[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16620-16628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08077]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 16620]]



FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 360

RIN 3064-AF05


Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions 
With $50 Billion or More in Total Assets

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The FDIC invites comments on this advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) concerning how to tailor and improve its rule 
requiring certain insured depository institutions to submit resolution 
plans.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AF05, by any 
of the following methods:
     Agency website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency 
website.
     Email: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 3064-AF05'' on the 
subject line of the message.
     Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: 
Comments/RIN 3064-AF05, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th 
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments may be hand delivered to 
the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located 
on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
    All comments received must include the agency name (FDIC) and RIN 
3064-AF05 and will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal, including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F. Angus Tarpley III, Counsel, (703) 
562-2434, [email protected], James P. Sheesley, Counsel, (703) 562-
2047, [email protected], Ryan M. Rappa, Counsel, (202) 898-6767, Legal 
Division; Lori J. Quigley, Deputy Director, (202) 898-3799, Robert C. 
Connors, Associate Director, (202) 898-3834, Division of Risk 
Management Supervision; Marc Steckel, Deputy Director, (571) 858-8224, 
Division of Resolutions and Receiverships; Jason C. Cave, Corporate 
Expert, (202) 898-3548, Office of Complex Financial Institutions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The FDIC is undertaking a review of its rule requiring certain 
insured depository institutions (IDIs) to submit resolution plans (IDI 
Rule).\1\ This ANPR is part of that review process. The FDIC is 
considering how to tailor and improve the IDI Rule, as described below. 
Specifically, the FDIC invites comments on certain approaches under 
consideration: (1) Creation of tiered resolution planning requirements 
based on institution size, complexity, and other factors; (2) revisions 
to the frequency and required content of plan submissions, including 
elimination of plan submissions for a category of smaller and less 
complex IDIs; and (3) improvements to the process for periodic 
engagement between the FDIC and institutions on resolution-related 
matters. The FDIC is also seeking comment on whether to revise the $50 
billion asset size threshold in the IDI Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 CFR 360.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FDIC is currently considering several approaches for revising 
the IDI Rule. Specifically, under one alternative approach, the FDIC is 
considering categorizing IDIs subject to the IDI Rule into three 
groups. The IDIs in the first group, Group A (as defined below), 
comprising the largest and most complex IDIs, would be required to 
submit Resolution Plans (as defined below) with content requirements 
that would be streamlined compared to the current IDI Rule. IDIs in the 
second group, Group B (as defined below), which would include larger, 
more complex regional IDIs, would be required to submit further 
streamlined Resolution Plans, reduced in content compared to the 
Resolution Plans required for Group A. The IDIs in the third group, 
Group C (as defined below) would be smaller and less complex than those 
in Group A or Group B, and would no longer be required to submit 
Resolution Plans. The FDIC would engage with Group A, Group B, and 
Group C IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a limited number of items 
related to resolution planning; these IDIs also would continue to be 
subject to periodic testing of certain capabilities relating to 
resolution planning and implementation.
    Under a second alternative approach, the FDIC is considering 
grouping IDIs subject to the IDI Rule into two groups: Larger IDIs 
(comprising Group A and Group B IDIs) and Group C IDIs. Larger IDIs 
would be required to submit Resolution Plans with streamlined content 
requirements individually targeted to each institution's size, 
complexity, and other factors related to resolvability. For example, 
where a complex, larger IDI operates multiple business lines involving 
affiliated, interconnected legal entities and an extensive, globally 
dispersed branch network, the Resolution Plan for this large IDI would 
provide relatively greater content on complexity and cross-border 
elements. For a larger IDI that has a simpler footprint with minimal 
cross-jurisdictional exposures, the relevant content requirements would 
be streamlined or omitted. As in the first alternative approach, the 
IDIs in Group C would no longer be required to submit Resolution Plans. 
Also as in the first alternative approach, the FDIC would engage with 
larger IDIs and Group C IDIs on a periodic basis regarding a limited 
number of items related to resolution planning; these IDIs also would 
continue to be subject to periodic testing of certain capabilities 
relating to resolution planning and implementation.

II. Background

A. The IDI Rule

    The IDI Rule was proposed in 2010 \2\ and became effective in 
2012.\3\ The IDI Rule requires IDIs with $50 billion or more in total 
assets (covered insured depository institutions or CIDIs) to 
periodically submit plans (Resolution Plans) that should enable the 
FDIC, as receiver, to resolve the CIDI in the event of its insolvency 
under the Federal

[[Page 16621]]

Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) in a manner that ensures that 
depositors receive access to their insured deposits within one business 
day of the CIDI's failure (two business days if the failure occurs on a 
day other than Friday), maximizes the net present value return from the 
sale or disposition of its assets, and minimizes the amount of any loss 
realized by the creditors in the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 75 FR 27464 (May 17, 2010).
    \3\ Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 58379 (September 21, 2011) and 
Final Rule, 77 FR 3075 (January 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FDIC proposed the IDI Rule in response to challenges identified 
in the resolution of IDIs during the 2008 financial crisis, prior to 
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The IDI Rule was intended to ensure that the FDIC 
has timely access to information concerning a CIDI's structure, 
operations, business practices, financial responsibilities, and risk 
exposure, which the FDIC would need to handle a resolution of a CIDI 
under the FDI Act.
    Separate from the FDI Act and IDI Rule requirements, section 165(d) 
of the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that certain bank holding companies and 
nonbank financial companies (Covered Companies) submit resolution plans 
(DFA Resolution Plans) for the rapid and orderly resolution of the 
Covered Company under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.\4\ DFA Resolution Plans 
have a specific goal different from that of Resolution Plans under the 
IDI Rule: To reduce the likelihood that the financial distress or 
failure of a Covered Company would have serious adverse effects on 
financial stability in the United States. The interim final IDI Rule 
and the final rule regarding DFA Resolution Plans (Section 165(d) Rule) 
\5\ were issued concurrently with aligned asset thresholds for CIDIs 
and Covered Companies. Since then, the Dodd-Frank Act has been amended 
to revise the threshold for DFA Resolution Plans.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The DFA Resolution Plan of a foreign-based Covered Company 
provides for the resolution of its U.S. operations and entities.
    \5\ 12 CFR parts 243 & 381; 76 FR 67323 (January 23, 2012). On 
April 8 and 16, 2019, respectively, the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System and the FDIC's Board of Directors considered 
proposed amendments to the Section 165(d) Rule to reflect 
improvements identified during the eight years the Section 165(d) 
Rule has been in effect and to address amendments to the Dodd-Frank 
Act made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act.
    \6\ Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection 
Act, Sec. 401, Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296. See further 
discussion in section II.E.3. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since issuing the final IDI Rule, the FDIC and CIDIs have been 
through multiple Resolution Plan submission cycles. Through this 
experience, the FDIC has learned what aspects of the resolution 
planning process are most valuable and has gained an understanding of 
the resources, internal and external, that CIDIs expend in meeting the 
requirements of the IDI Rule. The FDIC has also gained additional 
resolution capabilities relevant to CIDI resolution through rulemakings 
subsequent to the issuance of the IDI Rule that provide information 
related to that called for under the IDI Rule. Given what the FDIC has 
learned, now is an appropriate time to review the IDI Rule in light of 
these changes.

B. Distinctions Between IDI Rule and Section 165(d) Rule

    Though the IDI Rule and the Section 165(d) Rule both require 
planning for resolution of large, complex financial institutions to 
minimize the cost and disruption of failures, resolution planning under 
the two rules involves distinct entities, objectives, and legal 
frameworks. The IDI Rule applies only to IDIs and involves resolution 
under the FDI Act by the FDIC. The Section 165(d) Rule focuses on the 
resolution of Covered Companies. Currently, all Covered Companies are 
bank holding companies, which would be resolved under the U.S. 
Bankruptcy Code.
    The IDI Rule's objective is to ensure that the FDIC can effectively 
resolve a CIDI under the FDI Act, protecting its insured depositors and 
the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and maximizing value for the benefit 
of creditors of the CIDI. The Section 165(d) Rule's aim is ensuring 
that the bankruptcy of a Covered Company can be accomplished in a 
manner that substantially mitigates the risk that the failure of the 
Covered Company would have serious adverse effects on financial 
stability in the United States.
    Under an FDI Act resolution, a CIDI's legal existence would 
terminate upon entry into resolution, and its management would not 
control the resolution. By contrast, under the resolution strategies 
used in the DFA Resolution Plans, a Covered Company in bankruptcy 
generally could continue its corporate existence, in which case some of 
its most senior management may remain in place to manage the 
reorganization.
    The largest, most complex U.S. firms and a number of foreign-based 
banking organizations present a single point of entry resolution 
strategy in their DFA Resolution Plans. The single point of entry 
resolution strategy does not anticipate that an IDI subsidiary will 
enter resolution proceedings; instead an explicit goal of the single 
point of entry strategy is to keep certain material subsidiaries, 
including each IDI subsidiary, open and operating. However, the single 
point of entry strategy remains untested, and may not be available 
under all failure scenarios. For those reasons, a separate plan for the 
CIDI is important.
    For other DFA Resolution Plan filers where a single point of entry 
resolution strategy is not proposed, especially in cases in which the 
vast majority of the consolidated firm's total assets and business 
lines are within the IDI, IDI resolution is likely to be a component of 
any resolution involving the Covered Company.

C. Resolutions Under the FDI Act

    The FDIC is charged by Congress with the responsibility for 
insuring the deposits of IDIs in the United States and with serving as 
receiver of such institutions following failure. To fulfill its 
responsibilities, the FDIC has developed strategies and capabilities to 
manage the failure of any IDI. Since 2008, the FDIC has served as 
receiver for over 525 failed IDIs. These failures caused the DIF 
temporarily to become insolvent and threatened its liquidity, yet the 
FDIC remained able to discharge its duties through collection of 
prepaid and special assessments and recoveries from failed bank 
receiverships. Appropriate resolution planning is important to ensure 
that the FDIC maintains the capabilities required to ensure depositors 
have access to insured deposits as soon as possible and to minimize 
potential losses to the DIF and other creditors. The FDIC's primary 
resolution strategies for resolving an IDI are outlined below.
1. The Purchase and Assumption Transaction
    Approximately 95 percent of resolutions conducted by the FDIC since 
2007 involved the sale of the IDI's franchise and assets to an open 
institution in an assisted transaction, generally involving a single 
acquirer assuming nearly all of the failed IDI's liabilities. This 
transaction, termed a purchase and assumption or ``P&A'' transaction, 
is often both the easiest for the FDIC to execute and the least 
disruptive to the depositors of the failed IDI. This is especially so 
where the transaction involves the assumption of all the failed IDI's 
deposits by the assuming institution (an all-deposit transaction).
    The P&A option is not always available to the FDIC. P&A 
transactions require lead time to identify potential buyers and allow 
investigation and auction of the failing IDI's assets and banking 
business, also termed its franchise. These transactions may only

[[Page 16622]]

be conducted following a determination, required by statute, that such 
transaction results in the least cost to the DIF of all possible 
resolution options,\7\ including paying out the insured deposits of the 
failed IDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Resolution Strategies
    If no P&A transaction that meets the least costly resolution 
requirement can be accomplished, the FDIC must pursue an alternative 
resolution strategy. The primary alternative resolution strategies are 
the payout liquidation and the bridge bank. Both of these strategies 
present significant operational challenges and the potential for 
significant disruption in the case of large IDIs.
    Payout. The FDIC conducts payout liquidations by paying insured 
deposits in cash or transferring the insured deposits to an existing 
institution or a new institution organized by the FDIC to assume the 
insured deposits.\8\ In payout liquidations, the FDIC as receiver 
retains substantially all of the failed IDI's assets for later sale, 
and the franchise value of the failed IDI is lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 12 U.S.C. 1821(f), (m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bridge Bank. If the FDIC determines that continuing the operations 
of the failed IDI is less costly than a payout liquidation, it may 
organize a nationally-chartered IDI of limited duration (a bridge bank) 
to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the failed 
IDI, in what may be either an all-deposit transaction or a transaction 
in which the acquirer assumes only the insured deposits (an insured 
deposit only transaction). Once the FDIC has transferred assets from 
the failed bank to the newly established bridge bank, the FDIC will 
manage and operate the new institution, potentially for a significant 
length of time.

D. Challenges to Resolving CIDIs

    The FDIC's sole experience with resolving a failed institution over 
the current asset size threshold for a CIDI, Washington Mutual Bank, 
involved an all-deposit P&A transaction that resulted in no losses to 
the DIF. The availability of this low-risk, efficient resolution 
strategy cannot be assumed for future CIDI failures. The largest bank 
failure resolved by the FDIC without use of a P&A transaction was that 
of IndyMac Bank, a complicated resolution that caused significant 
losses for the DIF and posed considerable operational challenges. The 
overall risk profile associated with the size, complexity, and funding 
structure of some CIDIs reduces the likelihood that they could be 
resolved through a P&A transaction, whether an all-deposit transaction 
or an insured deposit only transaction. Further, these factors also 
present significant challenges to conducting a resolution involving use 
of a bridge bank. The purpose of IDI resolution planning is to prepare 
for the failure of such IDIs, with a focus on the challenges that 
resolution involving a bridge bank would entail.
1. Size
    The size of a failing CIDI may restrict the FDIC's resolution 
options by significantly reducing the number of potential P&A 
acquirers. Certain CIDIs may be too large to be acquired by any other 
open institution in a P&A transaction, due to legal limitations on 
liability concentration or operational or economic conditions.\9\ 
Alternatively, a failed CIDI's concentration within certain market 
areas may raise antitrust issues or otherwise preclude potential 
acquirers from bidding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g. 12 U.S.C. 1852 (concentration limits on large 
financial firms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Complexity
    Many CIDIs exhibit a degree of complexity not found in smaller IDIs 
which the FDIC has usually resolved through use of a P&A transaction. 
This complexity manifests within the CIDI's operations and in its 
relationships with affiliates, counterparties, and the economy. CIDIs 
generally operate multiple business lines, frequently involving 
affiliated, interconnected legal entities and extensive, geographically 
dispersed branch networks. Many CIDIs rely on affiliate legal entities, 
foreign branches, or contractual counterparties to carry out one or 
more critical services necessary for continuing day-to-day operations. 
In addition, many CIDIs conduct capital markets activities in multiple 
jurisdictions, and may participate in multiple payment, clearing, and 
settlement systems. These activities all rely on a larger workforce 
containing a higher number of specialized, key personnel than the 
typical IDI, and necessitate use of specialized management information 
systems for risk management, accounting, and reporting.
    CIDI complexity presents challenges to resolution by P&A or bridge 
bank. Use of either resolution strategy generally requires separation 
of the CIDI from its parent and affiliate entities, including both 
organizational and contractual connections, in a manner that preserves 
the value and allows the continuation of the business of the CIDI 
either by a bridge bank or as a component of an acquirer's business. 
This task requires both a comprehensive understanding of these 
relationships and the capabilities to carry out a plan that effects 
such separation. Absent planning and preparation, CIDI complexity may 
present too great a challenge for any potential acquirer to value, 
especially in a time of financial distress or market disruption. 
Similarly, incomplete awareness of interconnectedness and key 
dependencies in the CIDI's organizational structure and the lack of 
arrangements necessary for organizational separation and operational 
continuity in resolution would greatly impact a bridge bank resolution, 
where the FDIC would be tasked with continuing these operations to 
avoid disruptions to depositors and to maximize value to the 
receivership in the ultimate disposition of the bridge bank.
3. Funding
    Larger IDIs tend to rely to a greater extent than smaller IDIs on 
uninsured deposits and market funding. This funding structure impacts 
both the timing of a resolution and the availability of resolution 
options. Funding structures less reliant on insured deposits generally 
compress the failure timeline. Uninsured deposits and market funding 
are more likely to be withdrawn rapidly should an IDI exhibit signs of 
financial distress. While IDI failures resulting solely from capital 
inadequacy typically unfold over months (or longer), a failure 
triggered by an IDI's lack of liquidity can arise much more quickly, 
requiring advance planning to facilitate an orderly resolution. 
Liquidity issues may also require the resolution to occur on a day 
other than Friday, which could further complicate the FDIC's ability to 
complete a successful resolution transaction.
    A larger share of liabilities in the form of uninsured deposits 
makes an all-deposit transaction less likely because an assuming 
institution would need to pay a greater premium to effect an all-
deposit transaction that satisfies the least costly resolution 
requirement. An insured deposit only transaction requires an insurance 
determination. While the FDIC's recordkeeping rule for timely deposit 
insurance determinations (described below) will improve the FDIC's 
ability to conduct such a determination for certain IDIs over the 
weekend following the IDI's closing, such a determination for a CIDI 
would still be complex and would be the largest in FDIC history.

[[Page 16623]]

    The FDIC must also make determinations regarding the transfer of 
non-deposit liabilities in a P&A or bridge bank resolution. Some 
liabilities would be transferred to the acquirer or bridge bank, 
generally resulting in the counterparty receiving full payment and 
performance of those obligations, while other non-deposit liabilities 
would likely be left with the receivership, to be satisfied from any 
proceeds of the receiver's asset disposition efforts (including the 
ultimate disposition of a bridge bank, if this strategy is used) 
available for distribution after satisfaction of administrative and 
deposit claims. The FDIC must be in a position to estimate the value of 
these liabilities and determine which should be transferred. Settlement 
of claims left with the receiver requires advance planning and 
capabilities enhancement on the FDIC's part. The FDIC has an 
established process for receiving proofs of receivership claims and 
making final claims determinations, but it has never utilized that 
process in a bridge bank resolution in excess of the size of IndyMac. 
The FDIC expects that a CIDI claims process would be significantly more 
complex.

E. Resolution Plan Experience and Recent Developments

    In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC 
instituted several rulemakings that support its mission as deposit 
insurer to make timely insured deposit payments and as resolution 
authority to resolve a failed IDI in the manner that is least costly to 
the DIF. In addition to the current IDI Rule, these include 
Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination (Part 370) and 
Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part 
371). These rules address certain of the difficulties the FDIC could 
face in the closing of a large, complex IDI. As noted in section II.A. 
above, changes to the Dodd-Frank Act enacted since issuance of the IDI 
Rule also warrant reconsideration of IDI resolution planning 
requirements.
1. Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination (Part 370)
    Part 370 requires covered institutions, IDIs with two million or 
more deposit accounts, to put in place mechanisms to facilitate prompt 
deposit insurance determinations. Covered institutions must (a) 
configure their information technology systems to be able to calculate 
the insured and uninsured portion of each deposit account by ownership 
right and capacity; and (b) maintain complete and accurate information 
needed by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance coverage for each 
deposit account. These requirements are designed to assist the FDIC in 
fulfilling its statutory mandate in promptly making insurance 
determinations, providing liquidity to insured depositors, and 
administering the claims process for uninsured depositors. The 
capabilities to be implemented by CIDIs subject to Part 370 would 
enhance the ability of the FDIC to conduct a resolution of any type, 
potentially reducing the importance of some Resolution Plan content 
relating to deposit accounts.
2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part 
371)
    Part 371 requires institutions in troubled condition to keep 
enhanced records in standard format regarding their qualified financial 
contracts. This information would be used by the FDIC, were it 
appointed receiver, in making a determination of whether to transfer 
qualified financial contracts entered into by the failed institution 
within the brief statutory window. Part 371 provides significantly 
greater requirements for larger institutions in recognition of the 
informational and logistical needs that the FDIC, as receiver, would 
have as a result of the significant and more complex qualified 
financial contract portfolios that such institutions are likely to 
hold. This rule improves the ability of the FDIC to make a timely 
qualified financial contract determination, potentially reducing the 
scope of information and planning required to be included in a 
Resolution Plan relating to qualified financial contracts.
3. Changes to DFA Resolution Plan Requirements Under the Economic 
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
    The filing threshold established in the IDI Rule was initially 
aligned to the filing threshold established by the Dodd-Frank Act for 
bank holding companies required to submit DFA Resolution Plans, and the 
IDI Rule was intended to complement the Dodd-Frank Act and the Section 
165(d) Rule.
    On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and 
Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) was enacted. Among other changes, 
EGRRCPA raised the $50 billion minimum asset threshold for general 
application of the resolution planning requirement of Section 165(d) of 
the Dodd-Frank Act to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, and 
provided the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with 
discretion to apply the resolution planning requirement to bank holding 
companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, but 
less than $250 billion. As noted in section II.A. above, while the 
resolution planning conducted pursuant to Section 165(d) of the Dodd-
Frank Act and the resolution planning required by the IDI Rule are 
distinct in many ways, nevertheless this change in filing threshold 
warrants that the IDI Rule's $50 billion threshold be revisited.

III. Request for Comment

    In light of the changes discussed and lessons learned, it is 
appropriate to review the IDI Rule requirements and consider certain 
updates. The FDIC is better prepared today to handle larger resolutions 
than it was during and in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial 
crisis. This is in part because of what has been learned through the 
resolution plan review process established by the IDI Rule and the 
complementary enhancements implemented through the issuance of Part 370 
and the revisions to Part 371. In addition, seven years and multiple 
submissions from CIDIs have allowed the FDIC to identify best practices 
and to contemplate ways to enhance the utility of information provided 
by CIDIs. The FDIC feedback and guidance \10\ provided since issuance 
of the IDI Rule indicate that the FDIC's experience in administering 
the IDI Rule has led to overall changes in its expectations regarding 
the process, as well as the value it places on individual components 
required in the Resolution Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Guidance for Covered Insured Depository 
Institution Resolution Plan Submissions (Dec. 17, 2014), https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2014/pr14109a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Experience with the IDI Rule indicates that in many cases, the 
greatest value of resolution planning comes from the insights into each 
CIDI's idiosyncratic risk profile and information on the particular 
CIDI that the Resolution Plans provide, rather than the strategies that 
each CIDI develops for resolution. Further, the FDIC's experience shows 
that the distinctions among individual CIDIs make certain elements 
called for in the IDI Rule more or less valuable, such that a one-size-
fits-all approach may no longer be the best approach for specifying 
Resolution Plan content.
    Moreover, the FDIC is aware of the considerable time and resources 
devoted by CIDIs to meet the requirements of the IDI Rule, as well as 
the requirements of Parts 370 and 371. Given the cumulative experience 
of the

[[Page 16624]]

Resolution Plan review process and the new capabilities required by 
Parts 370 and 371, revisions to the requirements of the IDI Rule are 
warranted.
    The agency is seeking comment on a number of questions intended to 
determine how the IDI Rule could be streamlined and otherwise improved 
to support the FDIC's mandate to administer orderly and least-costly 
resolutions of CIDIs while reducing the overall burden on CIDIs.
    The FDIC is soliciting feedback from the public on potential 
changes to the IDI Rule to:
     Create tiered groups to tailor the requirements of the IDI 
rule based upon size, complexity, and other relevant factors;
     Improve the content requirements of the IDI Rule, 
including through the modification of certain items;
     Under one alternative, for the larger, more complex CIDIs, 
replace the requirement for a full resolution plan with two streamlined 
versions;
     Under a second alternative, maintain a single group of the 
larger, more complex global and regional CIDIs and require them to 
provide streamlined Resolution Plan information targeted to their size, 
complexity, and other factors;
     For the smaller, less complex regional-sized CIDIs, 
replace the requirement for a Resolution Plan with periodic engagement 
with the FDIC on certain specified resolution planning matters; and
     Reduce the frequency of requirements imposed by the IDI 
Rule.
    This section III is divided into four parts, covering: Tiered 
approach; content; engagement and capabilities testing; and frequency. 
In addition to the initial proposals within each part, more specific 
questions are provided.
    The FDIC also seeks comments from interested parties on all aspects 
of its large IDI resolution planning activities and process, this ANPR, 
and the IDI Rule. Commenters are invited to respond to the questions 
presented and to offer comments, data, or suggestions on any other 
issues related to IDI resolution planning requirements, including 
developments in the industry or broader economy that may impact how the 
FDIC evaluates comments provided. Comments should be as specific as 
possible.

A. Tiered Approach

1. Alternative One
    The FDIC is considering revising the IDI Rule to provide for a 
tiered approach to resolution planning requirements. This tiered 
approach would comprise three groups:
     Group A CIDIs: ``Group A'' would include the largest, most 
complex, internationally active IDIs. Due to the size of a Group A 
CIDI, the global nature of its business, the critical importance of its 
operations, and its interconnections with affiliates, resolution 
planning would be required. A P&A transaction with an assuming 
institution is highly unlikely. Therefore, preparation for the 
potential use of a bridge bank transaction is needed. A Group A CIDI 
would submit a streamlined Resolution Plan as discussed below under 
``Content.''
     Group B CIDIs: ``Group B'' would include larger, more 
complex regional IDIs. Due to the size of a Group B CIDI, the 
complexity of its operations, or the specialized nature of its 
business, it may be unlikely that an assuming institution would be 
available to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the 
failed CIDI at the time of its failure. Resolution planning is 
necessary to assist the FDIC in marketing the institution or preparing 
to continue its operations in a bridge bank. Because these institutions 
do not share certain of the characteristics of the Group A CIDIs, they 
would submit a further streamlined Resolution Plan as discussed below 
under ``Content.''
     Group C CIDIs: ``Group C'' would include smaller, less 
complex regional IDIs. Due to the relative lack of complexity of these 
institutions, there is a higher degree of likelihood that, given 
adequate advance preparation, an assuming institution would purchase 
the assets and assume the liabilities of the institution at the time of 
failure. Advance resolution planning would be an important factor in 
the success of such a resolution transaction for an institution of this 
size and complexity, including whether a Group C CIDI could be 
successfully marketed to an assuming institution or would need to be 
resolved using a bridge bank. Group C CIDIs would not be required to 
submit a Resolution Plan.
2. Alternative Two
    As an alternative to the approach described immediately above, the 
FDIC is considering revising the IDI Rule to provide for a tiered 
approach comprising two groups:
     Larger CIDIs: Group A and Group B CIDIs (together, Larger 
CIDIs) would be subject to a continuum of disclosure obligations for 
their Resolution Plan submissions based upon the size, complexity, and 
other factors of the specific IDI, instead of the two Groups having 
distinct informational requirements. Larger CIDIs would be required to 
provide Resolution Plan information based upon their components of 
complexity,\11\ as discussed below under ``Content--Alternative Two.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Components of complexity include those features of an IDI 
which could have a bearing on its resolvability, triggering a 
corresponding informational requirement in the Resolution Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Group C CIDIs: Group C CIDIs would not have a Resolution 
Plan filing requirement under either Alternative.
    Under both Alternative One and Alternative Two, all CIDIs subject 
to the IDI Rule would periodically engage with the FDIC on planning 
matters and undergo periodic capabilities testing to support the FDIC's 
resolution planning efforts, as discussed below under ``Engagement and 
capabilities testing.''
3. Solicitation for Input
    The FDIC welcomes comments related to the tiered submission groups 
in response to these questions:
    1. As mentioned above, an IDI is currently subject to the IDI Rule 
if it has $50 billion or more in total assets. How should the FDIC 
determine which institutions are subject to the IDI Rule? Should the 
FDIC continue to use a specific asset threshold? If so, what should the 
asset threshold be? Are there other specific metrics or criteria the 
FDIC should use? Are there specific metrics that measure complexity or 
risk that the FDIC should use?
    2. Under both alternatives, how should the FDIC determine which 
CIDIs are in which group? Are there specific metrics or criteria the 
FDIC should use? Should the FDIC rely solely on asset thresholds or 
should the FDIC use additional or other metrics to measure relative 
complexity and risk? If so, what are the other metrics? Should the FDIC 
consider a measure of funding structure impact on resolution as a 
metric? Should the FDIC endeavor to align the groups with the 
categories being proposed for bank holding companies under the Section 
165(d) Rule?
    3. What are the pros and cons of Alternative One and Alternative 
Two? Which approach should the FDIC implement, and why? Are there other 
variations of either approach that the FDIC should consider?
    4. Under Alternative Two, the FDIC is considering approaching size, 
complexity, and other factors related to resolvability as they arise in 
individual components at each CIDI, such that a particular 
informational Resolution Plan element would not be required unless a 
corresponding metric crossed a threshold. Is this a useful way to 
consider resolvability? Why or why not?
    5. Is Alternative Two feasible? If so, what specific criteria 
should the FDIC

[[Page 16625]]

consider for purposes of considering the size, complexity, and other 
factors related to resolvability of Larger CIDIs and mapping such 
factors to content requirements?
    6. Should the FDIC have discretion to move a CIDI to a different 
group based on specific characteristics of the CIDI? If so, what 
factors should the FDIC consider in making such a determination? Does 
the appropriateness of such a discretionary authority vary depending on 
whether the groups are distinguished by asset thresholds alone or in 
combination with other factors?

B. Content

1. Alternative One
    In line with the tiered approach to resolution planning 
requirements discussed in ``Tiered Approach--Alternative One,'' above, 
the FDIC is considering an approach whereby Resolution Plan 
requirements would align more closely to the size, complexity, and 
other factors of the subject CIDIs. Content requirements would differ 
substantially between Group A and Group B CIDIs. Group C CIDIs would 
not be required to file a formal Resolution Plan. All CIDIs would be 
required to periodically engage with FDIC resolution staff on certain 
specified resolution planning matters and would continue to be subject 
to capabilities testing, as discussed below under ``Engagement and 
capabilities testing.''
Group A CIDIs
    Group A CIDIs would be subject to all content requirements 
specified in the amended IDI Rule. The content requirements would be 
modified from those in the current IDI Rule.
    The current IDI Rule requires CIDIs to develop strategies for 
resolution of the CIDI, including a strategy to unwind its operations 
from the organizational structure of its parent \12\ and a strategy for 
the sale or other disposition of the deposit franchise.\13\ Because the 
FDIC manages FDI Act resolutions, the FDIC is considering modifying 
these content requirements to clarify that the FDIC would develop the 
strategies and make the least cost test determination, with information 
provided by the CIDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(v).
    \13\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current IDI Rule also requires the CIDI to describe any 
contingency planning or other exercises undertaken to assess the 
viability of or to improve the resolution plan.\14\ Contingency 
planning is an important component of resolution planning, and one for 
which CIDIs are an integral part. CIDIs may not be in the best 
position, however, to assess their Resolution Plan, and the contingency 
planning exercises should not necessarily be seen as a reflection of 
the merit of the Resolution Plan submissions. Similarly, while there is 
value in confirming that a CIDI treats preparation of the Resolution 
Plan with the appropriate degree of commitment and level of attention, 
detailed information concerning the corporate governance structure for 
developing, approving, and filing the Resolution Plan may have limited 
relevance to the FDIC's resolution planning efforts.\15\ Information 
concerning how resolution planning is integrated into the CIDI's 
corporate governance structure may be of greater utility.\16\ 
Accordingly, the FDIC is reconsidering these content requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xxi).
    \15\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(B) and (C).
    \16\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xx)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, it is expected that a Group A CIDI would 
participate in resolution planning through the DFA Resolution Plan 
filed by its parent or affiliate. That DFA Resolution Plan may include 
important analysis relating to the IDI, for example, interconnections 
and interdependencies among the parent company, the CIDI, and certain 
other subsidiaries that, if disrupted, would materially affect the 
CIDI's funding or operations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 12 CFR 381.4(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To promote efficiency and reduce burden, the FDIC is encouraging 
the use of incorporation by reference to DFA Resolution Plan filings 
where practicable. In the past, the FDIC also has encouraged CIDIs to 
eliminate content not required in a particular submission through 
incorporating such content by reference to the prior submission.
    In the past, the FDIC has provided waivers on Resolution Plan 
informational content where appropriate. This practice could be 
expanded for Group A (and Group B) CIDIs.
Group B CIDIs
    The content requirements for a Group B CIDI would be further 
streamlined such that Group B CIDIs would submit a subset of the 
Resolution Plan required of Group A CIDIs. In addition to the content 
requirement modifications noted above, which would apply to both Group 
A and Group B CIDIs, certain informational requirements may be less 
relevant for certain Group B CIDIs due to their size, complexity, and 
other factors. The specific informational requirements would be 
determined in tandem with the determination of the scope of the Group B 
CIDIs, as discussed above under ``Tiered approach.''
Group C CIDIs
    Group C CIDIs would no longer be required to file a Resolution 
Plan.
2. Alternative Two
    The FDIC is considering a second approach under which there would 
be no bright-line distinction with regard to the informational 
requirements for Larger CIDIs. Under this approach, content 
requirements would exist along a continuum based upon the size, 
complexity, and other factors of the particular CIDI. This would 
naturally reduce plan content the most for CIDIs who operate less 
complex franchises, versus the more structured approach outlined in 
Alternative One.
    Informational requirements that may in particular be impacted could 
include: Information concerning major counterparties of the CIDI; \18\ 
a description of off-balance-sheet exposures; \19\ information 
concerning the CIDI's pledged collateral; \20\ information on the 
CIDI's trading, derivatives, and hedging activities; \21\ a description 
of the systemically important functions of the CIDI and its affiliates; 
\22\ and a description of cross-border elements of the CIDI's 
operations.\23\ The FDIC is considering modifying these content 
requirements for Larger CIDIs for whom some of this information may be 
less material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ix).
    \19\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(x).
    \20\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xi).
    \21\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii).
    \22\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xvii).
    \23\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xviii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Informational requirements would be dictated by the components of 
complexity of the particular Larger CIDI. For example, a Larger CIDI 
which engages in significant cross-border operations would present the 
corresponding metrics for complexity that would trigger the requirement 
to include a robust discussion of those activities in its Resolution 
Plan.\24\ This same institution may not have a significant qualified 
financial contract business or one that imposes significant risk on its 
business, and also may not provide systemically important 
functions.\25\ Because those requirements relating to qualified 
financial contracts and systemically important functions would not be 
triggered, the Resolution Plan for this Larger CIDI potentially could 
provide streamlined content on

[[Page 16626]]

these items, or would not be required to respond to the informational 
item. Further, the FDIC is considering describing in regulatory text 
the specific metrics it would use to determine which specific 
informational requirements would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xii) and (xvii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As under Alternative One, Group C CIDIs would not file a Resolution 
Plan under Alternative Two. Also as under Alternative One, all CIDIs 
subject to the IDI Rule would be required to periodically engage with 
FDIC resolution staff on certain specified resolution planning matters 
and would continue to be subject to capabilities testing, as discussed 
below under ``Engagement and capabilities testing.''
3. Solicitation for Input
    The FDIC welcomes comments related to content requirements in 
response to these questions:
    7. What are the costs and benefits of the current IDI plan content 
requirements?
    8. What current aspects of the resolution planning requirements are 
the most burdensome for CIDIs? Are there specific resolution planning 
requirements that commenters believe do not provide sufficient benefit 
to the FDIC to justify the cost, and if so, which ones and why?
    9. How should the FDIC consider the costs and benefits of requiring 
Resolution Plans from CIDIs whose parent companies have adopted a 
single point of entry resolution strategy? What are the costs of 
requiring the submission of Resolution Plans for such CIDIs, and what 
is the expected value of the benefits of such advanced planning in the 
event that a resolution of a CIDI is necessary for such an institution?
    10. Are there specific requirements of the IDI Rule that may not be 
necessary for CIDIs that have adopted a single point of entry 
resolution strategy specifically because they have adopted such a 
strategy?
    11. Are there additional steps that the FDIC should take to remove 
duplication between the DFA Resolution Plans and the Resolution Plans 
for CIDIs without reducing the effectiveness of each Plan? If so, what 
are they and why would taking such steps be appropriate?
    12. What content requirements should be modified for Larger CIDIs 
(under both Alternatives)? Why and in what manner?
    13. What content requirements should be modified solely for Group B 
CIDIs under Alternative One? Why and in what manner?
    14. Are waivers useful to help streamline and customize the 
informational requirements for CIDIs? Should the FDIC consider 
expanding the use of waivers, and if so how?
    15. In Alternative Two, the FDIC is proposing to base informational 
requirements for the Larger CIDIs upon the components of complexity for 
each such institution. Should the FDIC base the informational 
requirements off of the individual characteristics of the CIDI? Why or 
why not?
    16. Is there content not presently required by the IDI Rule that 
could improve the effectiveness of Resolution Plan submissions and 
resolution planning for all CIDIs or for one or more Groups of CIDIs?
    17. Should the FDIC make any changes to help foster a transparent 
set of content requirements? What steps can the FDIC take to ensure 
transparency, while also exploring potential changes to the IDI Rule 
discussed above providing for a streamlined set of informational 
requirements based upon the nature of a CIDI's operations?
    18. What changes (if any) should be required to the public portions 
of Resolution Plans to make the resolution planning process more 
transparent? Why?
    19. Should the FDIC make any feedback letters it issues as part of 
the Resolution Plan process public? Why or why not?
    20. What else should the FDIC consider that would tailor the burden 
involved in preparing and submitting Resolution Plan information 
without reducing the IDI Rule's effectiveness? Are there ways that the 
FDIC could use automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology to facilitate transmission of resolution 
planning information?

C. Engagement and Capabilities Testing

1. Discussion
Engagement
    The current IDI Rule requires each CIDI to make its personnel 
available to assist the FDIC in assessing the credibility of the 
Resolution Plan and the ability of the CIDI to implement the Resolution 
Plan.\26\ As discussed above, while the FDIC would retain a Resolution 
Plan submission requirement for Larger CIDIs under both Alternatives, 
certain informational requirements may be modified or eliminated. Among 
those may be informational requirements related to resolution 
strategies, which would instead be developed by the FDIC using 
information it receives from the CIDI. Accordingly, the FDIC is 
considering modifying the IDI Rule's requirement related to access to 
personnel from facilitating the FDIC's assessment of the Resolution 
Plan to engaging with the FDIC to provide feedback on the development 
of the FDIC's resolution strategy for the particular CIDI. Areas of 
focus likely would include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Operational continuity (for example, critical services, 
back office applications, and key personnel retention);
     Disposition of the CIDI's franchise component(s) 
(including treatment of interconnections and dependencies);
     Management information systems reporting capabilities 
(that is, the CIDI's ability to provide key information needed for 
resolution when the institution is in financial distress and throughout 
resolution); and
     Liquidity needs and liquidity management practices 
(particularly significant off-balance sheet activities, large intraday 
needs, foreign currency dependencies, and international time-zone 
funding books).
    The direct engagement with CIDI staff would provide an opportunity 
for the FDIC to solicit feedback on the resolution strategy it develops 
for the institution. It would provide an opportunity to identify gaps 
in the FDIC's understanding of the particular institution and its 
potential challenges in resolution. The FDIC could use this opportunity 
to explore how identified gaps could be mitigated through additional 
data and analysis, future Resolution Plan submissions, or additional 
resolution strategy development.
    The format for this engagement could include in-person meetings 
between FDIC staff and personnel from the CIDI; requests for data and 
analysis; or other in-person or electronic outreach.
    In the case of Larger CIDIs, the engagement would cover the general 
informational requirements of their respective Resolution Plans. The 
FDIC would envision having an initial outreach session following the 
first Resolution Plan submission under the revised IDI Rule, followed 
by regular outreach sessions, in addition to any potential conditions-
based supplemental resolution planning as discussed below under 
``Frequency--Conditions-based supplemental resolution planning.'' The 
FDIC would also continue to make itself available to answer questions 
about Resolution Plan requirements.
    For Group C CIDIs, the requirement to submit a Resolution Plan 
would be eliminated; instead, the FDIC would engage in periodic 
resolution planning outreach with Group C CIDIs in lieu of the 
submission. Due to the size,

[[Page 16627]]

complexity, and operations of the Group C CIDIs, it is expected that 
the outreach would cover a limited number of items such as:
     Information on the structure and core business lines 
(including segmented financial analysis); \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Information about critical services and providers of those 
services; \28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Management information systems.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 12 CFR 360.10(c)(2)(xix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capabilities Testing
    Additionally, all CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule would continue to 
be subject to periodic capabilities testing.\30\ Capabilities testing 
would be intended to verify the accuracy of the Resolution Plan 
information provided to the FDIC, in the case of CIDIs that submit 
Resolution Plans, and the ability of the CIDI promptly to provide 
critical information if required to do so in exigent circumstances, in 
the case of all CIDIs subject to the IDI Rule. The capabilities testing 
would also be tailored according to the size, complexity, and other 
factors of the CIDI, based on the tiers described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 12 CFR 360.10(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of areas that could be covered through capabilities 
testing could include:
     Liabilities data.
     Operational continuity and bridge bank management: 
Critical services; key personnel; subsidiaries and affiliates; key 
accounting processes; and key operational processes.
     Determination of franchise value: Capability to produce 
marketing plan; segmented financial reporting; and due diligence room.
2. Solicitation for Input
    The FDIC welcomes comments related to engagement and capabilities 
testing in response to these questions:
    21. What are the costs and benefits if the FDIC replaces the plan 
submission requirement with the engagement as described above for Group 
C CIDIs?
    22. If the FDIC engages with the CIDIs to solicit their feedback on 
resolution strategies and plans developed by the FDIC, do commenters 
have specific recommendations regarding the format of that engagement?
    23. The FDIC is considering undertaking regular capabilities 
testing to help ensure that a CIDI will be able to provide critical 
information promptly if called upon to do so in exigent circumstances. 
How should the FDIC approach testing of CIDI capabilities? For Group A 
CIDIs and potentially some Group B CIDIs, how should the FDIC approach 
such testing given the additional challenges posed by increased 
operational complexity? For Group C CIDIs, how should the FDIC approach 
such testing given the relatively reduced level of operational 
complexity?
    24. Should the FDIC conduct simulations with CIDIs? If so, should 
any aspects of the simulations be made public?

D. Frequency

1. Discussion
Larger CIDIs
    Currently, a CIDI is required to submit an initial Resolution Plan 
followed by a Resolution Plan submission on an annual basis, unless the 
submission date is extended by the FDIC. In recognition of the 
challenges associated with an annual resolution plan submission, over 
the last few submission cycles the FDIC has extended plan filing 
deadlines to provide generally at least two years between resolution 
plan submissions.
    Under Alternative One, the FDIC is considering replacing the 
concurrent cycle with a staggered biennial/triennial cycle. Under this 
approach, Group A CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans biennially and 
Group B CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans every third year. Under 
Alternative Two, Larger CIDIs would submit Resolution Plans either 
biennially or triennially based on the characteristics of the CIDI.
    The FDIC is also considering a schedule in which the filing cycle 
would alternate between Resolution Plan submissions and further 
streamlined content submissions (focusing, for example, on a subset of 
informational requirements).
Group C CIDIs
    Group C CIDIs would no longer be required to submit Resolution 
Plans. Instead, the FDIC would engage with those institutions on 
certain resolution planning matters, as discussed above under 
``Engagement and capabilities testing.'' That engagement would occur on 
a periodic basis, in addition to any conditions-based supplemental 
resolution planning as discussed immediately below.
Conditions-Based Supplemental Resolution Planning
    While a CIDI is in a healthy, well-capitalized condition, the FDIC 
can reasonably limit its resolution readiness efforts to understanding 
and preparing for the general challenges that any type of failure or 
resolution of that CIDI would present. Once a CIDI begins to experience 
stress or becomes troubled, however, the particular circumstances 
surrounding these events may indicate a more specific and likely 
pathway to resolution. As these details become clear, the FDIC would 
need to quickly enhance its general readiness to resolve the 
institution to account for these actual circumstances. To ensure that 
the FDIC is prepared to resolve a CIDI, the FDIC is considering 
implementing supplemental resolution planning outreach and engagement 
if the FDIC determines that a CIDI is in stress or becomes troubled. 
The trigger could be linked to ratings, liquidity measures, market 
indicators, or other indicators.
    Following such a triggering event, the FDIC would be able promptly 
to re-engage with the CIDI on resolution planning matters, even if the 
CIDI is not at the point in the cycle at which such engagement 
ordinarily would occur. The FDIC would retain discretion in determining 
whether to reengage with the CIDI following such a triggering event, 
depending on the condition of the CIDI. The conditions-based 
supplemental engagement would include the activities and subject 
matters described above under ``Engagement and capabilities testing.'' 
This would allow the FDIC to refresh its resolution strategy for the 
CIDI and update key data and analysis through direct engagement with 
the CIDI at the time when resolution planning and preparedness is most 
time-sensitive, useful, and cost-effective.
2. Solicitation for Input
    The FDIC welcomes comments related to frequency in response to 
these questions:
    25. How frequently should the FDIC require Resolution Plan 
submissions from Larger CIDIs under both alternatives? Under 
Alternative Two, what measures of complexity, risk, or other 
characteristics should be considered in determining a CIDI's filing 
frequency?
    26. How frequently should the FDIC conduct resolution planning 
outreach with Larger CIDIs under both alternatives? How should this 
timeline coincide with the Resolution Plan submission timeline?
    27. How frequently should the FDIC conduct resolution planning 
outreach with Group C CIDIs?
    28. What are the costs and benefits of requiring Larger CIDIs to 
submit plans once every two/three years?
    29. Should the FDIC consider a schedule of alternating between 
Resolution Plan submissions and streamlined content submissions (for 
example, focusing on a subset of

[[Page 16628]]

informational requirements)? Why or why not?
    30. Should the FDIC endeavor to sync the Resolution Plan submission 
timeline for CIDIs with the timeline for DFA Resolution Plans for DFA 
Resolution Plan filers? If so, how?
    31. Should the FDIC consider utilizing an ad hoc submission program 
with information regarding each pertinent content area due at various 
times throughout the submission cycle (similar to an ongoing large bank 
continuous examination program) instead of maintaining the requirement 
for a Resolution Plan submission due on a single date? Why or why not?
    32. The FDIC is considering one or more conditions-based triggers 
to increase resolution planning engagement with a CIDI experiencing 
stress or in troubled condition. If the FDIC were to adopt such an 
approach, what condition-based trigger or triggers should the FDIC use, 
and why?

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2019.
Valerie Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08077 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P