32728 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
47 The Bureau’s previous concerns that it lacked
authority under section 1024(b)(1)(C) were also
applicable to section 1025(b)(1)(C). But for the
reasons already discussed in the context of section
1024(b)(1)(C), the Bureau no longer finds those
arguments persuasive.
48 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
49 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
50 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
51 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
52 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
1 Public Law 101–73, title III, § 308, Aug. 9, 1989,
103 Stat. 353, as amended by Public Law 111–203,
title III, § 367(4), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1556,
codified at 12 U.S.C. 1463 note.
consumer financial law. The analysis
under section 1025(b)(1)(C) of the CFPA
is otherwise similar to that under
section 1024(b)(1)(C) of the CFPA, and
so there is no need to repeat it here.47
The Bureau recognizes the role of the
prudential regulators in conducting
MLA supervision, including
examinations, at very large banks and
credit unions. Applicable statutes grant
the prudential regulators broad
supervisory and examination powers,
which they use for various purposes,
including assuring the safety and
soundness of supervised institutions,
assuring compliance with laws and
regulations at those institutions, and
other purposes. By contrast, the
Bureau’s authority under section
1025(b)(1)(C) concerns a targeted
purpose: Detecting and assessing those
‘‘risks to consumers’’ that are
‘‘associated’’ with ‘‘activities subject to’’
Federal consumer financial laws, such
as TILA. Conducting examinations for
that particular purpose is distinct from
the prudential regulators’ authority to
conduct examinations for the purpose of
assessing compliance with the MLA (or
for safety and soundness or other
purposes) —including the fact that the
prudential regulators’ purposes are not
based on the association with Federal
consumer financial law discussed
above. Even though some of the
activities in Bureau examinations may
be similar to activities in prudential
regulators’ examinations, they are for a
different purpose. Nothing in the CFPA
or in this interpretive rule limits in any
way, or should be deemed to limit in
any way, the prudential regulators’
consumer compliance examinations of
very large banks or credit unions, or
their subsidiaries, for the purpose of
assessing compliance with the MLA.
Section 1025 has a number of
provisions that promote coordination
and efficiency among the Bureau and
the prudential regulators. The agencies
work with each other to minimize
regulatory burden that may result from
their complementary authorities, while
ensuring the efficient and effective
protection of covered borrowers.
V. Regulatory Matters
This is an interpretive rule issued
under the Bureau’s authority to interpret
the CFPA, including under section
1022(b)(1) of CFPA, which authorizes
guidance as may be necessary or
appropriate to enable the Bureau to
administer and carry out the purposes
and objectives of Federal consumer
financial laws, such as the CFPA.48
As an interpretive rule, this rule is
exempt from the notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act.49
Because no notice of proposed
rulemaking is required, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act does not require an
initial or final regulatory flexibility
analysis.50 The Bureau has also
determined that this interpretive rule
does not impose any new or revise any
existing recordkeeping, reporting, or
disclosure requirements on covered
entities or members of the public that
would be collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.51
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act,52 the Bureau will submit a report
containing this interpretive rule and
other required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to the
rule’s published effective date. The
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has designated this interpretive
rule as not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Dated: June 16, 2021.
David Uejio,
Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2021–13074 Filed 6–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Chapter III
RIN 3064–ZA19
Statement of Policy Regarding Minority
Depository Institutions
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final statement of policy.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is issuing its
Statement of Policy Regarding Minority
Depository Institutions. Section 308 of
the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989
established several goals related to
encouraging, assisting, and preserving
minority depository institutions. The
FDIC has long recognized the unique
role and importance of minority
depository institutions and historically
has taken steps to preserve and
encourage minority-owned and
minority-led financial institutions. The
Statement of Policy updates,
strengthens, and clarifies the agency’s
policies and procedures related to
minority depository institutions.
DATES: The Statement of Policy is
effective August 23, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Misty Mobley, Senior Review Examiner,
Division of Risk Management and
Supervision, (202) 898–3771,
mimobley@fdic.gov; Lauren Whitaker,
Senior Attorney, (202) 898–3872,
lwhitaker@fdic.gov; Jason Pan, Senior
Attorney, (202) 898–7272, jpan@
fdic.gov; or Gregory Feder, Counsel,
(202) 898–8724, gfeder@fdic.gov, Legal
Division, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20429. For the hearing
impaired only, TDD users may contact
(202) 925–4618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The Proposed Statement of Policy
A. Proposed Revisions
B. Comments
III. Final Statement of Policy Regarding
Minority Depository Institutions
IV. Administrative Matters
I. Background
Section 308 of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) 1
established several goals related to
minority depository institutions (MDIs):
(1) Preserving the number of MDIs; (2)
preserving the minority character in
cases of merger or acquisition; (3)
providing technical assistance to
prevent insolvency of institutions not
now insolvent; (4) promoting and
encouraging creation of new MDIs; and
(5) providing for training, technical
assistance, and education programs.
On April 3, 1990, the Board of
Directors of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC Board and
FDIC, respectively) adopted the Policy
Statement on Encouragement and
Preservation of Minority Ownership of
Financial Institutions (1990 Policy
Statement). The framework for the 1990
Policy Statement resulted from key
provisions contained in Section 308 of
FIRREA. The 1990 Policy Statement
provided information to the public and
minority banking industry regarding the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
47 The Bureau’s previous concerns that it lacked
authority under section 1024(b)(1)(C) were also
applicable to section 1025(b)(1)(C). But for the
reasons already discussed in the context of section
1024(b)(1)(C), the Bureau no longer finds those
arguments persuasive.
48 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
49 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
50 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
51 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
52 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
1 Public Law 101–73, title III, § 308, Aug. 9, 1989,
103 Stat. 353, as amended by Public Law 111–203,
title III, § 367(4), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1556,
codified at 12 U.S.C. 1463 note.
consumer financial law. The analysis
under section 1025(b)(1)(C) of the CFPA
is otherwise similar to that under
section 1024(b)(1)(C) of the CFPA, and
so there is no need to repeat it here.47
The Bureau recognizes the role of the
prudential regulators in conducting
MLA supervision, including
examinations, at very large banks and
credit unions. Applicable statutes grant
the prudential regulators broad
supervisory and examination powers,
which they use for various purposes,
including assuring the safety and
soundness of supervised institutions,
assuring compliance with laws and
regulations at those institutions, and
other purposes. By contrast, the
Bureau’s authority under section
1025(b)(1)(C) concerns a targeted
purpose: Detecting and assessing those
‘‘risks to consumers’’ that are
‘‘associated’’ with ‘‘activities subject to’’
Federal consumer financial laws, such
as TILA. Conducting examinations for
that particular purpose is distinct from
the prudential regulators’ authority to
conduct examinations for the purpose of
assessing compliance with the MLA (or
for safety and soundness or other
purposes) —including the fact that the
prudential regulators’ purposes are not
based on the association with Federal
consumer financial law discussed
above. Even though some of the
activities in Bureau examinations may
be similar to activities in prudential
regulators’ examinations, they are for a
different purpose. Nothing in the CFPA
or in this interpretive rule limits in any
way, or should be deemed to limit in
any way, the prudential regulators’
consumer compliance examinations of
very large banks or credit unions, or
their subsidiaries, for the purpose of
assessing compliance with the MLA.
Section 1025 has a number of
provisions that promote coordination
and efficiency among the Bureau and
the prudential regulators. The agencies
work with each other to minimize
regulatory burden that may result from
their complementary authorities, while
ensuring the efficient and effective
protection of covered borrowers.
V. Regulatory Matters
This is an interpretive rule issued
under the Bureau’s authority to interpret
the CFPA, including under section
1022(b)(1) of CFPA, which authorizes
guidance as may be necessary or
appropriate to enable the Bureau to
administer and carry out the purposes
and objectives of Federal consumer
financial laws, such as the CFPA.48
As an interpretive rule, this rule is
exempt from the notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act.49
Because no notice of proposed
rulemaking is required, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act does not require an
initial or final regulatory flexibility
analysis.50 The Bureau has also
determined that this interpretive rule
does not impose any new or revise any
existing recordkeeping, reporting, or
disclosure requirements on covered
entities or members of the public that
would be collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.51
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act,52 the Bureau will submit a report
containing this interpretive rule and
other required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to the
rule’s published effective date. The
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has designated this interpretive
rule as not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Dated: June 16, 2021.
David Uejio,
Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2021–13074 Filed 6–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Chapter III
RIN 3064–ZA19
Statement of Policy Regarding Minority
Depository Institutions
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Final statement of policy.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is issuing its
Statement of Policy Regarding Minority
Depository Institutions. Section 308 of
the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989
established several goals related to
encouraging, assisting, and preserving
minority depository institutions. The
FDIC has long recognized the unique
role and importance of minority
depository institutions and historically
has taken steps to preserve and
encourage minority-owned and
minority-led financial institutions. The
Statement of Policy updates,
strengthens, and clarifies the agency’s
policies and procedures related to
minority depository institutions.
DATES: The Statement of Policy is
effective August 23, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Misty Mobley, Senior Review Examiner,
Division of Risk Management and
Supervision, (202) 898–3771,
mimobley@fdic.gov; Lauren Whitaker,
Senior Attorney, (202) 898–3872,
lwhitaker@fdic.gov; Jason Pan, Senior
Attorney, (202) 898–7272, jpan@
fdic.gov; or Gregory Feder, Counsel,
(202) 898–8724, gfeder@fdic.gov, Legal
Division, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20429. For the hearing
impaired only, TDD users may contact
(202) 925–4618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. The Proposed Statement of Policy
A. Proposed Revisions
B. Comments
III. Final Statement of Policy Regarding
Minority Depository Institutions
IV. Administrative Matters
I. Background
Section 308 of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) 1
established several goals related to
minority depository institutions (MDIs):
(1) Preserving the number of MDIs; (2)
preserving the minority character in
cases of merger or acquisition; (3)
providing technical assistance to
prevent insolvency of institutions not
now insolvent; (4) promoting and
encouraging creation of new MDIs; and
(5) providing for training, technical
assistance, and education programs.
On April 3, 1990, the Board of
Directors of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC Board and
FDIC, respectively) adopted the Policy
Statement on Encouragement and
Preservation of Minority Ownership of
Financial Institutions (1990 Policy
Statement). The framework for the 1990
Policy Statement resulted from key
provisions contained in Section 308 of
FIRREA. The 1990 Policy Statement
provided information to the public and
minority banking industry regarding the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32729Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
2 67 FR 18618 (Apr. 16, 2002).
3 See FDIC MDI research study, published June
2019, Minority Depository Institutions: Structure,
Performance, and Social Impact, https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/minority/2019-
mdi-study/full.pdf.
4 See Chairman Jelena McWilliams Keynote
Remarks, MDI and Community Development
Financial Institution bank conference, Focus on the
Future: Prospering in a Changing Industry (Mar. 3,
2020), https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=o0H6Ko00qTk&feature=youtu.be. 5 85 FR 60466 (Sept. 25, 2020).
agency’s efforts in achieving the goals of
Section 308.
During the 1990s, many MDIs
continued to underperform industry
averages for profitability and experience
failure rates that were significantly
higher than those of the industry
overall. In order to discuss the
challenges that MDIs faced, and identify
best practices and possible ways the
regulatory agencies could promote and
preserve MDIs, the FDIC and other
banking regulatory agencies—with
assistance from several minority bank
trade associations—invited officers from
156 MDIs to participate in a ‘‘Bankers
and Supervisors Regulatory Forum’’
held in March of 2001. Approximately
70 bankers attended.
The FDIC also formed an
Interdivisional Working Group to
consider measures to modernize the
policies and procedures related to MDIs.
The working group incorporated many
suggestions from the March 2001 forum
into a revised Policy Statement
Regarding Minority Depository
Institutions, issued by the FDIC, after
notice and comment, in April of 2002
(2002 Policy Statement).2 The FDIC
issued the 2002 Policy Statement to
provide additional information
regarding the FDIC’s initiatives related
to Section 308. The 2002 Policy
Statement provided a more structured
framework that set forth initiatives of
the FDIC to promote the preservation of,
as well as to provide technical
assistance, training, and educational
programs for, MDIs by working with
those institutions, their trade
associations, and the other federal
financial regulatory agencies.
Over the years, the FDIC has
continued to modify and enhance its
MDI program to better carry out the
FDIC’s efforts to meet the goals in
Section 308 of FIRREA. The revisions in
the proposed Statement of Policy are
intended, in part, to strengthen and
improve the various aspects of the MDI
program and how each component of
the MDI program is carried out by
various responsible entities that are part
of the MDI program. The proposed
revisions to the 2002 Policy Statement
reflected in the proposed Statement of
Policy describe the FDIC’s enduring and
strengthened commitment to, and
engagement with, MDIs in furtherance
of its goal of preserving and promoting
MDIs.
In 2019, the FDIC established a new
MDI Subcommittee of the Advisory
Committee on Community Banking
(CBAC). The MDI Subcommittee held its
inaugural meeting in December 2019.
There are nine executives serving as
members of the MDI Subcommittee,
representing African American, Native
American, Hispanic American, and
Asian American MDIs across the
country. The MDI Subcommittee
provides recommendations regarding
the FDIC’s MDI program to the CBAC for
consideration. The MDI Subcommittee
serves as a source of feedback with
regard to the FDIC’s efforts to fulfill its
statutory goals to preserve and promote
MDIs; provides a platform for MDIs to
promote collaboration, partnerships,
and best practices; and identifies ways
to highlight the work of MDIs in their
communities.
The FDIC published, also in 2019, an
MDI research study, which explores
changes in MDIs, their role in the
financial services industry, and their
impact on the communities they serve.3
The study period covered 2001 to 2018
and looked at the demographics,
structural change, geography, financial
performance, and social impact of MDIs.
Additionally, to discuss the
challenges that MDIs face, provide
information on best practices, and
collaborate on possible ways the
regulatory agencies can promote and
preserve MDIs, in June of 2019, the
FDIC hosted the Interagency MDI and
Community Development Financial
Institution (CDFI) Bank Conference,
Focus on the Future: Prospering in a
Changing Industry, in collaboration
with the Office of the Comptroller of
Currency and the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System. More than
80 MDI and CDFI bankers, representing
61 banks, attended the two-day
conference.4
All of these various efforts by the
FDIC to enhance its MDI program have
informed the proposed revisions to the
Statement of Policy. The FDIC has
received suggestions from bankers at
outreach and trade association meetings
as well as feedback from the June 2019
conference. The MDI Subcommittee has
also provided feedback to the CBAC for
consideration and recommendation to
the FDIC. Many of these suggestions and
feedback have been incorporated into
the revised Statement of Policy. The
following section summarizes the
significant changes from the 2002 Policy
Statement.
II. The Revised Policy Statement
A. Proposed Revisions
On September 25, 2020, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register
proposed revisions to its MDI Policy
Statement.5 The FDIC proposed changes
in the following seven areas:
Technical assistance and other
engagement. The proposed Statement of
Policy clarified that technical assistance
is not a supervisory activity and is not
intended to present additional
regulatory burden. Further, the
proposed Statement of Policy stated that
examination teams will not view
requests for, or acceptance of, technical
assistance negatively when evaluating
institution performance or assigning
ratings.
FDIC outreach. The proposed
Statement of Policy was updated to
provide additional outreach
opportunities, including with the
Chairman’s office and the National
Director for Minority and Community
Development Banking.
MDI Subcommittee. The proposed
Statement of Policy described the newly
established FDIC MDI Subcommittee of
the CBAC, which serves as source of
feedback on FDIC strategies to fulfill
statutory goals to preserve and promote
MDIs. The MDI Subcommittee may also
make recommendations or offer ideas to
the CBAC for consideration and
presentation to the FDIC. The MDI
Subcommittee provides a platform for
MDIs to promote collaboration,
partnerships, and best practices. The
MDI Subcommittee also identifies ways
to highlight the work of MDIs in their
communities.
Definitions. The proposed Statement
of Policy added definitions for terms
used in the MDI program: Technical
assistance; training and education; and
outreach. Technical assistance is
defined as individual assistance that a
regulator will provide to a MDI in
response to an institution’s request for
assistance in addressing specific areas of
concern. The proposed Statement of
Policy also noted that technical
assistance is a tool to provide on-going
support to institutions in an effort to
facilitate timely implementation of
recommendations, full understanding of
regulatory requirements, and in some
instances, the viability of the institution.
Training and education programs
consist of instruction designed to impart
proficiency or skills related to a
particular job, process, or regulatory
policy. This training and education can
be provided in person, through
webinars or conference calls, or in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
2 67 FR 18618 (Apr. 16, 2002).
3 See FDIC MDI research study, published June
2019, Minority Depository Institutions: Structure,
Performance, and Social Impact, https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/minority/2019-
mdi-study/full.pdf.
4 See Chairman Jelena McWilliams Keynote
Remarks, MDI and Community Development
Financial Institution bank conference, Focus on the
Future: Prospering in a Changing Industry (Mar. 3,
2020), https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=o0H6Ko00qTk&feature=youtu.be. 5 85 FR 60466 (Sept. 25, 2020).
agency’s efforts in achieving the goals of
Section 308.
During the 1990s, many MDIs
continued to underperform industry
averages for profitability and experience
failure rates that were significantly
higher than those of the industry
overall. In order to discuss the
challenges that MDIs faced, and identify
best practices and possible ways the
regulatory agencies could promote and
preserve MDIs, the FDIC and other
banking regulatory agencies—with
assistance from several minority bank
trade associations—invited officers from
156 MDIs to participate in a ‘‘Bankers
and Supervisors Regulatory Forum’’
held in March of 2001. Approximately
70 bankers attended.
The FDIC also formed an
Interdivisional Working Group to
consider measures to modernize the
policies and procedures related to MDIs.
The working group incorporated many
suggestions from the March 2001 forum
into a revised Policy Statement
Regarding Minority Depository
Institutions, issued by the FDIC, after
notice and comment, in April of 2002
(2002 Policy Statement).2 The FDIC
issued the 2002 Policy Statement to
provide additional information
regarding the FDIC’s initiatives related
to Section 308. The 2002 Policy
Statement provided a more structured
framework that set forth initiatives of
the FDIC to promote the preservation of,
as well as to provide technical
assistance, training, and educational
programs for, MDIs by working with
those institutions, their trade
associations, and the other federal
financial regulatory agencies.
Over the years, the FDIC has
continued to modify and enhance its
MDI program to better carry out the
FDIC’s efforts to meet the goals in
Section 308 of FIRREA. The revisions in
the proposed Statement of Policy are
intended, in part, to strengthen and
improve the various aspects of the MDI
program and how each component of
the MDI program is carried out by
various responsible entities that are part
of the MDI program. The proposed
revisions to the 2002 Policy Statement
reflected in the proposed Statement of
Policy describe the FDIC’s enduring and
strengthened commitment to, and
engagement with, MDIs in furtherance
of its goal of preserving and promoting
MDIs.
In 2019, the FDIC established a new
MDI Subcommittee of the Advisory
Committee on Community Banking
(CBAC). The MDI Subcommittee held its
inaugural meeting in December 2019.
There are nine executives serving as
members of the MDI Subcommittee,
representing African American, Native
American, Hispanic American, and
Asian American MDIs across the
country. The MDI Subcommittee
provides recommendations regarding
the FDIC’s MDI program to the CBAC for
consideration. The MDI Subcommittee
serves as a source of feedback with
regard to the FDIC’s efforts to fulfill its
statutory goals to preserve and promote
MDIs; provides a platform for MDIs to
promote collaboration, partnerships,
and best practices; and identifies ways
to highlight the work of MDIs in their
communities.
The FDIC published, also in 2019, an
MDI research study, which explores
changes in MDIs, their role in the
financial services industry, and their
impact on the communities they serve.3
The study period covered 2001 to 2018
and looked at the demographics,
structural change, geography, financial
performance, and social impact of MDIs.
Additionally, to discuss the
challenges that MDIs face, provide
information on best practices, and
collaborate on possible ways the
regulatory agencies can promote and
preserve MDIs, in June of 2019, the
FDIC hosted the Interagency MDI and
Community Development Financial
Institution (CDFI) Bank Conference,
Focus on the Future: Prospering in a
Changing Industry, in collaboration
with the Office of the Comptroller of
Currency and the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System. More than
80 MDI and CDFI bankers, representing
61 banks, attended the two-day
conference.4
All of these various efforts by the
FDIC to enhance its MDI program have
informed the proposed revisions to the
Statement of Policy. The FDIC has
received suggestions from bankers at
outreach and trade association meetings
as well as feedback from the June 2019
conference. The MDI Subcommittee has
also provided feedback to the CBAC for
consideration and recommendation to
the FDIC. Many of these suggestions and
feedback have been incorporated into
the revised Statement of Policy. The
following section summarizes the
significant changes from the 2002 Policy
Statement.
II. The Revised Policy Statement
A. Proposed Revisions
On September 25, 2020, the FDIC
published in the Federal Register
proposed revisions to its MDI Policy
Statement.5 The FDIC proposed changes
in the following seven areas:
Technical assistance and other
engagement. The proposed Statement of
Policy clarified that technical assistance
is not a supervisory activity and is not
intended to present additional
regulatory burden. Further, the
proposed Statement of Policy stated that
examination teams will not view
requests for, or acceptance of, technical
assistance negatively when evaluating
institution performance or assigning
ratings.
FDIC outreach. The proposed
Statement of Policy was updated to
provide additional outreach
opportunities, including with the
Chairman’s office and the National
Director for Minority and Community
Development Banking.
MDI Subcommittee. The proposed
Statement of Policy described the newly
established FDIC MDI Subcommittee of
the CBAC, which serves as source of
feedback on FDIC strategies to fulfill
statutory goals to preserve and promote
MDIs. The MDI Subcommittee may also
make recommendations or offer ideas to
the CBAC for consideration and
presentation to the FDIC. The MDI
Subcommittee provides a platform for
MDIs to promote collaboration,
partnerships, and best practices. The
MDI Subcommittee also identifies ways
to highlight the work of MDIs in their
communities.
Definitions. The proposed Statement
of Policy added definitions for terms
used in the MDI program: Technical
assistance; training and education; and
outreach. Technical assistance is
defined as individual assistance that a
regulator will provide to a MDI in
response to an institution’s request for
assistance in addressing specific areas of
concern. The proposed Statement of
Policy also noted that technical
assistance is a tool to provide on-going
support to institutions in an effort to
facilitate timely implementation of
recommendations, full understanding of
regulatory requirements, and in some
instances, the viability of the institution.
Training and education programs
consist of instruction designed to impart
proficiency or skills related to a
particular job, process, or regulatory
policy. This training and education can
be provided in person, through
webinars or conference calls, or in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23JNR1.SGM 23JNR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES