Banking and Finance Law Daily Wrap Up, DEPOSIT INSURANCE—FDIC proposes changes to large-bank deposit insurance determination modernization rule, (Nov 2, 2026)
The proposal would rescind the FDIC’s recordkeeping rule that applies to insured depository institutions with two million or more deposit accounts.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Board of Directors have approved a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind 12 C.F.R. part 370 and shift deposit-insurance calculations from affected institutions’ systems to the FDIC’s own system (FIL-63-2026). The proposal would revise 12 C.F.R. § 360.9 to require qualifying institutions to maintain supporting records and provisional-hold capabilities, rather than eliminate those duties. In a memo to the Board, FDIC staff requested that the Board approve the proposal with comments due within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Part 370, titled “Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination,” currently requires affected institutions to operate and maintain systems capable of promptly calculating deposit-insurance coverage. The FDIC says improvements to its own systems since part 370’s 2016 adoption would allow rescission “without materially impeding the FDIC’s ability to calculate deposit insurance,” provided affected institutions comply with revised section 360.9.
The notice identifies 12 U.S.C. § 1821(f)(1) as requiring payment of insured deposits “as soon as possible” and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(c)(4) as supporting least-cost resolution. The FDIC aims to make most insured deposits available by the next business day after failure, but the statute sets no specific payment time limit.
Coverage and records. The proposal would define a covered institution, using its Reports of Condition and Income, as an insured depository institution with at least $2 billion in deposits and either at least 250,000 deposit accounts or at least $20 billion in total assets. The asset alternative would apply regardless of account count. A larger covered institution would be a subset with at least $2 billion in deposits and at least two million deposit accounts, measured using the same reports.
A part 370 institution previously released from Section 360.9 would have to comply with that section again if it meets the proposed covered-institution definition. That would include developing or redeveloping provisional-hold capabilities.
Larger covered institutions would have to populate 26 mandatory data fields and generally collect and maintain required depositor and customer information missing from their records. They would not have to collect missing additional information for accounts whose records disclose relationships potentially supporting additional insurance under 12 C.F.R. § 330.5 or § 330.7, or specified formal revocable and irrevocable trust accounts under 12 C.F.R. § 330.10 or § 330.12. They would still have to report information already maintained for those accounts.
The FDIC states that institutions currently subject to section 360.9 would face no new requirements or additional burdens. Its economic analysis separately identifies minor system or practice updates as direct costs for covered institutions, which it expects to be much less material than effects on current part 370 institutions.
Transition and indexing. Institutions that are larger covered institutions when a final revised rule takes effect generally would have six months from that date to meet all section 360.9 requirements other than provisional holds, and 18 months for provisional holds. An exception would preserve the relevant initial compliance date for an institution that became covered before the final rule’s effective date and already has an initial compliance date after that effective date.
The proposal would amend part 314 to index the $2 billion deposit thresholds in both definitions and the $20 billion asset threshold, but not deposit-account counts. The eventual final rule’s effective date would serve as the baseline. The first adjustment would take effect Oct. 1, 2029.
Hill statement. FDIC Chairman Travis Hill said in statement that “[the Board’s] objectives are straightforward: to rescind regulatory requirements that are no longer needed, while continuing to ensure we can execute on our core responsibility to resolve failed banks in an orderly manner and return insured funds to depositors as quickly as possible.”
MainStory: TopStory BankingOperations DepositInsurance PrudentialRegulation Receiverships