subpart C

applications, and the mitigation just

mentioned, the FDIC does not believe

this effect to be material. Moreover, the

proposed rule does not affect the

responsibility of FDIC-supervised

institutions to help meet the credit

needs of the communities in which they

are headquartered or operate

branches.42 Therefore, the FDIC believes

that the proposed rule would pose no

substantiative indirect costs to

customers

mitigation just

mentioned, the FDIC does not believe

this effect to be material. Moreover, the

proposed rule does not affect the

responsibility of FDIC-supervised

institutions to help meet the credit

needs of the communities in which they

are headquartered or operate

branches.42 Therefore, the FDIC believes

that the proposed rule would pose no

substantiative indirect costs to

customers.

Finally, the FDIC believes that the

proposal could provide indirect benefits

to customers of insured State

nonmember banks and insured branches

of foreign banks. To the extent that the

shorter processing periods, reduced

filing content requirements, and

clarifications within the proposed rule

reduce the time it takes such

institutions to begin providing banking

products and services at appliable

locations, customers may benefit. The

FDIC does not have the necessary

information to quantify such benefits.

V. Alternatives Considered

The FDIC considered implementing

internal process changes related to the

review of subpart C applications that

would result in abbreviated review

periods without implementing a

regulatory change. However, the FDIC

determined that improving the speed,

certainty and regulatory burden

associated with the processes for branch

filings would be better achieved through

a formal notice and comment

rulemaking that considers feedback

from all stakeholders. As discussed

above, the FDIC also expects to

implement changes to its internal

processes for branch filings in tandem

with the amendments set forth in this

proposal to further support these

objectives.

VI. Request for Comments

The FDIC seeks comments on all

aspects of the proposed rule. The FDIC

also seeks specific comment on the

following:

Question 1

s feedback

from all stakeholders. As discussed

above, the FDIC also expects to

implement changes to its internal

processes for branch filings in tandem

with the amendments set forth in this

proposal to further support these

objectives.

VI. Request for Comments

The FDIC seeks comments on all

aspects of the proposed rule. The FDIC

also seeks specific comment on the

following:

Question 1. Are the proposed filing

content requirements appropriate to

garner sufficient information for the

FDIC to evaluate the statutory factors in

the context of the establishment of a

domestic branch or branch or main

office relocation? Are there additional

information elements the FDIC should

consider or seek to remove? If so, please

explain how the addition or removal of

such information would facilitate the

FDIC’s consideration of the statutory

factors.

Question 2. Is the FDIC’s elimination

of the public comment period for branch

applications appropriate? Please explain

why or why not.

Question 2. Is the FDIC’s criteria for

a branch application to satisfy

‘‘expedited processing’’ appropriate?

Please explain why or why not.

Question 3. Is the FDIC’s proposed

definition of ‘‘branch relocation’’

appropriate? If not, what alternatives

should the FDIC consider? Is the FDIC’s

criteria for expedited processing for a

branch relocation appropriate?

Question 4. What are the advantages

and disadvantages of the proposed ‘‘de

minimis’’ exception to the definition of

‘‘branch relocation?’’ Are there

supervisory benefits to continuing to

require a filing for a branch facility

change that would satisfy the proposed

‘‘de minimis’’ exception that the FDIC

should consider? If so, please explain

those benefits and how they outweigh

the burden associated with requiring a

filing for such branch facility changes.

Question 5

is’’ exception to the definition of

‘‘branch relocation?’’ Are there

supervisory benefits to continuing to

require a filing for a branch facility

change that would satisfy the proposed

‘‘de minimis’’ exception that the FDIC

should consider? If so, please explain

those benefits and how they outweigh

the burden associated with requiring a

filing for such branch facility changes.

Question 5. Is the FDIC’s proposed

definition of ‘‘remote service unit’’

appropriate? Does the definition’s

‘‘delimited assistance’’ standard provide

clarity regarding whether an ITM would

qualify for the RSU exclusion? Is FDIC

FIL–53–2024 consistent with this

definition, and what alternatives to

FDIC FIL–53–2024 would provide

greater clarity as to the scope of the

‘‘delimited assistance’’ standard?

Question 6. Are there any other

aspects of subpart C, 12 CFR 303.184, or

the proposed rule the FDIC should

consider amending? If so, please explain

those changes and how they would

support the objectives of this proposal.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency, in

connection with a proposed rule, to

prepare and make available for public

comment an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis that describes the impact of the

proposed rule on small entities.43

However, an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required if the agency

certifies that the proposed rule will not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The Small

Business Administration (SBA) has

defined ‘‘small entities’’ to include

banking organizations with total assets

of less than or equal to $850 million.44

Generally, the FDIC considers a

significant economic impact to be a

quantified effect in excess of 5 percent

of total annual salaries and benefits or

2.5 percent of total noninterest

expenses

stantial

number of small entities. The Small

Business Administration (SBA) has

defined ‘‘small entities’’ to include

banking organizations with total assets

of less than or equal to $850 million.44

Generally, the FDIC considers a

significant economic impact to be a

quantified effect in excess of 5 percent

of total annual salaries and benefits or

2.5 percent of total noninterest

expenses. The FDIC believes that effects

in excess of one or more of these

thresholds typically represent

significant economic impacts for FDIC-

supervised institutions.

If adopted, the proposed rule would

apply to small entities seeking to

establish a branch, relocate a main office

or branch, or relocate an insured branch

of a foreign bank. As of the quarter

ending March 31, 2025, the FDIC

supervised 2,835 IDIs, of which 2,109

are considered ‘‘small’’ for the purposes

of RFA.46 These 2,109 small IDIs

collectively operated 8,412 branches

and main offices.45 In the period from

2015 to 2024, small IDIs submitted

2,020 applications to establish a branch,

352 applications to relocate a branch,

and 295 applications to relocate a main

office, for a total of 2,667 applications

across all 10 years, or an average of 267

applications per year.46 Based on this

historical average, the FDIC estimates

the proposed rule would affect

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

h,

and 295 applications to relocate a main

office, for a total of 2,667 applications

across all 10 years, or an average of 267

applications per year.46 Based on this

historical average, the FDIC estimates

the proposed rule would affect

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33906

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

47 Although the proposed rule would result in a

decrease in the burden imposed by a branch

application, the FDIC does not believe the proposed

rule would likely result in a material increase in the

number of branch applications. To the extent that

the proposed rule results in a greater number of

branch applications from small IDIs, the historical

average of 267 branch applications per year may be

an undercount of the number of applications

affected by the proposed rule. The FDIC believes

that using 300 as the number of branch applications

from small IDIs per year is a conservative estimate

for purposes of the RFA.

48 A bank completing a de minimis change in

address would still be required to provide

reasonable advance written notice to customers of

the branch per proposed 12 CFR 303.41(b).

49 Based on a conservative hourly burden

estimate of $200 per hour. In recent Information

Collection Requests, the FDIC estimated that the

fully loaded costs of preparing and submitting

branch applications are approximately $147 per

hour for state nonmember banks and $135 per hour

for foreign banks. See https://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006

and https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001,

respectively.

50 Details of the time to prepare and submit

branch applications are provided in section VII.B.,

Paperwork Reduction Act, of this preamble

pproximately $147 per

hour for state nonmember banks and $135 per hour

for foreign banks. See https://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006

and https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202312-3064-001,

respectively.

50 Details of the time to prepare and submit

branch applications are provided in section VII.B.,

Paperwork Reduction Act, of this preamble.

51 As noted above, intrastate branch filings are

deemed approved under expedited processing on

the latest of: the 21st day after receipt by the FDIC

of a substantially complete filing, or the 5th day

after expiration of the comment period described in

12 CFR 303.44, which at most could be 23 days

(consisting of 8 days to meet the newspaper

publication requirement plus a 15-day comment

period), and 5 + 23 = 28. The proposal’s deadline

of three days (down from 21) for intrastate branch

filings represents a decrease of 18 days from

baseline, and the proposed elimination of the

public notice requirements and associated five-day

processing period represents a decrease of 28 days

from baseline.

52 Based on branch applications received from

2015 to 2024 which had received a final status of

approved, denied, withdrawn or returned as of June

24, 2025.

53 44 U.S.C. 3501.

approximately 300 branch applications

from small IDIs per year on average.47

In general, the proposed rule would

reduce the regulatory requirements for

establishing or relocating a branch.

Specifically, it would eliminate filing

requirements for de minimis relocations

and reduce filing content requirements

from six to four items for all other

applications. The proposed rule would

also eliminate or greatly reduce public

notice requirements for all branch

establishments and relocations.48

As discussed in the Expected Effects

section of this document, the FDIC

estimates that there would be upwards

of 30 de minimis relocations per year

minimis relocations

and reduce filing content requirements

from six to four items for all other

applications. The proposed rule would

also eliminate or greatly reduce public

notice requirements for all branch

establishments and relocations.48

As discussed in the Expected Effects

section of this document, the FDIC

estimates that there would be upwards

of 30 de minimis relocations per year.

Based on supervisory and Call Report

data, the FDIC estimates that upwards of

10 de minimis relocations would

involve small IDIs. The proposed rule

would reduce the burden for these de

minimis relocations by five hours, or

$1,000, per relocation.49 Based on Call

Report data for the quarter ending

March 31, 2025, a cost savings of $1,000

is in excess of 5 percent of total annual

salaries and benefits or 2.5 percent of

total noninterest expenses for one small

IDI.

For the remaining 290 branch

applications from small IDIs that do not

involve de minimis relocations, the

FDIC estimates the proposed rule would

benefit small applicants by reducing the

time spent preparing and submitting

branch applications by approximately

two hours, on average, or $400 per

application.50 Based on Call Report data

for the quarter ending March 31, 2025,

a cost savings of $400 is in excess of 5

percent of total annual salaries and

benefits or 2.5 percent of total

noninterest expenses for one small IDI.

Based on the quantified effects of the

proposed rule described above, the FDIC

estimates that the rule would not

significantly affect more than two small

IDIs.

As discussed in the Expected Effects

section of this document, the proposed

rule would also reduce the time it takes

for the FDIC to process a filing

es and

benefits or 2.5 percent of total

noninterest expenses for one small IDI.

Based on the quantified effects of the

proposed rule described above, the FDIC

estimates that the rule would not

significantly affect more than two small

IDIs.

As discussed in the Expected Effects

section of this document, the proposed

rule would also reduce the time it takes

for the FDIC to process a filing. In

particular, the proposed rule would

establish a deadline of three days for

approval after receipt of a substantially

complete expedited intrastate branch

filing; a reduction of between 18 days

and 28 days, respectively.51 Further, the

proposed rule would expand expedited

processing for intrastate branch filings

and main office relocations to a bank

that received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 3 or better under the

UFIRS as a result of its most recent

federal or state examination. Finally, the

proposed rule would eliminate the

FDIC’s discretion to remove a filing

from expedited processing. According to

FDIC supervisory data, a filing to

establish a branch, or to relocate a

branch or main office, subject to

expedited processing takes an average of

25 days to process.52

The proposed rule’s reduction in

processing times for certain branch

applications would have clear benefits

for eligible small depository institution

applicants. Faster processing times

would reduce the period of uncertainty

for applicants and reduce costs

associated with downtime while waiting

for a decision from the FDIC. IDIs would

be able to more swiftly respond to

changes in local economic conditions,

such as a change in landlord for an IDI’s

current location or a time-sensitive

opportunity to relocate to a more

desirable location. The FDIC does not

have the information necessary to

further quantify the benefit associated

with the reduction in the time it takes

for the FDIC to process filings, but

believes that processing time reductions

would improve productivity and

competitiveness for applicants

ge in landlord for an IDI’s

current location or a time-sensitive

opportunity to relocate to a more

desirable location. The FDIC does not

have the information necessary to

further quantify the benefit associated

with the reduction in the time it takes

for the FDIC to process filings, but

believes that processing time reductions

would improve productivity and

competitiveness for applicants.

As previously discussed, the

proposed rule would clarify certain

definitions in the filing regulations.

Specifically, the proposed rule would

clarify that ‘‘branch’’ does not include

remote service units, drop boxes, or

financial education programs that

include the provision of bank products

and services. In practice the FDIC has

not considered such locations covered

by the filing requirements for

establishing a branch, relocating a main

office or branch, or relocating an

insured branch of a foreign bank.

Finally, the proposed rule clarifies the

definition of interstate branch, intrastate

branch, and de novo interstate branch

for the purposes of the application

requirements for establishing a branch,

relocating a main office or branch, or

relocating an insured branch of a foreign

bank. The FDIC does not have the

information necessary to quantify the

benefits to prospective applicants

associated with these aspects of the

proposed rule. However, the FDIC

believes that these clarifications would

benefit applicants and the industry by

reducing uncertainty among prospective

applicants.

The unquantified benefits discussed

above are additional to the quantified

benefits. Conservatively, if each branch

application affected by the proposed

rule were submitted by a distinct small

IDI, then the proposed rule would affect

300 small IDIs. The FDIC does not

believe that the unquantified benefits

would likely result in a significant effect

for the vast majority of the 300 affected

IDIs

uantified benefits discussed

above are additional to the quantified

benefits. Conservatively, if each branch

application affected by the proposed

rule were submitted by a distinct small

IDI, then the proposed rule would affect

300 small IDIs. The FDIC does not

believe that the unquantified benefits

would likely result in a significant effect

for the vast majority of the 300 affected

IDIs.

Finally, the FDIC does not believe that

the proposed rule would pose any

material direct costs to applicants.

In light of the foregoing, the FDIC

certifies that the proposed rule would

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Accordingly, an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required.

The FDIC invites comments on all

aspects of the supporting information

provided in this RFA section. The FDIC

is particularly interested in comments

on any significant effects on small

entities that the agency has not

identified.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

Certain provisions of the proposed

rule contain ‘‘collections of

information’’ within the meaning of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of

1995.53 In accordance with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33907

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

54 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

55 5 CFR 1320.

56 FDIC Application for a bank to establish a

branch or move its main office or branch, OMB No.

3064–0070, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006.

57 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).

requirements of the PRA, the FDIC may

not conduct or sponsor, and the

respondent is not required to respond

to, an information collection unless it

displays a currently valid Office of

Budget and Management (OMB) control

number

ch or move its main office or branch, OMB No.

3064–0070, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202301-3064-006.

57 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).

requirements of the PRA, the FDIC may

not conduct or sponsor, and the

respondent is not required to respond

to, an information collection unless it

displays a currently valid Office of

Budget and Management (OMB) control

number. The information collections

contained in the proposed rule have

been submitted to OMB for review and

approval by the FDIC under section

3507(d) of the PRA 54 and § 1320.11 of

OMB’s implementing regulations.55 The

FDIC proposes to extend for three years,

with revision, the following information

collections:

Title of Information Collection:

Application for a bank to establish a

branch or move its main office or

branch.

OMB Control Number: 3064–0070.

Respondents: Insured State

nonmember banks.

Current Actions: The proposed rule

revises the currently-approved

information collection as follows:

Section 303.42, Application for a

bank to establish a branch or move its

main office or Branch. Pursuant to

sections 13(f), 13(k), 18(d) and 44 of the

FDI Act, insured State nonmember

banks must obtain FDIC approval before

establishing a branch, relocating a

branch or main office, or retaining

existing branches after the interstate

relocation of the main office. This

information collection represents the

occasional reporting requirement

associated with those institutions’

application for FDIC approval. The

proposed rule would reduce reporting

burden by eliminating the requirement

that the applicant provide information

regarding insider involvement in the

proposed branch office, comments on

changes in services offered or the effect

the proposal may have on the

applicant’s compliance with the

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),

and a copy of and information related to

the required newspaper publication

rule would reduce reporting

burden by eliminating the requirement

that the applicant provide information

regarding insider involvement in the

proposed branch office, comments on

changes in services offered or the effect

the proposal may have on the

applicant’s compliance with the

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),

and a copy of and information related to

the required newspaper publication. As

such, the FDIC estimates average time

per response would be reduced from 5

hours to 3 hours. However, to account

for additional applications that may

result from changes in the proposed rule

as well as historical data since the most

recent PRA renewal, the FDIC also

estimates an increase in respondents

from 436 to 700. Thus, the total

estimated annual burden for OMB No.

3064–0070 is 2,100 hours, a decrease of

80 hours from the most recent PRA

renewal.56

Title of Information Collection:

Foreign Banks.

OMB Control Number: 3064–0114.

Respondents: Insured branches of

foreign banks.

Current Actions: The proposed rule

revises the currently-approved

information collection as follows:

The FDIC is proposing to remove the

information collection ‘‘Section

303.184, Moving a Branch’’ from the ICR

under the OMB Control No. 3064–0114

and include it in the ICR under OMB

Control No. 3064–0070. Under 12 CFR

303.183, insured branches of foreign

banks seeking approval from the FDIC to

move locations complete a substantially

similar application as domestic banks

seeking FDIC approval to move

locations. To ensure consistent burden

estimates between similar respondents

completing similar applications, the

FDIC will include burden estimates

from the information collection

‘‘Section 303.184, Moving a Branch’’ in

the information collection ‘‘Application

for a bank to establish a branch or move

its main office or Branch.’’ Combining

these two information collections does

not affect the FDIC estimates of

respondents for the information

collection under OMB Control No

similar applications, the

FDIC will include burden estimates

from the information collection

‘‘Section 303.184, Moving a Branch’’ in

the information collection ‘‘Application

for a bank to establish a branch or move

its main office or Branch.’’ Combining

these two information collections does

not affect the FDIC estimates of

respondents for the information

collection under OMB Control No.

3064–0070 because historically the

FDIC rarely receives applications to

move insured branches from foreign

banks. In the most recent PRA renewal

for OMB Control No. 3064–0114, the

FDIC used a placeholder of a single

respondent to maintain the information

collection.

Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the FDIC’s functions,

including whether the information has

practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the estimates of the

burden of the information collection,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(c) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

All comments will become a matter of

public record.

Comments on aspects of this

document that may affect reporting,

recordkeeping, or disclosure

requirements and burden estimates

should be sent to the address listed in

the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Written comments and

recommendations for this information

collection also should be sent within 60

days of publication of this document to

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Find this particular information

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under

60-day Review—Open for Public

Comments’’ or by using the search

function.

C

o the address listed in

the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Written comments and

recommendations for this information

collection also should be sent within 60

days of publication of this document to

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Find this particular information

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under

60-day Review—Open for Public

Comments’’ or by using the search

function.

C. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leah-Bliley

Act requires Federal banking agencies to

use plain language in all proposed and

final rules published after January 1,

2000. The FDIC invites your comments

on how to make the proposed rule easier

to understand. For example:

• Has the FDIC organized the material

to suit your needs? If not, how could the

proposed rule be more clearly stated?

• Are the requirements in the

proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how

could the proposed rule be more clearly

stated?

• Does the proposed rule contain

language or jargon that is not clear? If

so, which language requires

clarification?

• Would a different format (groupings

and order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing) make the guidelines

easier to understand? If so, what

changes to the format would make the

proposed rule easier to understand?

• What else could the FDIC do to

make the proposed rule easier to

understand?

D. Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the

Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(RCDRIA),57 in determining the effective

date and administrative compliance

requirements for new regulations that

impose additional reporting, disclosure,

or other requirements on IDIs, each

Federal banking agency must consider,

consistent with principles of safety and

soundness and the public interest, any

administrative burdens that such

regulations would place on affected

depository institutions, including small

depository institutions, and customers

of depository institutions, as well as the

hat

impose additional reporting, disclosure,

or other requirements on IDIs, each

Federal banking agency must consider,

consistent with principles of safety and

soundness and the public interest, any

administrative burdens that such

regulations would place on affected

depository institutions, including small

depository institutions, and customers

of depository institutions, as well as the

benefits of such regulations. In addition,

section 302(b) of the RCDRIA requires

new regulations and amendments to

regulations that impose additional

reporting, disclosures, or other new

requirements on IDIs generally to take

effect on the first day of a calendar

quarter that begins on or after the date

on which the regulations are published

in final form. The FDIC invites

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33908

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

58 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).

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

comments that further will inform its

consideration of the RCDRIA.58

D. Providing Accountability Through

Transparency Act of 2023

The Providing Accountability

Through Transparency Act of 2023 59

requires that a notice of proposed

rulemaking include the internet address

of a summary of not more than 100

words in length of a proposed rule, in

plain language, that shall be posted on

the internet.

The FDIC proposes to modify the

procedures for an insured State

nonmember bank to establish a

domestic branch or relocate a domestic

main office or branch. The proposed

rule would eliminate certain filing

requirements, shorten processing

timelines, and eliminate public notice

procedures. The FDIC proposes to make

corresponding changes to the

procedures applicable to the relocation

of an insured branch of a foreign bank

procedures for an insured State

nonmember bank to establish a

domestic branch or relocate a domestic

main office or branch. The proposed

rule would eliminate certain filing

requirements, shorten processing

timelines, and eliminate public notice

procedures. The FDIC proposes to make

corresponding changes to the

procedures applicable to the relocation

of an insured branch of a foreign bank.

The FDIC also proposes to update

certain related definitions to further

streamline branch filing regulatory

compliance obligations.

The proposal and the required

summary can be found at https://

www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/

federal-register-publications/index.html.

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 14192

Executive Order 12866, as amended,

provides that the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will

review all ‘‘significant regulatory

actions’’ as defined therein. OIRA has

determined that this proposal is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ for

purposes of Executive Order 12866. The

proposal, if finalized as proposed, is not

expected to be an Executive Order

14192 regulatory action.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 303

Administrative practice and

procedure, Bank deposit insurance,

Banks, banking, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Savings

associations.

12 CFR Part 345

Banks, banking, Community

development, Credit, Investments,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR

parts 303 and 345 as follows:

PART 303—FILING PROCEDURES

■1. The authority citation for part 303

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815,

1817, 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth),

1820, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o,

1831p–1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105,

3108, 3207, 5414, 5415, and 15 U.S.C. 1601–

1607.

■2. In § 303.7, revise paragraphs (a) and

(c)(1)(i) to read as follows:

§ 303.7

Public notice requirements.

ority citation for part 303

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815,

1817, 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth),

1820, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o,

1831p–1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105,

3108, 3207, 5414, 5415, and 15 U.S.C. 1601–

1607.

■2. In § 303.7, revise paragraphs (a) and

(c)(1)(i) to read as follows:

§ 303.7

Public notice requirements.

(a) General. The public must be

provided with prior notice of a filing to

engage in a merger transaction, initiate

a change of control transaction, or

request deposit insurance. The public

has the right to comment on, or to

protest, these types of proposed

transactions during the relevant

comment period. In order to fully

apprise the public of this right, an

applicant shall publish a public notice

of its filing in a newspaper of general

circulation. For specific publication

requirements, consult subparts B

(Deposit Insurance), D (Merger

Transactions), and E (Change in Bank

Control) of this part.

*

*

*

*

*

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) In the case of an application for

deposit insurance for a de novo

depository institution, include the

names of all organizers or incorporators.

In the case of a merger application,

include the names of all parties to the

transaction. In the case of a notice of

acquisition of control, include the

name(s) of the acquiring parties.

*

*

*

*

*

§ 303.10

[Amended]

■3. In § 303.10, remove paragraphs

e of an application for

deposit insurance for a de novo

depository institution, include the

names of all organizers or incorporators.

In the case of a merger application,

include the names of all parties to the

transaction. In the case of a notice of

acquisition of control, include the

name(s) of the acquiring parties.

*

*

*

*

*

§ 303.10

[Amended]

■3. In § 303.10, remove paragraphs

(a)(2) and (3) and redesignate

paragraphs (a)(4) through (6) as

paragraphs (a)(2) through (4),

respectively.

§ 303.40

[Amended]

■4. In § 303.40:

■a. In paragraph (a), remove the word

‘‘application’’ and add, in its place, the

word ‘‘filing’’; and

■b. In paragraph (c), remove the word

‘‘Applications’’ and add, in its place, the

word ‘‘Filings’’.

■5. Amend § 303.41 by revising

paragraph (a) introductory text, revising

and republishing paragraph (b), revising

paragraph (c) introductory text, and

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 303.41

Definitions.

*

*

*

*

*

(a) Branch, except as provided in this

paragraph, includes any branch bank,

branch office, additional office, or any

branch place of business located in any

State of the United States or in any

territory of the United States, Puerto

Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust

Territory of the Pacific Islands, the

Virgin Islands, and the Northern

Mariana Islands at which deposits are

received or checks paid or money lent.

A branch does not include a remote

service unit or a facility described in

§ 303.45. The term branch also includes

the following:

*

*

*

*

*

ed States or in any

territory of the United States, Puerto

Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust

Territory of the Pacific Islands, the

Virgin Islands, and the Northern

Mariana Islands at which deposits are

received or checks paid or money lent.

A branch does not include a remote

service unit or a facility described in

§ 303.45. The term branch also includes

the following:

*

*

*

*

*

(b) Branch relocation means a move

within the same immediate

neighborhood of the existing branch that

does not substantially affect the nature

of the business of the branch or the

customers of the branch. Moving a

branch to a location outside its

immediate neighborhood is considered

the closing of an existing branch and the

establishment of a new branch. Closing

of a branch is covered in the FDIC

Statement of Policy Concerning Branch

Closing Notices and Policies. 1 FDIC

Law, Regulations, Related Acts 5391;

see § 309.4 (a) and (b) of this chapter for

availability.

(1) Rule of construction. For the

purposes of this subpart, a de minimis

change in address is neither a branch

establishment nor a branch relocation.

(i) A de minimis change in address

occurs when a branch exchanges one

physical facility for another within the

same approximate location, such as

where:

(A) A direct line of sight exists

between the two facilities;

(B) The facilities share the same

parking area; or

(C) The facilities are located on

contiguous properties or on the same

block.

(ii) Notice required. Notwithstanding

the inapplicability of §§ 303.42 through

303.44, an insured State nonmember

bank is required to provide reasonable

advance written notice to customers of

the branch undergoing a de minimis

address change and advance notice to

the appropriate FDIC office.

(2) [Reserved]

r

(C) The facilities are located on

contiguous properties or on the same

block.

(ii) Notice required. Notwithstanding

the inapplicability of §§ 303.42 through

303.44, an insured State nonmember

bank is required to provide reasonable

advance written notice to customers of

the branch undergoing a de minimis

address change and advance notice to

the appropriate FDIC office.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) De novo interstate branch means a

branch of a bank that is established by

the bank as a branch in a State other

than the bank’s home State or one in

which the bank does not maintain a

branch, and does not become a branch

of such bank as a result of:

*

*

*

*

*

(f) Remote service unit (RSU) is an

automated or unstaffed facility, operated

by a customer of a bank with at most

delimited assistance from bank

personnel, that conducts banking

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33909

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

functions such as receiving deposits,

paying withdrawals, or lending money.

An RSU includes an automated teller

machine, automated loan machine,

automated device for receiving deposits,

personal computer, telephone, other

similar electronic devices, and drop

boxes. An RSU may be equipped with

a telephone or tele-video device that

allows contact with bank personnel.

■6. Amend § 303.42 by revising

paragraph (a), revising and republishing

paragraph (b), and revising paragraph (c)

to read as follows:

§ 303.42

Filing procedures.

(a) General. Filings shall be submitted

to the appropriate FDIC office.

e, other

similar electronic devices, and drop

boxes. An RSU may be equipped with

a telephone or tele-video device that

allows contact with bank personnel.

■6. Amend § 303.42 by revising

paragraph (a), revising and republishing

paragraph (b), and revising paragraph (c)

to read as follows:

§ 303.42

Filing procedures.

(a) General. Filings shall be submitted

to the appropriate FDIC office.

(b) Content of filing. A complete letter

filing shall include the following

information:

(1) A statement of intent to establish

a branch, or to relocate the main office

or a branch;

(2) The exact location of the proposed

site including the street address. With

regard to messenger services, specify the

geographic area in which the services

will be available. With regard to a

mobile branch specify the community or

communities in which the vehicle will

operate and the manner in which it will

be used;

(3) When a filing is submitted to

relocate the main office of the bank from

one State to another, a statement of the

bank’s intent regarding retention of

branches in the State where the main

office exists prior to relocation; and

(4) With respect to a branch relocation

or a main office relocation, confirmation

that advance written notice was

provided to customers of the branch or

main office being relocated.

(c) Undercapitalized institutions.

Filings to establish a branch by banks

subject to section 38 of the FDI Act (12

U.S.C. 1831o) also should provide the

information required by § 303.204.

Filings pursuant to sections 38 and

18(d) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o

and 1828(d)) may be filed concurrently

or as a single filing.

*

*

*

*

*

■7. Amend § 303.43 by revising

paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph

(b) as paragraph (c) and adding a new

paragraph (b), and revising the newly

redesignated paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 303.43

Processing.

required by § 303.204.

Filings pursuant to sections 38 and

18(d) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o

and 1828(d)) may be filed concurrently

or as a single filing.

*

*

*

*

*

■7. Amend § 303.43 by revising

paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph

(b) as paragraph (c) and adding a new

paragraph (b), and revising the newly

redesignated paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 303.43

Processing.

(a) Expedited processing for branch

establishments. Filings to establish a

branch by an eligible depository

institution as defined in § 303.2(r) will

be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC

and will receive expedited processing.

A filing processed under expedited

processing will be deemed approved on

the later of the following:

(1) The third business day after

receipt by the FDIC of a substantially

complete filing; or

(2) In the case of a filing to establish

and operate a de novo interstate branch,

the 5th day after the FDIC receives

confirmation from the host State that the

bank has both complied with the filing

requirements of the host State and

submitted a copy of its filing with the

FDIC to the host State bank supervisor.

(b) Expedited processing for branch

relocations and main office relocations.

Filings for intrastate branch relocations

or intrastate main office relocations will

be acknowledged in writing by the FDIC

and will receive expedited processing if

the bank received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 3 or better under the

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating

System as a result of its most recent

federal or state examination. A filing

processed under expedited processing

will be deemed approved on the third

business day after receipt by the FDIC

of a substantially complete filing.

he FDIC

and will receive expedited processing if

the bank received an FDIC-assigned

composite rating of 3 or better under the

Uniform Financial Institutions Rating

System as a result of its most recent

federal or state examination. A filing

processed under expedited processing

will be deemed approved on the third

business day after receipt by the FDIC

of a substantially complete filing.

(c) Standard processing. For those

filings that are not processed pursuant

to the expedited procedures, the FDIC

will provide the bank with written

notification of the final action when the

decision is rendered.

■8. Remove § 303.44, redesignate

§ 303.45 as § 303.44 and revise to read

as follows:

§ 303.44

Special provisions.

(a) Emergency or disaster events.

(1) In the case of an emergency or

disaster at a main office or a branch that

requires that an office be immediately

relocated to a temporary location, banks

shall notify the appropriate FDIC office

within 3 days of such temporary

relocation.

(2) Within 10 days of the temporary

relocation resulting from an emergency

or disaster, the bank shall submit a

filing to the appropriate FDIC office,

that identifies the nature of the

emergency or disaster, specifies the

location of the temporary branch, and

provides an estimate of the duration the

bank plans to operate the temporary

branch.

(3) As part of the review process, the

FDIC will determine on a case by case

basis whether additional information is

necessary.

(b) Redesignation of main office and

existing branch. In cases where a bank

desires to redesignate its main office as

a branch and redesignate an existing

branch as the main office, a single filing

shall be submitted.

ank plans to operate the temporary

branch.

(3) As part of the review process, the

FDIC will determine on a case by case

basis whether additional information is

necessary.

(b) Redesignation of main office and

existing branch. In cases where a bank

desires to redesignate its main office as

a branch and redesignate an existing

branch as the main office, a single filing

shall be submitted.

(c) Expiration of approval. Approval

of a filing expires if within 18 months

after the approval date a branch has not

commenced business or a relocation has

not been completed.

■9. Redesignate § 303.46 as § 303.45

and revise the introductory text to read

as follows:

§ 303.45

Financial education programs

that include the provision of bank products

and services.

No filing or prior approval is required

in order for a State nonmember bank to

participate in one or more financial

education programs that involve

receiving deposits, paying withdrawals,

or lending money if:

*

*

*

*

*

■10. Amend § 303.184 by:

■a. Revising and republishing

paragraphs (a) and (b);

■b. Removing paragraph (c);

■c. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and

(e) as paragraphs (c) and (d),

respectively; and

■d. Revising and republishing newly

redesignated paragraphs (c) and (d).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 303.184

Moving an insured branch of a

foreign bank.

(a) Filing procedures—

(1) Where and when to file. A filing

by an insured branch of a foreign bank

seeking the FDIC’s consent to move

from one location to another, as

required by section 18(d)(1) of the FDI

Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(1)), shall be

submitted in writing to the appropriate

FDIC office.

(2) Content of filing. A complete letter

filing shall include the exact location of

the proposed site, including the street

address.

to file. A filing

by an insured branch of a foreign bank

seeking the FDIC’s consent to move

from one location to another, as

required by section 18(d)(1) of the FDI

Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(1)), shall be

submitted in writing to the appropriate

FDIC office.

(2) Content of filing. A complete letter

filing shall include the exact location of

the proposed site, including the street

address.

(3) Comptroller’s application. If the

filer is submitting an application with

the Comptroller that contains the

information required by paragraph (a)(2)

of this section, the filer may submit a

copy to the FDIC in lieu of a separate

filing.

(4) Additional information. The FDIC

may request additional information to

complete processing.

(b) Processing—

(1) Expedited processing for eligible

insured branches. A filing submitted by

an eligible insured branch as defined in

§ 303.181(c) will be acknowledged in

writing by the FDIC and will receive

expedited processing if the filer is

proposing to move within the same

State. A filing processed under

expedited processing will be deemed

approved on the third business day after

the FDIC’s receipt of a substantially

complete filing.

(2) Standard processing. For those

filings that are not processed pursuant

to the expedited procedures, the FDIC

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33910

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

will provide the filer with written

notification of the final action as soon

as the decision is rendered.

(c) Other approval criteria.

(1) The FDIC may approve a filing

under this section if the criteria in

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this

section are satisfied.

d on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

33910

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

will provide the filer with written

notification of the final action as soon

as the decision is rendered.

(c) Other approval criteria.

(1) The FDIC may approve a filing

under this section if the criteria in

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this

section are satisfied.

(i) The factors set forth in section 6 of

the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1816) have been

considered and favorably resolved;

(ii) The filer is at least adequately

capitalized as defined in subpart H of

part 324 of this chapter;

(iii) Any financial arrangements that

have been made in connection with the

proposed relocation and that involve the

filer’s directors, officers, major

shareholders, or their interests are fair

and reasonable in comparison to similar

arrangements that could have been

made with independent third parties;

(iv) Compliance with the CRA and

any applicable related regulations,

including part 345 of this chapter, has

been considered and favorably resolved;

(v) No CRA protest as defined in

§ 303.2(l) has been filed that remains

unresolved or, where such a protest has

been filed and remains unresolved, the

Director or designee concurs that

approval is consistent with the purposes

of the CRA and the filer agrees in

writing to any conditions imposed

regarding the CRA; and

(vi) The filer agrees in writing to

comply with any conditions imposed by

the FDIC, other than the standard

conditions defined in § 303.2(dd) that

may be imposed without the filer’s

written consent.

(2) [Reserved]

(d) Relocation of insured branch from

one State to another. If the foreign bank

proposes to relocate an insured State

branch to a State that is outside the

State where the branch is presently

located, in addition to meeting the

approval criteria contained in paragraph

the standard

conditions defined in § 303.2(dd) that

may be imposed without the filer’s

written consent.

(2) [Reserved]

(d) Relocation of insured branch from

one State to another. If the foreign bank

proposes to relocate an insured State

branch to a State that is outside the

State where the branch is presently

located, in addition to meeting the

approval criteria contained in paragraph

(c) of this section, the foreign bank

must:

(1) Comply with any applicable State

laws or regulations of the States affected

by the proposed relocation; and

(2) Obtain any required regulatory

approvals from the appropriate State

licensing authority of the State to which

the insured branch proposes to relocate

before relocating the existing branch

operations and surrendering its existing

license to the appropriate State

licensing authority of the State from

which the branch is relocating.

PART 345—COMMUNITY

REINVESTMENT

■11. The authority citation for part 345

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1814–1817, 1819–

1820, 1828, 1831u, 2901–2908, 3103–3104,

and 3108(a).

■12. In appendix G to part 345, revise

§ 345.29(c) to read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 345—Community

Reinvestment Regulations

*

*

*

*

*

§ 345.29

Effect of CRA performance on

applications.

*

*

*

*

*

(c) Interested parties. The FDIC takes

into account any views expressed by

interested parties that are submitted in

accordance with the FDIC’s procedures

set forth in part 303 of this chapter in

considering CRA performance in an

application listed in paragraphs (a)(3)

and (4) and (b) of this section.

*

*

*

*

*

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, on July 15, 2025.

Debra A. Decker,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc

es that are submitted in

accordance with the FDIC’s procedures

set forth in part 303 of this chapter in

considering CRA performance in an

application listed in paragraphs (a)(3)

and (4) and (b) of this section.

*

*

*

*

*

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, on July 15, 2025.

Debra A. Decker,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2025–13568 Filed 7–17–25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 354

RIN 3064–AF88

Parent Companies of Industrial Banks

and Industrial Loan Companies;

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is

withdrawing a notice of proposed

rulemaking relating to parent companies

of industrial banks and industrial loan

companies. If the FDIC decides to make

changes in this area, it will do so

through a future regulatory action.

DATES: The FDIC is withdrawing the

proposed rule published at 89 FR 65556

(August 12, 2024) as of July 18, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Topping, Counsel, (202) 898–

3975, ctopping@fdic.gov; Gregory Feder,

Counsel, (202) 898–8724, gfeder@

fdic.gov; Rachel Harrison, Attorney,

(703) 562–6471, racharrison@fdic.gov,

Legal Division; Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street

NW, Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FDIC is withdrawing the notice of

proposed rulemaking described below.

The FDIC no longer intends to issue a

final rule with respect to this proposal.

If the FDIC decides to make changes in

this area, it will do so through a future

regulatory action

Legal Division; Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street

NW, Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FDIC is withdrawing the notice of

proposed rulemaking described below.

The FDIC no longer intends to issue a

final rule with respect to this proposal.

If the FDIC decides to make changes in

this area, it will do so through a future

regulatory action.

Parent Companies of Industrial Banks

and Industrial Loan Companies

On August 12, 2024, the FDIC

published a proposed rule that would

have revised the criteria that the FDIC

would consider when assessing risks

presented to an industrial bank or

industrial loan company (collectively,

industrial bank) by its parent

organization. The proposed

amendments would have changed the

scope of 12 CFR part 354 to include

conversions involving a proposed

industrial bank under section 5 of the

Home Owners’ Loan Act or other

transactions as determined by the FDIC,

changes of control or mergers of parent

companies, and other instances when an

industrial bank becomes a subsidiary of

a company not subject to Federal

consolidated supervision. Additionally,

the proposed amendments would have

clarified the relationship between

written commitments and the FDIC’s

evaluation of the relevant statutory

factors. The proposed amendments also

would have set forth additional criteria

that the FDIC would consider when

assessing the risks presented to an

industrial bank by its parent company

and any affiliates and evaluating the

institution’s ability to function

independently of the parent company

and any affiliates.

The FDIC is separately soliciting

information and comments from

interested parties on how the FDIC

reviews filings submitted by industrial

banks

riteria

that the FDIC would consider when

assessing the risks presented to an

industrial bank by its parent company

and any affiliates and evaluating the

institution’s ability to function

independently of the parent company

and any affiliates.

The FDIC is separately soliciting

information and comments from

interested parties on how the FDIC

reviews filings submitted by industrial

banks. This feedback will inform

potential changes to how the FDIC

evaluates the statutory factors

applicable to each filing in light of the

unique aspects of industrial bank

business plans and the broad range of

companies that may seek to establish an

industrial bank.

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

The FDIC is withdrawing the

proposed rule because, as noted above,

it no longer intends to issue a final rule

with respect to this proposal. If the FDIC

decides to pursue future regulatory

action in this area, it will do so by

publishing a new proposed rule or other

issuance consistent with the

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act, as applicable.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Jul 17, 2025

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM

18JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS