HB4478 amends 12 U.S.C. 1820(d) to replace two dollar thresholds of $3,000,000,000 with $6,000,000,000. The technical change makes insured depository institutions with total assets under $6 billion eligible to be examined not less than once during each 18‑month period when they meet the statute’s qualifying criteria.
This is a targeted regulatory-relief measure: it expands the cohort of smaller, well‑managed institutions that federal banking agencies may place on a less‑frequent exam cycle. For compliance officers and supervisory planners, the bill reallocates which institutions are likely to face 18‑month cycles and shifts supervisory workload and timing without changing the statutory qualifying standards themselves.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends two references in Section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(d)) to increase the asset-based threshold from $3 billion to $6 billion. As a result, insured depository institutions below $6 billion that meet existing qualifying conditions may be examined on an 18‑month cycle rather than more frequently.
Who It Affects
Insured depository institutions with assets between $3 billion and $6 billion (and those already below $3 billion) that satisfy the statute’s qualifying standards; federal banking agencies that conduct examinations (e.g., FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve); and the compliance, audit, and risk teams at affected banks.
Why It Matters
The change expands eligibility for reduced supervisory frequency, easing near‑term examination burdens for a larger set of community and regional banks while concentrating agency resources on larger or higher‑risk institutions. That reallocation carries implications for risk detection timing, resource planning at agencies, and how banks time remediation activities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB4478 is narrowly focused and mechanical in form: it updates two numeric references in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act so that the cutoff for a less‑frequent examination cycle becomes $6 billion in total assets instead of $3 billion. The statutory language it changes sits inside Section 10(d), the provision that authorizes federal banking agencies to vary examination frequency for insured depository institutions that satisfy statutory ‘qualifying’ conditions.
The bill does not rewrite the qualifying conditions in the statute; it simply enlarges the pool of institutions that may be treated as eligible for an 18‑month exam cycle. Under current law agencies still must determine whether an institution meets those qualifying criteria — for example, measures of management, capital, and risk profile that the statute and agency guidance use to identify low‑risk institutions — before applying the extended cycle.Practically, the amendment will alter exam schedules and supervisory resource allocation.
Banks that fall between the old and new thresholds — and that meet qualification standards — can expect examination scheduling to shift toward the 18‑month cadence over time, subject to agency discretion. Agencies will need to adjust roll‑forward plans, update examiner staffing models, and likely issue clarifying guidance on implementation timing and any transitional treatment.Because the bill is a two‑line statutory amendment with no accompanying funding or procedural directives, much of the operational detail will be resolved in agency guidance, examiner handbooks, and scheduling practices.
That means the real implementation effects will depend on how each federal banking agency exercises existing discretion under Section 10(d) and how they coordinate with state regulators where relevant.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces every instance of "$3,000,000,000" with "$6,000,000,000" in 12 U.S.C. 1820(d), doubling the asset threshold referenced in two specific paragraphs.
It makes insured depository institutions with total assets under $6 billion eligible to be examined not less than once during each 18‑month period, subject to the statute’s existing qualifying criteria.
The amendment is narrowly textual and does not change the statutory qualifying standards or add procedural requirements — agencies retain discretion to determine which institutions qualify for the 18‑month cycle.
The change applies to ‘insured depository institutions’ under Section 10(d) — the statutory provision governing examination frequency — and does not, on its face, alter examination authority over bank holding companies or other affiliates.
HB4478 contains no separate funding provision or implementation timeline; agencies will implement the threshold change through supervisory planning and guidance rather than through statutory process changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'TRUST Act of 2025'
This section names the bill the 'Tailored Regulatory Updates for Supervisory Testing Act of 2025' or the 'TRUST Act of 2025.' It carries no substantive effect beyond identifying the enactment for citation purposes.
Raise asset cutoff in paragraph (4)(A) from $3B to $6B
This clause replaces the $3,000,000,000 figure in paragraph (4)(A) of Section 10(d) with $6,000,000,000. Paragraph (4)(A) is one of the statutory hooks that determines which insured depository institutions are eligible to be examined on an extended cycle; changing this numeric value expands that category. The practical effect is that institutions previously above $3 billion but below $6 billion become candidates for the 18‑month inspection cadence, subject to qualifying criteria and agency discretion.
Update parallel threshold reference in paragraph (10)
This clause makes the corresponding numeric replacement in paragraph (10) of Section 10(d). Paragraph (10) cross‑references the same asset threshold for related supervisory provisions; updating both places keeps the statute internally consistent and avoids creating an asymmetry in which different parts of Section 10(d) use different cutoffs.
Expands eligibility for 18‑month exam cycle without altering qualifying standards
Taken together, the two numeric edits widen the pool of insured depository institutions that may be placed on an 18‑month exam cycle, but they do not modify the statutory qualifications or require agencies to change how they evaluate management, capital, or risk. Implementation details — timing, transitional scheduling, and any guidance on when agencies should reclassify institutions — are left to the agencies’ supervisory processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Community and regional banks with $3 billion–$6 billion in assets: They become newly eligible for a less‑frequent (18‑month) federal exam cycle if they meet the statutory qualifying standards, reducing direct examiner time and potential operational disruption.
- Bank management and compliance teams at newly eligible institutions: Fewer examinations can free internal resources from prep and response activities and provide more runway for remediation and strategic initiatives.
- Federal banking agencies’ resource planning: Agencies gain flexibility to reallocate examiner capacity toward larger, complex, or higher‑risk institutions, potentially improving oversight where risks are concentrated.
- Shareholders and boards of banks that qualify: Reduced supervisory frequency can lower near‑term costs and operational interruptions associated with on‑site exams, affecting capital planning and investor communications.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal banking agencies (FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve): Agencies may face trade‑offs in supervisory coverage and could require planning adjustments; reduced frequency increases the importance of off‑cycle monitoring and remote surveillance.
- Depositors and counterparties of banks moved to an 18‑month cycle: Less frequent on‑site oversight could delay detection of emerging safety‑and‑soundness problems, increasing monitoring risk for depositors and counterparties.
- Bank examiners and supervisory staff responsible for planning: Shifting cohorts may create front‑loaded scheduling changes and short‑term workload reallocations as exam calendars are rebalanced.
- State banking supervisors and collaborative supervisory arrangements: State regulators may need to fill gaps or coordinate more closely when federal agencies alter on‑site cadences for institutions with state charters.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing regulatory relief for smaller, well‑managed banks against the public interest in timely, hands‑on supervision: raising the threshold reduces burden and permits agencies to concentrate resources, but it also risks slower detection of emerging risks absent stronger remote monitoring or compensating safeguards.
The bill’s text is narrowly technical — two numeric substitutions — but its operational consequences depend on supervisory judgment and implementation choices. Because the qualifying standards in Section 10(d) remain intact, agencies can choose not to extend 18‑month cycles to some institutions that fall under $6 billion if supervisory concerns exist.
That preserves a safety valve but also creates uncertainty for banks anticipating relief: institutions must still satisfy qualitative criteria, and agency guidance will drive real‑world outcomes.
Another unresolved question is timing and transition. The bill does not specify whether agencies must reclassify existing schedules immediately, at the next exam, or over a multi‑year cadence.
That choice matters for agency staffing, for banks that are mid‑cycle with ongoing remediation, and for coordination with state supervisors. The change also opens an incentive and boundary issue: banks hovering near thresholds may manage asset levels or organizational structure to fall under $6 billion.
Finally, reduced exam frequency increases reliance on other monitoring tools (e.g., call reports, remote analytics), but the bill does not provide resources or direct agencies to enhance those tools, which could leave a supervision gap unless agencies act administratively.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.