FDIC Part 370 Rescission: Larger Banks Would Return to Section 360.9
On 30 October 2026 the FDIC Board approved a proposal, issued as FIL-63-2026 under RIN 3064-AG35, to remove FDIC Part 370, the Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination rule, and revise 12 CFR 360.9, the Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization rule. Banks with two million or more deposit accounts would no longer have to build and maintain IT systems that calculate deposit insurance coverage. The FDIC would run that calculation on its own systems.
The relief has a condition. A bank that certifies Part 370 compliance is currently released from the section 360.9 provisional hold and standard data format requirements. The proposal would bring those banks back as “larger covered institutions”, with provisional holds, 26 mandatory data fields and a contracting or disclosure step for certain accounts with transactional features. The FDIC estimates that 29 of the 31 Part 370 banks would land in that tier. Comments are due 60 days after Federal Register publication.
Related reading: FFIEC Call Report: Who Files 031, 041 or 051 for 30 September 2026
Key dates in the FDIC Part 370 proposal
- 30 October 2026: Board approval, FIL-63-2026 and a new Part 370 FAQ.
- Comments: 60 days after Federal Register publication. The notice gives no calendar date.
- To the end of 2027: the FAQ states that the section 370.10(a) annual certification and reporting requirements are waived, and that staff do not expect to schedule Part 370 compliance tests in 2026 or 2027.
- Final rule effective date: not set. It starts the clocks below and is the baseline date for indexing the section 360.9 dollar thresholds.
- 1 October 2029: first proposed CPI-W adjustment of those dollar thresholds under a revised 12 CFR 314.1, then every two years, or annually if CPI-W rises by more than 8 percent over the 12 months ending 30 August. No adjustment would be made if the calculation would not increase the then-current threshold. The account counts are not on the indexing list.
Compliance clocks under proposed section 360.9(e)
| Position on the effective date | Proposed deadline |
|---|---|
| Covered institution, not larger | Compliant on the effective date, or by a later initial compliance date it already has |
| Larger covered institution | 6 months for everything except provisional holds; 18 months for provisional holds |
| Not covered, later becomes covered | 18 months after the end of the second calendar quarter in which it meets the criteria; after a merger of non-covered institutions, 18 months from the merger’s effective date under existing section 360.9(e)(3) |
| Covered, later becomes larger | 12 months after the end of the second calendar quarter in which it meets the larger criteria, for the larger-institution duties; after a merger, 18 months from its effective date under existing section 360.9(e)(4) or (e)(5) |
| Not covered, later becomes larger | 12 months on the same basis, or 18 months if it was not a covered institution immediately before; after a merger of non-covered institutions, 18 months from its effective date under existing section 360.9(e)(3) |
Question 15 asks whether the 6-month and 18-month split works and whether anything besides provisional holds would need more than 6 months.
Who would count as a larger covered institution
Section 360.9 covers an insured depository institution that, on its Call Report, has at least $2 billion in deposits and either at least 250,000 deposit accounts or at least $20 billion in total assets. A larger covered institution would be a covered institution with at least $2 billion in deposits and two million or more deposit accounts, both as defined in the Call Report instructions.
On 31 March 2026 data the FDIC counts 148 affected institutions: 31 Part 370 banks and 117 already under section 360.9. For the 117 it states the proposal adds no new requirement or burden. Release would become automatic after three consecutive quarters below the covered institution criteria, or below the larger threshold for the additional duties. Today the FDIC notifies banks of release.
Two million accounts alone does not trigger the larger tier. The FDIC’s Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis identifies one small Part 370 bank that would not meet the section 360.9 covered institution criteria at all, so it would exit both regimes.
The FDIC estimates one-time transition costs of about $210,000 to $1.7 million per bank across its complexity tiers, about $14 million in aggregate, and acknowledges these estimates likely understate actual costs.
What leaves with Part 370, and the release that goes with it
Part 370 requires in-house calculation of insured and uninsured amounts by ownership right and capacity, complete deposit records with permitted alternative recordkeeping, prescribed output files, annual certification and FDIC testing. If the rule is finalised as proposed, the FDIC would also ask OMB to discontinue information collection 3064-0202, about 10,169 annual burden hours.
Section 370.8(d) matters for the transition. It releases a certified Part 370 bank from the section 360.9 provisional hold and standard data format requirements for as long as Part 370 applies to it. Remove Part 370 and the release goes with it: the preamble says these banks would need to comply with section 360.9, including developing or redeveloping provisional hold capabilities. Recordkeeping duties move to section 360.9(d), and for the larger tier they include collecting data the bank does not hold.
The 26 mandatory fields in the section 360.9 files
The proposal adds a “Larger CI Requirement” column to Appendices C to G of part 360. The FDIC says 26 fields would be mandatory, 21 of them already populated in Part 370 output files. Matching the preamble’s descriptions of the other five to the proposed appendices, I read them as:
| Preamble description | Appendix field | Specification |
|---|---|---|
| Deposit type indicator | C, field 12, DP_Dep_Type | D (domestic), F (dually payable) or N (non-dually payable foreign) |
| Account-level ownership indicator | C, field 14, DP_Ownership_Ind | Right and capacity code, such as S, J, R or IR |
| Account title | C, field 17, DP_Acct_Title_1 | Title line 1; no address data |
| Relationship code | G, field 8, CS_Rel_Code | At least one owner code (PRI, SEC or MIN) per deposit account |
| Beneficiary code | G, field 9, CS_Bene_Code | Mandatory for a beneficiary customer |
The code sets differ. Part 370’s Appendix A uses SGL, JNT, REV and IRR where DP_Ownership_Ind uses S, J, R and IR, and Part 370’s single BUS code splits into C (corporation), P (partnership) and U (unincorporated association). My working assumption is that Part 370 code tables need an explicit translation layer before they can feed Appendix C.
Under proposed section 360.9(d)(1)(ii), a larger covered institution missing mandatory data would have to collect and maintain it for each account. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) carves out, where the bank lacks the information, accounts whose records disclose a relationship that might support additional coverage under 12 CFR 330.5 or 330.7, and formal revocable and irrevocable trust accounts insured under 12 CFR 330.10 or 330.12.
Other covered institutions keep today’s rule: they provide what they hold, collect nothing new, and need not populate Appendix C fields 49 and 50, the outstanding debt and security pledge flags. Under proposed paragraph (d)(4), every covered institution would have to be able to reconcile total deposit balances and the number of deposit accounts to subsidiary system control totals, and the FDIC expects the data no later than the calendar day after a request.
Provisional holds: the 18-month build
The section 360.9(c) mechanics are unchanged: an automated process to place provisional holds on domestic and foreign deposit accounts and on sweep and automated credit arrangements immediately after close-of-business balances are determined, with capability by 9 a.m. local time on the day after the FDIC cutoff point.
Part 370’s own access restriction under section 370.3(b)(3) is, in the FDIC’s words, similar to but not the same as the section 360.9 hold, and Part 370 banks have not had to maintain the section 360.9 capability since joining Part 370. Question 7 asks whether a Part 370-style hold should apply instead. The exemption route for memo holds, alternative account mechanisms or manual holds where feasible stays open.
Transactional-feature accounts and the new Appendix I
Proposed section 360.9(d)(5) covers each account with transactional features that a larger covered institution keeps under the (d)(1)(iii) carve-out. Broadly, that is an account from which a third-party transfer may post to the ledger on a later day, or one that moves funds automatically into such an account at the same bank.
The minimum step is either a good faith effort to contract with the holder to deliver data in the Appendix I format within 24 hours after the FDIC is appointed receiver, or a written disclosure that the holder may lack access to deposits until it delivers that data. Section 370.5 requires both today, plus an opportunity to validate delivery.
Excluded: mortgage servicer custodial accounts, short-term multi-client real estate accounts of brokers, agents or title companies, IOLTA and equivalent accounts, employee benefit plan accounts, and accounts held for trusts insured under 12 CFR 330.10 or 330.12.
Appendix I is a 32-field file that the account holder, such as a deposit broker, deposit placement service or other agent expecting pass-through coverage, completes only if the bank fails. It is tab- or pipe-delimited ASCII, encrypted with an FDIC-supplied algorithm. For how reciprocal placements appear on the Call Report, see our note on the FFIEC Call Report reciprocal deposit revisions.
Data the FDIC says it will stop holding
The FDIC states that, effective immediately, it will delete all depositor and customer data within 60 days after a section 360.9 or Part 370 compliance review. It also states it will stop requiring social security and tax identification numbers in section 360.9 compliance reviews, using synthetic numbers and validating that each customer gets one unique identifier.
That concerns review submissions. DP_Tax_ID in Appendix C and CS_Tax_ID in Appendix F stay mandatory for larger covered institutions, so I read the failure-day files as still carrying tax identifiers. For EU-side depositor data work, see our note on the EBA DGSD3 depositor protection consultations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which clock applies if a merger takes a covered institution past two million accounts?
Proposed section 360.9(e)(2)(ii) sets 12 months except as provided in paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5), the existing merger provisions the proposal leaves unchanged. Those give the merged institution 18 months after the merger’s effective date, without displacing an earlier implementation date already in place. Question 17 asks whether a covered institution that merges with a covered or non-covered institution and becomes a larger covered institution should get 12 or 18 months.
Is a bank out of compliance while an exemption or extension request is pending?
Proposed section 360.9(i) says it would not be treated as noncompliant on the requirements the request covers while the FDIC’s response is pending. A larger covered institution could also seek a full or partial exemption from paragraph (d)(1) for a relatively small number of accounts, by letter justifying the request and addressing customers’ access to deposits.
Do the Part 370 FAQs survive?
The FDIC intends to republish certain ones as section 360.9 guidance, and question 22 asks which. Part 370 stays in force until a final rule.
Related Articles
- FFIEC Call Report: Who Files 031, 041 or 051 for 30 September 2026: the Call Report forms behind the section 360.9 deposit and account tests.
- FFIEC Call Report Revisions: Comments Due 28 December 2026: reciprocal deposit changes to Schedules RC-E and RC-O.
- Regulation O Recordkeeping: The FR O Revisions and Who Would File: the Federal Reserve’s proposed insider lending recordkeeping changes.
- EBA DGSD3 Depositor Protection: Four Consultations Close 23 October: the EU depositor protection consultations.
Key Takeaways
- Tier status is a quarterly test: outside a merger, two consecutive quarters at or above both larger thresholds start a 12-month clock at an existing covered institution, and three consecutive quarters below release the extra duties.
- The certification waiver through 2027 leaves record quality in play: the FAQ still encourages complete, high-quality deposit account records.
- Agreements or disclosures for in-scope transactional accounts would have to include or reference the Appendix I elements.
- The proposed appendices validate account title, customer name and street address fields as ASCII printable characters.
- Paperwork burden comments should also go to reginfo.gov within 60 days of publication.
Sources and References
- FDIC, FIL-63-2026, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Determination Modernization (30 October 2026): fdic.gov
- FDIC, notice of proposed rulemaking, 12 CFR Parts 314, 360 and 370, RIN 3064-AG35, with proposed rule text and Appendices A to G and I of part 360 (PDF): fdic.gov
- FDIC press release on the Board’s approval (30 October 2026): fdic.gov
- FDIC, 12 CFR Part 370 resource page and FAQs, including the FAQ of 30 October 2026: fdic.gov
- FDIC, 12 CFR 360.9 resource page: fdic.gov
- 12 CFR part 370, Code of Federal Regulations, 1 January 2025 edition (sections 370.3, 370.5, 370.8, 370.10 and Appendix A): govinfo.gov
- 12 CFR 360.9, Code of Federal Regulations, 1 January 2025 edition (paragraphs (e)(3) to (e)(5), merger implementation): govinfo.gov
- FDIC, Federal Register publications and comment submission: fdic.gov
Building the Part 370 to section 360.9 gap list
For the 29 banks, the working artifact is a field-level gap list against Appendices C to G: the five fields Part 370 did not explicitly require, the ownership code translation, Tax ID handling, and an inventory of carve-out transactional accounts with the contract or disclosure route chosen for each. If the rule is finalised as proposed, everything except provisional holds would be due 6 months after the effective date. The nearer decision is whether to answer any of the FDIC’s 24 questions before comments close, 60 days after Federal Register publication, through the FDIC website or comments@fdic.gov with RIN 3064-AG35 in the subject line.
Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.