Final Rule

87734

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 370
RIN 3064–AE33

Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit
Insurance Determination
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The FDIC is adopting a final
rule to facilitate prompt payment of
FDIC-insured deposits when large
insured depository institutions fail. The
final rule requires each insured
depository institution that has two
million or more deposit accounts to (1)
configure its information technology
system to be capable of calculating the
insured and uninsured amount in each
deposit account by ownership right and
capacity, which would be used by the
FDIC to make deposit insurance
determinations in the event of the
institution’s failure, and (2) maintain
complete and accurate information
needed by the FDIC to determine
deposit insurance coverage with respect
to each deposit account, except as
otherwise provided.
DATES: Effective April 1, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc Steckel, Deputy Director, Division
of Resolutions and Receiverships, 571–
858–8224; Teresa J. Franks, Associate
Director, Division of Resolutions and
Receiverships, 571–858–8226; Shane
Kiernan, Counsel, Legal Division, 703–
562–2632; Karen L. Main, Counsel,
Legal Division, 703–562–2079.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

I. Policy Objectives
With this final rule (‘‘final rule’’), the
FDIC adopts regulatory requirements
that will facilitate the FDIC’s prompt
payment of deposit insurance after the
failure of insured depository institutions
(‘‘IDIs’’) with two million or more
deposit accounts. These institutions are
typically large and complex. By law, the
FDIC must pay deposit insurance ‘‘as
soon as possible’’ after an IDI fails while
also resolving the IDI in the manner
least costly to the Deposit Insurance
Fund (‘‘DIF’’).1 The FDIC believes that
prompt payment of deposit insurance is
essential to the FDIC’s mission for
several reasons. First, prompt payment
of deposit insurance maintains public
confidence in the FDIC, the banking
system and overall financial stability.
Second, facilitating prompt access to
1 12

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

insured funds for depositors enables
them to meet their financial needs and
obligations. A delay in the payment of
deposit insurance—especially in the
case of the failure of one of the largest
IDIs—could harm the entire financial
system and national economy. For
example, the failure of such a large IDI
could cause disruptions to check
clearing processes, direct debit
arrangements, or other payment system
functions. Third, prompt payment can
help to avoid a reduction in franchise
value by expanding options for
resolution thereby decreasing potential
losses to the DIF. Fourth, the final rule
seeks to promote long term stability in
the banking system by reducing moral
hazard.
The final rule is expected to
significantly reduce the difficulties the
FDIC would face in making prompt
deposit insurance determinations at the
largest IDIs. While the FDIC is
authorized to rely upon the deposit
account records of a failed IDI to
determine deposit insurance coverage,
the institution’s records can be
voluminous and inconsistent. Moreover,
they may be incomplete for deposit
insurance purposes. Consolidation of
the banking industry has resulted in
larger institutions that have more
complex information technology
systems (‘‘IT systems’’) and data
management challenges. The final rule
generally requires IDIs with two million
or more deposit accounts (‘‘covered
institutions’’) to maintain complete and
accurate depositor information and to
configure their IT systems in a manner
that permits the FDIC to calculate
deposit insurance coverage promptly in
the event of failure.
The final rule will facilitate
consideration of the full range of
resolution options that can be invoked
by the FDIC to resolve a covered
institution in a manner that satisfies the
least-cost resolution requirement. These
resolution methods include: Purchaseand-assumption transactions;
establishment of bridge depository
institutions; and payout and liquidation,
in which the FDIC pays depositors the
insured amount of their deposits and
liquidates the failed IDI’s assets to pay
remaining claims. Expanding the range
of resolution options and including
those that impose losses on uninsured
depositors can also improve market
discipline.
In order to resolve a bank under the
least-cost requirement, the FDIC must be
able to estimate the cost to the DIF of
each possible resolution type. As part of
this estimate, the FDIC must be able to
rapidly identify insured versus
uninsured deposits. Insufficient

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

information about a bank’s insured
deposits and the difficulties posed in
identifying relationships between
deposit accounts at the time of closing,
due in part to the large volume of
deposit accounts managed by the
institution, may impede the FDIC’s
ability to meet the least-cost
requirement or to ensure timely access
to insured funds.
Covered institutions often use
multiple deposit systems, which
complicates deposit insurance
determinations. Depending on the
structure of the deposit systems, data
aggregation and account identification
may be burdensome, inefficient, and
time-consuming, all adding to the cost
of resolution. For certain types of
deposit accounts, depositors need daily
access to funds, so prompt payment is
essential to providing confidence and
maintaining financial stability. While
challenges resulting from incomplete
information are present when any bank
fails, obtaining the necessary
information could significantly delay
the availability of funds when
information is incomplete for a large
number of accounts. Such delays could
lead to a decrease in public confidence
in the FDIC’s deposit insurance
program. Ensuring the swift availability
of funds for millions of depositors at a
large institution promotes financial
stability by increasing confidence in
deposit insurance and availability of
funds.
Another of the final rule’s policy
objectives is that depositors at both large
and small failed banks receive the same
prompt access to their deposits with full
recognition of and respect for the
deposit insurance limits, which should
reduce potential disparities that might
undermine market discipline or create
unintended competitive advantages in
the deposit market. Confidence in the
ability of the FDIC to promptly
determine insured amounts and provide
access to insured deposits should help
uninsured depositors realize that they
may face losses in a large bank failure.
This realization should mitigate moral
hazard and help to curtail excessive risk
taking on the part of the largest banks.
II. Background
A. Legal Authority
The FDIC is authorized to prescribe
rules and regulations as it may deem
necessary to carry out the provisions of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (‘‘FDI
Act’’).2 Under the FDI Act, the FDIC is
responsible for paying deposit insurance
‘‘as soon as possible’’ following the
2 12 U.S.C. 1819(a) (Tenth), 1820(g),
1821(d)(4)(B)(iv).

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
failure of an IDI.3 It must also
implement the resolution of a failed IDI
at the least cost to the DIF.4 To pay
deposit insurance, the FDIC uses a
failed IDI’s records to aggregate the
amounts of all deposits that are
maintained by a depositor in the same
right and capacity and then applies the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount (‘‘SMDIA’’) of $250,000.5 As
authorized by law, the FDIC generally
relies on the failed institution’s deposit
account records to identify deposit
owners and the right and capacity in
which deposits are maintained.6 The
FDIC has a right and a duty under
section 7(a)(9) of the FDI Act to take
action as necessary to ensure that each
IDI maintains, and the FDIC receives on
a regular basis from such IDI,
information on the total amount of all
insured deposits, preferred deposits,
and uninsured deposits at the
institution.7 Requiring covered
institutions to maintain complete and
accurate records regarding the
ownership and insurability of deposits
and to have an IT system that can be
used to calculate deposit insurance
coverage in the event of failure will
facilitate the FDIC’s prompt payment of
deposit insurance and enhance the
ability to implement the least costly
resolution of these institutions.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

B. Current Regulatory Approach
Although the statutory requirement
that the FDIC pay insurance ‘‘as soon as
possible’’ does not specify a time period
for paying insured depositors, the FDIC
strives to pay depositors promptly in the
event of an IDI’s failure. Indeed, the
FDIC strives to make most insured
deposits available to depositors by the
next business day after a bank fails. For
the reasons set forth earlier, the FDIC
believes that prompt payment of deposit
insurance is essential.
The FDIC took an initial step toward
ensuring that prompt deposit insurance
determinations could be made at large
IDIs through the issuance of § 360.9 of
the FDIC’s regulations.8 Section 360.9
applies to IDIs with at least $2 billion
in domestic deposits and at least
250,000 deposit accounts or $20 billion
in total assets.9 Currently, there are 155
IDIs that meet those criteria. Section
360.9 requires these institutions to be
able to provide the FDIC with standard
deposit account information that can be
3 12

U.S.C. 1821(f)(1).
U.S.C. 1823(c)(4).
5 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(C), 1821(a)(1)(E).
6 12 U.S.C. 1822(c), 12 CFR 330.5.
7 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(9).
8 12 CFR 360.9. See 73 FR 41180 (July 17, 2008).
9 12 CFR 360.9(b)(1).
4 12

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

used in the event of the institution’s
failure. The appendices to 12 CFR part
360 prescribe the form and content of
the data files that those institutions
must provide to the FDIC. Section 360.9
also requires these institutions to
maintain the technological capability to
automatically place (and later release)
provisional holds on deposit accounts if
an insurance determination could not be
made by the FDIC by the next business
day after failure. Additionally, large
volumes of deposit account data must
be transferred from the IDI to the FDIC
pursuant to § 360.9, which could cause
further delay.
While § 360.9 would assist the FDIC
in fulfilling its legal mandates regarding
the resolution of a failed institution that
is subject to that rule, the FDIC believes
that if the largest of depository
institutions were to fail with little prior
warning, additional measures would be
needed to ensure the prompt and
accurate payment of deposit insurance
to all depositors.
C. Need for Further Rulemaking
The FDIC is authorized to rely upon
the deposit account records of a failed
IDI to determine the amount of deposit
insurance available on each account.
However, in the FDIC’s experience, it is
not unusual for a failed bank’s records
to be ambiguous or incomplete. For
example, an account may be titled as a
joint account but may not qualify to be
insured as a joint account because
signature cards are missing or have not
been signed by all joint account holders.
A further complication is that bank
records on trust accounts are often in
paper form or electronically scanned
images that require a time-consuming
manual review.
In addition to problems with
ambiguity or incompleteness of an
institution’s records, it is also possible
that an institution simply is not
required to maintain record of the
beneficial owners of deposits with
respect to certain types of deposit
accounts under the existing regulatory
framework. For example, under part
330, a deposit may be insured even if
record of beneficial ownership is
maintained outside of the IDI by an
agent or third party that has been
designated to maintain such record.
Under each of these circumstances, in
order to ensure the accurate payment of
deposit insurance without imposing risk
of overpayment by the DIF, the FDIC
would need to delay the payment of
deposit insurance while it manually
reviews files and obtains additional
information. Such delays in the
insurance determination process could
increase the likelihood of disruptions to

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87735

an assuming institution’s or an FDICmanaged bridge depository institution’s
payment processing functions, such as
clearing checks and authorizing direct
debits.
While these challenges to accurately
determining and promptly paying
deposit insurance may be present at any
size of failed institution, they become
increasingly formidable as the size and
complexity of the institution increases.
Larger institutions are generally more
complex, have more deposit accounts,
greater geographic dispersion, multiple
deposit systems, and more issues with
data accuracy and completeness. The
largest IDIs which grew through
acquisition have inherited the legacy
recordkeeping and deposit account
systems of the acquired banks. Those
systems might have inaccurate or
incomplete deposit account records.
Additionally, acquired records might
not be automated or compatible with the
acquiring institution’s deposit systems,
resulting in use of multiple deposit
platforms.
Although some of the largest
institutions are able to conduct their
banking operations without integrating
these inherited systems or updating the
acquired deposit account records, the
state of their deposit systems would
complicate and prolong the deposit
insurance determination process in the
event of failure. Because of the potential
problems posed by delays in
determination and payment of deposit
insurance, improved strategies must be
implemented to ensure that deposit
insurance can be paid promptly.
The FDIC’s experiences during the
most recent financial crisis, which
peaked in the months following the
promulgation of § 360.9, indicated that
failures can often happen with very
little notice and time for the FDIC to
prepare. Since 2009, the FDIC was
called upon to resolve 47 institutions
with 30 days or less to plan the
resolution (which includes review of
deposit account records). While these 47
institutions were smaller, the financial
condition of two banks with a very large
number of deposit accounts—
Washington Mutual Bank and
Wachovia—deteriorated very quickly,
also leaving the FDIC little time to
prepare.10 If a large bank were to fail
because of liquidity problems rather
than capital deterioration, for example,
the FDIC would anticipate having less
lead time to prepare to make deposit
insurance determinations, which could
result in the need for more time post10 In their final Call Reports (2Q–08) Washington
Mutual reported 42 million deposit accounts and
Wachovia reported 29 million deposit accounts.

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87736

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

failure and less prompt payment of
deposit insurance.
The FDIC has worked with
institutions covered by § 360.9 for
several years to confirm their ability to
comply with that rule’s requirements.
This implementation process has led the
FDIC to conclude that the standard data
sets and other requirements of § 360.9
are not sufficient to mitigate the
complexities presented in the failure of
the largest institutions. Based on its
experience reviewing deposit data (and
often finding inaccurate or incomplete
data), deposit recordkeeping systems,
and capabilities for imposing
provisional holds in the course of its
§ 360.9 compliance visits, the FDIC
believes that § 360.9 has not been as
effective as intended in enhancing the
capacity of the FDIC to make prompt
deposit insurance determinations
necessary for the largest IDIs.
Specifically, the continued growth in
the number of deposit accounts at larger
IDIs and the number and complexity of
deposit systems used by many of these
institutions since the promulgation of
§ 360.9 would exacerbate the difficulties
present in making prompt deposit
insurance determinations. Additionally,
the institutions covered by § 360.9 are
permitted discretion when populating
the data fields that often results in
missing information.
A failed IDI that has multiple deposit
systems would further complicate the
aggregation of deposits by depositor in
a particular right and capacity, causing
additional delay. Additionally, deposit
taking practices have evolved, and
innovative products and services have
proliferated throughout the financial
services markets. Customer use of
deposit accounts has changed. Accounts
that may have been used in the past as
traditional savings vehicles are now
used more frequently for transactional
purposes. For example, checking
accounts held in connection with a
formal revocable trust are used to pay
for everyday living expenses. Brokered
deposits are sometimes held in money
market deposit accounts (‘‘MMDAs’’).
Using the FDIC’s IT system to make
deposit insurance determinations at a
failed institution with a large number of
deposit accounts would require the
transmission of massive amounts of
deposit data from the IDI’s IT system to
the FDIC’s IT system. The transfer of
such a large volume of data would be
very time consuming and the time
required for processing that data would
present a significant impediment to
making deposit insurance
determinations in the timely manner
that the public has come to expect. The
38 institutions currently covered by the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

final rule each have between 2 million
and 87 million deposit accounts as of
June 30, 2016. Requiring these covered
institutions to enhance their deposit
account data and upgrade their IT
systems so that the FDIC can promptly
determine deposit insurance available
on most deposit accounts using the
covered institutions’ IT systems would
help to resolve the timing issues
presented when transferring and
processing such a large volume of
deposit data.
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
On April 28, 2015, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) seeking comment
on whether certain IDIs such as those
that have two million or more deposit
accounts should be required to take
steps to ensure that depositors would
have access to their FDIC-insured funds
in a timely manner (usually within one
business day of failure) if one of these
institutions were to fail.11 Specifically,
the FDIC sought comment on whether
these IDIs should be required to
enhance their recordkeeping to maintain
and be able to provide substantially
more accurate and complete data on
each depositor’s ownership interest by
right and capacity for all or a large
subset of the institution’s deposit
accounts. The FDIC sought comment on
whether these IDIs’ IT systems should
have the capability to calculate the
insured and uninsured amounts for each
depositor by deposit insurance right and
capacity for all or a substantial subset of
deposit accounts at the end of any
business day. The FDIC also sought
comment on the potential costs and
benefits associated with instituting such
requirements. The comment period
ended on July 27, 2015. The FDIC
received 10 comment letters. The FDIC
also had six meetings or conference
calls with banks, trade groups, and
software providers.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Following the ANPR, the FDIC
developed and then published in the
Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ‘‘Recordkeeping for
Timely Deposit Insurance
Determination’’ soliciting public
comment on its proposal to require each
IDI with two million or more deposit
accounts to maintain complete and
accurate information needed to allow
the FDIC to determine promptly the
deposit insurance coverage for each
deposit account, and to have an IT
11 80

PO 00000

FR 23478 (April 28, 2015).

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

system that is capable of calculating the
insured and uninsured amounts for all
deposit accounts in accordance with the
FDIC’s deposit insurance rules set forth
in 12 CFR part 330 (the ‘‘NPR’’ for the
‘‘proposed rule’’).12 Under the proposed
rule, each covered institution’s IT
system would facilitate the FDIC’s
deposit insurance determination by
being able to calculate deposit insurance
coverage for each deposit account and
adjust account balances to the insured
amount within 24 hours after the
appointment of the FDIC as receiver
should the covered institution fail.
Relief from the proposed rule’s
requirements would have come in the
form of: An extension of the
implementation deadlines; an exception
from the information collection
requirements for certain deposit
accounts or types of deposit accounts if
conditions for exception could be met;
exemption from all of the proposed
rule’s requirements if all the deposits a
covered institution takes are fully
insured; or release from all of the
proposed rule’s requirements when a
covered institution no longer meets the
definition of a covered institution. Each
covered institution would need to
certify compliance with the proposed
rule annually, with enforcement
measures to be taken in accordance with
§ 8 of the FDI Act, if necessary.
The NPR’s comment period expired
on June 27, 2016. The FDIC received 14
comment letters in total from IDIs,
industry trade associations, financial
intermediaries, mortgage servicing
companies, technology firms, an
industry consultant, and an individual.
In addition, FDIC staff participated in
meetings or conference calls with
industry representatives. The FDIC
considered all of the comments it
received when developing the final rule,
and the comments and the FDIC’s
responses are discussed in VI.
Discussion of Comments.
III. Description of the Final Rule
A. Summary
The scope of the final rule is
unchanged from the NPR. It applies to
any IDI that has two million or more
deposit accounts, defined as a ‘‘covered
institution.’’ As contemplated by the
proposed rule, under the final rule, each
covered institution must configure its IT
system to be capable of accurately
calculating the deposit insurance
available for each deposit account in
accordance with the FDIC’s deposit
insurance rules set forth in 12 CFR part
330 should the covered institution fail.
12 81

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

FR 10026 (February 26, 2016).

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The FDIC would use the covered
institution’s IT system to facilitate the
deposit insurance determinations in the
event of the covered institution’s failure.
In order for the FDIC to effectively use
the covered institution’s IT system to
calculate deposit insurance, the covered
institution’s deposit account records
must contain certain information
concerning the identity of the owner of
the funds on deposit and details about
the right and capacity in which the
deposit is held for deposit insurance
purposes. The proposed rule would
have required covered institutions to
maintain this information in their
deposit account records for all accounts
unless the FDIC granted the covered
institution an exception from this
requirement. In light of comments
received in response to the NPR, the
final rule modifies this approach.
Recognizing that insured depository
institutions do not maintain all
information needed for deposit
insurance determination in their deposit
account records for every account, along
with the significant challenges
associated with collecting that
information, the FDIC has bifurcated the
recordkeeping requirement.
Under the final rule’s general
recordkeeping requirements, a covered
institution will need to ensure that its
deposit account records contain the
information needed for its IT system to
be able to calculate deposit insurance
coverage for those deposit accounts for
which it already maintains the
necessary information. A covered
institution should, in the normal course
of business, already maintain in its
deposit account records the information
necessary to do this for: Single
ownership accounts; joint ownership
accounts; accounts held by a
corporation, partnership, or
unincorporated association for
themselves; informal revocable trust
(i.e., ‘‘payable-on-death’’ or ‘‘in-trustfor’’) accounts; and any account of an
irrevocable trust for which the covered
institution itself is the trustee.
The final rule recognizes that, under
the FDIC’s deposit insurance rules set
forth in 12 CFR part 330, the amount of
deposit insurance available may not be
determinable without reference to
information that an IDI does not, and is
not otherwise required to, maintain in
its deposit account records under the
existing regulatory framework. After an
IDI fails, this information must be
provided to the FDIC so that the FDIC
can determine the full amount of
deposit insurance available.
Accordingly, under the final rule, a
covered institution does not need to
meet the general recordkeeping

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

requirements described in this section,
but may instead meet alternative
recordkeeping requirements with
respect to certain types of deposit
accounts for which it is not required
under 12 CFR part 330 to maintain in
its deposit account records the
information that would be needed for
the FDIC to determine the full amount
of deposit insurance coverage. Certain
additional provisions apply to deposit
accounts with transactional features.
To meet the alternative recordkeeping
requirements, the covered institution
must maintain in its deposit account
records certain information that will
facilitate the FDIC’s prompt collection
of the information needed to determine
deposit insurance with respect to those
deposit accounts after its failure. These
alternative recordkeeping requirements
apply to deposit accounts that would be
insured on a ‘‘pass-through’’ basis (such
as brokered deposits) because beneficial
owner information is not maintained by
the covered institution, and to deposit
accounts for which the amount of
insurance is dependent on additional
facts (such as deposit accounts held in
connection with a trust). The FDIC also
recognizes that it may not always be
feasible for a covered institution to
maintain information in its deposit
account records needed to calculate the
deposit insurance with respect to
official items prior to presentment and,
therefore, if the information needed for
deposit insurance calculation is not
available, the covered institution will
need to maintain in its deposit account
records certain information that will
facilitate the FDIC’s deposit insurance
determination after the failure of a
covered institution.
For deposit accounts with
‘‘transactional features’’ for which the
covered institution maintains its deposit
account records in accordance with the
alternative recordkeeping requirements
set forth in § 370.4(b)(1), a covered
institution must certify that the
information needed to calculate deposit
insurance coverage will be submitted to
the FDIC so that deposit insurance can
be determined within 24 hours after the
appointment of the FDIC as receiver.
The FDIC has been concerned about
timely deposit insurance determinations
for accounts with transactional features
since the inception of this rulemaking
process. One of the options presented in
the ANPR was that ‘‘[f]or a large subset
of deposits (‘‘closing night deposits’’),
including those where depositors have
the greatest need for immediate access
to funds (such as transaction accounts
and money market deposit accounts
(‘‘MMDAs’’), deposit insurance
determinations would be made on

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87737

closing night.’’ 13 The FDIC
acknowledged that the concept of
‘‘closing night deposits’’ served as a
proxy for those deposit accounts for
which depositors would expect
immediate access to their funds on the
next business day. The ANPR explained
that in order to make deposit insurance
determinations on closing night, the
covered institutions would be required
to: ‘‘Obtain and maintain data on all
closing night deposits . . . at the end of
any business day (since failure can
occur on any business day).’’ 14 The
ANPR solicited comment from the
banking industry regarding what types
of deposits should be considered as
‘‘closing night deposits.’’
After reviewing the comments
received on the ANPR, the FDIC
concluded that there really was no
consensus among the potentially
covered institutions regarding what
types of deposits could be designated as
‘‘closing night deposits.’’ As a result, the
FDIC adopted the approach in the
proposed rule that, generally, covered
institutions would need to collect and
maintain the necessary depositor
information for all deposit accounts
unless the conditions for exception
could be satisfied. Then, the FDIC
would have all the depositor
information necessary to begin the
deposit insurance determinations
immediately upon the covered
institution’s failure. However, in
response to the commenters’ objections
to the proposed rule’s approach, the
FDIC developed the bifurcated approach
set forth in the final rule. In this way,
the final rule is consistent with the
recordkeeping standards established in
§§ 330.5 and 330.7; i.e., the deposit
records for certain types of deposit
accounts may be maintained off-site and
with third parties rather than at the
covered institution. Nevertheless, the
requisite beneficial ownership
information for those accounts must be
made available to the FDIC so that the
deposit insurance determination can be
completed during the closing night
process. The FDIC believes that
requiring covered institutions to certify
that the information needed to calculate
deposit insurance coverage for certain
deposit accounts with transactional
features will be submitted to the FDIC
by the respective account holder in time
for the calculation to be performed
within 24 hours after the appointment
of the FDIC as receiver is important to
ensure that the FDIC can make deposit
insurance determinations expeditiously
13 80

FR 23478, 23480 (April 28, 2015).

14 Id.

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

87738

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

after failure of a covered institution to
avoid delays in payment processing.
The proposed rule would have
provided a two-year timeframe for
implementation of IT system and
recordkeeping requirements. Under the
final rule, a covered institution has
three years after the effective date for
implementation and can apply to the
FDIC for extension of that timeframe.
B. Section-by-Section Description of the
Final Rule
1. Section 370.1

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the final rule is to
help the FDIC overcome the challenges
it faces when fulfilling its statutory
mandate to pay deposit insurance as
soon as possible after the failure of an
IDI with millions of deposit accounts at
the least cost to the DIF. These
challenges become more pronounced as
the number of deposit accounts at an IDI
rises above two million. Moreover, the
number of deposit accounts is highly
correlated with other attributes that
contribute to this challenge, such as the
complexity of account relationships and
the use of multiple deposit systems by
these institutions. Accordingly, the final
rule requires IDIs with two million or
more deposit accounts to configure their
IT systems to be capable of calculating
the amount of deposit insurance
coverage available for each deposit
account in the event of failure.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

2. Section 370.2

Definitions

This section provides definitions of
terms that are used in the final rule. A
covered institution is an IDI which,
based on its Reports of Condition and
Income (‘‘Call Reports’’) filed with the
appropriate Federal banking agency, has
two million or more deposit accounts
during the two consecutive quarters
preceding the effective date of the final
rule or thereafter.
For purposes of the final rule, account
holder is defined as the person who has
opened a deposit account with a
covered institution and with whom the
covered institution has a direct legal
and contractual relationship with
respect to the deposit. An account
holder is often, but not always, the
person who actually owns deposits in a
deposit account, and to whom deposit
insurance inures under the FDIC’s
deposit insurance rules set forth in 12
CFR part 330. The person who actually
owns the deposits is commonly referred
to as the ‘‘beneficial owner’’ of a deposit
or as the ‘‘principal.’’ When the account
holder does not have ownership rights
to deposits, it is typically acting as an
agent, custodian, or fiduciary on behalf
of the beneficial owner of the deposit.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

In these situations, deposit insurance
coverage can ‘‘pass through’’ the
account holder to the beneficial owner
of the deposit, and the deposit would be
insured to the beneficial owner based on
the deposit insurance right and capacity
in which those deposits are owned.
Because the account holder is the party
with whom a covered institution has a
deposit account relationship, it is the
account holder who will need to
provide the information needed for
purposes of calculating deposit
insurance. For that reason, the final
rule’s recordkeeping requirements with
respect to certain deposit accounts are
framed around the relationship between
the covered institution and the account
holder.
Several terms are defined by reference
to their statutory or regulatory
definitions. Specifically, brokered
deposit has the same meaning as
provided in 12 CFR 337.6(a)(2); deposit
has the same meaning as provided
under section 3(l) of FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
1813(l)); deposit account records has the
same meaning as provided in 12 CFR
330.1(e); and standard maximum
deposit insurance amount (or ‘‘SMDIA’’)
has the same meaning as provided
pursuant to section 11(a)(1)(E) of the
FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(E)) and 12
CFR 330.1(o). Ownership rights and
capacities are set forth in 12 CFR part
330.
Compliance date means the date that
is three years after the later of the
effective date of this part or the date on
which an IDI becomes a covered
institution. In response to the NPR,
commenters had suggested that a fouryear implementation period be
provided. In light of the bifurcated
approach to recordkeeping taken in the
final rule, the FDIC believes that a threeyear implementation period will be
sufficient.
Payment instrument means a check,
draft, warrant, money order, traveler’s
check, electronic instrument, or other
instrument, payment of funds, or
monetary value (other than currency).
This definition is consistent with
§ 1002(18) of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5481(18)) and common banking usage.
Transactional features, with respect
to a deposit account, means that the
depositor or account holder can make
transfers or withdrawals from the
deposit account to make payments or
transfers to third persons or others
(including another account of the
depositor or account holder at the same
institution or at a different institution)
by means of a negotiable or transferable
instrument, payment order of
withdrawal, check, draft, prepaid

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

account access device, debit card, or
other similar order made by the
depositor and payable to third parties,
or by means of a telephonic (including
data transmission) agreement, order or
instruction, or by means of an
instruction made at an automated teller
machine or similar terminal or unit. For
purposes of this definition, ‘‘telephonic
(including data transmission)
agreement, order or instruction’’
includes orders and instructions made
by means of facsimile, computer,
internet, handheld device, or other
similar means. When interpreting this
definition, the FDIC will consider the
frequency with which a depositor or
account holder may make transfers or
withdrawals with respect to a deposit
account, in addition to other account
features. For example, an account
comprised of time deposits will not be
deemed to have transactional features
solely because it allows a depositor or
account holder who is not the beneficial
owner to redeem or withdraw the time
deposit and transfer the proceeds on a
one-time basis to the beneficial owner.
Unique identifier means an alphanumeric code associated with an
individual or entity that is used by a
covered institution to monitor its
relationship with only that individual or
entity. The unique identifier may be, but
is not required to be, a governmentissued identification number such as a
social security number or tax
identification number. It could also be
a customer identification number
already in use by the covered institution
for other operational or regulatory
purposes.
3. Section 370.3 Information
Technology System Requirements
As was proposed in the NPR, each
covered institution is required to
configure its IT system to be capable of
accurately calculating the deposit
insurance available to each beneficial
owner of funds on deposit in
accordance with the FDIC’s deposit
insurance rules set forth in 12 CFR part
330. Additionally, the IT system must
be able to adjust account balances
within 24 hours after the appointment
of the FDIC as receiver. Each covered
institution’s IT system would need to be
capable of grouping each beneficial
owner’s deposits within the applicable
ownership right and capacity because
deposit insurance is available up to the
SMDIA for each ownership right and
capacity in which the deposits are held.
To do this, a covered institution must
maintain in its deposit account records
certain information, as described in
§ 370.4. The covered institution’s IT
system would also need to be able to

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
generate a record that reflects the
deposit insurance calculation. This
record would contain, at a minimum,
the name and unique identifier of the
account holder or beneficial owner of a
deposit if the account holder is not the
beneficial owner, the balance of each
beneficial owner’s deposits in each
deposit account grouped by ownership
right and capacity, the aggregated
balance of each beneficial owner’s
deposits within each applicable
ownership right and capacity, the
amount of the aggregated balance within
each ownership right and capacity that
is insured, and the amount of the
aggregated balance within each
ownership right and capacity that is
uninsured. Appendix B to the final rule
specifies the data format for the records
that the covered institution’s IT system
would need to produce.
If a covered institution were to fail, its
depositors’ access to their funds would
need to be restricted while the FDIC
makes deposit insurance determinations
in order to avoid overpayment. Each
covered institution’s IT system would
need to be capable of restricting access
to some or all of the funds in each
deposit account until the FDIC has
determined the deposit insurance
coverage for that account using the
covered institution’s IT system.
The deposit insurance determinations
for most deposit accounts would be
made within 24 hours after failure and
holds on those accounts would be
removed. Holds would remain in place
on deposit accounts for which a deposit
insurance determination has not been
made within that time frame and would
be removed after the determination has
been made.
The covered institution’s IT system
would need to adjust the balance in
each deposit account, if necessary, after
the deposit insurance determination has
been completed so that only insured
deposits are made available.
Specifically, if any of a beneficial
owner’s deposits within a particular
ownership right and capacity were not
insured, then the covered institution’s
IT system would need to debit the
respective deposit accounts for the
uninsured amount associated with each
account. To the extent that a beneficial
owner of deposits is uninsured, it will
have a claim against the receivership for
the failed covered institution that would
be paid out of the assets of the
receivership on equal footing with all
other deposit claims, including the
FDIC’s subrogated claim for insured
deposits.
A covered institution’s IT system
would need to be capable of performing
these functions for most deposit

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

accounts within 24 hours after the
FDIC’s appointment as receiver should
the covered institution fail, and within
24 hours after the FDIC receives from
the remaining account holders the
additional information needed to
determine deposit insurance coverage.
The FDIC’s regulations and resources
concerning deposit insurance that are
available to the public on the FDIC’s
Web site are useful tools that covered
institutions can use to develop the
capabilities of their IT systems to meet
the final rule’s requirements.15 The
FDIC also intends to offer guidance and
outreach to facilitate covered
institutions’ efforts to meet this
requirement.
4. Section 370.4
Requirements

Recordkeeping

In response to commenters’
recommendations, the final rule’s
recordkeeping requirements have been
modified from those set forth in the
proposed rule. While the proposed rule
would have required covered
institutions to collect and maintain
significantly more information on
deposit relationships than is currently
contemplated under part 330, the final
rule recognizes that such information
may continue to reside in records
maintained outside the covered
institution by either the account holder
or a party designated by the account
holder, as set forth in part 330. The final
rule contemplates, however, that in
many instances, a covered institution
will already maintain in its deposit
account records the necessary
information for its IT system to calculate
deposit insurance coverage and
therefore the institution will be capable
of fulfilling the general recordkeeping
requirement to maintain in its deposit
account records for each account the
unique identifier for the appropriate
parties and the applicable ownership
right and capacity code. Accordingly,
§ 370.4(a) imposes a general
recordkeeping requirement whereby the
covered institution must assign a unique
identifier to each account holder,
beneficial owner, grantor, and
beneficiary, as appropriate, and assign
the applicable ownership right and
capacity code listed in Appendix A. A
covered institution should, in the
normal course of business, already have
in its deposit account records the
necessary information to do this for,
among others, deposit accounts that
would be insured as: single ownership
15 See FDIC’s Financial Institution Employee’s
Guide to Deposit Insurance, 2016 Ed., available at
https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/DIGuideBankers/
index.html.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87739

accounts; joint ownership accounts;
accounts owned by a corporation,
partnership, or unincorporated
association; informal revocable trust
(i.e., ‘‘payable-on-death’’ or ‘‘in-trustfor’’) accounts; and any account held in
connection with an irrevocable trust for
which the covered institution itself is
the trustee.
The final rule recognizes, however,
that under the FDIC’s deposit insurance
rules, where an IDI’s deposit account
records disclose the existence of a
relationship that might provide a basis
for additional insurance, the details of
the relationship must be ascertainable
from either the IDI’s deposit account
records or from records maintained by
the depositor or by a third party that has
undertaken to maintain such records for
the depositor. (See 12 CFR 330.5
concerning recognition of deposit
ownership and fiduciary relationships;
12 CFR 330.7 concerning accounts held
by an agent, nominee, guardian,
custodian, or conservator; 12 CFR
330.10 concerning revocable trust
accounts; and 12 CFR 330.13 concerning
irrevocable trust accounts.) Accordingly,
under § 370.4(b), a covered institution
may meet alternative recordkeeping
requirements with respect to those types
of accounts. Under the alternative
recordkeeping requirements, the
covered institution must maintain in its
deposit account records for each deposit
account where the basis for additional
deposit insurance is contained in
records maintained by the account
holder, or a party designated by the
account holder, the unique identifier for
only the account holder. It must also
maintain in its deposit account records
information sufficient to populate the
‘‘pending reason’’ field of the pending
file set forth in Appendix B, which is to
be generated by the covered institution’s
IT system pursuant to § 370.3(b) of the
final rule. For deposit accounts held in
connection with formal trusts for which
the covered institution is not trustee, the
covered institution will need to
maintain in its deposit account records
the unique identifier of the account
holder, and the unique identifier of the
grantor (if the grantor is not the account
holder) if the account has transactional
features. The unique identifier of the
grantor is needed in order to begin
calculating how much deposit insurance
would be available, at a minimum, on
deposit accounts held in connection
with a formal trust. The covered
institution will also need to maintain in
its deposit account records information
sufficient to populate the ‘‘pending
reason’’ field of the pending file set
forth in Appendix B, which is to be

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

87740

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

generated by the covered institution’s IT
system pursuant to § 370.3(b) of the
final rule.
Additionally, a covered institution
will need to maintain in its deposit
account records the information needed
for its IT system to calculate deposit
insurance coverage with respect to
payment instruments drawn on an
account of the covered institution
(commonly referred to as ‘‘official
items’’), such as a cashier’s check,
teller’s check, certified check, personal
money order, or foreign draft. The FDIC
recognizes that it may not always be
feasible to identify the beneficial owner
of such instruments and, therefore, if
the necessary information is not
available, the covered institution will
need to maintain in its deposit account
records for those accounts only the
‘‘pending reason’’ code to indicate that
more information is needed before
deposit insurance can be calculated.
This will be used to populate the
‘‘pending reason’’ field of the pending
file set forth in Appendix B, which is to
be generated by the covered institution’s
IT system pursuant to § 370.3(b) of the
final rule.
To the extent that a covered
institution does not meet the
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
§ 370.4(a) and instead meets the
alternative recordkeeping requirements
set forth in § 370.4(b), it must take the
additional action set forth in § 370.5
with respect to those deposit accounts
that have transactional features.
5. Section 370.5 Actions Required for
Certain Deposit Accounts With
Transactional Features
The FDIC is concerned that many
deposit accounts held in the name of
someone other than the beneficial
owner of the deposit (such as an agent,
nominee, custodian, fiduciary, or other
third party) are relied upon for
transactions. In the case of a failure of
a covered institution, with its millions
of deposit accounts, any material delay
in the payment of deposit insurance
could undermine public confidence in
the financial system and be extremely
disruptive not only for individual
depositors but also for the community
or region as a whole. Widespread or
extended delay could even result in
systemic consequences. Therefore,
§ 370.5(a) imposes the requirement that,
with respect to deposit accounts with
transactional features that are held in
the name of a third party for the benefit
of others, the covered institution certify
that all information needed to calculate
deposit insurance coverage can and will
be submitted to the FDIC upon failure
of the covered institution to minimize

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

any delay in the FDIC’s efforts to
calculate deposit insurance within 24
hours after appointment as receiver
using the covered institution’s IT
system. The timeframe within which
this information must be received will
likely need to be less than 24 hours
because the covered institution’s IT
system will need time to process the
information once received. This
requirement applies not only to
traditional demand and checking
accounts, but also to savings deposit
accounts that have transactional
features, such as MMDAs, and to
prepaid accounts that are entitled to
deposit insurance coverage. The final
rule provides, however, that this
certification requirement does not apply
with respect to mortgage servicing
accounts, lawyers trust accounts, real
estate trust accounts, or accounts held
by employee benefits plans. A covered
institution that is unable to provide this
certification must apply to the FDIC for
an exception from the certification
requirement. In addition, the final rule
makes clear that a covered institution’s
failure to provide the certification shall
be deemed not to constitute a violation
of this part if the FDIC has granted the
covered institution relief from the
certification requirement.
6. Section 370.6 Implementation
This section provides that a covered
institution must comply with the final
rule no later than the compliance date,
which is three years after the later of the
effective date of the final rule or the date
on which the institution becomes a
covered institution by reaching the
threshold of two million deposit
accounts. Under § 370.6(b), a covered
institution may request that the FDIC
extend the implementation time period.
The request must state the amount of
additional time needed and the reasons
therefor. It must also report the total
number of, and dollar amount in,
accounts for which the covered
institution’s IT system could not
calculate deposit insurance coverage if
the covered institution were to fail as of
the date of the request.
7. Section 370.7 Accelerated
Implementation
The final rule provides for accelerated
implementation on a case-by-case basis
and after notice from the FDIC to a
covered institution in three scenarios.
The first would be when a covered
institution has received a composite
rating of 3, 4, or 5 under the Uniform
Financial Institution’s Rating System
(CAMELS rating) in its most recently
completed Report of Examination. The
second scenario would be when a

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

covered institution has become
undercapitalized, as defined in the
prompt corrective action provisions of
12 CFR part 325. The third would be
when the appropriate Federal banking
agency or the FDIC, in consultation with
the appropriate Federal banking agency,
has determined that a covered
institution is experiencing a significant
deterioration of capital or significant
funding difficulties or liquidity stress,
notwithstanding the composite rating of
the covered institution by its
appropriate Federal banking agency in
its most recent Report of Examination.
While the FDIC recognizes concerns
about the imposition of an accelerated
implementation deadline during
economic distress, including the
concern that a covered institution’s
attention might be diverted to solving
critical problems that threaten its
financial condition, providing
depositors with immediate access to
funds and preserving systemic stability
is also critical. The ability to accelerate
the implementation deadline must be
balanced against any hardship an
accelerated implementation period
might impose on a covered institution.
Before accelerating the implementation
time period, the FDIC would consult
with the covered institution’s
appropriate Federal banking agency.
The FDIC would also evaluate the
complexity of the covered institution’s
deposit systems and operations, the
extent of the covered institution’s asset
quality difficulties, the volatility of the
covered institution’s funding sources,
the expected near-term changes in the
covered institution’s capital levels, and
other relevant factors appropriate for the
FDIC’s consideration as deposit insurer.
8. Section 370.8 Relief
Under § 370.8(a) of the final rule, a
covered institution may submit a
request to the FDIC for an exemption if
it demonstrates that it has not and will
not take deposits which, when
aggregated, would exceed the SMDIA
(currently $250,000) for any beneficial
owner of the funds on deposit. In other
words, if each owner of deposits were
to have an amount equal to or less than
the SMDIA on deposit at a covered
institution, then all deposits would be
fully insured. Deposit insurance
determinations at failed covered
institutions that meet this condition
should not be complicated and,
therefore, the FDIC does not believe that
requiring such covered institutions to
develop the capability to calculate
deposit insurance coverage would be
necessary.
Recognizing that circumstances may
currently exist, or emerge in the future,

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
for which a covered institution is unable
to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements set forth in § 370.4 or
some particular provision therein with
respect to an identified deposit account
or class of deposit accounts, § 370.8(b)
allows a covered institution to request
an exception for those accounts. In its
request letter, the covered institution
must demonstrate the need for an
exception, describe the impact of an
exception on the ability to accurately
calculate deposit insurance for the
related deposit accounts, and state the
number of, and the dollar value of
deposits in, those deposit accounts.
When reviewing the request, the FDIC
would consider the implications that a
delayed deposit insurance
determination would have for a
particular account holder or the
beneficial owners of deposits, the nature
of the deposit relationship, and the
ability of the covered institution to
obtain the information needed for an
accurate calculation of deposit
insurance.
A covered institution that no longer
meets the criteria for being a covered
institution may submit a request for
release from the final rule’s
requirements. Section 370.8(c) provides
that if the number of deposit accounts
at a covered institution drops below the
two million deposit account threshold
for three consecutive quarters based on
Schedule RC–O in the Report of
Condition and Income, the institution
may request release. Like any other IDI,
an institution released under this
paragraph would become a covered
institution again if it were to have two
million or more deposit accounts for
two consecutive quarters.
The objectives of the final rule
supersede the objectives of 12 CFR
360.9. Accordingly, if a covered
institution reaches full compliance with
the final rule, the results intended under
§ 360.9 will be largely accomplished.
Paragraph (d) permits a covered
institution to request a release from the
requirements set forth in § 360.9 upon
submission of its first certification of
compliance with the final rule’s
requirements.
This section further provides that the
FDIC will consider all requests made
under relevant provisions of the final
rule on a case-by-case basis in light of
the final rule’s objectives, and that the
FDIC’s grant of a covered institution’s
request may be conditional or timelimited.
9. Section 370.9 Communication With
the FDIC
This section requires that within ten
business days after either the effective

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

date of the final rule or becoming a
covered institution, whichever is later, a
covered institution notify the FDIC of
the person(s) responsible for
implementing the recordkeeping or IT
system requirements set forth in this
part. Point-of-contact information,
reports and requests are to be submitted
in writing to: Office of the Director,
Division of Resolutions and
Receiverships, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20429–0002.
10. Section 370.10 Compliance
The final rule sets forth a two-part
approach for compliance. First,
beginning on or before the compliance
date and annually thereafter, a covered
institution must certify that it has
implemented and successfully tested its
IT system for compliance with the final
rule’s requirements during the
preceding calendar year. The
certification must be signed by the
covered institution’s chief executive
officer or chief operating officer. Along
with its certification of compliance, the
covered institution must also submit a
summary deposit insurance coverage
report to the FDIC. The summary
deposit insurance coverage report
would list key metrics for evaluating
deposit insurance risk to the DIF and
coverage available to a covered
institution’s depositors. Those metrics
are: The number of account holders, the
number of deposit accounts, and the
dollar amount of deposits by ownership
right and capacity; the total number of
fully-insured deposit accounts and the
dollar amount of deposits in those
accounts; the total number of deposit
accounts with uninsured amounts and
the total dollar amount of insured and
uninsured amounts in those accounts;
the total number of deposit accounts
and the dollar amount of deposits in
accounts, broken out by account type,
for which the covered institution’s IT
system cannot calculate deposit
insurance coverage because it is
permitted to maintain alternative
recordkeeping requirements as set forth
in § 370.4(b); and a description of any
substantive change to the covered
institution’s IT system or deposit taking
operations since the prior annual
certification.
Second, the FDIC will conduct
periodic on-site inspections and tests of
each covered institution’s IT system’s
capability to accurately calculate
deposit insurance coverage in the event
of failure. Testing will begin no sooner
than the last day of the first calendar
quarter following the compliance date,
and will occur no more frequently than
on a three-year cycle thereafter, unless

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87741

there is a material change to the covered
institution’s IT system, deposit-taking
operations, or financial condition. The
FDIC will provide data integrity and IT
system testing instructions to covered
institutions through the issuance of
procedures or guidelines prior to the
final rule’s effective date and before
initiating its compliance testing
program, and will provide outreach to
covered institutions to facilitate their
implementation efforts. The final rule
also requires covered institutions to
assist the FDIC in resolving any issues
that arise upon the FDIC’s on-site
inspection and testing of the IT system’s
capabilities.
The final rule provides that a covered
institution will not be in violation of
any requirements of the rule for which
the institution has submitted a request
for relief pursuant to § 370.6(b) or
§ 370.8(a)–(c) while awaiting the FDIC’s
response to the request.
IV. Expected Effects
Using current data, the FDIC estimates
that the rule will apply to 38
institutions, each with two million or
more deposit accounts.16 Together,
these institutions hold more than $10
trillion in total assets and manage over
400 million deposit accounts.
The FDIC has evaluated the estimated
cost to implement this rule, as well as
the benefits to the FDIC’s resolution
process and to the millions of account
holders who would need immediate
access to their funds in the event of
failure of a covered institution. The
main determinants of the estimated cost
to institutions covered by the final rule
are the number of deposit accounts they
hold and the number of deposit IT
systems they manage. Benefits of the
rule include: Ensuring prompt and
efficient deposit insurance
determinations by the FDIC and thus the
liquidity of deposit funds; enabling the
FDIC to readily resolve a failed IDI;
reducing the costs of failure of a covered
institution by increasing the FDIC’s
resolution options; and promoting long
term stability in the banking system by
reducing moral hazard.
These benefits are expected to accrue
to the public at large. However, because
there is no market in which the value of
these expected benefits can be
determined, it is not possible to quantify
these benefits with precision. As the
public benefits cannot be quantified, the
FDIC presents an analytical framework
that describes the qualitative effects of
the proposed rule and the quantitative
effects where possible, consistent with
16 All data in this section is calculated using FDIC
Call Report Data as of June 30, 2016.

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Expected Costs
The FDIC’s initial estimate of the cost
of this rule, as described in the NPR,
was approximately $328 million. The
FDIC has updated its cost estimate to
$478 million, based in part upon
comments the FDIC received in
response to the NPR. The updated
estimated cost to covered institutions
represents $386 million of this total,
with the remaining estimated costs
accruing to depositors and the FDIC.
Even with these updates, the estimated
costs to covered institutions remain
small relative to their revenues and
expenses.
In estimating the costs of this rule, the
FDIC engaged the services of an
independent consulting firm. Working

with the FDIC, the consultant used its
extensive knowledge and experience
with IT systems at financial institutions
to develop a model to provide cost
estimates for the following activities:
• Implementing the deposit insurance
calculation
• Legacy data clean-up
• Data extraction
• Data aggregation
• Data standardization
• Data quality control and compliance
• Data reporting
• Ongoing operations
Cost estimates for these activities
were derived from a projection of the
types of workers needed for each task,
an estimate of the amount of labor hours
required, an estimate of the industry
average labor cost (including benefits)
for each worker needed, and an estimate
of worker productivity. The analysis
assumed that manual data clean-up

would be needed for 5 percent of
deposit accounts, 10 accounts per hour
would be resolved, and internal labor
would be used for 60 percent of the
clean-up. This analysis also projected
higher costs for institutions based on the
following factors:

Table 1 shows that almost half of the
rule’s estimated total costs are
attributable to legacy data clean-up.
These legacy data clean-up cost
estimates are sensitive to both the
number of deposit accounts and the

number of deposit IT systems. More
than 90 percent of the legacy data cleanup costs are associated with manually
collecting account information from
customers and entering it into the
covered institution’s systems. Data

aggregation, which is sensitive to the
number of deposit IT systems, makes up
about 13 percent of the rule’s estimated
costs.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

the FDIC Statement of Policy on the
Development and Review of FDIC
Regulations and Policies.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

• Higher number of deposit accounts
• Higher number of distinct core
servicing platforms
• Higher number of depository legal
entities or separate organizational
units
• Broader geographic dispersal of
accounts and customers
• Use of sweep accounts
• Greater degree of complexity in
business lines, accounts, and
operations
Illustration 1 provides a diagram of
the cost model.

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

ER05DE16.000

87742

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

87743

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION * COSTS BY COMPONENT
Components

Component cost

Percent of total

Legacy Data Cleanup ......................................................................................................................................
Data Aggregation .............................................................................................................................................
Ongoing Operations ** .....................................................................................................................................
Data Standardization .......................................................................................................................................
FDIC Costs ** ...................................................................................................................................................
Data Extraction ................................................................................................................................................
Quality Control and Compliance ......................................................................................................................
Insurance Calculation ......................................................................................................................................
Reporting .........................................................................................................................................................

$226,482,333
64,015,373
55,175,451
36,573,894
36,001,520
25,397,761
18,403,006
9,500,400
5,971,800

47.43%
13.41%
11.55%
7.66%
7.54%
5.32%
3.85%
1.99%
1.25%

Total Cost .................................................................................................................................................

477,521,538

100%

* Estimates of bank implementation costs include both initial and ongoing costs associated with this final rule.
** Present value of annual costs using a 3.5 percent discount rate over a 30-year time horizon. For example, this discount rate is used in OMB
Circular No. A–4 and A–94, Appendix C (revised November 2015 for calendar year 2016).

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BANK IMPLEMENTATION * COSTS TO EXPENSES
[Amounts in thousands]
[Estimated cost to covered institutions: $385,517]
2015 Expenses
for covered
institutions

Expense item
Noninterest Expense .......................................................................................................................................
Personnel Expense ..........................................................................................................................................
Tax Expense ....................................................................................................................................................
Interest Expense ..............................................................................................................................................
Fixed Expense: Premises ................................................................................................................................

$260,857,965
119,069,416
49,262,660
26,761,300
28,446,163

Implementation *
cost as percent
of expense
0.15%
0.32%
0.78%
1.44%
1.36%
Cost as Percent
of Income

Pre-Tax Net Income, 2015 ..............................................................................................................................

$157,197,668

0.25%
Cost per Deposit
Account

Number of Deposit Accounts, 2Q 2016 ..........................................................................................................

416,149.383

$0.93
Cost as Percent
of Assets

Total Assets, 2Q 2016 ..............................................................................................................................

$10,558,645,376

0.004%

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

* Estimates of bank implementation costs include both initial and ongoing costs associated with this final rule.

These estimates of initial and ongoing
costs of implementation are higher than
those provided in the NPR. The increase
in total estimated implementation costs
is the result of updating the data,
reviewing the cost methodology, and
incorporating comments received on the
NPR. Even with the revisions, however,
the updated cost estimate does not alter
the FDIC’s overall assessment of the
expected effects of the final rule.
The estimated total cost of the final
rule remains relatively small for covered
institutions. The estimated costs amount
to an average of 93 cents per deposit
account and one-quarter of one percent
of pre-tax net income, as shown in Table
2. Banks with more serious deficiencies
in their current systems or with greater
complexity in their business lines,
accounts, and operations are expected to
incur above-average compliance costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

These estimates may overstate the costs
of the final rule because some covered
institutions are already undertaking
efforts to improve their data quality to
address their own operational concerns
and to comply with other statutes and
regulations.
Expected Benefits
The recent financial crisis has
demonstrated that large financial
institutions can fail very rapidly. The
failure of a covered institution would
likely involve millions of deposit
insurance claims. An orderly resolution
requires ready access to complete and
accurate information about the
insurance status of depositors. The final
rule ensures that the FDIC can conduct
an orderly resolution of covered
institutions despite the informational
challenges they pose.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Financial crises are, by their very
nature, unpredictable, and unique and
the likelihood, duration and magnitude
of any such crisis cannot be predicted
with mathematical precision. There are
over $9 trillion in deposits in United
States banks and the FDIC insures each
qualifying account up to a maximum of
$250,000, regardless of the events that
unfold during any particular crisis.
During the recent financial crisis, the
federal government provided trillions of
dollars of government support to large
financial institutions.17 Some of the
17 See, e.g., David Luttrell, Tyler Atkinson, &
Harvey Rosenblum, Assessing the Costs and
Consequences of the 2007–09 Financial Crisis and
Its Aftermath, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Economic Letter (Sept. 2013), available at http://
www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/
eclett/2013/el1307.pdf; Richard G. Anderson &
Charles S. Gascon, A Closer Look, Assistance

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

Continued

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87744

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

institutions covered by this rule
received government support that far
exceeds the anticipated costs of this
rule.
The FDIC expects that the benefits of
the final rule will accrue broadly to the
public at large, to bank customers, to
IDIs not covered by the rule, and to the
covered institutions themselves. As
discussed earlier, the FDIC expects the
final rule to provide significant benefits,
including ensuring prompt and efficient
deposit insurance determinations by the
FDIC and thus the liquidity of deposit
funds; enabling the FDIC to more
readily resolve a failed IDI; reducing the
costs of failure of a covered institution
by increasing the FDIC’s resolution
options; and promoting long term
stability in the banking system by
reducing moral hazard.
The public at large will be the
primary beneficiaries of the final rule.
An effective failed bank resolution
maintains liquidity in the economy by
providing timely access to insured
funds, promotes financial stability by
ensuring an orderly, least costly
resolution, and reduces moral hazard by
recognizing deposit insurance limits
(since uninsured depositors could be
subject to losses even at the largest
banks). Making accurate deposit
insurance determinations for all insured
institutions is a key component in
carrying out the FDIC’s mission of
maintaining confidence in the banking
system and minimizing costs to the DIF.
Broadly, the final rule facilitates the
consideration of resolution methods that
might otherwise be unavailable,
enabling the FDIC to resolve a failing
covered institution in the least costly
manner. With more resolution options,
the FDIC may be less likely to resolve
a failing large institution by having
another large institution absorb it;
absorption by another large institution
would further increase concentration
among the largest banks and raise
concerns about longer term financial
stability. This final rule reduces the
likelihood of invoking a systemic risk
exception, the cost of assistance
provided as the result of a failure and
receivership for which the systemic risk
exception has been invoked, and the
associated long-term risk of increased

moral hazard and damaged market
discipline.18
Bank customers will also benefit from
the final rule. Timely deposit insurance
determinations will give bank customers
expeditious access to insured funds to
meet their transaction needs and
financial obligations. Moreover, any
current deficiencies in IT systems and
data gathering that prevent covered
institutions from identifying
relationships between deposit accounts
are likely to also prevent them from
having the ability to quickly inform
customers whether or not their deposits
are insured, if asked.
IDIs not covered by the final rule will
benefit because the prompt payment of
deposit insurance at the largest IDIs
should promote public confidence in
the banking system as a whole. The
provisions of the final rule will help to
level the competitive playing field
between large banks with two million or
more deposit accounts and community
banks, which typically maintain far
fewer deposit accounts. The
requirements of the final rule will
reduce the perception that uninsured
depositors at large banks are less likely
to incur losses in the event of failure
than their counterparts at smaller
institutions.
The enhancements to data accuracy
and completeness supported by the final
rule should benefit covered institutions
as well. Improvements to data on
depositors and information systems as a
result of adopting the final rule may
lead to efficiencies in managing
customer data. Accordingly, the
upgrades in depositor information
required under this rule are likely to
benefit covered institutions by
improving their ability to serve their
customers and increasing their
depositors’ confidence that deposit
insurance can be paid promptly by the
FDIC in the event of failure. Moreover,
the processing of daily bank
transactions may be less prone to data
errors.

Programs in the Wake of Crisis, The Regional
Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Jan.
2011), available at https://www.stlouisfed.org/∼/
media/Files/PDFs/publications/pub_assets/pdf/re/
2011/a/bailouts.pdf; U.S. Gov’t Accountability
Office, GAO–10–100, Regulators’ Use of Systemic
Risk Exception Raises Moral Hazard Concerns and
Opportunities Exist to Clarify the Provision (2010),
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/
303248.pdf.

18 As mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, future
payments pursuant to the systemic risk exception
can only be made with respect to an institution in
receivership, removing the possibility of open bank
assistance. See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203,
1106, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). This change increases
the likelihood that the failure of a covered
institution will involve millions of deposit
insurance claims.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

V. Alternatives Considered
A number of alternatives were
considered in developing the final rule.
The major alternatives include (1)
adjusting thresholds above or below the
proposed two million accounts, (2)
imposing recordkeeping requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

on all account types, (3) maintaining the
FDIC’s current approach to deposit
insurance determinations (status quo),
(4) developing an internal IT system and
transfer processes within the FDIC
capable of subsuming the deposit
system of any large covered IDI in order
to perform deposit insurance
determinations, and (5) simplifying
deposit insurance coverage rules. The
FDIC considers the final rule to be the
most effective approach among the
alternatives in terms of cost to the
industry, the speed and accuracy of
deposit insurance determinations,
access to funds, and reduction of
systemic and information security risks.
Development of the final rule was based
on a careful evaluation of expected
effects, public comments, and the
FDIC’s experience in resolving failed
banks.
In deciding which institutions would
be subject to the final rule, the FDIC
considered thresholds above and below
two million deposit accounts. Raising
the threshold would decrease the costs
of the final rule to the industry because
fewer institutions would be covered, but
would also increase the risk that the
FDIC would be unable to make timely
and accurate deposit insurance
determinations for large institutions and
limit the FDIC’s resolution options,
thereby potentially increasing the costs
of resolution.
Making a correct and timely deposit
insurance determination requires that
the FDIC have access to accurate data on
deposit accounts as well as on any
relationships among those accounts.
The FDIC has learned from prior
experience that it is possible to manage
data quality problems at small
institutions without delaying or
materially altering the outcome of the
deposit insurance determination.
However, the ability of the FDIC to
promptly manage data quality problems
at large institutions declines rapidly
with the number and complexity of
deposit accounts. Therefore, resolving
data quality problems at institutions
with the largest number of accounts and
most complex deposit account systems
prior to failure, as required by this final
rule, should substantially lower the risk
of inaccuracy or delay in making
determinations.
As described in IV. Expected Effects,
the FDIC estimates that the costs
associated with the two million account
threshold for these large IDIs will be
relatively modest compared to their net
income and other costs of doing
business. Decreasing the threshold
below two million accounts would
impose higher costs on the industry as
a whole, and the marginal benefits of

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the rule would decline since smaller
institutions present less risk to prompt
deposit insurance determinations.
In determining the scope of the final
rule, the FDIC considered requiring
covered institutions to maintain
complete and accurate records for all
accounts as originally proposed.
However, the FDIC recognizes that
covered institutions may not maintain
in their deposit account records, and
may not be able to obtain, for all
accounts the information needed for
deposit insurance purposes. The FDIC’s
regulation that sets forth the standards
for deposit insurance coverage, 12 CFR
part 330, permits records to reside
outside of an IDI with respect to certain
types of deposit accounts, as long as
certain requirements are satisfied,
without adverse consequences for the
insurability of deposits. Similarly, the
final rule recognizes that covered
institutions will not have and therefore
do not need to keep complete records
for deposit insurance purposes for those
types of deposit accounts.
Additionally, costs associated with
developing the ability to collect data,
produce key account holder information
in a timely manner, and perform a
deposit insurance calculation are
estimated to be relatively high for some
account types. For example, for covered
institutions the costs associated with
collecting key information regarding
beneficial ownership of deposits held by
a prepaid account program manager on
behalf of program participants is likely
to be higher than for other account types
for which beneficial ownership can be
readily determined. For trust accounts,
the identity and number of beneficiaries
can often change, making the costs
associated with collecting key
information from the account holder,
trustee, or other interested parties
relatively high.
Another alternative is to maintain the
status quo established by 12 CFR 360.9.
However, that rule does not adequately
address an important problem that
arises in the resolution of the largest and
most complex institutions. Deposit
insurance determinations under § 360.9
necessitate a secure bulk download of
depositor data that introduces
additional delays in making
determinations. The FDIC’s experience
in resolving large institutions shows
that the amount of time for data to
download can vary widely based on the
file size, complexity of the data, and the
number of deposit systems, among other
things. Given the limited time available
to the FDIC to make determinations,
these delays pose the risk of creating
financial hardships for depositors and
disrupting financial markets.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Another alternative considered was to
establish a system to rapidly transmit all
deposit data from a failed IDI’s IT
system to the FDIC for processing in
order to calculate and make deposit
insurance determinations. Although this
alternative utilizes a common deposit
insurance calculation IT system,
absorbing the deposit system or systems
of a large, complex institution quickly
enough to make a prompt insurance
determination is infeasible as a practical
matter. Unlike typical small and midsized IDIs, covered institutions have
large amounts of data and often use
multiple deposit account IT systems
which are programmed to meet
institution-specific needs. FDIC staff,
working with staff from each large
institution, would have to develop an
individualized solution for each
institution tailored to its IT systems and
third-party applications. Extensive
initial and ongoing testing would be
required to establish that the data
transmission would allow a prompt and
accurate insurance determination.
Additionally, covered institutions
would still bear the cost of legacy data
cleanup and data aggregation, which are
the two largest cost components in the
cost model.
The alternative of the FDIC
establishing an IT system to rapidly
transfer all deposit data from a failed IDI
would also likely impose large ongoing
costs for covered institutions because
any significant change to the deposit
system of a large IDI would necessitate
further testing and validation. Further,
the large IT development, testing, and
recertification costs borne by the FDIC
under this alternative would ultimately
be paid by insured depository
institutions through ongoing deposit
insurance assessments. In contrast, the
final rule requires that a covered
institution’s IT system have the ability
to calculate deposit insurance coverage
for all deposit accounts in the event of
a failure. It would use the data that the
covered institution has on hand at the
time of failure as well as data collected
by the FDIC from depositors shortly
after failure. Under the final rule, IT
costs would be absorbed by covered
institutions rather than by the entire
banking industry.
Another alternative the FDIC
considered was to simplify deposit
insurance coverage rules. Currently,
deposit insurance is provided under
different ownership rights and
capacities, some of which involve
complex types of deposit accounts.
Reducing the number of rights and
capacities or simplifying the coverage
rules would reduce the costs associated
with covered institutions’ development

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87745

of the capability to calculate deposit
insurance coverage. However, efforts to
simplify the deposit insurance coverage
rules could effectively reduce coverage
to depositors at all FDIC insured
institutions, an approach that would
impose a cost on a wider range of
institutions and bank customers.
Further, these complex account types
present problems when the FDIC must
analyze a significant number of these
accounts at the same time. The FDIC’s
established methods for dealing with
these more complex accounts in smaller
and mid-sized resolutions include
manual processing, an approach that
could take too long in a larger resolution
involving a significant number of these
accounts. Consequently, the FDIC is not
pursuing simplification of the deposit
insurance coverage rules.
VI. Discussion of Comments
Generally, the issues raised by the
commenters may be categorized under
the following topics: The need for
regulation, expected effects of the
proposed rule, possible alternatives to
the proposed rule, problems with the
proposed rule’s requirements, and
possible adverse consequences.
A. Comments Concerning the Need for
Regulation
The commenters generally agree that
it is important for depositors to have
prompt access to their insured deposits
in the event of the failure of a large and
complex IDI. However, some
commenters contended that the
proposed rule is unnecessary because
covered institutions are unlikely to fail.
One commenter remarked that the
likelihood of failure is ‘‘essentially
zero.’’ This commenter maintained that
it is more likely that market forces and
the FDIC’s enforcement powers and
supervisory authority would solve the
problems of a large institution before
failure. This commenter also asserted
that, even if failure did occur, a
transaction in which all deposits are
assumed by another institution would
be the least costly resolution, thereby
avoiding the need for a deposit
insurance determination. The payment
of all uninsured deposits would
preserve the failed bank’s franchise
value, this commenter argued, while
adherence to deposit insurance limits
could cause runs at other financial
institutions and be systemically
disruptive. Another commenter
suggested that it would be ‘‘unlikely’’
that the FDIC would use a straight
deposit payoff, an insured deposit
transfer, or a deposit insurance national
bank to resolve a large bank. Similarly,
other commenters posited that, if a

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

87746

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

covered institution were to fail, then an
all-deposit purchase and assumption
transaction would be the least costly
resolution, thereby avoiding the need
for a deposit insurance determination.
While the likelihood of any particular
covered institution’s failure may be low
at a given point in time, history suggests
that the financial condition of
institutions that are perceived to be in
good health can deteriorate quickly and
with little notice. In 2008 and 2009,
several large insured depository
institutions failed, including IndyMac
Bank and Washington Mutual Bank. In
general, very large IDIs rely on creditsensitive funding more than smaller IDIs
do, which makes them more likely to
suffer a rapid liquidity-induced failure.
The contention that warning signs
will give the FDIC sufficient notice to
plan for resolution of a covered
institution and the related argument by
another commenter that the ‘‘FDIC has
provided absolutely no evidence that a
large bank . . . has ever failed with
little prior warning’’ are also
controverted by the events of the recent
banking and financial crisis. The
financial condition of several large and
complex financial institutions
deteriorated very rapidly in 2008.
Numerous academic studies, articles,
reports to Congress, other government
reports, and Congressional testimony
(including testimony from FDIC
officials) have documented that short
term funding challenges rapidly caused
distress at banks during the last
financial crisis (resulting in either bank
failure or government intervention to
prevent failure, as in the case of
Wachovia Bank and Citibank).19 This
dynamic, present in the failure of
Washington Mutual, for example,
increases the risk that the FDIC will
have little lead time to prepare for the
failure of a covered institution.
19 See, e.g., Testimony of Scott G. Alvarez,
General Counsel, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, The Acquisition of Wachovia
Corporation by Wells Fargo & Company Before the
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Before the
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (Sept. 1,
2010); Testimony of Sheila C. Bair, Chairwoman of
the FDIC, Causes and Current State of the Financial
Crisis Before the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission, Before the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission (Jan. 14, 2010); Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission, ‘‘The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report:
Final Report of the National Commission on the
Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the
United States’’ (U.S. Government Printing Office,
2011); Philip Strahan, Liquidity Risk and Credit in
the Financial Crisis, Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco Economic Letter (May 14, 2012); U.S.
Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–10–100, Federal
Deposit Insurance Act: Regulators Use of Systemic
Risk Exception Raises Moral Hazard Concerns and
Opportunities Exist to Clarify the Provision (April
2010).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

While certain post-crisis reforms have
resulted in a more resilient banking
system with stronger liquidity and
capital, the effect of these reforms has
not been tested in a crisis. These postcrisis reforms mitigate but do not
eliminate the risk of failure. Other postcrisis reforms have limited the FDIC’s
authorities. For example, during the
most recent crisis the FDIC was able to
provide debt guarantees through the
Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program
under then-existing statutory authority
to bolster liquidity in the financial
system. Under current law, such a
program would require Congressional
approval.
The contentions that, even if a large
bank did fail, a transaction in which all
deposits are assumed by another
institution or in which all assets are
purchased and deposit liabilities
assumed would be the least costly
resolution (thus avoiding the need for a
deposit insurance determination), or
that it would be ‘‘unlikely’’ that the
FDIC would use a straight deposit
payoff, an insured deposit transfer, or a
deposit insurance national bank to
resolve a large bank are again
controverted by the facts. Since 2008,
the FDIC has conducted 36 resolutions
where an all-deposit assumption
transaction could not be arranged.
Moreover, the sheer size of many
covered institutions limits the number
of institutions that could even consider
purchasing all assets and assuming all
deposits (or simply assuming all
deposits), increasing the chances that a
deposit insurance payout or a bridge
bank will be the least costly
alternative.20 To use these resolution
methods, the FDIC must be able to make
a deposit insurance determination.
Moreover, a former Chairman of the
FDIC publicly shared his reaction to a
commenter’s suggestion that the FDIC
would never need to determine deposit
insurance for the largest banks, stating
that the suggestion was ‘‘in effect,
proposing 100% deposit insurance at
banks, which would sound the death
knell for any pretense of market
discipline and a private sector banking
system.’’ He stated that, historically, the
FDIC ‘‘had no ability to deal with large
bank failures in any way other than by
recapitalizing them or merging them
into even larger banks if [the FDIC]
couldn’t quickly segregate the
uninsured deposits from the insured.
Without this information, the FDIC

might as well throw in the towel on
instilling private sector discipline in the
banking system.’’ 21 The possibility of
failure must exist to maintain market
discipline and avoid moral hazard.
Some commenters assert that
additional regulation is unnecessary
because the FDIC’s informational needs
for a deposit insurance determination
are already addressed in its current
regulation at 12 CFR 360.9. The current
approach under § 360.9 is not adequate
and additional regulation is necessary
for two reasons. First, as discussed in II.
Need for Further Rulemaking, the
informational and provisional hold
aspects of § 360.9 are inadequate for the
largest depository institutions. The
institutions covered by § 360.9 are
permitted to populate the data fields by
using only data elements currently
maintained in-house. If the institution
does not maintain the information to
complete a particular data field, then a
null value can be used in that field. As
a result of this discretionary approach,
these institutions’ standard data files are
frequently incomplete. The provisional
hold capability falls short because
§ 360.9 requires these institutions to
maintain the technological capability to
automatically place and release holds
on deposit accounts if an insurance
determination could not be made by the
FDIC by the next business day after
failure. Although provisional holds
allow depositors’ access to a portion of
their total deposit while the insurance
determination is being finalized, the
hold does not facilitate a faster or more
efficient insurance determination.
Second, because deposit data files
must be transmitted to the FDIC,
standardized by FDIC staff, and then
processed on the FDIC’s IT system, a
deposit insurance determination is still
a very time consuming and manually
intensive endeavor. While § 360.9
would assist the FDIC in fulfilling its
legal mandates regarding the resolution
of failed institutions subject to that rule,
the FDIC believes that if one of the
largest IDIs were to fail with little prior
warning, additional measures would be
needed to ensure the prompt and
accurate payment of deposit insurance
to all depositors.
Beyond the constraints apparent in
§ 360.9, significant resources are needed
to collect and standardize the
information needed to process the high
volume of accounts a covered
institution has in a manner that will

20 The least cost test does not consider indirect or
speculative costs, such as costs to other entities in
the economy that result from a bank’s failure. Thus,
absent a systemic risk determination, the FDIC
cannot consider these costs as a reason to
implement a more costly alternative.

21 Bill Isaac (former FDIC Chairman), online
response to Bert Ely, FDIC’s Sudden Concern with
Insurance Limit Makes No Sense, American Banker
(May 18, 2016), available at http://www.american
banker.com/bankthink/fdics-sudden-concern-withinsurance-limit-makes-no-sense-1081055-1.html.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
avoid significant disruption to
depositors and the payment system.
Processing deposit accounts after
gathering needed information can take
significant time after failure as well. As
the amount of time needed to gather
information from a depositor increases,
the speed of insurance payment to that
depositor decreases. Delays in
processing deposit insurance
determinations at banks with millions of
deposit accounts would likely be more
significant than the delays imposed
during past resolutions of smaller banks.
For example, in the wake of IndyMac’s
failure, it took FDIC staff significant
time and resources to complete deposit
insurance determinations for many
formal revocable trust and irrevocable
trust accounts. Given the level of public
anxiety after the failure of IndyMac
Bank, it is not unreasonable to be
concerned that the fear of loss on
deposits could be even greater in the
event of the failure of a covered
institution. The reporting required
under the final rule will help the FDIC
prepare to make deposit insurance
determinations after the failure of a
covered institution.
Several commenters assert that there
is no need for covered institutions to
maintain account information that
duplicates or overlaps with information
already maintained outside the
institution by account holders who can
provide the information expeditiously
in the event of the institution’s failure.
These commenters believe that a twopronged approach by which prompt
payment is made to most depositors and
later payment is made to certain other
depositors once the required
information has been received has had
no negative effect on public confidence
in deposit insurance and the banking
system. To a large extent, the final rule
accommodates this concern by limiting
the recordkeeping requirements for
certain types of deposit accounts for
which covered institutions do not
already maintain the information
needed for deposit insurance
determination.
The evolution of deposit products and
relationships has rendered current
regulatory standards less effective in
facilitating rapid deposit insurance
determination. Account features and
customer use and expectations have
changed. Immediate and continuous
access to deposit accounts is more
common now than in the past. Deposit
accounts are increasingly used by
beneficial owners of deposits who are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

not the named account holder (e.g.,
MMDAs associated with brokered
sweep accounts and prepaid account
programs administered by a third party
that places deposits at an IDI on behalf
of the cardholders). Also, demand
deposit accounts held in connection
with revocable trusts are used more
commonly. Because these accounts are
transactional, those depositors expect to
have immediate access without regard
for the respective institution’s failure.
Checks outstanding at the time of failure
need to be processed and either paid or
returned in a timely manner, often no
more than a few business days, in order
to avoid cascading consequences across
the payments system. However, it could
take time after failure for the FDIC to
gather the information needed to make
a deposit insurance determination for
the deposit accounts that those checks
are drawn upon. The final rule seeks to
minimize the amount of time needed to
make deposits in those accounts
accessible so that the impact on
depositors and the payments system in
general is minimized.
Some of the commenters maintain
that the FDIC should develop its own IT
system capabilities to handle deposit
insurance determinations at an
institution of any size. One advocated
for the development and use of a single
insurance calculation system to be
deployed at every covered institution,
while another discussed the use of a
custodial facility to reconcile depositor
data transmitted by the institution with
data transmitted by financial
intermediaries. As described in V.
Alternatives Considered, the FDIC
considered developing a system to
rapidly transfer all deposit data from a
failed IDI’s IT system to the FDIC for
processing in order to calculate and
make deposit insurance determinations
but determined that absorbing the
deposit system or systems of a large,
complex institution quickly enough to
make a prompt insurance determination
is practically infeasible.
B. Comments Concerning the Expected
Effects of the Rule
Several commenters challenged the
conclusions and methodology of the
FDIC’s analysis of the proposed rule’s
expected effects. One commenter
remarked that the ‘‘proposed rule would
impose unnecessary costs without
delivering any benefit’’ and that the
FDIC ‘‘almost certainly has grossly
underestimated the cost to the affected
banks of implementing and maintaining
deposit-account aggregation as specified
in the NPR.’’ Commenters criticized
different cost components of the
analysis, including whether the model

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87747

was up-to-date, captured the impact of
the rule on all market participants, and
the assumptions and robustness of the
model. The FDIC has considered these
comments in development of the final
rule.
Expected Costs
FDIC costs: One commenter noted
that the NPR did not include costs to the
FDIC. The FDIC estimates that this rule
may require as many as 15 full-time
equivalent employees to assist with
implementation of the regulation.22 The
present value of these costs at a 3.5
percent discount rate for 30 years
increases the estimated cost of the rule
by approximately $36 million.23 The
costs of these employees include wages,
benefits, and taxes, and are adjusted for
inflation. The FDIC believes this is a
conservative estimate as it anticipates
that administration of the rule will
require less effort over time.
Costs to depositors: Commenters
noted that the NPR did not include the
costs that depositors will incur updating
or providing account information to
covered institutions. The FDIC believes
that the number of accounts where
depositors will be asked to provide
account information is significantly
reduced from the NPR given the
alternative recordkeeping requirements
provided for in the final rule. Even so,
the FDIC estimates that the cost to
depositors will be approximately $56
million. In calculating this estimate, the
FDIC assumes a 100 percent response
rate by depositors with a level of effort
(LOE) for depositors equal to the LOE of
the covered institutions and the average
national wage rate of $27 per hour.24
Depositors are not required to provide
account information, however, and the
FDIC expects that some depositors will
not provide it. A depositor who
provides the account information
reveals that he or she perceives that the
benefit of providing the information
justifies the cost of doing so.
Costs to intermediaries: Some
commenters criticized the FDIC’s cost
estimate because it did not include the
potential impact on other market
participants, including administrators,
custodians, and sub-custodians. In
response to comments discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, the final
rule provides alternative recordkeeping
22 Costs for full-time equivalent employees
should be considered opportunity costs (that is,
hours worked on the implementation of the final
rule rather than on other work assignments).
23 For example, this discount rate is used in OMB
Circular A–4 and A–94, Appendix C (revised
November 2015 for calendar year 2016).
24 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Establishment Data,
Table B–3.

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87748

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

requirements for certain deposit
accounts. The FDIC expects that the cost
to intermediaries will be mitigated by
the final rule’s alternative recordkeeping
requirements.
Number of deposit accounts: Several
commenters criticized the FDIC’s
analysis on the grounds that it was
based on outdated information, and it
included some banks that would not be
covered by the NPR and excluded some
banks that would be covered. Based
upon comments received on the NPR
and taking into consideration the banks
that amended their Call Reports to
reflect a deposit account total under the
two million threshold, the FDIC
updated its model using June 30, 2016
Call Report data, adding banks that will
be subject to the final rule and removing
banks that are no longer expected to be
subject to the final rule. The number of
covered institutions increased from 36
to 38, and the number of deposit
accounts rose by 4.7 percent. This
update, by itself, added approximately
$6.4 million to the estimated cost of the
rule.
Ongoing costs: The FDIC’s cost
estimate was also criticized as not
addressing the ongoing costs of
compliance or considering anticompetitive effects. Some commenters
argued that the FDIC failed to take into
consideration ongoing costs; other
commenters argued that the FDIC’s
estimate of these costs was too low. The
FDIC did not receive any evidence that
its estimate for one year of ongoing costs
was too high; however, it did update its
estimate to include costs incurred in
later years. The FDIC extended the
horizon for annual ongoing costs by
calculating the present value of these
costs over a 30-year horizon at a 3.5
percent discount rate.25 This recalculation raises the estimated cost of
ongoing operations from $2.9 million to
approximately $55 million.
Costs and risks of data breaches:
Several commenters stated that the
additional information maintained by
banks as a result of this final rule would
increase the risk and cost of data
breaches. As stated in the NPR, covered
institutions already maintain significant
amounts of personally identifiable
information (PII) on their depositors.
However, the final rule has been
modified in a way that should largely
address this issue. It does not require
covered institutions to bring records inhouse that currently are permitted to
reside outside the institution with the
25 For example, this discount rate is used in OMB
Circular A–4 and A–94, Appendix C (revised
November 2015 for calendar year 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

account holder or other designated third
party.
Foreign deposits: One commenter
stated that the rule should not cover
foreign deposits. The rule does not
cover foreign deposits and the cost
calculations take into account only
domestic deposit accounts.
Misinterpretation of rule
requirements: Several commenters
stated the costs of the final rule would
be orders of magnitude higher than the
FDIC’s estimate as they believed the rule
would require them to collect or report
changes to beneficial ownership and
account balances on a daily basis. The
proposed rule did not contain any such
requirement. Similarly, the final rule
does not require daily collection or
reporting but rather periodic
demonstrations that covered institutions
can promptly provide deposit account
information to the FDIC. In any event,
the final rule sets forth alternative
recordkeeping requirements that can be
met to satisfy the rule with respect to
accounts insured on a pass-through
basis and certain deposit accounts held
in connection with formal trusts.
Model robustness to changes in
assumptions: One commenter stated
that the costs in the model are sensitive
to the assumptions used by the FDIC.
The FDIC did not receive any
information that would indicate that its
assumptions are inappropriate. Further,
this comment ignored the effect that
changing assumptions has on the
benefits of the rule, which also rise with
the banks’ difficulty in obtaining
accurate account information. For
example, assuming that the percentage
of accounts with insufficient deposit
records will be higher would raise the
costs of the rule, but it would also
increase the benefits of the rule because,
absent the final rule, a higher percentage
of accounts with missing or incorrect
information would likely further delay
an insurance determination.
Reliability of cost estimate: The NPR
noted that even if actual compliance
costs turned out to be twice the
projected cost, such costs would still be
relatively small in the context of the
size, annual income, and expenses of
covered institutions. Referring to this
statement, one commenter stated that
the ‘‘margin of error in the estimate
could be as much as 100 percent.’’ The
FDIC recognizes that no model will
perfectly capture all of the costs
associated with this rule. Doubling the
estimated costs merely demonstrates the
robustness of the FDIC’s cost estimate.
Moreover, none of the commenters
proposed an alternative model or
provided their own compliance cost
data. The FDIC invited the submission

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of such information when it issued the
ANPR and the NPR.
Relative costs for smaller institutions:
Another commenter states that the
FDIC’s compliance cost estimates do not
accurately reflect the burden the
proposed rule would place on covered
institutions and that compliance
burdens would fall disproportionately
on smaller institutions, which do not
have the economies of scale to absorb
the costs. This commenter suggests that
the FDIC provide a cost calculation that
stratifies the financial impact of the
proposal by total deposits, so that the
actual costs relative to size, other
expenses, and earnings can be
accurately assessed. One commenter
noted that, while the costs of the rule
relative to revenue and expenses are
very small for covered institutions as a
whole, this is because of the outsized
influence of large banks on aggregate
revenue and expenses. While the FDIC
recognizes that the cost of the rule per
account and as a percentage of assets,
revenue, and expenses will be higher for
relatively smaller covered institutions
and, while it considered these costs
when determining whether to adopt the
final rule, the FDIC concluded that
incomplete deposit account information
at institutions with two million or more
deposit accounts poses an unacceptable
risk to the DIF and depositors. However,
institutions can submit a request to the
FDIC for an exemption from the final
rule if their deposit-taking business
model does not pose a significant risk to
the DIF or depositors because all
deposits they accept are fully insured.
Moreover, the primary determinant of
the costs of the rule per institution is
not likely to be the size of the
institution, but rather the quality of its
current IT system for deposit recordkeeping. Those institutions with more
robust and accurate record-keeping
systems will incur fewer costs. Those
with less robust and less accurate
record-keeping systems will incur
greater compliance costs.
Expected Benefits
Multiple commenters argued that the
FDIC should quantify the expected
benefits of the final rule. None of the
commenters provided their view on the
quantitative benefits of the rule. Because
there is no market in which the value of
these public benefits can be determined,
it is not possible to quantify or estimate
these benefits with precision.
Some commenters questioned the
benefits that the rule would provide.
One individual argued that the rule
would not deliver any benefit. One
group of trade associations described
the expected benefits as ‘‘marginal,’’ and

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

another individual described the rule as
providing little benefit. The commenters
offered minimal explanation of their
positions on the expected benefits apart
from speculating that the failure of one
of these large institutions was unlikely,
notwithstanding the events of the recent
financial crisis. In the FDIC’s view, the
final rule provides many benefits, as
explained in II. Background and IV.
Expected Effects.
C. Comments Concerning Possible
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
As described in V. Alternatives
Considered, the FDIC considered a
number of alternatives in developing the
proposed and final rule, including: (i)
Adjusting thresholds above or below the
proposed two million accounts; (ii)
excluding certain account types; (iii)
maintaining the FDIC’s current
approach to deposit insurance
determinations (status quo); (iv)
developing an internal FDIC IT system
and transfer processes capable of
subsuming the deposit system of any
large covered IDI in order to perform
deposit insurance determinations; and
(v) simplifying deposit insurance
coverage rules. The FDIC received
comments on these alternatives.
In deciding which institutions would
be subject to the final rule, the FDIC
considered thresholds above and below
two million deposit accounts. The FDIC
received one comment on this
alternative. The commenter suggested
that the threshold should include both
the number of accounts and total dollar
amount of deposits and suggested that
the threshold for the number of
accounts should be higher—10 million
accounts. Raising the threshold would
decrease the costs of the rule on the
industry because fewer institutions
would be covered, but would also
increase the risk that the information
would not be available for the FDIC to
make timely and accurate deposit
insurance determinations for large
institutions and limit the FDIC’s
resolution options, thereby potentially
increasing its loss.
Several commenters argued that it
would be too costly to impose
additional recordkeeping requirements
for certain types of deposit accounts.
The FDIC recognizes that under current
generally applicable deposit insurance
rules for certain types of deposit
accounts, information needed for
deposit insurance purposes may reside
outside an IDI’s deposit account records,
and the final rule does not require that
covered institutions collect the
additional information needed from
account holders for these types of
deposit accounts.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Some commenters supported
maintaining the status quo and
considered existing regulatory standards
(specifically § 360.9) to be adequate.
Adoption of § 360.9 was an important
step toward resolving a large depository
institution in an efficient and orderly
manner. However, while § 360.9 would
assist the FDIC in fulfilling its legal
mandates regarding the resolution of a
failed institution that is subject to that
rule, the FDIC believes that if the largest
of depository institutions were to fail
with little prior warning, additional
measures would be needed to ensure the
prompt and accurate payment of deposit
insurance to all depositors.
The FDIC received a comment
supporting the alternative in which the
FDIC creates a software solution to
calculate and make deposit insurance
determinations to be deployed at all
covered institutions. The FDIC finds
that alternative is not feasible, given the
challenge of creating one program to
accommodate the different and bespoke
deposit systems of all covered
institutions.
D. Comments Concerning the Proposed
Rule’s Requirements
1. Problems Associated With Beneficial
Ownership Information
One commenter stated that requiring
a large amount of beneficial owner data
to be collected on a daily basis would
be superfluous because the FDIC would
only need to use the data for deposit
insurance determinations if and when a
covered institution failed. Moreover,
requiring daily updates on beneficial
customer data would result in high costs
and risk customer dissatisfaction.
Generally speaking, beneficial
ownership of deposits placed in covered
institutions relies upon the principles of
agency law or fiduciary relationships to
provide ‘‘pass-through’’ deposit
insurance coverage to the beneficial
owners of those accounts. In most
circumstances, the agents, fiduciaries,
custodians, or other accountholders
maintain the requisite beneficial
ownership data in their own records,
and presumably, those accountholders
update their records as necessary,
including on a daily basis, as ownership
of the underlying deposits changes.
While the final rule requires a covered
institution’s IT system to be capable of
accepting and processing beneficial
ownership data for all accounts on any
given day, i.e., the day of the covered
institution’s failure, the beneficial
ownership information will not be
required to be transferred and
maintained on a daily basis at the
covered institution provided that 12

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87749

CFR part 330 permits the recordkeeping
associated with those deposit accounts
to be maintained by an entity other than
the covered institution. See, 12 CFR
330.5 and 330.7.
Some commenters remarked that
having to submit requests for exceptions
for individual account holders would be
‘‘senselessly cumbersome and grossly
inefficient—including for the FDIC
itself—considering that all or most
covered banks would be expected to
seek exceptions for certain classes or
accounts.’’ The FDIC has considered the
comments regarding the inefficiency as
well as the burden to both the covered
institutions and the FDIC of having to
submit and process, respectively,
requests for exceptions from the final
rule’s requirements for each individual
account holder for whom it would not
be possible to obtain the requisite
information. The FDIC has revised its
proposal to address this concern. As
more fully described in III. Description
of the Final Rule, the final rule adopts
a bifurcated approach to deposit
account recordkeeping requirements
based upon the recordkeeping
procedures permitted by 12 CFR part
330. Under this approach, covered
institutions will not be required to
collect and maintain information for
certain deposit accounts provided that
12 CFR part 330 allows the requisite
information to be maintained by the
account holder or some other third
party. Consequently, it will not be
necessary for covered institutions to
request exceptions for individual
deposit accounts or for certain ‘‘classes’’
of deposit accounts provided that the
relevant deposit account ownership
information for those accounts is
maintained in accordance with 12 CFR
part 330.
Certain commenters claimed that the
proposed rule would be unduly costly,
burdensome, and impracticable in the
case of particular account holders, such
as banks needing to obtain ownership
and balance information from agents
and other custodians who service
payment cards issued by large
corporations as checking and debit
substitutes. One commenter expected
that information for retirement plan
participants would not be forthcoming
from sponsors, fiduciaries and others
involved in plan administration because
participants’ interests change daily,
there are multiple intermediaries from
whom information would need to be
collected, and because plan sponsors
and fiduciaries won’t disclose
participant information for fear of
violating participants’ privacy and
breaching fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87750

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Act of 1974.26 Another commenter
contended that a lawyer’s disclosure of
clients’ identities and interests in client
trust accounts conflicts with ethical
rules protecting confidential client
information.
After balancing the goals of the final
rule and the concerns of the
commenters, the FDIC decided to align
the deposit account recordkeeping
requirements of this final rule with the
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
12 CFR 330.5 and 12 CFR 330.7. These
two sections of the FDIC’s regulations
address deposit account ownership (and
recordkeeping) in the context of
fiduciary relationships (as described in
§ 330.5) and which includes agents,
nominees, guardians and custodians.
Compliance with these recordkeeping
requirements is necessary to ensure the
availability of pass-through deposit
insurance to the underlying beneficial
owners of the deposits. The commenters
presented various arguments for
different types of pass-through deposits
to support their request for ‘‘class’’
exceptions.
Retirement and other employee
benefit plan accounts. For the reasons
discussed, the FDIC will consider these
accounts to be subject to the alternative
recordkeeping requirements of final part
370. Nevertheless, the covered
institutions will be required to assign a
unique identifier to the account holder.
Covered institutions will also be
required to maintain a ‘‘pending reason’’
code in their deposit account records for
each account to comply with
§ 370.4(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule. The
covered institutions should have
procedures in place to obtain the
necessary plan participant information
as soon as possible after failure. Any
delay in the receipt of the requisite
information post-failure will adversely
impact the FDIC’s ability to complete its
deposit insurance determinations and
disburse deposit insurance payments to
the plan administrators.
Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts
and Real Estate Trust Accounts. Several
commenters described the problems
facing lawyers attempting to maintain
current and accurate information
regarding their clients’ identities and
transactions associated with their
Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts
(‘‘IOLTA’’) accounts. The commenters
asserted that frequent, if not daily,
deposits and withdrawals are made on
behalf of various clients. Therefore,
requiring the lawyers to provide up-todate information on a daily basis would
be ‘‘administratively difficult and
costly’’ for the lawyers who are the
26 29

U.S.C. 1002.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

account holders. As the American Bar
Association Model Rule 1.15 requires
lawyers to keep adequate records on
IOLTAs for up to five years, the lawyer
or law firm (as the account holder)
should be able to provide the necessary
information regarding their clients, who
are the beneficial owners of the deposit
in the IOLTA account, in a timely
fashion. The commenters also pointed
out that lawyers have a fiduciary duty
to maintain the confidentiality of their
clients’ sensitive or personal
information and raised concerns that
this duty could be compromised by
routinely disclosing such information to
a covered institution. The FDIC
recognizes that FinCEN recently
excepted IOLTAs and other lawyer
escrow accounts from its customer due
diligence final rule; it appears that
FinCEN relied upon many of the same
considerations discussed here.27 It is
important to note, however, that
FinCEN and the FDIC are addressing
different problems through their
respective rulemakings; i.e., the
prevention of money laundering and
timely deposit insurance
determinations, respectively.
Ultimately, the safeguards provided by
the lawyers’ rules of professional
responsibility to properly manage their
IOLTA accounts coupled with the offsite recordkeeping allowed pursuant to
§ 330.5(b)(1)–(3) for fiduciary
relationships justify the reduced deposit
account recordkeeping requirements for
IOLTA accounts.
The same commenters asserted that
Real Estate Trust Accounts (‘‘RETAs’’)
are very similar in structure and concept
to IOLTAs and, therefore, should also be
excepted as a class of deposits from the
recordkeeping requirements of final part
370. RETAs represent another type of
pooled, custodial account in which a
title/escrow agent deposits funds from
multiple clients; the funds are usually
held for a short period of time until the
clients’ real estate transactions are
completed. Deposit account
recordkeeping for RETAs is also subject
to the off-site recordkeeping
requirements of § 330.5(b)(1)–(3) for
fiduciary relationships. Therefore,
covered institutions will only be
required to assign a unique identifier to
the account holder and maintain a
‘‘pending reason’’ code in its deposit
account records in accordance with
§ 370.4(b)(1)(ii).
Mortgage servicing accounts. The
FDIC received several comments
requesting that the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule be
revised to allow relevant information
27 81

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

FR 29398, 29416 (May 11, 2016).

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

regarding mortgagors whose payments
are placed in a mortgage servicing
account (‘‘MSA’’) to continue to be
maintained with the mortgage servicing
company rather than at the covered
institution. Commenters from the
mortgage servicing industry provided a
description of the typical transactions
which occur in a mortgage servicing
account, explaining that there are
safeguards which would make the need
to access the funds in such an account
on the first business day after a covered
institution’s failure a low priority for the
servicer. For example, payments of
principal and interest are made in
advance; mortgage servicing contracts
require the servicer to maintain back-up
liquidity sources; and while the
transaction volume in these accounts is
usually high, the deposit amounts
allocated to individual beneficial
owners are typically far less than the
SMDIA. In addition, mortgage servicing
deposit accounts are expressly included
in § 330.7(d) and are usually held by a
mortgage servicing company in a
custodial or fiduciary capacity. The
FDIC has considered these comments
and, based on these considerations, the
FDIC has concluded that MSAs
maintained by a third party mortgage
servicer must only comply with the
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
12 CFR 370.4(b)(1). On the other hand,
MSAs for which the covered institution
serves as the mortgage servicer must
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements set forth in § 370.4(a).
Brokered deposits and sweep
accounts. Several commenters raised
concerns about the impact of the
proposed rule on brokered deposits.
One proposed revising the exemption
provision to apply to deposits received
through a deposit allocation or sweep
service in amounts that do not exceed
the SMDIA, expressly permitting a
custodian or sub-custodian, as account
holder, to refuse to provide beneficial
owner data for all deposits placed
through a deposit placement network or
cash sweep program, and granting an
exception based on such refusal without
requiring a particularized showing for
each of the custodian’s customers.
Another commenter recommended
excepting deposits placed in a covered
institution by a non-covered institution
through a deposit placement network.
Another commenter provided data
concerning the scope and composition
of brokered deposits and sweep
programs as a subset of the entire
banking industry’s deposit base.
According to this commenter, as of
March 31, 2016, there were $813 billion
of brokered deposits reported on bank
Call Reports; of this amount,

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
approximately $350 billion were
brokered CDs. This commenter also
estimated that $350 billion of the $813
billion reported brokered deposits are in
sweep programs and noted that deposits
in some sweep programs are not
categorized as ‘‘brokered deposits’’ and
are therefore not reported as such on the
Call Reports of those banks in which
they are deposited. According to this
commenter, almost 13 percent of
domestic deposits are held on a passthrough basis through broker-dealers or
other banks through these various
deposit programs, and average sweep
deposit balances and purchases of
brokered CDs are substantially below
the SMDIA.
Brokered deposits—for example,
those that are part of a deposit
placement network or as brokered CDs
offered by or sweep programs sponsored
by a broker-dealer—represent another
type of deposit account where a
fiduciary or other agent or custodian is
the account holder on behalf of
beneficial owners. In recognition of the
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
§ 330.5, the final rule provides for
‘‘alternative recordkeeping’’ for those
deposit accounts. The covered
institutions are authorized to maintain
their account records for brokered
deposit accounts in accordance with the
off-site and multi-tiered relationship
methods set forth in § 330.5(b). The
covered institutions will be required to
assign a unique identifier to the account
holder which will be the entity placing
the deposit(s) in the covered institution.
The covered institutions will not be able
to designate the appropriate right and
capacity code because they will not
have access to the requisite underlying
information regarding the beneficial
owners; consequently, they will need to
maintain in their deposit account
records information sufficient to
populate the pending reason field in the
pending file that would be generated by
the IT system as required under
§ 370.4(b)(1) and Appendix B of the
final rule and, if appropriate, comply
with the certification requirement set
forth in § 370.5.
Prepaid accounts. One commenter
argued for a class exemption for closedloop and non-reloadable cards because
funds paid in exchange for many of
these types of cards are not FDICinsured on a pass-through basis, bank
collection of information on the owners
of the cards is limited at best, and the
cards are often easily transferrable (e.g.,
given to friends or relatives). As
discussed in the preamble to the NPR
(and acknowledged by the commenter),
the funds paid to a merchant for a
closed-loop (or merchant) card are not

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

insured on a pass-through basis by the
FDIC because ‘‘the funds are not placed
into a custodial deposit account at an
insured depository institution.’’ 28 The
FDIC’s General Counsel’s Opinion No. 8
(‘‘GC Opinion’’) affirms this principle by
stating that the GC Opinion ‘‘does not
address merchant cards because such
cards do not involve the placement of
funds at insured depository
institutions.’’ 29 The guidance provided
in the GC Opinion ‘‘is limited to bank
cards and other nontraditional access
mechanisms, such as computers, that
provide access to funds at insured
depository institutions.’’ 30
This commenter also advocated for a
class exemption for open-loop cards.
The commenter noted that there are
practical limitations to obtaining
beneficiary-level information given
customers’ very real concern for data
security and privacy. It emphasized that
employers and government agencies are
very sensitive to daily transmittal of PII
and would prefer to maintain the
information in their own systems. In
addition, this commenter believed that
it is highly unlikely that any individual
would receive benefits on an open-loop
payroll card or government benefits card
in excess of $250,000. Finally, it pointed
out that other Federal agencies (the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
FinCEN) have issued regulations on
prepaid accounts (or imposed additional
customer identification requirements)
that may or may not complement the
proposed rule’s requirements.
Covered institutions that issue and
administer their own prepaid account
programs will need to meet the general
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
§ 370.4(a) because they maintain in their
deposit account records the information
needed to determine deposit insurance
coverage. On the other hand, if an
account holder (such as a third party
program manager, for example)
administers a prepaid account program
and the covered institution does not
maintain the information needed to
determine deposit insurance coverage in
its deposit account records, then those
deposits would be eligible for passthrough deposit insurance coverage in
accordance with §§ 330.5 and 330.7 if
specified conditions are met.
Consequently, the alternative
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
28 81

FR 10026, 10035 (February 26, 2016).
General Counsel’s Opinion No. 8—
Insurability of Funds Underlying Stored Value
Cards and Other Nontraditional Access
Mechanisms, 74 FR 67155 (November 13, 2008),
available at https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/
rules/5500-500.html.
30 Id.
29 FDIC

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87751

§ 370.4(b)(1) would be applicable
instead.
One comment stated that for a subset
of prepaid accounts, the covered
institutions have represented that they
will modify their deposit systems (in
addition to other IT systems
enhancements required by the final
rule) to be able to receive ‘‘sensitive [PII]
from employers and government
agencies at the specific point in time of
a bank resolution.’’ According to the
commenter, this additional modification
would allow employers or governments
to maintain the accuracy and integrity of
employee/beneficiary data on their own
systems. Industry-driven technological
innovations also may facilitate the
covered institutions’ ability to comply
with this critical timing requirement.
Under the final rule, the covered
institutions will be permitted to rely on
the alternative recordkeeping
requirements set forth in § 370.4(b)(1)
for any type of deposit account that
meets the criteria set forth therein, i.e.,
the covered institution’s deposit
account records disclose the existence
of a relationship which might provide a
basis for additional deposit insurance in
accordance with 12 CFR 330.5 or 330.7
(a ‘‘§ 370.4(b)(1) account’’). Consistent
with the goals of preserving public
confidence, an additional condition
applies to accounts with transactional
features. The covered institution must
certify that the respective account
holder(s) will be able to provide the
necessary depositor/beneficial owner
information to the FDIC upon failure of
the covered institution so that the FDIC
will be able to determine the deposit
insurance coverage within 24 hours
after the FDIC’s appointment as receiver
to help ensure that the FDIC will be able
to complete the deposit insurance
determination over closing weekend.
The requisite depositor information for
these § 370.4(b)(1) accounts must be
received by the FDIC so that they will
be part of the initial deposit insurance
determination process. Examples of
such deposit accounts include, but are
not limited to: Deposits placed by third
parties with associated sweep accounts,
whether or not those sweep accounts are
categorized as brokered deposits, and
prepaid accounts. If these deposit
accounts are not part of the initial
deposit insurance determination, then
the FDIC would be required to place
holds on the funds in those accounts
until the necessary information is
received and processed. As a result, the
beneficial owners of these § 370.4(b)(1)
accounts would not have access to their
funds on the next business day after the
covered institution’s failure. It is
possible that for some depositors, this

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

87752

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

delay would create a hardship; the
inability to access their funds could
result in returned checks and an
inability to handle their day-to-day
financial obligations. In the event that a
covered institution is unable to certify
that that the account holder will be able
to provide the required information
regarding the § 370.4(b)(1) accounts to
the FDIC upon failure of the covered
institution so that the FDIC will be able
to use the covered institution’s IT
system to determine deposit insurance
coverage within 24 hours after its
appointment as receiver, then the
covered institution will have to request
an exception from the FDIC.
2. Trust Accounts
Although deposit insurance coverage
for trust accounts is not dependent upon
the principle of pass-through insurance,
issues concerning the identification of
the beneficiaries of a trust and their
respective interests create a similar
problem for covered institutions, and
ultimately for the FDIC, when faced
with making such deposit insurance
determinations. Several commenters
contended that covered institutions,
regardless of client base, would satisfy
at least one, if not all three, of the
criteria identified as warranting an
exception under § 370.4(c) of the
proposed rule for these types of
accounts; i.e., the covered institution
does not maintain information
identifying the beneficial owner(s) and
the account holder has refused to
provide such information, disclosure of
such information is protected by law or
by contract, and information concerning
the beneficiaries changes frequently and
updating the information is neither cost
effective nor technologically practicable.
They stated that trustees are bound by
common law and statutory fiduciary
duties to keep certain information
confidential, including PII such as the
names and Social Security Numbers
(‘‘SSNs’’) of the trust beneficiaries. The
fiduciary duties of loyalty and
confidentiality are the basis for allowing
a Certification of Trust (under § 1013 of
the Uniform Trust Code), ‘‘to protect the
privacy of a trust instrument by
discouraging requests from persons
other than beneficiaries for complete
copies of the instrument in order to
verify a trustee’s authority.’’ These
commenters further believed (based
upon anecdotal information) that
individual trustees would open
accounts at other institutions not subject
to the proposed rule’s requirements to
avoid having to respond to the
unwanted inquiry from a covered
institution. The commenters identified a
number of different trust arrangements

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

which should be included within the
trust deposit exception: trusts
administered by third-party individual
or institutional trustees, collective
investment funds (including common
trust funds), corporate trustees for bond
indentures, and fiduciary self-deposits
made by covered institutions.
The FDIC has considered all of the
arguments advanced by the commenters
as described above. Rather than adopt
the exception process as described in
the proposed rule, the FDIC has decided
to require recordkeeping for certain
types of trust accounts based upon the
covered institution’s knowledge about
the trustee or grantor (the account
holder), as well as information regarding
the beneficiaries of the trust which
should be maintained by the covered
institution. The FDIC has developed this
approach based upon the comment
letters. Moreover, the FDIC has
considered the deposit account
ownership analysis provided in 12 CFR
part 330 in the context of the various
types of trust accounts. For example, the
FDIC recognizes that such factors as the
common law and statutory duties of
confidentiality and loyalty imposed
upon trustees would make it difficult or
impossible for them to disclose the
necessary information regarding the
beneficiaries of certain trust accounts.
Therefore, the FDIC has determined that
all deposit accounts established
pursuant to a formal trust agreement—
either formal revocable or irrevocable
(when the trustee of the irrevocable trust
is not the covered institution) must
comply with the alternative
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
§ 370.4(b)(2). This alternative
recordkeeping method should include
all formal revocable trust accounts
which are commonly referred to as
‘‘living trusts’’ or ‘‘family trusts’’ 31 and
all irrevocable trust accounts when
established by another person or entity
as trustee.32 A covered institution
would only be required to satisfy the
more limited recordkeeping
requirements set forth in § 370.4(b)(2) of
the final rule for those deposit accounts
governed by a formal trust agreement.
One requirement of that paragraph,
however, provides that the covered
institution maintain a unique identifier
for the grantor of a formal trust account
if the trust account has transactional
features. The FDIC recognizes that many
consumers now open formal trust
accounts and use them to handle their
daily financial transactions. Compliance
with this requirement regarding the
grantor will permit the FDIC to begin

3. Security Risks of Collecting
Depositors’ PII
An area of particular concern for
many commenters was the proposal’s
requirement that a covered institution
obtain PII from third parties such as
financial intermediaries, trustees,
escrow companies, benefit plan
administrators, and government entities
who have opened deposit accounts on
behalf of other entities. A commenter
remarked that the requirement to obtain
and store PII and other sensitive
information regarding covered
institutions’ financial intermediary
customers and their beneficial owners

31 See

33 12

32 12

34 12

PO 00000

12 CFR 330.10(a).
CFR 330.13.

the deposit insurance determination
process and, during that delay, allow
access to some portion of that deposit
account and process outstanding
checks.
In contrast, any deposit account held
in a covered institution established
pursuant to an informal testamentary
trust will be required to comply with all
of the recordkeeping requirements set
forth in § 370.4(a) of the final regulation.
‘‘Such informal trusts are commonly
referred to as payable-on-death
accounts, in-trust-for accounts, or
Totten Trust accounts’’ (‘‘PODs’’).33 To
comply with the FDIC’s current
regulations regarding deposit insurance
coverage for informal revocable trust
accounts, any IDI is already required to
specifically name the beneficiaries in
the deposit account records of the IDI.34
Finally, covered institutions which act
as the trustee for certain irrevocable
trust accounts would also be required to
maintain trust account information in
accordance with § 370.4(a) of the final
regulation.
As with other classes of deposits for
which the FDIC will not have the
requisite information at the time of a
covered institution’s failure, deposit
insurance determinations on the various
types of formal trust accounts will not
be possible until the account holder
provides the FDIC with the necessary
trust documentation after closing
weekend. Therefore, based upon how
quickly the trust documentation and/or
information about beneficiaries is
provided as well as the number of trust
accounts to be determined, account
holders may experience a delay in
receiving the insured deposits placed in
their trust accounts. This is the deposit
insurance determination process
currently employed by the FDIC;
however, the volume of trust accounts at
a covered institution could prolong the
deposit insurance determination period.

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

CFR 330.10(a).
CFR 330.10(b)(2).

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

‘‘would cause substantial disruption in
the deposit markets and increase the
risk of breaches of security of
depositors’ [PII]’’. The commenters
expressed particular concern regarding
the added security risk for both the
financial intermediaries and the covered
institutions if they are required to
collect depositors’ PII for deposit
accounts opened by various third
parties on behalf of numerous beneficial
owners.
The FDIC has addressed this concern.
Because the recordkeeping requirements
for all types of pass-through deposit
accounts will be based upon the existing
recordkeeping requirements for deposit
insurance purposes set forth in §§ 330.5
and 330.7, the covered institutions will
not be required to request, collect, and
maintain PII on the beneficial owners of
the deposits placed by certain financial
intermediaries. In addition, the covered
institutions will not be required to
request and maintain information
regarding the beneficiaries (which are
required to perform a deposit insurance
determination) of trust accounts that are
governed by a formal trust agreement
pursuant to §§ 330.10 and 330.13.
4. Official Items
The statutory definition of deposit
includes, but is not limited to, certified
checks, traveler’s checks, cashier’s
checks and money orders.35 Informally,
these types of deposit instruments are
known as ‘‘official items.’’ Part 330 of
the FDIC’s regulations does not adopt
this popular convention and contains no
definition of official items.
Nevertheless, the FDIC’s Financial
Institution Employee’s Guide to Deposit
Insurance utilizes the term and includes
the following examples: Money orders,
expense checks, interest checks, official
checks/cashier’s checks, travelers’
checks, and loan disbursement
checks.36 Two commenters stated that
cashier’s checks, teller’s checks,
certified checks, and personal money
orders (all commonly known as ‘‘official
items’’) would be particularly
problematic because the covered
institution does not typically have tax
identification numbers (‘‘TINs’’) for
non-customer purchasers, payees, or
holders of any of these instruments.
Consequently, both commenters
requested that these deposit instruments
be exempted as a class from the
proposed recordkeeping requirements in
the final rule. Moreover, commenters
from the banking industry and
35 12

U.S.C. 1813(l)(1) and –(4).
FDIC’s Financial Institution Employee’s
Guide to Deposit Insurance, 2016 Ed., available at
https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/DIGuideBankers/
index.html.
36 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

potentially covered institutions
explained the practical difficulties with
obtaining and maintaining the necessary
depositor information regarding these
deposit instruments. To address these
issues, the FDIC adopted the following
approach in the final rule: Covered
institutions will not be required to
modify their recordkeeping practices
with respect to these types of deposits.
While the FDIC believes that covered
institutions do generally maintain
records concerning the number of
deposit instruments issued and for
which they are primarily liable, they
routinely will not have a SSN or TIN for
the payee. Therefore, pursuant to
§ 370.4(c) of the final rule, covered
institutions will not be required to
assign a unique identifier to the payee
or designate the appropriate right and
capacity code. Nevertheless, the covered
institution must maintain in its deposit
account records a ‘‘pending reason’’
code in data field 2 of the pending file
format set forth in Appendix B for all of
its official items.
5. Assigning Right and Capacity Codes
One commenter submitted that the
proposed rule’s requirement to assign
the appropriate ownership right and
capacity code to each of the covered
institution’s deposit accounts presents
practical and administrative challenges
for both the covered institution and its
deposit customers. Other commenters
pointed out that covered institutions
will be required to review all of their
current account records in order to
accurately identify and code their
deposit accounts in accordance with the
FDIC’s deposit insurance categories. In
addition, many accounts on legacy
systems would have to be reviewed and
missing data and documentation
obtained in order to comply with certain
part 330 requirements. According to one
commenter, this would be ‘‘a
momentous undertaking’’ imposing
significant burden.
Covered institutions would also have
to develop new procedures when
opening accounts and re-train
employees to classify accounts
appropriately. Also, in many cases, the
covered institutions’ employees do not
have the subject matter expertise to
accurately designate some types of
accounts such as trust accounts. Other
types of deposit accounts potentially
difficult to identify and/or designate
include joint accounts and accounts for
corporations, partnerships, and
unincorporated associations. The
problems with assigning the correct
right and capacity code to joint
accounts, as described by the
commenters, will be discussed

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87753

separately, infra. One commenter also
believed that this requirement
effectively transfers the FDIC’s
responsibility to interpret and apply
part 330 to the covered institutions. It
asserted that ‘‘[n]on-covered institutions
would not take on this additional
responsibility.’’
The commenters offered the following
recommendations regarding the
proposed requirement that covered
institutions assign the correct right and
capacity code to each deposit account.
It appears the first choice would be for
the FDIC to amend 12 CFR part 330
prior to finalizing proposed part 370—
presumably by eliminating certain
criteria which the FDIC uses to define
or characterize various categories of
deposit accounts. Another suggestion
would be to allow the covered
institutions to rely on their internal
coding to assign the requisite codes
rather than requiring them to align their
designations with the FDIC’s rights and
capacities codes. Some commenters
seem to assume that in the context of
bank failures and the concomitant
deposit insurance determination, the
FDIC disregards part 330’s
requirements. The commenters
requested that the final rule permit
‘‘covered banks to classify accounts for
FDIC insurance determination as
recorded on their internal systems, in
line with FDIC’s current practice in
bank failures.’’ The commenters asked
that the FDIC make deposit insurance
determinations in the same manner
(based upon the same criteria) for
covered institutions as it would in the
case of a smaller bank failure.
As discussed previously in the
preamble to the NPR, the FDIC will not
be amending 12 CFR part 330 prior to
or in conjunction with the issuance of
12 CFR part 370 as a final rule.37 While
both regulations concern deposit
insurance, they serve independent
purposes. The purpose of part 330 is,
among other things, to ‘‘provide rules
for the recognition of deposit ownership
in various circumstances.’’ 38 The FDIC
follows part 330 when making deposit
insurance determinations at the time of
failure. Aside from governing the
application of deposit insurance, the
rules in part 330 are intended to assist
both IDIs and their deposit customers to
structure deposit accounts so that their
accounts will conform with the rules for
various account types. In that way, a
depositor could be confident that his or
her funds will be fully insured by the
FDIC in the event of the IDI’s failure. On
the other hand, final part 370 requires
37 81
38 12

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

FR 10026, 10032 (February 26, 2016).
CFR 330.2.

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87754

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the largest IDIs, the covered institutions,
to develop IT systems capable of
performing the deposit insurance
calculations in the event of failure and
to maintain their deposit account
records in accordance with the
information requirements set forth in
the final rule. When 12 CFR part 370 is
fully implemented, the FDIC will be in
a better position to complete the deposit
insurance determination ‘‘as soon as
possible’’ rather than waiting for deposit
account information to be provided after
a covered institution’s failure which
might result in an unacceptable delay.
The covered institutions requested
that they be allowed to rely on the
internal coding of their deposit
accounts. The FDIC presumes that for
many accounts, the covered institutions’
internal coding will, in fact, align with
the appropriate FDIC right and capacity
code, e.g., individual, joint, business,
and PODs. In certain circumstances,
however, it may be necessary for the
covered institutions to refer to the
appropriate section of part 330 and/or
the FDIC’s Financial Institution
Employee’s Guide to Deposit Insurance
(or perhaps call the FDIC Call Center) in
order to make an accurate assignment of
the FDIC right and capacity code. All of
the deposits held by a depositor in the
same right and capacity must be
aggregated before the deposit insurance
determination can be performed.
Assigning the correct right and capacity
code is necessary so that the FDIC
would be able to complete the deposit
insurance determination promptly. If
the codes assigned by the covered
institutions do not align with FDIC
codes, then the FDIC could not rely on
the covered institution’s records for
deposit insurance determination
purposes. In the context of a bank
failure, the FDIC typically will look
behind the titling and will examine the
failed bank’s records if there is a
question or concern regarding the
proper deposit insurance coverage.
The FDIC does not anticipate
handling deposit insurance
determinations at a covered institution
in a different manner than it has done
historically with smaller IDIs. Smaller
IDIs have not generally had numerous
deposit accounts that are not readily
assigned to the most common FDIC
rights and capacities codes; therefore,
this has not created a problem for either
the smaller institutions or the FDIC at
failure. The FDIC has recognized,
however, that for certain types of
deposit accounts, e.g., those based upon
pass-through deposit insurance and
certain types of trust accounts, the
covered institutions will not have
sufficient information regarding the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

beneficial owners or the beneficiaries,
respectively, to assign the correct FDIC
right and capacity code. For those types
of accounts, § 370.4(b)(1) and (b)(2)
permit the covered institution to
maintain a ‘‘pending reason’’ code in
the pending file (as set forth in
Appendix B) of its deposit account
records in lieu of the correct right and
capacity code.
Finally, the commenters asserted that
this requirement, in effect, transfers the
FDIC’s responsibility to interpret and
apply part 330 to the covered
institutions. IDIs play an important role
in maintaining a functioning deposit
insurance system, which benefits them,
their customers and the public in
general. Prompt payment of deposit
insurance is only possible when IDIs
maintain sufficient records to enable the
FDIC to perform its deposit insurance
determination function consistent with
FDI Act requirements and authority.
The FDIC provides a number of different
resources to the banking industry as
well as the public to assist in the
interpretation and application of the
part 330 rules. For example, the FDIC
conducts live Deposit Insurance
Coverage Seminars for bank officers and
employees throughout the year.
Moreover, videos of these seminars are
available on YouTube. The FDIC also
provides guidance to IDIs and the public
through the operation of a call center.
FDIC staff receives calls from bank
customer service representatives seeking
assistance in real time to structure new
deposit accounts for their customers
properly. A new edition of the FDIC’s
Financial Institution Employee’s Guide
to Deposit Insurance was recently
published, and finally, the Electronic
Deposit Insurance Estimator (also
known as ‘‘EDIE’’) is located on the
FDIC’s Web site. All of these FDIC
resources are available for the use of
IDIs (including the covered institutions)
as well as the public. Presumably this
information is instructive in opening
and structuring deposit accounts so that
they are (and remain) in compliance
with the criteria set forth in part 330.
6. Joint Accounts and Signature Cards
Both in response to the ANPR and the
NPR, certain commenters have
expressed their concern with the
challenges they would face trying to
comply with § 330.9(c)(1)(ii) of the
FDIC’s regulations. That particular
paragraph requires that ‘‘each co-owner
has personally signed a deposit account
signature card’’ in order to be a
‘‘qualifying joint account’’ for purposes

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of deposit insurance under part 330.39
Some commenters stated that covered
institutions would have to go through
all of their deposit accounts (in this
particular case, those accounts styled as
joint accounts) to verify that those
accounts satisfied the part 330
requirements. They have characterized
this process as a ‘‘momentous
undertaking.’’ Moreover, the covered
institutions expect that keeping these
records accurate and up-to-date ‘‘would
be a continuing and likely
insurmountable challenge.’’ They noted
that frequently an individual opening a
joint account will take the signature
card for a co-owner to sign but never
return the completed signature card to
the bank establishing the account.
Finally, the commenters asserted that
‘‘there is no current requirement for
banks to (1) ensure that all signature
cards are complete and on file for joint
accounts, or (2) record in deposit
recordkeeping systems which joint
accounts have complete signature
cards.’’
Regulations requiring that each coowner of a joint account must
personally sign a signature card or the
account would not be treated as a joint
account for deposit insurance
determinations have been in existence
since 1967.40 Most recently, the FDIC
addressed the commenters’ concerns
regarding § 330.9(c) in the preamble of
the NPR.41 Briefly, the FDIC’s
justifications for maintaining the joint
ownership signature card requirement
are as follows: (i) The FDIC’s signature
card requirement simply reflects safe
and sound banking practice; (ii) the
signature card represents the contractual
relationship between the IDI and the
depositor (or depositors), and signature
cards are a reliable indicator of deposit
ownership; and (iii) elimination of the
signature card requirement for joint
accounts could enable some depositors
to ‘‘disguise’’ single accounts as joint
accounts in order to be eligible for an
additional $250,000 of deposit
insurance coverage. Finally, the FDIC
believes that the three year
implementation time frame should
provide the covered institutions with
adequate time both to review their
39 The other criteria which must be satisfied in
order to be recognized as a ‘‘qualifying joint
account’’ are: The co-owners of the funds in the
account are ‘‘natural persons’’ as defined in
§ 330.1(l) and each co-owner possesses withdrawal
rights on the same basis. 12 CFR 330.9(c)(i) and
–(iii).
40 12 CFR 330.9; see FDIC, Final Rule, 32 FR
10408, 10409 (July 14, 1967); 12 CFR 564.9(b)
(repealed); see FHLBB Final Rule, 32 FR 10415,
10416 (July 14, 1967). Certain types of accounts
have been exempted from this requirement.
41 81 FR 10026, 10032 (February 26, 2016).

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

current and legacy account records and
to develop procedures to maintain the
accuracy of these records going forward.
As discussed previously, the FDIC will
not be amending provisions of 12 CFR
part 330 as part of the adoption of part
370 as a final rule.
7. Community Banks
Several commenters noted that
requiring account holders of deposits
eligible for pass-through insurance to
provide beneficial owner data would
force community banks to share
confidential data on their most vital
asset, i.e., their large-dollar depositors.
One commenter believed that
community banks would incur steep
costs and potential customer
dissatisfaction if forced to comply with
the covered institutions’ requests for the
beneficial ownership information.
However, financial intermediaries,
which may include community banks,
may not be willing to disclose sensitive
and proprietary information regarding
their customers to the covered
institutions.
One of the commenters raised another
concern that the proposed rule would
adversely affect community banks that
participate in deposit placement
networks. According to this commenter,
thousands of community banks
participate in deposit placement
networks and the commenter believes
that deposit allocation services are a
vital tool for community banks. Those
banks would be required to furnish
competing banks with confidential
information about some of their largest
depository customers any business day
that a community bank placed customer
funds at a covered institution. Two
commenters recommended that an
exception from the requirements of the
proposed rule should automatically
apply to the class of deposits (rather
than an account by account exception)
placed by community banks in a
covered institution through a deposit
placement network. According to the
commenter, this type of exception
would assure community banks that
they would not be penalized if they
participated in a deposit placement
network.
The requirements of the final rule
have addressed these potential
concerns. As discussed above, the final
rule provides for ‘‘alternative
recordkeeping’’ for deposits placed by
agents, custodians or some other
fiduciary on behalf of others as set forth
in §§ 330.5 and 330.7 of the FDIC’s
deposit insurance rules. Therefore,
community banks will not be required
to provide covered institutions with
proprietary information concerning

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

their large-dollar customers in the event
a community bank places deposits with
a covered institution. As currently
permitted pursuant to the applicable
provisions of part 330, community
banks will be allowed to retain the
beneficial ownership information on
these customers rather than provide it to
the covered institution. Likewise, the
recordkeeping requirements applicable
to deposit placement networks will not
be affected by the issuance of the final
rule. Nevertheless, if deposits placed by
community banks with covered
institutions serve as transaction
accounts for the beneficial owners
thereof, then the underlying ownership
information (i.e., the identity of each
beneficial owner and their respective
interest in the accounts) must be
provided to the FDIC upon the covered
institution’s failure so that the FDIC will
be able to use the covered institution’s
IT system to determine deposit
insurance coverage for those deposit
accounts within 24 hours after the
FDIC’s appointment as receiver.
8. Foreign Deposits
Two commenters recommended that
foreign deposits, i.e., those deposits
placed in the foreign branches of U.S.
banks, should not be within the scope
of the final rule. Both commenters
asserted that the FDIC does not need
depositor information concerning these
foreign deposits; foreign deposits are not
‘‘insured’’ deposits, and therefore, the
FDIC does not require that type of
information in order to complete its
deposit insurance determination. One of
the commenters added that the FDIC
already has access to information
concerning foreign deposits because that
information is required pursuant to
§ 360.9 of the FDIC’s regulations.
In accordance with 12 U.S.C.
1813(l)(5)(A), a foreign deposit is not a
‘‘deposit’’ unless it is dually payable in
a U.S. branch and a foreign branch of a
U.S. bank. If dually payable, however, it
would be an uninsured deposit for
purposes of the FDIC’s deposit
insurance determination and would be
recognized as a general unsecured claim
(a priority two claim) against the failed
bank’s receivership. Consequently,
foreign deposits, by definition, are
beyond the scope of the final rule.
Therefore, no recordkeeping
requirements will be imposed on the
covered institutions with respect to
foreign deposits. It is worth noting,
however, that the FDIC will no longer
have access to information regarding
foreign deposits pursuant to § 360.9
once covered institutions are compliant
with part 370 and are released from the
§ 360.9 requirements.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87755

9. Exceptions Process
A commenter argued that providing
the FDIC with the authority to approve
or disapprove a covered institution’s
request ‘‘in its sole discretion’’ would
confer unlimited power on the FDIC to
discourage or prohibit lawful
acceptance by well-capitalized covered
institutions of brokered deposits and
other deposits placed on a pass-through
insurance basis through deposit
allocation sweep services. This
commenter cited as a source of concern
recent regulatory actions by the FDIC
and other Federal banking agencies and
asked the FDIC to avoid the
misperception that it will discourage
lawful deposit brokerage relationships
by making them too costly or
burdensome for covered institutions.
The commenter’s concern that the
FDIC will exercise ‘‘virtually unlimited
power to use the Proposed Rule . . . to
discourage or prohibit well-capitalized
covered institutions from accepting
brokered and other pass-through
deposits’’ is unfounded. The particular
concern that the FDIC would discourage
lawful brokerage relationships under
this final rule is addressed by the
adoption of alternate recordkeeping
requirements permitted for brokered
deposits. It is not intended to otherwise
affect brokered deposits.
Several commenters asserted that
obtaining the information from account
holders that is needed for deposit
insurance calculations would be a
significant challenge; one of these
commenters remarked that full
compliance with the proposed rule for
certain account types would be
‘‘extremely difficult if not practically
impossible.’’ These commenters argued
that the volume of information on
financial intermediaries and their
beneficial owners, the frequency of
changes to the information, and certain
legal impediments to disclosure would
pose significant operational and cost
issues. In addition to requesting
exceptions for classes of deposits, some
of the commenters believed that the
final rule should also include a process
for requesting exceptions for other
‘‘idiosyncratic accounts’’ for which
obtaining the requisite depositor
information would be impossible or
cost-prohibitive.
The FDIC believes that the
modifications to the recordkeeping
requirements as described in the final
rule should address the concerns of
covered institutions and the concerns
raised about community banks. As a
result of the concerns raised by
commenters, the FDIC has decided that
the deposit account recordkeeping

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87756

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

requirements of part 370 should align
with the existing deposit insurance
recordkeeping requirements provided in
§ 330.5 and § 330.7. These two sections
of 12 CFR part 330 allow an IDI to
maintain the deposit account records for
various types of pass-through deposit
accounts off-site and with third parties.
Nevertheless, in the event that a covered
institution identifies other
‘‘idiosyncratic accounts’’ which would
not be covered by the recordkeeping
methods described in §§ 330.5 and
330.7, the final rule includes a
procedure for requesting an exception
from the recordkeeping requirements set
forth in § 370.4. The covered institution
would be required to submit a request
to the FDIC for the exception in the form
of a letter and explain the circumstances
that would make it impracticable or
overly burdensome to meet the
applicable recordkeeping requirements.
Additionally, the request must provide
the number and dollar value of the
deposit accounts that would be subject
to the exception. When reviewing the
request, the FDIC would consider
primarily the implications that a delay
in deposit insurance determination
would have for a particular account
holder or the beneficial owner of the
deposits, the related effect on public
confidence, the nature of the deposit
relationship, and the ability of the
covered institution to obtain the
information necessary for the FDIC to
make an accurate deposit insurance
determination.
Several commenters believed a more
detailed exception process than that
provided for in the proposed rule is
needed, and they posed a number of
questions regarding the process. For
example, there were several questions
concerning how a covered institution
would demonstrate that an entire class
of deposit accounts would meet one or
more of the three criteria for an
exception. The commenters also asked
whether a covered institution would be
required to continue to gather depositor
information on accounts subject to an
exception request during the pendency
of the FDIC’s consideration of that
request. They wanted assurances both
that the FDIC would respond
expeditiously to requests for exceptions
and that in the event that a request was
denied, the FDIC would not require
immediate compliance. The
commenters were concerned that a
covered institution be allowed a
reasonable time to achieve compliance
should an exception request be denied.
As discussed, supra, the final rule
does not provide for classes of deposits
to be ‘‘excepted’’ from the requirements
of part 370. Instead, covered institutions

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

will continue to be allowed to maintain
the beneficial ownership information for
deposit accounts that are currently
subject to the off-site recordkeeping
provisions of §§ 330.5 and 330.7 with
the appropriate custodian, agent, or
other fiduciary as set forth in those
sections of the FDIC’s regulations.
Therefore, there is no need for a process
to request exceptions for classes of
deposits. Further, the FDIC has
addressed the commenters’ concerns
regarding the covered institutions’
compliance during the pendency of an
exception request, as the final rule
provides that a covered institution will
not be in violation of any requirements
of the rule for which the institution has
submitted a request for relief pursuant
to § 370.6(b) or § 370.8(a)–(c) while
awaiting the FDIC’s response to the
request. Finally, a covered institution
will be given a reasonable amount of
time to comply with recordkeeping
requirements for certain deposit
accounts in the event that the covered
institution’s request for an exception is
denied.
The commenters asked whether there
would be a general sunset time frame for
approved exceptions, and if so, whether
there would be a flexible process to
renew those exceptions. The final rule
does not impose a general sunset time
frame for approved exceptions.
Depending on the circumstances,
approvals could be tailored to be timelimited or open-ended. Section 370.8(e)
allows the FDIC to grant its approval of
a covered institution’s request for an
exception subject to certain conditions
that would have to be met or to limit its
approval to a particular time frame.
The commenters also wanted to know
what type of process there would be to
appeal the FDIC’s adverse ruling on a
petition for an exception. They
recommended that the FDIC provide
public notice of all exceptions granted
or denied on a timely and ongoing
basis—without naming the petitioners
or specific deposit account holders—
with explanations of the bases for those
rulings. These commenters also believed
that because the exception process ‘‘is
so critical that input from covered
institutions would be needed to assure
a workable scheme,’’ the exception
process should be further clarified and
re-proposed for public notice and
comment.
The FDIC believes that the
modifications to the recordkeeping
requirements as described in the final
rule should provide much of the
requested relief. Given the alternative
recordkeeping allowed for certain
described deposit accounts, the FDIC
does not anticipate that many covered

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

institutions will need to request
exceptions from the final rule’s
requirements. With respect to
§ 370.4(b)(1) accounts that have
transactional features, if a covered
institution will not be able to provide
the certification required pursuant to
§ 370.5(a), then the covered institution
must submit a request for an exception
from that certification requirement as
provided for in § 370.8(b).
10. Comments Concerning the
Implementation Period
The proposed rule provided for an
implementation period of two years,
and several commenters proposed that
four years would be an appropriate
time-frame for implementation. The
FDIC has considered the commenters’
discussion of impediments that would
exist for a two-year implementation
period and believes that the
modifications made in the final rule to
harmonize it with the recordkeeping
permitted under 12 CFR part 330 make
a three-year implementation period
reasonable and feasible.
E. Comments Concerning Possible
Adverse Consequences
Several commenters expressed
concern over possible adverse
consequences for covered institutions,
related entities, and the financial system
generally if the proposed rule was
adopted as proposed. One commenter
specifically noted that the rule could
result in treating some depositors at
covered institutions differently than the
same kind of depositors at non-covered
institutions because the covered
institution would be applying a more
stringent standard to its deposits for
insurance purposes, and deposit
insurance determinations should not
depend on the size or complexity of the
depository institution. As discussed,
supra, 12 CFR part 330 of the FDIC’s
regulations which govern the criteria for
ownership of deposits by right and
capacity has not been amended in
connection with the adoption of final
part 370. Specifically, the FDIC has not
imposed ‘‘more stringent standards’’ on
covered institutions with respect to
‘‘qualifying joint accounts,’’ for
example, than on any other IDI. As
discussed in I. Policy Objectives, the
final rule ensures that customers of both
large and small failed banks will receive
the same prompt access to their funds
and that deposit insurance limits are
recognized equally at both large and
small banks.
One commenter objected to the
proposed rule’s requirement that, if a
covered institution is granted an
exception, it must then notify account

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
holders that delays in the payment of
deposit insurance are possible due to
the absence of required information.
According to this commenter, such a
notification could raise concerns on the
part of depositors, lead them to rethink
their account relationships, drive
deposits away from excepted accounts,
create competitive disadvantages, and
be categorically unfair. The final rule
imposes no requirement that covered
institutions notify depositors of a
possible delay in payment of deposit
insurance. Therefore, the commenter’s
concerns should be alleviated.
The FDIC has adopted the suggestion
of another commenter, however, who
argued that disclosures regarding a
delay in payment should not be
required whenever the custodian,
administrator or other fiduciary will
provide the current beneficial owner
data to the FDIC before midnight on the
day of the covered institution’s failure.
Section 370.5(a) requires a covered
institution to certify to the FDIC that the
information needed to calculate deposit
insurance for § 370.4(b)(1) accounts
with transactional features will be
available to the FDIC upon failure of the
covered institution so that the FDIC will
be able to use the covered institution’s
IT system to determine deposit
insurance coverage within 24 hours of
its appointment as receiver. In view of
this requirement, there is no need for
covered institutions to provide
notification of a possible delay in
deposit insurance payments because the
FDIC will have the requisite information
in time to complete the deposit
insurance determination on these timesensitive accounts during the closing
weekend.
One commenter asserted that certain
account holders likely would be
motivated to seek out alternative
banking relationships rather than
provide the information requested by
the covered institutions. This would
result in disruption to these account
holders and to other aspects of their
banking relationship, as well as to the
deposit markets. One commenter argued
that the proposed rule could discourage
smaller and mid-sized retail-focused
institutions from actively seeking small
deposit accounts in order to avoid being
covered by the proposed rule. This in
turn could encourage such institutions
to consider riskier and more volatile
funding sources. The FDIC believes that
these concerns have been addressed and
mitigated by the alternative
recordkeeping requirements found in
§ 370.4(b) of the final rule.
These commenters also asserted that
‘‘end-to-end’’ testing for compliance on
an annual basis would involve an

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

excessive commitment of time and
personnel. The requirement for end-toend testing has been deleted from the
final rule. Finally, they contended that
it is not necessary and not in accordance
with corporate governance principles
for a covered institution’s board of
directors to certify or attest to the
covered institution’s compliance with
the proposed rule’s requirements. This
additional board responsibility would
be an undue burden on the board and
should remain within the purview of
the covered institution’s management.
The FDIC considered this comment and
revised the corporate governance
requirement accordingly. In the final
rule, § 370.10(a)(1)(ii), the annual
certification must be signed by the
covered institution’s chief executive
officer or its chief operating officer.
VII. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The FDIC has determined that this
final rule involves a collection of
information pursuant to the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the ‘‘PRA’’) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). In
accordance with the PRA, the FDIC may
not conduct or sponsor, and an
organization is not required to respond
to, this information collection unless the
information collection displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
OMB has assigned an OMB control
number.
OMB Control Number: 3064–0202.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Affected Public: Insured depository
institutions having two million or more
deposit accounts and their depositors.42
Implementation Burden: 43
Estimated number of respondents: 38
covered institutions and their
depositors.
Estimated time per response: 44
137,014 hours (average).
Low complexity: 29,158–35,072 hours.
Medium complexity: 38,404–59,588
hours.
High complexity: 69,908–911,016
hours.
Estimated total implementation
burden: 5.21 million hours.
Ongoing Burden:
42 Covered institutions will, as necessary, contact
their depositors to obtain accurate and complete
account information for deposit insurance
determinations. For the purposes of this analysis,
the FDIC assumes that every depositor will
voluntarily respond.
43 Implementation costs and hours are spread
over a three-year period.
44 For PRA purposes, covered institutions are
presented in roughly equal-sized low, medium and
high complexity tranches ranked by their PRA
implementation hours.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87757

Estimated number of respondents: 38
covered institutions and their
depositors.
Estimated time per response: 526
hours (average) per year.
Low complexity: 481–529 hours.
Medium complexity: 458–577 hours.
High complexity: 507–666 hours.
Estimated total ongoing annual
burden: 20,000 hours per year.
Description of Collection
The final rule would require a
covered institution to (1) maintain
complete and accurate data on each
depositor’s ownership interest by right
and capacity for all of the institution’s
deposit accounts, except as provided,
and (2) configure its IT system to be
capable of calculating the insured and
uninsured amount in each deposit
account by ownership right and
capacity, which would be used by the
FDIC to make deposit insurance
determinations in the event of the
institution’s failure.
These requirements also must be
supported by policies and procedures
and will involve ongoing burden for
testing, reporting to the FDIC, and
general maintenance of recordkeeping
and IT systems functionality. Estimates
of both initial implementation and
ongoing burden are provided.
Compliance with this proposed rule
would involve certain reporting
requirements:
• Not later than ten business days
after the effective date of the final rule
or after becoming a covered institution,
a covered institution shall designate a
point of contact responsible for
implementing the requirements of this
rulemaking.
• Covered institutions would be
required to certify annually that their IT
systems can calculate deposit insurance
coverage accurately and completely
within the 24 hour time frame set forth
in the final rule. If a covered institution
experiences a significant change in its
deposit taking operations, it may be
required to demonstrate more frequently
than annually that its IT system can
calculate deposit insurance coverage
accurately and completely.
• In connection with the certification,
covered institutions shall complete a
deposit insurance coverage summary
report (as detailed in VI. The Proposed
Rule).
• Covered institutions may seek relief
from any specific aspect of the final
rule’s requirements if circumstances
exist that would make it impracticable
or overly burdensome to meet those
requirements. When doing so, they must
demonstrate the need for exception,
describe the impact of an exception on

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

87758

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the ability to quickly and accurately
calculate deposit insurance for the
related deposit accounts, and state the
number of, and the dollar value of
deposits in, the related deposit
accounts.
Estimated Costs
Comments submitted in response to
the NPR did not estimate with
particularity the implementation and
ongoing costs for covered institutions to
comply with the proposed rule. The
FDIC has, however, estimated the costs
to covered institutions based on, among
other things, information gathered in
connection with § 360.9 compliance
visitations, the cost model developed by
an outside consultant for the purpose of
developing the ANPR, and estimated
costs associated with burdens that were
identified by commenters in response to
the NPR. The total projected cost of the
final rule for covered institutions
amounts to $386 million and
approximately 5.2 million total labor
hours over three years. The cost
components of the estimate include (1)
implementing the deposit insurance
calculation, (2) legacy data cleanup, (3)
data extraction, (4) data aggregation, (5)
data standardization, (6) data quality
control and compliance, (7) data
reporting, and (8) ongoing operations.
Estimates of total costs and labor hours
for each component are calculated by
assuming a standard mix of skilled labor
tasks, industry standard hourly
compensation estimates, and labor
productivity. It is assumed that a
combination of in-house and external
services is used for legacy data clean up
in proportions of 40 and 60 percent
respectively. Finally, the estimated costs
for each institution are adjusted
according to the complexity of their
operations and systems.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Implementation Costs
Implementation costs are expected to
vary widely among the covered
institutions. There are considerable
differences in the complexity and scope
of the deposit operations across covered
institutions. Some covered institutions
only slightly exceed the two million
deposit account threshold while others
greatly exceed that number. In addition,
some covered institutions—most
notably the largest—have proprietary
deposit systems likely requiring an inhouse, custom solution for the proposed
requirements while others may
purchase deposit software from a
vendor or use a servicer for deposit
processing. Deposit software vendors
and servicers are expected to
incorporate the proposed requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

into their products or services to be
available for their clients.
The implementation costs for all
covered institutions are estimated to
total $330 million and require
approximately 5.2 million labor hours.
The implementation costs cover (1)
making the deposit insurance
calculation, (2) legacy data cleanup,45
(3) data extraction, (4) data aggregation,
(5) data standardization, (6) data quality
control and compliance, and (7) data
reporting. The estimated PRA burden
for individual covered institutions will
range from $2.3 million to $100 million,
and require between 29,158 and 911,016
hours.
Ongoing Reporting Costs
The estimated burden on individual
covered institutions for ongoing costs
for reporting, testing, maintenance, and
other periodic items is estimated to
range between $68,676 and $99,865
annually and require between 458 and
666 labor hours.
Comments
The FDIC has a continuing interest in
comments on paperwork burden.
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 information collection on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.) (‘‘RFA’’) requires
each federal agency to prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis in
connection with the promulgation of a
final rule, or certify that the final rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.46 For purposes of the RFA,
‘‘small entities’’ is currently defined to
include depository institutions with
assets of $550 million or less. The
requirements of the final rule are not
expected to apply to any depository
institutions with assets of $550 million
or less. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
RFA, the FDIC certifies that the final
rule will not have a significant

C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that this final rule is a
‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801, et
seq.) (‘‘SBREFA’’). As required by the
SBREFA, the FDIC will file the
appropriate reports with Congress and
the Government Accountability Office
so that the final rule may be reviewed.
D. Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act
The Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act
requires that the FDIC, in determining
the effective date and administrative
compliance requirements of new
regulations that impose additional
reporting, disclosure, or other
requirements on IDIs, consider,
consistent with principles of safety and
soundness and the public interest, any
administrative burdens that such
regulations would place on depository
institutions, including small depository
institutions, and customers of
depository institutions, as well as the
benefits of such regulations.47 Subject to
certain exceptions, new regulations and
amendments to regulations prescribed
by a Federal banking agency which
impose additional reporting,
disclosures, or other new requirements
on IDIs shall take effect on the first day
of a calendar quarter which begins on or
after the date on which the regulations
are published in final form.48
In accordance with these provisions,
the FDIC has considered the final rule’s
benefits and any administrative burdens
that the final rule would place on
covered institutions and their customers
in determining the effective date and
administrative compliance requirements
of the final rule. IV. Expected Effects
details the expected benefits of the final
rule and the administrative burdens that
the final rule would place on depository
institutions and their customers. The
final rule imposes additional reporting
and other requirements IDIs, and
accordingly, shall take effect no earlier
than the first day of the calendar quarter
that begins on or after the date on which
the final rule is published.
E. Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act (Pub. L. 106–102, 113
Stat.1338, 1471) requires the Federal

45 Including

47 12

46 See

48 12

PO 00000

costs to depositors.
5 U.S.C. 603, 604 and 605.

economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

U.S.C. 4802(a).
U.S.C. 4802(b).

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
banking agencies to use plain language
in all proposed and final rules
published after January 1, 2000. The
FDIC has sought to present the final rule
in a simple and straightforward manner.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 370
Bank deposit insurance, Banks,
Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Savings and loan
associations.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the Board of Directors of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation adds part
370 to title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to read as follows:

■

PART 370—RECORDKEEPING FOR
TIMELY DEPOSIT INSURANCE
DETERMINATION
Sec.
370.1 Purpose and scope.
370.2 Definitions.
370.3 Information technology system
requirements.
370.4 Recordkeeping requirements.
370.5 Actions required for certain deposit
accounts with transactional features.
370.6 Implementation.
370.7 Accelerated implementation.
370.8 Relief.
370.9 Communication with the FDIC.
370.10 Compliance.
Appendix A to Part 370—Ownership Right
and Capacity Codes
Appendix B to Part 370—Output Files
Structure
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(9), 1819
(Tenth), 1821(f)(1), 1822(c), 1823(c)(4).
§ 370.1

Purpose and scope.

Unless otherwise provided in this
part, each ‘‘covered institution’’
(defined in § 370.2(a)) is required to
implement the information technology
system and recordkeeping capabilities
needed to calculate the amount of
deposit insurance coverage available for
each deposit account in the event of its
failure. Doing so will improve the
FDIC’s ability to fulfill its statutory
mandates to pay deposit insurance as
soon as possible after a covered
institution’s failure and to resolve a
covered institution at the least cost to
the Deposit Insurance Fund.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

§ 370.2

Definitions.

For purposes of this part:
(a) Account holder means the person
or entity who has opened a deposit
account with a covered institution and
with whom the covered institution has
a direct legal and contractual
relationship with respect to the deposit.
(b) Brokered deposit has the same
meaning as provided in 12 CFR
337.6(a)(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

(c) Covered institution means an
insured depository institution which,
based on its Reports of Condition and
Income filed with the appropriate
federal banking agency, has 2 million or
more deposit accounts during the two
consecutive quarters preceding the
effective date of this part or thereafter.
(d) Compliance date means the date
that is three years after the later of the
effective date of this part or the date on
which an insured depository institution
becomes a covered institution.
(e) Deposit has the same meaning as
provided under section 3(l) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1813(l)).
(f) Deposit account records has the
same meaning as provided in 12 CFR
330.1(e).
(g) Ownership rights and capacities
are set forth in 12 CFR part 330.
(h) Payment instrument means a
check, draft, warrant, money order,
traveler’s check, electronic instrument,
or other instrument, payment of funds,
or monetary value (other than currency).
(i) Standard maximum deposit
insurance amount (or ‘‘SMDIA’’) has the
same meaning as provided pursuant to
section 11(a)(1)(E) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1821(a)(1)(E)) and 12 CFR 330.1(o).
(j) Transactional features with respect
to a deposit account means that the
depositor or account holder can make
transfers or withdrawals from the
deposit account to make payments or
transfers to third persons or others
(including another account of the
depositor or account holder at the same
institution or at a different institution)
by means of a negotiable or transferable
instrument, payment order of
withdrawal, check, draft, prepaid
account access device, debit card, or
other similar order made by the
depositor and payable to third parties,
or by means of a telephonic (including
data transmission) agreement, order or
instruction, or by means of an
instruction made at an automated teller
machine or similar terminal or unit. For
purposes of this definition, ‘‘telephonic
(including data transmission)
agreement, order or instruction’’
includes orders and instructions made
by means of facsimile, computer,
internet, handheld device, or other
similar means.
(k) Unique identifier means an alphanumeric code associated with an
individual or entity that is used
consistently and continuously by a
covered institution to monitor the
covered institution’s relationship with
that individual or entity.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

87759

§ 370.3 Information technology system
requirements.

(a) A covered institution must
configure its information technology
system to be capable of performing the
functions set forth in paragraph (b) of
this section within 24 hours after the
appointment of the FDIC as receiver. To
the extent that a covered institution
does not maintain its deposit account
records in the manner prescribed under
§ 370.4(a) but instead in the manner
prescribed under § 370.4(b) or (c), the
covered institution’s information
technology system must be able to
perform the functions set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section upon input
by the FDIC of additional information
collected from account holders after
failure of the covered institution.
(b) Each covered institution’s
information technology system must be
capable of:
(1) Accurately calculating the deposit
insurance coverage for each deposit
account in accordance with 12 CFR part
330;
(2) Generating and retaining output
records in the data format and layout
specified in Appendix B;
(3) Restricting access to some or all of
the deposits in a deposit account until
the FDIC has made its deposit insurance
determination for that deposit account
using the covered institution’s
information technology system; and
(4) Debiting from each deposit
account the amount that is uninsured as
calculated pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
§ 370.4

Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping
requirements. Except as otherwise
provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, a covered institution must
maintain in its deposit account records
for each account the information
necessary for its information technology
system to meet the requirements set
forth in § 370.3. The information must
include:
(1) The unique identifier of each
(i) Account holder;
(ii) Beneficial owner of a deposit, if
the account holder is not the beneficial
owner;
(iii) Grantor and each beneficiary, if
the deposit account is held in
connection with an informal revocable
trust that is insured pursuant to 12 CFR
330.10 (e.g., payable-on-death accounts,
in-trust-for accounts, and Totten Trust
accounts); and
(iv) Grantor and each beneficiary, if
the deposit account is held by the
covered institution as the trustee of an
irrevocable trust that is insured
pursuant to 12 CFR 330.12.

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

87760

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The applicable ownership right
and capacity code listed and described
in Appendix A to this part.
(b) Alternative recordkeeping
requirements. As permitted under this
paragraph, a covered institution may
maintain in its deposit account records
less information than is required under
paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) For each deposit account for
which a covered institution’s deposit
account records disclose the existence
of a relationship which might provide a
basis for additional deposit insurance in
accordance with 12 CFR 330.5 or 330.7
and for which the covered institution
does not maintain information that
would be needed for its information
technology system to meet the
requirements set forth in § 370.3, the
covered institution must maintain, at a
minimum, the following in its deposit
account records:
(i) The unique identifier of the
account holder; and
(ii) The corresponding ‘‘pending
reason’’ code in data field 2 of the
pending file format set forth in
Appendix B (and need not maintain a
‘‘right and capacity’’ code).
(2) For each formal revocable trust
account that is insured as described in
12 CFR 330.10 and for each irrevocable
trust account that is insured as
described in 12 CFR 330.13, and for
which the covered institution does not
maintain the information that would be
needed for its information technology
system to meet the requirements set
forth in § 370.3, the covered institution
must, at a minimum, maintain in its
deposit account records:
(i) The unique identifier of the
account holder;
(ii) The unique identifier of the
grantor if the deposit account has
transactional features; and
(iii) The corresponding ‘‘pending
reason’’ code in data field 2 of the
pending file format set forth in
Appendix B (and need not maintain a
‘‘right and capacity’’ code).
(c) Recordkeeping requirements for
official items. A covered institution
must maintain in its deposit account
records the information needed for its
information technology system to meet
the requirements set forth in § 370.3
with respect to accounts held in the
name of the covered institution from
which withdrawals are made to honor a
payment instrument issued by the
covered institution, such as a certified
check, loan disbursement check, interest
check, traveler’s check, expense check,
official check, cashier’s check, money
order, or any similar payment
instrument that the FDIC identifies in
guidance issued to covered institutions

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

in connection with this part. To the
extent that the covered institution does
not have such information, it need only
maintain in its deposit account records
for those accounts the corresponding
‘‘pending reason’’ code in data field 2 of
the pending file format set forth in
Appendix B (and need not maintain
‘‘right and capacity’’ codes).
§ 370.5 Actions required for certain
deposit accounts with transactional
features.

(a) For each deposit account with
transactional features for which the
covered institution maintains its deposit
account records in accordance with
§ 370.4(b)(1), a covered institution must
certify to the FDIC that the account
holder will provide to the FDIC the
information needed for the covered
institution’s information technology
system to calculate deposit insurance
coverage as set forth in § 370.3(b) within
24 hours after the appointment of the
FDIC as receiver. Such certification may
be part of the annual certification of
compliance required pursuant to
§ 370.10(a)(1).
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of
this section, a covered institution need
not provide such certification with
respect to:
(1) Accounts maintained by a
mortgage servicer, in a custodial or
other fiduciary capacity, which are
comprised of payments by mortgagors of
principal, interest, taxes and insurance;
(2) Accounts maintained by real estate
brokers, real estate agents, or title
companies in which funds from
multiple clients are deposited and held
for a short period of time in connection
with a real estate transaction;
(3) Accounts established by an
attorney or law firm on behalf of clients,
commonly known as an Interest on
Lawyers Trust Accounts, or functionally
equivalent accounts; and
(4) Accounts held in connection with
an employee benefit plan (as defined in
12 CFR 330.15(f)(2)).
(c) The covered institution’s failure to
provide the certification required under
paragraph (a) of this section shall be
deemed not to constitute a violation of
this part if the FDIC has granted the
covered institution relief from that
certification requirement.
§ 370.6

Implementation.

(a) A covered institution must satisfy
the information technology system and
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
this part before the compliance date.
(b) A covered institution may submit
a request to the FDIC for an extension
of its compliance date. The request shall
state the amount of additional time

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

needed to meet the requirements of this
part, the reason(s) for which such
additional time is needed, and the total
number and dollar value of accounts for
which deposit insurance coverage could
not be calculated using the covered
institution’s information technology
system were the covered institution to
fail as of the date of the request. The
FDIC’s grant of a covered institution’s
request for extension may be
conditional or time-limited.
§ 370.7

Accelerated implementation.

(a) On a case-by-case basis, the FDIC
may accelerate, upon notice, the
implementation time frame for all or
part of the requirements of this part for
a covered institution that:
(1) Has a composite rating of 3, 4, or
5 under the Uniform Financial
Institution’s Rating System (CAMELS
rating), or in the case of an insured
branch of a foreign bank, an equivalent
rating;
(2) Is undercapitalized, as defined
under the prompt corrective action
provisions of 12 CFR part 325; or
(3) Is determined by the appropriate
federal banking agency or the FDIC in
consultation with the appropriate
federal banking agency to be
experiencing a significant deterioration
of capital or significant funding
difficulties or liquidity stress,
notwithstanding the composite rating of
the covered institution by its
appropriate federal banking agency in
its most recent report of examination.
(b) In implementing this section, the
FDIC must consult with the covered
institution’s appropriate federal banking
agency and consider the complexity of
the covered institution’s deposit system
and operations, extent of the covered
institution’s asset quality difficulties,
volatility of the institution’s funding
sources, expected near-term changes in
the covered institution’s capital levels,
and other relevant factors appropriate
for the FDIC to consider in its role as
insurer of the covered institution.
§ 370.8

Relief.

(a) Exemption. A covered institution
may submit a request in the form of a
letter to the FDIC for an exemption from
this part if it demonstrates that it does
not take deposits from any account
holder which, when aggregated, would
exceed the SMDIA for any owner of the
funds on deposit and will not in the
future.
(b) Exception. A covered institution
may submit a request in the form of a
letter to the FDIC for exception from any
specific aspect of the information
technology system requirements,
recordkeeping requirements,

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
certification requirements, or reporting
requirements set forth in this part if
circumstances exist that would make it
impracticable or overly burdensome to
meet those requirements. In its request
letter, the covered institution must
demonstrate the need for exception,
describe the impact of an exception on
the ability to quickly and accurately
calculate deposit insurance for the
related deposit accounts, and state the
number of, and the dollar value of
deposits in, the related deposit
accounts.
(c) Release from this part. A covered
institution may submit a request in the
form of a letter to the FDIC for release
from this part if, based on its Reports of
Condition and Income filed with the
appropriate federal banking agency, it
has less than two million deposit
accounts during any three consecutive
quarters after becoming a covered
institution.
(d) Release from 12 CFR 360.9
requirements. A covered institution is
released from the provisional hold and
standard data format requirements of 12
CFR 360.9 upon submitting to the FDIC
the compliance certification required
under § 370.10(a).
(e) FDIC approval of a request. The
FDIC will consider all requests
submitted in writing by a covered
institution on a case-by-case basis in
light of the objectives of this part, and
the FDIC’s grant of any request made by
a covered institution pursuant to this
section may be conditional or timelimited.
§ 370.9

Communication with the FDIC.

(a) Point of contact. Not later than ten
business days after either the effective
date of this part or becoming a covered
institution, a covered institution must
notify the FDIC of the person(s)
responsible for implementing the

§ 370.10

Compliance.

(a) Certification and report. A covered
institution shall submit to the FDIC a
certification of compliance and a
deposit insurance coverage summary
report on or before the compliance date
and annually thereafter.
(1) The certification must:
(i) Confirm that the covered
institution has implemented and
successfully tested its information
technology system for compliance with
this part during the preceding calendar
year; and
(ii) Be signed by the covered
institution’s chief executive officer or
chief operating officer.
(2) The deposit insurance coverage
summary report must include:
(i) A description of any material
change to the covered institution’s
information technology system or
deposit taking operations since the prior
annual certification;
(ii) The number of deposit accounts,
number of different account holders,
and dollar amount of deposits by
ownership right and capacity code (as
listed and described in Appendix A);
(iii) The total number of fully-insured
deposit accounts and the total dollar
amount of deposits in all such accounts;
(iv) The total number of deposit
accounts with uninsured deposits and
the total dollar amount of uninsured
amounts in all of those accounts; and

(v) By deposit account type, the total
number of, and dollar amount of
deposits in, deposit accounts for which
the covered institution’s information
technology system cannot calculate
deposit insurance coverage using
information currently maintained in the
covered institution’s deposit account
records.
(3) If a covered institution experiences
a significant change in its deposit taking
operations, the FDIC may require that it
submit a certification of compliance and
a deposit insurance coverage summary
report more frequently than annually.
(b) FDIC Testing. (1) The FDIC will
conduct periodic tests of a covered
institution’s compliance with this part.
These tests will begin no sooner than
the last day of the first calendar quarter
following the compliance date and
would occur no more frequently than on
a three-year cycle thereafter, unless
there is a material change to the covered
institution’s information technology
system, deposit-taking operations, or
financial condition.
(2) A covered institution shall provide
the appropriate assistance to the FDIC as
the FDIC tests the covered institution’s
ability to satisfy the requirements set
forth in this part.
(c) Effect of pending requests. A
covered institution that has submitted a
request pursuant to § 370.6(b) or
§ 370.8(a) through (c) will not be
considered to be in violation of this part
as to the requirements that are the
subject of the request while awaiting the
FDIC’s response to such request.
Appendix A to Part 370—Ownership
Right and Capacity Codes
A covered institution must use the codes
defined below when assigning ownership
right and capacity codes.

Code

Illustrative description

SGL ....................................

Single Account (12 CFR 330.6): An account owned by one person with no testamentary or ‘‘payable-on-death’’
beneficiaries. It includes individual accounts, sole proprietorship accounts, single-name accounts containing
community property funds, and accounts of a decedent and accounts held by executors or administrators of a
decedent’s estate.
Joint Account (12 CFR 330.9): An account owned by two or more persons with no testamentary or ‘‘payable-ondeath’’ beneficiaries (other than surviving co-owners). An account does not qualify as a joint account unless: (1)
All co-owners are living persons; (2) each co-owner has personally signed a deposit account signature card (except that the signature requirement does not apply to certificates of deposit, to any deposit obligation evidenced
by a negotiable instrument, or to any account maintained on behalf of the co-owners by an agent or custodian);
and (3) each co-owner possesses withdrawal rights on the same basis.
Revocable Trust Account (12 CFR 330.10): An account owned by one or more persons that evidences an intention that, upon the death of the owner(s), the funds shall belong to one or more beneficiaries. There are two
types of revocable trust accounts:
(1) Payable-on-Death Account (Informal Revocable Trust Account): An account owned by one or more persons
with one or more testamentary or ‘‘payable-on-death’’ beneficiaries.
(2) Revocable Living Trust Account (Formal Revocable Trust Account): An account in the name of a formal revocable ‘‘living trust’’ with one or more grantors and one or more testamentary beneficiaries.
Irrevocable Trust Account (12 CFR 330.13): An account in the name of an irrevocable trust (unless the trustee is
an insured depository institution, in which case the applicable code is DIT.

JNT .....................................

REV ....................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

recordkeeping and information
technology system capabilities required
by this part.
(b) Address. Point-of-contact
information, reports and requests made
under this part shall be submitted in
writing to: Office of the Director,
Division of Resolutions and
Receiverships, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20429–0002.

87761

IRR .....................................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

87762

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Code

Illustrative description

CRA ....................................

Certain Other Retirement Accounts (12 CFR 330.14 (b)–(c)) to the extent that participants under such plan have
the right to direct the investment of assets held in individual accounts maintained on their behalf by the plan, including an individual retirement account described in section 408(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.
408(a)), an account of a deferred compensation plan described in section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code (26
U.S.C. 457), an account of an individual account plan as defined in section 3(34) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1002), a plan described in section 401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (26
U.S.C. 401(d)).
Employee Benefit Plan Account (12 CFR 330.14): An account of an employee benefit plan as defined in section
3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1002), including any plan described in section
401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(d)), but not including any account classified as a Certain
Retirement Account.
Business/Organization Account (12 CFR 330.11): An account of an organization engaged in an ‘independent activity’ (as defined in § 330.1(g)), but not an account of a sole proprietorship.
This category includes:
a. Corporation Account: An account owned by a corporation.
b. Partnership Account: An account owned by a partnership.
c. Unincorporated Association Account: An account owned by an unincorporated association (i.e., an account
owned by an association of two or more persons formed for some religious, educational, charitable, social, or
other noncommercial purpose).
Government Account (12 CFR 330.15): An account of a governmental entity.
All time and savings deposit accounts of the United States and all time and savings deposit accounts of a
state, county, municipality, or political subdivision depositing funds in an insured depository institution in the
state comprising the public unit or wherein the public unit is located (including any insured depository institution having a branch in said state).
All demand deposit accounts of the United States and all demand deposit accounts of a state, county, municipality, or political subdivision depositing funds in an insured depository institution in the state comprising the
public unit or wherein the public unit is located (including any insured depository institution having a branch
in said state).
All deposits, regardless of whether they are time, savings or demand deposit accounts of a state, county, municipality or political subdivision depositing funds in an insured depository institution outside of the state
comprising the public unit or wherein the public unit is located.
Mortgage Servicing Account (12 CFR 330.7(d)): An account held by a mortgage servicer, funded by payments by
mortgagors of principal and interest.
Public Bond Accounts (12 CFR 330.15(c)): An account consisting of funds held by an officer, agent or employee of
a public unit for the purpose of discharging a debt owed to the holders of notes or bonds issued by the public
unit.
IDI as trustee of irrevocable trust accounts (12 CFR 330.12): ‘‘Trust funds’’ (as defined in § 330.1(q)) account held
by an insured depository institution as trustee of an irrevocable trust.
Annuity Contract Accounts (12 CFR 330.8): Funds held by an insurance company or other corporation in a deposit
account for the sole purpose of funding life insurance or annuity contracts and any benefits incidental to such
contracts.
Custodian accounts for American Indians (12 CFR 330.7(e)): Funds deposited by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of
the United States Department of the Interior (the ‘‘BIA’’) on behalf of American Indians pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
162(a), or by any other disbursing agent of the United States on behalf of American Indians pursuant to similar
authority, in an insured depository institution.
IDI Accounts under Department of Energy Program: Funds deposited by an insured depository institution pursuant
to the Bank Deposit Financial Assistance Program of the Department of Energy.

BUS ....................................

GOV1–GOV2–GOV3 ..........
GOV1 ..........................

GOV2 ..........................

GOV3 ..........................
MSA ....................................
PBA ....................................
DIT ......................................
ANC ....................................
BIA ......................................

DOE ....................................

Appendix B to Part 370—Output Files
Structure

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

The output files will include the data
necessary for the FDIC to determine the
deposit insurance coverage in a resolution. A

Customer File. Customer File will be used
by the FDIC to identify the customers. One
record represents one unique customer.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

covered institution must have the capability
to prepare and maintain the files detailed
below. These files must be prepared in
successive iterations as the covered
institution receives additional data from
external sources necessary to complete any

pending deposit insurance calculations. The
unique identifier is required in all four files
to link the customer information. All files are
pipe delimited. Do not pad leading and
trailing spacing or zeros for the data fields.

The data elements will include:

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

ER05DE16.001

EBP ....................................

87763

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Field name

Description

1. CS_Unique_ID .........

This field is the unique identifier that is the primary key for the depositor data record. It will
be generated by the covered institution and there shall not be duplicates.
This field shall contain the ID number that identifies the entity based on a government issued
ID or corporate filling. Populate as follows:.
—For a United States individual—Legal identification number (e.g., SSN, TIN, Driver’s License, or Passport Number).
—For a foreign national individual—where a SSN or TIN does not exist, a foreign passport
or other legal identification number (e.g., Alien Card).
—For a Non-Individual—the Tax identification Number (TIN), or other register entity number.
The valid customer identification types, are noted below: ..........................................................
—SSN—Social Security Number.
—TIN—Tax Identification Number.
—DL—Driver’s License, issued by a State or Territory of the United States.
—ML—Military ID.
—PPT—Valid Passport.
—AID—Alien Identification Card.
—OTH—Other.
The customer type field indicates the type of entity the customer is at the covered institution.
The valid values are:.
—IND—Individual.
—BUS—Business.
—TRT—Trust.
—NFP—Non-Profit.
—GOV—Government.
—OTH—Other.
Customer first name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity
Customer middle name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity.
Customer last name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity
Customer suffix ............................................................................................................................
The registered name of the entity. Do not use this field if the customer is an individual ..........
Street address line 1. The current account statement mailing address of record .....................
Street address line 2. If available, the second address line .......................................................
Street address line 3. If available, the third address line ...........................................................
The city associated with the permanent legal address ...............................................................
The state for United States addresses or state/province/county for international addresses ....
—For United States addresses use a two-character state code (official United States Postal
Service abbreviations) associated with the permanent legal address.
—For international address follow that country state code.
The Zip/Postal Code associated with the customers’ permanent legal address ........................
—For United States zip codes, use the United States Postal Service ZIP+4 standard.
—For international zip codes follow that standard format of that country.
The country associated with the permanent legal address. Provide the country name or the
standard International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country code.
Customer telephone number. The telephone number on record for the customer, including
the country code if not within the United States.
The email address on record for the customer ...........................................................................
This field indicates whether the customer has outstanding debt with covered institution. This
field may be used by the FDIC to determine offsets. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if customer has outstanding
debt with covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.
This field shall only be used for Government customers. This field indicates whether the covered institution has pledged securities to the government entity, to cover any shortfall in
deposit insurance. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if the government entity has outstanding security pledge with
covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.

2. CS_Govt_ID .............

3. CS_Govt_ID_Type ...

4. CS_Type ..................

5. CS_First_Name ........
6. CS_Middle_Name ....
7. CS_Last_Name ........
8. CS_Name_Suffix ......
9. CS_Entity_Name ......
10. CS_Street_Add_Ln1
11. CS_Street_Add_Ln2
12. CS_Street_Add_Ln3
13. CS_City ..................
14. CS_State ................

15. CS_ZIP ..................
16. CS_Country ...........
17. CS_Telephone .......
18. CS_Email ...............
19. CS_Outstanding_
Debt_Flag.
20. CS_Security_
Pledge_Flag.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Account File. The Account File contains
the deposit ownership rights and capacities
information, allocated balances, insured

Format

amounts, and uninsured amounts. The
balances are in U.S. dollars. The Account file
Description

1. CS_Unique_ID .........

This field is the unique identifier that is the primary key for the depositor data record. It will
be generated by the covered institution and there cannot be duplicates.
Deposit account identifier. The primary field used to identify a deposit account .......................
The account identifier may be composed of more than one physical data element to uniquely
identify a deposit account..
Account ownership categories ....................................................................................................
—SGL—Single accounts.
—JNT—Joint accounts.
—REV—Revocable trust accounts.
—RR—Irrevocable trust accounts.
—CRA—Certain retirement accounts.

3. DP_Right_Capacity ..

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Variable Character.

Character (3).

Character (3).

Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable

Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.

Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Character (1).
Character (1).

is linked to the Customer File by the CS_
Unique_ID.
The data elements will include:

Field name

2. DP_Acct_Identifier ...

Variable Character.

Format

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Character (4).

87764

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Field name

4. DP_Prod_Cat ...........

5. DP_Allocated_Amt ...

6. DP_Acc_Int ..............
7. DP_Total_PI .............
8. DP_Hold_Amount ....
9. DP_Insured_Amount
10. DP_Uninsured_
Amount.
11. DP_Prepaid_Account_Flag.
12. DP_PT_Account_
Flag.
13. DP_PT_Trans_Flag

Description
—EBP—Employee benefit plan accounts.
—BUS—Business/Organization accounts.
—GOV1, GOV2, GOV3—Government accounts (public unit accounts).
—MSA—Mortgage servicing accounts for principal and interest payments.
—DIT—Accounts held by a depository institution as the trustee of an irrevocable trust.
—ANC—Annuity contract accounts.
—PBA—Public bond accounts.
—BIA—Custodian accounts for American Indians.
—DOE—Accounts of an IDI pursuant to the Bank Deposit Financial Assistance Program of
the Department of Energy.
Product category or classification ...............................................................................................
—DDA—Demand Deposit Accounts.
—NOW—Negotiable Order of Withdrawal.
—MMA—Money Market Deposit Accounts.
—SAV—Other savings accounts.
—CDS—Time Deposit accounts and Certificate of Deposit accounts, including any accounts
with specified maturity dates that may or may not be renewable..
The current balance in the account at the end of business on the effective date of the file, allocated to a specific owner in that insurance category.
For JNT accounts, this is a calculated field that represents the allocated amount to each
owner in JNT category..
For REV accounts, this is a calculated field that represents the allocated amount to each
owner-beneficiary in REV category..
For other accounts with only one owner, this is the account current balance..
This balance shall not be reduced by float or holds. For CDs and time deposits, the balance
shall reflect the principal balance plus any interest paid and available for withdrawal not already included in the principal (do not include accrued interest).
Accrued interest allocated similarly as data field #5 DP_Allocated_Amt ....................................
The amount of interest that has been earned but not yet paid to the account as of the date
of the file..
Total amount adding #5 DP_Allocated_Amt and #6 DP_Acc_Int ...............................................
Hold amount on the account .......................................................................................................
The available balance of the account is reduced by the hold amount. It has no effect on current balance (ledger balance).
The insured amount of the account ............................................................................................
The uninsured amount of the account ........................................................................................
This field indicates a prepaid account with covered institution. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if account is a prepaid account with covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.
This field indicates a pass-through account with covered institution. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if account is a
pass-through with covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.
This field indicates whether the fiduciary account has sub-accounts that have transactional
features. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if account has transactional features, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.

Account Participant File. The Account
Participant File will be used by the FDIC to
identify account participants, to include the
official custodian, beneficiary, bond holder,

mortgagor, or employee benefit plan
participant, for each account and account
holder. One record represents one unique
account participant. The Account Participant

Character (3).

Decimal (14,2).

Decimal (14,2).
Decimal (14,2).
Decimal (14,2).
Decimal (14,2).
Decimal (14,2).
Character (1).
Character (1).
Character (1).

File is linked to the Account File by CS_
Unique_ID and DP_Acct_Identifier.
The data elements will include:

Field name

Description

Format

1. CS_Unique_ID .........

This field is the unique identifier that is the primary key for the depositor data record. It will be
generated by the covered institution and there shall not be duplicates.
Deposit account identifier. The primary field used to identify a deposit account. ...........................
The account identifier may be composed of more than one physical data element to uniquely
identify a deposit account.
Account ownership categories ..........................................................................................................
—SGL—Single accounts.
—JNT—Joint accounts.
—REV—Revocable trust accounts.
—IRR—Irrevocable trust accounts.
—CRA—Certain retirement accounts.
—EBP—Employee benefit plan accounts.
—BUS—Business/Organization accounts.
—GOV1, GOV2, GOV3—Government accounts (public unit accounts).
—MSA—Mortgage servicing accounts for principal and interest payments.
—DIT—Accounts held by a depository institution as the trustee of an irrevocable trust.
—ANC—Annuity contract accounts.
—PBA—Public bond accounts.
—BIA—Custodian accounts for American Indians.
—DOE—Accounts of an IDI pursuant to the Bank Deposit Financial Assistance Program of the
Department of Energy.

Variable Character.

2. DP_Acct_Identifier ...
3. DP_Right_Capacity ..

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

Format

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Variable Character.
Character (4).

87765

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Field name

Description

4. DP_Prod_Category ..

Product category or classification .....................................................................................................
—DDA—Demand Deposit Accounts.
—NOW—Negotiable Order of Withdrawal.
—MMA—Money Market Deposit Accounts.
—SAV—Other savings accounts.
—CDS—Time Deposit accounts and Certificate of Deposit accounts, including any accounts
with specified maturity dates that may or may not be renewable.
Amount of funds attributable to the account participant as an account holder (e.g., Public account holder of a public bond account) or the amount of funds entitled to the beneficiary for
the purpose of insurance determination (e.g., Revocable Trust).
This field is the unique identifier for the Account Participant. It will be generated by the covered
institution and there shall not be duplicates. If the account participant is an existing bank customer this field is the same as CS_Unique_ID field.
This field shall contain the ID number that identifies the entity based on a government issued ID
or corporate filling. Populate as follows:
—For a United States individual—Legal identification number (e.g., SSN, TIN, Driver’s License,
or Passport Number).
—For a foreign national individual—where a SSN or TIN does not exist, a foreign passport or
other legal identification number (e.g., Alien Card).
—For a Non-Individual—the Tax identification Number (TIN), or other register entity number.
The valid customer identification types, are: ....................................................................................
—SSN—Social Security Number.
—TIN—Tax Identification Number.
—DL—Driver’s License, issued by a State or Territory of the United States.
—ML—Military ID.
—PPT—Valid Passport.
—AID—Alien Identification Card.
—OTH—Other.
Customer first name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity ......
Customer middle name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity ..
Customer last name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity .......
The registered name of the entity. Do not use this field if the participant is an individual ..............
This field is used as the participant type identifier. The field will list the ‘‘beneficial owner’’ type:

5. AP_Allocated_
Amount.
6. AP_Participant_ID ....
7. AP_Govt_ID .............

8. AP_Govt_ID_Type ...

9. AP_First_Name ........
10. AP_Middle_Name ..
11. AP_Last_Name ......
12. AP_Entity_Name ....
13. AP_Participant_
Type.

Format
Character (3).

Decimal (14,2).
Variable Character.
Variable Character.

Character (3).

Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Character (3).

—OC—Official Custodian.
—BEN—Beneficiary.
—BHR—Bond Holder.
—MOR—Mortgagor.
—EPP—Employee Benefit Plan Participant.

Pending File. The Pending File contains
the information needed for the FDIC to
contact the owner or agent requesting

The data elements will include:

Field name

Description

Format

1. CS_Unique_ID .........

This field is the unique identifier that is the primary key for the depositor data record. It will be
generated by the covered institution and there cannot be duplicates.
Reason code for the account to be included in Pending file ...........................................................
For deposit account records maintained by the bank, use the following codes.
—A—agency or custodian.
—B—beneficiary.
—OI—official item.
—RAC—right and capacity code.
For alternative recordkeeping requirements, use the following codes.
—ARB—direct obligation brokered deposit.
—ARBN—non-direct obligation brokered deposit.
—ARCRA—certain retirement accounts.
—AREBP—employee benefit plan accounts.
—ARM—mortgage servicing for principal and interest payments.
—ARO—other deposits.
—ARTR—trust accounts.
The FDIC needs these codes to initiate the collection of needed information.
Deposit account identifier. The primary field used to identify a deposit account ............................
The account identifier may be composed of more than one physical data element to uniquely
identify a deposit account.
Account ownership categories ..........................................................................................................
—SGL—Single accounts.
—JNT—Joint accounts.
—REV—Revocable trust accounts.
—IRR—Irrevocable trust accounts.
—CRA—Certain retirement accounts.

Variable Character.

2. Pending_Reason .....

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

additional information to complete the
deposit insurance calculation. Each record
represents a deposit account.

3. DP_Acct_Identifier ...
4. DP_Right_Capacity ..

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Character (5).

Variable Character.
Character (4).

87766

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Field name

5. DP_Prod_Category ..

6. DP_Cur_Bal .............

7. DP_Acc_Int ..............
8. DP_Total_PI .............
9. DP_Hold_Amount ....
10. DP_Prepaid_Account_Flag.
11. CS_Govt_ID ...........

12. CS_Govt_ID_Type

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

CS_First_Name ......
CS_Middle_Name ..
CS_Last_Name ......
CS_Name_Suffix ....
CS_Entity_Name ....
CS_Street_Add_Ln1

19. CS_Street_Add_Ln2
20. CS_Street_Add_Ln3
21. CS_City ..................
22. CS_State ................

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

23. CS_ZIP ..................
24. CS_Country ...........
25. CS_Telephone .......
26. CS_Email ...............
27. CS_Outstanding_
Debt_Flag.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Description

Format

—EBP—Employee benefit plan accounts.
—BUS—Business/Organization accounts.
—GOV1, GOV2, GOV3—Government accounts (public unit accounts).
—MSA—Mortgage servicing accounts for principal and interest payments.
—DIT—Accounts held by a depository institution as the trustee of an irrevocable trust.
—ANC—Annuity contract accounts.
—PBA—Public bond accounts.
—BIA—Custodian accounts for American Indians.
—DOE—Accounts of an IDI pursuant to the Bank Deposit Financial Assistance Program of the
Department of Energy.
Product category or classification .....................................................................................................
—DDA—Demand Deposit Accounts.
—NOW—Negotiable Order of Withdrawal.
—MMA—Money Market Deposit Accounts.
—SAV—Other savings accounts.
—CDS—Time Deposit accounts and Certificate of Deposit accounts, including any accounts
with specified maturity dates that may or may not be renewable.
Current balance ................................................................................................................................
The current balance in the account at the end of business on the effective date of the file.
This balance shall not be reduced by float or holds. For CDs and time deposits, the balance
shall reflect the principal balance plus any interest paid and available for withdrawal not already included in the principal (do not include accrued interest).
Accrued interest ................................................................................................................................
The amount of interest that has been earned but not yet paid to the account as of the date of
the file.
Total of principal and accrued interest .............................................................................................
Hold amount on the account ............................................................................................................
The available balance of the account is reduced by the hold amount. It has no impact on current
balance (ledger balance).
This field indicates a prepaid account with covered institution. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if account is a prepaid
account, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.
This field shall contain the ID number that identifies the entity based on a government issued ID
or corporate filling. Populate as follows:.
—For a United States individual—Legal identification number (e.g., SSN, TIN, Driver’s License
or Passport Number).
—For a foreign national individual—where a SSN or TIN does not exist, a foreign passport or
other legal identification number (e.g., Alien Card).
—For a Non-Individual—the Tax identification Number (TIN), or other register entity number.
The valid customer identification types: ...........................................................................................
—SSN—Social Security Number.
—TIN—Tax Identification Number.
—DL—Driver’s License, issued by a State or Territory of the United States.
—ML—Military ID.
—PPT—Valid Passport.
—AID—Alien Identification Card.
—OTH—Other.
Customer first name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity ......
Customer middle name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity ..
Customer last name. Use only for the name of individuals and the primary contact for entity .......
Customer suffix .................................................................................................................................
The registered name of the entity. Do not use this field if the customer is an individual ...............
Street address line 1 .........................................................................................................................
The current account statement mailing address of record.
Street address line 2 .........................................................................................................................
If available, the second address line.
Street address line 3 .........................................................................................................................
If available, the third address line.
The city associated with the permanent legal address ....................................................................
The state for United States addresses or state/province/county for international addresses .........
—For United States addresses use a two-character state code (official United States Postal
Service abbreviations) associated with the permanent legal address.
—For international address follow that country state code.
The Zip/Postal Code associated with the customers’ permanent legal address .............................
—For United States zip codes, use the United States Postal Service ZIP+4 standard.
—For international zip codes follow the standard format of that country.
The country associated with the permanent legal address. Provide the country name or the
standard International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country code.
Customer telephone number. The telephone number on record for the customer, including the
country code if not within the United States.
The email address on record for the customer ................................................................................
This field indicates whether the customer has outstanding debt with covered institution. This
field may be used to determine offsets. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if customer has outstanding debt with covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Character (3).

Decimal (14,2).

Decimal (14,2).
Decimal (14,2).
Decimal (14,2).
Character (1).
Variable Character.

Character (3).

Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable

Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.
Character.

Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.

Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Variable Character.
Character (1).

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Field name
28. CS_Security_
Pledge_Flag.
29. DP_PT_Account_
Flag.
30. PT_Parent_Customer_ID.
31. DP_PT_Trans_Flag

Description

Format

This field indicates whether the CI has pledged securities to the government entity, to cover any
shortfall in deposit insurance. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if the government entity has outstanding security
pledge with covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise. This field shall only be used for Government customers.
This field indicates a pass-through account with covered institution. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if account is a
pass-through with covered institutions, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.
This field contains the unique identifier of the parent customer ID who has the fiduciary responsibility at the covered institution.
This field indicates whether the fiduciary account has sub-accounts that have transactional features. Enter ‘‘Y’’ if account has transactional features, enter ‘‘N’’ otherwise.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 15th day of
November, 2016.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–28396 Filed 12–2–16; 8:45 am]

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Dec 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

87767

E:\FR\FM\05DER3.SGM

05DER3

Character (1).

Character (1).
Variable Character.
Character (1).