[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41442-41447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14052]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Parts 303, and 347
RIN 3064-AF54
Branch Application Procedures
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FDIC proposes to amend its application requirements for
the establishment and relocation of branches and offices so that such
applications would no longer require statements regarding the
compliance of such proposals with the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). In connection with an ongoing and comprehensive review of the
FDIC's existing regulations and guidance to identify rules or guidance
that may be outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent, and after a careful
analysis of applicable law, staff has concluded that continued
consideration of the NHPA and the NEPA in the review of applications
for the establishment of a branch and applications for the relocation
of a branch or main office is not required under law and, therefore,
consideration of these statutes during the processing of these
applications is an unnecessary regulatory requirement for insured state
nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks. Accordingly, the
FDIC proposes to amend its regulations to remove NHPA and NEPA
requirements embedded in its branch application procedures, and to
rescind its statements of policy regarding the NHPA and the NEPA,
consistent with branch application procedures for national banks and
insured state member banks supervised by the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. These statements of policy respectively provide guidance
regarding the FDIC's consideration of the NHPA and the NEPA in the
context of the FDIC's review of applications for deposit insurance for
de novo institutions, the establishment of branches, and relocation
domestic branches or main offices.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2020.
[[Page 41443]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AF54, by any
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments in the portal.
Agency Website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/index.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the website.
Email: [email protected]. Include RIN 3064-AF54 in the
subject line of the message.
Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments/Legal ESS, 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 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Instructions: All submissions for this rulemaking must include the
agency name and RIN 3064-AF54. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/index.html,
including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions
on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Navid Choudhury, Counsel, Consumer
Compliance Unit, Legal Division, (202) 898-6526, [email protected];
Patricia A. Colohan, Associate Director, Risk Management Examination
Branch; (202) 898-7283, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Congress enacted the NHPA and the NEPA as discrete but related laws
to limit the impact of Federal Government initiatives on historic
properties and the environment, respectively. Both statutes apply
broadly across the Federal Government but to a limited universe of
Federal Government actions. Congress sought to incorporate historic
preservation and environmental considerations into the Federal
Government's work and also to augment and support state and local laws
that address historic preservation and environmental policy. The FDIC
historically has interpreted the NHPA and NEPA as having limited
application to deposit insurance and branch applications.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their ``undertakings'' on historic
properties.\1\ Likewise, section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA requires that
Federal agencies include, in every recommendation or report on major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, a detailed statement that addresses the environmental
impact of the proposal.\2\ For several years, the FDIC has interpreted
the scope of the NHPA and the NEPA as limited to the potential impact
on historic properties and the environment with respect to applications
for deposit insurance for de novo institutions and applications by
state non-member banks to establish a domestic branch and to relocate a
domestic branch or main office (Covered Applications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 54 U.S.C. 306108. Section 402 (54 U.S.C. 307101) of the NHPA
requires that federal undertakings outside of the United States take
into account adverse effects on sites inscribed on the World
Heritage List or on the foreign nation's equivalent of the National
Register for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse effects.
Congress added this provision to the NHPA in 1980 to govern federal
undertakings outside the United States.
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 4332(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC has implemented its responsibilities under the NHPA and
the NEPA with respect to Covered Applications by regulation and via
three statements of policy. In relevant part, the FDIC's regulations
generally require applicants to furnish statements regarding compliance
with NEPA and NHPA in connection with main office relocation
applications by state nonmember banks,\3\ domestic and foreign branch
establishment and relocation applications by state nonmember banks,\4\
and insured branch relocation applications by foreign banks.\5\ The
three statements of policy are: The Statement of Policy Regarding the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; \6\ the Statement of Policy
Regarding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; \7\ and the
Statement of Policy on Applications for Deposit Insurance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 12 CFR 303.40 and 303.42(b)(4) and (5).
\4\ 12 CFR 303.40, 303.42(b)(4) and (5), and 303.182.
\5\ 12 CFR 303.184.
\6\ 71 FR 42399 (July 26, 2006).
\7\ 63 FR 63475 (Nov. 13, 1998).
\8\ 63 FR 44756 (Nov. 20, 1998); amended 67 FR 79278 (Dec. 27,
2002). The FDIC expects to update this Statement of Policy at a
later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Regulations and Guidance
In an ongoing effort to streamline FDIC regulations and other
supervisory materials issued to the public, and to ensure that such
materials are timely, relevant, and effective, the FDIC initiated a
comprehensive review of its statements of policy and related matters to
identify those that could be rescinded. Additionally, as part of its
2017 decennial report to Congress required by the Economic Growth and
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA),\9\ the FDIC committed to
review all published guidance in order to identify any guidance that
should be revised or rescinded because such issuance is out-of-date or
otherwise no longer relevant. In accordance with the EGRPRA, the FDIC
regularly reviews its regulations to identify outdated or otherwise
unnecessary regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 12 U.S.C. 3311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the NHPA and NEPA are parallel but discrete
statutes. Courts determining whether these laws apply to a particular
Federal agency action have applied similar principles to both statutes.
Section 106 of the NHPA applies only to a Federal ``undertaking,''
which, for the type of work the FDIC does, means an activity
``requiring a federal permit, license or approval.'' \10\ Section
102(2)(C) of the NEPA applies only to a ``major Federal action,'' which
includes actions with environmental effects that may be major and which
are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility. In
reviewing the case law on what constitutes an ``undertaking'' under
NHPA or a ``major Federal action'' under the NEPA, the FDIC does not
believe that approval of a Covered Application constitutes a Federal
undertaking under section 106 or section 402 of the NHPA or a major
Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Undertaking is a project, activity, or program funded in
whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a
Federal agency, including: (1) Those carried out by or on behalf of
the Federal agency; (2) those carried out with Federal financial
assistance; (3) those requiring a Federal permit, license or
approval; and (4) those subject to state or local regulation
administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal
agency. 54 U.S.C. 300320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the
FDIC's consent in connection with: An insured state nonmember bank's
establishment of a domestic or foreign branch, an insured state
nonmember bank's relocation of its main office or a domestic branch,
and a foreign bank's relocation of an insured branch.\11\ Section 3(o)
defines a domestic branch as any branch bank, branch office, branch
agency, additional office, or any branch place of business located in
any State of the United States or in any Territory of the United
States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, or the Virgin Islands at which deposits are
[[Page 41444]]
received or checks paid or money lent.\12\ These functions (receiving
deposits, paying checks, and lending money) characterize a ``domestic
branch'' and are generally referred to as the ``core banking
functions.'' Section 3(o) likewise defines a ``foreign branch'' as any
office or place of business located outside the United States at which
``banking operations are conducted,'' \13\ and an insured branch of a
foreign bank is defined as a branch of a foreign bank at which insured
deposits are received.\14\ Section 18(d) therefore generally prohibits
a state nonmember bank from engaging in specified activities at a
location other than an FDIC-approved main office, domestic branch, or
foreign branch, and prohibits a foreign bank from receiving insured
deposits at a location other than an approved insured branch. Section
18(d) does not confer upon the FDIC the statutory authority to oversee
the construction or acquisition of bank premises, but it governs the
circumstances under which the FDIC may authorize a state nonmember bank
or an insured branch of a foreign bank to engage in specified banking
functions from bank premises. The FDIC's approval of an application
under section 18(d), as well as its consideration of NHPA and NEPA in
connection with deposit insurance applications, only authorizes certain
banking activities to occur at a particular geographic location--
nothing more. Therefore, the FDIC's approval of a Covered Application
does not authorize any building construction or demolition--or any
other activity that could affect historic properties or the
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 12 U.S.C. 1828(d)(1) & (2).
\12\ 12 U.S.C. 1813(o).
\13\ Id.
\14\ 12 U.S.C. 1813(s); see also 12 U.S.C. 3101(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC is currently the only Federal banking agency that requires
consideration of the NHPA and NEPA in connection with branch
applications. The Federal Reserve Board's and the OCC's regulatory
requirements with respect to branch applications do not incorporate
review of the NHPA and the NEPA requirements.\15\ After carefully
reviewing the FDIC's procedures for Covered Applications, the FDIC has
concluded that consideration of the NHPA and NEPA is not required by
law and is an unnecessary regulatory requirement for insured state
nonmember banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 84 FR 51711 (Sept. 30, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule; Rescission of Policy Statements
For the reasons discussed above, the FDIC proposes to make the
following amendments to its regulations.
Establishment and Relocation of Domestic Branches and Main Offices of
State Nonmember Banks
Part 303 subpart C of the FDIC's regulations sets forth the filing
requirements applicable to a state nonmember bank that seeks the FDIC's
consent to establish a domestic branch, relocate a domestic branch, or
relocate its main office. For each such application, Sec. 303.42
requires applicants to furnish a statement on the impact of the
proposal on the human environment for the purposes of complying with
the NEPA,\16\ and to furnish a statement regarding the eligibility of
the proposed site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places for purposes of complying with the NHPA.\17\ The proposed rule
would eliminate these filing requirements concerning the NEPA and the
NHPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 12 CFR 303.42(b)(4).
\17\ 12 CFR 303.42(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment and Relocation of Foreign Branches of State Nonmember
Banks
Section 303.182 of the FDIC's regulations sets forth the filing
requirements applicable to a state nonmember bank that seeks the FDIC's
consent to establish or relocate a foreign branch. For such an
application, Sec. 303.182 requires applicants to furnish a statement
regarding whether the proposed branch would be located on a site on the
World Heritage List or on the foreign county's equivalent of the
National Register of Historic Places for purposes of complying with the
NHPA.\18\ The proposed rule would eliminate this filing requirement. In
addition, Sec. 347.117 of the FDIC's regulations grants general
consent to eligible state nonmember banks to establish or relocate a
foreign branch,\19\ but Sec. 347.119 withholds such general consent
if, among other things, the proposed foreign branch would be located on
a site on the World Heritage List or on the foreign country's
equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places.\20\ The
proposed rule would eliminate this consideration as a basis for
withholding general consent for the establishment or relocation of a
foreign branch of an eligible state nonmember bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 12 CFR 303.182(a) and (b)(2)(i).
\19\ 12 CFR 347.117.
\20\ 12 CFR 347.119(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocation of an Insured Branch of a Foreign Bank
Section 303.184 of the FDIC's regulations sets forth the filing
requirements applicable to a foreign bank that seeks the FDIC's consent
to move an insured branch from one location to another. For such an
application, Sec. 303.184 requires applicants to furnish a statement
on the impact of the proposal on the human environment for the purposes
of complying with the NEPA,\21\ and to furnish a statement regarding
the eligibility of the proposed site for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places for purposes of complying with the
NHPA.\22\ The proposed rule would eliminate these filing requirements
concerning the NEPA and the NHPA. In addition, Sec. 303.184(d) sets
forth the approval criteria for a foreign bank's application to
relocate an insured branch.\23\ These criteria include, among other
things, compliance with NEPA and NHPA.\24\ The proposed rule would
eliminate compliance with the NEPA and the NHPA as approval criteria
for a foreign bank's relocation of an insured branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 12 CFR 303.184(a)(2)(iii).
\22\ 12 CFR 303.184(a)(2)(iv).
\23\ 12 CFR 303.184(d).
\24\ 12 CFR 303.184(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Amendments
Section 303.2 defines terms used throughout the FDIC's regulations.
These defined terms include ``NEPA'' \25\ and ``NHPA.'' \26\ Because
the amendments to the FDIC's regulations proposed above would remove
each additional instance where these terms appear in the FDIC's
regulations, the proposed rule would remove ``NEPA'' and ``NHPA'' as
defined terms from Sec. 303.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 12 CFR 303.2(w).
\26\ 12 CFR 303.2(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statements of Policy
As mentioned above, the FDIC has implemented its responsibilities
under the NHPA and the NEPA via statements of policy as well. The
Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 provides general guidance regarding the FDIC's compliance with the
NHPA and supplements procedures detailed in FDIC regulations and
regulations implementing the NHPA. Similarly, the Statement of Policy
on National Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings
Made with the FDIC addresses the FDIC's compliance with the NEPA with
respect to applications, notices and requests submitted to the
[[Page 41445]]
FDIC in accordance with governing regulations at 12 CFR 303. As a
result of the amendments to the FDIC's regulation regarding branch
applications with respect to compliance with the NHPA and the NEPA, the
FDIC proposes to rescind these two Statements of Policy for the reasons
discussed above.
The proposed amendments to 12 CFR parts 303 and 347 together with
the proposed rescission of the two Statements of Policy regarding the
NHPA and the NEPA, would eliminate requirements that are unnecessary
for insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign
banks, as well as improve the efficiency of the Covered Application
review process. Additionally, these actions would place the FDIC in
alignment with the other Federal banking agencies and remove a
competitive disadvantage insured state nonmember banks and insured
branches of foreign banks now face relative to insured state member
banks and national banks. Furthermore, insured state nonmember banks
and insured branches of foreign banks would remain subject to any
applicable state and local historic preservation and environmental
laws.
Expected Effects
According to the most recent data, the FDIC supervises 3,344
depository institutions. The proposed rule could specifically affect
3,302 state nonmember depository institutions supervised by the FDIC
and 10 insured branches of foreign banks.\27\ As previously discussed,
the proposed rule would (1) remove ``NEPA'' and ``NHPA'' as defined
terms in 12 CFR 303.2(w) and (x); (2) amend the branch application
filing procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12 CFR 303.42
by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA set forth
in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); (3) amend the foreign branch application
notice procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12 CFR 303.182
by removing the requirements to provide a statement in accordance with
NHPA set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)(i), and by removing NHPA
compliance as a basis for withholding general consent to establish or
relocate a foreign branch under 12 CFR 347.119(b); (4) amend the filing
procedures for moving an insured branch of a foreign bank set forth in
12 CFR 303.184 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the
NEPA set forth in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (d)(1)(iv); (5)
rescind the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966; and (6) rescind the Statement of Policy on
National Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made
with the FDIC. In so doing, the proposed rule would amend the required
contents for applications for establishment of a branch and
applications for relocation of a branch or main office. Between 2015
and 2018, the FDIC received 549 applications from 400 unique insured
State nonmember banks per year to establish a branch, 177 applications
from 152 unique insured State nonmember banks per year to relocate a
branch or main office, and 1 application from insured branches of
foreign banks per year to relocate a branch or main office, on
average.\28\ For purposes of this analysis, the FDIC is estimating that
the number of unique respondents affected by the proposed rule would be
consistent with this recent experience. Therefore, the FDIC estimates
that the proposed rule would affect 400 insured State nonmember banks
applying to establish a domestic branch, 152 insured State nonmember
institutions applying to relocate a branch or main office, and 1
insured branch of a foreign bank applying to relocate a branch or main
office, per year, on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ FDIC Call Report data, December 31, 2019.
\28\ ViSION, FDIC Application Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would likely reduce the costs associated with
filing branch applications for affected entities by making the process
more efficient. Although the proposed rule is expected to reduce costs
associated with Covered Applications for applicants dealing with
historic properties or environmental issues, the FDIC does not believe
the proposed rule will reduce the average hours per response for
Covered Applications. Additionally, as previously discussed, the FDIC
is currently the only Federal banking agency that requires
consideration of the NHPA and NEPA in connection with branch
applications. Therefore, the proposed rule is expected to remove a
competitive disadvantage that insured state nonmember banks and insured
branches of foreign banks now face relative to state member banks and
national banks.
The FDIC believes that the associated reductions in costs and
application information content are unlikely to generate significant
effects on the U.S. economy. The estimated cost reductions are likely
to be small because the number of entities affected is also estimated
to be small. Further, as previously discussed, while covered
applications of insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of
foreign banks would no longer be subject to NHPA or NEPA review under
federal law, they would remain subject to any applicable state and
local historic preservation and environmental laws. Accordingly,
outcomes for individual properties that are the subject of covered
applications may differ in some states from what they would have been
in the absence of the rule.
As previously discussed, after reviewing the case law on what
constitutes an ``undertaking'' under NHPA or a ``major Federal action''
under the NEPA, the FDIC does not believe that approval of a Covered
Application constitutes a federal undertaking under section 106 of the
NHPA or a major federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA.
Therefore, concurrent with the amendment of 12 CFR parts 303 and 347,
the FDIC is planning on rescinding the Statements of Policy entitled
Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, and Statement of Policy on National Environmental Policy Act
Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the FDIC. The FDIC believes
that the concurrent action to rescind these Statements of Policy will
help simplify the application process by removing unnecessary
information for applicants, thereby making it more efficient.
Alternatives Considered
The FDIC considered alternatives to the proposed rule but believes
that the proposed amendments represent the most appropriate option for
affected entities. As discussed previously, after carefully reviewing
the FDIC's procedures for Covered Applications, the FDIC has concluded
that consideration of the NHPA and the NEPA is not required by law and
is an unnecessary regulatory requirement of branch application review
process. The FDIC considered the alternative of retaining the current
regulations, but did not choose to do so because the regulations are
unnecessary, require entities to incur unnecessary costs associated
with submitting branch applications, and perpetuate a competitive
disadvantage for insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of
foreign banks relative to insured state member banks and national
banks. Additionally, the FDIC considered retaining the Statements of
Policy entitled, Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, the Statement of Policy on National
Environmental Policy Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the
FDIC, but did not choose to do so because upon reevaluation of
[[Page 41446]]
the applicability of what constitutes an ``undertaking'' under NHPA or
a ``major Federal action'' under the NEPA, and deletion of requirements
related to the NHPA and the NEPA in 12 CFR parts 303 and 347, these
Statements of Policy would be unnecessary. Therefore, the FDIC is
proposing to amend 12 CFR parts 303 and 347 by deleting the
requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA and to concurrently
rescind the related Statements of Policy.
Request for Comments
The FDIC invites comment on all aspects of the proposal.
Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, in connection
with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make
available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.\29\
However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its
certification, including a statement providing a factual basis for the
certification, in the Federal Register, together with the rule. The
Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined ``small entities'' to
include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal
to $600 million.\30\ Generally, the FDIC considers a significant effect
to be a quantified effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual
salaries and benefits, or 2.5 percent of total noninterest expenses.
The FDIC believes that effects in excess of these thresholds typically
represent significant effects for FDIC-supervised institutions. For the
reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule, if
adopted in final form, would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small banking organizations. Accordingly, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
\30\ The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $600
million or less in assets, where ``a financial institution's assets
are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four
quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.'' See 13 CFR
121.201 (as amended by 84 FR 34261, effective August 19, 2019).
``SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of size of
the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and
foreign affiliates.'' See 13 CFR 121.103. Following these
regulations, the FDIC uses a covered entity's affiliated and
acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four quarters, to
determine whether the FDIC-supervised institution is ``small'' for
the purposes of RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the most recent data, the FDIC supervises 3,344
insured depository institutions, of which 2,581 are considered small
banking organizations for the purposes of RFA.\31\ As previously
discussed, the proposed rule would (1) remove ``NEPA'' and ``NHPA'' as
defined terms in 12 CFR 303.2(w) and (x); (2) amend the branch
application filing procedures for state nonmember banks set forth in 12
CFR 303.42 by deleting the requirements related to the NHPA and the
NEPA set forth in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); (3) amend the foreign
branch application notice procedures for state nonmember banks set
forth in 12 CFR 303.182 by removing the requirements to provide a
statement in accordance with NHPA set forth in paragraphs (a) and
(b)(2)(i), and by removing NHPA compliance as a basis for withholding
general consent to establish or relocate a foreign branch under 12 CFR
347.119(b); (4) amend the filing procedures for moving an insured
branch of a foreign bank set forth in 12 CFR 303.184 by deleting the
requirements related to the NHPA and the NEPA set forth in paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (d)(1)(iv); (5) rescind the Statement of
Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; and
(6) rescind the Statement of Policy on National Environmental Policy
Act Procedures Relating to Filings Made with the FDIC. In so doing, the
proposed rule would amend the required contents for applications for
establishment of a branch and applications for relocation of a branch
or main office. The proposed rule could affect the 2,547 small state
nonmember depository institutions supervised by the FDIC. No insured
branches of foreign banks are considered small banking organizations
for the purposes of RFA.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ FDIC Call Report data for the period ending December 31,
2019.
\32\ FFIEC Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report), for
the period ending December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2015 and 2018, the FDIC received applications from 195
unique small insured State nonmember banks per year to establish a
branch and applications from 68 unique small insured State nonmember
banks per year to relocate a branch or main office, on average.\33\ For
purposes of this analysis, the FDIC is estimating that the number of
unique respondents affected by the proposed rule will be consistent
with this recent experience. Therefore, the FDIC estimates that the
proposed rule will affect approximately 195 small insured State
nonmember banks applying to establish a domestic branch and
approximately 68 small insured State nonmember institutions applying to
relocate a branch or main office, per year. In total, these 263
affected entities represent no more than an estimated 10.2 percent of
small FDIC-supervised institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ViSION, FDIC Application Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule is likely to reduce the costs associated with
filing Covered Applications for small entities, making the process more
efficient. Although the proposed rule is expected to reduce costs
associated with Covered Applications for small applicants dealing with
historic properties or environmental issues, the FDIC does not believe
the proposed rule will reduce the average hours per response for
Covered Applications. Additionally, as previously discussed, the FDIC
is currently the only Federal banking agency that requires
consideration of the NHPA and NEPA in connection with branch
applications. Therefore, the proposed rule is expected to remove a
competitive disadvantage that small insured state nonmember banks and
insured branches of foreign banks currently face relative to state
member banks and national banks.
Based on the information above, and pursuant to section 605(b) of
the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information
provided in this RFA section. In particular, would this proposed rule
have any significant effects that the FDIC has not identified on small
entities?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA),\34\ the FDIC 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 proposed rule affects the FDIC's current
information collection titled ``Application for a Bank to Establish a
Branch or Move its Main Office'' (OMB Control No. 3064-0070). In
particular, the proposed rule removes the requirements related to NHPA
and NEPA therefore reducing the PRA burden. However, the amount of
hourly burden previously indicated in connection with the PRA
information collection does not distinguish between the time to comply
with the NHPA and
[[Page 41447]]
NEPA and the other non-NHPA/NEPA notification requirements. For this
reason, the FDIC is assuming that any allotted time dedicated to NHPA
and NEPA is minimal and will result in a zero net change in the current
estimated average hourly burden for the information collection.
Therefore, no submission will be made to OMB for review. The FDIC,
does, however, invite comments on its PRA determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),\35\ in determining the effective
date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations
that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on
insured depository institutions (IDIs), each Federal banking agency
must consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and
the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations
would place on depository institutions, including small depository
institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the
benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA
requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose
additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs
generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that
begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in
final form.\36\ The proposed rule would reduce burden and would not
impose any reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured
depository institutions. Nevertheless, the FDIC invites comments that
further will inform its consideration of RCDRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
\36\ Id. at 4802(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act \37\ requires the Federal
banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules
published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the
proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner and invite comment
on the use of plain language. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 12 U.S.C. 4809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If
not, how could they present the proposed rule more clearly?
Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
If not, how could the proposed rules 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 FDIC incorporate to make the
regulation easier to understand?
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 303
Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance,
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings
associations.
12 CFR Part 347
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bank deposit
insurance, Banks, banking, Credit, Foreign banking, Investments,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, U.S. Investments abroad.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
12 CFR Chapter III
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC proposes to
amend 12 CFR parts 303 and 347 as follows:
PART 303--FILING PROCEDURES
0
1. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 378, 478, 1463, 1467a, 1813, 1815, 1817,
1818, 1819 (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1823, 1828, 1831i, 1831e,
1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1831z, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105, 3108,
3207, 5412; 15 U.S.C. 1601-1607.
Sec. 303.2 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 303.2, remove paragraphs (w) and (x); and redesignate
paragraphs (y) through (g)(g) as paragraphs (w) through (ee),
respectively.
Sec. 303.42 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 303.42, remove paragraphs (b)(4) and (5), and redesignate
paragraphs (b)(6) through (8) as paragraphs (b)(4) through (6),
respectively.
0
4. Amend Sec. 303.182 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)(i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 303.182 Establishing, moving or closing a foreign branch of an
insured state nonmember bank.
(a) Notice procedures for general consent. Notice in the form of a
letter from an eligible depository institution establishing or
relocating a foreign branch pursuant to Sec. 347.117(a) of this
chapter must be provided to the appropriate FDIC office no later than
30 days after taking such action. The notice must include the location
of the foreign branch, including a street address. The FDIC will
provide written acknowledgment of receipt of the notice.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The exact location of the proposed foreign branch, including
the street address.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 303.184 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and (vi) as paragraphs (a)(iii)
and (iv), respectively; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 303.184 Moving an insured branch of a foreign bank.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Compliance with the CRA and any applicable related
regulations, including 12 CFR part 345, has been considered and
favorably resolved;
* * * * *
PART 347--INTERNATIONAL BANKING
0
6. The authority citation for part 347 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820, 1828, 3103,
3104, 3105, 3108, 3109; Pub. L. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat.
1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010) (codified 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
Sec. 347.119 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 347.119 by removing paragraph (b) and redesignating
paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, on June 25, 2020.
James P. Sheesley,
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14052 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P