FR1-0052 60-day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices
retained for six months after completion
of the charter program.
Not only is it imperative that carriers
and charter operators retain source
documentation, but it is critical that
DOT has access to these records. Given
DOT’s established information needs for
such reports, the underlying support
documentation must be retained for a
reasonable period of time. Absent the
retention requirements, the support for
such reports may or may not exist for
audit/validation purposes and the
relevance and usefulness of the carrier
submissions would be impaired, since
the source of the data could not be
verified on a test basis.
The Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act
of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires
a statistical agency to clearly identify
information it collects for non-statistical
purposes. BTS hereby notifies the
respondents and the public that BTS
uses the information it collects under
this OMB approval for non-statistical
purposes including, but not limited to,
publication of both Respondent’s
identity and its data, submission of the
information to agencies outside BTS for
review, analysis, and possible use in
regulatory and other administrative
matters.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 13,
2013.
William Chadwick, Jr.,
Director, Office of Airline Information.
[FR Doc. 2013–03949 Filed 2–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Proposed Agency Information
Collection Activities; Comment
Request
Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board); and Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Joint notice and request for
comment.

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

AGENCIES:

In accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, and the
FDIC (the ‘‘agencies’’) may not conduct
or sponsor, and the respondent is not

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. The Federal
Financial Institutions Examination
Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies
are members, has approved the
agencies’ publication for public
comment of a proposal to extend, with
revision, the Consolidated Reports of
Condition and Income (Call Report),
which are currently approved
collections of information. The addition
of proposed new data items and the
proposed revisions of some existing data
items would take effect as of the June
30, 2013, report date, except for one
proposed new data item that would be
added to the Call Report effective
December 31, 2013. At the end of the
comment period, the comments and
recommendations received will be
analyzed to determine the extent to
which the FFIEC and the agencies
should modify the proposed revisions
prior to giving final approval. The
agencies will then submit the revisions
to OMB for review and approval.
Comments must be submitted on
or before April 22, 2013.

DATES:

Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments to
any or all of the agencies. All comments,
which should refer to the OMB control
number(s), will be shared among the
agencies.
OCC: You should direct all written
comments to: Communications
Division, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, Mailstop 6W–11,
Attention: 1557–0081, Washington, DC
20219. In addition, comments may be
sent by electronic mail to
[email protected]. You may
personally inspect and photocopy
comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20219. For
security reasons, the OCC requires that
visitors make an appointment to inspect
comments. You may do so by calling
(202) 649–6700. Upon arrival, visitors
will be required to present valid
government-issued photo identification
and to submit to security screening in
order to inspect and photocopy
comments.
All comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
enclose any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
Board: You may submit comments,
which should refer to ‘‘Consolidated
Reports of Condition and Income (FFIEC

ADDRESSES:

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

12141

031 and 041),’’ by any of the following
methods:
• Agency Web Site: http://
www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments at:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/
generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email:
[email protected].
Include reporting form number in the
subject line of the message.
• FAX: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452–
3102.
• Mail: Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20551.
All public comments are available from
the Board’s web site at
www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/
foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted,
unless modified for technical reasons.
Accordingly, your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or
contact information. Public comments
may also be viewed electronically or in
paper in Room MP–500 of the Board’s
Martin Building (20th and C Streets
NW.) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on weekdays.
FDIC: You may submit comments,
which should refer to ‘‘Consolidated
Reports of Condition and Income, 3064–
0052,’’ by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web Site: http://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/
propose.html. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments on the FDIC
Web site.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: [email protected].
Include ‘‘Consolidated Reports of
Condition and Income, 3064–0052’’ in
the subject line of the message.
• Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel,
Attn: Comments, Room NYA–5046,
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 Building
(located on F Street) on business days
between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Public Inspection: All comments
received will be posted without change
to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/
federal/propose.html including any
personal information provided.
Comments may be inspected at the FDIC
Public Information Center, Room E–
1002, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

12142

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on
business days.
Additionally, commenters may send a
copy of their comments to the OMB
desk officer for the agencies by mail to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202)
395–6974; or by email to
[email protected].
For
further information about the revisions
discussed in this notice, please contact
any of the agency clearance officers
whose names appear below. In addition,
copies of the Call Report forms can be
obtained at the FFIEC’s Web site
(http://www.ffiec.gov/
ffiec_report_forms.htm).
OCC: Mary Gottlieb and Johnny
Vilela, OCC Clearance Officers, (202)
649–6301 and (202) 649–7265,
Legislative and Regulatory Activities
Division, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, Washington, DC 20219.
Board: Cynthia Ayouch, Federal
Reserve Board Clearance Officer, (202)
452–3829, Division of Research and
Statistics, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th and C
Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) users may call (202) 263–4869.
FDIC: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202)
898–3877, Legal Division, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
agencies are proposing to revise and
extend for three years the Call Report,
which is currently an approved
collection of information for each
agency.
Report Title: Consolidated Reports of
Condition and Income (Call Report).
Form Number: Call Report: FFIEC 031
(for banks and savings associations with
domestic and foreign offices) and FFIEC
041 (for banks and savings associations
with domestic offices only).
Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

OCC
OMB Number: 1557–0081.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,902 national banks and federal savings
associations.
Estimated Time per Response: 54.87
burden hours per quarter to file.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
417,416 burden hours to file.
Board
OMB Number: 7100–0036.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

Estimated Number of Respondents:
843 state member banks.
Estimated Time per Response: 56.76
burden hours per quarter to file.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
191,395 burden hours to file.
FDIC
OMB Number: 3064–0052.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
4,464 insured state nonmember banks
and state savings associations.
Estimated Time per Response: 41.53
burden hours per quarter to file.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
741,560 burden hours to file.
The estimated time per response for
the quarterly filings of the Call Report
is an average that varies by agency
because of differences in the
composition of the institutions under
each agency’s supervision (e.g., size
distribution of institutions, types of
activities in which they are engaged,
and existence of foreign offices). The
average reporting burden for the filing of
the Call Report as it is proposed to be
revised is estimated to range from 17 to
730 hours per quarter, depending on an
individual institution’s circumstances.
Type of Review: Revision and
extension of currently approved
collections.
General Description of Reports
These information collections are
mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 161 (for national
banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 (for state member
banks), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (for insured state
nonmember commercial and savings
banks), and 12 U.S.C. 1464 (for federal
and state savings associations). At
present, except for selected data items,
these information collections are not
given confidential treatment.
Abstract
Institutions submit Call Report data to
the agencies each quarter for the
agencies’ use in monitoring the
condition, performance, and risk profile
of individual institutions and the
industry as a whole. Call Report data
provide the most current statistical data
available for evaluating institutions’
corporate applications, identifying areas
of focus for on-site and off-site
examinations, and monetary and other
public policy purposes. The agencies
use Call Report data in evaluating
interstate merger and acquisition
applications to determine, as required
by law, whether the resulting institution
would control more than ten percent of
the total amount of deposits of insured
depository institutions in the United
States. Call Report data also are used to
calculate institutions’ deposit insurance
and Financing Corporation assessments

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

and national banks’ and federal savings
associations’ semiannual assessment
fees.
Current Actions
I. Overview
The agencies are proposing to
implement a number of revisions to the
Call Report requirements in 2013. These
changes, which are discussed in detail
in Sections II.A through II.F of this
notice, are intended to provide data
needed for reasons of safety and
soundness or other public purposes by
the members of the FFIEC that use Call
Report data to carry out their missions
and responsibilities, including the
agencies, the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (Bureau), and state
supervisors of banks and savings
associations. Several proposed new data
items would be added to the Call Report
as of the June 30, 2013, report date, and
certain existing data items would be
revised as of the same date. One
proposed new data item, which would
be collected annually, would be added
to the Call Report effective December
31, 2013.
The proposed changes include:
• A screening question that would be
added to Schedule RC–E, Deposit
Liabilities, asking whether the
reporting institution offers separate
deposit products (other than time
deposits) to consumer customers
compared to business customers,
and
Æ For those institutions with $1
billion or more in total assets that
offer separate products, new data
items on the quarter-end amount of
certain types of consumer
transaction accounts and
nontransaction savings deposit
accounts that would be reported in
Schedule RC–E, and
Æ For all institutions that offer
separate products, a new
breakdown on the year-to-date
amounts of certain types of service
charges on consumer deposit
accounts reported as noninterest
income in Schedule RI, Income
Statement;
• Information on international
remittance transfers in Schedule
RC–M, Memoranda, including:
Æ Questions about types of
international remittance transfers
offered, the settlement systems used
to process the transfers, and
whether the number of remittance
transfers provided exceeds or is
expected to exceed the Bureau’s
safe harbor threshold (more than
100 transfers); and
Æ New data items to be reported by

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices
institutions not qualifying for the
safe harbor on the number and
dollar amount of international
remittance transfers;
• Reporting in Schedule RC–M of all
trade names that an institution uses
to identify physical branches and
Internet Web sites that differ from
the institution’s legal title;
• Additional data to be reported in
Schedule RC–O, Other Data for
Deposit Insurance and FICO
Assessments, by large institutions
and highly complex institutions
(generally, institutions with $10
billion or more in total assets) to
support the FDIC’s large bank
pricing method for insurance
assessments, including a new table
of consumer loans by loan type and
probability of default band, new
data items providing information on
loans secured by real estate in
foreign offices, revisions of certain
existing data items on real estate
loan commitments and U.S.
government-guaranteed real estate
loans to include those in foreign
offices, and revisions to the
information collected on
government-guaranteed assets to
include the portion of non-agency
residential mortgage-backed
securities and loans covered under
FDIC loss-sharing agreements.
• A new data item in Schedule RC–M
applicable only to institutions
whose parent depository institution
holding company is not a bank or
savings and loan holding company
in which the institution would
report the total consolidated
liabilities of its parent depository
institution holding company
annually as of December 31 to
support the Board’s administration
of the financial sector concentration
limit established by Section 622 of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act,
Public Law 111–203 (Dodd-Frank
Act); and
• A revision of the scope of the existing
item in Schedule RI–A, Changes in
Bank Equity Capital, for ‘‘Other
transactions with parent holding
company’’ to include such
transactions with all stockholders.
For the June 30, 2013, and December
31, 2013, report dates, as applicable,
institutions may provide reasonable
estimates for any new or revised Call
Report data item initially required to be
reported as of that date for which the
requested information is not readily
available. The specific wording of the
captions for the new or revised Call
Report data items discussed in this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

proposal and the numbering of these
data items should be regarded as
preliminary.
II. Discussion of Proposed Call Report
Revisions
A. Consumer Deposit Account Balances
and Service Charges
The agencies propose to modify
Schedule RC–E, Deposit Liabilities, to
collect and distinguish certain deposit
data by type of depositor for institutions
with $1 billion or more in total assets.
The agencies also propose to modify
Schedule RI, Income Statement, to
collect data on certain service charges
on consumer deposit accounts (in
domestic offices) from all institutions
that offer such accounts.
To identify the institutions that would
be subject to these proposed new
reporting requirements, the proposed
modifications would include a
screening question in Schedule RC–E
concerning whether an institution offers
consumer deposit accounts, i.e.,
accounts intended for use solely by
individuals for personal, household, or
family purposes. The question would be
added to Schedule RC–E as of the June
30, 2013, report date. If the institution
has $1 billion or more in total assets and
responds affirmatively to the screening
question, the institution would be
subject to the proposed Schedule RC–E
consumer deposit account reporting
requirements discussed below in
Section II.A.1.; otherwise, it would not
be subject to these new Schedule RC–E
reporting requirements.1 Regardless of
how an institution with less than $1
billion in total assets responds to the
screening question, it would be exempt
from the proposed Schedule RC–E
reporting requirements. The agencies
plan to review the aggregate responses
to the screening question after one full
year of implementation to determine
whether to expand the new Schedule
RC–E reporting requirements to some or
all smaller institutions.
In addition, each institution,
regardless of size, that responds
affirmatively to the screening question
to be added to Schedule RC–E would be
subject to the proposed Schedule RI
reporting requirements discussed below
in Section II.A.2 effective June 30, 2013.
1. Consumer Deposit Account Balances
Schedule RC–E currently requires
institutions to report separately
1 In general, the determination as to whether an
institution has $1 billion or more in total assets
would be measured as of June 30 of the previous
calendar year, i.e., as of June 30, 2012, for the
proposed new Schedule RC–E reporting
requirements.

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

12143

transaction account and nontransaction
account balances held in domestic
offices according to broad categories of
depositors. Over 90 percent of the
reported balances are attributed to the
category of depositors that includes
‘‘individuals, partnerships, and
corporations.’’ 2 Deposits that are held
by individual consumers are not
distinguished from deposits held by
partnerships or corporations.
Surveys indicate that over 90 percent
of U.S. households maintain at least one
deposit account.3 However, there is
currently no reliable source from which
to calculate the amount of funds held in
consumer accounts.
The agencies propose that institutions
that respond affirmatively to the
screening question and have $1 billion
or more in total assets distinguish
consumer deposits from those held by
partnerships and corporations. More
detailed Call Report data would
significantly enhance the ability of the
agencies and the Bureau to monitor
consumers’ behavior—specifically,
consumer use of deposit accounts as
transactional, savings, and investment
vehicles. Understanding deposit
accounts by depositor type would also
permit improved assessments of
institutional liquidity risk. Thus, more
detailed data could significantly
enhance the ability of the agencies to
assess institutional funding stability.
In 2010, the agencies proposed the
disaggregation of consumer- or
individually-owned deposits from those
of businesses and organizations, i.e.,
partnerships and corporations. That
proposal, however, would have required
banks to distinguish consumer deposit
balances by the account owner taxpayer
identification number (TIN). The TIN
methodology was ultimately deemed to
be too burdensome, and the agencies
withdrew the proposal from
consideration.4
This current proposal is based on an
alternative approach that the agencies
believe to be less burdensome for
2 Percentage is based on analysis of third quarter
2012 Call Report data.
3 See FDIC, 2011 FDIC National Survey of
Unbanked and Underbanked Households 4
(September 2012); Brian K. Bucks, Arthur B.
Kennickell, Traci L. Mach, and Kevin B. Moore,
Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2004 to
2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer
Finances, 95 Federal Reserve Bulletin A1, A20
(February 2009), available at: http://
www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/pdf/
scf09.pdf; see also Kevin Foster, Erik Meijer, Scott
Schuh, and Michael Zabek, The 2009 Survey of
Consumer Payment Choice, Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston: Public Policy Discussion Papers, No. 11–1,
at 47 (2011), available at: http://www.bos.frb.org/
economic/ppdp/2011/ppdp1101.pdf.
4 Agency Information Collection Activities, 76 FR
5253, 5261 (Jan. 28, 2011).

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

12144

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

depository institutions. Specifically, the
agencies propose to require institutions
to report in Schedule RC–E balances
held in domestic transaction account
products and nontransaction savings
products that the institutions
themselves intended for consumer use
(rather than to report balances held in
accounts actually used exclusively by
individuals). Depository institutions
recognize that consumers exhibit
different needs and behaviors than do
organizations and businesses.
Consequently, the FFIEC and the
agencies believe that most institutions
maintain transaction and nontransaction
savings deposit products specifically
intended for consumer use, typically
assigning different funding credit rates
and tenure assumptions to consumer
deposits than to business and other
types of deposits. The FFIEC and the
agencies believe this distinction will
enable institutions to utilize the same
totals maintained on their deposit
systems of record and in their internal
general ledger accounts to provide the
proposed new consumer deposit
account balance data.5 The agencies
propose to introduce the modifications
to Schedule RC–E for the reporting of
consumer deposit account data in the
Call Report for the second quarter of
2013.
At the same time, the FFIEC and the
agencies anticipate that certain
institutions cater almost exclusively to
non-consumer depositors and, as such,
may not maintain segment-specific
products. The proposal aims to identify
these institutions by requiring all
institutions to respond to the screening
question (which would be designated as
Memorandum item 5 of Schedule RC–
E): ‘‘Does your institution offer
consumer deposit accounts, i.e.,
transaction account or nontransaction
savings account deposit products
intended for individuals for personal,
household, or family use?’’ Institutions
with total assets of $1 billion or more
and answering ‘‘yes’’ to this screening
question would be subject to the
proposed new Schedule RC–E consumer
deposit account reporting requirements.
Institutions with total assets less than $1
billion or answering ‘‘no’’ to the
question would be exempt from these
new reporting requirements and would
5 The FFIEC and the agencies believe that most
depository institutions with distinct product
offerings have instances in which proprietorships
and microbusinesses utilize consumer deposit
products; however, the amount of these balances is
believed to be only a fraction of total consumer
product balances and thus would not diminish the
value of the substantial insight gained into the
structure of institutions’ deposits.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

continue to report deposit totals in
Schedule RC–E as they currently do.
The $1 billion threshold is proposed
to ensure no undue burden on smaller
institutions. However, the agencies
intend to review small institution
responses to the screening question after
one year of implementation to
determine whether to maintain or adjust
the asset size exemption.
The FFIEC and the agencies
understand that most institutions define
time deposit products by tenure and rate
and do not typically maintain time
deposit accounts exclusively targeted to
consumers. Thus, this proposal pertains
only to non-time deposits in domestic
offices.
More specifically, the agencies
propose to revise Schedule RC–E, (part
I), by building on new Memorandum
item 5, the screening question described
above, and adding new Memorandum
item 6, ‘‘Components of total transaction
account deposits of individuals,
partnerships, and corporations,’’ which
would be completed by institutions
with total assets of $1 billion or more
that responded ‘‘yes’’ to the screening
question posed in new Memorandum
item 5. Proposed new Memorandum
item 6 would include the following
three-way breakdown of these
transaction accounts, the sum of which
must equal Schedule RC–E, item 1,
column A.
• In Memorandum item 6.a, ‘‘Deposits
in noninterest-bearing transaction
accounts intended for individuals
for personal, household, or family
use,’’ institutions would report the
amount of deposits reported in
Schedule RC–E, (part I), item 1,
column A, held in noninterestbearing transaction accounts (in
domestic offices) intended for
individuals for personal,
household, or family use. The item
would exclude certified and official
checks as well as pooled funds and
commercial products with subaccount structures, such as escrow
accounts, that are held for
individuals but not eligible for
consumer transacting, saving, or
investing.
• In Memorandum item 6.b, ‘‘Deposits
in interest-bearing transaction
accounts intended for individuals
for personal, household, or family
use,’’ institutions would report the
amount of deposits reported in
Schedule RC–E, (part I), item 1,
column A, held in interest-bearing
transaction accounts (in domestic
offices) intended for individuals for
personal, household, or family use.
The item would exclude pooled

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

funds and commercial products
with sub-account structures, such
as escrow accounts, that are held for
individuals but not eligible for
consumer transacting, saving, or
investing.
• In Memorandum item 6.c, ‘‘Deposits
in all other transaction accounts of
individuals, partnerships, and
corporations,’’ institutions would
report the amount of all other
transaction account deposits
included in Schedule RC–E, (part I),
item 1, column A, that were not
reported in Memorandum items 6.a
and 6.b. If an institution offers one
or more transaction account deposit
products intended for individuals
for personal, household, or family
use, but has other transaction
account deposit products intended
for a broad range of depositors
(which may include individuals
who would use the product for
personal, household, or family use),
the institution would report the
entire amount of these latter
transaction account deposit
products in Memorandum item 6.c.
For example, if an institution has a
single negotiable order of
withdrawal (NOW) account deposit
product that it offers to all
depositors eligible to hold such
accounts, including individuals,
sole proprietorships, certain
nonprofit organizations, and certain
government units, the institution
would report the entire amount of
its NOW accounts in Memorandum
item 6.c. The institution would not
need to identify the NOW accounts
held by individuals for personal,
household, or family use and report
the amount of these accounts in
Memorandum item 6.a.
The agencies also propose to revise
Schedule RC–E, (part I), by adding new
Memorandum item 7, ‘‘Components of
total nontransaction account deposits of
individuals, partnerships, and
corporations,’’ which would be
completed by institutions with total
assets of $1 billion or more that
responded ‘‘yes’’ to the screening
question posed in new Memorandum
item 5. Proposed new Memorandum
item 7 would include breakdowns of the
nontransaction savings deposit accounts
of individuals, partnerships, and
corporations (in domestic offices)
included in Schedule RC–E, item 1,
column C, described below.
Nontransaction savings deposit
accounts consist of money market
deposit accounts (MMDAs) and other
savings deposits. Specifically, proposed
Memorandum item 7.a would include

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices
breakouts of ‘‘Money market deposit
accounts (MMDAs) of individuals,
partnerships, and corporations.’’
Proposed Memorandum item 7.b would
include breakouts of ‘‘Other savings
deposit accounts of individuals,
partnerships, and corporations.’’
Proposed Memorandum item 7 would
exclude all time deposits of individuals,
partnerships, and corporations reported
in Schedule RC–E, item 1, column C. As
with proposed new Memorandum item
6 on the components of total transaction
accounts of individuals, partnerships,
and corporations, if an institution offers
one or more nontransaction savings
account deposit products intended for
individuals for personal, household, or
family use, but has other nontransaction
savings account deposit products
intended for a broad range of depositors
(which may include individuals who
would use the product for personal,
household, or family use), the
institution would report the entire
amount of these latter nontransaction
savings account deposit products in
Memorandum item 7.a.(2) or 7.b.(2), as
appropriate.
• In Memorandum item 7.a.(1),
‘‘Deposits in MMDAs intended for
individuals for personal,
household, or family use,’’
institutions would report the
amount of deposits reported in
Schedule RC–E, (part I), item 1,
column C, held in MMDAs
intended for individuals for
personal, household, or family use.
The item would exclude MMDAs in
the form of pooled funds and
commercial products with subaccount structures, such as escrow
accounts, that are held for
individuals but not eligible for
consumer transacting, saving, or
investing.
• In Memorandum item 7.a.(2),
‘‘Deposits in all other MMDAs of
individuals, partnerships, and
corporations,’’ institutions would
report the amount of all other
MMDA deposits included in
Schedule RC–E, (part I), item 1,
column C, that were not reported in
Memorandum item 7.a.(1).
• In Memorandum item 7.b.(1),
‘‘Deposits in other savings deposit
accounts intended for individuals
for personal, household, or family
use,’’ institutions would report the
amount of deposits reported in
Schedule RC–E, (part I), item 1,
column C, held in other savings
deposit accounts intended for
individuals for personal,
household, or family use. The item
would exclude other savings

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

deposit accounts in the form of
pooled funds and commercial
products with sub-account
structures, such as escrow accounts,
that are held for individuals but not
eligible for consumer transacting,
saving, or investing.
• In Memorandum item 7.b.(2),
‘‘Deposits in all other savings
deposit accounts of individuals,
partnerships, and corporations,’’
institutions would report the
amount of all other savings deposits
included in Schedule RC–E, (part I),
item 1, column C, that were not
reported in Memorandum item
7.b.(1).
The sum of Memorandum items
7.a.(1), 7.a.(2), 7.b.(1), and 7.b.(2) plus
the amount of all time deposits of
individuals, partnerships, and
corporations must equal Schedule RC–
E, item 1, column C.
The agencies seek specific comment
on the clarity of the screening question
that would be posed to all institutions
in new Memorandum item 5 of
Schedule RC–E, (part I,) and of the
descriptions of the components of total
transaction and total nontransaction
account deposits of individuals,
partnerships, and corporations that
would be reported in new Memorandum
items 6 and 7 of Schedule RC–E, (part
I,) by institutions with total assets of $1
billion or more that responded ‘‘yes’’ to
the screening question posed in new
Memorandum item 5.
2. Consumer Deposit Service Charges
The agencies propose to modify Call
Report Schedule RI, Income Statement,
by adding new Memorandum item 15 in
which institutions that responded ‘‘yes’’
to the new screening question posed in
Memorandum item 5 of Schedule RC–E,
(part I,) would report a breakdown of
the amount reported in Schedule RI,
item 5.b, ‘‘Service charges on deposit
accounts (in domestic offices).’’ 6 The
proposed breakdown would include
separate items for three categories of
consumer deposit fees: (1) Overdraftrelated service charges, (2) monthly
maintenance charges, and (3) automated
teller machine (ATM) fees. A fourth
item would include all other service
charges and fees on deposit accounts (in
domestic offices) not reported in one of
the first three categories. Although these
new items would be reported on a
calendar year-to-date basis, the agencies
propose to introduce new Memorandum

12145

item 15 of Schedule RI in the Call
Report for the second quarter of 2013.
The aggregate amount of deposit
account fees reported today in Schedule
RI, item 5.b, represents a substantial
portion of industry operating income.
Service charges on deposits totaled
more than $33 billion in 2011 7 and can
include dozens of types of fees that
institutions levy against consumers,
small businesses, large corporations,
and other types of deposit customers.
Dependence upon service charges on
deposit accounts is higher for smaller
institutions and may account for 30
percent or more of such an institution’s
noninterest revenues.8
However, there is currently no
comprehensive data source from which
supervisors and policymakers can
estimate or evaluate the composition of
these fees and how they impact
consumers and a depository
institution’s earnings stability. The
agencies thus propose that institutions
that offer consumer deposit accounts
itemize three key categories of service
charges on such deposit accounts:
Overdraft-related service charges on
consumer accounts, monthly
maintenance charges on consumer
accounts, and consumer ATM fees.
More detailed data will support the
agencies and the Bureau in monitoring
the types of transactional costs borne by
consumers. Data specific to overdraftrelated fees is particularly pertinent for
supervisors and policymakers in part
because of recent trends in such fees
and because of concerns about the harm
such fees may impose on some
depositors. The FFIEC and the agencies
believe that, since the early 1990s,
overdraft-related fees have grown in
absolute magnitude and may also have
grown as a share of deposit account
service charges. Several factors
contributed to this trend, including the
introduction of bank-discretionary
overdraft coverage programs,
consumers’ acclimation to debit cards
and other emerging forms of payment,
and the industry’s embracing of ‘‘free’’
checking products that sacrificed
monthly maintenance fees and
increased reliance on penalty and other
transactional fees to generate service
charge revenues. Bankrate.com’s 2012
Checking Account Survey suggests that
the average fee charged for a single
overdraft transaction has increased
steadily and dramatically over the last
15 years.9
7 Figure

6 The

breakdown of service charges on deposit
accounts would be reported by all institutions that
answered the screening question in the affirmative,
not just institutions with $1 billion or more in total
assets.

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

is based on analysis of Call Report data.
ratio for all banks was 13.8 percent in 2011
per analysis of Call Report data.
9 Bankrate.com, ‘‘Checking Fees Rise to Record
Highs in 2012,’’ Claes Bell, available at: http://
8 The

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

Continued

21FEN1

12146

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

More recently, however, overdraftrelated fee revenue as a percentage of
deposit account service charges may
have begun to decline. Regulation and
guidance proposed or issued by various
agencies in recent years and a 2008
study issued by the FDIC raised
concerns about potential consumer
harm resulting from bank-discretionary
overdraft coverage programs.10
Additionally, starting in 2010,
depository institutions have been
prohibited from imposing a charge for
paying an ATM or one-time debit card
transaction unless they have obtained
the consumer’s affirmative consent to
the overdraft service, among other
requirements.11 Consumer advocacy
groups have further raised public
awareness of industry practices, as have
class action lawsuits and settlements
related to such practices. The FFIEC and
the agencies believe that, in response,
many depository institutions have
revised fee schedules, account
agreements, and internal policies and
procedures pertaining to overdraft
transactions. Some industry
representatives contend that these and
other economic factors may have helped
account for a reduction in service
charges on deposit accounts by 22
percent from levels prevailing just two
years ago.12
An institution reliant on declining
deposit fee revenue that makes no other
changes to its business model could be
challenged to maintain a viable retail
banking business. To replace lost
overdraft income, as well as interchange
revenue impacted by the Dodd-Frank
Act’s amendment to Section 920 of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, many
institutions have altered their pricing of
checking products to require consumers
to maintain higher average balances or
pay monthly account maintenance
fees.13 Additionally, institutions that
www.bankrate.com/finance/checking/checkingfees-record-highs-in-2012.aspx#slide=5.
10 OCC, Guidance on Deposit-Related Consumer
Credit Products, 76 FR 33409 (June 8, 2011)
(proposed guidance); FDIC, Overdraft Payment
Programs and Consumer Protection Final Overdraft
Payment Supervisory Guidance, FIL–81–2010 (Nov.
24, 2010), available at: www.fdic.gov/news/news/
financial/2010/fil10081.html; 74 FR 59033 (Nov. 17,
2009) (amendment of Regulation E); see also 74 FR
5584 (July 29, 2009) (amendment of Regulation DD);
FDIC Study of Bank Overdraft Programs (Nov.
2008), available at: http://www.fdic.gov/bank/
anlytical/overdraft/.
11 12 CFR 1005.17.
12 Figures based on analysis of Call Report data
for depository institutions with $10 billion or more
in total assets.
13 Bankrate.com’s 2012 Checking Account Survey
found 39 percent of institutions offering consumer
checking accounts with no minimum balance
requirement or monthly maintenance fee in 2012,
down from 76 percent in 2009. Bankrate.com,
‘‘Checking Fees Rise to Record Highs in 2012,’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

have deployed large ATM networks may
continue to look to recoup their
investment and maintenance costs
through surcharges and foreign ATM
transaction fees. New sources of deposit
service charges could emerge to
contribute to revenue stability but raise
further questions about the amount of
fees consumers must pay to utilize the
banking system.
As a result, greater understanding of
trends in overdraft fees and other
deposit service charges is necessary to
assess institutional health and enhance
understanding of the costs and potential
risks financial services pose to
consumers.14
The FFIEC and the agencies believe
that the vast majority of institutions
track individual categories of deposit
account service charges as distinct
revenue line items within their general
ledger or other management information
systems, which would facilitate the
reporting of service charge information
in the Call Report. However, the FFIEC
and the agencies recognize that internal
accounting and recordkeeping practices
may vary across institutions and that
disaggregating all types of fees could be
burdensome on smaller institutions.
Because the FFIEC and the agencies
believe that overdraft-related, monthly
maintenance, and ATM fees are of most
immediate concern to supervisors and
policymakers, this proposal calls for the
separation of these consumer deposit
service charges only.
As noted in the consumer deposit
balance proposal discussed above, the
FFIEC and the agencies anticipate that
certain institutions cater almost
exclusively to non-consumer markets,
and as such, may not maintain segmentspecific products. The FFIEC and the
agencies do not expect these institutions
to differentiate within their accounting
and operational systems between fees
levied against consumer versus nonconsumer depositors. Thus, the agencies
propose to utilize responses to the
proposed Schedule RC–E consumer
deposit account screening question to
govern deposit service charge reporting
requirements. Specifically, institutions
that report ‘‘yes’’ to the question posed
in proposed Schedule RC–E,
Memorandum item 5, ‘‘Does your
institution offer consumer deposit
accounts, i.e., transaction account or
nontransaction savings account deposit
Claes Bell, available at: http://www.bankrate.com/
finance/checking/checking-fees-record-highs-in2012.aspx#slide=2.
14 The FDIC’s 2008 Study of Bank Overdraft
Programs provided insight into these fees, but the
data underlying that study is now six years old and
only a small subset of the industry participated in
the study.

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

products intended for individuals for
personal, household, or family use?,’’
would be subject to the proposed new
reporting requirements of Schedule RI,
Memorandum item 15, while those that
respond ‘‘no’’ would not. There is no
proposed exemption from these
Schedule RI reporting requirements for
institutions with total assets less than $1
billion that answer ‘‘yes’’ to the
Schedule RC–E screening question.
As mentioned above, the agencies
propose to add a new Memorandum
item 15, ‘‘Components of service
charges on deposit accounts (in
domestic offices)’’ to Schedule RI,
which would include the following
specific items:
• Memorandum item 15.a, ‘‘Consumer
overdraft-related service charges on
deposit accounts.’’ For deposit
accounts intended for individuals
for personal, household, and family
use, this item would include service
charges and fees related to the
processing of payments and debits
against insufficient funds, including
‘‘nonsufficient funds (NSF) check
charges,’’ that the institution
assesses with respect to items that
it either pays or returns unpaid, and
all subsequent charges levied
against overdrawn accounts, such
as extended or sustained overdraft
fees charged when accounts
maintain a negative balance for a
specified period of time, but not
including those equivalent to
interest and reported elsewhere in
Schedule RI (‘‘Interest and fee
income on loans (in domestic
offices)’’).
• Memorandum item 15.b, ‘‘Consumer
account monthly maintenance
charges.’’ For deposit accounts
intended for individuals for
personal, household, and family
use, this item would include service
charges for account holders’
maintenance of their deposit
accounts with the institution (often
labeled ‘‘monthly maintenance
charges’’), including charges
resulting from the account owners’
failure to maintain specified
minimum deposit balances or meet
other requirements (e.g.,
requirements related to transacting
and to purchasing of other services),
as well as fees for transactional
activity in excess of specified limits
for an account and recurring fees
not subject to waiver.
• Memorandum item 15.c, ‘‘Consumer
customer ATM fees.’’ For deposit
accounts maintained at the
institution and intended for
individuals for personal,

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

household, and family use, this
item would include service charges
for transactions, including deposits
to or withdrawals from deposit
accounts, conducted through the
use of ATMs or remote service units
(RSUs) owned, operated, or branded
by the institution or other
institutions. The item would not
include service charges levied
against deposit accounts
maintained at other institutions for
transactions conducted through the
use of ATMs or RSUs owned,
operated, or branded by the
reporting institution.15
• Memorandum item 15.d, ‘‘All other
service charges on deposit
accounts.’’ This item would include
all other service charges on deposit
accounts (in domestic offices) not
reported in Schedule RI,
Memorandum items 15.a, 15.b, and
15.c. Memorandum item 15.d
would include service charges and
fees on an institution’s deposit
products intended for use by a
broad range of depositors (which
may include individuals), rather
than being intended for individuals
for personal, household, and family
use. Thus, for such deposit
products, an institution would not
need to identify the fees charged to
accounts held by individuals for
personal, household, or family use
and report these fees in one of the
three categories of consumer
deposit fees.
For institutions that report ‘‘yes’’ to
the Schedule RC–E screening question,
the sum of Memorandum items 15.a
through 15.d must equal Schedule RI,
item 5.b, ‘‘Service charges on deposit
accounts (in domestic offices).’’
The agencies seek specific comment
on the clarity of the definitions
proposed for the three categories of
consumer deposit account service
charges and on whether institutions’
general ledger systems or deposit
account processing systems currently
support the separate identification of
these three categories of service charges.
If these systems do not enable
institutions to identify all three service
charge categories for consumer deposits,
comment is requested on the categories
of consumer deposit account service
charges for which data are available.
B. Remittance Transfers
The agencies propose to add a new
item 16 to Schedule RC–M, Memoranda,
15 Such

service charges are reported in Schedule
RI, item 5.l, ‘‘Other noninterest income,’’ not in
Schedule RI, item 5.b, ‘‘Service charges on deposit
accounts (in domestic offices).’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

to collect data regarding certain
international transfers of funds. The
new item would facilitate supervision
and monitoring related to remittance
transfers, which are a subset of
international transfers of funds that are
newly regulated, but about which there
is no comprehensive information
available. Subitems within new item 16
would include multiple choice
questions directed to all institutions
regarding their participation in the
remittance market and seek additional
information from those institutions that
provided more than 100 remittance
transfers in the prior calendar year and
expect to provide more than 100
remittance transfers in the current
calendar year. The agencies propose to
introduce new Schedule RC–M, item 16,
in the second quarter of 2013.
Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act
amended the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act (EFTA) to create a consumer
protection regime for remittance
transfers, i.e., certain electronic transfers
of funds requested by a consumer
sender to a designated recipient abroad
that are sent by a remittance transfer
provider. To implement the Dodd-Frank
Act’s remittance transfer requirements,
the Bureau issued rules that were set to
take effect on February 7, 2013. 77 FR
6194 (Feb. 7, 2012); 77 FR 40459 (July
10, 2012); 77 FR 50244 (Aug. 20, 2012)
(collectively, ‘‘remittance transfer
rule’’).
For covered transactions sent by
‘‘remittance transfer providers,’’ the
Dodd-Frank Act generally requires the
provision of disclosures, establishes
cancellation and refund rights, and
requires the investigation and resolution
of errors. However, the remittance
transfer rule includes a safe harbor
under which a person, including an
insured depository institution, that
provided 100 or fewer remittance
transfers in the previous calendar year
and provides 100 or fewer remittance
transfers in the current calendar year is
deemed not to provide remittance
transfers in the normal course of its
business, and thus is not subject to the
Dodd-Frank Act requirements. 12 CFR
§ 1005.30(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the
statute provides insured banks, savings
associations, and credit unions a
temporary exception under which they
may provide estimates for certain
disclosures in some instances. The
exception expires five years after the
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, i.e.,
on July 21, 2015. If the Bureau
determines that expiration of this
‘‘temporary exception’’ would
negatively affect the ability of insured
institutions to send remittances to
foreign countries, the Bureau may

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

12147

extend the exception to not longer than
ten years after enactment.
In December 2012, the Bureau issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding three elements of the
remittance transfer rule, and to propose
that the effective date of the entire rule
be extended until 90 days after the
Bureau issues a final rule. See 77 FR
77187, December 31, 2012. The FFIEC
and the agencies do not expect that the
proposed changes would affect the need
for or the timing of the new item.
However, when the effective date of the
rule is finalized, the agencies will
consider whether it may be appropriate
to introduce some or all of new item 16
in the third quarter of 2013 or later,
rather than in the second quarter of
2013.16
The available data regarding the
transactions and institutions covered by
the Dodd-Frank Act remittance transfer
requirements are very limited. For
example, the FFIEC and the agencies
believe that many insured institutions
offer consumers methods to send money
abroad. At the same time, as explained
in the preamble to the Bureau’s rule
published on August 20, 2012, data
collected by the Bureau suggests that a
meaningful number of institutions may
qualify for the 100-transfer safe harbor
in the remittance transfer rule. See 77
FR 50244, 50252. However, the FFIEC
and the agencies are unaware of any
comprehensive data available to identify
reliably the number of institutions that
offer consumers mechanisms for
sending money abroad, or the subset of
such institutions that qualify for the
100-transfer safe harbor.
Similarly, the FFIEC and the agencies
are unaware of any comprehensive
industry data regarding trends in the
remittance transfer market. For example,
some industry participants and industry
associations have suggested that the
Dodd-Frank Act remittance transfer
requirements, as implemented, may
cause some institutions to change or
stop providing remittance transfer
services. Such changes would affect
individual institutions’ compliance
requirements, and also could have an
impact on the nature and scope of
services available to consumers who
want to send money abroad. But the
FFIEC and agencies do not know of any
comprehensive data source that will
provide information on whether or not
these changes take place. Existing
research on market trends has tended to
focus on services provided by state16 In January 2013, the Bureau delayed the
February 7, 2013, effective date of the remittance
transfer rule pending the finalization of the
Bureau’s December 2012 proposal. See 78 FR 6025,
January 29, 2013.

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12148

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

licensed money transmitters, not those
provided by insured institutions.
The lack of comprehensive, reliable
data regarding remittance transfers by
institutions could restrict the agencies’
and the Bureau’s ability to provide
supervisory oversight and to monitor
important industry trends. In the
absence of accurate and comprehensive
market-wide or institution-level data,
the agencies, the Bureau, and other
regulators would likely have to rely on
individual examination findings, ad-hoc
surveys, estimates, or limited public
data to characterize the market as a
whole and to understand institutionspecific activities and risks.
The proposed new Schedule RC–M
item would substantially aid
supervisory oversight and market
monitoring. Institution-specific data
would help examiners to prioritize,
focus, and refine their examinations.
Industry-wide data would also enable
monitoring of industry trends that could
affect both providers and consumers of
remittance transfers. For example,
proposed new item 16 would facilitate
monitoring of market entry and exit.
Such monitoring would improve
understanding of the consumer
payments landscape generally, and
facilitate evaluation of the remittance
transfer rule’s impact. Also, data
regarding the number of remittance
transfers that institutions provide can
contribute to monitoring of the Bureau’s
100-transfer safe harbor, which was the
source of a number of comments and a
range of opinions during the Bureau’s
rulemaking.17 Data regarding the
services offered and systems used by
individual institutions could
additionally enable the FFIEC and the
agencies to more finely tune supervisory
procedures and policies.
The proposed new item would also
help inform any later policy decisions
regarding remittance transfers. For
example, the FFIEC and the agencies
expect that the proposed data collection
would contribute to any later analysis of
whether expiration of a temporary
exception for insured institutions would
negatively affect the ability of insured
institutions to send remittances to
foreign countries. As discussed below,
the proposed new item includes a
question regarding the frequency with
which the temporary exception is used;
institutions’ responses could provide
information on the importance of the
exception to individual institutions, or
the market as a whole. Additionally, the

proposed new item could assist the
Board in reporting to Congress on
expansion of the use of the ACH system
and other payment mechanisms for
remittance transfers to foreign countries,
as required by section 1073(b) of the
Dodd-Frank Act, and inform other
statutorily required initiatives related to
remittance transfers, such as assistance
to the Financial Literacy and Education
Commission in executing the Strategy
for Assuring Financial Empowerment as
it relates to remittance transfers, as
required by section 1073(c)(2) of the
Dodd-Frank Act.
To identify market participation, and
changes that occur after the remittance
transfer rule takes effect, the proposed
schedule would include a one-time
question regarding 2012 and an ongoing
quarterly question that asks all
institutions whether, during the relevant
period, they offered to consumers in any
state certain mechanisms for sending
money to recipients abroad. The
categories of mechanisms listed in the
one-time and ongoing question include
international wire transfers,
international ACH transactions, other
proprietary services operated by the
reporting institution, other proprietary
services operated by another party (such
as a state-licensed money transmitter)
for which the reporting institution is an
agent or similar type of business
partner, and ‘‘other.’’ The agencies seek
comment on whether different
categories of mechanisms should be
listed, and whether including the
‘‘other’’ mechanism category is
necessary.
To facilitate monitoring of the 100transfer safe harbor and the
identification of institutions that may be
required to comply with the Dodd-Frank
Act remittance transfer requirements, an
additional annual screening question
would seek information from all
institutions as to whether they expect to
qualify for the 100-transfer safe
harbor.18 The item would ask whether
the reporting institution provided more
than 100 remittance transfers in the
previous calendar year or whether it
estimates that it will provide more than
100 remittance transfers in the current
calendar year. An answer of ‘‘yes’’
would indicate that the institution
likely does not qualify for the safe
harbor.
In addition, the subset of institutions
whose answers to the annual screening
question suggests that they likely do not

17 In response to industry commenters’ suggestion
that the Bureau commit to reevaluating the safe
harbor threshold, the Bureau stated that it intended
to monitor it over time. 77 FR 50244, 50252.

18 This annual screening question would initially
be completed in the Call Report for June 30, 2013,
and in the Call Report for March 31 in subsequent
years.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

qualify for the 100-transfer safe harbor 19
would complete three quarterly items
providing additional information about
the reporting institution’s remittance
transfers. Two items would seek
information about institutions’ use of
certain payment, messaging, or
settlement systems for international
wire and international ACH
transactions, which the FFIEC and the
agencies believe currently account for
the great majority of remittance transfers
sent by institutions. The questions
would focus on the systems that an
institution uses in initiating transactions
on its customers’ behalf (rather than
systems used by other institutions
involved in the same transaction). This
information can aid the agencies’
evaluation of institutions’ international
wire and ACH practices. Among other
things, the FFIEC and the agencies
believe that an institution’s choice of
payment, messaging, and settlement
systems may affect the processes it uses
to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act
remittance transfer requirements. For
example, the systems used may affect
the ways in which institutions
investigate and resolve errors.
Specifically, the first of the two items
would seek information on the payment,
messaging, or settlement systems that an
institution uses to process outbound
international wire transfers for
consumers. An institution would be
asked to report whether it uses each of
the listed systems for some, none, or all
of its outbound international wire
transfers for consumers. The systems
listed in this item would include
FedWire, CHIPS, SWIFT, a
correspondent bank of which the
reporting institution is a client, and
other (with an instruction that the
institution identify the ‘‘other’’ system).
The agencies seek comment on whether
these categories of systems are
appropriate, and whether additional
systems should be added to the list for
this item and why.
Similarly, the second item would seek
information on the payment, messaging,
or settlement systems that institutions
use to send outbound international ACH
transactions for consumers. An
institution would be asked to report
whether it uses each of the listed
systems for some, none, or all of its
outbound international ACH
transactions for consumers. The systems
listed in this item would include
19 In some cases, even an institution that does not
qualify for the safe harbor related to the term
‘‘normal course of business’’ will not be a
‘‘remittance transfer provider’’ and will not be
required to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act
remittance transfer requirements. See 12 CFR
1005.30(f), comment 30(f)–2.

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices
FedACH, EPN, SWIFT, a correspondent
bank of which the reporting institution
is a client, and other (with an
instruction that the institution identify
the ‘‘other’’ system). The agencies seek
comment on whether these categories of
systems are appropriate, and whether
additional systems should be added to
the list for this item and why.
Finally, for the subset of institutions
whose answers to the annual screening
question suggest that they likely do not
qualify for the 100-transfer safe harbor,
the proposed new Schedule RC–M items
would seek information on the volume
and dollar value of remittance transfers
provided, and the frequency with which
the reporting institution uses the
temporary exception for insured
institutions. Specifically, the agencies
propose to seek volume and dollar value
information with regard to certain
categories of mechanisms offered to
consumers for international transfers.
The agencies propose that these
categories correspond to the categories
in the one-time and ongoing quarterly
question regarding the reporting
institution’s market participation (e.g.,
international wire transfers,
international ACH transactions, other
proprietary services operated by the
reporting institution, other proprietary
services operated by another party, and
‘‘other’’). For each category of
mechanism, a reporting institution
would provide the total number of
qualifying transactions provided in the
prior quarter, the total dollar value of
the principal of such transactions, and
the number of transactions to which the
temporary exception applied. The
subitems would apply to services
offered to consumers, rather than
services provided to another institution
on a correspondent basis.
The agencies propose that the number
of transactions and the related dollar
values should include all transfers (a)
that are ‘‘remittance transfers’’ as
defined in 12 CFR § 1005.30(e),
regardless of whether the institution or
another party is the remittance transfer
provider, and (b) that the institution
does not know for certain are remittance
transfers, but for which the disclosures
described in Subpart B of Regulation E
were provided. The agencies propose
that if the reporting institution did not
provide any remittance transfers to
consumers in the normal course of its
business, it should not be required to
provide the requested number and
dollar value of transactions.
The agencies recognize that questions
regarding the volume and dollar value
of transactions would seek information
that banks may not have recorded or
compiled previously. However, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

FFIEC and the agencies expect that in
order to comply with the Dodd-Frank
Act remittance transfer requirements,
institutions or their business partners,
such as correspondent banks or
payment networks, may build systems
to enable institutions to identify
remittance transfers as such.
The agencies propose that if
institutions are not reasonably able to
provide actual amounts for the volume
and dollar value of transfers and
number of uses of the temporary
exception, that they provide estimates
that are accurate at least to two
significant digits.20 The agencies seek
comment on the feasibility of such
estimates, as well as comment on the
feasibility of providing actual figures;
the date by which banks may be able to
provide actual figures, if not by June
2013; and the relative benefits or costs
of using a different estimation approach
or a different methodology to report the
requested data, such as the reporting of
transaction volume within certain
ranges (e.g., between 1,000 and 10,000
transfers). With regard to the proposed
Schedule RC–M subitem on the volume
and dollar value of transactions, the
agencies additionally seek comment on
whether the scope of the transactions
included in the calculations is
appropriate, as well as whether the
scope and categories of mechanisms
offered to consumers for international
transfers to be included are appropriate,
or whether other alternatives should be
used and why.
C. Depository Institution Trade Names
Some insured depository institutions
use names other than their legal title as
reflected in their charter to identify
certain of their physical branch offices
or Internet Web sites. The reasons for
using these ‘‘trade names’’ vary: (1) In
the case of physical branch offices, this
is often due to a merger and an interest
in maintaining the presence of the
acquired institution’s well recognized
name in the community or communities
it served; (2) in the case of multiple Web
sites, this is often due not only to
merger activity, but also may be part of
an institution’s specific marketing
efforts and an interest in targeting
particular groups of potential depositors
or borrowers. Even though there may be
valid business reasons for using trade
20 ‘‘Two significant digits’’ means that the first
digit in the number is not rounded, and the second
digit is rounded to reflect all the remaining digits.
In other words, for a figure between 100 and 999,
the provider would round to the nearest 10, e.g., for
a figure of 812, the provider would report 810; for
a figure of 816, the provider would report 820. For
figures between 10,000 and 99,999, the provider
would round to the nearest 1,000.

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

12149

names, this practice can confuse
customers as to the insured status of the
institution as well as the legal name of
the insured institution that holds their
deposits. Customers, for example, could
inadvertently exceed the deposit
insurance limits if they do business
with two different branches or Web sites
that are, in fact, not separately insured,
but rather are simply affiliated with the
same insured depository institution.
Furthermore, customers risk monetary
losses if they deal with fraudulent Web
sites using trade names that purport to
be insured depository institutions
because customers cannot confirm
whether the Web sites are, in fact,
affiliated with an insured institution via
the FDIC’s Institution Directory or
BankFind systems.
To address these concerns in relation
to physical branch offices, the agencies
issued an Interagency Statement on
Branch Names in 1998.21 The Statement
describes measures an insured
institution should take to guard against
customer confusion about the identity of
the institution or the extent of FDIC
insurance coverage if the institution
‘‘intends to use a different name for a
branch or other facility’’ or ‘‘over a
computer network such as the Internet.’’
This guidance, however, did not require
institutions to inform customers of their
legal identity nor did it establish a
formal notification requirement for the
trade names an institution uses.
The FDIC regularly receives inquiries
from the public about whether a
particular institution, as identified by
the name on its physical facilities, in
print or other traditional media
advertisements, or on Internet Web
sites, represents an insured depository
institution. Since June 1999, institutions
have reported the Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) of their primary Internet
Web site address in the Call Report.
Nevertheless, the agencies have found
that many institutions commonly have
multiple Web sites and that Web sites
operated by insured institutions often
do not clearly state the institution’s
legal (chartered) name. Moreover,
because insured institutions are not
required to report the multiple trade
names that they use, including Internet
Web sites other than their primary Web
site, the FDIC’s publicly available
databases that identify insured
institutions do not include trade name
data that links the trade names to a
specific insured institution and its
deposit insurance certificate number. As
a consequence, the FDIC is unable to
effectively serve as an information
21 http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/
1998/fil9846b.html.

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

12150

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

resource for depositors and the public
concerning the insured status of a
physical branch office or Internet Web
site that uses a trade name rather than
the legal name of the insured
institution. Although the FDIC
researches trade names and collects
trade name information in response to
inquiries from the public, this
information is incomplete, lags behind
the creation of new trade names, and
depends on inquiries from the public to
identify previously unknown trade
names.
To address the lack of complete and
current information on depository
institutions’ use of trade names that
differ from their legal title to identify
physical branches and Internet Web
sites, the agencies are proposing to
supplement the reporting of each
institution’s primary Internet Web site
address, which is currently reported in
item 8 of Call Report Schedule RC–M,
Memoranda. The agencies propose to
add text fields to Schedule RC–M, item
8, in which an institution that uses one
or more trade names other than its legal
title to identify branch office names and
Internet Web sites would report all trade
names used by these physical locations
and the URLs for all public-facing Web
site addresses affiliated with the
institution. For example, if an
institution’s legal title is ABC National
Bank, but it operates one or more office
locations under the trade name of
‘‘Community Bank of XYZ’’ (as
identified by the signage displayed on
the facility), the institution would report
this trade name (and any other trade
names the institution uses at other office
locations) in revised item 8 of Schedule
RC–M. Similarly, if an institution’s legal
title is DEF State Bank, but it operates
an Internet Web site to solicit deposits
or other business under the trade name
of ‘‘Your Safe and Sound Bank’’ (where
this trade name is more clearly and
prominently displayed on the Web site
than the institution’s legal title, if the
legal title is disclosed at all), the
institution would report the URL for
this Web site (and the URLs for any
other Web sites used to solicit business
under a trade name) in revised item 8
of Schedule RC–M. The agencies seek
comment on the clarity of the
circumstances in which institutions
would report trade names in Schedule
RC–M.
D. Additional Data From Large and
Highly Complex Institutions for Deposit
Insurance Assessment Purposes
On October 9, 2012, the FDIC Board
of Directors approved a final rule
amending certain aspects of the
methodology set forth in the FDIC’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

assessment regulations (12 CFR Part
327) for determining the deposit
insurance assessment rates for large and
highly complex institutions.22 This
‘‘large bank pricing rule,’’ originally
adopted by the FDIC Board in February
2011,23 uses a scorecard method to
determine a large or highly complex
institution’s assessment rate. One of the
financial ratios used in the scorecard is
the ratio of higher-risk assets to Tier 1
capital and reserves. The FDIC’s October
2012 assessments final rule, which takes
effect April 1, 2013, (1) revises the
definitions of certain higher-risk assets
in the February 2011 rule, specifically
leveraged loans, which are renamed
‘‘higher-risk commercial and industrial
(C&I) loans and securities,’’ and
subprime consumer loans, which are
renamed ‘‘higher-risk consumer loans’’;
(2) clarifies when an asset must be
classified as higher risk; (3) clarifies the
way securitizations are identified as
higher risk; and (4) further defines terms
that are used in the large bank pricing
rule.
At present, large and highly complex
institutions currently report the amount
of their ‘‘‘Subprime consumer loans’ as
defined for assessment purposes only in
FDIC regulations’’ and their ‘‘‘Leveraged
loans and securities’ as defined for
assessment purposes only in FDIC
regulations’’ in Memorandum items 8
and 9, respectively, of Call Report
Schedule RC–O, Other Data for Deposit
Insurance and FICO Assessments. The
amounts to be reported in Memorandum
items 8 and 9 also generally include
securitizations where more than 50
percent of assets backing the
securitization meet the criteria for
subprime consumer loans or leveraged
loans and securities, but exclude
securitizations reported as trading assets
on the Call Report balance sheet
(Schedule RC). These two Memorandum
items were added to Schedule RC–O as
of the June 30, 2011, report date.
However, in recognition of concerns
expressed by large and highly complex
institutions about their ability to
identify loans meeting the subprime and
leveraged loan definitions in the FDIC’s
February 2011 assessments final rule,
the agencies provided transition
guidance for reporting subprime
consumer and leveraged loans and
securities in the Schedule RC–O
instructions issued in June 2011. That
transition guidance permitted large and
highly complex institutions to use either

their existing internal methodologies or
definitions found in existing
supervisory guidance to identify and
report ‘‘subprime consumer loans’’ and
‘‘leveraged loans’’ originated or
purchased prior to October 1, 2011, in
lieu of using the definitions of these two
higher-risk asset categories in the FDIC’s
February 2011 final assessments rule.
The original transition date for
identifying and reporting subprime and
leveraged loans has since been
extended, most recently to April 1,
2013.
As stated in the agencies’ final
Paperwork Reduction Act Federal
Register notice pertaining to the
introduction of the Schedule RC–O
reporting requirements for large and
highly complex institutions:
the instructions for reporting subprime and
leveraged loans and securities in the Call
Report * * * specifically reference the
definitions of these high-risk asset categories
that are contained in the FDIC’s assessment
regulations (12 CFR Part 327) as amended by
the FDIC’s February 2011 final rule and then
incorporate the text of these definitions from
the final rule (as well as the previously
mentioned transition guidance). Accordingly,
if and when one or both of these two
definitions—as used for assessment
purposes—are revised through FDIC
rulemaking, the definitions of these asset
categories in the agencies’ regulatory
reporting instructions will be revised in the
same manner to maintain conformity with
the assessment regulations.24

Now that the FDIC has amended the
definitions of subprime and leveraged
loans and securities in its October 2012
assessments final rule, and has renamed
these higher-risk asset categories, the
agencies will, consistent with the text
quoted above, make corresponding
changes to Memorandum items 8 and 9
of Schedule RC–O. Thus, Memorandum
item 8 will be recaptioned ‘‘‘Higher-risk
consumer loans’ as defined for
assessment purposes only in FDIC
regulations’’ and Memorandum item 9
will be recaptioned ‘‘‘Higher-risk
commercial and industrial loans and
securities’ as defined for assessment
purposes only in FDIC regulations.’’ The
revised instructions for these two
Schedule RC–O Memorandum items
will incorporate the revised definitions
of these higher-risk asset categories
contained in the FDIC’s October 2012
assessments final rule, including the
clarified definitions of higher-risk
securitizations.25 These revisions will
24 76

FR 77321, December 12, 2011.
FDIC’s October 2012 assessments final rule
defines ‘‘higher-risk consumer loans,’’ ‘‘higher-risk
commercial and industrial loans,’’ and ‘‘higher-risk
securitizations’’ in Sections I.A.3, I.A.2, and I.A.5,
respectively, of Appendix C to Subpart A of Part
327 of the FDIC’s regulations.
25 The

22 See 77 FR 66000, October 31, 2012. In general,
large and highly complex institutions are insured
depository institutions with $10 billion or more in
total assets.
23 See 76 FR 10672, February 25, 2011.

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

take effect June 30, 2013, which is the
first report date after the April 1, 2013,
effective date of the FDIC’s October
2012 assessments final rule.
As defined in the October 2012
assessments final rule, a ‘‘higher-risk
consumer loan’’ is a consumer loan
where, as of origination (or, if the loan
has been refinanced, as of refinance),
the probability of default (PD) within
two years (the two-year PD) is greater
than 20 percent,26 excluding, however,
those consumer loans that meet the
definition of a nontraditional 1–4 family
residential mortgage loan.27 Integral to
its decision to adopt this definition in
the October 2012 assessments final rule
was the FDIC’s stated intent to collect
the outstanding balance of consumer
loans, by two-year PD and product type,
in the Call Report as a means to
determine whether the 20 percent
threshold for identifying ‘‘higher-risk
consumer loans’’ should be changed.
More specifically, the agencies are
proposing that large and highly complex
institutions would report in a tabular
format the outstanding amount of all
consumer loans, including those with a
PD below the high-risk threshold,
stratified by the 10 consumer loan
product types and 12 two-year PD
bands. In addition, for each product
type, institutions would report the
amount of unscorable loans, as defined
in the October 2012 assessments final
rule, and indicate whether the PDs were
derived using scores and default rate
mappings provided by a third-party
vendor or an internal approach. The 10
proposed consumer loan product types
are:
(1) ‘‘Nontraditional 1–4 family
residential mortgage loans’’ included in
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 1.c.(2)(a)
and (b);
(2) ‘‘Closed-end loans secured by first
liens on 1–4 family residential
properties’’ as defined for Call Report
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 1.c.(2)(a),
excluding first liens reported as
nontraditional 1–4 family residential
mortgage loans;
(3) ‘‘Closed-end loans secured by
junior liens on 1–4 family residential
properties’’ as defined for Schedule RC–
C, part I, item 1.c.(2)(b), excluding
26 The FDIC’s October 2012 assessments final
rules sets forth the ‘‘General Requirements for PD
Estimation’’ in Section I.A.3 of Appendix C to
Subpart A of Part 327 of the FDIC’s regulations.
27 The FDIC’s October 2012 assessments final rule
defines ‘‘nontraditional 1–4 family residential
mortgage loans’’ in Section I.A.4 of Appendix C to
Subpart A of Part 327 of the FDIC’s regulations.
‘‘‘Nontraditional 1–4 family residential mortgage
loans’ as defined for assessment purposes only in
FDIC regulations’’ are reported in Schedule RC–O,
Memorandum item 7, and includes higher-risk
securitizations of such loans.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

junior liens reported as nontraditional
1–4 family residential mortgage loans;
(4) ‘‘Revolving, open-end loans
secured by first liens on 1–4 family
residential properties and extended
under lines of credit’’ included in
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 1.c.(1);
(5) ‘‘Revolving, open-end loans
secured by junior liens on 1–4 family
residential properties and extended
under lines of credit’’ included in
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 1.c.(1);
(6) ‘‘Credit cards’’ as defined for
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 6.a;
(7) ‘‘Automobile loans’’ as defined for
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 6.c;
(8) ‘‘Student loans’’ included in
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 6.d;
(9) ‘‘Other consumer loans (including
single payment and installment) and
revolving credit plans other than credit
cards’’ included in Schedule RC–C, part
I, items 6.b and 6.d, but excluding
student loans; and
(10) ‘‘Consumer leases,’’ as defined for
Schedule RC–C, part I, item 10.a.
The 12 proposed two-year PD bands
for consumer loans are: (1) less than or
equal to 1 percent; (2) 1.01 to 4 percent;
(3) 4.01 to 7 percent; (4) 7.01 to 10
percent; (5) 10.01 to 14 percent; (6)
14.01 to 16 percent; (7) 16.01 to 18
percent; (8) 18.01 to 20 percent; (9)
20.01 to 22 percent; (10) 22.01 to 26
percent; (11) 26.01 to 30 percent; and
(12) greater than 30 percent.
At present, the amounts that large and
highly complex institutions report for
‘‘nontraditional 1–4 family residential
mortgage loans,’’ ‘‘subprime consumer
loans,’’ and ‘‘leveraged loans and
securities’’ in Memorandum items 7, 8,
and 9 of Schedule RC–O are accorded
confidential treatment and not made
available to the public on an individual
institution basis because they are
regarded as examination information. In
this regard, until data on these higherrisk assets began to be collected directly
in the Call Report, the FDIC looked to
the examination processes at large and
highly complex institutions as the
means for gathering these data and, as
a consequence, they have been treated
as confidential examination
information. Similarly, the proposed
addition to Schedule RC–O of tabular
data on consumer loans, by two-year PD
and product type, represents a further
extension of the collection of
confidential examination information,
which also will not be made available
to the public on an individual
institution basis.
In addition, over the past six quarters
as the FDIC has worked with the data
collected in Schedule RC–O and
elsewhere in the Call Report that serve
as inputs to the growth adjusted

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

12151

portfolio concentration measure, the
higher-risk asset concentration measure,
and the loss severity measure used in
the scorecard calculations under the
large bank pricing rule, certain data gaps
have been identified in the data needed
to perform these calculations in the
manner intended under this rule.
Therefore, the agencies are proposing to
add a number of new Memorandum
items to Schedule RC–O and revise
several existing Memorandum items to
eliminate these data gaps. These
proposed changes to Schedule RC–O
would apply only to large and highly
complex institutions.
On the FFIEC 031 report form, which
is applicable to institutions with foreign
offices, Schedule RC–C, part I, item 1,
‘‘Loans secured by real estate,’’ does not
capture a breakdown of these loans for
the consolidated institution by the type
of loan and collateral. Such a
breakdown is collected for ‘‘Loans
secured by real estate’’ in domestic
offices. As a consequence, because
‘‘Loans secured by real estate’’ in foreign
offices are not reported by type of loan
and collateral in Schedule RC–C, part I,
the loss severity measure in the large
bank pricing rule treats all foreign office
real estate loans as ‘‘Other loans’’ and
assigning a higher loss rate to these
‘‘Other loans’’ than would otherwise be
assigned to them based on their actual
type of loan and collateral. The absence
of these details on foreign office real
estate loans also affects the growth
adjusted portfolio concentration
measure and the higher-risk asset
concentration ratio. Similarly, within
Schedule RC–O on the FFIEC 031
report, existing Memorandum items 10.a
and 10.b capture data relating to
‘‘Commitments to fund construction,
land development, and other land loans
secured by real estate in domestic
offices’’ while Memorandum items 13.a
through 13.d collect data on the portion
of certain categories of funded loans
secured by real estate in domestic
offices that are guaranteed or insured by
the U.S. government. Because these
Memorandum items also overlook the
corresponding unfunded loan
commitments and funded loans in
foreign offices, the scorecard measures
that use these inputs lack the
information necessary to accurately
calculate the affected ratios. The
absence of detailed data on real estate
loans in foreign offices affects a
minority of the approximately 110 large
and highly complex institutions.
To remedy this deficiency in the real
estate loan data reported by large and
highly complex institutions with foreign
offices, the agencies are proposing to
add new Memorandum items to the

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12152

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

FFIEC 031 version of the Call Report
effective June 30, 2013, that would
provide for the reporting of a breakdown
of the consolidated institution’s ‘‘Loans
secured by real estate’’ into the same
nine types of loans and collateral as
those reported for domestic offices only
in Schedule RC–C, part I, items 1.a.(1)
through 1.e.(2). Additionally, the scope
of Memorandum items 10.a, 10.b, and
13.a through 13.d in Schedule RC–O
would be revised to cover the specified
unfunded commitments and funded
loans in both domestic and foreign
offices (i.e., for the consolidated bank).
The definitions of the individual asset
classes that make up the growth
adjusted portfolio concentration
measure and the higher-risk asset
concentration measure for large and
highly complex institutions exclude the
maximum amounts recoverable from the
U.S. government under guarantee or
insurance provisions, including FDIC
loss-sharing agreements. In
Memorandum items 13.a through 13.g of
Schedule RC–O, institutions report for
several categories of funded loans the
portion of these loans guaranteed or
insured by the U.S. government, but
they do not include the amount
protected by FDIC loss-sharing
agreements and, thus, do not precisely
mirror the definitions of the individual
measures that make up the higher-risk
asset concentration measure for large
and highly complex institutions. The
balance sheet amounts of loans covered
by loss-sharing agreements are currently
reported in items 13.a.(1) through
13.a.(5) of Schedule RC–M, Memoranda.
However, these items disclose only the
total amount of these loans and not the
portion of the loans that is protected by
loss-sharing agreements. Consequently,
for scorecard calculation purposes, the
FDIC has been assuming that 80 percent
of the loan amounts reported in
Schedule RC–M are covered by losssharing agreements since most losssharing agreements cover 80 percent of
the loan amounts. However, the actual
percentage of loss-share coverage for
some loss-share agreements differs.
Accordingly, the agencies are proposing
to revise existing Memorandum items
13.a through 13.g of Schedule RC–O so
that institutions include, rather than
exclude, the portion of specified loan
categories covered by FDIC loss-sharing
agreements.28
In addition, the growth adjusted
portfolio concentration measure, as
defined in the large bank pricing rule,
28 Memorandum item 13.a would continue to be
completed by large and highly complex institutions,
while Memorandum items 13.b through 13.g would
continue to be completed by large institutions only.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

includes non-agency residential
mortgage-backed securities (reported in
items 4.a.(3) and 4.b.(3), columns A and
D, of Schedule RC–B, Securities),
excluding the portion guaranteed or
insured by the U.S. government (e.g.,
under FDIC loss-sharing agreements).
However, the amount of the U.S.
government-guaranteed or -insured
portion of such securities is not
currently collected in the Call Report.
To eliminate this data deficiency, the
agencies propose to add a new
Memorandum item 13.h to Schedule
RC–O to collect this missing
information on non-agency residential
mortgage-backed securities from large
institutions only. These proposed
revisions to Memorandum item 13
would take effect June 30, 2013.
E. Total Liabilities of an Institution’s
Parent Depository Institution Holding
Company That Is Not a Bank or Savings
and Loan Holding Company
Section 622 of the Dodd-Frank Act
establishes a financial sector
concentration limit (‘‘Concentration
Limit’’) that generally prohibits a
financial company from merging or
consolidating with, acquiring all or
substantially all of the assets of, or
otherwise acquiring control of, another
company if the resulting company’s
consolidated liabilities would exceed 10
percent of the aggregate consolidated
liabilities of all financial companies.
The Concentration Limit was adopted as
a new section 14 to the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956, as amended, to
be codified at 12 U.S.C. 1852.
The Concentration Limit applies to a
‘‘financial company,’’ which is defined
to include any company that controls an
insured depository institution—
including a commercial firm that
controls an industrial loan company or
a limited-purpose credit card bank—as
well as an insured depository institution
and a nonbank financial company
supervised by the Board.29 These firms
are subject to the Concentration Limit,
and their liabilities are included in the
denominator of the Concentration Limit
for purposes of determining whether
29 A parent holding company has control over a
depository institution if the company (A) the
company directly or indirectly or acting through
one or more other persons owns, controls, or has
power to vote 25 per centum or more of any class
of voting securities of the depository institution; (B)
the company controls in any manner the election
of a majority of the directors or trustees of the
depository institution; or (C) the Board determines,
after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the
company directly or indirectly exercises a
controlling influence over the management or
policies of the depository institution.

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

other financial companies are in
compliance with the limit.
‘‘Liabilities’’ for purposes of the
Concentration Limit are defined
differently for financial companies
domiciled in the United States than for
financial companies domiciled abroad.
For U.S.-domiciled financial companies,
‘‘liabilities’’ include a firm’s total
consolidated liabilities on a worldwide
basis. For financial companies
domiciled abroad, ‘‘liabilities’’ include
the liabilities of the firm’s U.S.
operations.
The Financial Stability Oversight
Council (‘‘Council’’) is required to make
recommendations regarding any
modifications to the concentration limit
that the Council determines would more
effectively implement Section 622. The
Council recommended that, in
measuring the Concentration Limit, the
liabilities of a financial company (that is
not subject to consolidated risk-based
capital rules substantially similar to
those applicable to bank holding
companies) should be calculated
pursuant to U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) or other
appropriate accounting standards
applicable to such company. The
Council also recommended that the
Board calculate aggregate financial
sector liabilities using a two-year rolling
average and publicly report a final
calculation of the aggregate consolidated
liabilities of all financial companies as
of the end of the preceding calendar
year.30
At present, depository institution
holding companies that are not bank
holding companies or savings and loan
holding companies do not report
consolidated financial information to
the agencies. Because this information is
necessary to implement the
Concentration Limit, the agencies
propose to add a new item 17 to Call
Report Schedule RC–M, Memoranda, in
which a subsidiary depository
institution of a depository institution
holding company that is not a bank
holding company or savings and loan
holding company would be required to
report information on the liabilities of
the parent depository institution
holding company, as communicated by
the holding company to the institution.
This new item would not be applicable
to any other depository institutions.
Because the Board is required to report
a final calculation as of the end of each
calendar year, this proposed new
Schedule RC–M item would be
30 See http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/
studies-reports/Documents/Study%20on%20
Concentration%20Limits%20on%20Large%20
Firms%2001–17–11.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices
completed for only the December report
beginning December 31, 2013.
Specifically, with respect to a
subsidiary depository institution of a
depository institution holding company
domiciled in the United States, the
institution would be required to report
total consolidated liabilities of the
parent depository institution holding
company under U.S. GAAP as of the
December 31 Call Report date, as
communicated to the institution by the
depository institution holding company.
With respect to a subsidiary institution
of a depository institution holding
company domiciled in a country other
than the United States, the institution
would be required to report the total
consolidated liabilities of the combined
U.S. operations of the depository
institution holding company as of the
December 31 Call Report date, as
communicated to the institution by the
parent. ‘‘Total consolidated liabilities of
the combined U.S. operations of the
depository institution holding
company’’ would mean the sum of the
total consolidated liabilities of each toptier U.S. subsidiary of the depository
institution holding company, as
determined under U.S. GAAP. A
subsidiary depository institution would
be permitted, but not required, to reduce
‘‘total consolidated liabilities of the
combined U.S. operations of the
depository institution holding
company’’ by amounts corresponding to
balances and transactions between U.S.
subsidiaries of the depository institution
holding company to the extent such
items would not already be eliminated
in consolidation.
The agencies recognize that it is not
customary to use the Call Report as the
vehicle for collecting data pertaining to
a company other than the reporting
depository institution, including entities
the institution consolidates.
Nevertheless, the agencies view the Call
Report as a more efficient conduit for
collecting a single annual data item for
the total consolidated liabilities of a
reporting institution’s parent depository
institution holding company that is not
a bank or savings and loan holding
company than the alternative of having
the Board initiate a new information
collection applicable to the limited
number of depository institution
holding companies that are not bank or
savings and loan holding companies for
the sole purpose of annually collecting
this single data item.
The agencies also acknowledge that,
when filing a Call Report, the reporting
institution’s chief financial officer (or
equivalent) must attest that the report
has been prepared in conformance with
the Call Report instructions and is true

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Jkt 229001

and correct to the best of his or her
knowledge and belief. A specified
number of the reporting institution’s
directors must make a similar
attestation. Because a depository
institution controlled by a depository
institution holding company that is not
a bank or savings and loan holding
company would have to obtain the
amount of its parent depository
institution holding company’s total
consolidated liabilities from the parent
in order to report this amount in the
Call Report, the agencies would expect
an institution to use its best efforts to
obtain this information from its parent
depository institution holding company
and would accept a reasonable estimate
of the parent’s total consolidated
liabilities. In light of the Call Report
attestation requirement described above,
the agencies propose to exclude from
the scope of the attestations for the
institution’s chief financial officer (or
equivalent) and directors the amount of
the parent holding company’s total
consolidated liabilities reported in
Schedule RC–M, item 17. However, for
the limited number of depository
institutions to which item 17 will be
applicable, this item would be
accompanied by an attestation to be
signed by the depository institution’s
chief financial officer (or equivalent)
stating that item 17 has been prepared
in conformance with the Call Report
instructions. The instructions for
proposed Memorandum item 17 would
provide that a depository institution
could rely on a reasonable estimate of
the total consolidated liabilities of its
parent depository institution holding
company obtained on a best efforts
basis. The agencies request comment on
whether this approach addresses
potential attestation concerns that may
arise when an insured depository
institution must report the total
consolidated liabilities of its parent
depository institution holding company
that is not a bank or savings and loan
holding company in the institution’s
Call Report.
F. Revising the Scope of Schedule RI–A,
Item 11
The instructions for item 11, ‘‘Other
transactions with parent holding
company,’’ in Schedule RI–A, Changes
in Bank Equity Capital, currently advise
institutions to report the net aggregate
amount of transactions with the
institution’s parent holding company
that affect equity capital directly, other
than those transactions required to be
reported in other items of Schedule RI–
A (e.g., cash dividends, sales and
retirements of capital stock, and
treasury stock transactions). The

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

12153

instructions for item 11 identify two
transactions to be reported in this item:
capital contributions other than those
for which stock has been issued to the
parent holding company and dividends
to the holding company in the form of
property rather than cash.
Although the scope of Schedule RI–A,
item 11, is limited to transactions with
an institution’s parent holding
company, the two types of transactions
identified in the instructions for this
item can be conducted with an
institution’s stockholders other than a
parent holding company. In this
situation, neither the instructions for
item 11 nor the instructions for any of
the other items in Schedule RI–A
explains where these capital
transactions with stockholders other
than a parent holding company should
be reported within the schedule.
In addition, an institution may from
time to time reduce its contributed
capital (i.e., surplus) without retiring
any of its stock through a return-ofcapital transaction in which cash is
distributed to the institution’s owners,
typically its parent holding company.
Such a return-of-capital transaction is
separate and distinct from a dividend
payment, which reduces retained
earnings and is reported in either item
8 or 9 of Schedule RI–A. At present, the
instructions for Schedule RI–A do not
explicitly identify the item within the
schedule in which return-of-capital
transactions should be reported. In this
regard, Schedule RI–A, item 5, ‘‘Sale,
conversion, acquisition, or retirement of
capital stock, net (excluding treasury
stock transactions),’’ includes the
redemption or retirement of perpetual
preferred stock or common stock
(including stock owned by a parent
holding company), but the instructions
for this item are silent regarding returnof-capital transactions.
Accordingly, the agencies are
proposing to revise the scope of
Schedule RI–A, item 11, to include
capital contributions received from
stockholders other than an institution’s
parent holding company when stock is
not issued, property dividends
involving stockholders other than a
parent holding company, and return-ofcapital transactions with all
stockholders, including a parent holding
company. In addition to revising the
instructions for item 11, the caption for
this item also would be revised to read
‘‘Other transactions with stockholders
(including a parent holding company).’’
These proposed changes would take
effect June 30, 2013.

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1

12154

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 / Notices

III. Other Matters
On February 17, 2012, the agencies
announced that they were continuing to
evaluate a new proposed Call Report
Schedule RC–U, Loan Origination
Activity (in Domestic Offices), in light
of the comments received.31 The FFIEC
and the agencies have completed their
evaluation of Schedule RC–U and have
determined not to pursue
implementation of this proposed Call
Report schedule.32
Memorandum items 5.a and 5.b of
Call Report Schedule RC–O collect data
on the amount and number of
noninterest-bearing transaction accounts
of more than $250,000. In the 2010
initial and final PRA notices describing
this collection, the agencies stated that
this collection would cease after
December 31, 2012, unless Congress
extended a law allowing for unlimited
deposit insurance on these accounts
beyond that date. Congress did not
extend that law, and the temporary
unlimited deposit insurance for such
accounts ended on December 31, 2012.
However, there is considerable interest
across the agencies in monitoring the
behavior of these deposit accounts
following the change in insurance
coverage. Specifically, the agencies are
interested in tracking the movement of
these funds and accounts among
individual insured institutions and
within the depository institution system
as a whole. Accordingly, the agencies
will continue to collect these
Memorandum items in the March 31,
2013, Call Report and in future
reports.33 The agencies will review this
information and reconsider the
collection at such time as the number of
accounts and amount of deposits
stabilizes. The agencies request
comment on whether to continue
collecting this information, absent the
extension of the law providing deposit
insurance for these accounts.
Public comment is requested on all
aspects of this joint notice. Comments
are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed revisions to
the collections of information that are
the subject of this notice are necessary
31 77

FR 9727.
the FFIEC and the agencies have
completed their evaluation of proposed Schedule U,
Loan Origination Activity, on the Report of Assets
and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of
Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002; OMB No. 7100–0032)
and have determined not to pursue implementation
of this proposed schedule on the FFIEC 002 report.
See 77 FR 14367, March 9, 2012.
33 The agencies also will continue to collect the
corresponding Memorandum items on the FFIEC
002 report.

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

32 Similarly,

14:47 Feb 20, 2013

Dated: February 4, 2013.
Michele Meyer,
Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, February 14, 2013.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 4th day of
February 2013.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–04035 Filed 2–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Form 8453–S
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

Request for Comment

VerDate Mar<15>2010

for the proper performance of the
agencies’ functions, including whether
the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies’
estimates of the burden of the
information collections as they are
proposed to be revised, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
information collections on respondents,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up
costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services
to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to
this joint notice will be shared among
the agencies. All comments will become
a matter of public record.

Jkt 229001

The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning Form
8453–S, S Corporation Declaration and
Signature for Electronic Filing.

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Written comments should be
received on or before April 22, 2013 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to Martha R. Brinson
at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129,
1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–
3869, or through the Internet at
[email protected].
DATES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: S Corporation Declaration and
Signature for Electronic Filing.
OMB Number: 1545–1867.
Form Number: 8453–S.
Abstract: Form 8453–S is necessary to
enable the electronic filing of Form
1120S U.S. Income Tax Return for an S
Corporation. The form is created to meet
the stated Congressional policy that
paperless filing is the preferred and
most convenient means of filing Federal
tax and information returns.
Current Actions: There are no changes
being made to the form at this time.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,500.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 5
hours, 6 minute.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 7,590.
The following paragraph applies to all
of the collections of information covered
by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection
of information must be retained as long
as their contents may become material
in the administration of any internal
revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential,
as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Request for Comments: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of
public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM

21FEN1