Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules 3345 

1Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), 

codified at 12 U.S.C. 5365. 

2 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(B). 

3 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(C). 

4 77 FR 61238 (Oct. 9, 2012). 

5 83 FR 7951 (Feb. 23, 2018). 

6Public Law 115–174, 132 Stat. 1296–1368 

(2018). 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Part 46 

[Docket ID OCC–2018–0035] 

RIN 1557–AE55 

Amendments to the Stress Testing 

Rules for National Banks and Federal 

Savings Associations 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

with request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The OCC is requesting 

comment on a proposed rule that would 

amend the OCC’s company-run stress 

testing requirements for national banks 

and Federal savings associations, 

consistent with section 401 of the 

Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, 

and Consumer Protection Act 

(EGRRCPA). Specifically, the proposed 

rule would revise the minimum 

threshold for national banks and Federal 

savings associations to conduct stress 

tests from $10 billion to $250 billion, 

revise the frequency by which certain 

national banks and Federal savings 

associations would be required to 

conduct stress tests, and reduce the 

number of required stress testing 

scenarios from three to two. The 

proposed rule would also make certain 

facilitating and conforming changes to 

the stress testing requirements. 

DATES: Comments on the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must be received 

by March 14, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are encouraged 

to submit comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. 

Please use the title ‘‘Amendments to the 

Stress Testing Rules for National Banks 

and Federal Savings Associations’’ to 

facilitate the organization and 

distribution of the comments. You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal— 

‘‘Regulations.gov’’: Go to 

www.regulations.gov. Enter ‘‘OCC– 

2018–0035’’ in the Search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Comment Now’’ to 

submit public comments. Click on the 

‘‘Help’’ tab on the Regulations.gov home 

page to get information on using 

Regulations.gov, including instructions 

for submitting public comments. 

• Email: regs.comments@

occ.treas.gov. 

• Mail: Legislative and Regulatory 

Activities Division, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th 

Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, 

DC 20219. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th 

Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, 

DC 20219. 

• Fax: (571) 465–4326. 

Instructions: You must include 

‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket 

ID OCC–2018–0035’’ in your comment. 

In general, OCC will enter all comments 

received into the docket and publish the 

comments on the Regulations.gov 

website without change, including any 

business or personal information that 

you provide such as name and address 

information, email addresses, or phone 

numbers. Comments received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and subject to public disclosure. Do not 

include any information in your 

comment or supporting materials that 

you consider confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

You may review comments and other 

related materials that pertain to this 

rulemaking action by any of the 

following methods: 

• Viewing Comments Electronically: 

Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter 

‘‘Docket ID OCC–2018–0035’’ in the 

Search box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ on the right side 

of the screen. Comments and supporting 

materials can be viewed and filtered by 

clicking on ‘‘View all documents and 

comments in this docket’’ and then 

using the filtering tools on the left side 

of the screen. Click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab 

on the Regulations.gov home page to get 

information on using Regulations.gov. 

The docket may be viewed after the 

close of the comment period in the same 

manner as during the comment period. 

• Viewing Comments Personally: You 

may personally inspect comments at the 

OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC 

requires that visitors make an 

appointment to inspect comments. You 

may do so by calling (202) 649–6700 or, 

for persons who are deaf or hearingimpaired, TTY, (202) 649–5597. Upon 

arrival, visitors will be required to 

present valid government-issued photo 

identification and submit to security 

screening in order to inspect comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hein Bogaard, Lead Economic Expert, 

International Analysis and Banking 

Condition, (202) 649–5450; or Henry 

Barkhausen, Counsel, or Daniel Perez, 

Attorney, (202) 649–5490, Chief 

Counsel’s Office; or for persons who are 

deaf or hearing-impaired, TTY, (202) 

649–5597; Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act),1 as 

initially enacted, required a national 

bank or Federal savings association 

(FSA) (collectively, banks) with total 

consolidated assets of more than $10 

billion to conduct and report an annual 

stress test. In addition, section 165 

required these banks to provide a report 

to the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC) at such time, in such 

form, and containing such information 

as the OCC may require.2 In addition, 

section 165 required the OCC to issue 

regulations that establish methodologies 

for banks conducting their stress test 

and required the methodologies to 

include at least three different stresstesting scenarios: ‘‘baseline,’’ ‘‘adverse,’’ 

and ‘‘severely adverse.’’ 3 In October 

2012, the OCC published in the Federal 

Register its rule implementing the 

Dodd-Frank Act stress testing 

requirement.4 The OCC’s rule 

established two subgroups for covered 

institutions—‘‘$10 to $50 billion 

covered institutions’’ and ‘‘$50 billion 

or over covered institutions’’—and 

subjected the two subgroups to different 

stress test requirements and deadlines 

for reporting and disclosures. In 

February 2018, the OCC published a 

second rule making additional technical 

and conforming changes to the OCC’s 

company-run stress testing regulations.5

The Economic Growth, Regulatory 

Relief, and Consumer Protection Act 

(EGRRCPA), enacted on May 24, 2018, 

amended certain aspects of the 

company-run stress testing requirement 

in section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act.6 Specifically, section 401 of 

EGRRCPA raises the minimum asset 

threshold for financial companies 

covered by the company-run stress 

testing requirement from $10 billion to 

$250 billion in total consolidated assets; 

revises the requirement for banks to 

conduct stress tests ‘‘annually’’ and 

instead require them to conduct stress 

tests ‘‘periodically’’; and no longer 

requires the OCC to provide an 

‘‘adverse’’ stress-testing scenario, thus 

reducing the number of required stress 

test scenarios from three to two. The 

amendments made by section 401 of 

EGRRCPA applicable to financial 

3346 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

7On July 6, 2018, the OCC, jointly with the Board 

and the FDIC, extended the deadline for all 

regulatory requirements related to company-run 

stress testing for depository institutions with 

average total consolidated assets of less than $100 

billion until November 25, 2019. See Interagency 

statement regarding impact of the Economic 

Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 

Protection Act, July 6, 2018, available at https://

www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/ 

2018/nr-ia-2018-69a.pdf. 

8 In addition to requesting comment on this 

proposed rule, the OCC is currently reviewing the 

agency’s guidance with respect to stress testing, in 

light of section 401 of EGRRCPA, and will issue 

amendments or rescissions as appropriate. 

companies become effective eighteen 

months after EGRRCPA’s enactment.7

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

The OCC is proposing to revise the 

OCC’s stress testing rule, at 12 CFR part 

46, consistent with the amendments 

made by section 401 of the EGRRCPA 

(the proposed rule or proposal).8 The 

proposal would also make a few 

additional technical and facilitating 

changes to the stress testing rule. 

A. Covered Institutions 

As described above, section 401 of 

EGRRCPA amends section 165 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act by raising the 

minimum asset threshold for banks 

required to conduct stress tests from $10 

billion to $250 billion. The proposed 

rule implements this change by 

eliminating the two existing 

subcategories of ‘‘covered institution’’— 

‘‘$10 to $50 billion covered institution’’ 

and ‘‘$50 billion or over covered 

institution’’—and revising the term 

‘‘covered institution’’ to mean a national 

bank or FSA with average total 

consolidated assets, calculated as 

required under this part, that are greater 

than $250 billion. In addition, the 

proposal makes certain technical and 

conforming changes to the rule in order 

to consolidate requirements that were 

applied differently to $10 to $50 billion 

covered institutions and $50 billion or 

over covered institutions. 

B. Frequency of Stress Testing 

EGRRCPA eliminates the requirement 

under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act for covered institutions to conduct 

stress tests on an ‘‘annual’’ basis and, 

instead, requires that they be 

‘‘periodic.’’ The term ‘‘periodic’’ is not 

defined in EGRRCPA, and the OCC is 

proposing that, in general, a covered 

institution would be required to 

conduct, report, and publish a stress test 

once every two years, beginning on 

January 1, 2020, and continuing every 

even-numbered year thereafter (i.e., 

2022, 2024, 2026, etc.). However, a 

covered institution that is consolidated 

under a holding company that is 

required to conduct a stress test at least 

once every calendar year (pursuant to 

regulations of the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve (Board) at 12 CFR 

part 252) would be required to conduct, 

report, and publish its stress test 

annually. The proposal also adds a new 

defined term, ‘‘reporting year,’’ to the 

definitions at § 46.2. A covered 

institution’s reporting year is the year in 

which a covered institution must 

conduct, report, and publish its stress 

test. 

Subsequent to these changes, some 

covered institutions would have a 

biennial reporting year (biennial stress 

testing covered institutions) while 

others would have an annual reporting 

year (annual stress testing covered 

institutions). In either case, the dates 

and deadlines in the OCC’s stress testing 

rule would be interpreted relative to the 

covered institution’s reporting year. For 

example, if a biennial stress testing 

covered institution is preparing its 2022 

stress test, the covered institution would 

rely on financial data available as of 

December 31, 2021; use stress test 

scenarios that would be provided by the 

OCC no later than February 15, 2022; 

provide its report of the stress test to the 

OCC by April 5, 2022; and publish a 

summary of the results of its stress test 

in the period starting June 15 and 

ending July 15 of 2022. 

Based on the OCC’s experience 

overseeing and reviewing the results of 

company-run stress testing over more 

than five years, the OCC believes that a 

biennial stress testing cycle would be 

appropriate for most covered 

institutions. For covered institutions 

that would stress test on a biennial 

cycle, the OCC expects this level of 

frequency to provide the OCC and the 

covered institution with information 

that is sufficient to satisfy the purposes 

of stress testing, including: Assisting in 

an overall assessment of a covered 

institution’s capital adequacy, 

identifying risks and the potential 

impact of adverse financial and 

economic conditions on the covered 

institution’s capital adequacy, and 

determining whether additional 

analytical techniques and exercises are 

appropriate for a covered institution to 

employ in identifying, measuring, and 

monitoring risks to the soundness of the 

covered institution. In addition, the 

OCC would continue to review the 

covered intuition’s stress testing 

processes and procedures. Under the 

proposed rule, all covered institutions 

that would conduct stress tests on a 

biennial basis would be required to 

conduct stress tests in the same 

reporting year. By requiring these 

covered institutions to conduct their 

stress tests in the same year, the 

proposal would continue to allow the 

OCC to make comparisons across banks 

for supervisory purposes and assess 

macroeconomic trends and risks to the 

banking industry. 

Under the proposal, certain covered 

institutions would be required to 

conduct annual stress tests. This subset 

would be limited to covered institutions 

that are consolidated under holding 

companies that are required to conduct 

stress tests more frequently than once 

every other year. This requirement 

reflects the OCC’s expectation that 

covered institutions that would be 

required to stress test on an annual basis 

would be subsidiaries of the largest and 

most systemically important banking 

organizations (i.e., subsidiaries of global 

systemically important bank holding 

companies or bank holding companies 

that have $700 billion or more in total 

assets or $75 billion or more in crossborder activity). This treatment aligns 

with the agencies’ long-standing policy 

of applying similar standards to holding 

companies and their subsidiary banks. 

C. Removal of ‘‘Adverse’’ Scenarios 

Section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

requires the OCC to establish 

methodologies for covered institutions 

conducting a stress test and requires the 

methodologies to include at least three 

different stress-testing scenarios: 

‘‘baseline,’’ ‘‘adverse,’’ and ‘‘severely 

adverse.’’ EGRRCPA amends section 165 

to no longer require the OCC to include 

an ‘‘adverse’’ stress-testing scenario and 

reduces the number of required stress 

test scenarios from three to two. 

Accordingly, this proposal removes 

references to the ‘‘adverse’’ stress test 

scenario in the OCC’s stress testing rule. 

In the OCC’s experience, the ‘‘adverse’’ 

stress-testing scenario has provided 

limited incremental information to the 

OCC and market participants beyond 

what the ‘‘baseline’’ and ‘‘severely 

adverse’’ stress-testing scenarios 

provide. The proposal would maintain 

the requirement for the OCC to conduct 

supervisory stress tests under both a 

‘‘baseline’’ and ‘‘severely adverse’’ 

stress-testing scenario. 

D. Transition Process for Covered 

Institutions 

Section 46.3 of the OCC’s current rule 

provides a transition period between 

when a bank becomes a covered 

institution and when the bank must 

report its first stress test. The OCC is 

amending the transition period in 

§ 46.3(b) to conform to the other changes 

in this proposal, including the 

establishment of annual and biennial 

stress testing covered institutions. 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules 3347 

Under the proposal, ‘‘A national bank or 

Federal savings association that 

becomes a covered institution shall 

conduct its first stress test under this 

part in the first reporting year that 

begins more than three calendar 

quarters after the date the national bank 

or Federal savings association becomes 

a covered institution, unless otherwise 

determined by the OCC in writing.’’ For 

example, if a covered institution that 

conducts stress tests on a biennial basis 

becomes a covered institution on March 

31 of a non-reporting year (e.g., 2023), 

the bank must report its first stress test 

in the subsequent calendar year (i.e., 

2024), which is its first reporting year. 

If the same bank becomes a covered 

institution on April 1 of a non-reporting 

year, it skips the subsequent calendar 

year and reports its first stress test in the 

next reporting year (i.e., 2026). As with 

other aspects of the stress test rule, the 

OCC may change the transition period 

for particular covered institutions, as 

appropriate in light of the nature and 

level of the activities, complexity, risks, 

operations, and regulatory capital of the 

covered institutions, in addition to any 

other relevant factors. 

The proposal would not establish a 

transition period for covered 

institutions that move from a biennial 

stress testing requirement to an annual 

stress testing requirement. Accordingly, 

a covered institution that becomes an 

annual stress testing covered institution 

would be required to begin stress testing 

annually as of the next reporting year. 

The OCC expects covered institutions to 

anticipate and make arrangements for 

this development. To the extent that 

particular circumstances warrant the 

extension of a transition period, the 

OCC would do so based on its 

reservation of authority and supervisory 

discretion. 

E. Review by Board of Directors 

The current § 46.6 of the stress testing 

rule requires the board of directors of a 

covered institution, or a committee 

thereof, to review and approve the 

covered institution’s stress testing 

policies and procedures as frequently as 

economic conditions or the condition of 

the institution may warrant, but no less 

than annually. The proposal would 

revise the frequency of this requirement 

from ‘‘annual’’ to ‘‘once every reporting 

year’’ in order to make review by the 

board of directors consistent with the 

covered institution’s stress testing cycle. 

F. Reservation of Authority 

Section 46.5 of the stress testing rule 

states the OCC’s reservation of the 

authority, pursuant to which the OCC 

may revise the frequency and 

methodology of the stress testing 

requirement as appropriate for 

particular covered institutions. The OCC 

is proposing to add the following 

sentence to paragraph (a)(2) of § 46.5 to 

further clarify its reservation of 

authority: ‘‘The OCC may also exempt 

one or more covered institutions from 

the requirement to conduct a stress test 

in a particular reporting year.’’ 

G. Removal of Transition Language 

The proposal would remove certain 

transition language present in the 

current stress testing rule that is no 

longer current. For example, the 

proposal would strike the following 

sentence from paragraph (a)(2) of § 46.6: 

‘‘Until December 31, 2015, or such other 

date specified by the OCC, a covered 

institution is not required to calculate 

its risk-based capital requirements using 

the internal ratings-based and advanced 

measurement approaches as set forth in 

12 CFR part 3, subpart E.’’ 

III. Request for Comment 

The OCC invites comment on all 

aspects of this proposed rule, including 

the following questions: 

1. The proposal would require a 

covered institution that is consolidated 

under a holding company that is 

required to conduct a stress test at least 

once every calendar year to treat every 

calendar year as a reporting year, unless 

otherwise determined by the OCC. Is 

this the appropriate frequency for this 

group of banks? What are the advantages 

and disadvantages of requiring a 

covered institution to conduct a stress 

test at the same frequency as, or at a 

different frequency than, its holding 

company? 

2. As an alternative to the requirement 

that a covered institution be required to 

stress test annually based on the stress 

testing requirements of its holding 

company, should the OCC establish 

separate criteria to capture certain large 

banks (e.g., banks above a specified 

asset threshold), regardless of whether 

they are consolidated under a holding 

company? 

3. All other covered institutions that 

are not required to stress test annually 

would be required to stress test 

biennially. Is this the appropriate 

frequency for this category of banks? 

Should the OCC further subdivide 

covered institutions into additional 

categories that would be subject to 

different frequency requirements? 

4. Is the length of the grace period for 

new covered institutions appropriate? 

Should the proposal establish a 

transition period for covered 

institutions that are already required to 

stress test and that move from a biennial 

stress testing requirement to an annual 

stress testing requirement? 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Riegle Community Development and 

Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA) 

The RCDRIA requires that the OCC, in 

determining the effective date and 

administrative compliance requirements 

of new regulations that impose 

additional reporting, disclosure, or other 

requirements on insured depository 

institutions (‘‘IDIs’’), consider, 

consistent with principles of safety and 

soundness and the public interest, any 

administrative burdens that such 

regulations would place on depository 

institutions, including small depository 

institutions, and customers of 

depository institutions, as well as the 

benefits of such regulations. 12 U.S.C. 

4802. In addition, in order to provide an 

adequate transition period, new 

regulations that impose additional 

reporting, disclosures, or other new 

requirements on IDIs generally must 

take effect on the first day of a calendar 

quarter that begins on or after the date 

on which the regulations are published 

in final form. 

The proposed rule imposes no 

additional reporting, disclosure, or other 

requirements on IDIs, including small 

depository institutions, nor on the 

customers of depository institutions. 

The proposed rule would reduce the 

frequency of company-run stress tests 

for a subset of banks, raise the threshold 

for covered institutions from $10 billion 

to $250 billion, and reduce the number 

of required stress test scenarios from 

three to two for all banks. Nonetheless, 

in connection with determining an 

effective date for the proposed rule, the 

OCC invites comment on any 

administrative burdens that the 

proposed rule would place on 

depository institutions, including small 

depository institutions, and customers 

of depository institutions. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq. (‘‘RFA’’), requires an 

agency, in connection with a proposed 

rule, to prepare an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis describing the 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities (defined by the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) for purposes of 

the RFA to include banking entities 

with total assets of $550 million or less) 

or to certify that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

As of December 31, 2017, the OCC 

supervised approximately 886 small 

3348 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

9The OCC bases its estimate of the number of 

small entities on the SBA’s size thresholds for 

commercial banks and savings institutions, and 

trust companies, which are $550 million and $38.5 

million, respectively. Consistent with the General 

Principles of Affiliation 13 CFR 121.103(a), the OCC 

counts the assets of affiliated financial institutions 

when determining if it should classify an OCCsupervised institution as a small entity. The OCC 

uses December 31, 2017, to determine size because 

a ‘‘financial institution’s assets are determined by 

averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly 

financial statements for the preceding year.’’ See 

footnote 8 of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration’s Table of Size Standards. 

entities.9 Because the proposed rule 

would only cover OCC-supervised 

banks with more than $250 billion in 

consolidated assets, the OCC anticipates 

that it would not impose additional 

costs on any OCC-supervised 

institutions. Therefore, the OCC certifies 

that the proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of OCC-supervised 

small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) states that no 

agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is 

the respondent required to respond to, 

an information collection unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The information collection 

requirements in the proposal are found 

in §§ 46.6 through 46.8. 

Currently, § 46.6(c) requires that each 

covered institution establish and 

maintain a system of controls, oversight, 

and documentation, including policies 

and procedures, describing the covered 

institution’s stress test practices and 

methodologies, and processes for 

validating and updating the covered 

institution’s stress test practices. The 

board of directors of the covered 

institution must approve and review 

these policies at least annually. Section 

46.7(a) requires each covered institution 

to report the results of their stress tests 

to the OCC annually. Section 46.8(a) 

requires that a covered institution 

publish a summary of the results of its 

annual stress tests on its website or in 

any other forum that is reasonably 

accessible to the public. 

Under the proposal, the increase in 

the applicability threshold for these 

requirements under the proposal would 

reduce the estimated number of 

respondents. In addition the frequency 

of these reporting, recordkeeping, and 

disclosure requirements for some 

institutions would be decreased to 

biennial. 

Estimated number of respondents: 8 

(biennial testing: 4; annual testing: 4). 

Estimated total annual burden: 6,240 

hours. 

Comments are requested on: 

(a) Whether the information 

collections are necessary for the proper 

performance of the OCC’s functions, 

including whether the information has 

practical utility; 

(b) The accuracy of the OCC’s 

estimates of the burden of the 

information collections, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; 

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of 

information collections on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and 

(e) Estimates of capital or start-up 

costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The OCC analyzed the proposed rule 

under the factors set forth in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the 

OCC considered whether the proposed 

rule includes a federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by state, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation). 

The proposed rule does not impose 

new mandates. Therefore, the OCC 

concludes that implementation of the 

proposed rule would not result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

annually by state, local, and tribal 

governments, or by the private sector. 

E. Plain Language 

Section 722 of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act requires the OCC to use plain 

language in all proposed and final rules 

published after January 1, 2000. The 

OCC invites comment on how to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand. 

For example: 

• Has the OCC organized the material 

to inform your needs? If not, how could 

the OCC present the proposed rule more 

clearly? 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how 

could the proposal be more clearly 

stated? 

• Does the proposed regulation 

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 proposed 

regulation easier to understand? If so, 

what changes would achieve that? 

• Is this section format adequate? If 

not, which of the sections should be 

changed and how? 

• What other changes can the OCC 

incorporate to make the proposed 

regulation easier to understand? 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 46 

Banking, Banks, Capital, Disclosures, 

National banks, Recordkeeping, 

Reporting, Risk, Stress test. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the OCC proposes to amend 

12 CFR part 46 as follows: 

PART 46—STRESS TESTING 

■ 1. The heading for part 46 is revised 

to read as set forth above. 

■ 2. The authority citation for part 46 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a; 1463(a)(2); 

5365(i)(2); and 5412(b)(2)(B). 

■ 3. Section 46.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the definitions for ‘‘$10 

to $50 billion covered institution’’ and 

‘‘$50 billion or over covered 

institution’’. 

■ b. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Covered institution’’ and ‘‘Scenarios’’; 

and 

■ c. Adding a definition for ‘‘Reporting 

year’’ in alphabetical order. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 46.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Covered institution means a national 

bank or Federal savings association with 

average total consolidated assets, 

calculated as required under this part, 

that are greater than $250 billion. 

* * * * * 

Reporting year means the calendar 

year in which a covered institution must 

conduct, report, and publish its stress 

test. 

* * * * * 

Scenarios means sets of conditions 

that affect the U.S. economy or the 

financial condition of a covered 

institution that the OCC determines are 

appropriate for use in the stress tests 

under this part, including, but not 

limited to, baseline and severely adverse 

scenarios. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 46.3 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) and removing 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 46.3 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Covered institutions that become 

subject to stress testing requirements. A 

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules 3349 

national bank or Federal savings 

association that becomes a covered 

institution shall conduct its first stress 

test under this part in the first reporting 

year that begins more than three 

calendar quarters after the date the 

national bank or Federal savings 

association becomes a covered 

institution, unless otherwise determined 

by the OCC in writing. 

(c) Ceasing to be a covered institution 

or changing categories. A covered 

institution shall remain subject to the 

stress test requirements until total 

consolidated assets of the covered 

institution falls below the relevant size 

threshold for each of four consecutive 

quarters as reported by the covered 

institution’s most recent Call Reports, 

effective on the ‘‘as of’’ date of the 

fourth consecutive Call Report. 

■ 5. Section 46.4 is amended by adding 

a sentence at the end of paragraph (a)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 46.4 Reservation of authority. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * The OCC may also exempt 

one or more covered institutions from 

the requirement to conduct a stress test 

in a particular reporting year. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 46.5 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading as set 

forth below; 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘annual’’ in the 

introductory paragraph; 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); and 

■ d. Adding a new paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 46.5 Stress testing. 

* * * * * 

(a) Financial data. A covered 

institution must use financial data 

available as of December 31 of the 

calendar year prior to the reporting year. 

(b) Scenarios provided by the OCC. In 

conducting the stress test under this 

part, each covered institution must use 

the scenarios provided by the OCC. The 

scenarios provided by the OCC will 

reflect a minimum of two sets of 

economic and financial conditions, 

including baseline and severely adverse 

scenarios. The OCC will provide a 

description of the scenarios required to 

be used by each covered institution no 

later than February 15 of the reporting 

year. 

* * * * * 

(e) Frequency. A covered institution 

that is consolidated under a holding 

company that is required, pursuant to 

applicable regulations of the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve, to 

conduct a stress test at least once every 

calendar year must treat every calendar 

year as a reporting year, unless 

otherwise determined by the OCC. All 

other covered institutions must treat 

every even-numbered calendar year 

beginning January 1, 2020 (i.e., 2022, 

2024, 2026, etc.), as a reporting year, 

unless otherwise determined by the 

OCC. 

§ 46.6 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 46.6 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a) (2), by removing 

the last sentence; and 

■ b. In paragraph (c) (2), by removing 

the word ‘‘annually’’ and replacing it 

with the phrase ‘‘once every reporting 

year’’. 

■ 8. Section 46.7 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b); and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (b). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 46.7 Reports to the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal 

Reserve Board. 

(a) Timing. A covered institution must 

report to the OCC and to the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, on or before April 5 of the 

reporting year, the results of the stress 

test in the manner and form specified by 

the OCC. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 46.8 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

revising it; 

■ ii. Removing paragraph (a)(2); and 

iii. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

and (a)(1)(ii) as paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2), respectively; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b): 

■ i. Removing the phrase ‘‘an annual 

company-run’’ and adding the phrase ‘‘a 

company-run’’ in its place; and 

■ ii. Removing the phrase ‘‘annual stress 

test’’ in the second sentence and adding 

the phrase ‘‘stress test’’ in its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 46.8 Publication of disclosures. 

* * * * * 

(a) Publication date. A covered 

institution must publish a summary of 

the results of its stress test in the period 

starting June 15 and ending July 15 of 

the reporting year, provided: 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

William A. Rowe, 

Chief Risk Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27875 Filed 2–11–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

Proposed Modification of the Miami, 

FL, Class B Airspace; and the Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace 

Areas; Public Meeting Postponement 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT 

ACTION: Notice of meeting; 

postponement. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

postponement of a fact-finding informal 

airspace meeting regarding a plan to 

modify the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace, 

and the Fort Lauderdale, FL, Class C 

Airspace areas. The meeting was 

previously scheduled for February 27, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office 

of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

published a notice of meeting in the 

Federal Register (83 FR 66646; 

December 27, 2018) holding an informal 

airspace meeting to discuss plans for 

modifying the Miami, FL, Class B 

Airspace, and the Fort Lauderdale, FL, 

Class C Airspace areas. The meeting was 

to be held on Wednesday, February 27, 

2019, at Broward College, Pembroke 

Pines, FL. In light of the recent federal 

government shutdown, the FAA has 

decided to postpone the meeting to 

provide additional time for planning 

and preparation. 

Once arrangements for a new meeting 

are finalized, the details will be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O.10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

Issued in Washington DC, on February 6, 

2019. 

Rodger A. Dean, Jr., 

Manager, Airspace Policy Group. 

[FR Doc. 2019–02058 Filed 2–11–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P