Unsafe and Unsound Banking Practices: Brokered Deposits Restrictions; Extension of Comment Period

80See, e.g., FINRA, ‘‘Firm Summary Scorecard,’’ available at https://www.finra.org/compliance￾tools/report-center/equity/firm-summary-scorecard (last accessed Aug. 2024); ‘‘TRACE Quality of Market Report Cards—Treasuries,’’ available at https://www.finra.org/compliance-tools/report￾center/trace/quality-of-markets-treasuries (last accessed Aug. 2024). challenges of thinning markets in mind, especially at the regional level. Development could use certain advanced modeling techniques for aggregating and reporting market information. Such models may have the potential to incorporate valuable information related to premiums and discounts paid for fed cattle characteristics. Or, tailored alternative benchmark reports could be designed to enable market participants to develop their own models based on certain consistent widely reported transaction￾specific information, as is the case under the FINRA’s TRACE System for bonds. 5. What risks might exist during any transition away from the use of existing benchmarks, and in what ways could they be mitigated? Are certain external regulatory regimes valuable for USDA to learn from in this regard, such as how financial regulators handled the transition away from LIBOR, how FINRA implemented the TRACE System, or other models from financial or commodity trading markets? D. Written Documentation Options

1. Should AMS require covered packers to submit annual documentation to AMS describing how the packer plans to conduct market activities in a fair manner, participate in price discovery for fed cattle, and ensure market access for small and medium-sized feeders?
2. Please comment on how packers should plan to structure market participation and procurement methods to contribute to market price discovery. Provide specific details about actions packers should take to achieve these goals and any market information or data that could be provided to the industry on a voluntary basis to improve market transparency.
3. What role should exchange trading play in considerations of price discovery? For example, for a covered packer to count as contributing to price discovery, would it be useful to establish a presumptive requirement that no less than a certain percentage (e.g., 15% or 30%) of cattle be either exchanged or auction purchased or paid as a market-making fee to the exchange or auction to cover the risks and costs of other producers in those transparent, competitive pricing venues?
4. Please discuss specific problems that feedlot sellers experience with market access and actions that packers could take to improve market access, especially for small and medium-sized producers. For example, would enhanced access to exchange trading be effective in supporting market access, and could a market-making fee system that supported smaller producers be helpful—for example, from packers that chose to make contributing to such fee one part of their contribution to price discovery under their plan?
5. Please comment about specific concerns related to packer purchasing behavior during periods of supply and demand disruption (i.e., pandemics, disease outbreaks, production disruptions, etc.). What are the important elements of packer plans for maintaining adequate price discovery and market participation during these times?
6. Were AMS to require packers to report to PSD all pricing agreements that describe how base prices are determined for all cattle procured by the packer, describe any specific information or data that should be required for this documentation or otherwise associated to make this documentation more useful for AMS to monitor the market. Should AMS consider any other appropriate documentation requirements of covered packers?
7. In what ways could it be appropriate and useful for AMS to make aspects of the information from these documentation reports available to the public, subject to confidentiality protections? Which ones and why? Would a firm-specific approach, as opposed to an aggregated approach, ever be appropriate for public disclosure?
8. Would it be appropriate and useful for AMS to score or rank covered packers based on their contribution to price discovery, potentially similarly to how FINRA scores broker-dealers on certain metrics? 80 If so, what metrics would be appropriate for the scoring: cash trade and exchange trading purchases, purchases from smaller producers, or other factors? Should any deductions be taken, such as the use of TOMP contracts or delayed packer pickup? Should scoring be dynamic, such that improvements from year to year are recognized? Would any scoring or ranking be most appropriate and useful if provided confidentially to covered packers, or should any ranking be made available publicly? V. Conclusions and Next Steps Given the background, key regulatory challenges, and options for consideration outlined in this ANPR, AMS is seeking comment on potential and preferred paths forward. Comments received in response to this ANPR will inform AMS’s approach to regulating the Nation’s fed cattle markets. Substantive, well-reasoned, constructive comments, including comments that provide data to support views (for example, are based on industry surveys), will assist in identifying if there are unforeseen challenges or viable alternatives before the Agency moves forward. Comments generally in support or opposition to options identified in this ANPR will assist AMS in identifying the acceptability of the presented options in the absence of other alternatives. Erin Morris, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2024–23528 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Parts 303 and 337 RIN 3064–AF99 Unsafe and Unsound Banking Practices: Brokered Deposits Restrictions; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On August 23, 2024, the FDIC published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would make revisions to its regulations relating to the brokered deposit restrictions that apply to less than well-capitalized insured depository institutions. The proposed rule provided for a 60-day comment period, which closes on October 22, 2024. The FDIC has determined that an extension of the comment period until November 21, 2024, is appropriate. This action will allow interested parties additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare comments. DATES: The comment period for the document that published at 89 FR 68244 (August 23, 2024) is extended. Comments must be received on or before November 21, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document using any of the following methods: • Agency Website: https:// www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/

1 89 FR 68244. 2 12 U.S.C. 1831f. federal-register-publications/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency website. • Email: comments@fdic.gov. Include RIN 3064–AF99 in the subject line of the message. • Mail: James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments—RIN 3064–AF99, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429. • Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. • Public Inspection: Comments received, including any personal information provided, may be posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/ resources/regulations/federal-register￾publications/. Commenters should submit only information that the commenter wishes to make available publicly. The FDIC may review, redact, or refrain from posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC may post only a single representative example of identical or substantially identical comments, and in such cases will generally identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments represented by the posted example. All comments that have been redacted, as well as those that have not been posted, that contain comments on the merits of the notice will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws. All comments may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Risk Management Supervision: Thomas F. Lyons, Associate Director, 202–898–6850, TLyons@fdic.gov; Karen J. Currie, Chief, 202–898–3981, KCurrie@fdic.gov; Judy E. Gross, Senior Policy Analyst, 202– 898–7047, JuGross@fdic.gov. Legal Division: Vivek Khare, Senior Counsel, 202–898–6847, VKhare@ fdic.gov; Chantal Hernandez, Counsel, 202–898–7388, ChHernandez@fdic.gov; Ryan McCarthy, Counsel, 202–898– 7301, RyMccarthy@fdic.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2024, the FDIC published in the Federal Register 1 a proposed rule amending the brokered deposits-related regulations implementing section 29 of the FDI Act.2 The proposed rule stated that the comment period would close on October 22, 2024. However, to provide additional opportunity for the public to prepare comments to address the matters raised by the proposed rule, the FDIC is extending the comment period for the brokered deposits-related proposed rule from October 22, 2024, to November 21, 2024. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on October 8, 2024. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024–23631 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714–01–P