81 FR 21223 - Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Treatment of U.S. Municipal Securities as High-Quality Liquid Assets
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 69 (April 11, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 69 (April 11, 2016)
| Page Range | 21223-21233 | |
| FR Document | 2016-07716 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 21223-21233] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-07716] ======================================================================== Rules and Regulations Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. ======================================================================== Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 21223]] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 249 [Docket No. R-1514; Regulation WW] RIN 7100 AE-32 Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Treatment of U.S. Municipal Securities as High-Quality Liquid Assets AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a final rule that amends the Board's liquidity coverage ratio rule and modified liquidity coverage ratio rule (together, LCR rule) to include certain U.S. municipal securities as high-quality liquid assets (HQLA). This final rule includes as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR rule general obligation securities of a public sector entity (i.e., securities backed by the full faith and credit of a U.S. state or municipality) that meet similar criteria as corporate debt securities that are included as level 2B liquid assets, subject to limitations that are intended to address the structure of the U.S. municipal securities market. The final rule applies to all Board- regulated institutions that are subject to the LCR rule: Bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and state member banks that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies described in the first instance; nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR rule by separate rule or order; and bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies, in each case with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, but that do not meet the thresholds described in the first through third instances, which are subject to the Board's modified liquidity coverage ratio rule. DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwendolyn Collins, Assistant Director, (202) 912-4311, Peter Clifford, Manager, (202) 785-6057, Adam S. Trost, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3814, or J. Kevin Littler, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 475-6677, Risk Policy, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Benjamin W. McDonough, Special Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Dafina Stewart, Counsel, (202) 452-3876, or Adam Cohen, Counsel, (202) 912-4658, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), (202) 263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background and Overview A. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule B. Overview of the Final Rule and Significant Changes From the Proposed Rule II. Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as HQLA A. Criteria for Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as Level 2B Liquid Assets 1. U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities 2. Investment Grade U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities 3. Proven Record as a Reliable Source of Liquidity 4. Not an Obligation of a Financial Sector Entity or its Consolidated Subsidiaries B. Quantitative Limitations on a Company's Inclusion of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities in its HQLA Amount 1. Limitation on the Inclusion of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities With the Same CUSIP Number in the HQLA Amount 2. Limitation on the Inclusion of the U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities of a Single Issuer in the HQLA Amount 3. Limitation on the Amount of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities That Can Be Included in the HQLA Amount C. HQLA Calculation III. Plain Language IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act V. Paperwork Reduction Act VI. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 I. Background and Overview A. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule On May 28, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invited comment on a proposed rule (proposed rule) to allow Board-regulated institutions subject to the liquidity coverage ratio rule and modified liquidity coverage ratio rule (together, LCR rule) \1\ to include certain U.S. general obligation municipal securities as high-quality liquid assets (HQLA).\2\ The LCR rule, adopted by the Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) in 2014,\3\ is designed to promote the short-term resilience of the liquidity risk profile of large and internationally active banking organizations, and to further improve the measurement and management of liquidity risk, thereby improving the banking sector's ability to absorb shocks arising during periods of significant stress. The LCR rule requires a company to maintain an amount of HQLA (the numerator of the ratio) \4\ that is no less than its total net cash outflow amount over a forward-looking 30 calendar- day period of significant stress (the denominator of the ratio).\5\ Community banking organizations are not subject to the LCR rule.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 12 CFR part 249. \2\ 80 FR 30383 (May 28, 2015). \3\ 79 FR 61440 (October 10, 2014). \4\ A company's HQLA amount for purposes of the LCR rule is calculated according to 12 CFR 249.21. \5\ A company's total net cash outflow amount for purposes of the LCR rule is calculated according to 12 CFR 249.30 or 249.63. \6\ The LCR rule applies to (1) bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and depository institutions that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; (2) depository institutions with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies described in (1); (3) nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR rule by separate rule or order; and (4) bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies that, in each case, have $50 billion or more in consolidated assets but that do not meet the thresholds described in (1) through (3), which are subject to the modified liquidity coverage ratio rule (collectively, covered companies). At this time, General Electric Capital Corporation is the only nonbank financial company designated by the Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR rule. 80 FR 4411 (July 24, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 21224]] Under the LCR rule, asset classes that count as HQLA are those that have historically served as sources of liquidity in the United States, including during periods of significant stress. In identifying the asset classes that qualify as HQLA under the LCR rule, the agencies considered several factors, including an asset class's risk profile and characteristics of the market for the asset class (e.g., the existence of active sale or repurchase markets at all times, significant diversity in market participants, and high trading volume). In addition, the agencies developed certain other criteria, such as operational requirements, that assets must meet for inclusion as eligible HQLA.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The LCR rule defines eligible HQLA as those high-quality liquid assets that meet the requirements set forth in 12 CFR 249.22. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The LCR rule divides HQLA into three categories of assets: Level 1, level 2A, and level 2B liquid assets. Specifically, level 1 liquid assets, which are the highest quality and most liquid assets, are limited to balances held at a Federal Reserve Bank and foreign central bank withdrawable reserves, all securities issued or unconditionally guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by the U.S. Government, and certain highly liquid, high-credit-quality securities issued by or unconditionally guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by a sovereign entity, certain international organizations, or certain multilateral development banks. Level 1 liquid assets may be included in a covered company's HQLA amount without limitation and without haircut. Level 2A and 2B liquid assets have characteristics that are associated with being relatively stable and significant sources of liquidity, but not to the same degree as level 1 liquid assets. All level 2 liquid assets, including all level 2B liquid assets, must be liquid and readily marketable as defined in the LCR rule to be included as HQLA.\8\ Level 2A liquid assets include certain obligations issued or guaranteed by a U.S. government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and certain obligations issued or guaranteed by a sovereign entity or a multilateral development bank that are not eligible to be treated as level 1 liquid assets. Under the LCR rule, level 2A liquid assets are subject to a 15 percent haircut, and the aggregate amount of level 2A and level 2B liquid assets is limited to no more than 40 percent of a covered company's HQLA amount, as calculated under 12 CFR 249.21. Level 2B liquid assets, which are liquid assets that generally exhibit more volatility than level 2A liquid assets, are subject to a 50 percent haircut and may not exceed 15 percent of a covered company's HQLA amount. Under the LCR rule, level 2B liquid assets include certain corporate debt securities and certain common equity shares of publicly traded companies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ The liquid and readily marketable standard is defined in 12 CFR 249.3 and is discussed in section II.B.2 of the Supplementary Information section to the LCR rule published October 10, 2014. 79 FR 61440, 61451-52 (October 10, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other classes of assets, such as debt securities issued or guaranteed by a public sector entity (municipal securities), are not treated as HQLA under the LCR rule. The LCR rule defines a public sector entity to include any state, local authority, or other governmental subdivision below the U.S. sovereign entity level.\9\ The Supplementary Information section to the LCR rule published October 10, 2014, stated that ``[w]ith respect to municipal securities, the agencies have observed that the liquidity characteristics of municipal securities range significantly, and overall many municipal securities are not `liquid and readily-marketable' in U.S. markets as defined in Sec. __.3 of the final rule.'' \10\ Accordingly, the agencies did not include U.S. municipal securities as HQLA in the LCR rule. However, the Board continued to study the question of whether at least some U.S. municipal securities should be included as HQLA under some circumstances, and subsequently issued the proposed rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 12 CFR 249.3. \10\ 79 FR 61440, 61463. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed rule would have included as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR rule certain U.S. general obligation municipal securities that meet similar criteria as corporate debt securities that are included as level 2B liquid assets. The proposed rule also would have contained several criteria and limitations designed to ensure that U.S. general obligation municipal securities included as HQLA would be sufficiently liquid in times of stress. The proposed rule would have applied to all Board-regulated institutions that are subject to the LCR rule: (1) Bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies without significant commercial or insurance operations, and state member banks that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; \11\ (2) state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies subject to the LCR described in (1); (3) nonbank financial companies designated by the Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR rule by separate rule or order; and (4) bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies, in each case with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, but that do not meet the thresholds described in (1) through (3), which are subject to the Board's modified liquidity coverage ratio rule (together, Board-regulated covered companies). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ On-balance sheet foreign exposure equals total cross-border claims less claims with a head office or guarantor located in another country plus redistributed guaranteed amounts to the country of the head office or guarantor plus local country claims on local residents plus revaluation gains on foreign exchange and derivative transaction products, calculated in accordance with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) 009 Country Exposure Report. 12 CFR 249.1(b)(1)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed rule and the final rule permit U.S. general obligation municipal securities that meet certain criteria to be counted as HQLA for purposes of the LCR rule, subject to certain limits.\12\ Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule limit in any way, however, the amount or types of municipal securities that a Board-regulated covered company may hold for purposes other than complying with the LCR rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ A Board-regulated covered company that holds these securities in its consolidated subsidiaries, including those consolidated securities that are not regulated by the Board, may count the securities as HQLA for purposes of the LCR rule in accordance with 12 CFR 249.22(b)(3) and (4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Overview of the Final Rule and Significant Changes From the Proposed Rule The final rule amends the LCR rule to include certain U.S. municipal securities as HQLA. The final rule includes U.S. general obligation municipal securities as level 2B liquid assets if they meet certain criteria, some of which have been adjusted from the criteria in the proposed rule based on comments received. To qualify as HQLA under the final rule, the securities must be general obligations of public sector entities, which includes bonds or similar obligations that are backed by the full faith and credit of the public sector entities. U.S. municipal securities must also be ``investment grade'' under 12 CFR part 1 as of the calculation [[Page 21225]] date,\13\ and must be issued by an entity whose obligations have a proven record as a reliable source of liquidity in repurchase or sales markets during a period of significant stress. Under the final rule, U.S. municipal securities generally do not qualify as level 2B liquid assets if they are obligations of a financial sector entity or a consolidated subsidiary of a financial sector entity. This approach is consistent with the requirements imposed on corporate debt securities and publicly traded common equity shares that are included as level 2B liquid assets. Unlike the proposed rule and the LCR rule's treatment of other level 2B liquid assets, however, U.S. municipal securities that are insured by a bond insurer may count as level 2B liquid assets, so long as the underlying U.S. municipal security would otherwise qualify as HQLA without the insurance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 12 CFR 1.2(d). In accordance with section 939A of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (2010) section 939A, codified at 15 U.S.C. 78o-7, the final rule does not rely on credit ratings as a standard of credit-worthiness. Rather, the final rule relies on an assessment by the Board-regulated covered company of the capacity of the issuer of the U.S. municipal security to meet its financial commitments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed rule would have limited the amount of U.S. general obligation municipal securities a Board-regulated covered company could include in its HQLA amount based on the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number and the average daily trading volume of U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by a particular U.S. municipal issuer. The proposed rule would also have limited the percentage of the institution's total HQLA amount that could be comprised of U.S. municipal securities. Commenters opposed these limitations, arguing that U.S. municipal securities have similar risks and liquidity characteristics as other assets included in the HQLA amount that are not subject to these limitations. Instead of these limitations, commenters argued that the credit and liquidity characteristics of a U.S municipal security, such as credit quality, source of repayment, CUSIP size, and issuer size, should be considered in determining whether the security may be included in a company's HQLA amount. After considering comments on the proposed rule, the Board is retaining two and eliminating one of these proposed limitations in the final rule. II. Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as HQLA The Board received 13 comments on the proposed rule from state and local government officials, trade organizations, public interest groups, and other interested parties. In addition, Board staff held meetings with members of the public, summaries of which are available on the Board's public Web site.\14\ Although most commenters generally supported allowing Board-regulated covered companies to include certain liquid U.S. municipal securities as HQLA, they objected to the criteria and limitations on U.S. municipal securities in the proposed rule, stating that they would be overly restrictive. One commenter asserted that the cumulative impact of the restrictions imposed on U.S. municipal securities includable as HQLA would essentially negate the ability of a Board-regulated covered company to include U.S. municipal securities as HQLA. Another commenter suggested that the definition of HQLA is too narrow and concentrated on certain instruments, such as cash and U.S. Treasury securities, which could lead to market distortions such as constrictions in HQLA supply during times of financial stress as banks seek the same sources of HQLA. Although the criteria and limitations in the final rule will exclude certain U.S. municipal securities, these criteria and limitations are designed to include in the HQLA amount only those securities that have liquidity characteristics comparable to other level 2B liquid assets. In addition, the final rule expands the assets that Board-regulated covered companies may include as HQLA, which mitigates potential market distortions caused by the correlated market behavior discussed by the commenter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_systemic.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One commenter opposed the inclusion of any U.S. municipal securities as HQLA because that commenter believed that U.S. municipal securities would be illiquid during periods of significant stress, which would weaken the effectiveness of the LCR Rule. Under the final rule, the criteria that must be met by, and limitations applied to, the U.S. municipal securities that are included in a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA amount ensures that those securities have a high potential to generate liquidity through monetization (sale or secured borrowing) during a period of significant stress. Thus, the effectiveness of the LCR rule will not be compromised by their inclusion as HQLA. Many commenters also expressed a desire for the OCC and the FDIC to issue rules similar to the Board's proposed rule, in order to promote consistency in the regulation of banking organizations and to allow institutions not regulated by the Board to include U.S. municipal securities as HQLA. The final rule would apply only to Board-regulated covered companies. A. Criteria for Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as Level 2B Liquid Assets Under the proposed rule, U.S. municipal securities would have been included as level 2B liquid assets. Commenters argued that U.S. municipal securities instead should be included as level 2A liquid assets because they have exhibited limited price volatility, particularly during the 2007-2009 financial crisis, high trading volumes, and deep and stable secured funding markets. Commenters also contended that many U.S. municipal securities are more liquid and more secure than foreign sovereign securities that may be counted as level 2A liquid assets under the LCR rule and other assets that are level 2B liquid assets, such as corporate bonds. Some commenters highlighted the difference between the treatment of certain U.S. municipal securities under the proposed rule and the treatment under the liquidity coverage ratio standard established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel III Liquidity Framework),\15\ which includes municipal securities as level 2A liquid assets. A commenter expressed concern that the rule would create an international inconsistency that would disadvantage U.S. state and local government issuers due to the different treatment of municipal securities in the United States as compared to other jurisdictions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, ``Basel III: The Liquidity Coverage Ratio and liquidity risk monitoring tools'' (January 2013), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs238.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certain U.S. municipal securities may be more liquid than some securities that can be included as level 2A liquid assets under the LCR rule. However U.S. municipal securities as a class of assets are less liquid than the asset classes included as level 2A liquid assets under the LCR rule. For example, the daily trading volume of securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. GSEs far exceeds that of U.S. municipal securities. The LCR rule differs from the Basel III Liquidity Framework in the treatment of municipal securities because of [[Page 21226]] differences in the regulation and structure of the U.S. municipal securities compared to municipal securities markets in foreign jurisdictions. The proposed rule would have required U.S. municipal securities to be ``liquid and readily marketable,'' as that term is defined in the LCR rule \16\ for other level 2B liquid assets. To be liquid and readily marketable, a security must be traded in an active secondary market with more than two committed market makers, a large number of non-market maker participants on both the buying and selling sides of transactions, timely and observable market prices, and a high trading volume. Commenters asserted that most U.S. municipal securities would not meet the conditions specified in the LCR rule to be considered liquid and readily marketable, and therefore would not qualify as level 2B liquid assets under the proposed rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See supra note 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consistent with the LCR rule's treatment of corporate securities, the final rule maintains that a U.S. municipal security may only be included as a level 2B liquid asset if it meets the liquid and readily marketable standard in the LCR rule. The final rule retains this requirement because it will aid in improving a Board-regulated covered company's resilience to liquidity risk by ensuring that U.S. municipal securities included as level 2B liquid assets are traded in deep, active markets, so a company can monetize them easily, even during periods of significant stress. This criterion applies equally to corporate debt securities, and is successfully being implemented by firms for purposes of the LCR. There is no special difficulty in applying this same criterion in the same manner to U.S. municipal securities. Permitting certain U.S. municipal securities to be included as level 2B liquid assets recognizes that these securities, while not as liquid as a category as other types of HQLA, can serve as highly liquid assets within certain limits and if certain conditions are met. 1. U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities Under the proposed rule, a U.S. municipal security would have qualified as a level 2B liquid asset only if it was a general obligation of the issuing entity, which includes bonds or similar obligations that are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing public sector entity. A revenue bond, which is an obligation that a public sector entity has committed to repay with proceeds from a specified revenue source, such as a project or utility system, rather than from general tax funds, would not have qualified as a level 2B liquid asset. Commenters argued that revenue bonds have similar liquidity and volatility characteristics to general obligation bonds and therefore should not be treated differently under the final rule. Some commenters stated that the inclusion of revenue bonds would expand the universe of HQLA-eligible municipal bonds without impairing the objectives of the LCR rule. In addition, commenters contended that many revenue bonds are not dependent on a single project as a source of repayment, but are secured by multiple sources of repayment, such as revenues of multiple public entities, pools of assets backed by the full faith and credit of other public entities, or by other sources of tax revenues. One commenter argued that the value of corporate bonds, which are level 2B liquid assets, are tied to uncertain corporate revenues, which is similar to revenue bonds being tied to revenues of a specific project or projects. An asset's credit quality is an important factor in its liquidity because market participants tend to be more willing to purchase higher credit quality assets, especially during stressed market conditions. During a period of significant stress, the credit quality of revenue bonds tends to deteriorate more significantly than general obligation bonds, and thus, the liquidity of revenue bonds is not as reliable as that of general obligation bonds during a period of market stress.\17\ Revenue derived from one or more sources may fall dramatically as domestic consumption declines during a stress, and as the risk of default of any associated revenue bond increases, revenue bonds may experience significant price declines and become less liquid. On the other hand, general obligation bonds are less likely to experience significant price declines during a period of significant stress because they are backed by the general taxing authority of the issuing municipality and, therefore, are less likely to default in times of stress. In fact, historically, there have been a significantly higher number of defaults on revenue bonds than general obligation bonds. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ The Board has also recognized that general obligation bonds have a higher credit quality than revenue bonds in its risk-based capital rules, which assign a 50 percent risk weight to revenue bonds and a 20 percent risk weight to general obligations of U.S. public sector entities. See 12 CFR 217.32(e)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another commenter argued that revenue bonds should be included as HQLA because revenue bonds receive preferential treatment under chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Several commenters requested that the inclusion of U.S. municipal securities as HQLA be based on the issuer's total amount of outstanding debt and the issuer's credit rating, rather than support from the general taxing authority of the municipality. One commenter argued that the term ``general obligation'' is not universally understood and does not necessarily imply a greater level of security than the term ``revenue obligation.'' A revenue bond's treatment in bankruptcy, though a relevant consideration to its liquidity profile, does not necessarily indicate that the bond has sufficient liquidity for inclusion in a Board- regulated covered company's HQLA amount. During a period of significant stress, probability of default is considered along with the magnitude of the expected loss upon a default. As discussed above, without general taxing authority support, the market would likely be more concerned about the probability of default for a revenue bond as compared to a general obligation bond. Similarly, the total amount of outstanding debt supporting a municipal project is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the liquidity of a U.S. revenue bond supporting that project. For example, liquidity could disappear if the specified revenue source of a revenue bond were found to be insufficient to meet its obligation, regardless of the total amount of the revenue bond outstanding. The final rule clarifies that the term ``general obligation'' means a bond or similar obligation that is backed by the full faith and credit of a public sector entity. The Board will continue to monitor the liquidity characteristics of revenue bonds and consider whether certain revenue bonds should be included as HQLA. 2. Investment Grade U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities Consistent with the requirements applied to corporate debt securities that are included as level 2B liquid assets, the proposed rule would have required that U.S. municipal securities be ``investment grade'' under 12 CFR part 1 as of the calculation date.\18\ Commenters requested that all U.S. municipal securities that meet the investment grade standard qualify as [[Page 21227]] HQLA regardless of other limitations set forth in the proposed rule, arguing that not including these high-credit-quality securities would increase borrowing costs for state and local governments to finance public infrastructure projects. Commenters also asked for clarity on the definition of ``investment grade,'' stating that without clearer guidance a Board-regulated covered company could interpret ``investment grade'' to include U.S. municipal securities that have low credit quality, inclusion of which in a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA amount would not improve the liquidity risk profile of the firm. One commenter suggested that a municipal security should be included in HQLA on the basis of the issuer's credit rating. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See supra footnote 13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The investment grade criterion helps to ensure that only U.S. municipal securities with high credit quality are included in a Board- regulated covered company's HQLA amount. This criterion requires an issuer of a U.S. general obligation municipal security to have adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments under the security for the projected life of the security, which is met by showing a low risk of default and an expectation of the timely repayment of principal and interest.\19\ While higher credit quality is associated with greater liquidity, in the absence of other distinguishing factors, a security's credit quality alone does not guarantee its liquidity. Therefore, the final rule will permit Board-regulated covered companies to include investment grade U.S. municipal securities as HQLA only if they meet the additional criteria for inclusion as level 2B liquid assets and subject to the limitations discussed below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ In 2012, the Board issued guidance on the investment grade standard. See Supervision and Regulation Letter 12-15 (November 15, 2012), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/srletters/sr1215.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Proven Record as a Reliable Source of Liquidity Consistent with the requirements for corporate debt securities included as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR rule, the proposed rule would have required that U.S. general obligation municipal securities included as level 2B liquid assets be issued by an entity whose obligations have a proven record as a reliable source of liquidity in repurchase or sales markets during a period of significant stress. Under the proposed rule, a Board-regulated covered company would have been required to demonstrate this record of liquidity reliability and lower volatility during periods of significant stress by showing that the market price of the U.S. municipal securities or equivalent securities of the issuer declined by no more than 20 percent during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress, or that the market haircut demanded by counterparties to secured lending and secured funding transactions that were collateralized by such securities or equivalent securities of the issuer increased by no more than 20 percentage points during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress. Commenters argued that this standard would severely limit the number of U.S. municipal securities that would qualify for inclusion as HQLA based on the historical performance of U.S. municipal securities in times of stress. The final rule maintains the requirement that U.S. municipal securities must have a proven record as a reliable source of liquidity to qualify as level 2B liquid assets. The percentage decline in value (20 percent) and percentage increase in haircut (20 percent) used to determine compliance with this criterion are the same as those applicable to corporate debt securities included as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR rule.\20\ This criterion is meant to exclude volatile U.S. municipal securities, which may not hold their value during a period of significant stress. Inclusion of volatile U.S. municipal securities may result in an overestimation of the HQLA amount available to a Board-regulated covered company during a period of significant stress. U.S. municipal securities that meet this criterion have demonstrated an ability to maintain relatively stable prices, and are more likely to be able to be rapidly monetized by a Board-regulated covered company during a period of significant stress. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Under the LCR rule, equity securities included as level 2B liquid assets have a similar criteria. However, the covered company would be required to demonstrate that the market price of the security or equivalent securities of the issuer declined by no more than 40 percent during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress, or that the market haircut demanded by counterparties to securities borrowing and lending transactions that are collateralized by the publicly traded common equity shares or equivalent securities of the issuer increased by no more than 40 percentage points, during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commenters expressed concern that it would be difficult to demonstrate compliance with this requirement without specific examples of a stress scenario and quantitative, measurable standards for such an assessment. As discussed in the Supplementary Information section to the LCR rule published October 10, 2014, a Board-regulated covered company may demonstrate a historical record that meets this criterion through reference to historical market prices and available funding haircuts of the U.S. general obligation municipal security during periods of significant stress, such as the 2007-2009 financial crisis.\21\ Board-regulated covered companies should also consider other periods of systemic and idiosyncratic stress to determine if the asset under consideration has proven to be a reliable source of liquidity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ 79 FR 61440, 61459 (October 10, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Not an Obligation of a Financial Sector Entity or Its Consolidated Subsidiaries The proposed rule would have excluded U.S. general obligation municipal securities that are obligations of a financial sector entity or a consolidated subsidiary of a financial sector entity, as defined under the LCR Rule.\22\ This requirement would have excluded U.S. general obligation municipal securities that received a guarantee from a financial sector entity, including a U.S. municipal security that was insured by a bond insurer that was a financial sector entity. This criterion was intended to exclude U.S. general obligation municipal securities that are valued, in part, based on guarantees provided by financial sector entities, because these guarantees could exhibit similar risks and correlation with Board-regulated covered companies (wrong-way risk) during a period of significant stress. Inclusion may result in an overestimation of the HQLA amount that would be available to the Board-regulated covered company during such period of significant stress. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ The LCR rule defines a financial sector entity to include a regulated financial company, investment company, non-regulated fund, pension fund, investment adviser, or a company that the Board has determined should be treated the same as the foregoing for the purposes of the LCR rule. 12 CFR 249.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commenters argued that an insured U.S. municipal security should not be considered an obligation of a financial sector entity because the primary obligation of the security is that of the issuer, not the insurer. Commenters also expressed concern that insured U.S. general obligation municipal securities would receive punitive treatment on the basis of the insurance regardless of the liquidity of the underlying U.S. general obligation municipal security, which may otherwise qualify as HQLA. Commenters further argued that insured U.S. general obligation municipal securities do not represent the type of highly correlated wrong-way risk that is present when a financial institution holds the debt of another financial [[Page 21228]] institution and, since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, bond insurers have modified their risk profiles to limit such wrong-way risk. Commenters stated that insurance not only provides an additional layer of credit protection, but also provides additional benefits because insurers promote increased transparency, engage in due diligence and credit monitoring, and actively participate in bond restructurings following a default, all of which increase the price stability and liquidity of insured bonds. One commenter suggested modifying the proposed rule to allow bonds insured by U.S. regulated financial guarantors who only insure U.S. municipal securities, because these insurers have less exposure to the broader financial markets. In response to comments, the final rule adopts a different approach to U.S. general obligation municipal securities that are insured than in the proposed rule. Under the final rule, a Board-regulated covered company may include as a level 2B liquid asset a U.S. general obligation municipal security that has a guarantee from a financial institution as long as the company demonstrates that the underlying U.S. general obligation municipal security meets all of the other criteria to be included as level 2B liquid assets without taking into consideration the insurance. This revision is based on further research showing that the market for insured U.S. municipal securities are primarily derived from underlying U.S. municipal securities' liquidity characteristics and not the presence of the insurance, which limits the presence of wrong-way risk. In this way, the requirements in the final rule will help to ensure that an insured U.S. general obligation municipal security would remain liquid regardless of the financial health of the insurer. B. Quantitative Limitations on a Company's Inclusion of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities in Its HQLA Amount The proposed rule would have limited the amount of U.S. general obligation municipal securities with the same CUSIP number that a Board-regulated covered company could include in its HQLA amount. It would also have limited the amount of a particular U.S. municipal security that a Board-regulated covered company could include in its HQLA amount based on the average daily trading volume of U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by the U.S. municipality. In addition, the proposed rule would have limited the overall amount of municipal securities that a Board-regulated covered company could include in its HQLA amount to 5 percent of the institution's total HQLA amount. Commenters opposed these limitations, arguing that U.S. municipal securities have similar risks and liquidity characteristics as other assets included in the HQLA amount that are not subject to these limitations. The final rule will retain two and eliminate one of the proposed limitations. 1. Limitation on the Inclusion of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities With the Same CUSIP Number in the HQLA Amount As stated above, the proposed rule would have permitted a Board- regulated covered company to include U.S. general obligation municipal securities as eligible HQLA only to the extent the fair value of the institutions' securities with the same CUSIP number do not exceed 25 percent of the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number. Commenters opposed this limitation, arguing that it would exclude a large portion of the outstanding U.S. general obligation municipal securities from eligible HQLA, and that the limitation was unnecessary to ensure the liquidity of a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA, in light of the proposed rule's other requirements. Commenters emphasized that, due to the structure of the U.S. municipal security market, this limitation would reduce a Board-regulated covered company's ability to invest in U.S. municipal securities and would incentivize them to hold smaller, less liquid blocks of U.S. municipal securities. A commenter stated that applying a limitation at the CUSIP number level would be more limiting than one at the issuer level because single securities issuances with the same CUSIP level are typically smaller in size than an issuer's outstanding debt. Several commenters noted that U.S. municipal securities generally are not traded or evaluated according to their CUSIP number, as bond issuances are often structured to include many CUSIP numbers identifying issuances with varying maturities and coupon payment schedules, but which are treated similarly in the U.S. municipal securities markets. For example, a very large issuer of U.S. municipal securities may have several hundred individual issuances outstanding, each with different CUSIP numbers. A commenter noted that the number of CUSIPs does not affect the liquidity of a particular security or negatively impact the price stability of U.S. municipal securities. Due to this structure, some commenters suggested that the 25 percent cap could more readily be applied to outstanding U.S. municipal securities of a single issuing entity, rather than to outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number. One commenter expressed concern that a 25 percent cap on securities with the same CUSIP number would cause Board- regulated covered companies to hold smaller positions in individual issuances of U.S. municipal securities rather than large blocks of securities that are more liquid and more frequently traded by institutional investors. Another commenter requested that the Board clarify whether 25 percent of the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number could be included as level 2B liquid assets if a company owned more than 25 percent of the outstanding securities. In response to concerns expressed by certain commenters, the final rule eliminates the 25 percent limitation on the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number that could be included as level 2B liquid assets. As indicated in the proposed rule, a Board-regulated covered company that holds a high percentage of an issuance of outstanding municipal securities with the same CUSIP number faces a concentration risk and, therefore, may be unable to readily monetize such positions during a financial stress. This concentration risk is exacerbated in the U.S. municipal securities markets where municipal securities issuances are often structured to include many CUSIP numbers identifying issuances with varying maturities and coupon payments. However, as commenters indicated, the proposed 25 percent limitation would have prevented Board-regulated covered companies from including certain municipal securities from issuances, particularly small issuances as level 2B liquid assets, even though some portion of them are highly liquid. To avoid excluding these highly liquid securities, the 25 percent limitation is not a requirement under the final rule. To the extent these securities are not liquid and, more generally, to address the elevated liquidity risk presented by the structure of the U.S. municipal securities market, the final rule would retain the other limitations on the inclusion of U.S. general obligation municipal securities in a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA amount, as discussed below. [[Page 21229]] 2. Limitation on the Inclusion of the U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities of a Single Issuer in the HQLA Amount The proposed rule would have limited the amount of securities issued by a single public sector entity that a company may include as eligible HQLA to two times the average daily trading volume, as measured over the previous four quarters, of all U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by that public sector entity. As discussed in the Supplementary Information section to the proposed rule, this limitation was designed to ensure U.S. general obligation municipal securities are only included as eligible HQLA to the extent that the market has capacity to absorb an increased supply of such securities. Many commenters expressed concern regarding this requirement, cautioning that this limitation would put too much emphasis on trading volumes as a measure of liquidity and too little emphasis on the historical price risk of U.S. municipal securities. Some commenters asserted that trading volume, in isolation, is not a reliable indicator of U.S. municipal securities' future liquidity in times of stress. Commenters asserted that trading volumes in the U.S. municipal securities market are often low during times of financial strength, as many investors purchase such securities as ``buy-and-hold'' investments, and therefore past trading volumes during non-stressed periods do not necessarily correlate with a U.S. municipal security's liquidity during periods of significant stress. One commenter asserted that U.S. municipal securities have similar liquidity characteristics as other level 2B liquid assets that are not subject to similar limitations. As discussed in the Supplementary Information section to the proposed rule, the Board analyzed data on the historical trading volume of U.S. municipal securities in order to determine the general level of increased sales of U.S. municipal securities that could be absorbed by the market during periods of significant stress. The Board did not include the volume of U.S. municipal securities that are purchased and held for long periods in this analysis because doing so would have assumed that theoretical capacity and demand would exist in periods of significant stress, and would have increased liquidity risk by permitting firms to include an amount of U.S. municipal securities in their HQLA amount that may not be readily monetized in periods of stress. Based on the Board's analysis, two times the average daily trading volume of all U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by a public sector entity could likely be absorbed by the market within a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress without materially disrupting the functioning of the market. This requirement complements the other criteria and limitations in the final rule and ensures that U.S. general obligation securities that are included as eligible HQLA remain relatively liquid and have buyers and sellers during periods of significant stress. Commenters also expressed concern that this limitation would pose operational difficulties for Board-regulated covered companies because a system to monitor daily trading volumes of individual municipal issuers' securities does not currently exist. Although it does not appear that an automated system to monitor daily trading volume is available, data on the trading of an individual municipal issuers' securities is publicly available, so Board-regulated covered companies should be able to access data on the daily trading volumes of individual municipal issuers and monitor such trading volumes with limited operational difficulties. For these reasons, the final rule retains the limitation on the inclusion of U.S. general obligation municipal securities of a single issuer as eligible HQLA. In addition, the Board is clarifying in the final rule that a Board-regulated covered company that owns more than two times the average daily trading volume of all U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by a public sector entity may include up to two times the average daily trading volume of such securities as eligible HQLA. 3. Limitation on the Amount of U.S. General Obligation Municipal Securities That Can Be Included in the HQLA Amount The proposed rule would have limited the amount of U.S. general obligation municipal securities that may be included in a Board- regulated covered company's HQLA amount to no more than 5 percent of the HQLA amount. Commenters disagreed with this limitation, contending that U.S. municipal securities are safer and more liquid than some other types of HQLA assets that have no such concentration limitation. A commenter argued that limiting the amount of U.S. municipal securities to 5 percent of the HQLA amount would discourage banks from investing in U.S. municipal securities, would increase funding costs for state and local entities, and would unnecessarily constrict the supply of HQLA. Another commenter suggested that the preexisting limitations in the LCR rule regarding the percentage of HQLA assets that can be level 2 liquid assets would ensure sufficient diversification in HQLA assets. The final rule maintains the 5 percent limitation on the amount of U.S. municipal securities that can be included in a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA amount, but, as noted, does not include the proposed 25 percent limitation on the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number. As discussed above, while the 25 percent limitation effectively could have barred a Board-regulated covered company from including certain municipal securities, and particularly small issuances, in its HQLA amount, the 5 percent limitation should not prevent a Board-regulated covered company from including any particular issuance of municipal securities in its HQLA amount. Rather, the 5 percent limitation will act as a backstop to address the overall liquidity risk presented by the structure of the U.S. municipal securities market, including the large diversity of issuers and sizes of issuances, by ensuring that a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA amount is not overly concentrated in and reliant on U.S. municipal securities. The 5 percent limitation is in addition to the 40 percent limitation on the aggregate amount of level 2A and level 2B liquid assets and the 15 percent limitation on level 2B liquid assets that can be included in a Board-regulated covered company's HQLA amount. It also complements the two times trading volume limitation on U.S. general obligation municipal securities described above, which pertains to individual issuers. Consistent with the LCR rule's limitations on level 2A and level 2B liquid assets, this 5 percent limitation applies both on an unadjusted basis and after adjusting the composition of the HQLA amount upon the unwinding of certain secured funding transactions, secured lending transactions, asset exchanges and collateralized derivatives transactions.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See 12 CFR 249.21(g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The final rule would not, however, limit the amount of U.S. municipal securities a firm may hold for purposes other than complying with the LCR rule. C. HQLA Calculation Section 249.21 of the LCR rule provides instructions for calculating a Board-regulated covered company's [[Page 21230]] HQLA amount, which includes the calculation of the required haircuts and caps for level 2 liquid assets. The final rule implements the 5 percent limitation for U.S. general obligation municipal securities by adding the limitation to the calculation in Sec. 249.21 of the LCR rule. Specifically, the final rule amends the calculations of the unadjusted excess HQLA amount and the adjusted excess HQLA amount in the LCR rule \24\ and adds four new calculations: the public sector entity security liquid asset amount, the public sector entity security cap excess amount, the adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount, and the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See 12 CFR 249.21(c) and (f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the final rule, the unadjusted excess HQLA amount equals the sum of the level 2 cap excess amount, the level 2B cap excess amount, and the public sector entity security cap excess amount. The method of calculating the public sector entity security cap excess amount is set forth in Sec. 249.21(f) of the final rule. Under this section, the public sector entity security cap excess amount is calculated as the greater of (1) the public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the level 2 cap excess amount minus level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 (or 5/95, which is the ratio of the maximum allowable public sector entity security liquid assets to the level 1 liquid assets and other level 2 liquid assets) times the total of (i) the level 1 liquid asset amount, plus (ii) the level 2A liquid asset amount, plus (iii) the level 2B liquid asset amount, minus (iv) the public sector entity security liquid asset amount; or (2) zero. Under the final rule, the adjusted excess HQLA amount equals the sum of the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount, the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount, and the adjusted public sector entity cap excess amount. The method of calculating the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount is set forth in Sec. 249.21(k) of the final rule. The adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount is calculated as the greater of: (1) The adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount minus the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 (or 5/95, which is the ratio of the maximum allowable adjusted public sector entity security liquid assets to the adjusted level 1 liquid assets and other adjusted level 2 liquid assets) times the total of (i) the adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount, plus (ii) the adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount, plus (iii) the adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount, minus (iv) the adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount; or (2) zero. The Supplementary Information section to the LCR rule included an example calculation of the HQLA amount.\25\ The following is an example calculation of the HQLA amount under the final rule, which is similar to the calculation in the LCR rule, but includes the public sector entity security liquid asset amount, the public sector entity security cap excess amount, the adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset, and the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount. Note that the given liquid asset amounts and adjusted liquid asset amounts already reflect the level 2A and 2B haircuts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See 79 FR 61440, 61474-75. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) Calculate the liquid asset amounts (12 CFR 249.21(b)) The following values are given: Fair value of all level 1 liquid assets that are eligible HQLA: 17 Covered company's reserve balance requirement: 2 Level 1 liquid asset amount (12 CFR 249.21(b)(1)): 15 Level 2A liquid asset amount: 25 Level 2B liquid asset amount: 140 Of Which, Public sector entity security liquid asset amount: 15 (b) Calculate unadjusted excess HQLA amount (12 CFR 249.21(c)) Step 1: Calculate the level 2 cap excess amount (12 CFR 249.21(d)): Level 2 cap excess amount = Max (level 2A liquid asset amount + level 2B liquid asset amount-0.6667*level 1 liquid asset amount, 0) = Max (25 + 140-0.6667*15, 0) = Max (165-10.00, 0) = Max (155.00, 0) = 155.00 Step 2: Calculate the level 2B cap excess amount (12 CFR 249.21(e)). Level 2B cap excess amount = Max (level 2B liquid asset amount-level 2 cap excess amount -0.1765*(level 1 liquid asset amount + level 2A liquid asset amount), 0) = Max (140-155.00-0.1765*(15 + 25), 0) = Max (-15-7.06, 0) = Max (-22.06, 0) = 0 Step 3: Calculate the public sector entity security cap excess amount (Sec. 249.21(f) of the final rule). Public sector entity security cap excess amount = Max (public sector entity security liquid asset amount-level 2 cap excess amount-level 2B cap excess amount-0.0526*(level 1 liquid asset amount + level 2A liquid asset amount + level 2B liquid asset amount-public sector entity security liquid asset amount), 0) = Max (15-155.00-0-0.0526*(15 + 25 + 140-20), 0) = Max (-140-8.42, 0) = Max (-148.42, 0) = 0 Step 4: Calculate the unadjusted excess HQLA amount (12 CFR 249.21(c)). Unadjusted excess HQLA amount = Level 2 cap excess amount + level 2B cap excess amount + public sector entity security cap excess amount = 155.00 + 0 + 0 = 155 (c) Calculate the adjusted liquid asset amounts, based upon the unwind of certain transactions involving the exchange of eligible HQLA or cash (12 CFR 249.21(g)). The following values are given: Adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount: 110 Adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount: 50 Adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount: 20 Of Which, Adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount: 20 (d) Calculate adjusted excess HQLA amount (12 CFR 249.21(h)). Step 1: Calculate the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount (12 CFR 249.21(i)). Adjusted level 2 cap excess amount = Max (adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount + adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount-0.6667*adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount, 0) = Max (50 + 20-0.6667*110, 0) = Max (70-73.34, 0) = Max (-3.34, 0) = 0 Step 2: Calculate the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount (12 CFR 249.21(j)). Adjusted level 2B cap excess amount = Max (adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount-adjusted level 2 cap excess amount-0.1765*(adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount + adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount, 0) = Max (20-0-0.1765*(110 + 50), 0) = Max (20-28.24, 0) = Max (-8.24, 0) = 0 Step 3: Calculate the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount (Sec. 249.21(k) of the final rule). Adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount = Max(adjusted [[Page 21231]] public sector entity security liquid asset amount-adjusted level 2 cap excess amount-adjusted level 2B cap excess amount-0.0526*(adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount + adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount + adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount-adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount, 0) = Max (20-0-0-0.0526*(110 + 50 + 20-20), 0) = Max (20-8.42, 0) = Max (11.58, 0) = 11.58 Step 4: Calculate the adjusted excess HQLA amount (12 CFR 249.21(h)). Adjusted excess HQLA amount = Adjusted level 2 cap excess amount + adjusted level 2B cap excess amount + adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount = 0 + 0 + 11.58 = 11.58 (e) Determine the HQLA amount (12 CFR 249.21(a)). HQLA Amount = Level 1 liquid asset amount + level 2A liquid asset amount + level 2B liquid asset amount-Max (unadjusted excess HQLA amount, adjusted excess HQLA amount) = 15 + 25 + 140-Max (155, 11.58) = 180-155 = 25 III. Plain Language Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act \26\ requires the Board to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner and did not receive any comments on the use of plain language. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (the ``RFA''), generally requires that an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking.\27\ The Board solicited public comment on this rule in a notice of proposed rulemaking and has since considered the potential impact of this final rule on small entities in accordance with section 604 of the RFA. The Board received no public comments related to the initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in the proposed rule from the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration or from the general public. Based on the Board's analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a ``small entity'' includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with total assets of $550 million or less (a small banking organization). As of December 31, 2015, there were approximately 606 small state member banks, 3,268 small bank holding companies, and 166 small savings and loan holding companies. As discussed above, the final rule would amend the LCR rule to include certain high-quality U.S. general obligation municipal securities as HQLA for the purposes of the LCR rule. The final rule does not apply to ``small entities'' and applies only to Board- regulated institutions subject to the LCR rule: (1) Bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and state member banks that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; (2) state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies subject to the LCR rule; (3) nonbank financial companies designated by the Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR rule by separate rule or order; and (4) bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, but that do not meet the thresholds in (1) through (3), which are subject to the modified LCR rule. Companies that are subject to the final rule therefore substantially exceed the $550 million asset threshold at which a banking entity is considered a ``small entity'' under SBA regulations. No small top-tier bank holding company, top-tier savings and loan holding company, or state member bank would be subject to the rule, so there would be no additional projected compliance requirements imposed on small bank holding companies, small savings and loan holding companies, or small state member banks. The Board believes that the final rule will not have a significant impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to the rule that would reduce the economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board. V. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board 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 Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and determined that it would not introduce any new collection of information pursuant to the PRA. VI. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA) requires a federal banking agency, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, to consider any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, and the benefits of such regulations, consistent with the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest.\28\ In addition, new regulations that impose additional reporting disclosures or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.\29\ Section 302 of the RCDRIA does not apply to this final rule because the final rule does not prescribe additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions. As discussed in detail above in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the final rule instead expands the types of assets for which Board-regulated covered companies may include as HQLA under the LCR rule. Nevertheless, the final rule becomes effective on July 1, 2016, the first day of a calendar quarter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ See Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802. \29\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 249 Administrative practice and procedure; Banks, banking; Federal Reserve System; Holding companies; [[Page 21232]] Liquidity; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority and Issuance For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the Board amends part 249 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 249--LIQUIDITY RISK MEASUREMENT STANDARDS (REGULATION WW) 0 1. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a(g)(1), 1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1831o-1, 1844(b), 5365, 5366, 5368. 0 2. Amend Sec. 249.3 by adding a definition for ``General obligation'' in alphabetical order to read as follows: Sec. 249.3 Definitions. * * * * * General obligation means a bond or similar obligation that is backed by the full faith and credit of a public sector entity. * * * * * 0 3. Amend Sec. 249.20 by redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(3) and adding paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 249.20 High-quality liquid asset criteria. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) A general obligation security issued by, or guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by, a public sector entity where the security is: (i) Investment grade under 12 CFR part 1 as of the calculation date; (ii) Issued or guaranteed by a public sector entity whose obligations have a proven record as a reliable source of liquidity in repurchase or sales markets during stressed market conditions, as demonstrated by: (A) The market price of the security or equivalent securities of the issuer declining by no more than 20 percent during a 30 calendar- day period of significant stress; or (B) The market haircut demanded by counterparties to secured lending and secured funding transactions that are collateralized by the security or equivalent securities of the issuer increasing by no more than 20 percentage points during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress; and (iii) Not an obligation of a financial sector entity and not an obligation of a consolidated subsidiary of a financial sector entity, except that a security will not be disqualified as a level 2B liquid asset solely because it is guaranteed by a financial sector entity or a consolidated subsidiary of a financial sector entity if the security would, if not guaranteed, meet the criteria in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. * * * * * 0 4. Amend Sec. 249.21 by: 0 a. Adding paragraph (b)(4); 0 b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (c)(2) and adding in its place ``; plus''; 0 c. Adding paragraph (c)(3); 0 d. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (i) as paragraphs (g) through (j), respectively, and adding paragraph (f); 0 e. Adding paragraph (g)(4) to newly redesignated paragraph (g); 0 f. Removing the period at the of newly redesignated paragraph (h)(2) and adding in its place ``; plus''; and 0 g. Adding paragraph (h)(3) to newly redesignated paragraph (h) and paragraph (k). The additions and revisions read as follows: Sec. 249.21 High-quality liquid asset amount. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Public sector entity security liquid asset amount. The public sector entity security liquid asset amount equals 50 percent of the fair value of all general obligation securities issued by, or guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by, a public sector entity that are eligible HQLA. (c) * * * (3) The public sector entity security cap excess amount. * * * * * (f) Calculation of the public sector entity security cap excess amount. As of the calculation date, the public security entity security cap excess amount equals the greater of: (1) The public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the level 2 cap excess amount minus level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 times the total of: (i) The level 1 liquid asset amount; plus (ii) The level 2A liquid asset amount; plus (iii) The level 2B liquid asset amount; minus (iv) The public sector entity security liquid asset amount; and (2) 0. (g) * * * (4) Adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount. A Board-regulated institution's adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount equals 50 percent of the fair value of all general obligation securities issued by, or guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by, a public sector entity that would be eligible HQLA and would be held by the Board-regulated institution upon the unwind of any secured funding transaction (other than a collateralized deposit), secured lending transaction, asset exchange, or collateralized derivatives transaction that matures within 30 calendar days of the calculation date where the Board-regulated institution will provide an asset that is eligible HQLA and the counterparty will provide an asset that will be eligible HQLA. (h) * * * (3) The adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount. * * * * * (k) Calculation of the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount. As of the calculation date, the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount equals the greater of: (1) The adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount minus the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 times the total of: (i) The adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount; plus (ii) The adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount; plus (iii) The adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount; minus (iv) The adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount; and (2) 0. 0 5. Amend Sec. 249.22 by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: Sec. 249.22 Requirements for eligible high-quality liquid assets. * * * * * (c) Securities of public sector entities as eligible HQLA. A Board- regulated institution may include as eligible HQLA a general obligation security issued by, or guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by, a public sector entity to the extent that the fair value of the aggregate amount of securities of a single public sector entity issuer included as eligible HQLA is no greater than two times the average daily trading volume during the previous four quarters of all general obligation securities issued by that public sector entity. * * * * * [[Page 21233]] By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 31, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2016-07716 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
![21223
Rules and Regulations Federal Register
Vol. 81, No. 69
Monday, April 11, 2016
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER order; and bank holding companies and C. HQLA Calculation
contains regulatory documents having general certain savings and loan holding III. Plain Language
applicability and legal effect, most of which companies, in each case with $50 IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
are keyed to and codified in the Code of V. Paperwork Reduction Act
billion or more in total consolidated VI. Riegle Community Development and
Federal Regulations, which is published under assets, but that do not meet the
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
thresholds described in the first through
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by third instances, which are subject to the I. Background and Overview
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Board’s modified liquidity coverage A. Background and Summary of the
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL ratio rule. Proposed Rule
REGISTER issue of each week. DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2016.
On May 28, 2015, the Board of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Governors of the Federal Reserve
Gwendolyn Collins, Assistant Director, System (Board) invited comment on a
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (202) 912–4311, Peter Clifford, Manager, proposed rule (proposed rule) to allow
12 CFR Part 249 (202) 785–6057, Adam S. Trost, Senior Board-regulated institutions subject to
Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) the liquidity coverage ratio rule and
[Docket No. R–1514; Regulation WW] 452–3814, or J. Kevin Littler, Senior modified liquidity coverage ratio rule
RIN 7100 AE–32
Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) (together, LCR rule) 1 to include certain
475–6677, Risk Policy, Division of U.S. general obligation municipal
Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Treatment of Banking Supervision and Regulation; securities as high-quality liquid assets
U.S. Municipal Securities as High- Benjamin W. McDonough, Special (HQLA).2 The LCR rule, adopted by the
Quality Liquid Assets Counsel, (202) 452–2036, Dafina Board, the Office of the Comptroller of
Stewart, Counsel, (202) 452–3876, or the Currency (OCC), and the Federal
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Adam Cohen, Counsel, (202) 912–4658, Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Reserve System Legal Division, Board of Governors of (collectively, the agencies) in 2014,3 is
ACTION: Final rule. the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C designed to promote the short-term
Streets, Washington, DC 20551. For the resilience of the liquidity risk profile of
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the hearing impaired only, large and internationally active banking
Federal Reserve System (Board) is Telecommunication Device for the Deaf organizations, and to further improve
adopting a final rule that amends the (TDD), (202) 263–4869. the measurement and management of
Board’s liquidity coverage ratio rule and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: liquidity risk, thereby improving the
modified liquidity coverage ratio rule banking sector’s ability to absorb shocks
(together, LCR rule) to include certain Table of Contents
arising during periods of significant
U.S. municipal securities as high- I. Background and Overview stress. The LCR rule requires a company
quality liquid assets (HQLA). This final A. Background and Summary of the to maintain an amount of HQLA (the
rule includes as level 2B liquid assets Proposed Rule numerator of the ratio) 4 that is no less
under the LCR rule general obligation B. Overview of the Final Rule and
than its total net cash outflow amount
securities of a public sector entity (i.e., Significant Changes From the Proposed
Rule over a forward-looking 30 calendar-day
securities backed by the full faith and period of significant stress (the
II. Inclusion of U.S. Municipal Securities as
credit of a U.S. state or municipality) denominator of the ratio).5 Community
HQLA
that meet similar criteria as corporate A. Criteria for Inclusion of U.S. Municipal banking organizations are not subject to
debt securities that are included as level Securities as Level 2B Liquid Assets the LCR rule.6
2B liquid assets, subject to limitations 1. U.S. General Obligation Municipal
that are intended to address the Securities 1 12 CFR part 249.
structure of the U.S. municipal 2. Investment Grade U.S. General 2 80 FR 30383 (May 28, 2015).
securities market. The final rule applies Obligation Municipal Securities 3 79 FR 61440 (October 10, 2014).
to all Board-regulated institutions that 3. Proven Record as a Reliable Source of 4 A company’s HQLA amount for purposes of the
are subject to the LCR rule: Bank Liquidity LCR rule is calculated according to 12 CFR 249.21.
holding companies, certain savings and 4. Not an Obligation of a Financial Sector 5 A company’s total net cash outflow amount for
Entity or its Consolidated Subsidiaries purposes of the LCR rule is calculated according to
loan holding companies, and state B. Quantitative Limitations on a 12 CFR 249.30 or 249.63.
member banks that, in each case, have Company’s Inclusion of U.S. General
6 The LCR rule applies to (1) bank holding
$250 billion or more in total companies, certain savings and loan holding
Obligation Municipal Securities in its
companies, and depository institutions that, in each
consolidated assets or $10 billion or HQLA Amount case, have $250 billion or more in total assets or $10
more in on-balance sheet foreign 1. Limitation on the Inclusion of U.S. billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign
exposure; state member banks with $10 General Obligation Municipal Securities exposure; (2) depository institutions with $10
billion or more in total consolidated With the Same CUSIP Number in the billion or more in total consolidated assets that are
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
HQLA Amount consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding
assets that are consolidated subsidiaries companies and savings and loan holding companies
of bank holding companies described in 2. Limitation on the Inclusion of the U.S.
General Obligation Municipal Securities described in (1); (3) nonbank financial companies
the first instance; nonbank financial of a Single Issuer in the HQLA Amount
designated by the Financial Stability Oversight
companies designated by the Financial Council (Council) for Board supervision to which
3. Limitation on the Amount of U.S. the Board has applied the LCR rule by separate rule
Stability Oversight Council for Board General Obligation Municipal Securities or order; and (4) bank holding companies and
supervision to which the Board has That Can Be Included in the HQLA certain savings and loan holding companies that, in
applied the LCR rule by separate rule or Amount Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:13 Apr 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21292/page/1.svg)
![21224 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Under the LCR rule, asset classes that development bank that are not eligible consolidated assets or $10 billion or
count as HQLA are those that have to be treated as level 1 liquid assets. more in on-balance sheet foreign
historically served as sources of Under the LCR rule, level 2A liquid exposure; 11 (2) state member banks
liquidity in the United States, including assets are subject to a 15 percent with $10 billion or more in total
during periods of significant stress. In haircut, and the aggregate amount of consolidated assets that are
identifying the asset classes that qualify level 2A and level 2B liquid assets is consolidated subsidiaries of bank
as HQLA under the LCR rule, the limited to no more than 40 percent of holding companies subject to the LCR
agencies considered several factors, a covered company’s HQLA amount, as described in (1); (3) nonbank financial
including an asset class’s risk profile calculated under 12 CFR 249.21. Level companies designated by the Council
and characteristics of the market for the 2B liquid assets, which are liquid assets for Board supervision to which the
asset class (e.g., the existence of active that generally exhibit more volatility Board has applied the LCR rule by
sale or repurchase markets at all times, than level 2A liquid assets, are subject separate rule or order; and (4) bank
significant diversity in market to a 50 percent haircut and may not holding companies and certain savings
participants, and high trading volume). exceed 15 percent of a covered and loan holding companies, in each
In addition, the agencies developed company’s HQLA amount. Under the case with $50 billion or more in total
certain other criteria, such as LCR rule, level 2B liquid assets include consolidated assets, but that do not meet
operational requirements, that assets certain corporate debt securities and the thresholds described in (1) through
must meet for inclusion as eligible certain common equity shares of (3), which are subject to the Board’s
HQLA.7 publicly traded companies. modified liquidity coverage ratio rule
The LCR rule divides HQLA into Other classes of assets, such as debt (together, Board-regulated covered
three categories of assets: Level 1, level securities issued or guaranteed by a companies).
2A, and level 2B liquid assets. public sector entity (municipal The proposed rule and the final rule
Specifically, level 1 liquid assets, which securities), are not treated as HQLA permit U.S. general obligation
are the highest quality and most liquid under the LCR rule. The LCR rule municipal securities that meet certain
assets, are limited to balances held at a defines a public sector entity to include criteria to be counted as HQLA for
Federal Reserve Bank and foreign any state, local authority, or other purposes of the LCR rule, subject to
central bank withdrawable reserves, all governmental subdivision below the certain limits.12 Neither the proposed
securities issued or unconditionally U.S. sovereign entity level.9 The rule nor the final rule limit in any way,
guaranteed as to timely payment of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to however, the amount or types of
principal and interest by the U.S. the LCR rule published October 10, municipal securities that a Board-
Government, and certain highly liquid, 2014, stated that ‘‘[w]ith respect to regulated covered company may hold
high-credit-quality securities issued by municipal securities, the agencies have for purposes other than complying with
or unconditionally guaranteed as to observed that the liquidity the LCR rule.
timely payment of principal and interest characteristics of municipal securities
B. Overview of the Final Rule and
by a sovereign entity, certain range significantly, and overall many
Significant Changes From the Proposed
international organizations, or certain municipal securities are not ‘liquid and
Rule
multilateral development banks. Level 1 readily-marketable’ in U.S. markets as
liquid assets may be included in a defined in § ll.3 of the final rule.’’ 10 The final rule amends the LCR rule to
covered company’s HQLA amount Accordingly, the agencies did not include certain U.S. municipal
without limitation and without haircut. include U.S. municipal securities as securities as HQLA. The final rule
Level 2A and 2B liquid assets have HQLA in the LCR rule. However, the includes U.S. general obligation
characteristics that are associated with Board continued to study the question municipal securities as level 2B liquid
being relatively stable and significant of whether at least some U.S. municipal assets if they meet certain criteria, some
sources of liquidity, but not to the same securities should be included as HQLA of which have been adjusted from the
degree as level 1 liquid assets. All level under some circumstances, and criteria in the proposed rule based on
2 liquid assets, including all level 2B subsequently issued the proposed rule. comments received. To qualify as HQLA
liquid assets, must be liquid and readily The proposed rule would have under the final rule, the securities must
marketable as defined in the LCR rule to included as level 2B liquid assets under be general obligations of public sector
be included as HQLA.8 Level 2A liquid the LCR rule certain U.S. general entities, which includes bonds or
assets include certain obligations issued obligation municipal securities that similar obligations that are backed by
or guaranteed by a U.S. government- meet similar criteria as corporate debt the full faith and credit of the public
sponsored enterprise (GSE) and certain securities that are included as level 2B sector entities. U.S. municipal securities
obligations issued or guaranteed by a liquid assets. The proposed rule also must also be ‘‘investment grade’’ under
sovereign entity or a multilateral would have contained several criteria 12 CFR part 1 as of the calculation
and limitations designed to ensure that
each case, have $50 billion or more in consolidated U.S. general obligation municipal 11 On-balance sheet foreign exposure equals total
assets but that do not meet the thresholds described securities included as HQLA would be cross-border claims less claims with a head office
in (1) through (3), which are subject to the modified or guarantor located in another country plus
liquidity coverage ratio rule (collectively, covered sufficiently liquid in times of stress. The redistributed guaranteed amounts to the country of
companies). At this time, General Electric Capital proposed rule would have applied to all the head office or guarantor plus local country
Corporation is the only nonbank financial company Board-regulated institutions that are claims on local residents plus revaluation gains on
designated by the Council for Board supervision to subject to the LCR rule: (1) Bank holding foreign exchange and derivative transaction
which the Board has applied the LCR rule. 80 FR products, calculated in accordance with the Federal
4411 (July 24, 2015). companies, savings and loan holding
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)
7 The LCR rule defines eligible HQLA as those companies without significant 009 Country Exposure Report. 12 CFR
high-quality liquid assets that meet the commercial or insurance operations, 249.1(b)(1)(ii).
requirements set forth in 12 CFR 249.22. and state member banks that, in each 12 A Board-regulated covered company that holds
8 The liquid and readily marketable standard is these securities in its consolidated subsidiaries,
defined in 12 CFR 249.3 and is discussed in section
case, have $250 billion or more in total including those consolidated securities that are not
II.B.2 of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to regulated by the Board, may count the securities as
9 12 CFR 249.3.
the LCR rule published October 10, 2014. 79 FR HQLA for purposes of the LCR rule in accordance
61440, 61451–52 (October 10, 2014). 10 79 FR 61440, 61463. with 12 CFR 249.22(b)(3) and (4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:13 Apr 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21292/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21233
By order of the Board of Governors of the New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, for low utilization rate operators. Orbital
Federal Reserve System, March 31, 2016. DC 20590. ATK believes that routine borescope
Robert deV. Frierson, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inspections of the LPT blades and
Secretary of the Board. Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, removal of the engine prior to reaching
[FR Doc. 2016–07716 Filed 4–8–16; 8:45 am] Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine an LPT blade limit of 15,000 CSN offers
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District an equivalent level of safety.
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: We partially agree. We agree that the
781–238–7772; fax: 781–238–7199; failure mode of the bearing support is
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION email: brian.kierstead@faa.gov. not a time-based dependency. However,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a compliance time of 24 months is
Federal Aviation Administration specified to allow for a shop visit
Discussion interval. We have determined that
14 CFR Part 39 We issued a notice of proposed removal of the LPT support roller
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR bearing addresses the unsafe condition.
[Docket No. FAA–2015–4076; Directorate Operators with unique circumstances
Identifier 2015–NE–30–AD; Amendment 39– part 39 by adding an AD that would
18483; AD 2016–08–07] apply to the specified products. The may apply for an alternative method of
NPRM was published in the Federal compliance using the procedures listed
RIN 2120–AA64 Register on December 9, 2015 (80 FR in this AD. We did not change this AD.
76402). The NPRM proposed to correct Request To Change Costs of Compliance
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce
an unsafe condition for the specified
plc Turbofan Engines Lockheed Martin requested an
products. The MCAI states:
AGENCY: Federal Aviation adjustment to the estimated costs of
An RB211–524G2–T engine experienced an compliance. The costs to low utilization
Administration (FAA), DOT. in-service event that resulted in breach of a
turbine casing and some release of core
operators would be significantly
ACTION: Final rule.
engine debris through a hole in the engine increased by imposing an unscheduled
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new nacelle. The investigation of the event shop visit and/or unscheduled engine
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain determined the primary cause to have been removal. Another possible contributor
Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211–22B and fracture and release of a Low Pressure (LP) for increased costs is the lack of an
RB211–524 turbofan engines with low- turbine stage 2 blade. The blade release approved repair station within the
caused secondary damage to the LP turbine, United States.
pressure turbine (LPT) support roller
producing significant out-of-balance forces. We partially agree. We disagree that
bearing, part number (P/N) LK30313 or The event engine was fitted with an LP
P/N UL29651, installed. This AD no repair stations exist within the U.S.
turbine support bearing where the roller
requires removal of certain LPT support that may perform the work required by
retention cage is constructed from two halves
roller bearings installed in RR RB211– that are riveted together. The LP turbine this AD. We agree that this AD may
22B and RB211–524 engines. This AD imbalance resulted in an overload of the LP drive low utilization operators to the
was prompted by a report of a breach of turbine support bearing and caused shop faster. Operators with unique
the turbine casing and release of engine separation of the riveted, two –piece roller circumstances may apply for an
debris through a hole in the engine retention cage. Radial location of the LP alternative method of compliance using
turbine shaft was lost, allowing further the procedures listed in this AD. We did
nacelle. We are issuing this AD to
progression of the event that resulted in a not change this AD.
prevent failure of the LPT support roller breach of the IP turbine casing.
bearing, loss of radial position following Conclusion
LPT blade failure, uncontained part You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD We reviewed the available data,
release, damage to the engine, and
docket on the Internet at http:// including the comments received, and
damage to the airplane.
www.regulations.gov by searching for determined that air safety and the
DATES: This AD becomes effective May public interest require adopting this AD
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
16, 2016. as proposed.
4076.
ADDRESSES: See the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Comments Costs of Compliance
We gave the public the opportunity to We estimate that this AD affects 9
Examining the AD Docket
participate in developing this AD. We engines installed on airplanes of U.S.
You may examine the AD docket on considered the comments received. registry. We also estimate it will take 0
the Internet at http:// hours to comply with this AD.
www.regulations.gov by searching for Support for the NPRM (80 FR 76402, Removing the LPT support roller
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– December 9, 2015) bearing is required during a shop visit;
4076; or in person at the Docket Boeing concurred with the NPRM. therefore, no additional time is needed
Management Facility between 9 a.m. for removal. Required parts cost about
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Request To Change Compliance
$8,184 per engine. The average labor
except Federal holidays. The AD docket Orbital ATK and Lockheed Martin rate is $85 per hour. Based on these
contains this AD, the mandatory requested that the compliance time be figures, we estimate the cost of this AD
continuing airworthiness information based on LPT blade cycles instead of on U.S. operators to be $73,656.
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any calendar time. Orbital ATK cites
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
comments received, and other correspondence with the U.S. Rolls- Authority for This Rulemaking
information. The address for the Docket Royce representative who recommends Title 49 of the United States Code
Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is a 15,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
Document Management Facility, U.S. duration for the LPT blade design life. rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Department of Transportation, Docket Since there is no calendar time driving section 106, describes the authority of
Operations, M–30, West Building the unsafe condition, Orbital ATK the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII:
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 believes this is a good mitigation factor Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:13 Apr 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21292/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2016-04-09 00:11:08
Document Modified: 2016-04-09 00:11:08
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Contact | Gwendolyn Collins, Assistant Director, (202) 912-4311, Peter Clifford, Manager, (202) 785-6057, Adam S. Trost, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3814, or J. Kevin Littler, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 475-6677, Risk Policy, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Benjamin W. McDonough, Special Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Dafina Stewart, Counsel, (202) 452-3876, or Adam Cohen, Counsel, (202) 912-4658, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), (202) 263-4869. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 21223 | |
| RIN Number | 7100 AE32 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Banks and Banking; Federal Reserve System; Holding Companies; Liquidity; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR