Jump to navigation
This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.
This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].
It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.
§ 1813 - Definitions
§ 1817 - Assessments
§ 1818 - Termination of status as insured depository institution
§ 1819 - Corporate powers
§ 1820 - Administration of Corporation
§ 1821 - Insurance Funds
§ 1822 - Corporation as receiver
Title 12 published on 11-May-2018 11:44
The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to 12 CFR Part 330 after this date.
The FDIC is rescinding and removing its regulations implementing the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) and the unlimited deposit insurance coverage for “noninterest-bearing transaction accounts” provided by section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and related definitions. Because these programs have expired by their terms, the regulations implementing them are unnecessary and obsolete.
The FDIC is adopting a final rule (“Final Rule”) that amends its deposit insurance regulations with respect to deposits in foreign branches of U.S. insured depository institutions (“IDI” or “U.S. bank”). The Final Rule clarifies that deposits in branches of U.S. banks located outside the United States are not FDIC-insured deposits. This would be the case even if they are also payable at an office within the United States (“dual payability”). As discussed further below, a pending proposal by the United Kingdom's Prudential Regulation Authority (“U.K. PRA”), formerly known as the Financial Services Authority, has made it more likely that large U.S. banks will change their U.K. foreign branch deposit agreements to make their U.K. deposits payable both in the United Kingdom and the United States. This action has the potential to expose the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) to expanded deposit insurance liability and create operational complexities if these types of deposits were treated as insured. The purpose of the Final Rule is to protect the DIF against the liability that it would otherwise face as a potential global deposit insurer, preserve confidence in the FDIC deposit insurance system, and ensure that the FDIC can effectively carry out its critical deposit insurance functions.
The FDIC is proposing to amend its deposit insurance regulations, with respect to deposits payable in branches of United States insured depository institutions (“United States bank” or “bank”) outside of the United States. The proposed rule would clarify that deposits in these foreign branches of United States banks are not FDIC-insured deposits. This would be the case whether or not they are dually payable both at the branch outside the United States and at an office within the United States. As discussed further below, a recent proposal by the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority (“U.K. FSA”) makes it very likely that large United States banks will be changing their United Kingdom foreign branch deposit agreements to make them payable both in the United Kingdom and the United States. This action has the potential to increase significantly the exposure of the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) and operational complexities were such deposits to be treated as insured. The purpose of this proposed rule is to preserve confidence in the FDIC deposit insurance system, ensure that the FDIC can effectively carry out its critical deposit insurance functions, and protect the DIF against the uncertain liability that it would otherwise face as a global deposit insurer. Should a United States bank make its foreign deposits dually payable, those deposits would be considered “deposit liabilities” under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act's (“FDI Act”) depositor preference regime, and would therefore be on an equal footing with domestic deposits in the event of the bank's liquidation.