[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61408-61460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24464]



[[Page 61407]]

Vol. 83

Thursday,

No. 230

November 29, 2018

Part II





Federal Reserve System





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





12 CFR Parts 225, 238, 242, et al.





Prudential Standards for Large Bank Holding Companies and Savings and 
Loan Holding Companies; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61408]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Parts 225, 238, 242, and 252

[Regulations Y, LL, PP, and YY; Docket No. R-1627]
RIN 7100-AF20


Prudential Standards for Large Bank Holding Companies and Savings 
and Loan Holding Companies

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Board is requesting comment on a proposed rule that would 
establish risk-based categories for determining prudential standards 
for large U.S. banking organizations, consistent with section 401 of 
the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. 
The proposal would also amend certain prudential standards, including 
standards relating to liquidity, risk management, stress testing, and 
single-counterparty credit limits, to reflect the risk profiles of 
banking organizations under each proposed category of standards and 
would apply prudential standards to certain large savings and loan 
holding companies using the same categories. In addition, the proposal 
would make corresponding changes to reporting forms. Separately, the 
Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC, and together with the 
Board and the OCC, the agencies), are proposing amendments to the 
agencies' capital and liquidity requirements based on the same 
categories. The proposal would not apply to foreign banking 
organizations, including to an intermediate holding company of a 
foreign banking organization.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1627 and 
RIN 7100-AF20, by any of the following methods:
     Agency website: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.
     Email: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include docket 
number and RIN in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
     Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20551.
    All public comments are available from the Board's website at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as 
submitted, unless modified for technical reasons or to remove sensitive 
PII at the commenter's request. Public comments may also be viewed 
electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Horsley, Deputy Associate 
Director, (202) 452-5239, Elizabeth MacDonald, Manager, (202) 475-6316, 
Brian Chernoff, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2952, 
Matthew McQueeney, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2942, or 
Hillel Kipnis, Senior Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2924, Division of 
Banking Supervision and Regulation; or Laurie Schaffer, Associate 
General Counsel, (202) 452-2272, Asad Kudiya, Counsel, (202) 475-6358, 
Mary Watkins, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3722, or Alyssa O'Connor, 
Attorney, (202) 452-3886, Legal Division. Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. Tailoring Enhanced Prudential Standards
II. Overview of the Proposal
    A. Proposed Approach to Tailoring
    B. Scope of Application
    1. Bank Holding Companies
    2. Savings and Loan Holding Companies
III. Scoping Criteria for Proposed Categories
    A. Size
    B. Other Risk-Based Indicators
    1. Cross-Jurisdictional Activity
    2. Weighted Short-Term Wholesale Funding
    3. Nonbank Assets
    4. Off-Balance Sheet Exposure
    C. Alternative Scoping Criteria
    D. Determination of Applicable Category of Standards
IV. Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding Companies and 
Depository Savings and Loan Holding Companies
    A. Category I Standards
    B. Category II Standards
    C. Category III Standards
    D. Category IV Standards
    E. Covered Savings and Loan Holding Companies
    F. Risk Management and Risk Committee Requirements
V. Changes to Dodd-Frank Act Definitions
VI. Proposed Reporting Changes
VII. Impact Assessment
    A. Capital Planning and Stress Testing
    B. Liquidity
    C. Covered Savings and Loan Holding Companies
VIII. Administrative Law Matters
    A. Solicitation of Comments and Use of Plain Language
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

I. Introduction

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is 
requesting comment on a proposed rule (the proposal) that would 
establish a revised framework for determining the prudential standards 
that apply to large U.S. banking organizations, based on the risk 
profiles of these firms.\1\ The proposal would build on the Board's 
existing tailoring of its rules and account for changes made by section 
401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection 
Act (EGRRCPA) regarding enhanced prudential standards for these 
firms.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposal would not apply to a foreign banking 
organization, including to an intermediate holding company of a 
foreign banking organization. See section II.B of this Supplementary 
Information section.
    \2\ Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    The 2007-2009 financial crisis revealed significant weaknesses in 
resiliency and risk management in the financial sector, and 
demonstrated how the failure or distress of large, leveraged, and 
interconnected financial companies could pose a threat to financial 
stability. The imprudent risk taking of major financial companies, and 
their subsequent distress--and in some cases disorderly failure--led to 
severe consequences for U.S. and global households and businesses.
    To address weaknesses in the banking sector that were evident in 
the financial crisis, the Board has strengthened capital, liquidity, 
risk management, and other prudential standards for banking 
organizations. Consistent with section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),\3\ the 
Board applied a broad set of standards to bank holding companies with 
$50 billion or more in total consolidated assets to help prevent or 
mitigate risks to U.S. financial stability that could arise from the 
material financial distress or failure, or ongoing activities of, these 
firms, as well as to better ensure these firms' safety and soundness. 
These standards include capital planning requirements; supervisory and 
company-run stress testing; liquidity risk management, stress testing, 
and buffer requirements; risk management and risk committee 
requirements; and single counterparty

[[Page 61409]]

credit limits.\4\ In addition, with the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC), the Board implemented resolution planning 
requirements,\5\ and with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 
(OCC) and the FDIC (together with the Board and the OCC, the agencies), 
the Board adopted a revised regulatory capital rule \6\ and 
standardized liquidity requirement (the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) 
rule) \7\ and proposed a stable funding requirement (the net stable 
funding ratio (NSFR) proposed rule).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 12 U.S.C. 5365.
    \4\ See 12 CFR 225.8, 12 CFR part 252.
    \5\ See 12 CFR part 243.
    \6\ See 12 CFR part 217.
    \7\ See 12 CFR part 249.
    \8\ See Net Stable Funding Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement 
Standards and Disclosure Requirements, 81 FR 35123 (proposed June 1, 
2016) (NSFR proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards are tailored based on the size and complexity of a 
firm. For example, heightened capital requirements apply to firms with 
$250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or 
more in on-balance-sheet foreign exposure, including the requirement to 
calculate regulatory capital requirements using internal models and 
meet a minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement.\9\ In addition 
to these heightened capital requirements, U.S. global systemically 
important bank holding companies (GSIBs) are subject to a risk-based 
capital surcharge \10\ and leverage buffer.\11\ With respect to 
liquidity requirements, the Board applies a less stringent, modified 
liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) requirement to bank holding companies 
and certain savings and loan holding companies with $50 billion or 
more, but less than $250 billion, in total consolidated assets and less 
than $10 billion in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure,\12\ and 
has proposed a less stringent modified net stable funding ratio (NSFR) 
requirement for these firms.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., 12 CFR 217.10(c), 217.11(b), and 217.100-217.174 
(subpart E).
    \10\ See 12 CFR 217 subpart H. In addition, in 2017, the Board 
amended its capital plan rule to apply more limited capital planning 
requirements to bank holding companies that are not U.S. GSIBs and 
that have less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets and 
less than $75 billion in nonbank assets, as compared to larger, more 
complex bank holding companies. See 12 CFR 225.8.
    \11\ See 12 CFR 217.11(c).
    \12\ See 12 CFR part 249, subpart G.
    \13\ See NSFR proposed rule, proposed subpart M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Post-crisis financial regulations have resulted in substantial 
gains in resiliency for individual firms and for the financial system 
as a whole. Notable advances include higher amounts of better quality 
capital, a robust framework for assessing the capital adequacy of 
banking organizations under stressful financial and economic 
conditions, higher buffers of liquid assets and more stable funding 
profiles, and improvements in resolvability. Firms have also made 
significant improvements in independent risk identification and 
management, data infrastructure, and controls. These improvements have 
helped to build a more resilient financial system that is better 
positioned to provide American consumers, businesses, and communities 
access to the credit they need even under challenging economic 
conditions.

B. Tailoring Enhanced Prudential Standards

    The Board conducts periodic reviews of its rules to update, reduce 
unnecessary costs associated with, and streamline regulatory 
requirements based on its experience implementing the rules and 
consistent with the statutory provisions that motivated the rules. 
These efforts include assessing the costs and benefits of regulations 
as well as exploring alternative approaches that achieve regulatory 
objectives but improve upon the simplicity, transparency, and 
efficiency of requirements. The proposal is the result of this practice 
and would reflect amendments made by EGRRCPA to the Dodd-Frank Act 
regarding the application of enhanced prudential standards for large 
banking organizations.
    Specifically, EGRRCPA raised the $50 billion minimum asset 
threshold for general application of enhanced prudential standards to 
$250 billion, and provides the Board with discretion to apply standards 
to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 
billion or more, but less than $250 billion.\14\ The threshold increase 
occurs in two stages. Immediately on the date of enactment, bank 
holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $100 
billion were no longer subject to section 165, with the exception of 
section 165's risk committee requirement. The statute requires a risk 
committee for publicly traded bank holding companies with $50 billion 
or more in total consolidated assets.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EGRRCPA also provides that any bank holding company, 
regardless of asset size, that has been identified as a GSIB under 
the Board's GSIB surcharge rule shall be considered a bank holding 
company with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets for 
purposes of the application of standards under section 165 and 
certain other provisions. EGRRCPA section 401(f).
    \15\ The Board issued two statements--one individually, and the 
other jointly with the FDIC and OCC--that provided information on 
regulations and associated reporting requirements that the Board 
administers and EGRRCPA immediately affected. See Board and 
Interagency statements regarding the impact of the Economic Growth, 
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, July 6, 2018, 
available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20180706a1.pdf; https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20180706b1.pdf. The statements describe interim positions that 
the Board and other agencies have taken until the agencies finalize 
amendments to their regulations to implement EGRRCPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eighteen months after the date of EGRRCPA's enactment, the 
threshold is raised to $250 billion.\16\ However, EGRRCPA provides the 
Board with authority to apply any enhanced prudential standard to bank 
holding companies with total consolidated assets equal to or greater 
than $100 billion and less than $250 billion.\17\ Specifically, under 
section 165(a)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act, as revised by EGRRCPA, the 
Board may, by order or rule, apply any prudential standard established 
under section 165 to any bank holding company or bank holding companies 
with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more if the Board 
determines that application of the prudential standard is appropriate 
to prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United 
States, or promote the safety and soundness of the bank holding company 
or bank holding companies. In making this determination, the Board must 
take into consideration certain statutory factors (capital structure, 
riskiness, complexity, financial activities (including financial 
activities of subsidiaries), size, and any other risk-related factors 
that the Board deems appropriate).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ On that same date, certain other financial companies with 
total consolidated assets of less than $250 billion, such as savings 
and loan holding companies, will no longer be subject to the 
company-run stress test requirements in section 165(i)(2) of the 
Dodd-Frank Act. EGRRCPA section 401(a)(5)(B) (to be codified at 12 
U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)).
    \17\ EGRRCPA section 401(d)(4).
    \18\ 12 U.S.C. 5365(a); EGRRCPA section 401(a)(1)(B)(iii) (to be 
codified at 12 U.S.C. 5365(a)(2)(C)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 165 also directs the Board, in prescribing enhanced 
prudential standards, to differentiate among companies on an individual 
basis or by category, taking into consideration the same risk-related 
factors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at section 401(a)(1)(B)(i) (to be codified at 12 U.S.C. 
5365(a)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of the Proposal

A. Proposed Approach to Tailoring

    The Board is proposing modifications to its rules to further and 
more consistently differentiate the application of prudential standards 
to large U.S. banking organizations, consistent with

[[Page 61410]]

EGRRCPA. The proposal builds on the Board's existing practice of 
tailoring capital, liquidity, and other requirements based on the size, 
complexity, and overall risk of banking organizations. Specifically, 
the proposal would establish categories of prudential standards to 
align requirements with a firm's risk profile and apply consistent 
standards across similarly situated firms. The proposal would amend the 
Board's enhanced prudential standards rule \20\ to modify the 
application of requirements relating to supervisory and company-run 
stress testing; liquidity risk management, stress testing, and buffer 
maintenance; risk committee and risk management; and single-
counterparty credit limits.\21\ The proposal would also apply similar 
standards and categories to large savings and loan holding companies 
(other than those substantially engaged in insurance underwriting or 
commercial activities) (covered savings and loan holding companies) to 
increase their resiliency and strengthen their risk management, which 
supports their safety and soundness and improves the consistency of 
standards across banking organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 12 CFR part 252.
    \21\ While the Board intends to separately propose modifications 
at a future date to capital planning requirements to incorporate the 
proposed risk-based categories, the proposal would make certain 
conforming changes to the capital plan rule. See section IV of this 
Supplementary Information section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposal would amend only the Board's enhanced prudential 
standards rule and certain related regulations, it sets forth a 
framework that would be used throughout the Board's prudential 
standards framework for large financial institutions. Concurrently with 
this proposal, the Board, with the OCC and FDIC, is separately 
proposing amendments to the capital and liquidity requirements of the 
agencies, including the regulatory capital rule, LCR rule, and NSFR 
proposed rule, to introduce the same risk-based categories for 
tailoring standards (the interagency capital and liquidity proposal). 
As described in section IV.D of this Supplementary Information section, 
the Board also intends to propose at a later date similar amendments to 
its capital plan rule \22\ (the capital plan proposal). In the future, 
the Board also intends to seek public comment on a proposal that would 
address the applicability of resolution planning requirements to firms 
with total consolidated assets in the range of $100 billion to $250 
billion. In connection with that process, the Board is working with the 
FDIC to amend their joint resolution plan rules to, among other things, 
adjust the scope and applicability of the resolution plan requirements 
for companies that remain subject to the resolution plan 
requirement.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 12 CFR 225.8.
    \23\ 12 CFR part 243; 12 CFR part 381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would establish four categories of prudential 
standards for large U.S. banking organizations. For firms with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more but less than $250 billion 
and that are not U.S. GSIBs, EGRRCPA provides the Board with greater 
flexibility in its application of enhanced prudential standards. 
Section 165 also directs the Board to consider certain risk-based 
factors for differentiating the application of enhanced prudential 
standards to bank holding companies. The proposed categories would set 
forth a framework for determining the application of prudential 
standards to firms with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more but less than $250 billion, and for differentiating the standards 
that apply to all firms subject to prudential standards based on their 
size, complexity, and other risk-based factors.
    Under the proposed approach, the most stringent set of standards 
(Category I) would apply to U.S. GSIBs. These firms have the potential 
to pose the greatest risks to U.S. financial stability, and EGRRCPA 
requires these firms to be subject to enhanced prudential standards. 
The existing post-financial crisis framework for U.S. GSIBs has 
resulted in significant gains in resiliency and risk management. The 
proposal accordingly would maintain the most stringent standards for 
these firms.
    The second set of standards (Category II) would apply to U.S. 
banking organizations that are very large or have significant 
international activity. Like Category I, this category would include 
standards that are based on standards developed by the Basel Committee 
on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and other standards appropriate to very 
large or internationally active banking organizations.\24\ The 
application of consistent prudential standards across jurisdictions to 
banking organizations with significant size or cross-jurisdictional 
activity helps to promote competitive equity among U.S. banking 
organizations and their foreign peers and competitors, and to reduce 
opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, while applying standards that 
appropriately reflect the risk profiles of firms in this category. In 
addition, consistency of standards can facilitate U.S. banking 
organizations' regulatory compliance in foreign markets. Category II 
standards would also reflect the risks associated with these firms' 
very large size or cross-border operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The BCBS is a committee of banking supervisory authorities, 
which was established by the central bank governors of the G-10 
countries in 1975. More information regarding the BCBS and its 
membership is available at http://www.bis.org/bcbs/about.htm. 
Documents issued by the BCBS are available through the Bank for 
International Settlements website at http://www.bis.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third set of standards (Category III) would apply to bank 
holding companies that EGRRCPA requires to be subject to enhanced 
prudential standards, but that do not meet the criteria for Category I 
or II, and to other firms whose risk profiles warrant the application 
of similar standards. In particular, these standards would apply to 
firms with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets that do 
not meet the criteria for Category I or II standards. They would also 
apply to firms with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, 
but less than $250 billion, that meet or exceed specified risk-based 
indicators. Category III standards would reflect these firms' 
heightened risk profiles relative to smaller and less complex firms.
    The fourth set of standards (Category IV) would apply to banking 
organizations with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
that do not meet the thresholds for one of the other categories. These 
firms generally have greater scale and operational and managerial 
complexity relative to smaller banking organizations, but less than 
firms that would be subject to Category I, II, or III standards. In 
addition, the failure or distress of one or more firms that would be 
subject to Category IV standards, while not likely to have as 
significant of an impact on financial stability as the failure or 
distress of a firm subject to Category I, II or III standards, could 
nonetheless have a more significant negative effect on economic growth 
and employment relative to the failure or distress of smaller firms. 
Category IV standards would accordingly incorporate additional 
tailoring to reflect the lower risk profile of these firms relative to 
other firms with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets. For 
example, the proposal would maintain liquidity risk management, stress 
testing, and buffer requirements for these firms, but, commensurate 
with their size and risk profile, would reduce the required minimum 
frequency of liquidity stress tests and the granularity of certain 
liquidity risk management requirements.

[[Page 61411]]

    Section III of this Supplementary Information section discusses the 
proposed criteria for determining which category of standards would 
apply to a firm. Section IV of this Supplementary Information section 
discusses the standards that would apply under each category. Other 
than risk management requirements, the proposal would not apply 
enhanced prudential standards to firms with total consolidated assets 
less than $100 billion, consistent with EGRRCPA.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ All firms with $50 billion or more in total consolidated 
assets would remain subject to the risk committee and chief risk 
officer requirements, which reflect standard risk management 
practices. See section IV.F of this Supplementary Information 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Scope of Application

    The proposal would apply to top-tier U.S. bank holding companies 
and covered savings and loan holding companies.\26\ The proposal would 
not apply to a foreign banking organization, including to an 
intermediate holding company of a foreign banking organization. The 
Board continues to consider the appropriate way to assign the U.S. 
operations of foreign banking organizations to the categories of 
prudential standards described in this proposal, in light of the 
special structures through which these firms conduct business in the 
United States. The Board plans to develop a separate proposal relating 
to foreign banking organizations that would implement section 401 of 
EGRRCPA for these firms and reflect the principles of national 
treatment and equality of competitive opportunity. For the time being, 
the current enhanced standards that apply to the U.S. operations of 
foreign banking organizations would continue to apply.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act also provides for the 
application of enhanced prudential standards to nonbank financial 
companies supervised by the Board. See 12 U.S.C. 5365(a). The 
proposal does not include any changes with respect to the 
application of enhanced prudential standards for these firms. In 
addition, under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, state member 
banks are required to comply with company-run stress testing 
requirements. See 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2). This proposal would not 
alter the implementation of this requirement in the enhanced 
prudential standards rule. The Board plans to amend these provisions 
to conform with changes made by EGRRCPA at a later date.
    \27\ For purposes of the application of enhanced prudential 
standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding 
companies include foreign banking organizations with a U.S. 
subsidiary bank or a U.S. branch or agency. The Dodd-Frank Act 
requires the Board to give due regard to national treatment and 
equality of competitive opportunity, which generally means that 
foreign banking organizations operating in the United States should 
be treated no less favorably than similarly situated U.S. banking 
organizations and should generally be subject to the same 
restrictions and obligations in the United States as those that 
apply to the domestic operations of U.S. banking organizations. See 
12 U.S.C. 5365(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Bank Holding Companies
    As noted above, EGRRCPA amended section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act 
to increase the minimum asset thresholds for the application of 
enhanced prudential standards to bank holding companies. The proposal 
would revise the Board's enhanced prudential standard rule to reflect 
the new thresholds for U.S. top-tier bank holding companies. Under the 
proposal, a bank holding company with less than $100 billion in total 
consolidated assets would no longer be subject to the capital stress 
testing and liquidity risk management, liquidity stress testing, and 
liquidity buffer requirements of the enhanced prudential standards 
rule, and a bank holding company with less than $50 billion in total 
consolidated assets would no longer be subject to risk committee 
requirements. To maintain consistency with the threshold for 
application of enhanced prudential standards,\28\ the proposal would 
also raise the applicability threshold for bank holding company capital 
planning requirements in the Board's Regulation Y from $50 billion to 
$100 billion in total consolidated assets.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In 2009, the Board conducted the Supervisory Capital 
Assessment Program (SCAP), a ``stress test'' of 19 domestic bank 
holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, The 
Supervisory Capital Assessment Program: Overview of Results (May 7, 
2009), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/bcreg20090507a1.pdf. In 2011, to establish consistency with section 
165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board adopted an asset threshold of 
$50 billion for the application of the capital plan rule and the 
Board's Comprehensive Capital Review and Analysis (CCAR). Raising 
the threshold for application of CCAR and the capital plan rule from 
$50 billion to $100 billion would maintain consistency with the 
threshold as amended by EGRRCPA.
    \29\ Section IV of this Supplementary Information section 
describes additional changes the Board is considering proposing at a 
later date in the capital plan proposal to tailor Category IV 
standards to align with the proposed changes to stress testing 
provisions and consistent with EGRRCPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Savings and Loan Holding Companies
    It is the view of the Board that any company that owns or controls 
a depository institution should be held to appropriate capital, 
liquidity, and risk management standards. As with bank holding 
companies, the Board's objective is to ensure that a savings and loan 
holding company and any nondepository subsidiaries are effectively 
supervised and do not threaten the soundness of the subsidiary 
depository institutions. Furthermore, the Board's rules require a 
savings and loan holding company to serve as a source of strength for 
its subsidiary depository institutions.\30\ To the greatest extent 
possible, the Board currently assesses the condition, performance, and 
activities of savings and loan holding companies on a consolidated, 
risk-based basis in the same manner that the Board assesses the 
condition, performance, and activities of a bank holding company, 
taking into account any unique characteristics of savings and loan 
holding companies and the requirements of the Home Owners' Loan Act 
(HOLA).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 12 CFR 238.8(a).
    \31\ 12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further improve the resiliency of savings and loan holding 
companies and reduce the risk of future failures of large savings and 
loan holding companies, as well as to reduce risks to the Deposit 
Insurance Fund, the proposal would build on the regulatory measures 
currently in effect for covered savings and loan holding companies. 
Specifically, the proposal would apply supervisory and company-run 
stress testing; risk management; liquidity risk management, stress 
testing, and buffer; and single-counterparty credit limits requirements 
to covered savings and loan holding companies to the same extent as if 
they were bank holding companies, based on the same categories as would 
apply to bank holding companies.\32\ In addition, the proposal would 
expand the scope of applicability of the Capital Assessments and Stress 
Testing (FR Y-14) series of reports to apply to covered savings and 
loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion 
or more.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Board also plans to propose applying capital planning 
requirements to covered savings and loan holding companies with $100 
billion or more in total consolidated assets in the capital plan 
proposal.
    \33\ Savings and loan holding companies would not be required in 
connection with this proposal to report certain FR Y-14 schedules 
related to capital planning. See section IV.E of this Supplementary 
Information section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board previously has applied certain heightened standards to 
savings and loan holding companies, pursuant to the Board's statutory 
authority under HOLA.\34\ In 2013, the agencies adopted a final rule 
that updated the Board's capital requirements for banking 
organizations, including covered

[[Page 61412]]

savings and loan holding companies.\35\ This was the first time that 
any savings and loan holding companies were subject to capital 
requirements. In 2014, the agencies adopted the LCR rule for large and 
internationally active banking organizations, including covered savings 
and loan holding companies, and in 2016, the agencies proposed the NSFR 
rule for the same set of firms.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ HOLA authorizes the Board to issue such regulations and 
orders, including regulations and orders relating to capital 
requirements for savings and loan holding companies, as the Board 
deems necessary or appropriate to enable the Board to administer and 
carry out the purposes of HOLA, and to require compliance therewith 
and prevent evasions thereof. 12 U.S.C. 1467a(g)(1).
    \35\ See Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, 
Implementation of Basel III, Capital Adequacy, Transition 
Provisions, Prompt Corrective Action, Standardized Approach for 
Risk-weighted Assets, Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, 
Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and Market Risk Capital 
Rule, 78 FR 62017 (October 11, 2013). See also 12 CFR 
217.1(c)(1)(iii) (applicability of part 217), .2 (definition of 
covered savings and loan holding company).
    \36\ 12 CFR part 249. See also Liquidity Coverage Ratio: 
Liquidity Risk Management Standards, 79 FR 61523 (Oct. 10, 2014); 
NSFR proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Greater parity in the regulation of covered savings and loan 
holding companies and bank holding companies would be appropriate in 
light of the significant similarities between the activities and risk 
profiles of these firms. Large covered savings and loan holding 
companies engage in many of the same activities, face similar risks, 
and serve substantially similar economic roles as large bank holding 
companies.\37\ Accordingly, the Board is proposing to apply prudential 
standards to large savings and loan holding companies that are similar 
to those applied to large bank holding companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of the Treasury, Blueprint for a 
Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure (March 2008), available 
at: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Blueprint.pdf. (``In the past, the thrift (or savings and loan) and 
banking industries had distinctly different missions, authorities, 
regulators, and deposit insurance entities. Now, however, the 
differences between the two industries have substantially diminished 
and their respective activities and authorities have converged.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The financial crisis revealed weaknesses in resiliency and risk 
management at large banking organizations, including savings and loan 
holding companies, that supports application of stronger capital, 
liquidity, and risk management standards and counterparty limits for 
these firms. For example, Washington Mutual, a savings and loan holding 
company, had approximately $300 billion in total consolidated assets at 
the time of failure. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Washington 
Mutual experienced significant deposit outflows and was unable to raise 
funds to improve its liquidity position.\38\ In September 2008, the 
Office of Thrift Supervision, Washington Mutual's primary regulator, 
determined that the firm had insufficient liquidity to meet its 
obligations, closed the firm, and appointed the FDIC as the receiver. 
Washington Mutual was thereafter acquired by another firm. The FDIC 
estimated that it would have cost $42 billion to liquidate Washington 
Mutual, a sum that would have depleted the entire balance of the 
Deposit Insurance Fund at the time.\39\ Likewise, Countrywide 
Financial, a savings and loan holding company with approximately $200 
billion in total consolidated assets in the third quarter of 2007, 
experienced significant reported losses during the financial crisis and 
had difficulty rolling over short-term funding, upon which it heavily 
relied as a funding source, and was sold in distress to another 
firm.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Offices of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Treasury 
and FDIC, Evaluation of Federal Regulatory Oversight of Washington 
Mutual Bank (April 2010), available at: https://www.fdicig.gov/sites/default/files/publications/10-002EV.pdf.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ 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 
(2011), available at http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo50165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Scoping Criteria for Proposed Categories

    As described above, the proposal would establish four categories 
for purposes of determining applicable prudential standards for bank 
holding companies and covered savings and loan holding companies with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more. To summarize, these 
categories would be defined based on the following criteria:
     Category I standards would apply to U.S. GSIBs.
     Category II standards would apply to firms with $700 
billion or more in total consolidated assets or $75 billion or more in 
cross-jurisdictional activity, and that are not subject to Category I 
standards.
     Category III standards would apply to firms that are not 
subject to Category I or II standards and that have $250 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets or $75 billion or more in any of the 
following indicators: Nonbank assets, weighted short-term wholesale 
funding, or off-balance-sheet exposures.
     Category IV standards would apply to firms with at least 
$100 billion in total consolidated assets that do not meet any of the 
thresholds specified for Categories I through III.
    To determine which firms are subject to the most stringent 
standards under Category I, the proposal would use the existing 
methodology under the Board's GSIB surcharge rule.\41\ Under EGRRCPA, 
firms identified as U.S. GSIBs are subject to enhanced prudential 
standards, regardless of asset size.\42\ The inputs to the GSIB 
identification methodology calculation also closely align with the 
risk-based factors specified in section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act for 
differentiating among firms.\43\ To date, the Board has applied the 
most stringent prudential standards to U.S. GSIBs because the failure 
or material distress of a GSIB presents the greatest risks to U.S. 
financial stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 12 CFR part 217 subpart H; see also Regulatory Capital 
Rules: Implementation of Risk-Based Capital Surcharges for Global 
Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies, 80 FR 49082 (August 
14, 2015).
    \42\ See EGRRCPA section 401(f).
    \43\ See 12 U.S.C. 5365(a)(2)(A). The GSIB identification 
methodology uses five broad categories that are correlated with 
systemic risk--size, interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional 
activity, substitutability, and complexity--and equally weights each 
category in order to calculate a firm's score. 12 CFR 217.404; see 
also Regulatory Capital Rules: Implementation of Risk-Based Capital 
Surcharges for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies, 
80 FR 49082 (Aug. 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the applicability of the remaining categories of 
standards, the Board is proposing to differentiate requirements based 
on a firm's level of specific risk-based indicators.\44\ This approach 
is intended to allow firms and the public to easily identify and 
predict what requirements will apply to a firm, and what requirements 
would apply if the characteristics of a firm change. Under the proposed 
approach, Categories II through IV would be defined by five indicators 
linked to a firm's risk profile: Size, cross-jurisdictional activity, 
weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, and off-balance 
sheet exposure. By taking into consideration the relative presence or 
absence of each risk factor, the proposal would provide a basis for 
assessing a banking organization's financial stability and safety and 
soundness risks.\45\ These indicators

[[Page 61413]]

generally track measures already used in the Board's existing 
regulatory framework and that firms that would be covered by the 
proposal already publicly report, in order to maintain simplicity, 
predictability, and transparency of the framework and minimize 
incremental compliance costs. The proposed thresholds would apply based 
on the level of each indicator over the preceding four calendar 
quarters, as described further below, in order to capture significant 
changes in a firm's risk profile, rather than temporary fluctuations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ As an alternative, the Board is also requesting comment on 
a score-based approach, which would differentiate requirements for 
firms using an aggregated ``score'' across multiple measures of 
risk. Section III.C of this Supplementary Information section 
describes this proposed alternative.
    \45\ When reviewing agency interpretations of statutes that 
require an agency to ``take into account'' or ``take into 
consideration'' a number of factors, courts generally defer to the 
expertise of the agency in determining how to apply the factors and 
the relative weight given to each factor. See, e.g., National 
Wildlife Federation v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570 (D.C. Cir. 2002); 
Lignite Energy v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Trans 
World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 637 F.2d 62, 67-68 
(2d Cir. 1980); Weyerhaeuser v. EPA, 590 F.2d 1011, 1046 (D.C. Cir. 
1978); Sec'y of Agric. v. Cent. Roig Ref. Co., 338 U.S. 604, 611-12 
(1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Size

    The proposal would measure size based on a firm's total 
consolidated assets. The use of an asset size threshold would be 
consistent with section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended by 
EGRRCPA, which differentiates among firms by asset size for purposes of 
application of enhanced prudential standards.\46\ Size is also among 
the factors that the Board must take into consideration in 
differentiating among firms under section 165.\47\ The Board has 
previously used size as a simple measure of a firm's potential systemic 
impact as well as safety and soundness risks.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See generally 12 U.S.C. 5635 and EGRRCPA Sec.  401.
    \47\ EGRRCPA section 401(a)(1)(B)(i) (to be codified at 12 
U.S.C. 5365(a)(2)(A)).
    \48\ For example, advanced approaches capital requirements, the 
supplementary leverage ratio, and the LCR requirement generally 
apply to firms with total consolidated assets of $250 billion or 
more or total consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 
billion or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effect of a large banking organization's failure on the economy 
is likely to be greater than that which occurs when a smaller banking 
organization fails, even though the two banking organizations might be 
engaged in similar business lines.\49\ Board staff estimates that 
stress at a single large banking organization with an assumed $100 
billion in deposits would result in approximately a 107 percent decline 
in quarterly real GDP growth, whereas stress among five smaller banking 
organizations--each with an assumed $20 billion in deposits--would 
result in roughly a 22 percent decline in quarterly real GDP 
growth.\50\ While both scenarios assume $100 billion in total deposits, 
the negative impact is greatest when larger banking organizations fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Lorenc, Amy G., and Jeffery Y. Zhang (2018). ``The 
Differential Impact of Bank Size on Systemic Risk,'' Finance and 
Economics Discussion Series 2018-066. Washington: Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System, available at: https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2018.066.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, a firm's size also provides a measure of the extent to 
which customers or counterparties may be exposed to a risk of loss or 
suffer a disruption in the provision of services if a firm were to 
experience distress, and the extent to which asset fire sales by a firm 
could transmit distress to other market participants, given that a 
larger firm has more assets to sell. In addition, the large size of a 
banking organization may give rise to challenges that complicate 
resolution of the firm if it were to fail.
    The size of a banking organization can also be an indication of 
operational and managerial complexity, which can present safety and 
soundness risks even when a firm is not engaged in complex business 
lines. A larger banking organization operates on a larger scale, has a 
broader geographic scope, and generally will have more complex internal 
operations than a smaller banking organization. These differences can 
increase the likelihood that an organization has operational or control 
gaps that would raise its probability of severe stress or default if 
left unaddressed, as well as the risk that such gaps will go 
undetected. Strong prudential standards--including relating to capital 
planning, stress testing, liquidity, risk management, and single-
counterparty credit limits--accordingly also help to manage these 
safety and soundness risks for both bank holding companies and savings 
and loan holding companies.
    The proposal would establish thresholds of $700 billion, $250 
billion, and $100 billion in total consolidated assets for Category II, 
III, and IV requirements, respectively, for firms that are not U.S. 
GSIBs. A firm with $700 billion or more in total consolidated assets 
would be subject to Category II requirements, in order to address the 
substantial risks that can arise from the activities and potential 
distress of very large firms that are not U.S. GSIBs. Historical 
examples suggest that a firm of this size should be subject to 
stringent prudential standards. For example, during the financial 
crisis, significant losses at Wachovia Corporation, which had $780 
billion in total consolidated assets at the time of being acquired in 
distress, had a destabilizing effect on the financial system. A 
threshold of $700 billion or more in total consolidated assets would 
ensure that a firm with a size of similar magnitude would be subject to 
Category II standards.
    A firm with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets that 
does not meet the requirements for Category II would be subject to 
Category III requirements. As discussed above, the failure or distress 
of a firm of this size would likely have a greater economic and 
financial stability impact than that of a smaller firm,\51\ and 
Category III standards would also further the safety and soundness of a 
firm of this size. The application of strong prudential standards would 
also be consistent with weaknesses and risks highlighted during the 
financial crisis with firms of this size, such as Washington Mutual. A 
threshold of this level would also align with the $250 billion 
statutory asset threshold under EGRRCPA, above which the Board must 
apply enhanced prudential standards to a bank holding company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A firm with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets that 
does not meet the criteria for Categories I, II, or III would be 
subject to Category IV standards. While the material distress or 
failure of a firm in this category would likely pose less significant 
risk to U.S. financial stability, consistent with the considerations 
and empirical analysis described above, it could still have an 
amplified negative effect on economic growth, employment, and financial 
stability relative to the distress or failure of a smaller firm.\52\ In 
addition, these firms generally have greater scale and operational and 
managerial complexity than smaller firms, and associated safety and 
soundness risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thresholds of these orders of magnitude would reflect observed 
levels of operational and managerial complexity and operational risk 
among firms of these sizes. For example, firms with over $700 billion 
in assets tend to have the broadest array of business lines and a large 
amount of employees, with significant operational and managerial 
complexity. Firms with less than $700 billion in assets, but more than 
$250 billion in assets tend to have less operational complexity than 
the largest firms, as they tend to focus on select business lines. In 
addition, these firms tend to have fewer employees and less managerial 
complexity. Firms with assets of $100 billion or more, but less than 
$250 billion, tend to be regionally focused or focus on only one or two 
business lines, with less operational and managerial complexity than 
larger firms but more than smaller firms.
    Question 1: What are the advantages and disadvantages of using size 
thresholds to tailor prudential standards? In what ways does the 
inclusion of asset size thresholds in prudential standards drive 
changes in bank business models and risk profiles

[[Page 61414]]

in ways that differ from the effects of thresholds based on other risk-
based indicators? To what extent can other factors alone adequately 
differentiate between the risk profiles of firms and serve as the 
primary tool to tailor prudential standards?

B. Other Risk-Based Indicators

    In addition to size, the proposal would consider a firm's level of 
cross-jurisdictional activity, weighted short-term wholesale funding, 
nonbank assets, and off-balance sheet exposure to determine the 
applicable category of standards. The Board is proposing to apply a 
uniform threshold of $75 billion for each of these risk-based 
indicators, based on the degree of concentration this amount would 
represent for each firm and the proportion of the risk factor among all 
firms with at least $100 billion in total consolidated assets that 
would be included by the threshold. In each case, a threshold of $75 
billion would represent at least 30 percent and as much as 75 percent 
of total consolidated assets for firms with between $100 billion and 
$250 billion in total consolidated assets.\53\ Setting the indicators 
at $75 billion would also ensure that firms that account for the vast 
majority--over 85 percent--of the total amount of each risk factor 
among all U.S. depository institution holding companies with $100 
billion or more in total consolidated assets would be subject to 
prudential standards that account for the associated risks of these 
factors, which facilitates consistent treatment of these risks across 
firms. To the extent levels and the distribution of an indicator 
substantially change in the future, the Board may consider 
modifications if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Because a size threshold of $250 billion in total 
consolidated assets also would apply for Category III, the weighted 
short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, and off-balance sheet 
exposure indicators would only have effect for a firm with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, but less than $250 
billion. Similarly, the proposed cross-jurisdictional activity 
threshold would only have effect for a firm with total consolidated 
assets of $100 billion or more, but less than $700 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Category II standards would apply to a firm with $100 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets and $75 billion or more in cross-
jurisdictional activity to promote parallel treatment among firms with 
large global operations. Category III standards would apply to a firm 
with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets and at least $75 
billion in weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, or 
off-balance sheet exposure.
1. Cross-Jurisdictional Activity
    Cross-jurisdictional activity would be defined as the sum of cross-
jurisdictional assets and liabilities, as each is reported on the 
Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15). Cross-
jurisdictional activity can affect the complexity of a firm and give 
rise to challenges that may complicate the resolution of such a firm if 
it were to fail. In particular, foreign operations and cross-border 
positions add operational complexity in normal times and complicate the 
ability of a firm to undergo an orderly resolution in times of stress, 
generating both safety and soundness and financial stability risks. For 
example, a firm with significant cross-border operations may require 
more sophisticated management relating to risks of ring-fencing by one 
or more jurisdictions during stress, which could impede the firm's 
ability to move resources in one jurisdiction to meet needs in another.
    The Board's capital and liquidity regulations currently use total 
on-balance sheet foreign exposure as a metric to determine the 
application of certain requirements, such as the requirement to use the 
internal models-based advanced approaches for calculating risk-based 
capital rule (advanced approaches capital requirements) \54\ and the 
LCR requirement.\55\ In the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, 
the Board is proposing, with the OCC and FDIC, to amend certain of the 
agencies' capital and liquidity regulations to replace the current $10 
billion foreign exposure threshold with a $75 billion cross-
jurisdictional activity threshold that would align with the proposal. 
Compared to the current foreign exposure measure, the proposed cross-
jurisdictional activity indicator would include foreign liabilities in 
addition to foreign assets. In addition, compared to the foreign 
exposure measure, the proposed cross-jurisdictional activity indicator 
does not include the assets and liabilities from positions in 
derivative contracts. Measuring cross-jurisdictional activity using 
both assets and liabilities--instead of just assets--would provide a 
broader gauge of the scale of a firm's foreign operations and 
associated risks, as it includes both borrowing and lending activities 
outside of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 12 CFR 217.100(b)(1).
    \55\ See 12 CFR 249.1(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Weighted Short-Term Wholesale Funding
    The proposed weighted short-term wholesale funding indicator would 
track the measure currently reported on the FR Y-15 and be consistent 
with the calculation used for purposes of the GSIB surcharge rule.\56\ 
This indicator provides a measure of a firm's liquidity risk, as 
reliance on short-term, generally uninsured funding from more 
sophisticated counterparties can make a firm vulnerable to large-scale 
funding runs. In particular, banking organizations that fund long-term 
assets with short-term liabilities from financial intermediaries such 
as investment funds may need to rapidly sell less liquid assets to meet 
withdrawals and maintain their operations in a time of stress, which 
they may be able to do only at ``fire sale'' prices. Such asset fire 
sales can cause rapid deterioration in a firm's financial condition and 
negatively affect broader financial stability by driving down asset 
prices across the market. As a result, weighted short-term wholesale 
funding reflects both safety and soundness and financial stability 
risks. Short-term wholesale funding also provides a measure of 
interconnectedness among market participants, including other financial 
sector entities, which can provide a mechanism for transmission of 
distress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Specifically, short-term wholesale funding is the amount of 
a firm's funding obtained from wholesale counterparties or retail 
brokered deposits and sweeps with a remaining maturity of one year 
or less. Categories of short-term wholesale funding are then 
weighted based on four residual maturity buckets; the asset class of 
collateral, if any, backing the funding; and characteristics of the 
counterparty. Weightings reflect risk of runs and attendant fire 
sales. See 12 CFR 217.406 and Regulatory Capital Rules: 
Implementation of Risk-Based Capital Surcharges for Global 
Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies, 80 FR 49082 (August 
14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Nonbank Assets
    Under the proposal, nonbank assets would be measured as the average 
amount of equity investments in nonbank subsidiaries.\57\ The proposed 
nonbank assets indicator would align with the measure of nonbank assets 
currently used in the capital plan rule to tailor certain 
requirements.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The proposed measure of nonbank assets would include the 
assets in each Edge or Agreement Corporation, but would exclude 
assets in a federal savings association, federal savings bank, or 
thrift.
    \58\ The capital plan rule defines ``average total nonbank 
assets'' as the average of the total nonbank assets of a holding 
company subject to the capital plan rule, calculated in accordance 
with the instructions to the Parent Company Only Financial 
Statements for Large Holding Companies (FR Y-9LP), for the four most 
recent consecutive quarters or, if the bank holding company has not 
filed the FR Y-9LP for each of the four most recent consecutive 
quarters, for the most recent quarter or consecutive quarters, as 
applicable. 12 CFR 225.8(d)(2). In connection with the proposal, the 
Board is proposing to require covered savings and loan holding 
companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more to 
report this information, as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61415]]

    The level of a firm's investment in nonbank subsidiaries provides a 
measure of the organization's business and operational complexity. 
Specifically, banking organizations with significant investments in 
nonbank subsidiaries are more likely to have complex corporate 
structures, inter-affiliate transactions, and funding relationships. A 
firm's complexity is positively correlated with the impact of a banking 
organization's failure or distress. Because nonbank subsidiaries will 
not be resolved through the FDIC's receivership process, significant 
investments in nonbank subsidiaries present heightened resolvability 
risk.
    Nonbank activities may involve a broader range of risks than those 
associated with purely banking activities, and can increase 
interconnectedness with other financial firms, requiring sophisticated 
risk management and governance, including capital planning, stress 
testing, and liquidity risk management. If not adequately managed, the 
risks associated with nonbanking activities could present significant 
safety and soundness concerns and increase financial stability risks. 
The failure of a nonbank subsidiary could be destabilizing to a banking 
organization, and cause counterparties and creditors to lose confidence 
in the firm. Nonbank assets also reflect the degree to which a firm may 
be engaged in activities through legal entities that are not subject to 
separate capital requirements or to the direct regulation and 
supervision applicable to a regulated banking entity.
    The proposal would accordingly apply more stringent Category III 
standards to a firm with a significant level of nonbank assets than the 
less stringent Category IV standards that would otherwise apply based 
on the firm's size alone.
4. Off-Balance Sheet Exposure
    Off-balance sheet assets complements the measure of size by taking 
into consideration financial and banking activities not reflected on a 
banking organization's balance sheet. Like a firm's size, off-balance 
sheet exposure provides a measure of the extent to which customers or 
counterparties may be exposed to a risk of loss or suffer a disruption 
in the provision of services. In addition, off-balance sheet exposure 
can lead to significant future draws on capital and liquidity, 
particularly in times of stress. In the financial crisis, for example, 
vulnerabilities at individual firms were exacerbated by margin calls on 
derivative exposures and calls on commitments. These exposures can be a 
source of safety and soundness risk, as firms with significant off-
balance sheet exposure may have to fund these positions in the market 
in a time of stress, which can put a strain on both capital and 
liquidity. The nature of these risks for firms of this size and 
complexity can also lead to financial stability risk, as they can 
manifest rapidly and with less transparency to other market 
participants. In addition, because draws on off-balance sheet exposures 
such as committed credit and liquidity facilities tend to increase in 
times of stress, they can exacerbate the effects of stress on a banking 
organization.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See William F. Bassett, Simon Gilchrist, Gretchen C. 
Weinbach, Egon Zakraj[scaron]ek, ``Improving Our Ability to Monitor 
Bank Lending,'' in Risk Topography: Systemic Risk and Macro Modeling 
149-161 (Markus Brunnermeier and Arvind Krishnamurthy, eds. 2014), 
available at: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c12554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Off-balance sheet exposures may also serve as a measure of a 
banking organization's interconnectedness. Some off-balance sheet 
exposures, such as derivatives, are concentrated among the largest 
financial firms.\60\ The distress or failure of one party to a 
financial contract, such as a derivative or securities financing 
transaction, can trigger disruptive terminations of these contracts 
that destabilize the defaulting party's otherwise solvent 
affiliates.\61\ Such a default also can lead to disruptions in markets 
for financial contracts, including by resulting in rapid market-wide 
unwinding of trading positions.\62\ In this way, the effects of one 
party's failure or distress can be amplified by its off-balance sheet 
connections with other financial market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See, e.g., Sheri M. Markose, Systemic Risk from Global 
Financial Derivatives: A Network Analysis of Contagion and its 
Mitigation with Super-Spreader Tax, IMF Working Papers (Nov. 30, 
2012), available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Systemic-Risk-from-Global-Financial-Derivatives-A-Network-Analysis-of-Contagion-and-Its-40130.
    \61\ To address these risks, the agencies have established 
restrictions relating to the qualified financial contracts of U.S. 
GSIBs, the insured depository institution subsidiaries of U.S. 
GSIBs, and the U.S. operations of systemically important foreign 
banking organizations. See 12 CFR part 252, subpart I (Board); 12 
CFR part 47 (OCC); and 12 CFR part 382 (FDIC). That rule does not 
apply to savings and loan holding companies or to other large bank 
holding companies.
    \62\ See, e.g., The Orderly Liquidation of Lehman Brothers 
Holdings Inc. under the Dodd-Frank Act, 5 FDIC Quarterly No. 2, 31 
(2011), https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2011-vol5-2/article2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would define off-balance sheet exposure consistently 
with measures currently reported by covered firms, as total exposure, 
as defined on FR Y-15, minus total consolidated assets, as reported on 
Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C).\63\ 
Total exposure includes a firm's on-balance sheet assets plus certain 
off-balance sheet exposures, including derivative exposures, repo-style 
transactions, and other off-balance sheet exposures (such as 
commitments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ In connection with the proposal, the Board is proposing to 
add this measure of off-balance sheet exposure to the FR Y-15 
reporting form as a separate line item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 2: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of 
having similar applicable prudential standards for bank holding 
companies and covered savings and loan holding companies with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more based on the proposed 
categories? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of having 
different standards?
    Question 3: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the 
proposed risk-based indicators? What different indicators should the 
Board use, and why?
    Question 4: At what level should the threshold for each indicator 
be set, and why? Commenters are encouraged to provide data supporting 
their recommendations.
    Question 5: The Board is considering whether Category II standards 
should apply based on a firm's weighted short-term wholesale funding, 
nonbank assets, and off-balance sheet exposure, using a higher 
threshold than the $75 billion that would apply for Category III 
standards, in addition to the thresholds discussed above based on asset 
size and cross-jurisdictional activity. For example, a firm could be 
subject to Category II standards if one or more of these indicators 
equaled or exceeded a level such as $100 billion or $200 billion. A 
threshold of $200 billion would represent at least 30 percent and as 
much as 80 percent of total assets for firms with between $250 billion 
and $700 billion in assets. If the Board were to adopt additional 
indicators for purposes of identifying firms that should be subject to 
Category II standards, at what level should the threshold for each 
indicator be set, and why? Commenters are encouraged to provide data 
supporting their recommendations.

C. Alternative Scoping Criteria

    An alternative approach for assessing the risk profile and systemic 
footprint of a banking organization for purposes of

[[Page 61416]]

tailoring prudential standards would be to use a single, comprehensive 
score. The Board uses a GSIB identification methodology (scoring 
methodology) to identify global systemically important bank holding 
companies and apply risk-based capital surcharges to these firms. The 
Board could use this same scoring methodology to tailor prudential 
standards for large, but not globally systemic, bank holding companies.
    The scoring methodology calculates a GSIB's capital surcharge under 
two methods.\64\ The first method is based on the sum of a firm's 
systemic indicator scores reflecting its size, interconnectedness, 
cross-jurisdictional activity, substitutability, and complexity (method 
1). The second method is based on the sum of these same measures of 
risk, except that the substitutability measures are replaced with a 
measure of the firm's reliance on short-term wholesale funding (method 
2).\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 12 CFR part 217, subpart H.
    \65\ For more discussion relating to the scoring methodology, 
please see the Board's final rule establishing the scoring 
methodology. See Regulatory Capital Rules: Implementation of Risk-
Based Capital Surcharges for Global Systemically Important Bank 
Holding Companies, 80 FR 49082 (Aug. 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board designed the scoring methodology to provide a single, 
comprehensive, integrated assessment of a large bank holding company's 
systemic footprint. Accordingly, the indicators in the scoring 
methodology measure the extent to which the failure or distress of a 
bank holding company could pose a threat to financial stability or 
inflict material damage on the broader economy. The indicators used in 
the scoring methodology also could be used to help identify banking 
organizations that have heightened risk profiles and would closely 
align with the risk-based factors specified in section 165 of the Dodd-
Frank Act for applying enhanced prudential standards and 
differentiating among firms to which the enhanced prudential standards 
apply.\66\ Importantly, large bank holding companies already submit to 
the Board periodic public reports on their indicator scores in the 
scoring methodology. Accordingly, use of the scoring methodology more 
broadly for tailoring of prudential standards would promote 
transparency and would economize on compliance costs for large bank 
holding companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See supra note 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the alternative scoring approach, a banking organization's 
size and either its method 1 or method 2 score from the scoring 
methodology would be used to determine which category of standards 
would apply to the firm. In light of the changes made by EGRRCPA, the 
Board conducted an analysis of the distribution of method 1 and method 
2 scores of bank holding companies and covered savings and loan holding 
companies with at least $100 billion in total assets.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ In conducting its analysis, the Board considered method 1 
and method 2 scores as of December 31, 2017. Consistent with the 
thresholds in EGRRCPA, the Board considered the scores of bank 
holding companies and covered savings and loan holding companies 
with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more but less than 
$250 billion, $250 billion or more that are not GSIBs, and GSIBs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Category I: As under the proposal and under the Board's existing 
enhanced prudential standards framework, Category I standards would 
continue to apply to U.S. GSIBs, which would continue to be defined as 
U.S. banking organizations with a method 1 score of 130 or more.
    Category II: Category II firms are defined in the proposal as those 
whose failure or distress could impose costs on the U.S. financial 
system and economy that are higher than the costs imposed by the 
failure or distress of an average banking organization with total 
consolidated assets of $250 billion or more.
    In selecting the ranges of method 1 or method 2 scores that could 
define the application of Category II standards, the Board considered 
the potential of a firm's material distress or failure to disrupt the 
U.S. financial system or economy. As noted in section III.A of this 
Supplementary Information section, during the financial crisis, 
significant losses at Wachovia Corporation, which had $780 billion in 
total consolidated assets at the time of being acquired in distress, 
had a destabilizing effect on the financial system. The Board estimated 
method 1 and method 2 scores for Wachovia Corporation, based on 
available data, and also calculated the scores of firms with more than 
$250 billion in total consolidated assets that are not U.S. GSIBs 
assuming that each had $700 billion in total consolidated assets (the 
asset size threshold used to define Category II in the Board's main 
proposal). The Board also considered the outlier method 1 and method 2 
scores for firms with more than $250 billion in total consolidated 
assets that are not U.S. GSIBs.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Outliers can be determined by a number of statistical 
methods. For these purposes, the Board computed an outlier as the 
third quartile plus three times the interquartile range of method 1 
and method 2 scores of these U.S. bank holding companies and covered 
savings and loan holding companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the Board would apply Category II standards 
to any non-GSIB banking organization with at least $100 billion in 
total consolidated assets and with a method 1 score between 60 and 80 
or a method 2 score between 100 to 150. If the Board adopts a final 
rule that uses the scoring methodology to establish tailoring 
thresholds, the Board would set a single score within the listed ranges 
for application of Category II standards. The Board invites comment on 
what score within these ranges would be appropriate.
    Category III: As noted, section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires 
the Board to apply enhanced prudential standards to any bank holding 
company with total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more and 
authorizes the Board to apply these standards to bank holding companies 
with between $100 billion and $250 billion in total consolidated assets 
if the Board makes certain statutory findings. To determine a scoring 
methodology threshold for application of Category III standards to 
firms with between $100 billion and $250 billion in total consolidated 
assets, the Board considered the scores of these firms as compared to 
the scores of firms with greater than $250 billion in total 
consolidated assets that are not U.S. GSIBs. Based on this analysis, 
the Board determined that, under a scoring methodology approach to 
tailoring, Category III standards would be applied to banking 
organizations with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and 
$250 billion that have a method 1 score between 25 to 45. Banking 
organizations with a score in this range would have a score similar to 
that of the average firm with greater than $250 billion in total 
consolidated assets. Using method 2 scores, the Board would apply 
Category III standards to any banking organization with assets between 
$100 billion and $250 billion that have a method 2 score between 50 to 
85. Again, if the Board were to adopt the scoring methodology for 
tailoring in its final rule, the Board would pick a single score within 
the listed ranges. The Board invites comment on what score within these 
ranges would be appropriate.
    Category IV: Under a score-based approach, category IV standards 
would apply to firms with at least $100 billion in total assets that do 
not meet any of the thresholds specified for Categories I through III 
(that is, a method 1 score of less than 25 to 45 or a method 2 score of 
less than 50 to 85).
    Question 6: What are the advantages and disadvantages to use of the 
scoring methodology and category thresholds described above relative to 
the proposed thresholds?

[[Page 61417]]

    Question 7: If the Board were to use the scoring methodology to 
differentiate non-GSIB banking organizations for purposes of tailoring 
prudential standards, should the Board use method 1 scores, method 2 
scores, or both?
    Question 8: If the Board adopted the scoring methodology, what 
would be the advantages or disadvantages of the Board requiring firms 
to calculate their scores at a frequency greater than annually, 
including, for example, requiring a firm to calculate its score on a 
quarterly basis?
    Question 9: With respect to each category of firms described above, 
at what level should the method 1 or method 2 score thresholds be set 
and why, and discuss how those levels could be impacted by considering 
additional data, or by considering possible changes in the banking 
system. Commenters are encouraged to provide data supporting their 
recommendations.
    Question 10: What are the advantages and disadvantages in using the 
scoring methodology to categorize firms with systemic footprints 
smaller than the GSIBs for purposes of tailoring prudential standards?
    Question 11: What other approaches should the Board consider in 
setting thresholds for tailored prudential standards?

D. Determination of Applicable Category of Standards

    Under the proposal, a bank holding company or covered savings and 
loan holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more would be required to determine the category of standards to which 
it is subject. The proposal would add certain defined terms to the 
enhanced prudential standards rule and the Board's rule on savings and 
loan holding companies \69\ to implement the proposed categories. U.S. 
GSIBs would continue to be identified using the Board's GSIB surcharge 
methodology, and the proposal would refer to these firms as global 
systemically important BHCs, consistent with the term used elsewhere in 
the Board's regulations.\70\ The proposal would also add defined terms 
for firms subject to Category II, III, or IV standards as Category II 
banking organizations, Category III banking organizations, or Category 
IV banking organizations, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 12 CFR part 238.
    \70\ See, e.g., 12 CFR part 217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms that would be subject to the proposal would be required to 
report size and other risk-based indicators on a quarterly basis. In 
order to capture significant changes in a firm's risk profile, rather 
than temporary fluctuations, a category of standards would apply to a 
firm based on the average levels of each indicator over the preceding 
four calendar quarters.\71\ A firm would remain subject to a category 
of standards until the firm no longer meets the indicators for its 
current category in each of the four most recent calendar quarters, or 
until the firm meets the criteria for another category of standards 
based on an increase in the average value of one or more indicators 
over the preceding four calendar quarters. This approach would be 
consistent with the existing applicability and cessation requirements 
of the enhanced prudential standards rule.\72\ Changes in requirements 
that result from a change in category would take effect on the first 
day of the second quarter following the change in the firm's category. 
For example, a firm that changes from Category IV to Category III based 
on an increase in the average value of its indicators over the first, 
second, third, and fourth quarters of a calendar year would be subject 
to Category III standards beginning on April 1 (the first day of the 
second quarter) of the following year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ With respect to a firm that has reported an indicator for 
less than four quarters, the proposal would refer to the average of 
the most recent quarter or quarters.
    \72\ See, e.g., 12 CFR 252.43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 12: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a firm 
calculating its category on a quarterly basis? Discuss whether 
calculation on an annual basis would be more appropriate and why.
    Question 13: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the 
proposed transition period for each of the standards in each of the 
categories? What would be the advantages or disadvantages of providing 
additional time to conform to new requirements? If a firm changes 
category because of an increase in one or more risk-based indicators, 
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of providing an additional 
quarter before applying the new category's standards.

IV. Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding Companies and 
Depository Savings and Loan Holding Companies

A. Category I Standards

    U.S. GSIBs are subject to the most stringent prudential standards 
relative to other firms, which reflects the heightened risks these 
firms pose to U.S. financial stability. The proposal would make no 
changes to the requirements applicable to U.S. GSIBs set forth in the 
enhanced prudential standards rule, except to implement one change, 
consistent with EGRRCPA, as described below.
    With respect to capital, U.S. GSIBs would remain subject to the 
most stringent capital planning and stress testing requirements, 
including the qualitative and quantitative assessment of a firm's 
capital plan through CCAR, annual supervisory stress testing, FR Y-14 
reporting requirements, and a requirement to conduct company-run stress 
tests on an annual basis. The most stringent liquidity requirements 
would also continue to apply, including liquidity risk management, 
monthly internal liquidity stress testing, and liquidity buffer 
requirements under the enhanced prudential standards rule and reporting 
of certain liquidity data for each business day through the Complex 
Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a). In addition, the 
most stringent single-counterparty credit limits would continue to 
apply to U.S. GSIBs without change. Under the interagency capital and 
liquidity proposal, U.S. GSIBs would remain subject to a capital 
surcharge and enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards, as well 
as the LCR requirement and proposed NSFR requirement.
    Prior to the enactment of EGRRCPA, section 165 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act required a bank holding company subject to enhanced prudential 
standards to conduct semi-annual company-run stress tests.\73\ EGRRCPA 
revised this requirement to ``periodic.'' \74\ In the Board's 
experience, the mandatory mid-cycle stress test has provided modest 
risk management benefits and limited incremental information to market 
participants beyond what the annual company-run stress test provides. 
Accordingly, the proposal would remove the mid-cycle stress test 
requirement for all bank holding companies, including U.S. GSIBs, 
effective in the 2020 cycle. The proposal would maintain the 
requirement for a U.S. GSIB to conduct an annual company-run stress 
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(A) (2012).
    \74\ EGRRCPA section 401(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) (to be codified at 12 
U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 14: What modifications, if any, should the Board consider 
to the proposed Category I prudential standards, and why?

B. Category II Standards

    The failure or distress of firms that would be subject to Category 
II standards could impose significant costs on the U.S. financial 
system and

[[Page 61418]]

economy, although these firms generally do not present the same degree 
of systemic risk as U.S. GSIBs. Their size and cross-jurisdictional 
activity present risks that require more sophisticated capital planning 
and greater supervisory oversight through stress testing.\75\ Further, 
size and cross-jurisdictional activity can present particularly 
heightened challenges in the case of a liquidity stress, which can 
create both financial stability and safety and soundness risks. For 
example, a very large firm that engages in asset fire sales to meet 
short-term liquidity needs is more likely to transmit distress on a 
broader scale because of the greater volume of assets it could sell in 
a short period of time. Similarly, a firm with significant 
international activity may be more exposed to the risk of ring-fencing 
of liquidity resources by one or more jurisdictions that could impede 
its ability to move liquidity to meet outflows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See section III of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like Category I, Category II would apply the most stringent capital 
planning and stress testing requirements set forth in the capital plan 
and enhanced prudential standards rules. The Board would continue to 
require a firm subject to Category II standards to submit an annual 
capital plan, and the Federal Reserve would conduct a qualitative and 
quantitative assessment of the firm's capital plan.\76\ Consistent with 
EGRRCPA, the proposal would maintain annual supervisory stress testing 
for these firms and require company-run stress testing on an annual 
basis.\77\ In addition, these firms would remain subject to the 
existing FR Y-14 reporting requirements. Firms subject to Category II 
standards would remain subject to the most stringent liquidity risk 
management, stress testing, and buffer requirements under the enhanced 
prudential standards rule and would be subject to a requirement to 
report liquidity data for each business day on the FR 2052a.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ For firms subject to Category II standards that have less 
than $250 billion in average total consolidated assets and less than 
$75 billion in average total nonbank assets, the proposal would 
increase the stringency of the capital planning standards by 
including these firms in the CCAR qualitative assessment.
    \77\ The proposal would remove the mid-cycle company-run stress 
testing requirement for firms subject to Category II standards the 
reasons discussed above for U.S. GSIBs under Category I.
    \78\ The proposal would revise the FR 2052a reporting 
requirements to require all firms subject to Category II standards 
to report the FR 2052a on a daily basis (daily reporting 
requirements would also apply to firms subject to Category I 
standards and firms subject to Category III standards that have 
weighted short-term wholesale funding of $75 billion or more). Under 
current reporting requirements, U.S. firms with $700 billion or more 
in total consolidated assets or $10 trillion or more in assets under 
custody must file the FR 2052a on each business day, while all other 
firms must file the FR 2052a on a monthly basis. For firms subject 
to Category II standards that have less than $700 billion in total 
consolidated assets, the proposal would increase the frequency of FR 
2052a reporting from monthly to daily. Reporting of daily liquidity 
data would facilitate greater supervisory monitoring based on these 
firms' liquidity risk profile, as indicated by their size and cross-
jurisdictional activity. The proposal would simplify the FR 2052a 
reporting thresholds by eliminating the threshold of $10 trillion or 
more in assets under custody used to identify daily filers, as a 
firm that meets this threshold would likely also meet one of the 
other proposed thresholds for daily reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to single-counterparty credit limits, a U.S. bank 
holding company with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets 
that is not a U.S. GSIB is currently subject to a limit on aggregate 
net credit exposure to a single counterparty of no more than 25 percent 
of tier 1 capital.\79\ The proposal would modify this threshold to 
apply the limitation to all firms that would be subject to Category II 
or III requirements, based on the risks indicated by the firm's high 
level of cross-jurisdictional activity, weighted short-term wholesale 
funding, nonbank assets, or off-balance sheet exposure, in addition to 
the firm's size. This change would align the thresholds for application 
of single-counterparty credit limits requirements with the proposed 
thresholds for other prudential standards, which promotes consistency 
and simplicity across the Board's regulatory framework for large U.S. 
banking organizations. As discussed above, the proposed indicators 
represent measures of vulnerability to safety and soundness and 
financial stability risks, which may be exacerbated if a firm has 
outsized credit exposure to a single counterparty. Accordingly, 
application of the limits may help to mitigate this risk. For example, 
firms that have high reliance on weighted short-term wholesale funding 
or significant concentration of nonbank assets or off-balance sheet 
exposure often also have a high degree of interconnectedness with other 
market participants, and may be likely to transmit their distress or 
failure to those participants. Single-counterparty credit limits may 
reduce the extent of that transmission. The limitation on a firm's 
exposure to a single counterparty also may reduce the likelihood that 
distress at another firm would be transmitted to the covered firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Single-Counterparty Credit Limits for Bank Holding 
Companies and Foreign Banking Organizations, 83 FR 38460, 38497 
(Aug. 6, 2018) (to be codified at 12 CFR 252.72(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, the Board, with 
the other agencies, is proposing to apply capital and liquidity 
standards to firms subject to Category II that are based on standards 
developed by the BCBS, subject to notice and comment rulemaking in the 
United States, and are appropriate for very large or internationally 
active banking organizations. These standards would include the full 
LCR and proposed NSFR requirements and advanced approaches capital 
requirements.
    Question 15: What modifications, if any, should the Board consider 
to the proposed Category II prudential standards, and why?

C. Category III Standards

    The Board's current regulatory framework generally applies the same 
prudential standards to all non-GSIB bank holding companies or covered 
savings and loan holding companies with $250 billion or more in total 
consolidated assets. For example, advanced approaches capital 
requirements, the supplementary leverage ratio, and the LCR requirement 
generally apply to firms with $250 billion or more in total 
consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in foreign exposure. The 
proposed framework would further differentiate among firms with $250 
billion or more in total consolidated assets, consistent with 
EGRRCPA.\80\ In particular, Categories I and II would include standards 
generally consistent with standards developed by the BCBS, whereas 
Category III would include fewer such standards, based on the 
relatively lower risk profiles and lesser degree of cross-border 
activity of firms that would be subject to Category III standards. For 
example, in the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, the 
agencies are proposing not to apply advanced approaches capital 
requirements and the requirement to recognize most elements of 
accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) in regulatory capital to 
firms subject to Category III (and Category IV) standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ As noted above, Category IV standards would apply only to 
firms with less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Category III standards would apply to firms with total consolidated 
assets of $250 billion or more that do not meet the criteria for 
Category I or II, as well as to certain firms with less than $250 
billion in total consolidated assets, based on their risk profile. As 
noted above, section 165 of the Dodd-Frank

[[Page 61419]]

Act, as amended by EGRRCPA, requires the Board to apply enhanced risk-
based and leverage capital requirements and annual supervisory stress 
testing to U.S. GSIBs and bank holding companies with $250 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets.\81\ In addition, section 
165(a)(2)(C) authorizes the Board to apply enhanced prudential 
standards to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of 
$100 billion or more but less than $250 billion. Consistent with this 
authority, the proposal would apply enhanced standards to firms in this 
asset range that have $75 billion or more in weighted short-term 
wholesale funding, nonbank assets, or off-balance sheet exposure.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See EGRRCPA section 401(a)(1) (to be codified at 12 U.S.C. 
5365(a)); 12 U.S.C. 5365(b)(1)(A) (2012).
    \82\ Section 401(e) of EGRRCPA also requires the Board to 
conduct periodic supervisory stress tests of bank holding companies 
and FBOs with $100 billion or more, but less than $250 billion, in 
total consolidated assets. EGRRCPA section 401(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III of this Supplementary Information 
section, weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, and 
off-balance sheet exposure are factors that contribute to the systemic 
risk profile and safety and soundness risk profile of a firm. Each of 
these factors heightens the need for sophisticated capital planning and 
more intensive supervisory oversight through CCAR, as well as 
sophisticated measures to monitor and manage liquidity risk.
    The proposal would largely maintain the existing capital planning 
and stress testing standards under the capital plan and enhanced 
prudential standards rules for firms that would be subject to Category 
III standards, but remove the mid-cycle company-run stress testing 
requirement and require public disclosure of company-run stress test 
results every other year rather than annually. The proposal would 
require a firm subject to Category III standards to submit an annual 
capital plan and be subject to the qualitative and quantitative 
assessment of its capital plan through CCAR.\83\ The Board would 
continue to conduct annual supervisory stress testing of firms subject 
to Category III standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ For firms subject to Category III standards that have less 
than $250 billion in average total consolidated assets and less than 
$75 billion in average total nonbank assets, the proposal would 
increase the stringency of the capital planning standards by 
including these firms in the CCAR qualitative assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with capital planning requirements, these firms would 
continue to be required to submit confidential data on the existing 
schedule for FR Y-14 reports. A firm subject to Category III standards 
would also be required to conduct an internal stress test (and report 
the results on the FR Y-14A) in connection with its annual capital plan 
submission. The internal stress tests and the FR Y-14 reports are 
inputs into the supervisory stress test and the CCAR qualitative 
assessment. Moreover, the internal stress tests represent an important 
risk management capability for firms whose size or other risk factors 
would meet or exceed the Category III thresholds.
    The proposal would require firms subject to Category III standards 
to publicly disclose the results of company-run stress tests only once 
every two years, rather than annually.\84\ Because firms subject to 
Category III standards would continue to be required to submit an 
annual capital plan (including the results of an internal capital 
stress test) and would be subject to annual supervisory stress testing, 
a reduction in the frequency of required disclosure of company-run 
stress test results should reduce compliance costs without a material 
increase in safety and soundness or financial stability risks.\85\ 
Public disclosure of supervisory stress test results would continue to 
apply on an annual basis for firms subject to Category III standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The company-run stress testing requirement under the 
enhanced prudential standards rule includes a mandatory public 
disclosure component, whereas the capital plan rule does not. 
Compare 12 CFR 252.58 with 12 CFR 225.8. The proposal would maintain 
the annual internal stress test requirement under the capital plan 
rule, but reduce the required frequency of company-run stress 
testing under the enhanced prudential standards rule to every other 
year. As a result, in the intervening year between company-run 
stress tests under the enhanced prudential standards rule, the 
proposed Category III standards would require a firm to conduct an 
internal capital stress test only as part of its annual capital plan 
submission, without required public disclosure.
    \85\ As noted above, EGRRCPA altered the frequency of company-
run stress testing to ``periodic.'' Consistent with EGRRCPA, the 
Board would differentiate among firms by requiring firms subject to 
Category I and II standards to conduct and publicly report the 
results of a company-run stress test more frequently (annually) than 
firms subject to Category III standards (every two years), based on 
the differences in size, cross-jurisdictional activity, complexity, 
and risk profile indicated by the scoping criteria for each of these 
categories. See EGRRCPA section 401(a)(1)(B)(i) (to be codified at 
12 U.S.C. 5365(a)(2)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, the Board, with 
the other agencies, is separately proposing that firms subject to 
Category III standards would not be subject to advanced approaches 
capital requirements and the requirement to recognize most elements of 
AOCI in regulatory capital. Under that proposal, these firms would be 
subject to U.S. generally applicable risk-based capital requirements, 
including capital buffers, as well as the U.S. leverage ratio and the 
supplementary leverage ratio. The capital buffers would include any 
applicable countercyclical capital buffer requirement.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ A firm that operates below its capital buffer requirement 
would be subject to limitations on capital distributions and 
discretionary bonus payments. See 12 CFR 217.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would maintain the existing liquidity risk management, 
monthly internal liquidity stress testing, and liquidity buffer 
requirements under the enhanced prudential standards rule for firms 
subject to Category III standards. The liquidity risk management 
requirements reflect important elements of liquidity risk management in 
normal and stressed conditions, such as cash flow projections and 
contingency funding plan requirements. Similarly, internal liquidity 
stress testing requires a firm to model liquidity inflows and outflows 
based on its own risk profile, while ensuring that the firm maintains a 
level of conservatism in its liquidity stress testing.
    The proposal would require a firm subject to Category III standards 
to report daily or monthly FR 2052a liquidity data depending on the 
firm's level of weighted short-term wholesale funding. Most firms that 
would be subject to this category currently report monthly FR 2052a 
data. However, the Board is proposing to require a firm that has $75 
billion or more in weighted short-term wholesale funding to submit FR 
2052a data for each business day. A heightened reporting frequency 
would facilitate greater supervisory monitoring based on these firms' 
heightened liquidity risk exposure. For example, a greater reliance on 
short-term wholesale funding may indicate more frequent rollover of 
liabilities and greater volatility in the funding profile of a firm. 
Because these firms are more prone to sudden swings in their liquidity 
position, there is a greater need for supervisory monitoring of their 
liquidity risk.
    Similarly, in the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, the 
Board and the other agencies are proposing to apply tailored LCR and 
NSFR requirements for firms subject to Category III standards based on 
whether a firm has $75 billion or more in weighted short-term wholesale 
funding.
    As discussed above, the proposed Category III standards would 
include the single-counterparty credit limit requirements that 
currently apply to bank holding companies with $250

[[Page 61420]]

billion or more in total consolidated assets.
    Question 16: What modifications, if any, should the Board consider 
to the proposed Category III prudential standards, and why?
    Question 17: What are the advantages and disadvantages of reducing 
the frequency to every other year of the requirement for firms subject 
to Category III standards to conduct and publicly disclose the results 
of a company-run stress test?

D. Category IV Standards

    Under the proposal, Category IV standards would apply to firms with 
$100 billion or more in total consolidated assets that do not meet the 
criteria for Categories I, II, or III. The failure or distress of one 
or more firms that would be subject to Category IV standards, while not 
likely to have as great of an impact on financial stability as the 
failure or distress of a firm subject to Category I, II or III 
standards, could nonetheless have a more significant negative effect on 
economic growth and employment relative to the failure or distress of 
smaller firms.\87\ During the financial crisis, firms of similar size 
and risk profiles to firms that would be subject to Category IV 
standards, including Countrywide Financial and National City Corp, 
experienced losses that exceeded three percent of risk-weighted 
assets.\88\ While the failure or distress of these firms did not have 
as significant an effect on U.S. financial stability as the failure or 
distress of financial companies with larger systemic footprints, they 
still contributed to instability and stress in the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Lorenc and Zhang, supra note 49, and section III of 
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    \88\ See Strah, Hynes, and Shaffer, The Impact of the Recent 
Financial Crisis on the Capital Positions of Large U.S. Financial 
Institutions: An Empirical Analysis, available at: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/supervision-and-credit/2013/capital-positions.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, these firms generally have greater scale and 
operational and managerial complexity than smaller firms and, as a 
result, greater safety and soundness risks. Specifically, these firms 
operate at a larger scale, have broader geographic scope, and typically 
have more layers of management than a smaller banking organization. 
These differences can increase the likelihood that such a firm has 
operational or control gaps that would raise its probability of severe 
stress or default if left unaddressed, as well as the risk that such 
gaps will go undetected. The Category IV standards would help promote 
the safety and soundness of these firms.
    Relative to current requirements under the enhanced prudential 
standards rule, the proposed Category IV standards would maintain core 
elements of the liquidity and capital standards, and tailor these 
requirements to reflect these firms' lower risk profile and lesser 
degree of complexity relative to other large banking organizations.
    Category IV standards would include liquidity risk management, 
stress testing, and buffer requirements. Effective liquidity risk 
management helps to ensure a banking organization's ability to meet its 
obligations and continue operations in times of stress. The financial 
crisis revealed significant weaknesses in liquidity buffers and 
liquidity risk management practices throughout the financial 
system.\89\ In particular, many banking organizations did not have 
adequate risk management practices to take into account the liquidity 
stresses of individual products or business lines, had not adequately 
accounted for draws from off-balance sheet exposures, or had not 
adequately planned for a disruption in funding sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See BCBS, Liquidity Risk: Management and Supervisory 
Challenges (Feb. 2008), https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs136.pdf; see 
also BCBS, Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and 
Supervision (Sept. 2008), https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs144.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The liquidity standards help to ensure that these firms have 
effective governance and risk management processes to measure and 
estimate liquidity needs, and sufficient liquidity positions to cover 
risks and exposures and to support activities through a range of 
conditions. In particular, internal liquidity stress testing, liquidity 
buffer, and liquidity risk management requirements help to ensure that 
a large banking organization is equipped to manage its liquidity risk 
and to withstand disruptions in funding sources.
    Under the proposal, liquidity risk management and liquidity stress 
testing requirements would be further tailored to better reflect the 
risk profiles of banking organizations subject to Category IV 
standards. As a class, firms that would be subject to Category IV 
standards tend to have more stable funding profiles, as measured by 
their lower level of weighted short-term wholesale funding, and lesser 
degrees of liquidity risk and operational complexity associated with 
size, cross-jurisdictional activity, nonbank assets, and off-balance 
sheet exposure. Accordingly, the proposal would reduce the frequency of 
required internal liquidity stress testing to at least quarterly, 
rather than monthly.\90\ Category IV standards would continue to 
require that a firm maintain a liquidity buffer that is sufficient to 
meet the projected net stressed cash-flow need over the 30-day planning 
horizon under the firm's internal liquidity stress test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Firms subject to Category IV standards would remain subject 
to monthly, tailored FR 2052a liquidity reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these same reasons, the proposal would modify certain liquidity 
risk management requirements under the enhanced prudential standards 
rule for firms subject to Category IV standards. First, the proposal 
would require a firm subject to this category of standards to calculate 
its collateral positions on a monthly basis, rather than a weekly basis 
as currently required. Firms that would meet the criteria for Category 
IV standards tend to be less reliant on activities, such as secured 
funding and borrowing (e.g., repurchase agreements and reverse 
repurchase agreements) and derivatives trading, for which greater 
frequency in updating collateral positions is appropriate. Second, the 
current enhanced prudential standards rule requires covered bank 
holding companies to establish risk limits to monitor sources of 
liquidity risk.\91\ The proposal would clarify that firms subject to 
Category IV standards, due to their lesser size, complexity, and other 
risk factors relative to other large banking organizations, need not 
establish limits for activities that are not relevant to the firm, but 
must establish limits that are consistent with the firm's established 
liquidity risk tolerance and that reflect the firm's risk profile, 
complexity, activities, and size. Third, Category IV standards would 
specify fewer required elements of monitoring of intraday liquidity 
risk exposures,\92\ consistent with the risk profile, complexity, 
activities, and size of firms subject to this category of standards. 
This change would reflect the generally more stable funding profiles 
and lower degrees of intraday risk and operational complexity of these 
firms relative to larger and more complex firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 12 CFR 252.34(g).
    \92\ See 12 CFR 252.34(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The internal liquidity stress testing, liquidity buffer, and 
liquidity risk management requirements are more tailored to a firm's 
risk profile and scope of operations than the standardized quantitative 
limits of the LCR rule. Continuing to apply these tailored liquidity 
requirements as part of Category IV standards would maintain these 
firms' risk management and

[[Page 61421]]

resiliency, which supports their individual safety and soundness and 
reduces risks to U.S. financial stability. In the interagency capital 
and liquidity proposal, the Board, with the other agencies, is 
proposing to no longer apply the LCR and proposed NSFR rules to firms 
subject to Category IV standards.
    The proposal would also apply tailored capital standards for firms 
subject to Category IV standards. Specifically, the proposal would 
revise the frequency of supervisory stress testing to every other year 
and eliminate the requirement for firms subject to Category IV 
standards to conduct and publicly report the results of a company-run 
stress test. Supervisory stress testing on a two-year cycle would 
implement section 401(e) of EGRRCPA, taking into account the risk 
profile of these firms relative to larger, more complex firms. The 
Board is proposing to maintain existing FR Y-14 reporting requirements 
for firms subject to Category IV standards in order to provide the 
Board with the data it needs to conduct supervisory stress testing and 
inform the Board's ongoing supervision of these firms.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ The Board plans to separately propose reductions in FR Y-14 
reporting requirements for firms subject to Category IV standards as 
part of the capital plan proposal at a later date, to align with 
changes the Board would propose to the capital plan rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board continues to expect these firms to have sound capital 
positions and capital planning practices. Capital is central to a 
firm's ability to absorb unexpected losses and continue to lend to 
creditworthy businesses and consumers. A firm must maintain sufficient 
levels of capital to support the risks associated with its exposures 
and activities to be resilient. As a result, a firm's processes for 
managing and allocating its capital resources are critical to its 
financial strength and resiliency, and also to the stability and 
effective functioning of the U.S. financial system. In addition, 
section 401(e) of EGRRCPA requires the Board to conduct periodic 
supervisory stress tests of bank holding companies and foreign banking 
organizations with $100 billion or more, but less than $250 billion, in 
total consolidated assets.
    In April 2018, the Board issued a proposal to apply stress buffer 
requirements to large bank holding companies.\94\ As part of a future 
capital plan proposal, the Board intends to propose that the stress 
buffer requirements under Category IV would be calculated in a manner 
that aligns with the proposed two-year supervisory stress testing 
cycle. Specifically, the Board plans to propose that the stress buffer 
requirements would be updated annually to reflect planned 
distributions, but only every two years to reflect stress loss 
projections.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Amendments to the Regulatory Capital, Capital Plan, and 
Stress Test Rules, 83 FR 18160 (proposed April 25, 2018).
    \95\ Under the capital plan rule, the Board may require a firm 
to resubmit its capital plan if there has been, or will likely be, a 
material change in the firm's risk profile, financial condition, or 
corporate structure. See 12 CFR 225.8(e)(4). In the event of a 
resubmission, the Board may conduct a quantitative evaluation of 
that capital plan. As noted in the April 2018 proposal, the Board 
may recalculate a firm's stress buffer requirements whenever the 
firm chooses or is required to resubmit its capital plan. 83 FR 
18171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the capital plan proposal, the Board intends to provide 
greater flexibility to these firms to develop their annual capital 
plans. Under this potential approach, Category IV standards would 
require a firm to include in its capital plans estimates of revenues, 
losses, reserves, and capital levels based on a forward-looking 
analysis, taking into account the firm's idiosyncratic risks under a 
range of conditions, but would not require the firm to submit the 
results of company-run stress tests on the FR Y-14A. This change would 
align with the proposed removal of company-run stress testing 
requirements from Category IV standards under the enhanced prudential 
standards rule. The Board also intends at a future date to revise its 
guidance relating to capital planning to align with the proposed 
categories of standards and to allow more flexibility in how firms 
subject to Category IV standards perform capital planning.
    Currently, firms that meet the proposed criteria for Category IV 
standards are not subject to the single-counterparty credit limits 
rule. The proposal would retain this treatment.
    Question 18: What modifications, if any, should the Board consider 
to the proposed Category IV prudential standards, and why?
    Question 19: What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying 
the prudential standards outlined here to banking organizations that 
meet the proposed criteria for Category IV standards? What prudential 
standards are appropriate for these firms, based on their risk 
profiles?
    Question 20: What are the advantages and disadvantages of 
conducting a supervisory stress test every other year, rather than 
annually, and eliminating the company-run stress testing requirement 
for these firms? How should the Board think about providing these firms 
with additional flexibility in their capital plans?
    Question 21: The proposal would revise the frequency of supervisory 
stress testing for firms subject to Category IV standards to every 
other year. What would be the advantages or disadvantages of the Board 
conducting supervisory stress tests for these firms on a more frequent 
basis?
    Question 22: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the 
proposed liquidity risk management, liquidity stress testing 
requirements, and liquidity buffers for these firms?
    Question 23: In the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, the 
agencies are proposing not to apply the LCR rule and proposed NSFR rule 
to firms subject to Category IV standards. What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of this approach? To what extent would scoping out 
banking organizations subject to Category IV standards from the LCR and 
proposed NSFR rules affect the safety and soundness of individual 
banking organizations or raise broader financial stability concerns? To 
what extent does maintaining liquidity risk management and internal 
liquidity stress testing and buffer requirements at the holding company 
level for these firms under the proposal mitigate these concerns? What 
are the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining standardized 
liquidity requirements, such as the current LCR requirement and 
proposed NSFR requirement, for firms subject to Category IV standards? 
If the Board were to apply some or all of the LCR and proposed NSFR 
requirements to these firms, what, if any, other regulatory 
requirements should the Board consider reducing or removing?

E. Covered Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    Currently, covered savings and loan holding companies are subject 
to the Board's regulatory capital rule and LCR rule, and would be 
subject to the proposed NSFR rule, in the same manner as a similarly 
situated bank holding company. However, unlike bank holding companies 
of comparable size and risk profile, covered savings and loan holding 
companies are not otherwise subject to capital planning or supervisory 
stress testing requirements.\96\ Under the proposal, a covered savings 
and loan holding company would be subject to supervisory stress 
testing; a requirement to conduct and publicly disclose the results of 
a company-run stress test; risk

[[Page 61422]]

management and risk committee requirements; liquidity risk management, 
stress testing, and buffer requirements; and single-counterparty credit 
limits in the same manner as a similarly situated bank holding company 
would be subject under the enhanced prudential standards rule.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See 12 CFR 217.1(c)(1)(iii) (applicability of part 217), .2 
(defining a covered savings and loan holding company); 12 CFR part 
249; NSFR proposed rule.
    \97\ A covered savings and loan holding company would not be 
subject to Category I standards, as the definition of ``global 
systemically important BHC'' under the GSIB surcharge rule does not 
include covered savings and loan holding companies. See 12 CFR 
217.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For capital, these standards would include supervisory stress 
testing and, for Categories II and III, company-run stress testing 
requirements. Similar to a bank holding company, the scale, managerial 
and operational complexity, and other risk factors indicated by the 
scoping criteria for the proposed categories warrant more sophisticated 
capital planning, more frequent company-run stress testing, and greater 
supervisory oversight through supervisory stress testing to further the 
safety and soundness of these firms. To implement the supervisory 
stress test, the Board is proposing to require covered savings and loan 
holding companies to report the FR Y-14 report in the same manner as a 
bank holding company.\98\ In addition, in April 2018, the Board issued 
a proposal to apply stress buffer requirements to large bank holding 
companies and intermediate holding companies. As part of the capital 
plan proposal, the Board would seek comment on a proposal to apply the 
proposed stress buffer requirements to covered savings and loan holding 
companies in the same manner as a bank holding company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Covered savings and loan holding companies with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more would be required to 
report the FR Y-14M and all schedules of the FR Y-14-Q except for 
Schedule C--Regulatory Capital Instruments and Schedule D--
Regulatory Capital Transitions. These firms would also be required 
to report the FR Y-14A Schedule E--Operational Risk. Covered savings 
and loan holding companies subject to Category II or III standards 
would also be required to submit the FR Y-14A Schedule A--Summary 
and Schedule F--Business Plan Changes in connection with the 
company-run stress test requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOLA authorizes the Board to issue regulations that the Board 
determines are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of 
section 10 of HOLA, including regulations establishing capital 
requirements.\99\ Like bank holding companies, savings and loan holding 
companies must serve as a source of strength to their subsidiary 
savings associations and may not conduct operations in an unsafe and 
unsound manner. For large banking organizations, including covered 
savings and loan holding companies, safe and sound operations include 
robust capital and liquidity risk management. The proposed capital 
planning and stress buffer requirements would provide covered savings 
and loan holding companies with comparable benefits to safety and 
soundness as they provide to bank holding companies subject to the 
requirements. These requirements help ensure that a firm maintains 
capital commensurate with its risk profile and activities, so that the 
firm can meet its obligations to creditors and other counterparties, as 
well as continue to serve as a financial intermediary through periods 
of financial and economic stress. Stress testing provides a means to 
better understand the financial condition of the banking organization 
and risks within the banking organization that may pose a threat to 
safety and soundness or the stability of the financial system. The 
capital plan rule also helps to ensure that a firm has internal 
processes for assessing its capital adequacy that reflect a full 
understanding of its risks and ensure that it maintains capital 
corresponding to those risks to maintain overall capital adequacy. 
These concepts are fundamental to the safety and soundness of all 
banking organizations, including covered savings and loan holding 
companies. In addition, stress tests can provide valuable information 
to market participants and reduce uncertainty about the financial 
condition of the participating holding companies under stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 12 U.S.C. 1467a(g). See section II.B.2 of this 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, with respect to liquidity requirements, covered savings 
and loan holding companies are subject to the full LCR and proposed 
NSFR requirements if they have $250 billion or more in assets or $10 
billion in on-balance sheet foreign exposure. Covered savings and loan 
holding companies are subject to the modified LCR and proposed modified 
NSFR requirements if they have $50 billion or more, but less than $250 
billion, in assets and less than $10 billion in foreign exposure.\100\ 
Covered savings and loan holding companies are not currently subject to 
the liquidity risk management, stress testing, and buffer requirements 
included in the enhanced prudential standards rule, but are expected to 
have liquidity risk management processes commensurate with their 
liquidity risk.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The Board, with the OCC and FDIC, is proposing to amend 
these applicability thresholds in the interagency capital and 
liquidity proposal.
    \101\ See Supervision and Regulation Letter SR 10-6, available 
at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2010/sr1006.pdf; Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity 
Risk Management, 75 FR 13656 (March 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would extend the liquidity risk management, stress 
testing, and buffer requirements to covered savings and loan holding 
companies. Specifically, a covered savings and loan holding company 
with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more would be 
required to conduct internal stress tests at least monthly (or 
quarterly, for a firm that would be subject to Category IV standards) 
to measure its potential liquidity needs across overnight, 30-day, 90-
day, and 1-year planning horizons during times of instability in the 
financial markets, and to hold highly liquid assets sufficient to meet 
the projected 30-day net stressed cash-flow need under internal stress 
scenarios. A covered savings and loan holding company with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more also would be required to 
meet specified corporate governance requirements around liquidity risk 
management, to produce cash flow projections over various time 
horizons, to establish internal limits on certain liquidity metrics, 
and to maintain a contingency funding plan that identifies potential 
sources of liquidity strain and alternative sources of funding when 
usual sources of liquidity are unavailable. These proposed requirements 
are important to ensure that covered savings and loan holding companies 
have effective governance and risk management processes to determine 
the amount of liquidity to cover risks and exposures, and sufficient 
liquidity to support their activities through a range of conditions.
    In addition, under the current framework, the single-counterparty 
credit limits rule applies to U.S. bank holding companies with $250 
billion or more in total consolidated assets (other than U.S. GSIBs), 
but not to covered savings and loan holding companies. In general, that 
rule limits aggregate net credit exposure to a single counterparty to 
no more than 25 percent of tier 1 capital.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ For U.S. GSIBs, the single-counterparty credit limits rule 
applies a stricter requirement. See section IV.B of this 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposal would modify the threshold of $250 
billion or more in total consolidated assets for U.S. bank holding 
companies that are not U.S. GSIBs to align with the new proposed 
thresholds for application

[[Page 61423]]

of Category II and III standards. The proposal would apply the single-
counterparty credit limit requirements to covered savings and loan 
holding companies that are subject to Category II or III standards in 
the same manner that the current rule applies to U.S. bank holding 
companies with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets that 
are not U.S. GSIBs (i.e., the 25 percent of tier 1 capital limit would 
apply for these firms). This limitation on a savings and loan holding 
company's exposure to a single counterparty would reduce the likelihood 
that distress at another firm would be transmitted to the covered 
savings and loan holding company.
    Question 24: What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying 
prudential standards as outlined here to covered savings and loan 
holding companies? What additional standards would be appropriate for 
covered savings and loan holding companies?
    Question 25: What are the advantages and disadvantages of covered 
savings and loan holding companies reporting FR Y-14 data as outlined 
above?

F. Risk Management and Risk Committee Requirements

    Sound, enterprise-wide risk management supports the safe and sound 
operations of banking organizations and reduces the likelihood of their 
material distress or failure, and thus promotes financial stability. 
Section 165(h) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires certain publicly traded 
bank holding companies to establish a risk committee that is 
``responsible for the oversight of the enterprise-wide risk management 
practices'' and meets other statutory requirements.\103\ EGRRCPA 
amended the thresholds for application of the risk committee 
requirement to require the Board to apply risk committee requirements 
to publicly traded bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in 
total consolidated assets. The Board may also apply risk committee 
requirements to publicly traded bank holding companies under $50 
billion in total consolidated assets, as the Board determines would be 
necessary or appropriate to promote sound risk management practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 12 U.S.C. 5363(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current enhanced prudential standards rule, bank holding 
companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and 
publicly traded bank holding companies with total consolidated assets 
of $10 billion or more, but less than $50 billion, must maintain a risk 
committee that meets specified requirements. Consistent with EGRRCPA, 
the proposal would raise these thresholds for the risk committee 
requirement to apply to bank holding companies but would not change the 
substance of the risk committee requirement for these firms.\104\ Under 
the proposal, a publicly traded or privately held bank holding company 
with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more must maintain a 
risk committee. These standards enhance safe and sound operations by 
supporting independent risk management and are appropriate for all bank 
holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or 
more. The proposal would eliminate the risk committee requirements that 
apply for publicly traded U.S. bank holding companies with less than 
$50 billion in total consolidated assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Because bank holding companies with $50 billion or more, 
but less than $100 billion, in total consolidated assets would no 
longer be subject to the liquidity risk management requirements 
cross-referenced in the current risk committee requirements, the 
proposal would remove this cross-reference for these firms. In 
addition, to better organize the enhanced prudential standards rule, 
the proposal would move the risk committee requirement for bank 
holding companies with $50 billion or more, but less than $100 
billion, in total consolidated assets to subpart C, replacing the 
current requirements that apply under that subpart for firms with 
$10 billion or more, but less than $50 billion, in total 
consolidated assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, the Board has assessed the adequacy of bank holding 
company risk management through the examination process as informed by 
supervisory guidance; the requirements in section 165(h) supplement, 
but do not replace, the Board's existing risk management guidance and 
supervisory expectations.\105\ Given the activities and risk profile of 
bank holding companies with less than $50 billion in total consolidated 
assets, the Board proposes to review these firms' risk management 
practices through the supervisory process. The Board would continue to 
expect that bank holding companies with less than $50 billion in total 
consolidated assets would establish risk management processes and 
procedures commensurate with their risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding 
Companies and Foreign Banking Organizations, 79 FR 17239, 17247 
(Mar. 27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the changes for U.S. bank holding companies, the 
proposal would apply the same risk committee requirements to covered 
savings and loan holding companies with $50 billion or more in total 
consolidated assets as would apply to a U.S. bank holding company of 
the same size. Specifically, all covered savings and loan holding 
companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more would 
be required to establish and maintain a board-level risk committee and 
to employ a chief risk officer with appropriate expertise and stature, 
among other requirements. These requirements represent important risk 
management practices for banking organizations of this size to help 
ensure that the organization is operating in a safe and sound manner. 
As discussed above, the financial crisis revealed weaknesses in the 
risk management practices of large banking organizations, including 
both bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies. The 
risk management requirements of the enhanced prudential standards rule 
were established to address elements of these weaknesses at bank 
holding companies.\106\ Applying the same minimum standards to covered 
savings and loan holding companies would accordingly further their 
safety and soundness by addressing concerns that apply equally to all 
depository institution holding companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Changes to Dodd-Frank Act Definitions

    The proposal would also make changes to the Board's implementation 
of certain definitions in the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act 
directed the Board to define the terms ``significant bank holding 
company'' and ``significant nonbank financial company,'' terms that are 
used in the credit exposure reports provision in section 
165(d)(2).\107\ The terms ``significant nonbank financial company'' and 
``significant bank holding company'' are also used in section 113 of 
the Dodd-Frank Act, which specifies that the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council must consider the extent and nature of a nonbank 
company's transactions and relationships with other ``significant 
nonbank financial companies'' and ``significant bank holding 
companies,'' among other factors, in determining whether to designate a 
nonbank financial company for supervision by the Board.\108\ The Board 
previously defined ``significant bank holding company'' and 
``significant nonbank financial company'' using $50 billion minimum 
asset thresholds to conform with section 165.\109\ In light of

[[Page 61424]]

EGRRCPA's amendments, the Board proposes to amend these definitions to 
include minimum asset thresholds of $100 billion, and make other 
conforming edits in the Board's regulation on definitions in Title I of 
the Dodd-Frank Act.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 12 U.S.C. 5311(a)(7) (2012); EGRRCPA section 401(a)(3) (to 
be codified at U.S.C. 5365(d)(2)). EGRRCPA changed credit exposure 
reports from a mandatory to discretionary prudential standard under 
section 165.
    \108\ See 12 U.S.C. 5323.
    \109\ 12 CFR 242.4.
    \110\ 12 CFR part 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 26: What are the advantages and disadvantages of setting 
the minimum asset threshold of these definitions at $100 billion? What 
would be the advantages and disadvantages if the Board set the minimum 
asset threshold of these definitions at $250 billion?

VI. Proposed Reporting Changes

    The proposal would include changes to the reporting panels and 
requirements of the FR Y-14, FR Y-15, FR 2052a, FR Y-9C, and FR Y-9LP 
reporting forms.
    The proposal would require covered savings and loan holding 
companies with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets to 
report parts of the FR Y-14. As described above, the proposal would 
require covered savings and loan holding companies with assets of $100 
billion or more to participate in supervisory stress tests, with the 
frequency of supervisory stress testing depending on the category of 
standards that apply. Accordingly, the proposal would require all 
covered savings and loan holding companies with $100 billion or more in 
total consolidated assets to complete the elements of the FR Y-14 
report that are used in conducting supervisory stress tests: (1) The FR 
Y-14M; (2) all schedules of the FR Y-14-Q except for Schedule C--
Regulatory Capital Instruments and Schedule D--Regulatory Capital 
Transitions; and (3) Schedule E--Operational Risk of the FR Y-14A. The 
proposal would also require covered savings and loan holding companies 
subject to Category II or III standards to report the FR Y-14A Schedule 
A--Summary and Schedule F--Business Plan Changes with respect to 
company run stress testing. As discussed above, covered savings and 
loan holding companies subject to Category II or Category III standards 
face heightened risks given their size or level of cross-jurisdictional 
activity, weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, or 
off-balance sheet exposure. The information from the FR Y-14A Schedules 
A and F on company-run stress testing would assist supervisors in 
determining the robustness of company-run stress tests, and thereby 
help ensure the safety and soundness of covered savings and loan 
holding companies.
    With respect to the FR Y-15, the proposal would add two derived 
line items on Schedule A to calculate total off-balance sheet exposure, 
which is one of the indicators used to determine whether a firm with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more would be subject to 
Category III standards. New line item M4 (total consolidated assets) 
would report the total consolidated on-balance sheet assets for the 
respondent, which is the equivalent to Schedule HC, item 12 (total 
consolidated assets) on the FR Y-9C. New line item M5 (total off-
balance sheet exposures) would be total exposure, as currently defined 
on the FR Y-15, minus line item M4.
    With respect to the FR 2052a report, the proposal would modify the 
current reporting frequency and granularity to align with the proposed 
tailoring framework. Specifically, the proposal would require U.S. 
banking organizations and covered savings and loan holding companies, 
each with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets, to report 
the FR 2052a on a daily basis if they are: (i) Subject to Category I or 
II standards, or (ii) have $75 billion or more in weighted short-term 
wholesale funding. This would increase the frequency of reporting for 
firms subject to Category II standards with less than $700 billion in 
total consolidated assets and firms subject to Category III standards 
with $75 billion or more in weighted short-term wholesale funding; both 
groups of banking organizations currently report the FR 2052a monthly. 
Reporting of daily liquidity data would facilitate greater supervisory 
monitoring based on these firms' liquidity risk profile, as indicated 
by their level of weighted short-term wholesale funding and cross-
jurisdictional activity. The proposal also would simplify the FR 2052a 
reporting thresholds by eliminating the threshold of $10 trillion or 
more in assets under custody used to identify daily filers, as 
discussed in section IV.B of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    In addition, consistent with EGRRCPA's changes and the Board's July 
2018 statement relating to EGRRCPA, the proposal would revise the 
reporting forms to provide that bank holding companies with less than 
$100 billion in total consolidated assets would no longer be required 
to submit the FR Y-14, FR Y-15 and the FR 2052a, and covered savings 
and loan holding companies with less than $100 billion in total 
consolidated assets would no longer be required to submit the FR Y-15 
and FR 2052a.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Board statement regarding the impact of the Economic 
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, July 6, 
2018, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20180706b.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the FR Y-9C, the proposal would align the 
instructions and form with the proposed tailoring framework in the 
interagency capital and liquidity proposal. The proposed revised 
instructions to the FR Y-9C would clarify that Category III Board-
regulated institutions are not included in the proposed definition of 
``advanced approaches banking organizations'' in the interagency 
capital and liquidity proposal, but would be required to comply with 
the supplementary leverage ratio and countercyclical capital buffer 
requirements. The proposed revision to the FR Y-9C would amend line 
item 45, which concerns the supplementary leverage ratio. Previously, 
line item 45 was required to be completed by advanced approaches 
holding companies only. The proposed revised FR Y-9C would require line 
item 45 to be completed by ``advanced approaches banking organizations 
and Category III Board-regulated institutions.''
    Finally, the proposal would require covered savings and loan 
holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more to report total nonbank assets on line item 17, Schedule PC-B of 
the FR Y-9LP, as this data would be used to determine whether the firm 
is subject to Category III standards.
    As the proposal would not apply to foreign banking organizations, 
the changes to the FR Y-14, FR Y-15, FR 2052a, FR Y-9C, and FR Y-9LP 
discussed above would not apply to an intermediate holding company of a 
foreign banking organization. Therefore, these intermediate holding 
companies would continue to report these forms as they do currently, 
and the forms would be amended to reflect this.
    Question 27: What are the costs and benefits of the proposed 
changes to the FR 2052a, including the advantages and disadvantages of 
the proposed reporting frequency for firms subject to Category II and 
III standards?

VII. Impact Assessment

    In general, the Board expects the proposal would reduce aggregate 
compliance costs for bank holding companies with $100 billion or more 
in total consolidated assets, with minimal effects on the safety and 
soundness of these firms and U.S. financial stability.\112\ For 
additional impact

[[Page 61425]]

information, commenters should also review the interagency capital and 
liquidity proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Firms with less than $100 billion in total consolidated 
assets would have significantly reduced compliance costs, as these 
firms would no longer be subject to the enhanced prudential 
standards rule or capital plan rule, and would no longer be required 
to file FR Y-14 or FR Y-15 reports, or the FR 2052a. However, these 
firms have not been complying with these requirements since July 6, 
2018, when the Board issued a statement noting that it would no 
longer enforce these regulations or reporting requirements with 
respect to these firms. See Board statement regarding the impact of 
the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, 
July 6, 2018, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20180706b.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Capital Planning and Stress Testing

    First, while the Board expects the proposed changes to capital 
planning and stress testing requirements to have no material impact on 
the capital levels of bank holding companies with $100 billion or more 
in total consolidated assets, for firms that would be subject to 
Category III or IV standards in particular, the proposal would reduce 
compliance costs. These firms currently must conduct company-run stress 
tests on a semi-annual basis. For bank holding companies that would be 
subject to Category III standards, the proposal would reduce this 
frequency to every other year.\113\ For firms that would be subject to 
Category IV standards, the proposal would remove this requirement 
altogether.\114\ In addition, under the proposal the Board would 
conduct supervisory stress tests of firms subject to Category IV 
standards on a two-year, rather than annual, cycle. Firms subject to 
Category III or IV standards would therefore either reduce or 
eliminate, respectively, internal systems and resources for complying 
with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ A firm subject to Category III standards would still be 
required to conduct an internal capital stress test on an annual 
basis as part of its annual capital plan submission. See section 
IV.C of this Supplementary Information section.
    \114\ Although the proposal would not modify the requirement for 
a firm that would be subject to Category IV standards to conduct an 
internal capital stress test as part of its annual capital plan 
submission, the Board intends to propose changes in the future 
capital plan proposal to align with the proposed removal of company-
run stress testing requirements for these firms. See section IV.D of 
this Supplementary Information section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Liquidity

    The proposed changes to liquidity requirements are also expected to 
reduce compliance costs for firms that would be subject to Category IV 
standards by reducing the required frequency of internal liquidity 
stress tests and modifying the liquidity risk management requirements. 
The Board does not expect these proposed changes to materially affect 
the liquidity buffer levels held by these firms or these firms' 
exposure to liquidity risk.

C. Covered Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    For covered savings and loan holding companies, the proposal would 
increase compliance costs and also reduce risks to the safety and 
soundness of these firms. By harmonizing prudential standards across 
similarly situated large domestic banking organizations, the proposal 
would also reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. The Board 
expects the proposed new requirements for covered savings and loan 
holding companies to meaningfully improve the risk management 
capabilities of these firms and their resiliency to stress, which 
furthers their safety and soundness.
    A covered savings and loan holding company that is subject to 
Category II or III standards would be required to conduct company-run 
stress tests, which would be a new requirement. In connection with the 
application of supervisory and company-run capital stress testing 
requirements, the Board is proposing to require covered savings and 
loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion 
or more to report the FR Y-14 reports. In addition, the proposal would 
require a covered savings and loan holding company with $100 billion or 
more to conduct internal liquidity stress testing and maintain a 
liquidity buffer. While covered savings and loan holding companies 
would incur costs for conducting internal liquidity stress testing, 
this requirement would improve the capability of these firms to 
understand, manage, and plan for liquidity risk exposures across a 
range of conditions. Depending on its liquidity buffer requirement, a 
covered savings and loan holding company may need to increase the 
amount of liquid assets it holds or otherwise adjust its risk profile 
to reduce estimated net stressed cash-flow needs. Because covered 
savings and loan holding companies are already subject to the LCR rule, 
which also requires a firm to maintain a minimum amount of liquid 
assets to meet net outflows under a stress scenario, covered savings 
and loan holding companies would generally need to hold only an 
incremental amount--if any--above the levels already required to comply 
with the LCR rule.

VIII. Administrative Law Matters

A. Solicitation of Comments and Use of Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 
Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the federal banking agencies 
to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after 
January 1, 2000. The Board has sought to present the proposal in a 
simple and straightforward manner, and invites comment on the use of 
plain language. For example:
     Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? 
If not, how could it present the proposal more clearly?
     Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated? If 
not, how could the proposal be more clearly stated?
     Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon 
that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to 
understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?
     Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, which 
sections should be changed?
     What other changes can the Board incorporate to make the 
regulation easier to understand?

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain ``collections of 
information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA).\115\ The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is 
not required to respond to, an information collection unless it 
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. The Board reviewed the proposed rule under the 
authority delegated to the Board by OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule contains reporting requirements subject to the 
PRA. To implement these requirements, the Board proposes to revise the 
(1) Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a; OMB No. 
7100-0361), (2) Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies 
(FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128), (3) Capital Assessments and Stress 
Testing (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 7100-0341), and (4) Banking Organization 
Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15; OMB No. 7100-0352).
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary 
for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether 
the information has practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the proposed 
information

[[Page 61426]]

collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; and
    (e) Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, 
maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
    All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on 
aspects of this proposed rule that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, 
or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to Ann 
E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. A 
copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street 
NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to 202-395-6974.

Proposed Revision, With Extension, of the Following Information 
Collections

    (1) Report title: Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report.
    Agency form number: FR 2052a.
    OMB control number: 7100-0361.
    Frequency: Monthly, each business day (daily).
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Respondents: U.S. bank holding companies, U.S. savings and loan 
holding companies, and foreign banking organizations with U.S. assets.
    Estimated number of respondents: Monthly: 35; Daily: 13.
    Estimated average hours per response: Monthly: 120; Daily: 220.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 765,400.
    General description of report: The FR 2052a is used to monitor the 
overall liquidity profile of institutions supervised by the Board. 
These data provide detailed information on the liquidity risks within 
different business lines (e.g., financing of securities positions, 
prime brokerage activities). In particular, these data serve as part of 
the Board's supervisory surveillance program in its liquidity risk 
management area and provide timely information on firm-specific 
liquidity risks during periods of stress. Analyses of systemic and 
idiosyncratic liquidity risk issues are then used to inform the Board's 
supervisory processes, including the preparation of analytical reports 
that detail funding vulnerabilities.
    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR 2052a is authorized 
pursuant to section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act,\116\ section 8 
of the International Banking Act,\117\ section 10 of HOLA,\118\ and 
section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act \119\ and is mandatory. Section 5(c) 
of the Bank Holding Company Act authorizes the Board to require bank 
holding companies (BHCs) to submit reports to the Board regarding their 
financial condition. Section 8(a) of the International Banking Act 
subjects foreign banking organizations to the provisions of the Bank 
Holding Company Act. Section 10(b)(2) of HOLA authorizes the Board to 
require savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) to file reports with 
the Board concerning their operations. Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act requires the Board to establish prudential standards, including 
liquidity requirements, for certain BHCs and foreign banking 
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 12 U.S.C. 1844.
    \117\ 12 U.S.C. 3106.
    \118\ 12 U.S.C. 1467a.
    \119\ 12 U.S.C. 5365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Financial institution information required by the FR 2052a is 
collected as part of the Board's supervisory process. Therefore, such 
information is entitled to confidential treatment under Exemption 8 of 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).\120\ In addition, the 
institution information provided by each respondent would not be 
otherwise available to the public and its disclosure could cause 
substantial competitive harm. Accordingly, it is entitled to 
confidential treatment under the authority of exemption 4 of the 
FOIA,\121\ which protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial 
or financial information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).
    \121\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Actions: To implement the reporting requirements of the 
proposed rule, the Board proposes to revise the FR 2052a (1) so that 
BHCs and SLHCs with less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets 
would no longer have to report, (2) BHCs or SLHCs subject to Category 
II standards ($700 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $75 
billion or more in cross jurisdictional activity) would have to report 
FR 2052a daily, and (3) BHCs or SLHCs subject to Category III standards 
with $75 billion or more in weighted short-term wholesale funding would 
have to report FR 2052a daily, rather than monthly. The Board estimates 
that proposed revisions to the FR 2052a would decrease the respondent 
count by 4. The Board estimates that proposed revisions to the FR 2052a 
would increase the estimated annual burden by 47,800 hours. The draft 
reporting forms and instructions are available on the Board's public 
website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx.
    (2) Report title: Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding 
Companies.
    Agency form number: FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-9ES, and FR 
Y-9CS.
    OMB control number: 7100-0128.
    Frequency: Quarterly, semiannually, and annually.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Respondents: Bank holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan 
holding companies (SLHCs), securities holding companies (SHCs), and 
U.S. Intermediate Holding Companies (IHCs) (collectively, holding 
companies (HCs)).
    Estimated number of respondents: FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches 
holding companies): 292; FR Y-9C (advanced approached holding 
companies): 18; FR Y-9LP: 338; FR Y-9SP: 4,238; FR Y-9ES: 82; FR Y-9CS: 
236.
    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-9C (non-advanced 
approaches holding companies): 46.29; FR Y-9C (advanced approached 
holding companies): 47.54; FR Y-9LP: 5.27; FR Y-9SP: 5.40; FR Y-9ES: 
0.50; FR Y-9CS: 0.50.
    Estimated annual burden hours: FR Y-9C (non advanced approaches 
holding companies): 54,067; FR Y-9C (advanced approached holding 
companies): 3,423; FR Y-9LP: 7,125; FR Y-9SP: 45,770; FR Y-9ES: 41; FR 
Y-9CS: 472.
    General description of report: The FR Y-9 family of reporting forms 
continues to be the primary source of financial data on HCs on which 
examiners rely between on-site inspections. Financial data from these 
reporting forms is used to detect emerging financial problems, review 
performance, conduct pre-inspection analysis, monitor and evaluate 
capital adequacy, evaluate HC mergers and acquisitions, and analyze an 
HC's overall financial condition to ensure the safety and soundness of 
its operations. The FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, and FR Y-9SP serve as 
standardized financial statements for the consolidated holding company. 
The Board requires HCs to provide standardized financial statements to 
fulfill the Board's

[[Page 61427]]

statutory obligation to supervise these organizations. The FR Y-9ES is 
a financial statement for HCs that are Employee Stock Ownership Plans. 
The Board uses the FR Y-9CS (a free-form supplement) to collect 
additional information deemed to be critical and needed in an expedited 
manner. HCs file the FR Y-9C on a quarterly basis, the FR Y-9LP 
quarterly, the FR Y-9SP semiannually, the FR Y-9ES annually, and the FR 
Y-9CS on a schedule that is determined when this supplement is used.
    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR Y-9 family of 
reports is authorized by section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company 
Act,\122\ section 10(b) of the Home Owners' Loan Act,\123\ section 618 
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-
Frank Act),\124\ and section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act.\125\ The 
obligation of covered institutions to report this information is 
mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 12 U.S.C. 1844(c).
    \123\ 12 U.S.C. 1467a(b).
    \124\ 12 U.S.C. 1850a(c)(1).
    \125\ 12 U.S.C. 5365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-ES, and FR Y-9CS, the 
information collected would generally not be accorded confidential 
treatment. If confidential treatment is requested by a respondent, the 
Board will review the request to determine if confidential treatment is 
appropriate.
    With respect to FR Y-9C, Schedule HI's item 7(g) ``FDIC deposit 
insurance assessments,'' Schedule HC-P's item 7(a) ``Representation and 
warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to 
U.S. government agencies and government sponsored agencies,'' and 
Schedule HC-P's item 7(b) ``Representation and warranty reserves for 1-
4 family residential mortgage loans sold to other parties'' are 
considered confidential. Such treatment is appropriate because the data 
is not publicly available and the public release of this data is likely 
to impair the Board's ability to collect necessary information in the 
future and could cause substantial harm to the competitive position of 
the respondent. Thus, this information may be kept confidential under 
exemptions (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts from 
disclosure ``trade secrets and commercial or financial information 
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential'' (5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(4)), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts 
from disclosure information related to examination, operating, or 
condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an 
agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial 
institutions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).
    Current Actions: To implement the reporting requirements of the 
proposed rule, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-9C to clarify that 
Category III Board-regulated institutions are not included in the 
proposed definition of ``advanced approaches banking organizations'' in 
the interagency capital and liquidity proposal, but would be required 
to comply with the supplementary leverage ratio and countercyclical 
capital buffer requirements. The FR Y-9LP would be revised to require 
covered savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated 
assets of $100 billion or more to report total nonbank assets on 
Schedule PC-B, in order to determine whether the firm would be subject 
to Category III standards. The draft reporting forms and instructions 
are available on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx.
    (2) Report title: Capital Assessments and Stress Testing.
    Agency form number: FR Y-14A/ Q/M.
    OMB control number: 7100-0341.
    Frequency: Annually, semiannually, quarterly, and monthly.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Respondents: The respondent panel consists of any top-tier bank 
holding company (BHC) that has $100 billion or more in total 
consolidated assets, as determined based on (1) the average of the 
firm's total consolidated assets in the four most recent quarters as 
reported quarterly on the firm's FR Y-9C or (2) the average of the 
firm's total consolidated assets in the most recent consecutive 
quarters as reported quarterly on the firm's FR Y-9Cs, if the firm has 
not filed an FR Y-9C for each of the most recent four quarters. The 
respondent panel also consists of any U.S. intermediate holding company 
(IHC). Reporting is required as of the first day of the quarter 
immediately following the quarter in which the respondent meets this 
asset threshold, unless otherwise directed by the Board.
    Estimated number of respondents: 37.
    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-14A: Summary, 887; Macro 
Scenario, 31; Operational Risk, 18; Regulatory Capital Instruments, 21; 
Business Plan Changes, 16; and Adjusted Capital Plan Submission, 100. 
FR Y-14Q: Retail, 15; Securities, 13; PPNR, 711; Wholesale, 151; 
Trading, 1,926; Regulatory Capital Transitions, 23; Regulatory Capital 
Instruments, 54; Operational Risk, 50; MSR Valuation, 23; Supplemental, 
4; Retail FVO/HFS, 15; Counterparty, 514; and Balances, 16. FR Y-14M: 
1st Lien Mortgage, 516; Home Equity, 516; and Credit Card, 512. FR Y-
14: Implementation, 7,200; On-going Automation Revisions, 480. FR Y-14 
Attestation On-going Audit and Review, 2,560.
    Estimated annual burden hours: FR Y-14A: Summary, 65,638; Macro 
Scenario, 2,232; Operational Risk, 666; Regulatory Capital Instruments, 
756; Business Plan Changes, 592; and Adjusted Capital Plan Submission, 
500. FR Y-14Q: Retail, 2,200; Securities, 1,924; Pre-Provision Net 
Revenue (PPNR), 105,228; Wholesale, 22,348; Trading, 92,448; Regulatory 
Capital Transitions, 3,312; Regulatory Capital Instruments, 7,776; 
Operational risk, 7,400; Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR) Valuation, 
1,472; Supplemental, 592; Retail Fair Value Option/Held for Sale 
(Retail FVO/HFS), 1,560; Counterparty, 24,672; and Balances, 2,304. FR 
Y-14M: 1st Lien Mortgage, 216,720; Home Equity, 179,568; and Credit 
Card, 92,160. FR Y-14: Implementation, 7,200; On-going Automation 
Revisions, 17,760. FR Y-14 Attestation On-going Audit and Review, 
33,280.
    General description of report: These collections of information are 
applicable to top-tier BHCs with total consolidated assets of $100 
billion or more and U.S. IHCs. This family of information collections 
is composed of the following three reports:
    1. The FR Y-14A collects quantitative projections of balance sheet, 
income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios 
and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal 
projections of capital across scenarios either annually or semi-
annually.
    2. The quarterly FR Y-14Q collects granular data on various asset 
classes, including loans, securities, and trading assets, and PPNR for 
the reporting period.
    3. The monthly FR Y-14M is comprised of three retail portfolio- and 
loan-level schedules, and one detailed address-matching schedule to 
supplement two of the portfolio and loan-level schedules.
    The data collected through the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports provide the 
Board with the information and perspective needed to help ensure that 
large firms have strong, firm-wide risk measurement and management 
processes supporting their internal assessments of capital adequacy and 
that their capital resources are sufficient given their business focus, 
activities, and resulting risk exposures. The annual CCAR exercise 
complements

[[Page 61428]]

other Board supervisory efforts aimed at enhancing the continued 
viability of large firms, including continuous monitoring of firms' 
planning and management of liquidity and funding resources, as well as 
regular assessments of credit, market and operational risks, and 
associated risk management practices. Information gathered in this data 
collection is also used in the supervision and regulation of these 
financial institutions. To fully evaluate the data submissions, the 
Board may conduct follow-up discussions with, or request responses to 
follow up questions from, respondents. Respondent firms are currently 
required to complete and submit up to 18 filings each year: Two semi-
annual FR Y-14A filings, four quarterly FR Y-14Q filings, and 12 
monthly FR Y-14M filings. Compliance with the information collection is 
mandatory.
    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The Board has the 
authority to require BHCs to file the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports pursuant to 
section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) (12 U.S.C. 1844), 
and to require the U.S. IHCs of FBOs to file the FR Y-14 A/Q/M reports 
pursuant to section 5 of the BHC Act, in conjunction with section 8 of 
the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3106). The Board has authority 
to require SLHCs to file the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports pursuant to section 
10 of HOLA.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 12 U.S.C. 1467a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information collected in these reports is collected as part of 
the Board's supervisory process, and therefore is afforded confidential 
treatment pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, individual respondents may 
request that certain data be afforded confidential treatment pursuant 
to exemption 4 of FOIA if the data has not previously been publicly 
disclosed and the release of the data would likely cause substantial 
harm to the competitive position of the respondent (5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(4)). Determinations of confidentiality based on exemption 4 of 
FOIA would be made on a case-by-case basis.
    Current Actions: To implement the reporting requirements of the 
proposed rule, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-14 so that (1) 
BHCs with less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets would no 
longer have to report \127\ and (2) covered SLHCs with $100 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets are included in the reporting panel 
for certain FR Y-14 schedules.\128\ The Board estimates that proposed 
revisions to the FR Y-14 would increase the estimated annual burden by 
31,944 hours. The draft reporting forms and instructions are available 
on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Conforming changes would be made to the FR Y-14 
instructions.
    \128\ All covered savings and loan holding companies with $100 
billion or more in total consolidated assets to would be required to 
complete: (1) The FR Y-14M; (2) all schedules of the FR Y-14-Q 
except for Schedule C--Regulatory Capital Instruments and Schedule 
D--Regulatory Capital Transitions; and (3) Schedule E--Operational 
Risk of the FR Y-14A. The proposal would also require covered 
savings and loan holding companies subject to Category II or III 
standards to report the FR Y-14A Schedule A--Summary and Schedule 
F--Business Plan Changes with respect to company run stress testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Report title: Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.
    Agency form number: FR Y-15.
    OMB control number: 7100-0352.
    Frequency: Quarterly.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Respondents: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), covered savings 
and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and U.S. intermediate holding 
companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations with $100 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets, and any BHC designated as a global 
systemically important bank holding company (GSIB) that does not 
otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.
    Estimated number of respondents: 37.
    Estimated average hours per response: 401.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 59,348.
    General description of report: The FR Y-15 quarterly report 
collects systemic risk data from U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), 
covered savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and U.S. 
intermediate holding companies (IHCs) with total consolidated assets of 
$50 billion or more, and any BHC identified as a global systemically 
important banking organization (GSIB) based on its method 1 score 
calculated as of December 31 of the previous calendar year. The Board 
uses the FR Y-15 data to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic 
risk profile of institutions that are subject to enhanced prudential 
standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In addition, the FR Y-15 is 
used to (1) facilitate the implementation of the GSIB surcharge rule, 
(2) identify other institutions that may present significant systemic 
risk, and (3) analyze the systemic risk implications of proposed 
mergers and acquisitions.
    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The mandatory FR Y-15 is 
authorized by sections 163 and 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act,\129\ the 
International Banking Act,\130\ the Bank Holding Company Act,\131\ and 
HOLA.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ 12 U.S.C. 5463 and 5365.
    \130\ 12 U.S.C. 3106 and 3108.
    \131\ 12 U.S.C. 1844.
    \132\ 12 U.S.C. 1467a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the data collected on the FR Y-15 is made public unless a 
specific request for confidentiality is submitted by the reporting 
entity, either on the FR Y-15 or on the form from which the data item 
is obtained. Such information will be accorded confidential treatment 
under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \133\ if the 
submitter substantiates its assertion that disclosure would likely 
cause substantial competitive harm. In addition, items 1 through 4 of 
Schedule G of the FR Y-15, which contain granular information regarding 
the reporting entity's short-term funding, will be accorded 
confidential treatment under exemption 4 for observation dates that 
occur prior to the liquidity coverage ratio disclosure standard being 
implemented. To the extent confidential data collected under the FR Y-
15 will be used for supervisory purposes, it may be exempt from 
disclosure under Exemption 8 of FOIA.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
    \134\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Actions: To implement the reporting requirements of the 
proposed rule, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-15 (1) so that 
BHCs and SLHCs with less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets 
would no longer have to report, (2) add a line item to measure the 
total off-balance sheet exposure as a separate line item (total 
exposure, as defined on FR Y-15, minus total consolidated assets, as 
reported on FR Y-9C), and (3) add a line item for total consolidated 
assets (to effectuate above change). The Board estimates that proposed 
revisions to the FR Y-15 would increase the estimated average hours per 
response by 0 hours and would increase the estimated annual burden by 0 
hours. The draft reporting forms and instructions are available on the 
Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., the Board is publishing an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis of the proposal. The RFA requires each federal agency to 
prepare an initial regulatory

[[Page 61429]]

flexibility analysis in connection with the promulgation of a proposed 
rule, or certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\135\ Under 
regulations issued by the SBA, a small entity includes a bank, bank 
holding company, or savings and loan holding company with assets of 
$550 million or less (small banking organization).\136\ Based on the 
Board's analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial of number of small banking organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See 5 U.S.C. 603, 604, and 605.
    \136\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Supplementary Information section, the Board is 
proposing to adopt amendments to Regulations Y,\137\ LL,\138\ PP,\139\ 
and YY \140\ that would affect the regulatory requirements that apply 
to bank holding companies and covered savings and loan holding 
companies with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. 
Companies that are affected by the proposal therefore substantially 
exceed the $550 million asset threshold at which a banking entity is 
considered a ``small entity'' under SBA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ 12 CFR part 225.
    \138\ 12 CFR part 238.
    \139\ 12 CFR part 242.
    \140\ 12 CFR part 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the proposal is not likely to apply to any company with 
assets of $550 million or less if adopted in final form, the proposal 
is not expected to affect any small entity for purposes of the RFA. The 
Board does not believe that the proposal duplicates, overlaps, or 
conflicts with any other Federal rules. In light of the foregoing, the 
Board does not believe that the proposal, if adopted in final form, 
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities supervised. Nonetheless, the Board seeks comment on 
whether the proposal would impose undue burdens on, or have unintended 
consequences for, small banking organizations, and whether there are 
ways such potential burdens or consequences could be minimized in a 
manner consistent the purpose of the proposal.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 225

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital 
planning, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Securities, Stress testing.

12 CFR Part 238

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Federal 
Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Securities.

12 CFR Part 242

    Administrative practice and procedure, Holding companies, Nonbank 
financial companies.

12 CFR Part 252

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital 
planning, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Stress testing.

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, Chapter II 
of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 
amended as follows:

PART 225--BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK CONTROL 
(REGULATION Y)

0
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-
1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 
3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 225.8(b)(1)(i), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(1)(i) and (ii), (d)(9) 
introductory text, and (d)(9)(i) and (ii) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  225.8  Capital planning.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Any top-tier bank holding company domiciled in the United 
States with average total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
($100 billion asset threshold);
* * * * *
    (2) Average total consolidated assets. For purposes of this 
section, average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
total consolidated assets as reported by a bank holding company on its 
Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) for 
the four most recent consecutive quarters. If the bank holding company 
has not filed the FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent consecutive 
quarters, average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
company's total consolidated assets, as reported on the company's FR Y-
9C, for the most recent quarter or consecutive quarters, as applicable. 
Average total consolidated assets are measured on the as-of date of the 
most recent FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the average.
    (3) Ongoing applicability. A bank holding company (including any 
successor bank holding company) that is subject to any requirement in 
this section shall remain subject to such requirements unless and until 
its total consolidated assets fall below $100 billion for each of four 
consecutive quarters, as reported on the FR Y-9C and effective on the 
as-of date of the fourth consecutive FR Y-9C.
* * * * *
    (c) * * * (1) * * * (i) A bank holding company that meets the $100 
billion asset threshold (as measured under paragraph (b) of this 
section) on or before September 30 of a calendar year must comply with 
the requirements of this section beginning on January 1 of the next 
calendar year, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
    (ii) A bank holding company that meets the $100 billion asset 
threshold after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the 
requirements of this section beginning on January 1 of the second 
calendar year after the bank holding company meets the $100 billion 
asset threshold, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) Large and noncomplex bank holding company means any bank 
holding company subject to this section that, as of December 31 of the 
calendar year prior to the capital plan cycle, is:
    (i) A Category IV banking organization pursuant to 12 CFR 252.5; or
    (ii) A U.S. intermediate holding company subject to this section 
pursuant to 12 CFR 252.153 that--
    (A) Has average total consolidated assets of less than $250 
billion; and
    (B) Has average total nonbank assets of less than $75 billion.
* * * * *

PART 238--SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES (REGULATION LL)

0
3. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 
1467, 1467a, 1468, 1813, 1817, 1829e, 1831i, 1972; 15 U.S.C. 78 l.

[[Page 61430]]

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
4. Section 238.2 is amended by adding paragraphs (v) through (ss) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  238.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (v) Average cross-jurisdictional activity. A banking organization's 
average cross-jurisdictional activity is equal to the average of its 
cross jurisdictional activity for the four most recent calendar 
quarters or, if the company has not filed the FR Y-15 for each of the 
four most recent calendar quarters, for the most recent quarter or 
quarters, as applicable. Cross-jurisdictional activity is the sum of 
cross-jurisdictional claims and cross-jurisdictional liabilities.
    (w) Average off-balance sheet exposure. A banking organization's 
average off-balance sheet exposure is equal to the average of its off-
balance sheet exposure for the four most recent calendar quarters or, 
if the banking organization has not filed each of the applicable 
reporting forms for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, for 
the most recent quarter or quarters, as applicable. Off-balance sheet 
exposure is equal to:
    (1) The total exposures of the banking organization, as reported by 
the banking organization on the FR Y-15 for each of the four most 
recent calendar quarters, or for the most recent quarter or quarters, 
as applicable; minus
    (2) The total consolidated assets of the banking organization.
    (x) Average total consolidated assets. Average total consolidated 
assets of a banking organization are equal to its consolidated assets, 
calculated based on the average of the holding company's total 
consolidated assets in the four most recent quarters as reported 
quarterly on the FR Y-9C. If the holding company has not filed the FR 
Y-9C for each of the four most recent consecutive quarters, total 
consolidated assets means the average of its total consolidated assets, 
as reported on the FR Y-9C, for the most recent quarter or consecutive 
quarters, as applicable. Total consolidated assets are measured on the 
as-of date of the most recent FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the 
average.
    (y) Average total nonbank assets. A banking organization's average 
total nonbank assets is equal to the average of the total nonbank 
assets of the banking organization, as reported on the FR Y-9LP, for 
the four most recent calendar quarters or, if the organization has not 
filed the FR Y-9LP for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, 
for the most recent quarter or quarters, as applicable.
    (z) Average weighted short-term wholesale funding. A banking 
organization's average weighted short-term wholesale funding is equal 
to the average of the banking organization's weighted short-term 
wholesale funding, as reported on the FR Y-15, for each of the four 
most recent calendar quarters or, if the banking organization has not 
filed the FR Y-15 for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, 
for the most recent quarter or quarters, as applicable.
    (aa) Banking organization. Banking organization means a covered 
savings and loan holding company that is:
    (1) Incorporated in or organized under the laws of the United 
States or in any State; and
    (2) Not a consolidated subsidiary of a covered savings and loan 
holding company that is incorporated in or organized under the laws of 
the United States or in any State.
    (bb) Category II savings and loan holding company means a covered 
savings and loan holding company identified as a Category II banking 
organization pursuant to Sec.  238.10.
    (cc) Category III savings and loan holding company means a covered 
savings and loan holding company identified as a Category III banking 
organization pursuant to Sec.  238.10.
    (dd) Category IV savings and loan holding company means a covered 
savings and loan holding company identified as a Category IV banking 
organization pursuant to Sec.  238.10.
    (ee) Covered savings and loan holding company means a savings and 
loan holding company other than:
    (1) A top-tier savings and loan holding company that is:
    (i) A grandfathered unitary savings and loan holding company as 
defined in section 10(c)(9)(C) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
1461 et seq.); and
    (ii) As of June 30 of the previous calendar year, derived 50 
percent or more of its total consolidated assets or 50 percent of its 
total revenues on an enterprise-wide basis (as calculated under GAAP) 
from activities that are not financial in nature under section 4(k) of 
the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(k));
    (2) A top-tier depository institution holding company that is an 
insurance underwriting company; or
    (3)(i) A top-tier depository institution holding company that, as 
of June 30 of the previous calendar year, held 25 percent or more of 
its total consolidated assets in subsidiaries that are insurance 
underwriting companies (other than assets associated with insurance for 
credit risk); and
    (ii) For purposes of paragraph (3)(i) of this definition, the 
company must calculate its total consolidated assets in accordance with 
GAAP, or if the company does not calculate its total consolidated 
assets under GAAP for any regulatory purpose (including compliance with 
applicable securities laws), the company may estimate its total 
consolidated assets, subject to review and adjustment by the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
    (ff) Cross-jurisdictional activity. A banking organization's cross-
jurisdictional activity is equal to the sum of its cross-jurisdictional 
claims and cross-jurisdictional liabilities, as reported on the FR Y-
15.
    (gg) Foreign banking organization has the same meaning as in Sec.  
211.21(o) of this chapter.
    (hh) FR Y-9C means the Consolidated Financial Statements for 
Holding Companies reporting form.
    (ii) FR Y-15 means the Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.
    (jj) FR Y-9LP means the Parent Company Only Financial Statements of 
Large Holding Companies.
    (kk) GAAP means generally accepted accounting principles as used in 
the United States.
    (ll) Off-balance sheet exposure. A banking organization's off-
balance sheet exposure is equal to:
    (1) The total exposure of the banking organization, as reported by 
the banking organization on the FR Y-15; minus
    (2) The total consolidated assets of the banking organization for 
the same calendar quarter.
    (mm) Section 2(h)(2) company has the same meaning as in section 
2(h)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(h)(2)).
    (nn) State means any state, commonwealth, territory, or possession 
of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American 
Samoa, Guam, or the United States Virgin Islands.
    (oo) Total consolidated assets. Total consolidated assets of a 
banking organization are equal to its consolidated assets, as reported 
on the FR Y-9C.
    (pp) Total nonbank assets. A banking organization's total nonbank 
assets are equal to the total nonbank assets of the banking 
organization, as reported on the FR Y-9LP.
    (qq) U.S. government agency means an agency or instrumentality of 
the United States whose obligations are

[[Page 61431]]

fully and explicitly guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal 
and interest by the full faith and credit of the United States.
    (rr) U.S. government-sponsored enterprise means an entity 
originally established or chartered by the U.S. government to serve 
public purposes specified by the U.S. Congress, but whose obligations 
are not explicitly guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    (ss) Weighted short-term wholesale funding. A banking 
organization's weighted short-term wholesale funding is equal to the 
banking organization's weighted short-term wholesale funding, as 
reported on the FR Y-15.
0
5. Add Sec.  238.10 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  238.10  Categorization of banking organizations.

    (a) General. A banking organization with average total consolidated 
assets of $100 billion or more must determine its category among the 
three categories described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section at least quarterly.
    (b) Category II. (1) A banking organization is a Category II 
banking organization if the banking organization has:
    (i) $700 billion or more in average total consolidated assets; or
    (ii)(A) $75 billion or more in average cross-jurisdictional 
activity; and
    (B) $100 billion or more in average total consolidated assets.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
a banking organization continues to be a Category II banking 
organization until the banking organization has:
    (i)(A) Less than $700 billion in total consolidated assets for each 
of the four most recent calendar quarters; and
    (B) Less than $75 billion in cross-jurisdictional activity for each 
of the four most recent calendar quarters; or
    (ii) Less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets for each 
of the four most recent calendar quarters.
    (c) Category III. (1) A banking organization is a Category III 
banking organization if the banking organization:
    (i) Has (A) $250 billion or more in average total consolidated 
assets; or
    (B) $100 billion or more in average total consolidated assets and 
at least:
    (1) $75 billion in average total nonbank assets;
    (2) $75 billion in average weighted short-term wholesale funding; 
or
    (3) $75 billion in average off-balance sheet exposure; and
    (ii) Is not a Category II banking organization.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
a banking organization continues to be a Category III banking 
organization until the banking organization:
    (i) Has--
    (A) Less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets for each of 
the four most recent calendar quarters;
    (B) Less than $75 billion in total nonbank assets for each of the 
four most recent calendar quarters;
    (C) Less than $75 billion in weighted short-term wholesale funding 
for each of the four most recent calendar quarters; and
    (D) Less than $75 billion in off-balance sheet exposure for each of 
the four most recent calendar quarters; or
    (ii) Has less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets for 
each of the four most recent calendar quarters; or
    (iii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to be 
a Category II banking organization.
    (d) Category IV. (1) A banking organization with average total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more is a Category IV banking 
organization if the banking organization:
    (i) Is not a Category II banking organization; and
    (ii) Is not a Category III banking organization.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 
a banking organization continues to be a Category IV banking 
organization until the banking organization:
    (i) Has less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets for 
each of the four most recent calendar quarters;
    (ii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to be a 
Category II banking organization; or
    (iii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section to be 
a Category III banking organization.
0
6. Add subpart M to read as follows:
Subpart M--Risk Committee Requirement for Covered Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or 
Greater and Less Than $100 Billion
Sec.
238.118 Applicability.
238.119 Risk committee requirement for covered savings and loan 
holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or 
more.

Subpart M--Risk Committee Requirement for Covered Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or 
Greater and Less Than $100 Billion


Sec.  238.118   Applicability.

    (a) General applicability. A covered savings and loan bank holding 
company must comply with the risk-committee requirements set forth in 
this subpart beginning on the first day of the ninth quarter following 
the date on which its total consolidated assets equal or exceed $50 
billion.
    (b) Total consolidated assets. Total consolidated assets of a 
covered savings and loan holding company for purposes of this subpart 
are equal to its consolidated assets, calculated based on the average 
of the covered savings and loan holding company's total consolidated 
assets in the four most recent quarters as reported quarterly on its FR 
Y-9C. If the covered savings and loan holding company has not filed the 
FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, total 
consolidated assets means the average of its total consolidated assets, 
as reported on the FR Y-9C, for the most recent calendar quarter or 
quarters, as applicable. Total consolidated assets are measured on the 
as-of date of the most recent FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the 
average.
    (c) Cessation of requirements. A covered savings and loan holding 
company will remain subject to the requirements of this subpart until 
the earlier of the date on which:
    (1) Its reported total consolidated assets on the FR Y-9C are below 
$50 billion for each of four consecutive calendar quarters; and
    (2) It becomes subject to the requirements of subpart N of this 
part.


Sec.  238.119   Risk committee requirement for covered savings and loan 
holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or 
more.

    (a) Risk committee--(1) General. A covered savings and loan holding 
company with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more must 
maintain a risk committee that approves and periodically reviews the 
risk-management policies of the covered savings and loan holding 
company's global operations and oversees the operation of the company's 
global risk-management framework.
    (2) Risk-management framework. The covered savings and loan holding 
company's global risk-management framework must be commensurate with 
its structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, and size and must 
include:
    (i) Policies and procedures establishing risk-management 
governance, risk-management procedures, and risk-control infrastructure 
for its global operations; and
    (ii) Processes and systems for implementing and monitoring 
compliance with such policies and procedures, including:
    (A) Processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks and 
risk-

[[Page 61432]]

management deficiencies, including regarding emerging risks, and 
ensuring effective and timely implementation of actions to address 
emerging risks and risk-management deficiencies for its global 
operations;
    (B) Processes and systems for establishing managerial and employee 
responsibility for risk management;
    (C) Processes and systems for ensuring the independence of the 
risk-management function; and
    (D) Processes and systems to integrate risk management and 
associated controls with management goals and its compensation 
structure for its global operations.
    (3) Corporate governance requirements. The risk committee must:
    (i) Have a formal, written charter that is approved by the covered 
savings and loan holding company's board of directors;
    (ii) Be an independent committee of the board of directors that 
has, as its sole and exclusive function, responsibility for the risk-
management policies of the covered savings and loan holding company's 
global operations and oversight of the operation of the company's 
global risk-management framework;
    (iii) Report directly to the covered savings and loan holding 
company's board of directors;
    (iv) Receive and review regular reports on a not less than a 
quarterly basis from the covered savings and loan holding company's 
chief risk officer provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section; and
    (v) Meet at least quarterly, or more frequently as needed, and 
fully document and maintain records of its proceedings, including risk-
management decisions.
    (4) Minimum member requirements. The risk committee must:
    (i) Include at least one member having experience in identifying, 
assessing, and managing risk exposures of large, complex financial 
firms; and
    (ii) Be chaired by a director who:
    (A) Is not an officer or employee of the covered savings and loan 
holding company and has not been an officer or employee of the covered 
savings and loan holding company during the previous three years;
    (B) Is not a member of the immediate family, as defined in Sec.  
238.31(b)(3), of a person who is, or has been within the last three 
years, an executive officer of the covered savings and loan holding 
company, as defined in Sec.  215.2(e)(1) of this chapter; and
    (C)(1) Is an independent director under Item 407 of the Securities 
and Exchange Commission's Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.407(a)), if the 
covered savings and loan holding company has an outstanding class of 
securities traded on an exchange registered with the U.S. Securities 
and Exchange Commission as a national securities exchange under section 
6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f) (national 
securities exchange); or
    (2) Would qualify as an independent director under the listing 
standards of a national securities exchange, as demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the Board, if the covered savings and loan holding 
company does not have an outstanding class of securities traded on a 
national securities exchange.
    (b) Chief risk officer--(1) General. A covered savings and loan 
holding company with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more 
must appoint a chief risk officer with experience in identifying, 
assessing, and managing risk exposures of large, complex financial 
firms.
    (2) Responsibilities. (i) The chief risk officer is responsible for 
overseeing:
    (A) The establishment of risk limits on an enterprise-wide basis 
and the monitoring of compliance with such limits;
    (B) The implementation of and ongoing compliance with the policies 
and procedures set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and the 
development and implementation of the processes and systems set forth 
in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section; and
    (C) The management of risks and risk controls within the parameters 
of the company's risk control framework, and monitoring and testing of 
the company's risk controls.
    (ii) The chief risk officer is responsible for reporting risk-
management deficiencies and emerging risks to the risk committee and 
resolving risk-management deficiencies in a timely manner.
    (3) Corporate governance requirements. (i) The covered savings and 
loan holding company must ensure that the compensation and other 
incentives provided to the chief risk officer are consistent with 
providing an objective assessment of the risks taken by the company; 
and
    (ii) The chief risk officer must report directly to both the risk 
committee and chief executive officer of the company.
0
7. Add subpart N to read as follows:
Subpart N--Risk Committee, Liquidity Risk Management, and Liquidity 
Buffer Requirements for Covered Savings and Loan Holding Companies With 
Total Consolidated Assets of $100 Billion or More
Sec.
238.120 Scope.
238.121 Applicability.
238.122 Risk-management and risk committee requirements.
238.123 Liquidity risk-management requirements.
238.124 Liquidity stress testing and buffer requirements.

Subpart N--Risk Committee, Liquidity Risk Management, and Liquidity 
Buffer Requirements for Covered Savings and Loan Holding Companies 
With Total Consolidated Assets of $100 Billion or More


Sec.  238.120  Scope.

    This subpart applies to covered savings and loan holding companies 
with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more. Total 
consolidated assets of a covered savings and loan holding company are 
equal to the consolidated assets of the covered savings and loan 
holding company, as calculated in accordance with Sec.  238.121(b).


Sec.  238.121  Applicability.

    (a) Applicability. (1) Subject to the initial applicability 
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, a covered savings and loan 
holding company must comply with the risk-management and risk-committee 
requirements set forth in Sec.  238.122 and the liquidity risk-
management and liquidity stress test requirements set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  238.123 and 238.124 no later than the first day of the fifth 
quarter following the date on which its total consolidated assets equal 
or exceed $100 billion.
    (2) Changes in requirements following a change in category. A 
covered savings and loan holding company with total consolidated assets 
of $100 billion or more that changes from one category of covered 
savings and loan holding company described in Sec.  238.10(b) through 
(d) to another such category must comply with the requirements 
applicable to the new category no later than on the first day of the 
second calendar quarter following the change in the covered savings and 
loan holding company's category.
    (b) Total consolidated assets. Total consolidated assets of a 
covered savings and loan holding company for purposes of this subpart 
are equal to its consolidated assets, calculated based on the average 
of the covered savings and loan holding company's total consolidated 
assets for the four most recent quarters as reported quarterly on the 
FR Y-9C. If the covered savings and loan holding company has not filed 
the FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, total 
consolidated assets means the average of its total consolidated assets, 
as reported on the FR Y-9C, for the most recent calendar

[[Page 61433]]

quarter or quarters, as applicable. Total consolidated assets are 
measured on the as-of date of the most recent FR Y-9C used in the 
calculation of the average.
    (c) Cessation of requirements. A covered savings and loan holding 
company is subject to the risk-management and risk committee 
requirements set forth in Sec.  238.122 and the liquidity risk-
management and liquidity stress test requirements set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  238.123 and 238.124 until its reported total consolidated 
assets on the FR Y-9C are below $100 billion for each of four 
consecutive calendar quarters.


Sec.  238.122   Risk-management and risk committee requirements.

    (a) Risk committee--(1) General. A covered savings and loan holding 
company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must 
maintain a risk committee that approves and periodically reviews the 
risk-management policies of the covered savings and loan holding 
company's global operations and oversees the operation of the covered 
savings and loan holding company's global risk-management framework. 
The risk committee's responsibilities include liquidity risk-management 
as set forth in Sec.  238.123(b).
    (2) Risk-management framework. The covered savings and loan holding 
company's global risk-management framework must be commensurate with 
its structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, and size and must 
include:
    (i) Policies and procedures establishing risk-management 
governance, risk-management procedures, and risk-control infrastructure 
for its global operations; and
    (ii) Processes and systems for implementing and monitoring 
compliance with such policies and procedures, including:
    (A) Processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks and 
risk-management deficiencies, including regarding emerging risks, and 
ensuring effective and timely implementation of actions to address 
emerging risks and risk-management deficiencies for its global 
operations;
    (B) Processes and systems for establishing managerial and employee 
responsibility for risk management;
    (C) Processes and systems for ensuring the independence of the 
risk-management function; and
    (D) Processes and systems to integrate risk management and 
associated controls with management goals and its compensation 
structure for its global operations.
    (3) Corporate governance requirements. The risk committee must:
    (i) Have a formal, written charter that is approved by the covered 
savings and loan holding company's board of directors;
    (ii) Be an independent committee of the board of directors that 
has, as its sole and exclusive function, responsibility for the risk-
management policies of the covered savings and loan holding company's 
global operations and oversight of the operation of the covered savings 
and loan holding company's global risk-management framework;
    (iii) Report directly to the covered savings and loan holding 
company's board of directors;
    (iv) Receive and review regular reports on not less than a 
quarterly basis from the covered savings and loan holding company's 
chief risk officer provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section; and
    (v) Meet at least quarterly, or more frequently as needed, and 
fully document and maintain records of its proceedings, including risk-
management decisions.
    (4) Minimum member requirements. The risk committee must:
    (i) Include at least one member having experience in identifying, 
assessing, and managing risk exposures of large, complex financial 
firms; and
    (ii) Be chaired by a director who:
    (A) Is not an officer or employee of the covered savings and loan 
holding company and has not been an officer or employee of the covered 
savings and loan holding company during the previous three years;
    (B) Is not a member of the immediate family, as defined in Sec.  
238.31(b)(3), of a person who is, or has been within the last three 
years, an executive officer of the covered savings and loan holding 
company, as defined in Sec.  215.2(e)(1) of this chapter; and
    (C)(1) Is an independent director under Item 407 of the Securities 
and Exchange Commission's Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.407(a)), if the 
covered savings and loan holding company has an outstanding class of 
securities traded on an exchange registered with the U.S. Securities 
and Exchange Commission as a national securities exchange under section 
6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f) (national 
securities exchange); or
    (2) Would qualify as an independent director under the listing 
standards of a national securities exchange, as demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the Board, if the covered savings and loan holding 
company does not have an outstanding class of securities traded on a 
national securities exchange.
    (b) Chief risk officer--(1) General. A covered savings and loan 
holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
must appoint a chief risk officer with experience in identifying, 
assessing, and managing risk exposures of large, complex financial 
firms.
    (2) Responsibilities. (i) The chief risk officer is responsible for 
overseeing:
    (A) The establishment of risk limits on an enterprise-wide basis 
and the monitoring of compliance with such limits;
    (B) The implementation of and ongoing compliance with the policies 
and procedures set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and the 
development and implementation of the processes and systems set forth 
in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section; and
    (C) The management of risks and risk controls within the parameters 
of the company's risk control framework, and monitoring and testing of 
the company's risk controls.
    (ii) The chief risk officer is responsible for reporting risk-
management deficiencies and emerging risks to the risk committee and 
resolving risk-management deficiencies in a timely manner.
    (3) Corporate governance requirements. (i) The covered savings and 
loan holding company must ensure that the compensation and other 
incentives provided to the chief risk officer are consistent with 
providing an objective assessment of the risks taken by the covered 
savings and loan holding company; and
    (ii) The chief risk officer must report directly to both the risk 
committee and chief executive officer of the company.


Sec.  238.123  Liquidity risk-management requirements.

    (a) Responsibilities of the board of directors--(1) Liquidity risk 
tolerance. The board of directors of a covered savings and loan holding 
company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must:
    (i) Approve the acceptable level of liquidity risk that the covered 
savings and loan holding company may assume in connection with its 
operating strategies (liquidity risk tolerance) at least annually, 
taking into account the covered savings and loan holding company's 
capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, and size; and
    (ii) Receive and review at least semi-annually information provided 
by senior management to determine whether the covered savings and loan 
holding company is operating in

[[Page 61434]]

accordance with its established liquidity risk tolerance.
    (b) Responsibilities of the risk committee. The risk committee (or 
a designated subcommittee of such committee composed of members of the 
board of directors) must approve the contingency funding plan described 
in paragraph (f) of this section at least annually, and must approve 
any material revisions to the plan prior to the implementation of such 
revisions.
    (c) Responsibilities of senior management--(1) Liquidity risk. (i) 
Senior management of a covered savings and loan holding company with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must establish and 
implement strategies, policies, and procedures designed to effectively 
manage the risk that the covered savings and loan holding company's 
financial condition or safety and soundness would be adversely affected 
by its inability or the market's perception of its inability to meet 
its cash and collateral obligations (liquidity risk). The board of 
directors must approve the strategies, policies, and procedures 
pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Senior management must oversee the development and 
implementation of liquidity risk measurement and reporting systems, 
including those required by this section and Sec.  238.124.
    (iii) Senior management must determine at least quarterly whether 
the covered savings and loan holding company is operating in accordance 
with such policies and procedures and whether the covered savings and 
loan holding company is in compliance with this section and Sec.  
238.124 (or more often, if changes in market conditions or the 
liquidity position, risk profile, or financial condition warrant), and 
establish procedures regarding the preparation of such information.
    (2) Liquidity risk tolerance. Senior management must report to the 
board of directors or the risk committee regarding the covered savings 
and loan holding company's liquidity risk profile and liquidity risk 
tolerance at least quarterly (or more often, if changes in market 
conditions or the liquidity position, risk profile, or financial 
condition of the company warrant).
    (3) Business lines or products. (i) Senior management must approve 
new products and business lines and evaluate the liquidity costs, 
benefits, and risks of each new business line and each new product that 
could have a significant effect on the company's liquidity risk 
profile. The approval is required before the company implements the 
business line or offers the product. In determining whether to approve 
the new business line or product, senior management must consider 
whether the liquidity risk of the new business line or product (under 
both current and stressed conditions) is within the company's 
established liquidity risk tolerance.
    (ii) Senior management must review at least annually significant 
business lines and products to determine whether any line or product 
creates or has created any unanticipated liquidity risk, and to 
determine whether the liquidity risk of each strategy or product is 
within the company's established liquidity risk tolerance.
    (4) Cash-flow projections. Senior management must review the cash-
flow projections produced under paragraph (e) of this section at least 
quarterly (or more often, if changes in market conditions or the 
liquidity position, risk profile, or financial condition of the covered 
savings and loan holding company warrant) to ensure that the liquidity 
risk is within the established liquidity risk tolerance.
    (5) Liquidity risk limits. Senior management must establish 
liquidity risk limits as set forth in paragraph (g) of this section and 
review the company's compliance with those limits at least quarterly 
(or more often, if changes in market conditions or the liquidity 
position, risk profile, or financial condition of the company warrant).
    (6) Liquidity stress testing. Senior management must:
    (i) Approve the liquidity stress testing practices, methodologies, 
and assumptions required in Sec.  238.124(a) at least quarterly, and 
whenever the covered savings and loan holding company materially 
revises its liquidity stress testing practices, methodologies or 
assumptions;
    (ii) Review the liquidity stress testing results produced under 
Sec.  238.124(a) at least quarterly;
    (iii) Review the independent review of the liquidity stress tests 
under Sec.  238.123(d) periodically; and
    (iv) Approve the size and composition of the liquidity buffer 
established under Sec.  238.124(b) at least quarterly.
    (d) Independent review function. (1) A covered savings and loan 
holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
must establish and maintain a review function that is independent of 
management functions that execute funding to evaluate its liquidity 
risk management.
    (2) The independent review function must:
    (i) Regularly, but no less frequently than annually, review and 
evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the company's liquidity risk 
management processes, including its liquidity stress test processes and 
assumptions;
    (ii) Assess whether the company's liquidity risk-management 
function complies with applicable laws and regulations, and sound 
business practices; and
    (iii) Report material liquidity risk management issues to the board 
of directors or the risk committee in writing for corrective action, to 
the extent permitted by applicable law.
    (e) Cash-flow projections. (1) A covered savings and loan holding 
company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must 
produce comprehensive cash-flow projections that project cash flows 
arising from assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet exposures over, 
at a minimum, short- and long-term time horizons. The covered savings 
and loan holding company must update short-term cash-flow projections 
daily and must update longer-term cash-flow projections at least 
monthly.
    (2) The covered savings and loan holding company must establish a 
methodology for making cash-flow projections that results in 
projections that:
    (i) Include cash flows arising from contractual maturities, 
intercompany transactions, new business, funding renewals, customer 
options, and other potential events that may impact liquidity;
    (ii) Include reasonable assumptions regarding the future behavior 
of assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet exposures;
    (iii) Identify and quantify discrete and cumulative cash flow 
mismatches over these time periods; and
    (iv) Include sufficient detail to reflect the capital structure, 
risk profile, complexity, currency exposure, activities, and size of 
the covered savings and loan holding company and include analyses by 
business line, currency, or legal entity as appropriate.
    (3) The covered savings and loan holding company must adequately 
document its methodology for making cash flow projections and the 
included assumptions and submit such documentation to the risk 
committee.
    (f) Contingency funding plan. (1) A covered savings and loan 
holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
must establish and maintain a contingency funding plan that sets out 
the company's strategies for addressing liquidity needs during 
liquidity stress events. The contingency funding plan must be 
commensurate with the company's capital structure, risk profile,

[[Page 61435]]

complexity, activities, size, and established liquidity risk tolerance. 
The company must update the contingency funding plan at least annually, 
and when changes to market and idiosyncratic conditions warrant.
    (2) Components of the contingency funding plan--(i) Quantitative 
assessment. The contingency funding plan must:
    (A) Identify liquidity stress events that could have a significant 
impact on the covered savings and loan holding company's liquidity;
    (B) Assess the level and nature of the impact on the covered 
savings and loan holding company's liquidity that may occur during 
identified liquidity stress events;
    (C) Identify the circumstances in which the covered savings and 
loan holding company would implement its action plan described in 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, which circumstances must 
include failure to meet any minimum liquidity requirement imposed by 
the Board;
    (D) Assess available funding sources and needs during the 
identified liquidity stress events;
    (E) Identify alternative funding sources that may be used during 
the identified liquidity stress events; and
    (F) Incorporate information generated by the liquidity stress 
testing required under Sec.  238.124(a).
    (ii) Liquidity event management process. The contingency funding 
plan must include an event management process that sets out the covered 
savings and loan holding company's procedures for managing liquidity 
during identified liquidity stress events. The liquidity event 
management process must:
    (A) Include an action plan that clearly describes the strategies 
the company will use to respond to liquidity shortfalls for identified 
liquidity stress events, including the methods that the company will 
use to access alternative funding sources;
    (B) Identify a liquidity stress event management team that would 
execute the action plan described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this 
section;
    (C) Specify the process, responsibilities, and triggers for 
invoking the contingency funding plan, describe the decision-making 
process during the identified liquidity stress events, and describe the 
process for executing contingency measures identified in the action 
plan; and
    (D) Provide a mechanism that ensures effective reporting and 
communication within the covered savings and loan holding company and 
with outside parties, including the Board and other relevant 
supervisors, counterparties, and other stakeholders.
    (iii) Monitoring. The contingency funding plan must include 
procedures for monitoring emerging liquidity stress events. The 
procedures must identify early warning indicators that are tailored to 
the company's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, 
and size.
    (iv) Testing. The covered savings and loan holding company must 
periodically test:
    (A) The components of the contingency funding plan to assess the 
plan's reliability during liquidity stress events;
    (B) The operational elements of the contingency funding plan, 
including operational simulations to test communications, coordination, 
and decision-making by relevant management; and
    (C) The methods the covered savings and loan holding company will 
use to access alternative funding sources to determine whether these 
funding sources will be readily available when needed.
    (g) Liquidity risk limits--(1) General. (i) A Category II savings 
and loan holding company or Category III savings and loan holding 
company must monitor sources of liquidity risk and establish limits on 
liquidity risk, including limits on:
    (A) Concentrations in sources of funding by instrument type, single 
counterparty, counterparty type, secured and unsecured funding, and as 
applicable, other forms of liquidity risk;
    (B) The amount of liabilities that mature within various time 
horizons; and
    (C) Off-balance sheet exposures and other exposures that could 
create funding needs during liquidity stress events.
    (ii) Each limit established pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section must be consistent with the company's established liquidity 
risk tolerance and must reflect the company's capital structure, risk 
profile, complexity, activities, and size.
    (2) Liquidity risk limits for Category IV savings and loan holding 
companies. A Category IV savings and loan holding company must monitor 
sources of liquidity risk and establish limits on liquidity risk that 
are consistent with the company's established liquidity risk tolerance 
and that reflect the company's capital structure, risk profile, 
complexity, activities, and size.
    (h) Collateral, legal entity, and intraday liquidity risk 
monitoring. A covered savings and loan holding company with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must establish and maintain 
procedures for monitoring liquidity risk as set forth in this 
paragraph.
    (1) Collateral. The covered savings and loan holding company must 
establish and maintain policies and procedures to monitor assets that 
have been, or are available to be, pledged as collateral in connection 
with transactions to which it or its affiliates are counterparties. 
These policies and procedures must provide that the covered savings and 
loan holding company:
    (i) Calculates all of its collateral positions according to the 
frequency specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i)(A) and (B) or as directed by 
the Board, specifying the value of pledged assets relative to the 
amount of security required under the relevant contracts and the value 
of unencumbered assets available to be pledged:
    (A) If the covered savings and loan holding company is not a 
Category IV savings and loan holding company, on a weekly basis;
    (B) If the covered savings and loan holding company is a Category 
IV savings and loan holding company, on a monthly basis;
    (ii) Monitors the levels of unencumbered assets available to be 
pledged by legal entity, jurisdiction, and currency exposure;
    (iii) Monitors shifts in the covered savings and loan holding 
company's funding patterns, such as shifts between intraday, overnight, 
and term pledging of collateral; and
    (iv) Tracks operational and timing requirements associated with 
accessing collateral at its physical location (for example, the 
custodian or securities settlement system that holds the collateral).
    (2) Legal entities, currencies and business lines. The covered 
savings and loan holding company must establish and maintain procedures 
for monitoring and controlling liquidity risk exposures and funding 
needs within and across significant legal entities, currencies, and 
business lines, taking into account legal and regulatory restrictions 
on the transfer of liquidity between legal entities.
    (3) Intraday exposures. The covered savings and loan holding 
company must establish and maintain procedures for monitoring intraday 
liquidity risk exposure that are consistent with the covered savings 
and loan holding company's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, 
activities, and size. If the covered savings and loan holding company 
is a Category II savings and loan holding company or a Category III

[[Page 61436]]

savings and loan holding company, these procedures must address how the 
management of the covered savings and loan holding company will:
    (i) Monitor and measure expected daily gross liquidity inflows and 
outflows;
    (ii) Manage and transfer collateral to obtain intraday credit;
    (iii) Identify and prioritize time-specific obligations so that the 
covered savings and loan holding company can meet these obligations as 
expected and settle less critical obligations as soon as possible;
    (iv) Manage the issuance of credit to customers where necessary; 
and
    (v) Consider the amounts of collateral and liquidity needed to meet 
payment systems obligations when assessing the covered savings and loan 
holding company's overall liquidity needs.


Sec.  238.124   Liquidity stress testing and buffer requirements.

    (a) Liquidity stress testing requirement--(1) General. A covered 
savings and loan holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 
billion or more must conduct stress tests to assess the potential 
impact of the liquidity stress scenarios set forth in paragraph (a)(3) 
on its cash flows, liquidity position, profitability, and solvency, 
taking into account its current liquidity condition, risks, exposures, 
strategies, and activities.
    (i) The covered savings and loan holding company must take into 
consideration its balance sheet exposures, off-balance sheet exposures, 
size, risk profile, complexity, business lines, organizational 
structure, and other characteristics of the covered savings and loan 
holding company that affect its liquidity risk profile in conducting 
its stress test.
    (ii) In conducting a liquidity stress test using the scenarios 
described in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, the covered 
savings and loan holding company must address the potential direct 
adverse impact of associated market disruptions on the covered savings 
and loan holding company and incorporate the potential actions of other 
market participants experiencing liquidity stresses under the market 
disruptions that would adversely affect the covered savings and loan 
holding company.
    (2) Frequency. The covered savings and loan holding company must 
perform the liquidity stress tests required under paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section according to the frequency specified in paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) and (ii) or as directed by the Board:
    (i) If the covered savings and loan holding company is not a 
Category IV savings and loan holding company, at least monthly; or
    (ii) If the covered savings and loan holding company is a Category 
IV savings and loan holding company, at least quarterly.
    (3) Stress scenarios. (i) Each liquidity stress test conducted 
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include, at a minimum:
    (A) A scenario reflecting adverse market conditions;
    (B) A scenario reflecting an idiosyncratic stress event for the 
covered savings and loan holding company; and
    (C) A scenario reflecting combined market and idiosyncratic 
stresses.
    (ii) The covered savings and loan holding company must incorporate 
additional liquidity stress scenarios into its liquidity stress test, 
as appropriate, based on its financial condition, size, complexity, 
risk profile, scope of operations, or activities. The Board may require 
the covered savings and loan holding company to vary the underlying 
assumptions and stress scenarios.
    (4) Planning horizon. Each stress test conducted under paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section must include an overnight planning horizon, a 
30-day planning horizon, a 90-day planning horizon, a one-year planning 
horizon, and any other planning horizons that are relevant to the 
covered savings and loan holding company's liquidity risk profile. For 
purposes of this section, a ``planning horizon'' is the period over 
which the relevant stressed projections extend. The covered savings and 
loan holding company must use the results of the stress test over the 
30-day planning horizon to calculate the size of the liquidity buffer 
under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) Requirements for assets used as cash-flow sources in a stress 
test. (i) To the extent an asset is used as a cash flow source to 
offset projected funding needs during the planning horizon in a 
liquidity stress test, the fair market value of the asset must be 
discounted to reflect any credit risk and market volatility of the 
asset.
    (ii) Assets used as cash-flow sources during a planning horizon 
must be diversified by collateral, counterparty, borrowing capacity, 
and other factors associated with the liquidity risk of the assets.
    (iii) A line of credit does not qualify as a cash flow source for 
purposes of a stress test with a planning horizon of 30 days or less. A 
line of credit may qualify as a cash flow source for purposes of a 
stress test with a planning horizon that exceeds 30 days.
    (6) Tailoring. Stress testing must be tailored to, and provide 
sufficient detail to reflect, a covered savings and loan holding 
company's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, and 
size.
    (7) Governance--(i) Policies and procedures. A covered savings and 
loan holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more must establish and maintain policies and procedures governing its 
liquidity stress testing practices, methodologies, and assumptions that 
provide for the incorporation of the results of liquidity stress tests 
in future stress testing and for the enhancement of stress testing 
practices over time.
    (ii) Controls and oversight. A covered savings and loan holding 
company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must 
establish and maintain a system of controls and oversight that is 
designed to ensure that its liquidity stress testing processes are 
effective in meeting the requirements of this section. The controls and 
oversight must ensure that each liquidity stress test appropriately 
incorporates conservative assumptions with respect to the stress 
scenario in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and other elements of the 
stress test process, taking into consideration the covered savings and 
loan holding company's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, 
activities, size, business lines, legal entity or jurisdiction, and 
other relevant factors. The assumptions must be approved by the chief 
risk officer and be subject to the independent review under Sec.  
238.123(d).
    (iii) Management information systems. The covered savings and loan 
holding company must maintain management information systems and data 
processes sufficient to enable it to effectively and reliably collect, 
sort, and aggregate data and other information related to liquidity 
stress testing.
    (b) Liquidity buffer requirement. (1) A covered savings and loan 
holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
must maintain a liquidity buffer that is sufficient to meet the 
projected net stressed cash-flow need over the 30-day planning horizon 
of a liquidity stress test conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) 
of this section under each scenario set forth in paragraph (a)(3)(i) 
through (ii) of this section.
    (2) Net stressed cash-flow need. The net stressed cash-flow need 
for a covered savings and loan holding company is the difference 
between the amount of its cash-flow need and the

[[Page 61437]]

amount of its cash flow sources over the 30-day planning horizon.
    (3) Asset requirements. The liquidity buffer must consist of highly 
liquid assets that are unencumbered, as defined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) 
of this section:
    (i) Highly liquid asset. A highly liquid asset includes:
    (A) Cash;
    (B) Securities issued or guaranteed by the United States, a U.S. 
government agency, or a U.S. government-sponsored enterprise; or
    (C) Any other asset that the covered savings and loan holding 
company demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board:
    (1) Has low credit risk and low market risk;
    (2) Is traded in an active secondary two-way market that has 
committed market makers and independent bona fide offers to buy and 
sell so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or 
current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be 
determined within one day and settled at that price within a reasonable 
time period conforming with trade custom; and
    (3) Is a type of asset that investors historically have purchased 
in periods of financial market distress during which market liquidity 
has been impaired.
    (ii) Unencumbered. An asset is unencumbered if it:
    (A) Is free of legal, regulatory, contractual, or other 
restrictions on the ability of such company promptly to liquidate, sell 
or transfer the asset; and
    (B) Is either:
    (1) Not pledged or used to secure or provide credit enhancement to 
any transaction; or
    (2) Pledged to a central bank or a U.S. government-sponsored 
enterprise, to the extent potential credit secured by the asset is not 
currently extended by such central bank or U.S. government-sponsored 
enterprise or any of its consolidated subsidiaries.
    (iii) Calculating the amount of a highly liquid asset. In 
calculating the amount of a highly liquid asset included in the 
liquidity buffer, the covered savings and loan holding company must 
discount the fair market value of the asset to reflect any credit risk 
and market price volatility of the asset.
    (iv) Diversification. The liquidity buffer must not contain 
significant concentrations of highly liquid assets by issuer, business 
sector, region, or other factor related to the covered savings and loan 
holding company's risk, except with respect to cash and securities 
issued or guaranteed by the United States, a U.S. government agency, or 
a U.S. government-sponsored enterprise.
0
8. Add subpart O to read as follows:
Subpart O--Supervisory Stress Test Requirements for Covered Savings and 
Loan Holding Companies
Sec.
238.130 Definitions.
238.131 Applicability.
238.132 Analysis conducted by the Board.
238.133 Data and information required to be submitted in support of 
the Board's analyses.
238.134 Review of the Board's analysis; publication of summary 
results.
238.135 Corporate use of stress test results.

Subpart O--Supervisory Stress Test Requirements for Covered Savings 
and Loan Holding Companies


Sec.  238.130   Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
    Advanced approaches means the risk-weighted assets calculation 
methodologies at 12 CFR part 217, subpart E, as applicable.
    Adverse scenario means a set of conditions that affect the U.S. 
economy or the financial condition of a covered company that are more 
adverse than those associated with the baseline scenario and may 
include trading or other additional components.
    Baseline scenario means a set of conditions that affect the U.S. 
economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that 
reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook.
    Covered company means a covered savings and loan holding company 
(other than a foreign banking organization) with average total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more.
    Planning horizon means the period of at least nine consecutive 
quarters, beginning on the first day of a stress test cycle over which 
the relevant projections extend.
    Pre-provision net revenue means the sum of net interest income and 
non-interest income less expenses before adjusting for loss provisions.
    Provision for credit losses means:
    (1) Until December 31, 2019:
    (i) With respect to a covered company that has not adopted the 
current expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision 
for loan and lease losses as reported on the FR Y-9C (and as would be 
reported on the FR Y-9C in the current stress test cycle); and
    (ii) With respect to a covered company that has adopted the current 
expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision for loan 
and lease losses, as would be calculated and reported on the FR Y-9C by 
a covered company that has not adopted the current expected credit 
losses methodology under GAAP; and
    (2) Beginning January 1, 2020:
    (i) With respect to a covered company that has adopted the current 
expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision for credit 
losses, as would be reported by the covered company on the FR Y-9C in 
the current stress test cycle; and,
    (ii) With respect to a covered company that has not adopted the 
current expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision 
for loan and lease losses as would be reported by the covered company 
on the FR Y-9C in the current stress test cycle.
    Regulatory capital ratio means a capital ratio for which the Board 
has established minimum requirements for the covered savings and loan 
holding company by regulation or order, including, as applicable, the 
company's regulatory capital ratios calculated under 12 CFR part 217 
and the deductions required under 12 CFR 248.12; except that the 
company shall not use the advanced approaches to calculate its 
regulatory capital ratios.
    Scenarios are those sets of conditions that affect the U.S. economy 
or the financial condition of a covered company that the Board annually 
determines are appropriate for use in the supervisory stress tests, 
including, but not limited to, baseline, adverse, and severely adverse 
scenarios.
    Severely adverse scenario means a set of conditions that affect the 
U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that 
overall are more severe than those associated with the adverse scenario 
and may include trading or other additional components.
    Stress test cycle means the period beginning on January 1 of a 
calendar year and ending on December 31 of that year.
    Subsidiary has the same meaning as in Sec.  225.2(o) of this 
chapter.


Sec.  238.131   Applicability.

    (a) Scope--(1) Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
of this section, this subpart applies to any covered company.
    (2) Ongoing applicability. A covered savings and loan holding 
company (including any successor company) that is subject to any 
requirement in this subpart shall remain subject to any such 
requirement unless and until its total consolidated assets fall below 
$100 billion for each of four consecutive quarters, as reported on the 
FR Y-9C

[[Page 61438]]

and, effective on the as-of date of the fourth consecutive FR Y-9C.
    (b) Transitional arrangements. (1) A covered savings and loan 
holding company that becomes a covered company on or before September 
30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart 
beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the covered 
savings and loan holding company becomes a covered company, unless that 
time is extended by the Board in writing.
    (2) A covered savings and loan holding company that becomes a 
covered company after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with 
the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the third 
calendar year after the covered savings and loan holding company 
becomes a covered company, unless that time is extended by the Board in 
writing.


Sec.  238.132   Analysis conducted by the Board.

    (a) In general. (1) The Board will conduct an analysis of each 
covered company's capital, on a total consolidated basis, taking into 
account all relevant exposures and activities of that covered company, 
to evaluate the ability of the covered company to absorb losses in 
specified economic and financial conditions.
    (2) The analysis will include an assessment of the projected 
losses, net income, and pro forma capital levels and regulatory capital 
ratios and other capital ratios for the covered company and use such 
analytical techniques that the Board determines are appropriate to 
identify, measure, and monitor risks of the covered company.
    (3) In conducting the analyses, the Board will coordinate with the 
appropriate primary financial regulatory agencies and the Federal 
Insurance Office, as appropriate.
    (b) Economic and financial scenarios related to the Board's 
analysis. The Board will conduct its analysis using a minimum of three 
different scenarios, including a baseline scenario, adverse scenario, 
and severely adverse scenario. The Board will notify covered companies 
of the scenarios that the Board will apply to conduct the analysis for 
each stress test cycle to which the covered company is subject by no 
later than February 15 of that year, except with respect to trading or 
any other components of the scenarios and any additional scenarios that 
the Board will apply to conduct the analysis, which will be 
communicated by no later than March 1 of that year.
    (c) Frequency of analysis conducted by the Board. (1) Except as 
provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Board will conduct 
its analysis of a covered company on an annual basis.
    (2) The Board will conduct its analysis of a Category IV savings 
and loan holding company on a biennial basis and occurring in each year 
ending in an even number.


Sec.  238.133  Data and information required to be submitted in support 
of the Board's analyses.

    (a) Regular submissions. Each covered company must submit to the 
Board such data, on a consolidated basis, that the Board determines is 
necessary in order for the Board to derive the relevant pro forma 
estimates of the covered company over the planning horizon under the 
scenarios described in Sec.  238.132(b).
    (b) Additional submissions required by the Board. The Board may 
require a covered company to submit any other information on a 
consolidated basis that the Board deems necessary in order to:
    (1) Ensure that the Board has sufficient information to conduct its 
analysis under this subpart; and
    (2) Project a company's pre-provision net revenue, losses, 
provision for credit losses, and net income; and pro forma capital 
levels, regulatory capital ratios, and any other capital ratio 
specified by the Board under the scenarios described in Sec.  
238.132(b).
    (c) Confidential treatment of information submitted. The 
confidentiality of information submitted to the Board under this 
subpart and related materials shall be determined in accordance with 
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) and the Board's Rules 
Regarding Availability of Information (12 CFR part 261).


Sec.  238.134   Review of the Board's analysis; publication of summary 
results.

    (a) Review of results. Based on the results of the analysis 
conducted under this subpart, the Board will conduct an evaluation to 
determine whether the covered company has the capital, on a total 
consolidated basis, necessary to absorb losses and continue its 
operation by maintaining ready access to funding, meeting its 
obligations to creditors and other counterparties, and continuing to 
serve as a credit intermediary under baseline, adverse and severely 
adverse scenarios, and any additional scenarios.
    (b) Publication of results by the Board. (1) The Board will 
publicly disclose a summary of the results of the Board's analyses of a 
covered company by June 30 of the calendar year in which the stress 
test was conducted pursuant to Sec.  238.132.
    (2) The Board will notify companies of the date on which it expects 
to publicly disclose a summary of the Board's analyses pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section at least 14 calendar days prior to the 
expected disclosure date.


Sec.  238.135   Corporate use of stress test results.

    The board of directors and senior management of each covered 
company must consider the results of the analysis conducted by the 
Board under this subpart, as appropriate:
    (a) As part of the covered company's capital plan and capital 
planning process, including when making changes to the covered 
company's capital structure (including the level and composition of 
capital); and
    (b) When assessing the covered company's exposures, concentrations, 
and risk positions.
0
9. Add subpart P to read as follows:
Subpart P--Company-Run Stress Test Requirements for Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies
Sec.
238.140 Authority and purpose.
238.141 Definitions.
238.142 Applicability.
238.143 Stress test.
238.144 Methodologies and practices.
238.145 Reports of stress test results.
238.146 Disclosure of stress test results.

Subpart P--Company-Run Stress Test Requirements for Savings and 
Loan Holding Companies


Sec.  238.140   Authority and purpose.

    (a) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 1467; 1467a, 1818, 5361, 5365.
    (b) Purpose. This subpart establishes the requirement for a covered 
company to conduct stress tests. This subpart also establishes 
definitions of stress test and related terms, methodologies for 
conducting stress tests, and reporting and disclosure requirements.


Sec.  238.141   Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
    Advanced approaches means the risk-weighted assets calculation 
methodologies at 12 CFR part 217, subpart E, as applicable.
    Adverse scenario means a set of conditions that affect the U.S. 
economy or the financial condition of a covered company that are more 
adverse than those associated with the baseline scenario and may 
include trading or other additional components.
    Baseline scenario means a set of conditions that affect the U.S. 
economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that 
reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook.

[[Page 61439]]

    Capital action has the same meaning as in Sec.  225.8 of this 
chapter.
    Covered company means:
    (1) A Category II savings and loan holding company; or
    (2) A Category III savings and loan holding company.
    Planning horizon means the period of at least nine consecutive 
quarters, beginning on the first day of a stress test cycle over which 
the relevant projections extend.
    Pre-provision net revenue means the sum of net interest income and 
non-interest income less expenses before adjusting for loss provisions.
    Provision for credit losses means:
    (1) Until December 31, 2019:
    (i) With respect to a covered company that has not adopted the 
current expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision 
for loan and lease losses as reported on the FR Y-9C (and as would be 
reported on the FR Y-9C in the current stress test cycle); and
    (ii) With respect to a covered company that has adopted the current 
expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision for loan 
and lease losses, as would be calculated and reported on the FR Y-9C by 
a covered company that has not adopted the current expected credit 
losses methodology under GAAP; and
    (2) Beginning January 1, 2020:
    (i) With respect to a covered company that has adopted the current 
expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision for credit 
losses, as would be reported by the covered company on the FR Y-9C in 
the current stress test cycle; and
    (ii) With respect to a covered company that has not adopted the 
current expected credit losses methodology under GAAP, the provision 
for loan and lease losses as would be reported by the covered company 
on the FR Y-9C in the current stress test cycle.
    Regulatory capital ratio means a capital ratio for which the Board 
has established minimum requirements for the covered savings and loan 
holding company by regulation or order, including, as applicable, the 
company's regulatory capital ratios calculated under 12 CFR part 217 
and the deductions required under 12 CFR 248.12; except that the 
company shall not use the advanced approaches to calculate its 
regulatory capital ratios.
    Scenarios are those sets of conditions that affect the U.S. economy 
or the financial condition of a covered company that the Board annually 
or biennially determines are appropriate for use in the company-run 
stress tests, including, but not limited to, baseline, adverse, and 
severely adverse scenarios.
    Severely adverse scenario means a set of conditions that affect the 
U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that 
overall are more severe than those associated with the adverse scenario 
and may include trading or other additional components.
    Stress test means a process to assess the potential impact of 
scenarios on the consolidated earnings, losses, and capital of a 
covered company over the planning horizon, taking into account its 
current condition, risks, exposures, strategies, and activities.
    Stress test cycle means the period beginning on January 1 of a 
calendar year and ending on December 31 of that year.
    Subsidiary has the same meaning as in Sec.  225.2(o) of this 
chapter.


Sec.  238.142  Applicability.

    (a) Scope--(1) Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
of this section, this subpart applies to any covered company, which 
includes:
    (i) Any Category II savings and loan holding company; and
    (ii) Any Category III savings and loan holding company.
    (2) Ongoing applicability. A covered savings and loan holding 
company (including any successor company) that is subject to any 
requirement in this subpart shall remain subject to any such 
requirement unless and until the covered savings and loan holding 
company:
    (i) Is not a Category II savings and loan holding company; and
    (ii) Is not a Category III savings and loan holding company.
    (b) Transitional arrangements. (1) A covered savings and loan 
holding company that becomes a covered company on or before September 
30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart 
beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the covered 
savings and loan holding company becomes a covered company, unless that 
time is extended by the Board in writing.
    (2) A covered savings and loan holding company that becomes a 
covered company after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with 
the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the third 
calendar year after the covered savings and loan holding company 
becomes a covered company, unless that time is extended by the Board in 
writing.


Sec.  238.143  Stress test.

    (a) Stress test requirement--(1) In general. A covered company must 
conduct a stress test as required under this subpart.
    (2) Frequency. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 
this section, a covered company must conduct an annual stress test. The 
stress test must be conducted by April 5 of each calendar year based on 
data as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year, unless the time 
or the as-of date is extended by the Board in writing.
    (ii) A Category III savings and loan holding company must conduct a 
biennial stress test. The stress test must be conducted by April 5 of 
each calendar year ending in an even number, based on data as of 
December 31 of the preceding calendar year, unless the time or the as-
of date is extended by the Board in writing.
    (b) Scenarios provided by the Board--(1) In general. In conducting 
a stress test under this section, a covered company must, at a minimum, 
use the scenarios provided by the Board. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, the Board will provide a 
description of the scenarios to each covered company no later than 
February 15 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed 
pursuant to this section.
    (2) Additional components. (i) The Board may require a covered 
company with significant trading activity, as determined by the Board 
and specified in the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing report (FR 
Y-14), to include a trading and counterparty component in its adverse 
and severely adverse scenarios in the stress test required by this 
section. The data used in this component must be as-of a date selected 
by the Board between October 1 of the previous calendar year and March 
1 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant 
to this section, and the Board will communicate the as-of date and a 
description of the component to the company no later than March 1 of 
the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to 
this section.
    (ii) The Board may require a covered company to include one or more 
additional components in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios in 
the stress test required by this section based on the company's 
financial condition, size, complexity, risk profile, scope of 
operations, or activities, or risks to the U.S. economy.
    (3) Additional scenarios. The Board may require a covered company 
to use one or more additional scenarios in the stress test required by 
this section based on the company's financial condition, size, 
complexity, risk profile, scope of

[[Page 61440]]

operations, or activities, or risks to the U.S. economy.
    (4) Notice and response--(i) Notification of additional component. 
If the Board requires a covered company to include one or more 
additional components in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios 
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section or to use one or more additional 
scenarios under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Board will notify 
the company in writing. The Board will provide such notification no 
later than December 31 of the preceding calendar year. The notification 
will include a general description of the additional component(s) or 
additional scenario(s) and the basis for requiring the company to 
include the additional component(s) or additional scenario(s).
    (ii) Request for reconsideration and Board response. Within 14 
calendar days of receipt of a notification under this paragraph, the 
covered company may request in writing that the Board reconsider the 
requirement that the company include the additional component(s) or 
additional scenario(s), including an explanation as to why the request 
for reconsideration should be granted. The Board will respond in 
writing within 14 calendar days of receipt of the company's request.
    (iii) Description of component. The Board will provide the covered 
company with a description of any additional component(s) or additional 
scenario(s) by March 1 of the calendar year in which the stress test is 
performed pursuant to this section.


Sec.  238.144  Methodologies and practices.

    (a) Potential impact on capital. In conducting a stress test under 
Sec.  238.143, for each quarter of the planning horizon, a covered 
company must estimate the following for each scenario required to be 
used:
    (1) Losses, pre-provision net revenue, provision for credit losses, 
and net income; and
    (2) The potential impact on pro forma regulatory capital levels and 
pro forma capital ratios (including regulatory capital ratios and any 
other capital ratios specified by the Board), incorporating the effects 
of any capital actions over the planning horizon and maintenance of an 
allowance for credit losses appropriate for credit exposures throughout 
the planning horizon.
    (b) Assumptions regarding capital actions. In conducting a stress 
test under Sec.  238.143, a covered company is required to make the 
following assumptions regarding its capital actions over the planning 
horizon:
    (1) For the first quarter of the planning horizon, the covered 
company must take into account its actual capital actions as of the end 
of that quarter; and
    (2) For each of the second through ninth quarters of the planning 
horizon, the covered company must include in the projections of 
capital:
    (i) Common stock dividends equal to the quarterly average dollar 
amount of common stock dividends that the company paid in the previous 
year (that is, the first quarter of the planning horizon and the 
preceding three calendar quarters) plus common stock dividends 
attributable to issuances related to expensed employee compensation or 
in connection with a planned merger or acquisition to the extent that 
the merger or acquisition is reflected in the covered company's pro 
forma balance sheet estimates;
    (ii) Payments on any other instrument that is eligible for 
inclusion in the numerator of a regulatory capital ratio equal to the 
stated dividend, interest, or principal due on such instrument during 
the quarter;
    (iii) An assumption of no redemption or repurchase of any capital 
instrument that is eligible for inclusion in the numerator of a 
regulatory capital ratio; and
    (iv) An assumption of no issuances of common stock or preferred 
stock, except for issuances related to expensed employee compensation 
or in connection with a planned merger or acquisition to the extent 
that the merger or acquisition is reflected in the covered company's 
pro forma balance sheet estimates.
    (c) Controls and oversight of stress testing processes--(1) In 
general. The senior management of a covered company must establish and 
maintain a system of controls, oversight, and documentation, including 
policies and procedures, that are designed to ensure that its stress 
testing processes are effective in meeting the requirements in this 
subpart. These policies and procedures must, at a minimum, describe the 
covered company's stress testing practices and methodologies, and 
processes for validating and updating the company's stress test 
practices and methodologies consistent with applicable laws and 
regulations.
    (2) Oversight of stress testing processes. The board of directors, 
or a committee thereof, of a covered company must review and approve 
the policies and procedures of the stress testing processes as 
frequently as economic conditions or the condition of the covered 
company may warrant, but no less than annually. The board of directors 
and senior management of the covered company must receive a summary of 
the results of any stress test conducted under this subpart.
    (3) Role of stress testing results. The board of directors and 
senior management of each covered company must consider the results of 
the analysis it conducts under this subpart, as appropriate:
    (i) As part of the covered company's capital plan and capital 
planning process, including when making changes to the covered 
company's capital structure (including the level and composition of 
capital); and
    (ii) When assessing the covered company's exposures, 
concentrations, and risk positions.


Sec.  238.145  Reports of stress test results.

    (a) Reports to the Board of stress test results. A covered company 
must report the results of the stress test required under Sec.  238.143 
to the Board in the manner and form prescribed by the Board. Such 
results must be submitted by April 5 of the calendar year in which the 
stress test is performed pursuant to Sec.  238.143, unless that time is 
extended by the Board in writing.
    (b) Confidential treatment of information submitted. The 
confidentiality of information submitted to the Board under this 
subpart and related materials shall be determined in accordance with 
applicable exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 
552(b)) and the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information (12 
CFR part 261).


Sec.  238.146  Disclosure of stress test results.

    (a) Public disclosure of results--(1) In general. A covered company 
must publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test 
required under Sec.  238.143 within the period that is 15 calendar days 
after the Board publicly discloses the results of its supervisory 
stress test of the covered company pursuant to Sec.  238.134, unless 
that time is extended by the Board in writing.
    (2) Disclosure method. The summary required under this section may 
be disclosed on the website of a covered company, or in any other forum 
that is reasonably accessible to the public.
    (b) Summary of results. The summary results must, at a minimum, 
contain the following information regarding the severely adverse 
scenario:
    (1) A description of the types of risks included in the stress 
test;
    (2) A general description of the methodologies used in the stress 
test, including those employed to estimate losses, revenues, provision 
for credit losses, and changes in capital positions over the planning 
horizon;
    (3) Estimates of--

[[Page 61441]]

    (i) Pre-provision net revenue and other revenue;
    (ii) Provision for credit losses, realized losses or gains on 
available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities, trading and 
counterparty losses, and other losses or gains;
    (iii) Net income before taxes;
    (iv) Loan losses (dollar amount and as a percentage of average 
portfolio balance) in the aggregate and by subportfolio, including: 
Domestic closed-end first-lien mortgages; domestic junior lien 
mortgages and home equity lines of credit; commercial and industrial 
loans; commercial real estate loans; credit card exposures; other 
consumer loans; and all other loans; and
    (v) Pro forma regulatory capital ratios and any other capital 
ratios specified by the Board; and
    (4) An explanation of the most significant causes for the changes 
in regulatory capital ratios; and
    (5) With respect to any depository institution subsidiary that is 
subject to stress testing requirements pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 
5365(i)(2), as implemented by subpart B of this part, 12 CFR part 46 
(OCC), or 12 CFR part 325, subpart C (FDIC), changes over the planning 
horizon in regulatory capital ratios and any other capital ratios 
specified by the Board and an explanation of the most significant 
causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios.
    (c) Content of results. (1) The following disclosures required 
under paragraph (b) of this section must be on a cumulative basis over 
the planning horizon:
    (i) Pre-provision net revenue and other revenue;
    (ii) Provision for credit losses, realized losses/gains on 
available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities, trading and 
counterparty losses, and other losses or gains;
    (iii) Net income before taxes; and
    (iv) Loan losses in the aggregate and by subportfolio.
    (2) The disclosure of pro forma regulatory capital ratios and any 
other capital ratios specified by the Board that is required under 
paragraph (b) of this section must include the beginning value, ending 
value, and minimum value of each ratio over the planning horizon.
0
10. Add subpart Q to read as follows:
Subpart Q--Single Counterparty Credit Limits for Covered Savings and 
Loan Holding Companies
Sec.
238.150 Applicability and general provisions.
238.151 Definitions.
238.152 Credit exposure limits.
238.153 Gross credit exposure.
238.154 Net credit exposure.
238.155 Investments in and exposures to securitization vehicles, 
investment funds, and other special purpose vehicles that are not 
subsidiaries of the covered company.
238.156 Aggregation of exposures to more than one counterparty due 
to economic interdependence or control relationships.
238.157 Exemptions.
238.158 Compliance.

Subpart Q--Single Counterparty Credit Limits for Covered Savings 
and Loan Holding Companies


Sec.  238.150  Applicability and general provisions.

    (a) In general. (1) This subpart establishes single counterparty 
credit limits for a covered company.
    (2) For purposes of this subpart:
    (i) Covered company means
    (A) A Category II savings and loan holding company; or
    (B) A Category III savings and loan holding company.
    (b) Credit exposure limits. (1) Section 238.152 establishes credit 
exposure limits for a covered company.
    (2) A covered company is required to calculate its aggregate net 
credit exposure, gross credit exposure, and net credit exposure to a 
counterparty using the methods in this subpart.
    (c) Applicability of this subpart. (1) A company that is a covered 
company as of [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], must comply with the requirements of this 
subpart, including but not limited to Sec.  238.152, beginning on July 
1, 2020, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing;
    (2) A covered company that becomes subject to this subpart after 
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register] must comply with the requirements of this subpart 
beginning on the first day of the ninth calendar quarter after it 
becomes a covered company, unless that time is accelerated or extended 
by the Board in writing.
    (d) Cessation of requirements. Any company that becomes a covered 
company will remain subject to the requirements of this subpart unless 
and until it is not a Category II savings and loan holding company or a 
Category III savings and loan holding company.


Sec.  238.151  Definitions.

    Unless defined in this section, terms that are set forth in Sec.  
238.2 and used in this subpart have the definitions assigned in Sec.  
238.2. For purposes of this subpart:
    (a) Adjusted market value means:
    (1) With respect to the value of cash, securities, or other 
eligible collateral transferred by the covered company to a 
counterparty, the sum of:
    (i) The market value of the cash, securities, or other eligible 
collateral; and
    (ii) The product of the market value of the securities or other 
eligible collateral multiplied by the applicable collateral haircut in 
Table 1 to Sec.  217.132 of this chapter; and
    (2) With respect to cash, securities, or other eligible collateral 
received by the covered company from a counterparty:
    (i) The market value of the cash, securities, or other eligible 
collateral; minus
    (ii) The market value of the securities or other eligible 
collateral multiplied by the applicable collateral haircut in Table 1 
to Sec.  217.132 of this chapter.
    (3) Prior to calculating the adjusted market value pursuant to 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, with regard to a transaction 
that meets the definition of ``repo-style transaction'' in Sec.  217.2 
of this chapter, the covered company would first multiply the 
applicable collateral haircuts in Table 1 to Sec.  217.132 of this 
chapter by the square root of \1/2\.
    (b) Affiliate means, with respect to a company:
    (1) Any subsidiary of the company and any other company that is 
consolidated with the company under applicable accounting standards; or
    (2) For a company that is not subject to principles or standards 
referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, any subsidiary of the 
company and any other company that would be consolidated with the 
company, if consolidation would have occurred if such principles or 
standards had applied.
    (c) Aggregate net credit exposure means the sum of all net credit 
exposures of a covered company and all of its subsidiaries to a single 
counterparty as calculated under this subpart.
    (d) Bank-eligible investments means investment securities that a 
national bank is permitted to purchase, sell, deal in, underwrite, and 
hold under 12 U.S.C. 24 (Seventh) and 12 CFR part 1.
    (e) Counterparty means, with respect to a credit transaction:
    (1) With respect to a natural person, the natural person, and, if 
the credit exposure of the covered company to such natural person 
exceeds 5 percent of the covered company's tier 1 capital, the natural 
person and members of the person's immediate family collectively;
    (2) With respect to any company that is not a subsidiary of the 
covered

[[Page 61442]]

company, the company and its affiliates collectively;
    (3) With respect to a State, the State and all of its agencies, 
instrumentalities, and political subdivisions (including any 
municipalities) collectively;
    (4) With respect to a foreign sovereign entity that is not assigned 
a zero percent risk weight under the standardized approach in 12 CFR 
part 217, subpart D, the foreign sovereign entity and all of its 
agencies and instrumentalities (but not including any political 
subdivision) collectively; and
    (5) With respect to a political subdivision of a foreign sovereign 
entity such as a state, province, or municipality, any political 
subdivision of the foreign sovereign entity and all of such political 
subdivision's agencies and instrumentalities, collectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition, under Sec.  238.156, under certain 
circumstances, a covered company is required to aggregate its net 
credit exposure to one or more counterparties for all purposes under 
this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Covered company is defined in Sec.  238.150(a)(2)(i).
    (g) Credit derivative has the same meaning as in Sec.  217.2 of 
this chapter.
    (h) Credit transaction means, with respect to a counterparty:
    (1) Any extension of credit to the counterparty, including loans, 
deposits, and lines of credit, but excluding uncommitted lines of 
credit;
    (2) Any repurchase agreement or reverse repurchase agreement with 
the counterparty;
    (3) Any securities lending or securities borrowing transaction with 
the counterparty;
    (4) Any guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit (including any 
endorsement, confirmed letter of credit, or standby letter of credit) 
issued on behalf of the counterparty;
    (5) Any purchase of securities issued by or other investment in the 
counterparty;
    (6) Any credit exposure to the counterparty in connection with a 
derivative transaction between the covered company and the 
counterparty;
    (7) Any credit exposure to the counterparty in connection with a 
credit derivative or equity derivative between the covered company and 
a third party, the reference asset of which is an obligation or equity 
security of, or equity investment in, the counterparty; and
    (8) Any transaction that is the functional equivalent of the above, 
and any other similar transaction that the Board, by regulation or 
order, determines to be a credit transaction for purposes of this 
subpart.
    (i) Depository institution has the same meaning as in section 3 of 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)).
    (j) Derivative transaction means any transaction that is a 
contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note, or option that is based, in 
whole or in part, on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative 
measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more 
commodities, securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices, 
or other assets.
    (k) Eligible collateral means collateral in which, notwithstanding 
the prior security interest of any custodial agent, the covered company 
has a perfected, first priority security interest (or the legal 
equivalent thereof, if outside of the United States), with the 
exception of cash on deposit, and is in the form of:
    (1) Cash on deposit with the covered company or a subsidiary of the 
covered company (including cash in foreign currency or U.S. dollars 
held for the covered company by a custodian or trustee, whether inside 
or outside of the United States);
    (2) Debt securities (other than mortgage- or asset-backed 
securities and resecuritization securities, unless those securities are 
issued by a U.S. government-sponsored enterprise) that are bank-
eligible investments and that are investment grade, except for any debt 
securities issued by the covered company or any subsidiary of the 
covered company;
    (3) Equity securities that are publicly traded, except for any 
equity securities issued by the covered company or any subsidiary of 
the covered company;
    (4) Convertible bonds that are publicly traded, except for any 
convertible bonds issued by the covered company or any subsidiary of 
the covered company; or
    (5) Gold bullion.
    (l) Eligible credit derivative means a single-name credit 
derivative or a standard, non-tranched index credit derivative, 
provided that:
    (1) The contract meets the requirements of an eligible guarantee 
and has been confirmed by the protection purchaser and the protection 
provider;
    (2) Any assignment of the contract has been confirmed by all 
relevant parties;
    (3) If the credit derivative is a credit default swap, the contract 
includes the following credit events:
    (i) Failure to pay any amount due under the terms of the reference 
exposure, subject to any applicable minimal payment threshold that is 
consistent with standard market practice and with a grace period that 
is closely in line with the grace period of the reference exposure; and
    (ii) Receivership, insolvency, liquidation, conservatorship, or 
inability of the reference exposure issuer to pay its debts, or its 
failure or admission in writing of its inability generally to pay its 
debts as they become due, and similar events;
    (4) The terms and conditions dictating the manner in which the 
contract is to be settled are incorporated into the contract;
    (5) If the contract allows for cash settlement, the contract 
incorporates a robust valuation process to estimate loss reliably and 
specifies a reasonable period for obtaining post-credit event 
valuations of the reference exposure;
    (6) If the contract requires the protection purchaser to transfer 
an exposure to the protection provider at settlement, the terms of at 
least one of the exposures that is permitted to be transferred under 
the contract provide that any required consent to transfer may not be 
unreasonably withheld; and
    (7) If the credit derivative is a credit default swap, the contract 
clearly identifies the parties responsible for determining whether a 
credit event has occurred, specifies that this determination is not the 
sole responsibility of the protection provider, and gives the 
protection purchaser the right to notify the protection provider of the 
occurrence of a credit event.
    (m) Eligible equity derivative means an equity derivative, provided 
that:
    (1) The derivative contract has been confirmed by all relevant 
parties;
    (2) Any assignment of the derivative contract has been confirmed by 
all relevant parties; and
    (3) The terms and conditions dictating the manner in which the 
derivative contract is to be settled are incorporated into the 
contract.
    (n) Eligible guarantee has the same meaning as in Sec.  217.2 of 
this chapter.
    (o) Eligible guarantor has the same meaning as in Sec.  217.2 of 
this chapter.
    (p) Equity derivative has the same meaning as ``equity derivative 
contract'' in Sec.  217.2 of this chapter.
    (q) Exempt counterparty means an entity that is identified as 
exempt from the requirements of this subpart under Sec.  238.157, or 
that is otherwise excluded from this subpart, including any sovereign 
entity assigned a zero percent risk weight under the standardized 
approach in 12 CFR part 217, subpart D.
    (r) Financial entity means:
    (1)(i) A bank holding company or an affiliate thereof; a savings 
and loan holding company; a U.S. intermediate holding company 
established or designated pursuant to 12 CFR 252.153;

[[Page 61443]]

or a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board;
    (ii) A depository institution as defined in section 3(c) of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)); an organization that 
is organized under the laws of a foreign country and that engages 
directly in the business of banking outside the United States; a 
federal credit union or state credit union as defined in section 2 of 
the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752(1) and (6)); a national 
association, state member bank, or state nonmember bank that is not a 
depository institution; an institution that functions solely in a trust 
or fiduciary capacity as described in section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Bank 
Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(D)); an industrial loan 
company, an industrial bank, or other similar institution described in 
section 2(c)(2)(H) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1841(c)(2)(H));
    (iii) An entity that is state-licensed or registered as:
    (A) A credit or lending entity, including a finance company; money 
lender; installment lender; consumer lender or lending company; 
mortgage lender, broker, or bank; motor vehicle title pledge lender; 
payday or deferred deposit lender; premium finance company; commercial 
finance or lending company; or commercial mortgage company; except 
entities registered or licensed solely on account of financing the 
entity's direct sales of goods or services to customers;
    (B) A money services business, including a check casher; money 
transmitter; currency dealer or exchange; or money order or traveler's 
check issuer;
    (iv) Any person registered with the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission as a swap dealer or major swap participant pursuant to the 
Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), or an entity that 
is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a 
security-based swap dealer or a major security-based swap participant 
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 
seq.);
    (v) A securities holding company as defined in section 618 of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 
1850a); a broker or dealer as defined in sections 3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)-(5)); an 
investment adviser as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment 
Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)); an investment company 
registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under the 
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.); or a company 
that has elected to be regulated as a business development company 
pursuant to section 54(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
U.S.C. 80a-53(a));
    (vi) A private fund as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment 
Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)); an entity that would be an 
investment company under section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3) but for section 3(c)(5)(C); or an entity that is 
deemed not to be an investment company under section 3 of the 
Investment Company Act of 1940 pursuant to Investment Company Act Rule 
3a-7 (17 CFR 270.3a-7) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
    (vii) A commodity pool, a commodity pool operator, or a commodity 
trading advisor as defined, respectively, in sections 1a(10), 1a(11), 
and 1a(12) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1a(10), 
1a(11), and 1a(12)); a floor broker, a floor trader, or introducing 
broker as defined, respectively, in sections 1a(22), 1a(23) and 1a(31) 
of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1a(22), 1a(23), and 
1a(31)); or a futures commission merchant as defined in section 1a(28) 
of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1a(28));
    (viii) An employee benefit plan as defined in paragraphs (3) and 
(32) of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002);
    (ix) An entity that is organized as an insurance company, primarily 
engaged in writing insurance or reinsuring risks underwritten by 
insurance companies, or is subject to supervision as such by a State 
insurance regulator or foreign insurance regulator;
    (x) Any designated financial market utility, as defined in section 
803 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(12 U.S.C. 5462); and
    (xi) An entity that would be a financial entity described in 
paragraphs (r)(1)(i) through (x) of this section, if it were organized 
under the laws of the United States or any State thereof; and
    (2) Provided that, for purposes of this subpart, ``financial 
entity'' does not include any counterparty that is a foreign sovereign 
entity or multilateral development bank.
    (s) Foreign sovereign entity means a sovereign entity other than 
the United States government and the entity's agencies, departments, 
ministries, and central bank collectively.
    (t) Gross credit exposure means, with respect to any credit 
transaction, the credit exposure of the covered company before 
adjusting, pursuant to Sec.  238.154, for the effect of any eligible 
collateral, eligible guarantee, eligible credit derivative, eligible 
equity derivative, other eligible hedge, and any unused portion of 
certain extensions of credit.
    (u) Immediate family means the spouse of an individual, the 
individual's minor children, and any of the individual's children 
(including adults) residing in the individual's home.
    (v) Intraday credit exposure means credit exposure of a covered 
company to a counterparty that by its terms is to be repaid, sold, or 
terminated by the end of its business day in the United States.
    (w) Investment grade has the same meaning as in Sec.  217.2 of this 
chapter.
    (x) Multilateral development bank has the same meaning as in Sec.  
217.2 of this chapter.
    (y) Net credit exposure means, with respect to any credit 
transaction, the gross credit exposure of a covered company and all of 
its subsidiaries calculated under Sec.  238.153, as adjusted in 
accordance with Sec.  238.154.
    (z) Qualifying central counterparty has the same meaning as in 
Sec.  217.2 of this chapter.
    (aa) Qualifying master netting agreement has the same meaning as in 
Sec.  217.2 of this chapter.
    (bb) Securities financing transaction means any repurchase 
agreement, reverse repurchase agreement, securities borrowing 
transaction, or securities lending transaction.
    (cc) Short sale means any sale of a security which the seller does 
not own or any sale which is consummated by the delivery of a security 
borrowed by, or for the account of, the seller.
    (dd) Sovereign entity means a central national government 
(including the U.S. government) or an agency, department, ministry, or 
central bank, but not including any political subdivision such as a 
state, province, or municipality.
    (ee) Subsidiary. A company is a subsidiary of another company if:
    (1) The company is consolidated by the other company under 
applicable accounting standards; or
    (2) For a company that is not subject to principles or standards 
referenced in paragraph (ee)(1) of this definition, consolidation would 
have occurred if such principles or standards had applied.
    (ff) Tier 1 capital means common equity tier 1 capital and 
additional tier 1 capital, as defined in 12 CFR part 217 and as 
reported by the covered savings and loan holding company on the most 
recent FR Y-9C report on a consolidated basis.

[[Page 61444]]

    (gg) Total consolidated assets. A company's total consolidated 
assets are determined based on:
    (1) The average of the company's total consolidated assets in the 
four most recent consecutive quarters as reported quarterly on the FR 
Y-9C; or
    (2) If the company has not filed an FR Y-9C for each of the four 
most recent consecutive quarters, the average of the company's total 
consolidated assets, as reported on the company's FR Y-9C, for the most 
recent quarter or consecutive quarters, as applicable.


Sec.  238.152   Credit exposure limits.

    General limit on aggregate net credit exposure. No covered company 
may have an aggregate net credit exposure to any counterparty that 
exceeds 25 percent of the tier 1 capital of the covered company.


Sec.  238.153   Gross credit exposure.

    (a) Calculation of gross credit exposure. The amount of gross 
credit exposure of a covered company to a counterparty with respect to 
a credit transaction is, in the case of:
    (1) A deposit of the covered company held by the counterparty, loan 
by a covered company to the counterparty, and lease in which the 
covered company is the lessor and the counterparty is the lessee, equal 
to the amount owed by the counterparty to the covered company under the 
transaction.
    (2) A debt security or debt investment held by the covered company 
that is issued by the counterparty, equal to:
    (i) The market value of the securities, for trading and available-
for-sale securities; and
    (ii) The amortized purchase price of the securities or investments, 
for securities or investments held to maturity.
    (3) An equity security held by the covered company that is issued 
by the counterparty, equity investment in a counterparty, and other 
direct investments in a counterparty, equal to the market value.
    (4) A securities financing transaction must be valued using any of 
the methods that the covered company is authorized to use under 12 CFR 
part 217, subparts D and E to value such transactions:
    (i)(A) As calculated for each transaction, in the case of a 
securities financing transaction between the covered company and the 
counterparty that is not subject to a bilateral netting agreement or 
does not meet the definition of ``repo-style transaction'' in Sec.  
217.2 of this chapter; or
    (B) As calculated for a netting set, in the case of a securities 
financing transaction between the covered company and the counterparty 
that is subject to a bilateral netting agreement with that counterparty 
and meets the definition of ``repo-style transaction'' in Sec.  217.2 
of this chapter;
    (ii) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, the 
covered company must:
    (A) Assign a value of zero to any security received from the 
counterparty that does not meet the definition of ``eligible 
collateral'' in Sec.  238.151; and
    (B) Include the value of securities that are eligible collateral 
received by the covered company from the counterparty (including any 
exempt counterparty), calculated in accordance with paragraphs 
(a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section, when calculating its gross 
credit exposure to the issuer of those securities;
    (iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section 
and with respect to each credit transaction, a covered company's gross 
credit exposure to a collateral issuer under this paragraph (a)(4) is 
limited to the covered company's gross credit exposure to the 
counterparty on the credit transaction; and
    (iv) In cases where the covered company receives eligible 
collateral from a counterparty in addition to the cash or securities 
received from that counterparty, the counterparty may reduce its gross 
credit exposure to that counterparty in accordance with Sec.  
238.154(b).
    (5) A committed credit line extended by a covered company to a 
counterparty, equal to the face amount of the committed credit line.
    (6) A guarantee or letter of credit issued by a covered company on 
behalf of a counterparty, equal to the maximum potential loss to the 
covered company on the transaction.
    (7) A derivative transaction must be valued using any of the 
methods that the covered company is authorized to use under 12 CFR part 
217, subparts D and E to value such transactions:
    (i)(A) As calculated for each transaction, in the case of a 
derivative transaction between the covered company and the 
counterparty, including an equity derivative but excluding a credit 
derivative described in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, that is not 
subject to a qualifying master netting agreement; or
    (B) As calculated for a netting set, in the case of a derivative 
transaction between the covered company and the counterparty, including 
an equity derivative but excluding a credit derivative described in 
paragraph (a)(8) of this section, that is subject to a qualifying 
master netting agreement.
    (ii) In cases where a covered company is required to recognize an 
exposure to an eligible guarantor pursuant to Sec.  238.154(d), the 
covered company must exclude the relevant derivative transaction when 
calculating its gross exposure to the original counterparty under this 
section.
    (8) A credit derivative between the covered company and a third 
party where the covered company is the protection provider and the 
reference asset is an obligation or debt security of the counterparty, 
equal to the maximum potential loss to the covered company on the 
transaction.
    (b) Investments in and exposures to securitization vehicles, 
investment funds, and other special purpose vehicles that are not 
subsidiaries. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a covered 
company must calculate pursuant to Sec.  238.155 its gross credit 
exposure due to any investment in the debt or equity of, and any credit 
derivative or equity derivative between the covered company and a third 
party where the covered company is the protection provider and the 
reference asset is an obligation or equity security of, or equity 
investment in, a securitization vehicle, investment fund, and other 
special purpose vehicle that is not a subsidiary of the covered 
company.
    (c) Attribution rule. Notwithstanding any other requirement in this 
subpart, a covered company must treat any transaction with any natural 
person or entity as a credit transaction with another party, to the 
extent that the proceeds of the transaction are used for the benefit 
of, or transferred to, the other party.


Sec.  238.154   Net credit exposure.

    (a) In general. For purposes of this subpart, a covered company 
must calculate its net credit exposure to a counterparty by adjusting 
its gross credit exposure to that counterparty in accordance with the 
rules set forth in this section.
    (b) Eligible collateral. (1) In computing its net credit exposure 
to a counterparty for any credit transaction other than a securities 
financing transaction, a covered company must reduce its gross credit 
exposure on the transaction by the adjusted market value of any 
eligible collateral.
    (2) A covered company that reduces its gross credit exposure to a 
counterparty as required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must 
include the adjusted market value of the eligible collateral, when 
calculating its

[[Page 61445]]

gross credit exposure to the collateral issuer.
    (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a covered 
company's gross credit exposure to a collateral issuer under this 
paragraph (b) is limited to:
    (i) Its gross credit exposure to the counterparty on the credit 
transaction, or
    (ii) In the case of an exempt counterparty, the gross credit 
exposure that would have been attributable to that exempt counterparty 
on the credit transaction if valued in accordance with Sec.  
238.153(a).
    (c) Eligible guarantees. (1) In calculating net credit exposure to 
a counterparty for any credit transaction, a covered company must 
reduce its gross credit exposure to the counterparty by the amount of 
any eligible guarantee from an eligible guarantor that covers the 
transaction.
    (2) A covered company that reduces its gross credit exposure to a 
counterparty as required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section must 
include the amount of eligible guarantees when calculating its gross 
credit exposure to the eligible guarantor.
    (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a covered 
company's gross credit exposure to an eligible guarantor with respect 
to an eligible guarantee under this paragraph (c) is limited to:
    (i) Its gross credit exposure to the counterparty on the credit 
transaction prior to recognition of the eligible guarantee, or
    (ii) In the case of an exempt counterparty, the gross credit 
exposure that would have been attributable to that exempt counterparty 
on the credit transaction prior to recognition of the eligible 
guarantee if valued in accordance with Sec.  238.153(a).
    (d) Eligible credit and equity derivatives. (1) In calculating net 
credit exposure to a counterparty for a credit transaction under this 
section, a covered company must reduce its gross credit exposure to the 
counterparty by:
    (i) In the case of any eligible credit derivative from an eligible 
guarantor, the notional amount of the eligible credit derivative; or
    (ii) In the case of any eligible equity derivative from an eligible 
guarantor, the gross credit exposure amount to the counterparty 
(calculated in accordance with Sec.  238.153(a)(7)).
    (2)(i) A covered company that reduces its gross credit exposure to 
a counterparty as provided under paragraph (d)(1) of this section must 
include, when calculating its net credit exposure to the eligible 
guarantor, including in instances where the underlying credit 
transaction would not be subject to the credit limits of Sec.  238.152 
(for example, due to an exempt counterparty), either
    (A) In the case of any eligible credit derivative from an eligible 
guarantor, the notional amount of the eligible credit derivative; or
    (B) In the case of any eligible equity derivative from an eligible 
guarantor, the gross credit exposure amount to the counterparty 
(calculated in accordance with Sec.  238.153(a)(7)).
    (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, in cases 
where the eligible credit derivative or eligible equity derivative is 
used to hedge covered positions that are subject to the Board's market 
risk rule (12 CFR part 217, subpart F) and the counterparty on the 
hedged transaction is not a financial entity, the amount of credit 
exposure that a company must recognize to the eligible guarantor is the 
amount that would be calculated pursuant to Sec.  238.153(a).
    (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(2) of this section, a covered 
company's gross credit exposure to an eligible guarantor with respect 
to an eligible credit derivative or an eligible equity derivative under 
this paragraph (d) is limited to:
    (i) Its gross credit exposure to the counterparty on the credit 
transaction prior to recognition of the eligible credit derivative or 
the eligible equity derivative, or
    (ii) In the case of an exempt counterparty, the gross credit 
exposure that would have been attributable to that exempt counterparty 
on the credit transaction prior to recognition of the eligible credit 
derivative or the eligible equity derivative if valued in accordance 
with Sec.  238.153(a).
    (e) Other eligible hedges. In calculating net credit exposure to a 
counterparty for a credit transaction under this section, a covered 
company may reduce its gross credit exposure to the counterparty by the 
face amount of a short sale of the counterparty's debt security or 
equity security, provided that:
    (1) The instrument in which the covered company has a short 
position is junior to, or pari passu with, the instrument in which the 
covered company has the long position; and
    (2) The instrument in which the covered company has a short 
position and the instrument in which the covered company has the long 
position are either both treated as trading or available-for-sale 
exposures or both treated as held-to-maturity exposures.
    (f) Unused portion of certain extensions of credit. (1) In 
computing its net credit exposure to a counterparty for a committed 
credit line or revolving credit facility under this section, a covered 
company may reduce its gross credit exposure by the amount of the 
unused portion of the credit extension to the extent that the covered 
company does not have any legal obligation to advance additional funds 
under the extension of credit and the used portion of the credit 
extension has been fully secured by eligible collateral.
    (2) To the extent that the used portion of a credit extension has 
been secured by eligible collateral, the covered company may reduce its 
gross credit exposure by the adjusted market value of any eligible 
collateral received from the counterparty, even if the used portion has 
not been fully secured by eligible collateral.
    (3) To qualify for the reduction in net credit exposure under this 
paragraph, the credit contract must specify that any used portion of 
the credit extension must be fully secured by the adjusted market value 
of any eligible collateral.
    (g) Credit transactions involving exempt counterparties. (1) A 
covered company's credit transactions with an exempt counterparty are 
not subject to the requirements of this subpart, including but not 
limited to Sec.  238.152.
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in cases 
where a covered company has a credit transaction with an exempt 
counterparty and the covered company has obtained eligible collateral 
from that exempt counterparty or an eligible guarantee or eligible 
credit or equity derivative from an eligible guarantor, the covered 
company must include (for purposes of this subpart) such exposure to 
the issuer of such eligible collateral or the eligible guarantor, as 
calculated in accordance with the rules set forth in this section, when 
calculating its gross credit exposure to that issuer of eligible 
collateral or eligible guarantor.
    (h) Currency mismatch adjustments. For purposes of calculating its 
net credit exposure to a counterparty under this section, a covered 
company must apply, as applicable:
    (1) When reducing its gross credit exposure to a counterparty 
resulting from any credit transaction due to any eligible collateral 
and calculating its gross credit exposure to an issuer of eligible 
collateral, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the currency 
mismatch adjustment approach of Sec.  217.37(c)(3)(ii) of this chapter; 
and
    (2) When reducing its gross credit exposure to a counterparty 
resulting from any credit transaction due to any

[[Page 61446]]

eligible guarantee, eligible equity derivative, or eligible credit 
derivative from an eligible guarantor and calculating its gross credit 
exposure to an eligible guarantor, pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) 
of this section, the currency mismatch adjustment approach of Sec.  
217.36(f) of this chapter.
    (i) Maturity mismatch adjustments. For purposes of calculating its 
net credit exposure to a counterparty under this section, a covered 
company must apply, as applicable, the maturity mismatch adjustment 
approach of Sec.  217.36(d) of this chapter:
    (1) When reducing its gross credit exposure to a counterparty 
resulting from any credit transaction due to any eligible collateral or 
any eligible guarantees, eligible equity derivatives, or eligible 
credit derivatives from an eligible guarantor, pursuant to paragraphs 
(b) through (d) of this section, and
    (2) In calculating its gross credit exposure to an issuer of 
eligible collateral, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, or to 
an eligible guarantor, pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this 
section; provided that
    (3) The eligible collateral, eligible guarantee, eligible equity 
derivative, or eligible credit derivative subject to paragraph (i)(1) 
of this section:
    (i) Has a shorter maturity than the credit transaction;
    (ii) Has an original maturity equal to or greater than one year;
    (iii) Has a residual maturity of not less than three months; and
    (iv) The adjustment approach is otherwise applicable.


Sec.  238.155  Investments in and exposures to securitization vehicles, 
investment funds, and other special purpose vehicles that are not 
subsidiaries of the covered company.

    (a) In general. (1) For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply:
    (i) SPV means a securitization vehicle, investment fund, or other 
special purpose vehicle that is not a subsidiary of the covered 
company.
    (ii) SPV exposure means an investment in the debt or equity of an 
SPV, or a credit derivative or equity derivative between the covered 
company and a third party where the covered company is the protection 
provider and the reference asset is an obligation or equity security 
of, or equity investment in, an SPV.
    (2)(i) A covered company must determine whether the amount of its 
gross credit exposure to an issuer of assets in an SPV, due to an SPV 
exposure, is equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the covered 
company's tier 1 capital using one of the following two methods:
    (A) The sum of all of the issuer's assets (with each asset valued 
in accordance with Sec.  238.153(a)) in the SPV; or
    (B) The application of the look-through approach described in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (ii) With respect to the determination required under paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) of this section, a covered company must use the same method 
to calculate gross credit exposure to each issuer of assets in a 
particular SPV.
    (iii) In making a determination under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 
section, the covered company must consider only the credit exposure to 
the issuer arising from the covered company's SPV exposure.
    (iv) For purposes of this paragraph (a)(2), a covered company that 
is unable to identify each issuer of assets in an SPV must attribute to 
a single unknown counterparty the amount of its gross credit exposure 
to all unidentified issuers and calculate such gross credit exposure 
using one method in either paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (a)(2)(i)(B) of 
this section.
    (3)(i) If a covered company determines pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section that the amount of its gross credit exposure to an 
issuer of assets in an SPV is less than 0.25 percent of the covered 
company's tier 1 capital, the amount of the covered company's gross 
credit exposure to that issuer may be attributed to either that issuer 
of assets or the SPV:
    (A) If attributed to the issuer of assets, the issuer of assets 
must be identified as a counterparty, and the gross credit exposure 
calculated under paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section to that issuer 
of assets must be aggregated with any other gross credit exposures 
(valued in accordance with Sec.  238.153) to that same counterparty; 
and
    (B) If attributed to the SPV, the covered company's gross credit 
exposure is equal to the covered company's SPV exposure, valued in 
accordance with Sec.  238.153(a).
    (ii) If a covered company determines pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section that the amount of its gross credit exposure to an 
issuer of assets in an SPV is equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of 
the covered company's tier 1 capital or the covered company is unable 
to determine that the amount of the gross credit exposure is less than 
0.25 percent of the covered company's tier 1 capital:
    (A) The covered company must calculate the amount of its gross 
credit exposure to the issuer of assets in the SPV using the look-
through approach in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (B) The issuer of assets in the SPV must be identified as a 
counterparty, and the gross credit exposure calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (b) must be aggregated with any other gross credit 
exposures (valued in accordance with Sec.  238.153) to that same 
counterparty; and
    (C) When applying the look-through approach in paragraph (b) of 
this section, a covered company that is unable to identify each issuer 
of assets in an SPV must attribute to a single unknown counterparty the 
amount of its gross credit exposure, calculated in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section, to all unidentified issuers.
    (iii) For purposes of this section, a covered company must 
aggregate all gross credit exposures to unknown counterparties for all 
SPVs as if the exposures related to a single unknown counterparty; this 
single unknown counterparty is subject to the limits of Sec.  238.152 
as if it were a single counterparty.
    (b) Look-through approach. A covered company that is required to 
calculate the amount of its gross credit exposure with respect to an 
issuer of assets in accordance with this paragraph (b) must calculate 
the amount as follows:
    (1) Where all investors in the SPV rank pari passu, the amount of 
the gross credit exposure to the issuer of assets is equal to the 
covered company's pro rata share of the SPV multiplied by the value of 
the underlying asset in the SPV, valued in accordance with Sec.  
238.153(a); and
    (2) Where all investors in the SPV do not rank pari passu, the 
amount of the gross credit exposure to the issuer of assets is equal 
to:
    (i) The pro rata share of the covered company's investment in the 
tranche of the SPV; multiplied by
    (ii) The lesser of:
    (A) The market value of the tranche in which the covered company 
has invested, except in the case of a debt security that is held to 
maturity, in which case the tranche must be valued at the amortized 
purchase price of the securities; and
    (B) The value of each underlying asset attributed to the issuer in 
the SPV, each as calculated pursuant to Sec.  238.153(a).
    (c) Exposures to third parties. (1) Notwithstanding any other 
requirement in this section, a covered company must recognize, for 
purposes of this subpart, a gross credit exposure to each third party 
that has a contractual obligation to provide credit or liquidity 
support to an SPV whose failure or material financial distress would 
cause a loss in the value of the covered company's SPV exposure.

[[Page 61447]]

    (2) The amount of any gross credit exposure that is required to be 
recognized to a third party under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is 
equal to the covered company's SPV exposure, up to the maximum 
contractual obligation of that third party to the SPV, valued in 
accordance with Sec.  238.153(a). (This gross credit exposure is in 
addition to the covered company's gross credit exposure to the SPV or 
the issuers of assets of the SPV, calculated in accordance with 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.)
    (3) A covered company must aggregate the gross credit exposure to a 
third party recognized in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
this section with its other gross credit exposures to that third party 
(that are unrelated to the SPV) for purposes of compliance with the 
limits of Sec.  238.152.


Sec.  238.156  Aggregation of exposures to more than one counterparty 
due to economic interdependence or control relationships.

    (a) In general. (1) If a covered company has an aggregate net 
credit exposure to any counterparty that exceeds 5 percent of its tier 
1 capital, the covered company must assess its relationship with the 
counterparty under paragraph (b)(2) of this section to determine 
whether the counterparty is economically interdependent with one or 
more other counterparties of the covered company and under paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section to determine whether the counterparty is 
connected by a control relationship with one or more other 
counterparties.
    (2) If, pursuant to an assessment required under paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section, the covered company determines that one or more of the 
factors of paragraph (b)(2) or (c)(1) of this section are met with 
respect to one or more counterparties, or the Board determines pursuant 
to paragraph (d) of this section that one or more other counterparties 
of a covered company are economically interdependent or that one or 
more other counterparties of a covered company are connected by a 
control relationship, the covered company must aggregate its net credit 
exposure to the counterparties for all purposes under this subpart, 
including, but not limited to, Sec.  238.152.
    (3) In connection with any request pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) or 
(c)(2) of this section, the Board may require the covered company to 
provide additional information.
    (b) Aggregation of exposures to more than one counterparty due to 
economic interdependence. (1) For purposes of this paragraph, two 
counterparties are economically interdependent if the failure, default, 
insolvency, or material financial distress of one counterparty would 
cause the failure, default, insolvency, or material financial distress 
of the other counterparty, taking into account the factors in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section.
    (2) A covered company must assess whether the financial distress of 
one counterparty (counterparty A) would prevent the ability of the 
other counterparty (counterparty B) to fully and timely repay 
counterparty B's liabilities and whether the insolvency or default of 
counterparty A is likely to be associated with the insolvency or 
default of counterparty B and, therefore, these counterparties are 
economically interdependent, by evaluating the following:
    (i) Whether 50 percent or more of one counterparty's gross revenue 
is derived from, or gross expenditures are directed to, transactions 
with the other counterparty;
    (ii) Whether counterparty A has fully or partly guaranteed the 
credit exposure of counterparty B, or is liable by other means, in an 
amount that is 50 percent or more of the covered company's net credit 
exposure to counterparty A;
    (iii) Whether 25 percent or more of one counterparty's production 
or output is sold to the other counterparty, which cannot easily be 
replaced by other customers;
    (iv) Whether the expected source of funds to repay the loans of 
both counterparties is the same and neither counterparty has another 
independent source of income from which the loans may be serviced and 
fully repaid; \1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An employer will not be treated as a source of repayment 
under this paragraph because of wages and salaries paid to an 
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) Whether two or more counterparties rely on the same source for 
the majority of their funding and, in the event of the common 
provider's default, an alternative provider cannot be found.
    (3)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if a 
covered company determines that one or more of the factors in paragraph 
(b)(2) is met, the covered company may request in writing a 
determination from the Board that those counterparties are not 
economically interdependent and that the covered company is not 
required to aggregate those counterparties.
    (ii) Upon a request by a covered company pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section, the Board may grant temporary relief to the 
covered company and not require the covered company to aggregate one 
counterparty with another counterparty provided that the counterparty 
could promptly modify its business relationships, such as by reducing 
its reliance on the other counterparty, to address any economic 
interdependence concerns, and provided that such relief is in the 
public interest and is consistent with the purpose of this subpart.
    (c) Aggregation of exposures to more than one counterparty due to 
certain control relationships. (1) For purposes of this subpart, one 
counterparty (counterparty A) is deemed to control the other 
counterparty (counterparty B) if:
    (i) Counterparty A owns, controls, or holds with the power to vote 
25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of counterparty B; 
or
    (ii) Counterparty A controls in any manner the election of a 
majority of the directors, trustees, or general partners (or 
individuals exercising similar functions) of counterparty B.
    (2)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, if a 
covered company determines that one or more of the factors in paragraph 
(c)(1) is met, the covered company may request in writing a 
determination from the Board that counterparty A does not control 
counterparty B and that the covered company is not required to 
aggregate those counterparties.
    (ii) Upon a request by a covered company pursuant to paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section, the Board may grant temporary relief to the 
covered company and not require the covered company to aggregate 
counterparty A with counterparty B provided that, taking into account 
the specific facts and circumstances, such indicia of control does not 
result in the entities being connected by control relationships for 
purposes of this subpart, and provided that such relief is in the 
public interest and is consistent with the purpose of this subpart.
    (d) Board determinations for aggregation of counterparties due to 
economic interdependence or control relationships. The Board may 
determine, after notice to the covered company and opportunity for 
hearing, that one or more counterparties of a covered company are:
    (1) Economically interdependent for purposes of this subpart, 
considering the factors in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, as well as 
any other indicia of economic interdependence that the Board determines 
in its discretion to be relevant; or
    (2) Connected by control relationships for purposes of this 
subpart, considering the factors in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
and whether counterparty A:

[[Page 61448]]

    (i) Controls the power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of 
voting securities of Counterparty B pursuant to a voting agreement;
    (ii) Has significant influence on the appointment or dismissal of 
counterparty B's administrative, management, or governing body, or the 
fact that a majority of members of such body have been appointed solely 
as a result of the exercise of counterparty A's voting rights; or
    (iii) Has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the 
management or policies of counterparty B.
    (e) Board determinations for aggregation of counterparties to 
prevent evasion. Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section, a covered company must aggregate its exposures to a 
counterparty with the covered company's exposures to another 
counterparty if the Board determines in writing after notice and 
opportunity for hearing, that the exposures to the two counterparties 
must be aggregated to prevent evasions of the purposes of this subpart, 
including, but not limited to Sec.  238.156.


Sec.  238.157  Exemptions.

    (a) Exempted exposure categories. The following categories of 
credit transactions are exempt from the limits on credit exposure under 
this subpart:
    (1) Any direct claim on, and the portion of a claim that is 
directly and fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the 
Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan 
Mortgage Corporation, only while operating under the conservatorship or 
receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and any additional 
obligation issued by a U.S. government-sponsored entity as determined 
by the Board;
    (2) Intraday credit exposure to a counterparty;
    (3) Any trade exposure to a qualifying central counterparty related 
to the covered company's clearing activity, including potential future 
exposure arising from transactions cleared by the qualifying central 
counterparty and pre-funded default fund contributions;
    (4) Any credit transaction with the Bank for International 
Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance 
Corporation, the International Development Association, the 
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, or the International Centre 
for Settlement of Investment Disputes;
    (5) Any credit transaction with the European Commission or the 
European Central Bank; and
    (6) Any transaction that the Board exempts if the Board finds that 
such exemption is in the public interest and is consistent with the 
purpose of this subpart.
    (b) Exemption for Federal Home Loan Banks. For purposes of this 
subpart, a covered company does not include any Federal Home Loan Bank.
    (c) Additional exemptions by the Board. The Board may, by 
regulation or order, exempt transactions, in whole or in part, from the 
definition of the term ``credit exposure,'' if the Board finds that the 
exemption is in the public interest.


Sec.  238.158   Compliance.

    (a) Scope of compliance. (1) Using all available data, including 
any data required to be maintained or reported to the Federal Reserve 
under this subpart, a covered company must comply with the requirements 
of this subpart on a daily basis at the end of each business day.
    (2) A covered company must report its compliance to the Federal 
Reserve as of the end of the quarter, unless the Board determines and 
notifies that company in writing that more frequent reporting is 
required.
    (3) In reporting its compliance, a covered company must calculate 
and include in its gross credit exposure to an issuer of eligible 
collateral or eligible guarantor the amounts of eligible collateral, 
eligible guarantees, eligible equity derivatives, and eligible credit 
derivatives that were provided to the covered company in connection 
with credit transactions with exempt counterparties, valued in 
accordance with and as required by Sec.  238.154(b) through (d) and 
(g).
    (b) Qualifying master netting agreement. With respect to any 
qualifying master netting agreement, a covered company must establish 
and maintain procedures that meet or exceed the requirements of Sec.  
217.3(d) of this chapter to monitor possible changes in relevant law 
and to ensure that the agreement continues to satisfy these 
requirements.
    (c) Noncompliance. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this 
section, if a covered company is not in compliance with this subpart 
with respect to a counterparty solely due to the circumstances listed 
in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this section, the covered 
company will not be subject to enforcement actions for a period of 90 
days (or, with prior notice to the company, such shorter or longer 
period determined by the Board, in its sole discretion, to be 
appropriate to preserve the safety and soundness of the covered 
company), if the covered company uses reasonable efforts to return to 
compliance with this subpart during this period. The covered company 
may not engage in any additional credit transactions with such a 
counterparty in contravention of this rule during the period of 
noncompliance, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (2) A covered company may request a special temporary credit 
exposure limit exemption from the Board. The Board may grant approval 
for such exemption in cases where the Board determines that such credit 
transactions are necessary or appropriate to preserve the safety and 
soundness of the covered company. In acting on a request for an 
exemption, the Board will consider the following:
    (i) A decrease in the covered company's capital stock and surplus;
    (ii) The merger of the covered company with another covered 
company;
    (iii) A merger of two counterparties; or
    (iv) An unforeseen and abrupt change in the status of a 
counterparty as a result of which the covered company's credit exposure 
to the counterparty becomes limited by the requirements of this 
section; or
    (v) Any other factor(s) the Board determines, in its discretion, is 
appropriate.
    (d) Other measures. The Board may impose supervisory oversight and 
additional reporting measures that it determines are appropriate to 
monitor compliance with this subpart. Covered companies must furnish, 
in the manner and form prescribed by the Board, such information to 
monitor compliance with this subpart and the limits therein as the 
Board may require.

PART 242--DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TITLE I OF THE DODD-FRANK ACT 
(REGULATION PP)

0
11. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 5311.

0
12. In Sec.  242.1, paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  242.1  Authority and purpose

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) A bank holding company or foreign bank subject to the Bank 
Holding Company Act (BHC Act) (12

[[Page 61449]]

U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) that is a bank holding company described in 
section 165(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(a)).
* * * * *
0
13. Section 242.4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  242.4  Significant nonbank financial companies and significant 
bank holding companies

    For purposes of Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act, the following 
definitions shall apply:
    (a) Significant nonbank financial company. A ``significant nonbank 
financial company'' means--
    (1) Any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board; and
    (2) Any other nonbank financial company that had $100 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets (as determined in accordance with 
applicable accounting standards) as of the end of its most recently 
completed fiscal year.
    (b) Significant bank holding company. A ``significant bank holding 
company'' means any bank holding company or company that is, or is 
treated in the United States as, a bank holding company, that had $100 
billion or more in total consolidated assets as of the end of the most 
recently completed calendar year, as reported on either the Federal 
Reserve's FR Y-9C (Consolidated Financial Statement for Holding 
Companies), or any successor form thereto, or the Federal Reserve's 
Form FR Y-7Q (Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking 
Organizations), or any successor form thereto.

PART 252--ENHANCED PRUDENTIAL STANDARDS (REGULATION YY)

0
14. The authority citation for part 252 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 
1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1844(c), 3101 et seq., 
3101 note, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5361, 5362, 5365, 5366, 5367, 
5368, 5371.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
15. In Sec.  252.1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.1  Authority and purpose.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Purpose. This part implements certain provisions of section 165 
of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), which require the Board to 
establish enhanced prudential standards for certain bank holding 
companies, foreign banking organizations, nonbank financial companies 
supervised by the Board, and certain other companies.
0
16. Section 252.2 is revised as follows:


Sec.  252.2  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply for 
purposes of this part:
    Affiliate has the same meaning as in section 2(k) of the Bank 
Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(k)) and Sec.  225.2(a) of this 
chapter.
    Applicable accounting standards means U.S. generally accepted 
accounting principles, international financial reporting standards, or 
such other accounting standards that a company uses in the ordinary 
course of its business in preparing its consolidated financial 
statements.
    Average cross-jurisdictional activity. A banking organization's 
average cross-jurisdictional activity is equal to the average of its 
cross jurisdictional activity for the four most recent calendar 
quarters or, if the company has not filed the FR Y-15 for each of the 
four most recent calendar quarters, for the most recent quarter or 
quarters, as applicable. Cross-jurisdictional activity is the sum of 
cross-jurisdictional claims and cross-jurisdictional liabilities.
    Average off-balance sheet exposure. A banking organization's 
average off-balance sheet exposure is equal to the average of its off-
balance sheet exposure for the four most recent calendar quarters or, 
if the banking organization has not filed each of the applicable 
reporting forms for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, for 
the most recent quarter or quarters, as applicable. Off-balance sheet 
exposure is equal to:
    (1) The total exposures of the banking organization, as reported by 
the banking organization on the FR Y-15 for each of the four most 
recent calendar quarters, or for the most recent quarter or quarters, 
as applicable; minus
    (2) The total consolidated assets of the banking organization.
    Average total consolidated assets. Average total consolidated 
assets of a banking organization are equal to its consolidated assets, 
calculated based on the average of the holding company's total 
consolidated assets in the four most recent quarters as reported 
quarterly on the FR Y-9C. If the holding company has not filed the FR 
Y-9C for each of the four most recent consecutive quarters, total 
consolidated assets means the average of its total consolidated assets, 
as reported on the FR Y-9C, for the most recent quarter or consecutive 
quarters, as applicable. Total consolidated assets are measured on the 
as-of date of the most recent FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the 
average.
    Average total nonbank assets. A banking organization's average 
total nonbank assets is equal to the average of the total nonbank 
assets of the banking organization, as reported on the FR Y-9LP, for 
the four most recent calendar quarters or, if the organization has not 
filed the FR Y-9LP for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, 
for the most recent quarter or quarters, as applicable.
    Average weighted short-term wholesale funding. A banking 
organization's average weighted short-term wholesale funding is equal 
to the average of the banking organization's weighted short-term 
wholesale funding, as reported on the FR Y-15, for each of the four 
most recent calendar quarters or, if the banking organization has not 
filed the FR Y-15 for each of the four most recent calendar quarters, 
for the most recent quarter or quarters, as applicable.
    Bank holding company has the same meaning as in section 2(a) of the 
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(a)) and Sec.  225.2(c) of this 
chapter.
    Banking organization. Banking organization means a bank holding 
company that is:
    (1) Incorporated in or organized under the laws of the United 
States or in any State;
    (2) Not a consolidated subsidiary of a bank holding company that is 
incorporated in or organized under the laws of the United States or in 
any State; and
    (3) Is not a U.S. intermediate holding company established or 
designated by a foreign banking organization.
    Board means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
    Category II bank holding company means a bank holding company 
identified as a Category II banking organization pursuant to Sec.  
252.5.
    Category III bank holding company means a bank holding company 
identified as a Category III banking organization pursuant to Sec.  
252.5.
    Category IV bank holding company means a bank holding company 
identified as a Category IV banking organization pursuant to Sec.  
252.5.
    Combined U.S. operations of a foreign banking organization means:
    (1) Its U.S. branches and agencies, if any; and
    (2)(i) If the foreign banking organization has established a U.S. 
intermediate holding company, the U.S. intermediate holding company and 
the subsidiaries of such U.S. intermediate holding company; or
    (ii) If the foreign banking organization has not established a U.S. 
intermediate holding company, the U.S. subsidiaries of the foreign 
banking organization (excluding any section 2(h)(2) company,

[[Page 61450]]

if applicable), and subsidiaries of such U.S. subsidiaries.
    Company means a corporation, partnership, limited liability 
company, depository institution, business trust, special purpose 
entity, association, or similar organization.
    Control has the same meaning as in section 2(a) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(a)), and the terms controlled and 
controlling shall be construed consistently with the term control.
    Council means the Financial Stability Oversight Council established 
by section 111 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5321).
    Credit enhancement means a qualified financial contract of the type 
set forth in section 210(c)(8)(D)(ii)(XII), (iii)(X), (iv)(V), (v)(VI), 
or (vi)(VI) of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(ii)(XII), (iii)(X), 
(iv)(V), (v)(VI), or (vi)(VI)) or a credit enhancement that the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation determines by regulation is a qualified 
financial contract pursuant to section 210(c)(8)(D)(i) of Title II of 
the act (12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(i)).
    Cross-jurisdictional activity. A banking organization's cross-
jurisdictional activity is equal to the sum of its cross-jurisdictional 
claims and cross-jurisdictional liabilities, as reported on the FR Y-
15.
    Depository institution has the same meaning as in section 3 of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)).
    DPC branch subsidiary means any subsidiary of a U.S. branch or a 
U.S. agency acquired, or formed to hold assets acquired, in the 
ordinary course of business and for the sole purpose of securing or 
collecting debt previously contracted in good faith by that branch or 
agency.
    Foreign banking organization has the same meaning as in Sec.  
211.21(o) of this chapter, provided that if the top-tier foreign 
banking organization is incorporated in or organized under the laws of 
any State, the foreign banking organization shall not be treated as a 
foreign banking organization for purposes of this part.
    FR Y-7 means the Annual Report of Foreign Banking Organizations 
reporting form.
    FR Y-7Q means the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking 
Organizations reporting form.
    FR Y-9C means the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding 
Companies reporting form.
    FR Y-9LP means the Parent Company Only Financial Statements of 
Large Holding Companies.
    FR Y-15 means the Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.
    Global methodology means the assessment methodology and the higher 
loss absorbency requirement for global systemically important banks 
issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, as updated from 
time to time.
    Global systemically important BHC means a bank holding company 
identified as a global systemically important BHC pursuant to 12 CFR 
217.402.
    Global systemically important banking organization means a global 
systemically important bank, as such term is defined in the global 
methodology.
    Global systemically important foreign banking organization means a 
top-tier foreign banking organization that is identified as a global 
systemically important foreign banking organization under Sec.  
252.153(b)(4).
    GAAP means generally accepted accounting principles as used in the 
United States.
    Home country, with respect to a foreign banking organization, means 
the country in which the foreign banking organization is chartered or 
incorporated.
    Home country resolution authority, with respect to a foreign 
banking organization, means the governmental entity or entities that 
under the laws of the foreign banking organization's home county has 
responsibility for the resolution of the top-tier foreign banking 
organization.
    Home country supervisor, with respect to a foreign banking 
organization, means the governmental entity or entities that under the 
laws of the foreign banking organization's home county has 
responsibility for the supervision and regulation of the top-tier 
foreign banking organization.
    Nonbank financial company supervised by the Board means a company 
that the Council has determined under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act 
(12 U.S.C. 5323) shall be supervised by the Board and for which such 
determination is still in effect.
    Non-U.S. affiliate means any affiliate of a foreign banking 
organization that is incorporated or organized in a country other than 
the United States.
    Off-balance sheet exposure A banking organization's off-balance 
sheet exposure is equal to:
    (1) The total exposure of the banking organization, as reported by 
the banking organization on the FR Y-15; minus
    (2) The total consolidated assets of the banking organization for 
the same calendar quarter.
    Publicly traded means an instrument that is traded on:
    (1) Any exchange registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission as a national securities exchange under section 6 of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f); or
    (2) Any non-U.S.-based securities exchange that:
    (i) Is registered with, or approved by, a non-U.S. national 
securities regulatory authority; and
    (ii) Provides a liquid, two-way market for the instrument in 
question, meaning that there are enough independent bona fide offers to 
buy and sell so that a sales price reasonably related to the last sales 
price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be 
determined promptly and a trade can be settled at such price within a 
reasonable time period conforming with trade custom.
    (3) A company can rely on its determination that a particular non-
U.S.-based securities exchange provides a liquid two-way market unless 
the Board determines that the exchange does not provide a liquid two-
way market.
    Section 2(h)(2) company has the same meaning as in section 2(h)(2) 
of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(h)(2)).
    State means any state, commonwealth, territory, or possession of 
the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
Guam, or the United States Virgin Islands.
    Subsidiary has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).
    Top-tier foreign banking organization, with respect to a foreign 
bank, means the top-tier foreign banking organization or, 
alternatively, a subsidiary of the top-tier foreign banking 
organization designated by the Board.
    Total consolidated assets Total consolidated assets of a banking 
organization are equal to its consolidated assets, as reported on the 
FR Y-9C.
    Total nonbank assets A banking organization's total nonbank assets 
are equal to the total nonbank assets of the banking organization, as 
reported on the FR Y-9LP.

[[Page 61451]]

    U.S. agency has the same meaning as the term ``agency'' in Sec.  
211.21(b) of this chapter.
    U.S. branch has the same meaning as the term ``branch'' in Sec.  
211.21(e) of this chapter.
    U.S. branches and agencies means the U.S. branches and U.S. 
agencies of a foreign banking organization.
    U.S. government agency means an agency or instrumentality of the 
United States whose obligations are fully and explicitly guaranteed as 
to the timely payment of principal and interest by the full faith and 
credit of the United States.
    U.S. government-sponsored enterprise means an entity originally 
established or chartered by the U.S. government to serve public 
purposes specified by the U.S. Congress, but whose obligations are not 
explicitly guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United 
States.
    U.S. intermediate holding company means the top-tier U.S. company 
that is required to be established pursuant to Sec.  252.153.
    U.S. subsidiary means any subsidiary that is incorporated in or 
organized under the laws of the United States or in any State, 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the North Mariana 
Islands, the American Samoa, Guam, or the United States Virgin Islands.
    Weighted short-term wholesale funding means a banking 
organization's weighted short-term wholesale funding that is equal to 
the banking organization's weighted short-term wholesale funding, as 
reported on the FR Y-15.
0
17. Add Sec.  252.5 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  252.5  Categorization of banking organizations.

    (a) General. A banking organization with average total consolidated 
assets of $100 billion or more must determine its category among the 
four categories described in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 
at least quarterly.
    (b) Global systemically important BHC. (1) A banking organization 
is a global systemically important BHC if the banking organization is 
identified as a global systemically important BHC pursuant to 12 CFR 
217.402.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
a banking organization continues to be a global systemically important 
BHC until the banking organization has not been identified as a global 
systemically important BHC in each of the four most recent calendar 
quarters.
    (c) Category II. (1) A banking organization is a Category II 
banking organization if the banking organization:
    (i)(A) Has $700 billion or more in average total consolidated 
assets; or
    (B) Has $75 billion or more in average cross-jurisdictional 
activity and $100 billion or more in average total consolidated assets; 
and
    (ii) Is not a global systemically important BHC.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
a banking organization continues to be a Category II banking 
organization until the banking organization:
    (i) Has:
    (A) Less than $700 billion in total consolidated assets for each of 
the four most recent calendar quarters; and
    (B) Less than $75 billion in cross-jurisdictional activity for each 
of the four most recent calendar quarters;
    (ii) Has less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets for 
each of the four most recent calendar quarters; or
    (iii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) to be a global 
systemically important BHC.
    (d) Category III. (1) A banking organization is a Category III 
banking organization if the banking organization:
    (i) Has:
    (A) $250 billion or more in average total consolidated assets; or
    (B) $100 billion or more in average total consolidated assets and 
at least:
    (1) $75 billion in average total nonbank assets;
    (2) $75 billion in average weighted short-term wholesale funding; 
or
    (3) $75 billion in average off-balance sheet exposure;
    (ii) Is not a global systemically important BHC; and
    (iii) Is not a Category II banking organization.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 
a banking organization continues to be a Category III banking 
organization until the banking organization:
    (i) Has:
    (A) Less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets for each of 
the four most recent calendar quarters;
    (B) Less than $75 billion in total nonbank assets for each of the 
four most recent calendar quarters;
    (C) Less than $75 billion in weighted short-term wholesale funding 
for each of the four most recent calendar quarters; and
    (D) Less than $75 billion in off-balance sheet exposure for each of 
the four most recent calendar quarters; or
    (ii) Has less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets for 
each of the four most recent calendar quarters;
    (iii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to be 
a global systemically important BHC; or
    (iv) Meets the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section to be a 
Category II banking organization.
    (e) Category IV. (1) A banking organization with average total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more is a Category IV banking 
organization if the banking organization:
    (i) Is not global systemically important BHC;
    (ii) Is not a Category II banking organization; and
    (iii) Is not a Category III banking organization.
    (2) After meeting the criteria in paragraph (e)(1), a banking 
organization continues to be a Category IV banking organization until 
the banking organization:
    (i) Has less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets for 
each of the four most recent calendar quarters;
    (ii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to be a 
global systemically important BHC;
    (iii) Meets the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section to be 
a Category II banking organization; or
    (iv) Meets the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to be a 
Category III banking organization.

Subpart B--Company-Run Stress Test Requirements for State Member 
Banks With Total Consolidated Assets Over $10 Billion

0
18. Section 252.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.11  Authority and purpose

    (a) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 1818, 1831p-1, 3906-3909, 5365.
    (b) Purpose. This subpart implements section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-
Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)), which requires state member banks 
with total consolidated assets of greater than $10 billion to conduct 
annual stress tests. This subpart also establishes definitions of 
stress tests and related terms, methodologies for conducting stress 
tests, and reporting and disclosure requirements.
0
19. In Sec.  252.12:
0
a. Paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (g), and (n) are revised;
0
b. Paragraph (o) is removed; and
0
c. Paragraphs (p) through (u) are redesignated as paragraphs (o) 
through (t) and revised.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  252.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Asset threshold means a state member bank with average total 
consolidated assets of greater than $10 billion.
    (d) Average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
total

[[Page 61452]]

consolidated assets as reported by a state member bank on its 
Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) for the four 
most recent consecutive quarters. If the state member bank has not 
filed the Call Report, as applicable, for each of the four most recent 
consecutive quarters, average total consolidated assets means the 
average of the company's total consolidated assets, as reported on the 
state member bank's Call Report for the most recent consecutive 
quarters. Average total consolidated assets are measured on the as-of 
date of the most recent Call Report used in the calculation of the 
average.
* * * * *
    (f) Baseline scenario means a set of conditions that affect the 
U.S. economy or the financial condition of a state member bank, and 
that reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook.
    (g) Capital action has the same meaning as in Sec.  225.8 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    (n) Regulatory capital ratio means a capital ratio for which the 
Board established minimum requirements for the state member bank by 
regulation or order, including a company's tier 1 and supplementary 
leverage ratio as calculated under 12 CFR part 217, including the 
deductions required under 12 CFR 248.12, as applicable, and the 
company's common equity tier 1, tier 1, and total risk-based capital 
ratios as calculated under 12 CFR part 217, including the deductions 
required under 12 CFR 248.12 and the transition provisions at 12 CFR 
217.1(f)(4) and 217.300; except that the company shall not use the 
advanced approaches to calculate its regulatory capital ratios.
    (o) Scenarios are those sets of conditions that affect the U.S. 
economy or the financial condition of a state member bank that the 
Board annually determines are appropriate for use in the company-run 
stress tests, including, but not limited to, baseline, adverse, and 
severely adverse scenarios.
    (p) Severely adverse scenario means a set of conditions that affect 
the U.S. economy or the financial condition of a state member bank and 
that overall are more severe than those associated with the adverse 
scenario and may include trading or other additional components.
    (q) State member bank has the same meaning as in Sec.  208.2(g) of 
this chapter.
    (r) Stress test means a process to assess the potential impact of 
scenarios on the consolidated earnings, losses, and capital of a state 
member bank over the planning horizon, taking into account the current 
condition, risks, exposures, strategies, and activities.
    (s) Stress test cycle means:
    (1) Until September 30, 2015, the period beginning on October 1 of 
a calendar year and ending on September 30 of the following calendar 
year, and
    (2) Beginning October 1, 2015, the period beginning on January 1 of 
a calendar year and ending on December 31 of that year.
    (t) Subsidiary has the same meaning as in Sec.  225.2(o) of this 
chapter.
0
20. Section 252.13 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.13  Applicability.

    (a) Scope--(1) Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
of this section, this subpart applies to any state member bank with 
average total consolidated assets (as defined in Sec.  252.12(d)) of 
greater than $10 billion.
    (2) Ongoing applicability. A state member bank (including any 
successor company) that is subject to any requirement in this subpart 
shall remain subject to any such requirement unless and until its total 
consolidated assets fall below $10 billion for each of four consecutive 
quarters, as reported on the Call Report and effective on the as-of 
date of the fourth consecutive Call Report.
    (b) Transition period. (1) A state member bank that exceeds the 
asset threshold for the first time on or before March 31 of a given 
year, must comply with the requirements of this subpart beginning on 
January 1 of the following year, unless that time is extended by the 
Board in writing.
    (2) A state member bank that exceeds the asset threshold for the 
first time after March 31 of a given year must comply with the 
requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the second year 
following that given year, unless that time is extended by the Board in 
writing.
    (3) Transition periods for companies subject to the supplementary 
leverage ratio. Notwithstanding Sec.  252.12(n), for purposes of the 
stress test cycle beginning on January 1, 2016, a company shall not 
include an estimate of its supplementary leverage ratio.
0
21. Section 252.14 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.14   Annual stress test.

    (a) General requirements--(1) General. A state member bank must 
conduct an annual stress test in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(3) of this section.
    (2) Timing for the stress test cycle beginning on October 1, 2014. 
For the stress test cycle beginning on October 1, 2014:
    (i) A state member bank that is a covered company subsidiary must 
conduct its stress test by January 5, 2015, based on data as of 
September 30, 2014, unless the time or the as-of date is extended by 
the Board in writing; and
    (ii) A state member bank that is not a covered company subsidiary 
and a bank holding company must conduct its stress test by March 31, 
2015, based on data as of September 30, 2014, unless the time or the 
as-of date is extended by the Board in writing.
    (3) Timing for each stress test cycle beginning after October 1, 
2014. For each stress test cycle beginning after October 1, 2014:
    (i) A state member bank that is a covered company subsidiary must 
conduct its stress test by April 5 of each calendar year based on data 
as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year, unless the time or 
the as-of date is extended by the Board in writing; and
    (ii) A state member bank that is not a covered company subsidiary 
must conduct its stress test by July 31 of each calendar year using 
financial statement data as of December 31 of the preceding calendar 
year, unless the time or the as-of date is extended by the Board in 
writing.
    (b) Scenarios provided by the Board--(1) In general. In conducting 
a stress test under this section, a state member bank must, at a 
minimum, use the scenarios provided by the Board. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, the Board will provide a 
description of the scenarios to each state member bank no later than 
November 15, 2014 (for the stress test cycle beginning on October 1, 
2014) and no later than February 15 of that calendar year (for each 
stress test cycle beginning thereafter).
    (2) Additional components. (i) The Board may require a state member 
bank with significant trading activity, as determined by the Board and 
specified in the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing report (FR Y-
14), to include a trading and counterparty component in its adverse and 
severely adverse scenarios in the stress test required by this section. 
The Board may also require a state member bank that is subject to 12 
CFR part 208, appendix E (or, beginning on January 1, 2015, 12 CFR part 
217, subpart F) or that is a subsidiary of a bank holding company that 
is subject to either this paragraph or Sec.  252.54(b)(2)(i) to include 
a trading and counterparty component in the state member bank's adverse 
and severely adverse scenarios in the stress test required by this 
section. For the stress test cycle beginning on October 1, 2014, the 
data used in this component must be

[[Page 61453]]

as of a date between October 1 and December 1 of 2014 selected by the 
Board, and the Board will communicate the as-of date and a description 
of the component to the company no later than December 1 of the 
calendar year. For each stress test cycle beginning thereafter, the 
data used in this component must be as of a date between January 1 and 
March 1 of that calendar year selected by the Board, and the Board will 
communicate the as-of date and a description of the component to the 
company no later than March 1 of that calendar year.
    (ii) The Board may require a state member bank to include one or 
more additional components in its adverse and severely adverse 
scenarios in the stress test required by this section based on the 
company's financial condition, size, complexity, risk profile, scope of 
operations, or activities, or risks to the U.S. economy.
    (3) Additional scenarios. The Board may require a state member bank 
to include one or more additional scenarios in the stress test required 
by this section based on the company's financial condition, size, 
complexity, risk profile, scope of operations, or activities, or risks 
to the U.S. economy.
    (4) Notice and response--(i) Notification of additional component. 
If the Board requires a state member bank to include one or more 
additional components in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios 
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section or to use one or more additional 
scenarios under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Board will notify 
the company in writing by September 30, 2014 (for the stress test cycle 
beginning on October 1, 2014) and by December 31 (for each stress test 
cycle beginning thereafter).
    (ii) Request for reconsideration and Board response. Within 14 
calendar days of receipt of a notification under this paragraph, the 
state member bank may request in writing that the Board reconsider the 
requirement that the company include the additional component(s) or 
additional scenario(s), including an explanation as to why the 
reconsideration should be granted. The Board will respond in writing 
within 14 calendar days of receipt of the company's request.
    (iii) Description of component. The Board will provide the state 
member bank with a description of any additional component(s) or 
additional scenario(s) by December 1, 2014 (for the stress test cycle 
beginning on October 1, 2014) and by March 1 (for each stress test 
cycle beginning thereafter).
0
22. Section 252.15 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraph (b); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) and revising it.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  252.15  Methodologies and practices.

    (a) Potential impact on capital. In conducting a stress test under 
Sec.  252.14, for each quarter of the planning horizon, a state member 
bank must estimate the following for each scenario required to be used:
* * * * *
    (b) Controls and oversight of stress testing processes--(1) In 
general. The senior management of a state member bank must establish 
and maintain a system of controls, oversight, and documentation, 
including policies and procedures, that are designed to ensure that its 
stress testing processes are effective in meeting the requirements in 
this subpart. These policies and procedures must, at a minimum, 
describe the company's stress testing practices and methodologies, and 
processes for validating and updating the company's stress test 
practices and methodologies consistent with applicable laws, 
regulations, and supervisory guidance.
    (2) Oversight of stress testing processes. The board of directors, 
or a committee thereof, of a state member bank must review and approve 
the policies and procedures of the stress testing processes as 
frequently as economic conditions or the condition of the company may 
warrant, but no less than annually. The board of directors and senior 
management of the state member bank must receive a summary of the 
results of the stress test conducted under this section.
    (3) Role of stress testing results. The board of directors and 
senior management of a state member bank must consider the results of 
the stress test in the normal course of business, including but not 
limited to, the state member bank's capital planning, assessment of 
capital adequacy, and risk management practices.
0
23. Section 252.16(a)(1) and (3) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.16   Reports of stress test results.

    (a) Reports to the Board of stress test results--(1) General. A 
state member bank must report the results of the stress test to the 
Board in the manner and form prescribed by the Board, in accordance 
with paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Timing for each stress test cycle beginning after October 1, 
2014. For each stress test cycle beginning after October 1, 2014:
    (i) A state member bank that is a covered company subsidiary must 
report the results of the stress test to the Board by April 5, unless 
that time is extended by the Board in writing; and
    (ii) A state member bank that is not a covered company subsidiary 
must report the results of the stress test to the Board by July 31, 
unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 252.17 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) and the first paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Correctly designating the second paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph 
(a)(4) and revising it; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  252.17   Disclosure of stress test results.

    (a) Public disclosure of results--(1) General. (i) A state member 
bank must publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test 
required under this subpart.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (3) Timing for each stress test cycle beginning after October 1, 
2014. For each stress test cycle beginning after October 1, 2014:
    (i) A state member bank that is a covered company subsidiary must 
publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test within 15 
calendar days after the Board discloses the results of its supervisory 
stress test of the covered company pursuant to Sec.  252.46(c), unless 
that time is extended by the Board in writing; and
    (ii) A state member bank that is not a covered company subsidiary 
must publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test in 
the period beginning on October 15 and ending on October 31, unless 
that time is extended by the Board in writing.
    (4) Disclosure method. The summary required under this section may 
be disclosed on the website of a state member bank, or in any other 
forum that is reasonably accessible to the public.
    (b) Summary of results--(1) State member banks that are 
subsidiaries of bank holding companies. A state member bank that is a 
subsidiary of a bank holding company satisfies the public disclosure 
requirements under this subpart if the bank holding company publicly 
discloses summary results of its stress test pursuant to this section 
or Sec.  252.58, unless the Board determines that the disclosures at 
the holding company level do not adequately capture the potential 
impact

[[Page 61454]]

of the scenarios on the capital of the state member bank and requires 
the state member bank to make public disclosures.
    (2) State member banks that are not subsidiaries of bank holding 
companies. A state member bank that is not a subsidiary of a bank 
holding company or that is required to make disclosures under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section must publicly disclose, at a minimum, the 
following information regarding the severely adverse scenario:
    (i) A description of the types of risks being included in the 
stress test;
    (ii) A summary description of the methodologies used in the stress 
test;
    (iii) Estimates of--
    (A) Aggregate losses;
    (B) Pre-provision net revenue
    (C) Provision for credit losses;
    (D) Net income; and
    (E) Pro forma regulatory capital ratios and any other capital 
ratios specified by the Board; and
    (iv) An explanation of the most significant causes for the changes 
in regulatory capital ratios.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Risk Committee Requirement for Bank Holding Companies 
With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More and Less Than 
$100 Billion

0
25. The heading of subpart C is revised to read as set forth above.
0
26. Section 252.21 paragraphs (a) through (c) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  252.21  Applicability.

    (a) General applicability. A bank holding company must comply with 
the risk-committee requirements set forth in this subpart beginning on 
the first day of the ninth quarter following the date on which its 
total consolidated assets equal or exceed $50 billion.
    (b) Total consolidated assets. Total consolidated assets of a bank 
holding company for purposes of this subpart are equal to its 
consolidated assets, calculated based on the average of the bank 
holding company's total consolidated assets in the four most recent 
quarters as reported quarterly on its FR Y-9C. If the bank holding 
company has not filed the FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent 
consecutive quarters, total consolidated assets means the average of 
its total consolidated assets, as reported on the FR Y-9C, for the most 
recent quarter or consecutive quarters, as applicable. Total 
consolidated assets are measured on the as-of date of the most recent 
FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the average.
    (c) Cessation of requirements. A bank holding company will remain 
subject to the requirements of this subpart until the earlier of the 
date on which:
    (1) Its reported total consolidated assets on the FR Y-9C are below 
$50 billion for each of four consecutive calendar quarters; and
    (2) It becomes subject to the requirements of subpart D of this 
part.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 252.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.22   Risk committee requirement for bank holding companies 
with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.

    (a) Risk committee--(1) General. A bank holding company with total 
consolidated assets of $50 billion or more must maintain a risk 
committee that approves and periodically reviews the risk-management 
policies of the bank holding company's global operations and oversees 
the operation of the bank holding company's global risk-management 
framework.
    (2) Risk-management framework. The bank holding company's global 
risk-management framework must be commensurate with its structure, risk 
profile, complexity, activities, and size and must include:
    (i) Policies and procedures establishing risk-management 
governance, risk-management procedures, and risk-control infrastructure 
for its global operations; and
    (ii) Processes and systems for implementing and monitoring 
compliance with such policies and procedures, including:
    (A) Processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks and 
risk-management deficiencies, including regarding emerging risks, and 
ensuring effective and timely implementation of actions to address 
emerging risks and risk-management deficiencies for its global 
operations;
    (B) Processes and systems for establishing managerial and employee 
responsibility for risk management;
    (C) Processes and systems for ensuring the independence of the 
risk-management function; and
    (D) Processes and systems to integrate risk management and 
associated controls with management goals and its compensation 
structure for its global operations.
    (3) Corporate governance requirements. The risk committee must:
    (i) Have a formal, written charter that is approved by the bank 
holding company's board of directors;
    (ii) Be an independent committee of the board of directors that 
has, as its sole and exclusive function, responsibility for the risk-
management policies of the bank holding company's global operations and 
oversight of the operation of the bank holding company's global risk-
management framework;
    (iii) Report directly to the bank holding company's board of 
directors;
    (iv) Receive and review regular reports on not less than a 
quarterly basis from the bank holding company's chief risk officer 
provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section; and
    (v) Meet at least quarterly, or more frequently as needed, and 
fully document and maintain records of its proceedings, including risk-
management decisions.
    (4) Minimum member requirements. The risk committee must:
    (i) Include at least one member having experience in identifying, 
assessing, and managing risk exposures of large, complex financial 
firms; and
    (ii) Be chaired by a director who:
    (A) Is not an officer or employee of the bank holding company and 
has not been an officer or employee of the bank holding company during 
the previous three years;
    (B) Is not a member of the immediate family, as defined in Sec.  
225.41(b)(3) of this chapter, of a person who is, or has been within 
the last three years, an executive officer of the bank holding company, 
as defined in Sec.  215.2(e)(1) of this chapter; and
    (C)(1) Is an independent director under Item 407 of the Securities 
and Exchange Commission's Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.407(a)), if the 
bank holding company has an outstanding class of securities traded on 
an exchange registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
as a national securities exchange under section 6 of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f) (national securities exchange); or
    (2) Would qualify as an independent director under the listing 
standards of a national securities exchange, as demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the Board, if the bank holding company does not have an 
outstanding class of securities traded on a national securities 
exchange.
    (b) Chief risk officer--(1) General. A bank holding company with 
total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more must appoint a chief 
risk officer with experience in identifying, assessing, and managing 
risk exposures of large, complex financial firms.
    (2) Responsibilities. (i) The chief risk officer is responsible for 
overseeing:
    (A) The establishment of risk limits on an enterprise-wide basis 
and the

[[Page 61455]]

monitoring of compliance with such limits;
    (B) The implementation of and ongoing compliance with the policies 
and procedures set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and the 
development and implementation of the processes and systems set forth 
in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section; and
    (C) The management of risks and risk controls within the parameters 
of the company's risk control framework, and monitoring and testing of 
the company's risk controls.
    (ii) The chief risk officer is responsible for reporting risk-
management deficiencies and emerging risks to the risk committee and 
resolving risk-management deficiencies in a timely manner.
    (3) Corporate governance requirements. (i) The bank holding company 
must ensure that the compensation and other incentives provided to the 
chief risk officer are consistent with providing an objective 
assessment of the risks taken by the bank holding company; and
    (ii) The chief risk officer must report directly to both the risk 
committee and chief executive officer of the company.

Subpart D--Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding Companies 
With Total Consolidated Assets of $100 Billion or More

0
28. The heading of subpart D is revised to read as set forth above.
0
29. Section 252.30 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.30   Scope.

    This subpart applies to bank holding companies with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more. Total consolidated assets 
of a bank holding company are equal to the consolidated assets of the 
bank holding company, as calculated in accordance with Sec.  252.31(b).
0
30. Section 252.31 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.31   Applicability.

    (a) Applicability--(1) Initial applicability. Subject to paragraph 
(d) of this section, a bank holding company must comply with the risk-
management and risk-committee requirements set forth in Sec.  252.33 
and the liquidity risk-management and liquidity stress test 
requirements set forth in Sec. Sec.  252.34 and 252.35 no later than 
the first day of the fifth quarter following the date on which its 
total consolidated assets equal or exceed $100 billion.
    (2) Changes in requirements following a change in category. A bank 
holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more 
that changes from one category of banking organization described in 
Sec.  252.5(b) through (e) to another of such categories must comply 
with the requirements applicable to the new category no later than on 
the first day of the second quarter following the change in the bank 
holding company's category.
    (b) Total consolidated assets. Total consolidated assets of a bank 
holding company for purposes of this subpart are equal to its 
consolidated assets, calculated based on the average of the bank 
holding company's total consolidated assets in the four most recent 
quarters as reported quarterly on the FR Y-9C. If the bank holding 
company has not filed the FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent 
consecutive quarters, total consolidated assets means the average of 
its total consolidated assets, as reported on the FR Y-9C, for the most 
recent quarter or consecutive quarters, as applicable. Total 
consolidated assets are measured on the as-of date of the most recent 
FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the average.
    (c) Cessation of requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (d) 
of this section, a bank holding company is subject to the risk-
management and risk committee requirements set forth in Sec.  252.33 
and the liquidity risk-management and liquidity stress test 
requirements set forth in Sec. Sec.  252.34 and 252.35 until its 
reported total consolidated assets on the FR Y-9C are below $100 
billion for each of four consecutive calendar quarters.
    (d) Applicability for bank holding companies that are subsidiaries 
of foreign banking organizations. In the event that a bank holding 
company that has total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more is 
controlled by a foreign banking organization, the U.S. intermediate 
holding company established or designated by the foreign banking 
organization must comply with the risk-management and risk committee 
requirements set forth in Sec.  252.153(e)(3) and the liquidity risk-
management and liquidity stress test requirements set forth in Sec.  
252.153(e)(4).
0
31. Section 252.32 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.32  Risk-based and leverage capital and stress test 
requirements.

    A bank holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 
billion or more must comply with, and hold capital commensurate with 
the requirements of, any regulations adopted by the Board relating to 
capital planning and stress tests, in accordance with the applicability 
provisions set forth therein.
0
32. Section 252.33(a)(1) and (b)(1) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.33  Risk-management and risk committee requirements.

    (a) Risk committee--(1) General. A bank holding company with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must maintain a risk 
committee that approves and periodically reviews the risk-management 
policies of the bank holding company's global operations and oversees 
the operation of the bank holding company's global risk-management 
framework. The risk committee's responsibilities include liquidity 
risk-management as set forth in Sec.  252.34(b).
* * * * *
    (b) Chief risk officer--(1) General. A bank holding company with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must appoint a chief 
risk officer with experience in identifying, assessing, and managing 
risk exposures of large, complex financial firms.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 252.34(a)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i), (d), (e)(1), 
(f)(1), (f)(2)(i), (g), and (h) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.34  Liquidity risk-management requirements.

    (a) * * * (1) Liquidity risk tolerance. The board of directors of a 
bank holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more must:
* * * * *
    (c) * * * (1) * * * (i) Senior management of a bank holding company 
with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must establish 
and implement strategies, policies, and procedures designed to 
effectively manage the risk that the bank holding company's financial 
condition or safety and soundness would be adversely affected by its 
inability or the market's perception of its inability to meet its cash 
and collateral obligations (liquidity risk). The board of directors 
must approve the strategies, policies, and procedures pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Independent review function. (1) A bank holding company with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must establish and 
maintain a review function that is independent of management functions 
that execute funding to evaluate its liquidity risk management.
    (2) The independent review function must:
    (i) Regularly, but no less frequently than annually, review and 
evaluate the

[[Page 61456]]

adequacy and effectiveness of the company's liquidity risk management 
processes, including its liquidity stress test processes and 
assumptions;
    (ii) Assess whether the company's liquidity risk-management 
function complies with applicable laws and regulations, and sound 
business practices; and
    (iii) Report material liquidity risk management issues to the board 
of directors or the risk committee in writing for corrective action, to 
the extent permitted by applicable law.
    (e) * * * (1) A bank holding company with total consolidated assets 
of $100 billion or more must produce comprehensive cash-flow 
projections that project cash flows arising from assets, liabilities, 
and off-balance sheet exposures over, at a minimum, short- and long-
term time horizons. The bank holding company must update short-term 
cash-flow projections daily and must update longer-term cash-flow 
projections at least monthly.
* * * * *
    (f) * * * (1) A bank holding company with total consolidated assets 
of $100 billion or more must establish and maintain a contingency 
funding plan that sets out the company's strategies for addressing 
liquidity needs during liquidity stress events. The contingency funding 
plan must be commensurate with the company's capital structure, risk 
profile, complexity, activities, size, and established liquidity risk 
tolerance. The company must update the contingency funding plan at 
least annually, and when changes to market and idiosyncratic conditions 
warrant.
    (2) * * * (i) Quantitative assessment. The contingency funding plan 
must:
    (A) Identify liquidity stress events that could have a significant 
impact on the bank holding company's liquidity;
    (B) Assess the level and nature of the impact on the bank holding 
company's liquidity that may occur during identified liquidity stress 
events;
    (C) Identify the circumstances in which the bank holding company 
would implement its action plan described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of 
this section, which circumstances must include failure to meet any 
minimum liquidity requirement imposed by the Board;
    (D) Assess available funding sources and needs during the 
identified liquidity stress events;
    (E) Identify alternative funding sources that may be used during 
the identified liquidity stress events; and
    (F) Incorporate information generated by the liquidity stress 
testing required under Sec.  252.35(a).
* * * * *
    (g) Liquidity risk limits--(1) General. (i) A global systemically 
important BHC, Category II bank holding company, or Category III bank 
holding company must monitor sources of liquidity risk and establish 
limits on liquidity risk, including limits on:
    (A) Concentrations in sources of funding by instrument type, single 
counterparty, counterparty type, secured and unsecured funding, and as 
applicable, other forms of liquidity risk;
    (B) The amount of liabilities that mature within various time 
horizons; and
    (C) Off-balance sheet exposures and other exposures that could 
create funding needs during liquidity stress events.
    (ii) Each limit established pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section must be consistent with the company's established liquidity 
risk tolerance and must reflect the company's capital structure, risk 
profile, complexity, activities, and size.
    (2) Liquidity risk limits for Category IV bank holding companies. A 
Category IV bank holding company must monitor sources of liquidity risk 
and establish limits on liquidity risk that are consistent with the 
company's established liquidity risk tolerance and that reflect the 
company's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, and 
size.
    (h) Collateral, legal entity, and intraday liquidity risk 
monitoring. A bank holding company with total consolidated assets of 
$100 billion or more must establish and maintain procedures for 
monitoring liquidity risk as set forth in this paragraph.
    (1) Collateral. The bank holding company must establish and 
maintain policies and procedures to monitor assets that have been, or 
are available to be, pledged as collateral in connection with 
transactions to which it or its affiliates are counterparties. These 
policies and procedures must provide that the bank holding company:
    (i) Calculates all of its collateral positions according to the 
frequency specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i)(A) and (B) or as directed by 
the Board, specifying the value of pledged assets relative to the 
amount of security required under the relevant contracts and the value 
of unencumbered assets available to be pledged;
    (A) If the bank holding company is not a Category IV bank holding 
company, on a weekly basis; or
    (B) If the bank holding company is a Category IV bank holding 
company, on a monthly basis;
    (ii) Monitors the levels of unencumbered assets available to be 
pledged by legal entity, jurisdiction, and currency exposure;
    (iii) Monitors shifts in the bank holding company's funding 
patterns, such as shifts between intraday, overnight, and term pledging 
of collateral; and
    (iv) Tracks operational and timing requirements associated with 
accessing collateral at its physical location (for example, the 
custodian or securities settlement system that holds the collateral).
    (2) Legal entities, currencies, and business lines. The bank 
holding company must establish and maintain procedures for monitoring 
and controlling liquidity risk exposures and funding needs within and 
across significant legal entities, currencies, and business lines, 
taking into account legal and regulatory restrictions on the transfer 
of liquidity between legal entities.
    (3) Intraday exposures. The bank holding company must establish and 
maintain procedures for monitoring intraday liquidity risk exposure 
that are consistent with the bank holding company's capital structure, 
risk profile, complexity, activities, and size. If the bank holding 
company is a global systemically important BHC, Category II bank 
holding company, or a Category III bank holding company, these 
procedures must address how the management of the bank holding company 
will:
    (i) Monitor and measure expected daily gross liquidity inflows and 
outflows;
    (ii) Manage and transfer collateral to obtain intraday credit;
    (iii) Identify and prioritize time-specific obligations so that the 
bank holding company can meet these obligations as expected and settle 
less critical obligations as soon as possible;
    (iv) Manage the issuance of credit to customers where necessary; 
and
    (v) Consider the amounts of collateral and liquidity needed to meet 
payment systems obligations when assessing the bank holding company's 
overall liquidity needs.
0
34. Section 252.35 paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (a)(2), 
(a)(7)(i) and (ii), and (b)(1) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.35   Liquidity stress testing and buffer requirements.

    (a) * * * (1) General. A bank holding company with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must conduct stress tests 
to assess the potential impact of the liquidity stress scenarios set 
forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section on its cash flows, liquidity 
position, profitability, and solvency, taking into

[[Page 61457]]

account its current liquidity condition, risks, exposures, strategies, 
and activities.
* * * * *
    (2) Frequency. The bank holding company must perform the liquidity 
stress tests required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section according 
to the frequency specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) and (ii) or as 
directed by the Board:
    (i) If the bank holding company is not a Category IV bank holding 
company, at least monthly; or
    (ii) If the bank holding company is a Category IV bank holding 
company, at least quarterly.
* * * * *
    (7) * * * (i) Policies and procedures. A bank holding company with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must establish and 
maintain policies and procedures governing its liquidity stress testing 
practices, methodologies, and assumptions that provide for the 
incorporation of the results of liquidity stress tests in future stress 
testing and for the enhancement of stress testing practices over time.
    (ii) Controls and oversight. A bank holding company with total 
consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must establish and maintain 
a system of controls and oversight that is designed to ensure that its 
liquidity stress testing processes are effective in meeting the 
requirements of this section. The controls and oversight must ensure 
that each liquidity stress test appropriately incorporates conservative 
assumptions with respect to the stress scenario in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section and other elements of the stress test process, taking into 
consideration the bank holding company's capital structure, risk 
profile, complexity, activities, size, business lines, legal entity or 
jurisdiction, and other relevant factors. The assumptions must be 
approved by the chief risk officer and be subject to the independent 
review under Sec.  252.34(d) of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (b) Liquidity buffer requirement. (1) A bank holding company with 
total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more must maintain a 
liquidity buffer that is sufficient to meet the projected net stressed 
cash-flow need over the 30-day planning horizon of a liquidity stress 
test conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section under 
each scenario set forth in paragraph (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
* * * * *

Subpart E--Supervisory Stress Test Requirements for Certain U.S. 
Banking Organizations With $100 Billion or More in Total 
Consolidated Assets and Nonbank Financial Companies Supervised by 
the Board

0
35. The heading of subpart E is revised to read as set forth above.
0
36. Section 252.41 is revised to read as follows


Sec.  252.41   Authority and purpose.

    (a) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 1467a(g), 1818, 1831p-1, 
1844(b), 1844(c), 5361, 5365, 5366, sec. 401(e), Public Law 115-174, 
132 Stat. 1296.
    (b) Purpose. This subpart implements section 165 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act (12 U.S.C. 5365) and section 401(e) of the Economic Growth, 
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which requires the 
Board to conduct annual analyses of nonbank financial companies 
supervised by the Board and bank holding companies with $100 billion or 
more in total consolidated assets to evaluate whether such companies 
have the capital, on a total consolidated basis, necessary to absorb 
losses as a result of adverse economic conditions.
0
37. Section 252.42 paragraphs (c), (e), (f) and (m) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  252.42   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
total consolidated assets as reported by a bank holding company on its 
Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) for 
the four most recent consecutive quarters. If the bank holding company 
has not filed the FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent consecutive 
quarters, average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
company's total consolidated assets, as reported on the company's FR Y-
9C, for the most recent quarter or consecutive quarters. Average total 
consolidated assets are measured on the as-of date of the most recent 
FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the average.
* * * * *
    (e) Baseline scenario means a set of conditions that affect the 
U.S. economy or the financial condition of a covered company and that 
reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook.
    (f) Covered company means:
    (1) A bank holding company (other than a foreign banking 
organization) with average total consolidated assets of $100 billion or 
more;
    (2) A U.S. intermediate holding company subject to this section 
pursuant to Sec.  252.153; and
    (3) A nonbank financial company supervised by the Board.
* * * * *
    (m) Regulatory capital ratio means a capital ratio for which the 
Board has established minimum requirements for the bank holding company 
by regulation or order, including, as applicable, the company's 
regulatory capital ratios calculated under 12 CFR part 217 and the 
deductions required under 12 CFR 248.12; except that the company shall 
not use the advanced approaches to calculate its regulatory capital 
ratios.
* * * * *
0
38. Section 252.43 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows


Sec.  252.43   Applicability.

    (a) Scope--(1) Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
of this section, this subpart applies to any covered company, which 
includes:
    (i) Any bank holding company with average total consolidated assets 
of $100 billion or more;
    (ii) Any U.S. intermediate holding company subject to this section 
pursuant to Sec.  252.153; and
    (iii) Any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board that is 
made subject to this section pursuant to a rule or order of the Board.
    (2) Ongoing applicability. A bank holding company (including any 
successor company) that is subject to any requirement in this subpart 
shall remain subject to any such requirement unless and until its total 
consolidated assets fall below $100 billion for each of four 
consecutive quarters, as reported on the FR Y-9C and, effective on the 
as-of date of the fourth consecutive FR Y-9C.
* * * * *
0
39. Section 252.44 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and (b); 
and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  252.44  Analysis conducted by the Board.

    (a) In general. (1) The Board will conduct an analysis of each 
covered company's capital, on a total consolidated basis, taking into 
account all relevant exposures and activities of that covered company, 
to evaluate the ability of the covered company to absorb losses in 
specified economic and financial conditions.
* * * * *
    (3) In conducting the analyses, the Board will coordinate with the

[[Page 61458]]

appropriate primary financial regulatory agencies and the Federal 
Insurance Office, as appropriate.
    (b) Economic and financial scenarios related to the Board's 
analysis. The Board will conduct its analysis using a minimum of three 
different scenarios, including a baseline scenario, adverse scenario, 
and severely adverse scenario. The Board will notify covered companies 
of the scenarios that the Board will apply to conduct the analysis for 
each stress test cycle to which the covered company is subject by no 
later than February 15 of that year, except with respect to trading or 
any other components of the scenarios and any additional scenarios that 
the Board will apply to conduct the analysis, which will be 
communicated by no later than March 1 of that year.
    (c) Frequency of analysis conducted by the Board. (1) Except as 
provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Board will conduct 
its analysis of a covered company on an annual basis.
    (2) The Board will conduct its analysis of a Category IV bank 
holding company on a biennial basis and occurring in each year ending 
in an even number.

Subpart F--Company-Run Stress Test Requirements for Certain U.S. 
Bank Holding Companies and Nonbank Financial Companies Supervised 
by the Board

0
40. The heading of subpart F is revised to read as set forth above.
0
41. Section 252.51 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.51  Authority and purpose.

    (a) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 1818, 1831p-1, 1844(b), 1844(c), 
5361, 5365, 5366.
    (b) Purpose. This subpart establishes the requirement for a covered 
company to conduct stress tests. This subpart also establishes 
definitions of stress test and related terms, methodologies for 
conducting stress tests, and reporting and disclosure requirements.
0
42. Section 252.52 paragraphs (c), (f), (g), (n) and (o) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  252.52  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
total consolidated assets as reported by a bank holding company on its 
Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) for 
the four most recent consecutive quarters. If the bank holding company 
has not filed the FR Y-9C for each of the four most recent consecutive 
quarters, average total consolidated assets means the average of the 
company's total consolidated assets, as reported on the company's FR Y-
9C, for the most recent quarter or consecutive quarters. Average total 
consolidated assets are measured on the as-of date of the most recent 
FR Y-9C used in the calculation of the average.
* * * * *
    (f) Capital action has the same meaning as in Sec.  225.8 of this 
chapter.
    (g) Covered company means:
    (1) A global systemically important BHC;
    (2) A Category II bank holding company;
    (3) A Category III bank holding company;
    (4) A U.S. intermediate holding company subject to this section 
pursuant to Sec.  252.153; and
    (5) A nonbank financial company supervised by the Board.
* * * * *
    (n) Regulatory capital ratio means a capital ratio for which the 
Board has established minimum requirements for the bank holding company 
by regulation or order, including, as applicable, the company's 
regulatory capital ratios calculated under 12 CFR part 217 and the 
deductions required under 12 CFR 248.12; except that the company shall 
not use the advanced approaches to calculate its regulatory capital 
ratios.
* * * * *
    (o) Scenarios are those sets of conditions that affect the U.S. 
economy or the financial condition of a covered company that the Board 
annually or biennially determines are appropriate for use in the 
company-run stress tests, including, but not limited to, baseline, 
adverse, and severely adverse scenarios.
* * * * *
0
43. Section 252.53(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.53   Applicability.

    (a) Scope--(1) Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
of this section, this subpart applies to any covered company, which 
includes:
    (i) A global systemically important BHC;
    (ii) Any Category II bank holding company;
    (iii) Any Category III bank holding company;
    (iv) Any U.S. intermediate holding company subject to this section 
pursuant to Sec.  252.153; and
    (v) Any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board that is 
made subject to this section pursuant to a rule or order of the Board.
    (2) Ongoing applicability. A bank holding company (including any 
successor company) that is subject to any requirement in this subpart 
shall remain subject to any such requirement unless and until the bank 
holding company
    (i) Is not a global systemically important BHC;
    (ii) Is not a Category II bank holding company; and
    (iii) Is not a Category III bank holding company.
* * * * *
0
44. Section 252.54 is amended by revising the section heading, and 
paragraphs (a), (b)(2)(i), and (b)(4)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  252.54  Stress test.

    (a) Stress test--(1) In general. A covered company must conduct a 
stress test as required under this subpart.
    (2) Frequency. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 
this section, a covered company must conduct an annual stress test. The 
stress test must be conducted by April 5 of each calendar year based on 
data as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year, unless the time 
or the as-of date is extended by the Board in writing.
    (ii) A Category III bank holding company must conduct a biennial 
stress test. The stress test must be conducted by April 5 of each 
calendar year ending in an even number, based on data as of December 31 
of the preceding calendar year, unless the time or the as-of date is 
extended by the Board in writing.
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * * (i) The Board may require a covered company with 
significant trading activity, as determined by the Board and specified 
in the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing report (FR Y-14), to 
include a trading and counterparty component in its adverse and 
severely adverse scenarios in the stress test required by this section. 
The data used in this component must be as of a date selected by the 
Board between October 1 of the previous calendar year and March 1 of 
the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to 
this section, and the Board will communicate the as-of date and a 
description of the component to the company no later than March 1 of 
the calendar year in which the stress test is performed pursuant to 
this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Request for reconsideration and Board response. Within 14 
calendar days of receipt of a notification under this paragraph, the 
covered company may request in writing that the Board reconsider the 
requirement that the company include the additional

[[Page 61459]]

component(s) or additional scenario(s), including an explanation as to 
why the request for reconsideration should be granted. The Board will 
respond in writing within 14 calendar days of receipt of the company's 
request.
    (iii) Description of component. The Board will provide the covered 
company with a description of any additional component(s) or additional 
scenario(s) by March 1 of the calendar year in which the stress test is 
performed pursuant to this section.
0
45. Section 252.55 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.55  Mid-cycle stress test.

    (a) Mid-cycle stress test requirement. In addition to the stress 
test required under Sec.  252.54, a U.S. intermediate holding company 
must conduct a mid-cycle stress test. The stress test must be conducted 
by September 30 of each calendar year based on data as of June 30 of 
that calendar year, unless the time or the as-of date is extended by 
the Board in writing.
    (b) Scenarios related to mid-cycle stress tests--(1) In general. A 
U.S. intermediate holding company must develop and employ a minimum of 
three scenarios, including a baseline scenario, adverse scenario, and 
severely adverse scenario that are appropriate for its own risk profile 
and operations, in conducting the stress test required by this section.
    (2) Additional components. The Board may require a U.S. 
intermediate holding company to include one or more additional 
components in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios in the stress 
test required by this section based on the company's financial 
condition, size, complexity, risk profile, scope of operations, or 
activities, or risks to the U.S. economy.
    (3) Additional scenarios. The Board may require a U.S. intermediate 
holding company to use one or more additional scenarios in the stress 
test required by this section based on the company's financial 
condition, size, complexity, risk profile, scope of operations, or 
activities, or risks to the U.S. economy.
    (4) Notice and response--(i) Notification of additional component. 
If the Board requires a U.S. intermediate holding company to include 
one or more additional components in its adverse and severely adverse 
scenarios under paragraph (b)(2) of this section or one or more 
additional scenarios under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Board 
will notify the company in writing. The Board will provide such 
notification no later than June 30. The notification will include a 
general description of the additional component(s) or additional 
scenario(s) and the basis for requiring the company to include the 
additional component(s) or additional scenario(s).
    (ii) Request for reconsideration and Board response. Within 14 
calendar days of receipt of a notification under this paragraph, the 
U.S. intermediate holding company may request in writing that the Board 
reconsider the requirement that the company include the additional 
component(s) or additional scenario(s), including an explanation as to 
why the reconsideration should be granted. The Board will respond in 
writing within 14 calendar days of receipt of the company's request.
    (iii) Description of component. The Board will provide the U.S. 
intermediate holding company with a description of any additional 
component(s) or additional scenario(s) by September 1 of the calendar 
year prior to the year in which the stress test is performed pursuant 
to this section.
0
46. Section 252.56 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
paragraphs (a) and (b) and paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  252.56  Methodologies and practices.

    (a) Potential impact on capital. In conducting a stress test under 
Sec. Sec.  252.54 and 252.55, as applicable, for each quarter of the 
planning horizon, a covered company must estimate the following for 
each scenario required to be used:
* * * * *
    (b) Assumptions regarding capital actions. In conducting a stress 
test under Sec. Sec.  252.54 and 252.55, as applicable, a covered 
company is required to make the following assumptions regarding its 
capital actions over the planning horizon:
* * * * *
    (c) * * * (1) In general. The senior management of a covered 
company must establish and maintain a system of controls, oversight, 
and documentation, including policies and procedures, that are designed 
to ensure that its stress testing processes are effective in meeting 
the requirements in this subpart. These policies and procedures must, 
at a minimum, describe the covered company's stress testing practices 
and methodologies, and processes for validating and updating the 
company's stress test practices and methodologies consistent with 
applicable laws and regulations. The policies of a U.S. intermediate 
holding company must also describe processes for scenario development 
for the mid-cycle stress test required under Sec.  252.55.
* * * * *
0
47. Section 252.57 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.57  Reports of stress test results.

    (a) Reports to the Board of stress test results. (1) A covered 
company must report the results of the stress test required under Sec.  
252.54 to the Board in the manner and form prescribed by the Board. 
Such results must be submitted by April 5 of the calendar year in which 
the stress test is performed pursuant to Sec.  252.54, unless that time 
is extended by the Board in writing.
    (2) A U.S. intermediate holding company must report the results of 
the stress test required under Sec.  252.55 to the Board in a manner 
and form prescribed by the Board. Such results must be submitted by 
October 5 of the calendar year in which the stress test is performed 
pursuant to Sec.  252.55, unless that time is extended by the Board in 
writing.
* * * * *
0
48. Section 252.58 paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  252.58   Disclosure of stress test results.

    (a) Public disclosure of results--(1) In general. (i) A covered 
company must publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress 
test required under Sec.  252.54 within the period that is 15 calendar 
days after the Board publicly discloses the results of its supervisory 
stress test of the covered company pursuant to Sec.  252.46(c), unless 
that time is extended by the Board in writing.
    (ii) A U.S. intermediate holding company must publicly disclose a 
summary of the results of the stress test required under Sec.  252.55. 
This disclosure must occur in the period beginning on October 5 and 
ending on November 4 of the calendar year in which the stress test is 
performed pursuant to Sec.  252.55, unless that time is extended by the 
Board in writing.
* * * * *

Subpart H--Single-Counterparty Credit Limits

0
49. Section 252.70 paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  252.70  Applicability and general provisions.

    (a) In general. (1) This subpart establishes single counterparty 
credit limits for a covered company.
    (2) For purposes of this subpart:
    (i) Covered company means
    (A) A global systemically important BHC;

[[Page 61460]]

    (B) A Category II bank holding company;
    (C) A Category III bank holding company;
    (ii) Major covered company means any covered company that is a 
global systemically important BHC.
* * * * *
    (d) Cessation of requirements. (1) Any company that becomes a 
covered company will remain subject to the requirements of this subpart 
unless and until:
    (i) The covered company is not a global systemically important BHC;
    (ii) The covered company is not a Category II bank holding company; 
and
    (iii) The covered company is not a Category III bank holding 
company.
* * * * *

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, November 1, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-24464 Filed 11-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P