Download:
pdf |
pdfFederal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
maintenance and purchases of services
to provide information.
Dwight Wolkow,
Administrator, International Portfolio
Investment Data Systems.
[FR Doc. 2014–00509 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–25–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Community Development
Financial Institutions Fund, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. 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, 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently, the
Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund),
Department of the Treasury, is soliciting
comments concerning the New Markets
Tax Credit Program (NMTC Program)—
Allocation Application (hereafter, the
Application), in anticipation of
extension of the program beyond CY
2013.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before March 17, 2014 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to
Robert Ibanez, NMTC Program Manager,
CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20220, by email to
[email protected], or by facsimile to
(202) 508–0084. Please note this is not
a toll free number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Application may be obtained from the
NMTC Program page of the CDFI Fund’s
Web site at http://www.cdfifund.gov/
what_we_do/programs_
id.asp?programID=5#. Requests for
additional information should be
directed to Robert Ibanez, NMTC
Program Manager, Community
Development Financial Institutions
Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20220, by email to
[email protected], or by facsimile to
(202) 508–0084. Please note this is not
a toll free number.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: New Markets Tax Credit
(NMTC) Program—Allocation
Application.
OMB Number: 1559–0016
Abstract: Title I, subtitle C, section
121 of the Community Renewal Tax
Relief Act of 2000 (the Act) amended
the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by
adding IRC § 45D and created the NMTC
Program. The Department of the
Treasury, through the CDFI Fund,
Internal Revenue Service, and Office of
Tax Policy, administers the NMTC
Program. In order to claim the NMTC,
taxpayers make Qualified Equity
Investments (QEIs) in Community
Development Entities (CDEs) and
substantially all of the QEI proceeds
must, in turn, be used by the CDE to
provide investments in businesses and
real estate developments in low-income
communities and other purposes
authorized under the statute.
The tax credit provided to the
investor totals 39 percent of the amount
of the investment and is claimed over a
seven-year period. In each of the first
three years, the investor receives a
credit equal to five percent of the total
amount paid for the stock or capital
interest at the time of purchase. For the
final four years, the value of the credit
is six percent annually. Investors may
not redeem their investments in CDEs
prior to the conclusion of the seven-year
period without forfeiting any credit
amounts they have received.
The CDFI Fund is responsible for
certifying organizations as CDEs, and
administering the competitive allocation
of tax credit authority to CDEs, which it
does through annual allocation rounds.
As part of the award selection process,
CDEs will be required to prepare and
submit an Application, which will
include five key sections—Business
Strategy; Community Outcomes;
Management Capacity; Capitalization
Strategy; and Information Regarding
Prior Awards. The CDFI Fund will
conduct the substantive review of each
application in two parts (Phase 1 and
Phase 2), as defined in a Notice of
Allocation Availability for each round.
In Phase 1, the application will be
evaluated by reviewers to generate
scores for the Business Strategy and
Community Outcomes sections plus
statutory priority points. The scores will
be used to determine a rank-order list of
the most highly-qualified CDEs. In
Phase 2, the CDFI Fund will evaluate
the entire application of each highlyqualified, highly-ranked CDE.
Current Actions: Extension (without
change)
Type of review: Regular
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2509
Affected public: CDEs seeking NMTC
Program allocation authority.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
310
Estimated Annual Time per
Respondent: 263
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 81,530 hours
Requests for Comments: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record and
may be published on the Fund Web site
at http://www.cdfifund.gov. 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 of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of technology; and (e) estimates of
capital or start-up costs and costs of
operation, maintenance, and purchase
of services required to provide
information.
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 45D; 26 CFR 1.45D–
1.
Dated: January 9, 2014.
Bob Ibanez,
NMTC Program Manager, Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund.
[FR Doc. 2014–00510 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–70–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Joint 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: Notice of information collection
to be submitted to OMB for review and
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
2510
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
In accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act 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
required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. On February 21,
2013, the agencies, under the auspices
of the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council (FFIEC), requested
public comment for 60 days on a
proposal to extend, with revision, the
Consolidated Reports of Condition and
Income (Call Report), which are
currently approved collections of
information. After considering the
comments received on the proposal, the
FFIEC and the agencies announced their
final decisions regarding certain
proposed revisions on May 23, 2013,
which took effect June 30, 2013. The
agencies also announced they were
continuing to evaluate the other Call
Report changes proposed in February
2013 in light of the comments received
and would not implement these changes
as of June 30, 2013 (and, in one case, as
of December 31, 2013), as had been
proposed.
The FFIEC and the agencies have now
completed their evaluation of these
other proposed changes and plan to
implement in March 2014 the proposed
reporting requirements for depository
institution trade names; a modified
version of the reporting proposal
pertaining to international remittance
transfers; the proposed screening
question about the reporting
institution’s offering of consumer
deposit accounts; and, for institutions
with $1 billion or more in total assets
that offer such accounts, the proposed
new data items on consumer deposit
account balances. The FFIEC and the
agencies would then implement the
proposed breakdown of consumer
deposit account service charges in
March 2015, but only for institutions
with $1 billion or more in total assets
that offer consumer deposit accounts.
The proposed instructions for these new
items have been revised in response to
comments received. In addition, the
FFIEC and the agencies have decided
not to proceed at this time with the
proposed annual reporting by
institutions with a parent holding
company that is not a bank or savings
and loan holding company of the
amount of the parent holding company’s
consolidated total liabilities.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Comments must be submitted on
or before February 13, 2014.
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments to
any or all of the agencies on the
proposed revisions to the Call Report for
which the agencies are requesting
approval from OMB. All comments,
which should refer to the OMB control
number(s), will be shared among the
agencies.
OCC: Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC, area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments by
email if possible. Comments may be
sent to: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Attention:
1557–0081, 400 7th Street SW., Suite
3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington,
DC 20219. In addition, comments may
be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by
electronic mail to regs.comments@
occ.treas.gov. 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
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: regs.comments@
federalreserve.gov. 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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 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
22226, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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 oira
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 and
instructions for these revisions can be
obtained at the FFIEC’s Web site (http://
www.ffiec.gov/ffiec_report_forms.htm).
OCC: Mary H. Gottlieb and Johnny
Vilela, OCC Clearance Officers, (202)
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
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.1
Report Title: Consolidated Reports of
Condition and Income (Call Report).
Form Number: 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.
OCC
OMB Number: 1557–0081.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,807 national banks and federal savings
associations.
Estimated Time per Response: 57.03
burden hours per quarter to file.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
412,213 burden hours to file.
Board
OMB Number: 7100–0036.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
841 state member banks.
Estimated Time per Response: 58.09
burden hours per quarter to file.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
195,415 burden hours to file.
FDIC
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
OMB Number: 3064–0052.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
4,325 insured state nonmember banks
and state savings associations.
Estimated Time per Response: 42.75
burden hours per quarter to file.
1 The estimated time per response and the
estimated total annual burden for the Call Report
for each agency, as shown in this notice, reflect the
effect of the proposed revisions that are the subject
of this notice on the estimated time per response
and the estimated total annual burden for the Call
Report after taking into account the effect of certain
proposed regulatory capital reporting changes to
Call Report Schedule RC–R, which are the subject
of a separate notice published elsewhere in today’s
Federal Register.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
739,575 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 18 to
750 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
and national banks’ and federal savings
associations’ semiannual assessment
fees.
Current Actions
I. Background
On February 21, 2013, the agencies,
under the auspices of the FFIEC,
requested comment on a number of
proposed revisions to the Call Report
(78 FR 12141) for implementation as of
the June 30, 2013, report date, except for
one new data item proposed to be added
to the Call Report effective December
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2511
31, 2013. These revisions were proposed
with the intent 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.
The Call Report changes proposed in
the agencies’ February 2013 Federal
Register notice, further details for which
may be found in Sections II.A through
II.F of that notice,2 included:
• A 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 consumers
compared to businesses, and
• 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
• 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;
• A request for information on
international remittance transfers in
Schedule RC–M, Memoranda,
including:
• 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
• New data items to be reported by
institutions not qualifying for the safe
harbor on the number and dollar value
of international remittance transfers;
• New data items in Schedule RC–M
for reporting all trade names that differ
from an institution’s legal title that the
institution uses to identify physical
branches and public-facing Internet Web
site addresses;
• 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,
2 See
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
78 FR 12141–12154, Feb. 21, 2013.
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2512
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
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 at institutions with foreign
offices, revisions of existing data items
on real estate loan commitments and
U.S. government-guaranteed real estate
loans to include those in foreign offices,
and other revisions to the information
collected on assets guaranteed by the
U.S. government;
• 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 the Dodd-Frank Act 3;
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.
The comment period for the Call
Report changes proposed in the
agencies’ February 2013 Federal
Register notice closed on April 22,
2013. The agencies collectively received
comments from 33 entities: 20 Banking
organizations, seven bankers’
associations, four consumer advocacy
organizations, one life insurers’
association, and one government
agency. Many of the comments received
opposed one or more of the proposed
changes, although some supported one
or more of these changes.
After considering the comments
received on their February 2013 Federal
Register notice, the agencies announced
in the Federal Register on May 23, 2013
(78 FR 30922) that they were proceeding
at that time only with two of the
proposed Call Report revisions: (1) The
scope revision affecting the reporting of
certain changes in bank equity capital
on Schedule RI–A; and (2) a modified
version of the reporting changes for
large and highly complex institutions
for deposit insurance assessment
purposes. The effective date of these
reporting changes, which were
approved by OMB, was June 30, 2013,
as had been proposed.
As for the other new data items that
had been proposed to be added to the
Call Report effective June 30, 2013 (and
one new item proposed to be collected
annually beginning December 31, 2013),
the agencies stated in their May 2013
Federal Register notice that they and
the FFIEC were continuing to evaluate
these remaining proposed Call Report
changes in light of the comments
received. The agencies further stated
that implementation of the proposed
new Call Report items would take effect
no earlier than December 31, 2013, or
March 31, 2014, depending on the
revision.4
II. Summary of Decisions About
Remaining Call Report Changes From
February 2013 Proposal
The FFIEC and the agencies have now
completed their evaluation of the
remaining February 2013 reporting
proposals. In addition to reviewing the
comments previously submitted, the
FFIEC and the agencies gathered
additional feedback from meetings with
bankers’ associations, reporting
institutions, and depository institution
data processors. The FFIEC’s and the
agencies’ decisions regarding the
remaining proposed changes to the Call
Report, including the comments
received regarding each proposed
change and the agencies’ responses
thereto, are described in Sections III
through VII of this notice. These
decisions, which would involve
quarterly reporting unless otherwise
indicated, are summarized as follows:
• Effective March 31, 2014,
institutions would begin to report:
Æ Information about international
remittance transfers (including certain
questions about remittance transfer
activity and, for institutions not
qualifying for the Bureau’s safe harbor,
certain data on the estimated number
and dollar value of remittance transfers)
on an initial basis and semiannually
thereafter as of each June 30 and
December 31 5;
Æ Trade names (other than an
institution’s legal title) used to identify
physical branches and the Uniform
Resource Locators of all public-facing
Internet Web sites (other than the
institution’s primary Internet Web site)
that are used to accept or solicit
deposits from the public; and
Æ Their response to a yes-no
screening question asking whether the
reporting institution offers one or more
consumer transaction or nontransaction
savings deposit account products and,
for institutions with $1 billion or more
in total assets that offer one or more of
such consumer deposit account
4 See
78 FR 30924–30925, May 23, 2013.
question would be posed annually as of
June 30 rather than semiannually after it is posed
initially as of March 31, 2014.
5 One
3 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
products, the total balances of these
consumer deposit account products.
• Effective March 31, 2015,
institutions with $1 billion or more in
total assets that offer one or more
consumer deposit account products
would begin to report a breakdown of
their total year-to-date income from
service charges on deposit accounts that
would include the income from three
categories of service charges on these
consumer deposit accounts.
In addition, the FFIEC and the agencies
have decided not to implement at this
time the proposed annual item for the
total consolidated liabilities of an
institution’s parent depository
institution holding company that is not
a bank or savings and loan holding
company.
For the March 31, 2014, and March
31, 2015, report dates, as applicable,
institutions may provide reasonable
estimates for any new or revised Call
Report 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 Call Report data
items discussed in this proposal and the
numbering of these data items should be
regarded as preliminary.
III. Consumer Deposit Account
Balances
Schedule RC–E currently requires
institutions to report separately
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.’’ 6 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.7 However, there is
currently no reliable source from which
to calculate the amount of funds held in
consumer accounts.
6 Percentage is based on analysis of third quarter
2012 Call Report data.
7 See FDIC, 2011 FDIC National Survey of
Unbanked and Underbanked Households, at 4
(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 (Feb. 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.
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
In their February 2013 Federal
Register notice, the agencies proposed
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 explained
that more detailed Call Report data
would enhance the agencies’ and
Bureau’s abilities to monitor consumer
use of deposit accounts as transactional,
savings, and investment vehicles; assess
institutional liquidity risk; and assess
institutional funding stability.
To identify the institutions that would
be subject to these proposed new
reporting requirements, the agencies
proposed a screening question in
Schedule RC–E concerning whether an
institution offers consumer deposit
accounts, i.e., accounts intended for use
by individuals for personal, household,
or family purposes. Under this proposal,
if an institution has $1 billion or more
in total assets and responds
affirmatively to the screening question,
the institution would be subject to the
proposed new Schedule RC–E consumer
deposit account reporting requirements;
otherwise, it would not be subject to the
proposed new Schedule RC–E reporting
requirements.8 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 consumer
deposit account balance reporting
requirements.
In the February 2013 notice, the
agencies explained that they had
similarly proposed in 2010 the
disaggregation of consumer- or
individually owned deposits from those
owned by 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 too
burdensome, and the agencies withdrew
the proposal from consideration.9 The
agencies’ February 2013 proposal was
based on an alternative approach that
the agencies believed to be less
burdensome for depository institutions.
The FFIEC and the agencies further
explained that they currently believe
that most institutions maintain distinct
transaction and nontransaction savings
deposit products specifically intended
8 In general, the determination as to whether an
institution has $1 billion or more in total assets is
measured as of June 30 of the previous calendar
year. See pages 3 and 4 of the General Instructions
section of the Call Report instructions for guidance
on shifts in reporting status.
9 Agency Information Collection Activities, 76 FR
5253, 5261 (Jan. 28, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
for consumer use and that these
institutional distinctions would 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. The FFIEC and the agencies also
explained that they 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, the proposal
pertained only to non-time deposits in
domestic offices.
The FFIEC and the agencies believe
that most depository institutions with
distinct transaction and nontransaction
savings deposit product offerings have
instances in which proprietorships and
microbusinesses utilize consumer
deposit products; however, the agencies
believe that these balances would not
diminish the value of the insight gained
into the structure of institutions’
deposits.
At the same time, the FFIEC and the
agencies anticipated that certain
institutions cater almost exclusively to
non-consumer depositors, and as such,
may not maintain segment-specific
products. The agencies thus proposed to
identify these institutions by requiring
all institutions to respond to the
following 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 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 of less than $1 billion or
answering ‘‘no’’ to the question would
be exempt from these new reporting
requirements and would continue to
report deposit totals in Schedule RC–E
as they currently do.
The $1 billion threshold was
proposed to limit the incremental cost
and burden of reporting consumer
deposit account balances to institutions
whose total assets place them above the
size level commonly used to distinguish
community institutions from other
institutions. Although the proposed
threshold would exempt a substantial
percentage of institutions from reporting
their consumer deposit account
balances, data on such balances from
institutions with $1 billion or more in
total assets will still yield broad
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2513
marketplace insight. The agencies
proposed to revise Schedule RC–E (part
I) further by adding a new
Memorandum item 6 to follow the new
Memorandum item 5 screening question
described above. Specifically, new
Memorandum item 6, ‘‘Components of
total transaction account deposits of
individuals, partnerships, and
corporations,’’ 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
would need to equal Schedule RC–E,
(part I), 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 noninterest-bearing
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 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
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2514
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
(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 that responded ‘‘yes’’ to
the screening question posed in new
Memorandum item 5 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.b.
The agencies also proposed 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, (part I),
item 1, column C, as 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
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.
• 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 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).
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
also 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 this latter category
of nontransaction savings account
deposit products in Memorandum item
7.a.(2) or 7.b.(2), as appropriate. The
sum of proposed 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, would equal Schedule
RC–E, (part I), item 1, column C.
The agencies received comments from
two banks, three consumer groups, one
government agency, and five bankers’
associations on the proposal to
distinguish and report on transaction
account and nontransaction savings
account deposit balances held in
products intended for individuals for
personal, household, or family use.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Three of the bankers’ associations
submitted comments through a single
joint letter. The two banks that
commented are both well under the
proposed $1 billion asset threshold and
thus, while they would be subject to the
new screening question requirement,
these two banks would not be subject to
the proposed requirements to report
separately deposit account balances.
Generally, three of the bankers’
associations objected to the proposal
and asked that the agencies not move
forward with implementation. The two
other bankers’ associations and the two
banks sought modifications to the
proposal. The government agency and
the consumer groups all expressed
support for the proposal.
The bankers’ associations stated
general objections to the proposal based
on its focus and the role of the Bureau.
The five bankers’ associations
commented that the Call Report is to be
used to collect data related to
institutional safety and soundness only,
and not, as they viewed this proposal,
for compliance purposes. Three bankers’
associations elaborated by commenting
that they support the collection of data
related to bank condition, structure, and
risk profile. Furthermore, the three
bankers’ associations questioned what
they perceived as the Bureau’s
participation in ‘‘the proposed safety
and soundness data collection.’’ These
three bankers’ associations also
commented that data collection of this
nature should not be limited to banks
and that comparable data should also be
collected from credit unions.
The five bankers’ associations and
two banks also commented on technical
aspects of this proposal. Two of the
bankers’ associations acknowledged that
the current proposal represented an
improvement over prior proposals
submitted by the agencies to
disaggregate reporting of deposits held
by individuals from those of
partnerships and corporations.
However, one bankers’ association
commented generally that bank deposits
cannot be readily categorized as
proposed. The four other bankers’
associations commented that unclear
definitions and wording in the proposal
could result in different interpretations
and varying measurement and reporting
methodologies across the industry. More
specifically, four of the bankers’
associations asked for clarification as to
whether the proposal sought separate
reporting of deposit balances in
products intended solely for consumer
use or balances in products intended for
personal, household, or family use. The
same four bankers’ associations also
commented that many customers that
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
use products targeted to consumers are
actually sole proprietors, microbusiness
owners, and others with non-consumer
purposes and that these customers’
accounts are hard to distinguish from
those used entirely for consumer
purposes. The four bankers’ associations
further commented that ‘‘many retail
account customers migrate to [become]
business customers and vice versa’’ and
thus are difficult to classify. One bank
commented that while it offers both
business and consumer accounts, it does
not distinguish these two types of
accounts within its general ledger.
Another bank that stated that it offers
both personal and business accounts
asked whether it would need to report
balances held in these products
separately if the products share the
same account terms.
Some commenters also expressed
concern about the burden and timing of
the proposal. One of the bankers’
associations commented that this
proposal adds to institutions’ overall
regulatory burden and expressed
particular concern that ‘‘many
community banks with over $1 billion
in assets would be adversely impacted
by this proposal.’’ This bankers’
association consequently proposed that
only banks with $10 billion or more in
assets be subjected to the new
requirements. Four of the bankers’
associations commented that the
proposal would not allow sufficient
time for banks to implement changes
necessary to meet the new reporting
requirements. Three bankers’
associations proposed that the agencies
not move forward with implementation
without consulting further with their
respective community bank advisory
councils and others in the industry,
while another bankers’ association and
one bank proposed delaying
implementation until March 2014 or
later next year. The bankers’ association
that proposed delaying implementation
until March 2014 also proposed that the
agencies do so with clarification
regarding what constitutes a consumer
product and how banks should treat
balances held in consumer accounts by
sole proprietors.
The government agency and three
consumer groups, in contrast, all
supported the proposed changes. One
consumer group commented that the
proposed change would provide
important insight into how consumers
access and use deposit products and
how institutions serve consumers. Two
consumer groups commented that the
data would aid regulators in monitoring
and ensuring safety and soundness. One
consumer group proposed that the
agencies eliminate the $1 billion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
threshold and collect the proposed data
from all banks.
After considering the comments
received, the agencies propose to
implement the changes to Schedule RC–
E—including adding the proposed
screening question (Memorandum item
5), retaining the $1 billion asset
reporting requirement threshold, and
adding new Memorandum items 6 and
7—largely as proposed. However, the
agencies are now proposing to delay
implementation of these new
requirements until March 31, 2014. In
addition, as described below the
agencies would make clarifying edits to
the draft Call Report instructions for
these proposed new items to address
comments raised.
The agencies believe that as currently
proposed, the separation and collection
of consumer deposit balance data is
both appropriate for and consistent with
the purpose and history of the Call
Report. The agencies and the FFIEC
continue to believe that the data that
would be collected through the new
Schedule RC–E Memorandum items
would provide significant ongoing
insight into the over 90 percent of
reported transaction and nontransaction
savings account balances attributed to
the category of depositors that includes
‘‘individuals, partnerships, and
corporations.’’ 10 Further, as
acknowledged in legislation,11 it is
appropriate that these and other Call
Report data may serve purposes other
than safety and soundness. The agencies
and the FFIEC have long recognized that
the Call Report can include data for
safety and soundness and ‘‘other public
purposes,’’ and have interpreted ‘‘public
purposes’’ to mean public policy
purposes. See 66 FR 13368, 13370 (Mar.
5, 2001); 63 FR 9900, 9904 (Feb. 26,
1998). For example, in adding items
regarding reverse mortgages to the Call
Report, the agencies recognized that the
products were associated with ‘‘[a]
number of consumer protection related
risks,’’ as well as safety and soundness
risks, and stated that the agencies
needed to collect information ‘‘to
monitor and mitigate those risks.’’ 74 FR
68314, 68318–19 (Dec. 23, 2009).
For the same reason, the agencies and
the FFIEC disagree with the bankers’
associations’ suggestion that the Bureau
lacks authority to participate in what
they term ‘‘the proposed safety and
soundness data collection.’’ The
10 Percentage is based on analysis of third quarter
2012 Call Report data.
11 See Section 307(c) of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of
1994, Public Law 103–325, and Section 1211(c) of
the American Homeownership and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000, Public Law 106–569.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2515
agencies’ exercise of their respective
authorities to collect information is
appropriately informed by input from
the Director of the Bureau or other
FFIEC principals. Moreover, the Federal
Financial Institutions Examination
Council Act of 1978, as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Act, expressly designates
the Director of the Bureau as a member
of FFIEC, alongside the heads of the
agencies and the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) and the
Chairman of the State Liaison
Committee. See 12 U.S.C. 3303(a). The
same statute also authorizes the FFIEC,
collectively, to develop uniform
reporting systems. 12 U.S.C. 3305(c).
Similarly, the Dodd-Frank Act requires
the Bureau to ‘‘coordinate its
supervisory activities with the
supervisory activities conducted by the
prudential regulators and State bank
regulatory authorities, including
consultation regarding their respective
. . . requirements regarding reports to
be submitted’’ by large financial
institutions. 12 U.S.C. 5515(b)(2).
As for the commenters’ suggestion
that comparable data should be
collected from credit unions, the
agencies note that the Call Report of the
FFIEC and the agencies does not extend
to entities other than reporting
institutions supervised by the Board, the
FDIC, and the OCC.12
While the FFIEC and the agencies
believe that, for most institutions, the
information to be collected is readily
ascertained from existing information
systems and records, the FFIEC and the
agencies also appreciate that some
institutions may require time to make
changes to reporting systems to meet the
new requirements. As a result, the
agencies are now proposing to postpone
implementation of these requirements
from June 30, 2013, as proposed in the
February 2013 notice, until March 31,
2014.
Furthermore, the agencies would
clarify the new Schedule RC–E,
Memorandum item 5, screening
question and the associated reporting
draft instructions so that they are
worded consistently and refer to
transaction account or nontransaction
savings account ‘‘deposit products
intended primarily for individuals for
personal, household, or family use.’’
The insertion of the word ‘‘primarily’’
reflects the agencies’ appreciation that
sole proprietors and others may
occasionally use these products for
purposes other than household or
12 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).
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
2516
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
family use. The revised draft
instructions would further explain that
‘‘intended’’ may also be read as
‘‘marketed’’ or ‘‘presented to the
public.’’ As noted above and in the
February 2013 Federal Register notice,
the agencies believe that most
depository institutions with distinct
product offerings will have sole
proprietorship and microbusiness
customers that utilize consumer deposit
products; however, the amount of these
balances is believed to be only a fraction
of total industry consumer product
balances and thus would not diminish
the value of the substantial insight
gained into the structure of most
institutions’ deposits. In this regard, the
instructional clarifications would
explain that once a customer has
opened a consumer deposit product
account with an institution, the
institution is not required thereafter to
review the customer’s status or usage of
the account to determine whether the
account is being used for personal,
household, or family purposes. Thus,
when reporting the amount of consumer
deposit account balances in the
proposed new Schedule RC–E
Memorandum items, an institution is
not required to identify those individual
accounts within the population of a
particular consumer deposit product
that are not being used for personal,
household, or family purposes and
remove the balances of these accounts
from the total amount of deposit
balances held in that consumer deposit
product.
The agencies also would clarify in the
revised draft instructions that these new
reporting requirements would apply
regardless of whether an institution that
offers transaction account and
nontransaction savings account deposit
products intended primarily for
personal, household, and family use
have the same terms as other deposit
products intended for non-consumer
use.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Consumer Deposit Service Charges
Call Report Schedule RI, item 5.b,
‘‘Service charges on deposit accounts (in
domestic offices),’’ currently requires
reporting institutions to report all
revenues from service charges on
deposits in a single aggregate figure.
Service charges on deposits can include
dozens of types of fees that institutions
levy on consumers, small businesses,
large corporations, and other types of
deposit customers. Service charges on
deposits totaled more than $34 billion
for calendar year 2012 and represent a
substantial portion of industry operating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
income.13 Dependence upon service
charges on deposit accounts is generally
higher for smaller institutions (those
with less than $1 billion in assets, in
particular) and may account for 30
percent or more of such institutions’
noninterest revenues.14
However, there is currently no
comprehensive data source from which
examiners and policymakers can
estimate or evaluate the composition of
these fees and how they impact either
consumers or the earnings stability of
depository institutions. The agencies
thus proposed that institutions that offer
consumer deposit accounts itemize
three key categories of service charges
on such deposit accounts: overdraftrelated service charges on consumer
accounts, monthly maintenance charges
on consumer accounts, and consumer
ATM fees.
In proposing these new requirements,
the FFIEC and the agencies stated their
belief 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 agencies also recognized
that internal accounting and
recordkeeping practices may vary across
institutions and that disaggregating all
types of fees could be burdensome for
smaller institutions. Because the
agencies believe that overdraft-related,
monthly maintenance, and ATM fees
are of most immediate concern to
supervisors and policymakers, the
proposal called for the separation of
these consumer deposit service charges
only.
The agencies proposed to utilize
responses to the proposed Schedule RC–
E consumer deposit account screening
question described in the preceding
section to govern deposit service charge
reporting requirements. Specifically,
institutions that reported ‘‘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
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
responded ‘‘no’’ would not. The
agencies did not propose an exemption
from the proposed new Schedule RI
13 Per
analysis of 2011 and 2012 Call Report data.
analysis of 2011 Call Report data; the ratio
for all banks was 13.8 percent in 2011.
14 Per
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reporting requirements for institutions
with total assets less than $1 billion that
answer ‘‘yes’’ to the Schedule RC–E
screening question.
More specifically, the agencies
proposed 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 and mutually exclusive items
(the sum of which would need to equal
Schedule RI, item 5.b):
• 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, 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
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
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.
The agencies received comments on
the proposed changes to Schedule RI
from 17 banks, three consumer groups,
one government agency, and five
bankers’ associations. All of the banks
that submitted comments have less than
$2 billion in total assets, and 14 of the
17 banks have less than $1 billion in
total assets. Three of the bankers’
associations submitted comments
through a single joint letter. Generally,
and as with the proposal regarding
consumer deposit account balances,
three of the bankers’ associations
objected to the proposal and asked that
the agencies not move forward with
implementation of the new Schedule RI
requirements. The two other bankers’
associations and several of the banks
sought modifications to the proposal.
The government agency and the
consumer groups all expressed support
for the proposal.
As they did in response to the
agencies’ consumer deposit account
balances proposal, the bankers’
associations stated general objections to
the proposal based on its focus and the
role of the Bureau and commented that
the Call Report, in their opinion, is to
be used to collect data related to
institutional safety and soundness only.
Three bankers’ associations questioned
what they perceived as the Bureau’s
participation in a safety and soundness
data collection and commented that
data collection of this nature should not
be limited to banks.
Four of the bankers’ associations
additionally commented that the
proposed fee data may not be sufficient
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
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
to inform Bureau policy decisions
unless the data are netted against
expenses related to deposit generation.
One bankers’ association commented
that proprietary business information,
such as granular fee information, should
not be made public. Another bankers’
association commented that the current
reporting structure, combined with the
itemized fee schedules that banks
disclose today to consumers at account
opening yields sufficient insight for the
agencies’ purposes.
The bankers’ associations and banks
also commented on the technical
aspects of this proposal, and many of
them commented specifically on
challenges related to reporting fees by
depositor type. Again, as it did in
response to the agencies’ consumer
deposit account balances proposal, one
bankers’ association commented
generally that bank deposits cannot be
readily categorized as proposed.
Similarly, the four other bankers’
associations expressed concerns
regarding the definitions used to
distinguish consumer from nonconsumer accounts and implied that
difficulties in identifying consumer
deposit accounts would complicate
separation of consumer deposit account
service charges.
Eleven banks stated that they cannot
currently distinguish fees related to
consumers from those related to nonconsumers. Two of these eleven banks
stated that this difficulty pertains
uniquely to ATM fees, and two bankers’
associations similarly commented that
banks typically do not distinguish
between consumer and business ATM
fees. Three of the eleven aforementioned
banks stated that while they cannot
separate fees by depositor type, they do
have the ability to separate fee revenues
by type of fee. Another bank commented
that its general ledger system has only
one aggregated deposit fee line item for
all fee and depository types. The other
banks stated that they could not
currently implement the requirements
as proposed but offered no details
regarding which aspects of the proposal
exceeded their current capabilities. One
bankers’ association commented that
reporting of ATM fees could doublecount those currently reported in
Schedule RI, item 5.1, ‘‘Other
noninterest income.’’
Two banks and four bankers’
associations commented that mid-year
implementation of year-to-date or
retroactive reporting was particularly
troublesome and could result in
reporting institutions using different
estimation methodologies (to the extent
permitted). One bank and one bankers’
association proposed changing the
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2517
requirement so that institutions would
need only report prospective or current
quarter revenues.
One of the bankers’ associations
commented that the proposed additions
to Schedule RI would add to
institutions’ overall regulatory burden
and proposed that only banks with $10
billion or more in assets be subjected to
the new requirements. Four banks and
four bankers’ associations commented
that the proposal would not allow
sufficient time for banks to implement
changes necessary to meet the new
reporting requirements. Two bankers’
associations and one bank proposed
delaying implementation until March
2014 or later in 2014, while three
bankers’ associations proposed that the
agencies not move forward with
implementation without consulting
further with their respective advisory
committees and others in the industry.
A bankers’ association that proposed
delaying implementation until March
2014 also proposed that the agencies
eliminate the requirement to separate
ATM fees by depositor type and
implement with a clarification regarding
what constitutes a consumer product
and how banks should treat fees
associated with consumer accounts
maintained by sole proprietors.
The government agency and three
consumer groups, in contrast, all
supported the proposed changes to
Schedule RI. The agency said the new
data would aid estimation of consumer
consumption. Two consumer groups
commented that the data would aid
regulators in monitoring and ensuring
safety and soundness, and all three
consumer groups commented that the
data was important for consumer
protection, including identifying and
alleviating ‘‘abusive’’ practices. Two
consumer groups proposed that the
agencies collect these data from all
banks.
After considering the comments on
their proposal, the agencies are
proposing to proceed with
implementing changes to Schedule RI to
require institutions to distinguish
overdraft-related, periodic maintenance,
and ATM fees from other service
charges on deposit accounts as
originally proposed in the February
2013 notice. However, the agencies
would defer the effective date of these
changes until March 2015, exempt
institutions with less than $1 billion in
total assets from these new
requirements,16 and clarify the draft Call
16 As with the proposed consumer deposit
balances reporting requirement, the determination
as to whether an institution has $1 billion or more
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
Continued
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2518
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
Report instructions for these proposed
new items to address some of the
comments raised.
As is true with respect to the
modification to report consumer deposit
account balances, the FFIEC and the
agencies believe that as adopted, the
collection of disaggregated deposit
service charge data is both appropriate
for and consistent with the purpose and
history of the Call Report. In addition,
as noted earlier, the agencies believe
that it is both appropriate and consistent
with prior practice to collect data that
serves public purposes other than or in
addition to safety and soundness. Also
as discussed above, the Call Report of
the FFIEC and the agencies does not
extend to entities other than reporting
institutions supervised by the Board, the
FDIC, and the OCC.
The data collected through this
change to the Call Report would help
the agencies and the Bureau better
monitor the types of transactional costs
borne by consumers. Data specific to
consumer overdraft-related fees is
particularly pertinent for supervisors
and policymakers in part because of
concerns about the harm such fees may
impose on some depositors.
Furthermore, as explained in the
discussion of the modification to the
Call Report regarding consumer deposit
account balances, the FFIEC and the
agencies disagree with the bankers’
associations’ suggestion that the
Bureau’s participation in the FFIEC
makes this addition to the Call Report
improper.
The FFIEC and the agencies also
disagree with the suggestion that the
proposed fee data may not be sufficient
to inform policy unless the data were
netted against expenses related to
deposit generation. Schedule RI, item
5.b, currently requires reporting of
revenues only. Institutions currently
report expenses separately; the new fee
reporting requirement would not affect
the reporting of expenses.
The agencies confirmed with the
deposit platform managers for three
major core processing service providers
that the systems used by many
institutions today are already capable of
supporting the tracking and reporting of
deposit fees by fee-type and are already
capable or could be made capable of
supporting the tracking and reporting of
deposit fees by depositor-type. Still, the
FFIEC and the agencies appreciate that
some institutions may require time to
make changes to reporting systems to
in total assets generally is measured as of June 30
of the previous calendar year. See pages 3 and 4 of
the General Instructions section of the Call Report
instructions for guidance on shifts in reporting
status.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
meet the proposed new reporting
requirements and appreciate the
challenges that would be imposed if a
new year-to-date reporting requirement
were to be implemented midyear. As a
result, the agencies are proposing to
postpone implementation of these
reporting requirements from June 30,
2013, as proposed in their February
2013 Federal Register notice, until
March 31, 2015.
The agencies are also now proposing
to exempt institutions with total assets
less than $1 billion from these reporting
requirements at this time. This $1
billion threshold is proposed to limit
the incremental cost and burden of
reporting consumer deposit account
service charge income to institutions
whose total assets place them above the
size level commonly used to distinguish
community institutions from other
institutions. Although the proposed
threshold would exempt a substantial
percentage of institutions from reporting
disaggregated deposit fee data, fee data
from institutions with $1 billion or more
in total assets will still yield broad
marketplace insight and assist
examiners in assessments of the
earnings stability of these institutions.
The draft Call Report instructions for
these proposed new items would be
revised to respond to questions
generated by the proposal. Specifically,
the revised draft instructions would
clarify that this new requirement would
neither affect nor overlap with the
current instructions for Schedule RI,
item 5.l, ‘‘Other noninterest income.’’
Institutions currently report debit card
interchange income and ATM fees
collected from persons accessing
deposit accounts held by other
institutions in item 5.l and would
continue to do so. As noted in the
original proposal, only those ATM fees
assessed by the reporting institution
against its consumer deposit account
customers and currently reported in
Schedule RI, item 5.b, would be
reported in new Memorandum item
15.c. The draft instructions for
Memorandum item 15.c would be
amended to clarify that reporting
institutions should include fees they
levy on transactions conducted by
institution-maintained deposit accounts
through ATMs owned by third-party
non-bank ATM operators as well.
The agencies also acknowledge that
some institutions charge a fixed
monthly or other periodic fee on deposit
accounts that cannot be waived by
meeting a balance or other requirement.
The agencies further acknowledge that
some institutions may charge recurring
account maintenance fees on a quarterly
or other basis. Consequently, the
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agencies would modify Memorandum
item 15.b to encompass all periodic
maintenance fees, including monthly
maintenance fees. As also noted in the
original proposal, these fees should be
reported in new Memorandum item
15.b.
In addition, the instructional
clarifications described in the preceding
section of this notice on consumer
deposit account balances explaining
that an institution is not required to
review the post-opening status or usage
of an account after a customer has
opened a consumer deposit product
account with the institution also would
apply to proposed new Memorandum
item 15. Accordingly, when reporting
consumer deposit service charges, an
institution is not required to identify
those individual accounts within the
population of a particular consumer
deposit product that are not being used
for personal, household, or family
purposes and remove any service
charges levied against these accounts
from the total amounts of overdraftrelated, periodic maintenance, and
customer ATM fees charged to customer
accounts within that consumer deposit
product.
Finally, the FFIEC and the agencies
do not believe that the data that would
be collected as part of the new
Memorandum item 15 in Schedule RI
need be kept confidential. The agencies
believe that, as currently proposed,
Memorandum item 15 is consistent with
the type and level of detail captured by
a number of other existing Call Report
Schedule RI items. The agencies further
believe that the combination of the
current reporting structure and the
itemized fee schedules that institutions
disclose today does not yield the same
information and insight as would be
achieved via this new reporting
requirement as the former two items do
not provide any sense of volume by type
of fee.
V. Remittance Transfers
The agencies proposed to add a new
item 16 to Schedule RC–M, Memoranda,
to collect data regarding certain
international transfers of funds. The
new item would include multiple
choice questions directed to all
institutions regarding their participation
in the remittance transfer market and
seek additional information from those
institutions that provided more than 100
remittance transfers in the prior
calendar year or expect to provide more
than 100 remittance transfers in the
current calendar year. The additional
information would cover payment
systems, the number and dollar value of
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
transfers sent, and the use of a certain
regulatory exception.
The agencies’ proposal was related to
section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
which 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 consumer senders to designated
recipients abroad that are sent by
remittance transfer providers. To
implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s
remittance transfer requirements, the
Bureau issued rules that were set to take
effect on February 7, 2013, but were
then amended and took effect on
October 28, 2013. See 78 FR 49365
(Aug. 14, 2013); 78 FR 30662 (May 22,
2013); 77 FR 50244 (Aug. 20, 2012); 77
FR 40459 (July 10, 2012); 77 FR 6194
(Feb. 7, 2012) (collectively, ‘‘remittance
transfer rule’’).
The remittance transfer rule applies
only to entities that offer remittance
transfers in the normal course of their
business and that are thus deemed
‘‘remittance transfer providers.’’ 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. See
generally 12 CFR 1005.30(e) (defining
‘‘remittance transfer’’); 12 CFR
1005.30(f) (defining ‘‘remittance transfer
provider’’). Furthermore, section 1073 of
the Dodd-Frank Act 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
extend the exception to not longer than
10 years after enactment of the DoddFrank Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1693o–
1(a)(4)(B); see also 77 FR 6194, 6243
(Feb. 7, 2012).
In the February 2013 Federal Register
notice proposing revisions to the Call
Report, the agencies explained that the
available data regarding the transactions
and institutions covered by section 1073
of the Dodd-Frank Act are very limited.
The agencies stated that the lack of
comprehensive reliable data regarding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
remittance transfers by institutions
could restrict the agencies’ and the
Bureau’s abilities to provide supervisory
oversight and to monitor important
industry trends. For example, the
agencies acknowledged that some
industry participants and industry
associations had suggested that the
Dodd-Frank Act’s remittance transfer
requirements, as implemented through
the remittance transfer rule at that time,
might cause some institutions to change
or stop providing remittance transfer
services. Changes to remittance transfer
services could affect individual
institutions’ compliance requirements
and have an impact on the nature and
scope of services available to consumers
who want to send money abroad.
However, the FFIEC and the agencies do
not know of any comprehensive data
source that will provide information on
whether or not these changes take place.
The agencies stated that the new item
regarding remittance transfers could
facilitate monitoring of market entry and
exit, which would improve
understanding of the consumer
payments landscape generally, and
facilitate evaluation of the remittance
transfer rule’s impact. The agencies also
explained that data regarding the
services offered and systems used by
individual institutions could enable the
FFIEC and the agencies to refine
supervisory procedures and policies.
Finally, the agencies stated that the
proposed new item would help inform
any later policy decisions regarding
remittance transfers and activities
regarding remittance transfers that are
mandated by section 1073 of the DoddFrank Act.
The agencies proposed that new item
16 be introduced to Schedule RC–M in
the second quarter of 2013 but also
stated that they would consider a later
implementation date in light of a Bureau
proposal to change the effective date of
the remittance transfer rule. The
proposal was pending at the time of the
agencies’ February 2013 notice and has
since been finalized. See 78 FR 30662
(May 22, 2013); 77 FR 77188 (Dec. 31,
2012).
The agencies received six comments
on proposed item 16: two from sets of
bankers’ associations, one from a
financial holding company, and three
from consumer groups. Three bankers’
associations submitted a combined
comment letter; these same three
bankers’ associations also submitted a
second combined letter with two other
bankers’ associations. The five bankers’
associations stated that they generally
support the collection of data that
would provide information regarding
the impact of the remittance transfer
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2519
rule but suggested that some or all of
proposed item 16 is better suited to a
separate data collection. They also
proposed modifications to, and
requested delay of, the proposed new
item. Three bankers’ associations
objected to the purpose of proposed
item 16 and asked the agencies to
withdraw the proposal and engage in
further outreach, including with
community bank advisory councils. The
financial holding company also sought
delay of the new item, commented that
the proposed new item sought too much
detail, and expressed concern about the
time and resources that would be
required to change systems to report the
requested data. The consumer groups
generally supported proposed item 16
and suggested an additional subitem.
The discussion below first addresses the
general comments received about
proposed item 16. The discussion then
addresses comments specific to
proposed subitems.
Proposed Schedule RC–M, Item 16,
Generally
The five bankers’ associations agreed
with the agencies’ assessment of the
lack of available data regarding
remittance transfers and stated support
for the collection of data regarding the
impact of the remittance transfer rule.
However, the associations
recommended that such data be
collected through a separate mandatory
survey (or set of surveys). The
associations argued that a separate
collection is appropriate because the
Call Report does not apply to all
providers of remittance transfers, such
as non-depository money transmitters or
branches of foreign institutions, and
because institutions might not be able to
attest to the proposed volume, dollar
value, and temporary exception data for
some time due to the need to build new
reporting systems and test the relevant
data. The associations also argued that
quarterly collection was not necessary
to identify market trends and that less
frequent collection would suffice.
Separately, the three bankers’
associations similarly commented that
the agencies should withdraw the
proposed item because the Call Report
does not apply to all companies that
provide remittance transfers, and thus
cannot provide a complete picture of
market trends. The three associations
also expressed concern that the
proposed item 16 would
disproportionately affect banks, and
could lead to both an incomplete
picture of the market and inadequate
policies for banks. As with the proposed
collections regarding deposit balances
and fees, the three associations
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2520
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
questioned what they perceived as the
Bureau’s participation in a safety and
soundness data collection. Further,
these associations characterized
proposed item 16 as a departure from
standard Call Report practice. The
associations questioned the agencies’
authority to propose item 16 due to its
focus on consumer utilization of
payment systems and because item 16
might serve policy purposes other than
the safety and soundness of the
respondent institutions. They also
stated that non-financial data was not
appropriate for the Call Report, due to
the requirement for attestation to Call
Report submissions. They stated that the
departments that generally validate nonfinancial data may be different from
those that validate financial data.
In the combined letter from three
bankers’ associations, one association
also stated a general concern that it
might be preferable to keep confidential
reporting of finely disaggregated data.
However, while the same association
expressed in more detail its concerns
about the collection of deposit fee data,
the association did not describe any
concern particular to the proposed
collection regarding remittance
transfers. Relatedly, in suggesting
mandatory surveys separate from the
Call Report, the five bankers’
associations stated that they assumed
that data in response to such surveys
would be kept confidential, but did not
explain why such data should be kept
confidential or suggest that data fields
included in the Call Report should be
confidential.
In contrast, the three consumer groups
generally supported the proposed data
collection. One group stated that the
proposed collection would assist
regulators in their duties to identify and
address problems and encouraged data
collection from banks of all sizes.
Another consumer group stated the
proposed data would inform
supervision related to the remittance
transfer rule, aid evaluation of the
impact of the rule, and help ensure
security of transfers.
After considering the comments
received, the agencies propose to add to
Schedule RC–M a new item 16
regarding international remittance
transfers, but in response to the
comments received and as described in
more detail below, propose to narrow
the scope of the data collection, reduce
its frequency to semiannual after the
initial collection (and annual, for one
subitem), and permit estimation of the
requested figures. The new item would
be effective as of the March 31, 2014,
report date and would be collected
semiannually thereafter as of each June
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
30 and December 31. As discussed in
more detail below, the FFIEC and the
agencies continue to believe that
information regarding remittance
transfers is important to inform
activities related to the new remittance
transfer rule, for which all of the
agencies, as well as the Bureau, have
related authority (15 U.S.C. 1693o). The
data could also inform the
implementation of other Dodd-Frank
Act remittances-related mandates,
which place requirements on the
agencies (as well as other entities). See
Dodd-Frank Act sections 1073(b), (c).17
Furthermore, the FFIEC and the
agencies believe that it is particularly
important to support the Bureau’s
efforts to monitor the market regarding
remittance transfers due to the lack of
existing data and because of the
difficulty of predicting the impact of the
remittance transfer rule in a market that
has previously been subject to little
federal regulation and oversight. See
generally Dodd-Frank Act sections
1021(c)(3) and 1022(c)(1) (regarding
Bureau’s market monitoring function).
The FFIEC and the agencies also
believe that this collection is both
appropriate for and consistent with the
purpose of the Call Report. A separate,
but also mandatory, survey of banks and
savings associations could be more
burdensome for institutions than
additions to the Call Report, with which
institutions are already familiar.
Further, for the same reasons described
above, the FFIEC and the agencies
disagree with commenters’ suggestion
that the Bureau’s participation in FFIEC
makes any Call Report collection
improper. Also for the reasons described
above, it is appropriate for the Call
Report to be used to collect consumer
protection-related data. Finally, as noted
earlier, the Call Report of the FFIEC and
the agencies does not extend to entities
other than reporting institutions
supervised by the Board, the FDIC, and
the OCC.
The FFIEC and the agencies do not
share commenters’ concern that
collecting remittance transfer data
would unfairly burden reporting
institutions or could lead to policies
17 Dodd-Frank Act section 1073(b) mandates the
Board to work with the Federal Reserve Banks and
the Department of the Treasury to expand the use
of the automated clearinghouse system and other
payment mechanisms for remittance transfers. It
also requires the Board to send a related report to
Congress biennially for ten years. Section 1073(c)
directs the federal banking agencies and the NCUA
to provide guidelines to financial institutions
regarding, among other things, the offering of lowcost remittance transfers. That section also directs
the federal banking agencies, the NCUA, and the
Bureau to help in the execution of a financial
empowerment strategy as it relates to remittances.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that are inadequate. To the contrary,
they believe that additional data
regarding banks and savings
associations can only lead to
policymaking that is better informed,
given the dearth of currently available
information. Despite the importance of
the temporary exception and other
elements of the remittance transfer rule
to banks and savings associations, far
less is known about these institutions’
remittance transfer businesses than is
known about other providers of
remittance transfers, many of which
already report data similar to the
information that proposed item 16
would produce.18
The FFIEC and the agencies note that
in the non-depository segment of the
market, the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network and many states
publish online lists of non-depository
registrants or licensees engaged in
money transmission.19 A number of
state regulators also require nondepository money transmitters to submit
reports that include information on the
number and/or dollar value of money
transfers or transmissions provided.20
Additionally, the FDIC has surveyed
consumers regarding their use of nondepository companies to make certain
international transfers.21
Credit unions also report information
related to remittance transfers. Prior to
June 2013, the NCUA’s Credit Union
Profile Form had required credit unions
to indicate whether or not they offered
18 The Bureau has relied on sources of data
regarding entities other than banks and savings
associations that may be regulated by the new
remittance transfer rule. In its rulemakings to
implement section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the
Bureau cited NCUA data to estimate the number of
credit unions that offer remittance transfers, and
cited state regulator data in its discussion of how
many entities might qualify for the 100-transaction
safe harbor. See 77 FR 50244, 50252, 50279–80
(Aug. 20, 2012).
19 See, e.g., Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, MSB Registrant Search Web page, http://
www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/
msbstateselector.html.
20 See, e.g., N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs 3
§ 406.10; State of Cal. Dep’t of Business Oversight,
Call Report (July 2013), available at http://
www.dbo.ca.gov/forms/tma/callreport.asp; State of
Fla. Office of Fin. Regulation, OFR–560–04, Money
Services Business Quarterly Report Form, available
at http://www.flofr.com/staticpages/
moneytransmitters.htm; Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Prof’l
Regulation, Transmitters of Money Act (TOMA),
Statistical Data Form (updated Nov. 2012),
available at http://www.idfpr.com/DFI/CCD/ccd_
renewal_forms.asp; Tex. Dep’t of Banking, Money
Transmission License Renewal Application 2013–
2014, available at http://www.banking.state.tx.us/
forms/forms.htm# msb. Although the collected data
may not match the regulatory definition of
remittance transfers, combined with other
information regarding state-regulated entities, it
may be used to estimate the number of remittance
transfers that entities send.
21 See generally FDIC, 2011 FDIC National Survey
of Unbanked and Underbanked at 9 (2012).
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
international wires, low-cost wire
transfers, or low value cross-border
person-to-person transfers, which the
NCUA had defined as international
remittances. That form also sought
information on the systems that credit
unions used to process electronic
payments generally, as well as the
processes that members could use to
initiate wire transfers.22 In June 2013,
credit unions began reporting on the
NCUA’s 5300 Call Report form the
number of remittance transfers
originated during the year to date.23 In
September 2013, the NCUA’s Credit
Union Profile Form was revised to add
additional questions relevant to
remittance transfers. As revised, the
form continues to seek information
about the systems used to process
electronic payments and whether or not
credit unions offer international wire
transfers. The form also asks about the
processes that members can use to
initiate electronic payments generally
and seeks new information about
whether credit unions offer
international automated clearing house
(ACH) transfers, as well as whether
credit unions offer particular types of
remittance transfer services.24
The agencies recognize the concerns
expressed by some commenters about
institutions’ ability to attest to accurate
figures soon after the effective date of
the remittance transfer rule. The
agencies have delayed the proposed
implementation of the new item to
March 31, 2014, which is more than five
months after the remittance transfer rule
took effect. Furthermore, as discussed in
more detail below, the agencies would
permit reporting institutions to estimate
all figures sought by item 16. This
allowance for estimates should alleviate
concerns regarding attestation, as the
Call Report only requires attestation that
the reports ‘‘have been prepared in
conformance with the instructions’’ and
are ‘‘true and correct.’’ In other words,
institutions do not attest to the exact
accuracy of figures in cases in which the
instructions permit estimation.
The agencies further note that the
reliance on operational data should not
be a general bar to Call Report
attestation. The questions seeking
operational data are consistent with the
22 NCUA, Credit Union Profile Form and
Instructions: Second Quarter 2012 at 15, 18 (2012),
available at http://www.ncua.gov/DataApps/
Documents/PF201206.pdf.
23 NCUA, Changes to the NCUA 5300 Call Report
Effective June 2013 at 1 (2013), available at http://
www.ncua.gov/DataApps/Documents/
CRC201306.pdf.
24 NCUA, Changes to the NCUA Form 4501A—
Credit Union Profile Effective September 30, 2013,
available at http://www.ncua.gov/DataApps/
Documents/PC201309.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
existing Call Report form, which already
includes items that would likely require
institutions to draw on operational data.
These items include Schedule RI,
Memoranda item 5, regarding the
number of full-time equivalent
employees, Schedule RC–E, Memoranda
items 1.c through 1.f, regarding the
amount of brokered deposits and other
deposits obtained through deposit
listing services, and Schedule RC–L,
items 11.a and 11.b, regarding year-todate merchant credit card sales volume.
In response to the general comments
received, the FFIEC and the agencies
believe it is appropriate to continue to
propose item 16.b as annual and
generally to reduce the reporting
frequency of the three other subitems in
proposed item 16 (items 16.a, 16.c, and
16.d) from quarterly to semiannual.
Items 16.a, 16.b, 16.c, and 16.d would
all be collected as of March 31, 2014, on
an initial basis. Items 16.a, 16.c, and
16.d would be collected semiannually
thereafter as of each June 30 and
December 31. Item 16.b would be
collected annually thereafter as of each
June 30. The FFIEC and the agencies
recognize that there may be incremental
effort associated with more frequent
reporting, and agree with the bankers’
associations’ assessment that reporting
institutions are unlikely to experience
dramatic changes in their remittance
transfer offerings from quarter to
quarter.
To the extent that one bankers’
association expressed a general concern
regarding the public nature of the
proposed new data items, the agencies
do not believe the concern applies to
item 16 in Schedule RC–M in the
modified form in which the FFIEC and
the agencies now propose to implement
it. The FFIEC and the agencies believe
that the data that would be collected by
the new item 16 are sufficiently
aggregated to not present any
confidentiality concerns.
Subitems in Proposed Schedule RC–M,
Item 16
In addition to commenting on
proposed item 16, generally, the five
bankers’ associations, the financial
holding company, and one consumer
group commented on specific subitems
within proposed item 16. Each subitem
is discussed in turn below.
The agencies proposed item 16.a to
include a one-time question and an
ongoing quarterly question, both of
which asked about the types of
international transfer services the
reporting institution offered to
consumers. The proposed questions
were structured in a multiple choice
format, and the agencies sought
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2521
comment on, among other things, the
options listed. The five bankers’
associations suggested that proposed
questions only seek information
regarding transfers that satisfy the
regulatory definition of ‘‘remittance
transfer.’’ The five associations also
sought clarification of one of the
multiple choice options, services that
the agencies described as ‘‘other
proprietary services offered by the
reporting institution.’’ Furthermore, the
associations suggested eliminating the
proposed ‘‘other’’ category and
replacing it with specific options, such
as for online bill pay or prepaid card
services, for clarity. The financial
holding company suggested that the
proposed detail would be burdensome,
complex, and unnecessary.
The agencies propose to add to the
Call Report the one-time question and
the ongoing question largely as
proposed previously. However, the
ongoing question in item 16.a would be
collected as of March 31, 2014, on an
initial basis and semiannually thereafter
as of each June 30 and December 31,
rather than quarterly, as earlier
proposed. The one-time and ongoing
questions also would reflect several
modifications and clarifications that
respond to the comments received.
First, item 16.a would be narrowed to
exclude transfers that are outside the
scope of the remittance transfer rule.
The revised draft instructions would
direct institutions to focus on the
regulatory definition of remittance
transfer, as if it had been in effect during
2012, and to report only on whether
they did offer or currently offer transfers
to consumers that fall into two
categories: (a) Those that are
‘‘remittance transfers’’ as defined by
subpart B of Regulation E, or (b) those
that would qualify as ‘‘remittance
transfers’’ under subpart B of Regulation
E but that are excluded from that
definition only because the provider is
not providing those transfers in the
normal course of its business. See
generally 12 CFR 1005.30(e) (defining
‘‘remittance transfer’’); 12 CFR
1005.30(f) (defining ‘‘remittance transfer
provider’’). The draft instructions also
would clarify that institutions should
not consider transfers sent as a
correspondent bank for other providers.
Second, the agencies would modify
the options listed in the proposed onetime and ongoing questions in item 16.a.
As modified, the options would include
four of the categories proposed earlier:
International wire transfers,
international ACH transactions, other
proprietary services operated by the
reporting institution, and other
proprietary services operated by another
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2522
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
party. The revised caption and draft
instructions for item 16.a would reflect
several clarifying changes, including
that for international wire and
international ACH transactions,
institutions should only reflect services
that they offer as a provider. Similarly,
the revised caption and draft
instructions for item 16.a would clarify
that ‘‘other proprietary services operated
by the reporting institution’’ are those
services other than ACH and wire
services for which the reporting
institution is the remittance transfer
provider (rather than, for example, an
agent of another provider). The revised
caption and draft instructions for this
item would clarify that ‘‘Other
proprietary services operated by another
party,’’ in contrast, are those for which
an entity other than the reporting
institution is the provider. The reporting
institution may be an agent, or similar
type of business partner, that offers the
services to the consumer. The proposed
‘‘other’’ option would be eliminated
from item 16.a. The agencies believe
that the prepaid card and online bill pay
services that the five bankers’
associations described can be
considered ‘‘other proprietary services.’’
The agencies are proposing to add the
new item 16.a, with these modifications,
because they and the FFIEC continue to
believe that both the one-time and the
ongoing question in that subitem are
critical to assess important public policy
questions regarding participation in and
potential exit from the remittance
transfer market. In 2013, the Bureau
published amendments to the
remittance transfer rule that it stated
could reduce the chance of entities
exiting the market or reducing their
services. See 78 FR 30662, 30696–98
(May 22, 2013). Still, the FFIEC and the
agencies believe that the impact of the
remittance transfer rule on market
participation is uncertain; improved
data could inform ongoing activities as
well as monitoring by the Bureau.
At the same time, the FFIEC and the
agencies appreciate commenters’
concerns about the burden of reporting
new data. They believe that the multiple
choice structure of item 16.a minimizes
the burden that would be associated
with the one-time and ongoing
questions. The agencies expect that their
adoption of commenters’ suggestion to
narrow the scope of item 16.a would
further simplify reporting. The FFIEC
and the agencies anticipate that to
ensure compliance with the remittance
transfer rule, reporting institutions will
likely seek to identify what types of
remittance transfers they offer for
reasons other than the Call Report.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
Proposed item 16.b is an annual
screening question as to whether
reporting institutions expect to qualify
for the 100-transfer safe harbor in the
remittance transfer rule. A consumer
group suggested that the subitem, or
proposed item 16 generally, is important
to inform regulators whether or not
specific institutions are subject to the
remittance transfer rule. The agencies
agree that the subitem can be useful for
assessing the application of the 100transfer safe-harbor, for supervision and
other purposes. The FFIEC and the
agencies propose to implement the
subitem largely as proposed earlier,
asking whether the reporting institution
provided more than 100 remittance
transfers in the prior calendar year or
expects to provide more than 100
remittance transfers in the current
calendar year. Item 16.b would first be
added on the March 31, 2014, Call
Report, and then would be collected
annually as of June 30, 2014, and each
June 30 thereafter. The revised draft
instructions would clarify that if an
institution could answer ‘‘yes’’ to either
of the options described in item 16.b, it
should answer ‘‘yes’’ to the entire
question. Also, the draft instructions
would clarify that a transfer should be
counted (or included in estimates) as of
the date of the transfer, and that the
estimation method used should be
reasonable and supportable.
Additionally, the draft instructions
would clarify that institutions are only
to count transfers for which they are the
provider to the consumer. They should
not count transfers offered as a
correspondent or agent of another
provider. Finally, the instructions
would also clarify that, as with subitem
16.a, institutions are to count as
remittance transfers (a) those that are
‘‘remittance transfers’’ as defined by
subpart B of Regulation E, and (b) those
that would qualify as ‘‘remittance
transfers’’ under subpart B of Regulation
E but that are excluded from that
definition only because the provider is
not providing those transfers in the
normal course of its business. This
instruction would also be consistent
with Regulation E’s comment 30(f)–2.ii.
That comment explains that for
purposes of determining whether the
100-transfer safe harbor applies, entities
are to include any transfers excluded
from the definition of ‘‘remittance
transfer’’ due simply to the safe harbor.
Items 16.c and 16.d, as earlier
proposed, would seek additional data
from the subset of reporting institutions
that answer ‘‘yes’’ to the screening
question regarding the 100-transfer
threshold. Specifically, the two
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subitems would ask reporting
institutions about their use of certain
payment, messaging, or settlement
systems for international wire and
international ACH transactions, the two
types of transfers that the FFIEC and the
agencies believe currently account for
the great majority of remittance transfers
sent by reporting institutions. The
agencies sought comment on, among
other things, whether the listed
categories were appropriate.
No commenter addressed the
proposed categories listed in these
subitems. However, the five bankers’
associations stated that the question
could be confusing as institutions may
use several different mechanisms in
carrying out international payments,
and suggested that the questions use the
term ‘‘initiates’’ as opposed to ‘‘process’’
for clarity. One consumer group
commented that information on
settlement systems is important to
ensuring the security of international
transfers.
In recognition of institutions’ efforts
to modify their systems regarding
remittance transfers, and to minimize
the number of new remittance-related
items being added at this time, the
agencies are withdrawing the proposed
subitems regarding the use of payment,
messaging, or settlement systems. The
agencies may consider whether it is
appropriate to add these questions at
some later date.
However, the agencies propose to add
a new item 16.c to ask institutions to
identify among three of the options
listed in item 16.a.(2), which method
the institution estimates accounts for
the largest number of the institution’s
remittance transfers. The same
definitions and limitations that would
apply to item 16.a, as revised, would
apply to the new item 16.c. Only the
three methods listed in item 16.a, as
revised, for which the institution is the
provider would be covered by the
question in new item 16.c (international
wire transfers (item 16.a.(2)(a)),
international ACH transactions (item
16.a.(2)(b)), and other proprietary
services operated by the institution
(item 16.a.(2)(c))). Furthermore, only
institutions that respond ‘‘yes’’ to the
screening question in item 16.b would
be required to respond to new item 16.c.
The draft instructions would state that
institutions should use reasonable and
supportable estimation methodologies
to respond to item 16.c. The draft
instructions would also state that as
with proposed item 16.b, a transfer
should be counted (or reflected in
estimates) on the date of the transfer.
Consistent with proposed item 16.a, as
revised, item 16.c would be collected as
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
of March 31, 2014, on an initial basis
and semiannually thereafter as of each
June 30 and December 31. As revised,
the proposed subitem would generally
seek data regarding the two quarters
ending on the semiannual report date.
However, because the remittance
transfer rule only took effect on October
28, 2013, the March 31, 2014, Call
Report would seek data regarding only
the period from October 28, 2013,
through December 31, 2013.
The agencies expect that this new
question would reduce further the
burden of responding to item 16. As
explained in more detail below, this
new question would replace the serviceby-service volume data that would have
been required under item 16.e as
proposed earlier. The FFIEC and the
agencies expect that the new question
would produce relevant data, with less
effort by reporting institutions.
The final proposed item, 16.e, would
also be limited to the subset of reporting
institutions that answer ‘‘yes’’ to the
screening question. As earlier proposed,
this subitem would seek quarterly
information on the number and dollar
value of remittance transfers provided,
and the frequency with which a
reporting institution used the temporary
exception in the remittance transfer rule
for insured institutions. The agencies
proposed to collect the number, dollar
value, and temporary exception
information in categories, according to
the types of transfers that the reporting
institutions offered. Specifically, the
agencies proposed that these categories
correspond to the categories in the
proposed item 16.a questions regarding
the reporting institutions’ market
participation. The agencies sought
comment on, among other things, the
feasibility of estimating number and
dollar value figures; the date by which
institutions may be able to provide
actual figures; and the benefits or costs
of various estimation methodologies or
alternative approaches, such as
reporting of numbers of transfers within
ranges. The agencies also sought
comment on the scope of transactions to
be included in any reporting of the
number and dollar value of transfers, as
well as the inclusion of various
categories of transfers.
The five bankers’ associations asked
that reporting on the number and dollar
value of transfers and the temporary
exception be limited to transactions
provided by the reporting institutions in
their capacity as remittance transfer
providers, rather than as agents or
correspondents of other providers. The
associations stated that such a limitation
would make the proposed reporting
more manageable. They expressed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
concern that institutions acting as
correspondents or international gateway
institutions might not be able to identify
which transfers are remittance transfers.
Similarly, they expressed concern about
the difficulty of knowing whether the
temporary exception is used in
instances in which the reporting
institution is not the provider. The
associations also argued that providers,
rather than institutions acting as their
agents, are in the best position to report
the number and dollar value of their
transfers, and that requiring institutions
acting as agents to report these figures
could lead to double-counting.
The financial holding company also
addressed proposed item 16.e, regarding
the number and dollar value of
transfers, as well as the use of the
temporary exception. The company
stated that information regarding the
dollar value of transfers was
unnecessary and that requiring the data
to be reported by the type of service
provided would be costly. The company
stated that a single estimate of the
number of remittance transfers sent
would be sufficient to monitor
compliance with the remittance transfer
rule and inform any evaluation of the
100-transaction safe harbor in the
remittance transfer rule. The company
suggested that requiring additional data
might lead regional and community
banks to stop sending remittance
transfers.
The agencies are revising and
renumbering proposed item 16.e. They
propose to implement it as item 16.d,
seeking information regarding the
number and dollar value of remittance
transfers provided, as well as the use of
the temporary exception. The subitem
would be narrowed to seek only single
totals regarding the number and dollar
value of transfers, and the use of the
temporary exception, rather than figures
disaggregated by the type of transfer
provided. Furthermore, the subitem
would only seek data regarding transfers
for which the reporting institution is the
provider. In other words, it would not
seek data regarding transactions for
which a reporting institution is a
correspondent bank or agent, and
another entity is the provider. The draft
instructions would be revised to state
that, similar to the other elements of
item 16, item 16.d would seek
information only about transfers that (a)
are ‘‘remittance transfers’’ as defined by
subpart B of Regulation E, or (b) would
qualify as ‘‘remittance transfers’’ under
subpart B of Regulation E but that are
excluded from that definition only
because the provider is not providing
those transfers in the normal course of
its business. The draft instructions
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2523
would also state that as with proposed
item 16.b, a transfer should be counted
(or reflected in estimates) on the date of
the transfer.
Proposed item 16.d would also be
revised to permit responding
institutions to estimate reported
amounts. The draft instructions would
clarify that reporting institutions should
use reasonable and supportable methods
to provide such estimates. Finally,
consistent with proposed items 16.a and
16.c, as revised, proposed item 16.d
would be collected as of March 31,
2014, on an initial basis and
semiannually thereafter as of each June
30 and December 31 and generally
would seek data regarding the two
quarters ending on the semiannual
report date. However, because the
remittance transfer rule only took effect
on October 28, 2013, the March 31,
2014, Call Report would seek data
regarding only the period from October
28, 2013, through December 31, 2013.
The FFIEC and the agencies are
proposing to implement item 16.d, as
revised, because they continue to
believe that the data regarding the
number and dollar value of remittance
transfers and the use of the temporary
exception would assist in their
supervisory responsibilities for their
institutions that conduct these
transactions and serve important public
purposes. Currently, there is no data
from which the agencies or the Bureau
can estimate, with any reasonable
degree of confidence, the portion of the
remittance transfer market covered by
banks and savings associations,
collectively or individually. Nor do they
know about the participation of
reporting institutions in various
segments of the market, such as the
segment of very large wire transfers and
those of more modest sizes. The new
information would significantly
improve the ability of the agencies and
the FFIEC to understand these basic
characteristics of the market. Improved
basic data can, in turn, help the agencies
(as well as the Bureau) appropriately
design ongoing activities regarding
remittance transfers, including those
mandated under section 1073 of the
Dodd-Frank Act. As the agencies
explained in the February 2013 Federal
Register notice, data regarding the
number of institutions’ remittance
transfers can also contribute to
monitoring of the Bureau’s 100-transfer
safe harbor.25
25 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 (Aug.
20, 2012). Thus, the number of transfers used as the
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
Continued
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2524
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
The agencies also believe data
regarding insured institutions’ activities
in the remittances market may inform
any later analysis related to the
remittance rule’s temporary exception
for these institutions.
In addition, the agencies are
narrowing item 16.d to seek only total
figures in response to the comments
received and to limit the burden on
reporting institutions. The agencies
recognize that if remittance transfer
reporting systems are still developing, a
requirement to report disaggregated data
may be burdensome. The agencies
believe that the question in new item
16.c, regarding the principal method of
international transfers, would ensure
that the agencies have some information
about the relative concentration or share
of different types of remittance transfer
services. At the same time, the
indication of a principal method would
require less of reporting institutions
than the proposed disaggregation of
volume figures.
The other changes to proposed item
16.d are motivated by similar concerns.
The agencies propose to revise the
subitem to seek only figures regarding
transfers for which the reporting
institution is the provider in order to
reduce confusion among reporting
institutions and for consistency among
the various parts of new item 16 in
Schedule RC–M. The agencies did not
originally intend to seek data regarding
transfers provided by reporting
institutions acting as correspondents for
other providers. As revised, the item
would also not require reporting
regarding transfers provided as an agent
of another provider, such as a statelicensed money transmitter.
Similarly, the FFIEC and the agencies
believe that it is appropriate to permit
reporting institutions to estimate the
figures provided in response to item
16.d in light of the newness of the
remittance transfer rule and the
possibility that institutions may be
continuing to develop their reporting
systems. This allowance for estimation
is consistent with other elements of the
Call Report (such as Schedule RC–E,
Memorandum item 1.f, and Schedule
RC–O, Memorandum item 2, which are
described as seeking estimates, and
Schedule RC–C, part II, for which the
instructions describe circumstances in
which estimates can be used). Even if
there were no requirement to report
information on remittance transfers in
the Call Report, the FFIEC and the
basis for responding to the question in new item
16.b would reflect the safe harbor threshold in
effect on the report date and, accordingly, would be
revised in response to any change the Bureau were
to make to the safe harbor threshold.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
agencies expect that to implement the
requirements of the remittance transfer
rule itself, reporting institutions will
generally develop methods to
distinguish remittance transfers from
their other international transactions,
such as corporate wires. These methods
may include describing remittance
transfers as such in the payment
messages used to send them, or
designating remittance transfers as such
in the software that an institution uses
to process them, in order to ensure
proper handling in accordance with the
rule. As a result, the FFIEC and the
agencies believe that by March 31, 2014,
institutions will have available, or will
be able to develop with limited effort,
reasonable and supportable mechanisms
to estimate the number and dollar value
of remittance transfers provided. These
estimation mechanisms may be varied.
For example, reporting institutions
whose software systems automatically
count the number of remittance
disclosures provided could run reports
from those sources. Other reporting
institutions might, for example, sample
the transfers provided during a
representative month. If an institution’s
use of the temporary exception is based
on the destination country for a transfer,
the institution could base its estimates
regarding use of that exception on the
frequency with which it sends
consumer transfers to certain countries.
Alternatively, if reporting institutions
charge their customers identifiable and
consistent fees for remittance transfers,
they might identify remittance transfers
by generating fee reports for accounts
they estimate would send remittance
transfers.
The agencies would not require
estimation to two significant digits, as
was earlier proposed, in order to
provide reporting institutions additional
flexibility. As a result, for example:
Though the report form would provide
a space for institutions to report the
dollar volume of transfers provided in
thousands of dollars, institutions that
provide millions of dollars of remittance
transfers would only need to estimate
the volume in millions of dollars. The
FFIEC and the agencies believe that as
such, the estimation requirement would
also be less burdensome on reporting
institutions than the other alternative
suggested in the February 2013 Federal
Register notice: To report the number
and dollar value of remittance transfers
within ranges. Identifying an applicable
range could require a reporting
institution to know the actual number
and dollar value of remittances
provided with greater accuracy than
would be required for estimation.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Furthermore, the FFIEC and the
agencies do not yet have enough
information about the range of volumes
provided by reporting institutions to
gauge appropriate ranges. The FFIEC
and the agencies will continue to
monitor, over time, the development of
mechanisms to count the number of
remittance transfers, as well as the
quality of the estimates reported, to
understand whether more accurate
figures may be possible and needed at
some later date.
One consumer group suggested
adding a new item regarding the number
of remittance transfers that do not reach
designated recipients. The group
explained its concern that remittance
transfer providers are in a better place
than consumers to bear any loss
associated with such transfers, and that
the remittance transfer rule
inappropriately requires consumers to
bear these losses in certain
circumstances.
The agencies are not adopting the
suggested new item. The FFIEC and the
agencies appreciate that the treatment of
misdirected transfers is an important
aspect of the Bureau’s remittance
transfer rule. See generally 78 FR 30662,
30682–87 (May 22, 2013). However, the
FFIEC and the agencies do not believe
that reporting institutions can
necessarily know with certainty how
often a remittance transfer does not, in
fact, reach the designated recipient; at
most the reporting institutions will
know how often they receive claims of
such misdirection and the results of
their investigations with respect to such
claims. Given this, the FFIEC and the
agencies do not believe that it is
appropriate to use the Call Report to
collect data with respect to this issue at
this time.
The agencies proposed to add new
item 16 to Call Report Schedule RC–M
in the second quarter of 2013. The
bankers’ associations and financial
holding company suggested that some
or all of proposed item 16 be delayed,
due to the time needed to create
reporting mechanisms and the
uncertainty about the effective date of
the remittance transfer rule, which was
not set at the time when comments were
submitted. The five bankers’
associations suggested that any
reporting regarding the number and
dollar value of remittance transfers, as
well as use of the temporary exception,
be added to the Call Report at least three
quarters after the effective date of the
remittance transfer rule. The
associations further suggested that
comments regarding these aspects of the
proposed data collection be accepted
until two quarters after that effective
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
date. Similarly, the three bankers’
associations, writing before the new
effective date for the remittance rule
was announced by the Bureau, stated
that because they expected final rules
would be released close to June 30,
2013, institutions would be unable to
comply with the proposed new
requirements by June 30, 2013. The
financial holding company suggested
that proposed item 16 be delayed until
late 2013.
As mentioned above, the agencies
propose to add item 16 to Call Report
Schedule RC–M on March 31, 2014.
After the end of the period to comment
on the agencies’ February 2013 notice,
the Bureau finalized pending
amendments to the remittance transfer
rule and designated October 28, 2013, as
the rule’s effective date. See 78 FR
30662 (May 22, 2013). The FFIEC and
the agencies acknowledge that the
initial reporting date of March 31, 2014,
is less than the five associations’
suggested three quarters after the
remittance transfer rule’s effective date.
However, the FFIEC and the agencies do
not believe it is appropriate to delay the
implementation of item 16 any further.
The agencies’ obligations and
authorities regarding remittance
transfers have already begun. The FFIEC
and the agencies anticipate that the
changes reflected in proposed item 16,
as described in this notice, would
significantly reduce any difficulty
associated with responding to the new
questions such that initial reporting by
institutions as of March 31, 2014, would
be both reasonable and feasible.
VI. Depository Institution Trade Names
In the February 2013 Federal Register
notice, the agencies proposed to
supplement the reporting of the
Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of each
institution’s primary Internet Web site
address, which has been collected for
more than ten years in item 8 of Call
Report Schedule RC–M, Memoranda, by
having the institution report any other
trade names it uses. More specifically,
the agencies proposed to add text fields
to this Schedule RC–M item in which an
institution that uses one or more trade
names to identify branch offices and
Internet Web sites would report all trade
names (other than its legal title) used by
these physical locations and the URLs
for all public-facing Web site addresses
affiliated with the institution.
This reporting proposal addressed the
agencies’ recognition that, although
there may be valid business reasons for
an FDIC-insured institution to operate
under one or more trade names, this
practice can confuse customers as to the
insured status of the institution as well
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 affiliated with the same
FDIC-insured depository institution and
thus subject to a single deposit
insurance limit. 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 publicly
available Institution Directory or
BankFind systems.
The agencies’ Interagency Statement
on Branch Names, issued in 1998,
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.’’ 26 However, this guidance 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.
As the agency that insures deposits in
banks and savings associations, 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. The
FDIC has 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
at present 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 resource for
depositors and the public concerning
the insured status of a physical branch
office that uses a trade name rather than
26 http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/
1998/fil9846b.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2525
the legal name of an insured institution
or an Internet Web site address other
than the institution’s primary address.
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.
In the absence of complete and
current information on trade names
used by depository institutions, the
agencies proposed that an institution
using one or more trade names to
identify Internet Web sites and branch
offices should report the URLs for all
public-facing Web sites affiliated with
the institution in new item 8.b of
Schedule RC–M and all trade names
(other than its legal title) used by these
physical locations in new item 8.c.27
The agencies received comments from
three bankers’ associations on the
proposed collection of institutions’
trade names. In their joint comment
letter, the associations ‘‘urge[d] the
Agencies to take this structural as
opposed to financial data out of the Call
Report.’’ While acknowledging this
request, the FDIC believes the Call
Report currently represents the most
comprehensive, efficient, and uniform
manner in which to gather information
from depository institutions on the trade
names they use.28 Creating a separate
reporting process or mechanism for
such structural data outside the Call
Report under which, for example, trade
name information should be reported
when the use of a new name is initiated
may not necessarily generate a
comprehensive database of names and
may tend to be overlooked or result in
delayed submissions by institutions that
infrequently initiate the use of a new
name. The FDIC’s Summary of Deposits
(OMB No. 3064–0061) is an annual
survey that contains structural data, but
adding a trade name reporting
requirement to this survey would result
in less timely information than would
be achieved through the use of the
quarterly Call Report for the collection
of trade names. Moreover, as previously
mentioned, insured depository
institutions already provide structural
27 Existing item 8 of Schedule RC–M, ‘‘Primary
Internet Web site address of the bank (home page),
if any,’’ would be renumbered as item 8.a.
28 The OCC’s regulation for bank operating
subsidiaries, 12 CFR 5.34(e)(7)(ii)(B), requires a
depository institution to submit annually a report
including any trade names used by that operating
subsidiary, which are then posted in a publicly
accessible database at www.helpwithmybank.gov.
The OCC’s collection is unaffected by this proposal,
as operating subsidiaries may or may not solicit
deposits.
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2526
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
data in the Call Report because they
have long reported their primary
Internet Web site address in the Call
Report.
The associations also noted that the
proposed trade name ‘‘information may
benefit some customers but will also
provide more detailed information to
criminals (e.g. phishers).’’ However, the
collection of all of an insured depository
institution’s trade names, including
names used on physical locations and in
Internet Web site addresses, and the
publication of this information by the
FDIC should hinder criminal activity
since depositors as well as the general
public would be able to readily identify
the legitimate names used by an insured
depository institution.
For example, assume an FDIC-insured
depository institution uses trade names
in two separate Internet Web site
addresses, both of which have been
reported to the agencies in its Call
Report. If a phisher established a Web
site using a variation of one of the
institution’s two trade names and
attempted to link this fraudulent and
fictitious entity with the institution, a
customer could confirm with the FDIC
that the variation of the trade name is
not legitimately associated with the
institution. Therefore, assuming insured
depository institutions that solicit
deposits have reported the trade names
they use on branch offices and in
Internet Web site addresses, if a phisher
uses a name that is not readily available
by searching the FDIC’s publicly
available database, a depositor could
more easily discern between legitimate
and fraudulent offers.
The associations further observed that
‘‘[p]roviding more detail about Web site
addresses used by a depository
institution as well as trade names used
to identify physical branch offices may
address concerns regarding the
completeness of information available to
the FDIC as well as the public.’’
However, they then expressed concern
that ‘‘the quarterly collection of this
information will be insufficient to
eliminate the lag in identifying new
information.’’ The collection of Web site
addresses and trade names used by
insured depository institutions is
intended to address concerns raised by
depositors and customers regarding the
status of entities purporting to be
insured by the FDIC. Furthermore,
collecting this information quarterly
through the Call Report is an
improvement over the current system
where information regarding trade
names and Internet Web site addresses
is not collected at all or is done in an
ad hoc manner. Nevertheless, absent a
requirement for an insured depository
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
institution to report immediately to its
primary federal regulator or the FDIC
any new trade name or Internet Web site
address to be used in connection with
soliciting deposits, the agencies
acknowledge that will not eliminate the
lag in public access to newly
inaugurated trade names and Web site
addresses.29 Standardizing the
collection of all names and Web sites
used by insured depository institutions
in the solicitation of deposits is
consistent with one of the primary goals
of the FDIC: providing accurate and
complete information to depositors and
the general public on the insured status
of entities identifying themselves as
FDIC-insured depository institutions.
Thus, public availability of trade names
and Internet Web site addresses should
tend to benefit insured depository
institutions because, for example, a
potential depositor who visits a Web
site of an entity that purports to be an
FDIC-insured institution, but cannot
readily confirm the legitimacy of the
Web site address from the FDIC’s
publicly available Institution Directory
or BankFind systems, may decide not to
deposit funds at that institution.
Finally, the associations responded to
the request the agencies made in the
February 2013 Federal Register notice
asking for comment on the clarity of the
circumstances in which institutions
would report Internet Web site
addresses and trade names in proposed
new items 8.b and 8.c of Schedule RC–
M. They noted that some institutions
have numerous subsidiaries and nonbank affiliates and questioned whether
the trade names used by these entities’
physical offices and Web sites should be
reported in Schedule RC–M. From the
agencies’ perspective, the primary
reason for the proposed trade name data
collection is to ensure that accurate
information is available to consumers
who deposit funds at FDIC-insured
depository institutions. Without this
information available to the FDIC, when
a depositor contacts the FDIC, the FDIC
cannot confirm whether a particular
trade name used for a branch office or
an Internet Web site address is
associated with a particular insured
depository institution. Accordingly, the
trade name information an insured
depository institution reports in
Schedule RC–M, item 8, should cover
all names, other than the institution’s
legal name, of physical locations and
the URLs for all public-facing Internet
29 As an interim measure before filing its next Call
Report, an institution could choose to notify the
FDIC of a newly inaugurated trade name or Internet
Web site address, which would assist the FDIC in
responding to inquiries from depositors and the
public.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Web sites that the institution uses to
accept or solicit deposits from the
public. Thus, trade names used by
physical offices of an institution and
URLs of its own Internet Web sites that
do not accept or solicit deposits from
the public should not be reported in
Schedule RC–M. The institution also
should not report the physical office
trade names or Internet Web site
addresses of any non-bank affiliates or
subsidiaries that do not accept or solicit
deposits from the public on behalf of the
institution.
After considering the comments
received, the agencies plan to
implement the proposed Schedule RC–
M items on trade names and Internet
Web site addresses effective March 31,
2014, but with revisions to the draft
instructions to address the associations’
comments about the clarity of the
reporting requirements. In this regard,
when reporting the URLs for an
institution’s public-facing Web sites
used to accept or solicit deposits, only
the highest level URLs should be
reported. In addition, when an
institution uses multiple top level
domain names (e.g., .com, .net, and
.biz), it should separately report URLs
that are otherwise the same except for
the top level domain name.
For example, an institution with a
legal title of XYZ Bank currently reports
in the Call Report that its primary
Internet Web site address is
www.xyzbank.com. The bank also
solicits deposits using the Web site
address ‘‘www.safeandsoundbank.com’’
and provides more specific deposit
information at
‘‘www.safeandsoundbank.com/
checking’’ and
‘‘www.safeandsoundbank.com/CDs.’’
Only the first of these three URLs would
be reported in proposed item 8.b of
Schedule RC–M. Continuing with this
example, XYZ Bank also uses the Web
site address ‘‘www.xyzbank.biz’’ in the
solicitation of deposits and it would
report this URL in proposed item 8.b.30
Finally, XYZ Bank operates a Web site
for which the address is
‘‘www.xyzautoloans.com.’’ This Web
site does not accept or solicit deposits
and its URL would not be reported in
proposed item 8.b.
XYZ Bank operates one or more
branch offices under the trade name of
30 XYZ Bank does not use the Web site address
‘‘www.xyzbank.net.’’ If a phisher were to create a
fictitious Web site to obtain funds from the public
using this URL, the fraudulent URL would not be
included in the FDIC’s database, thereby indicating
to depositors and the public that
‘‘www.xyzbank.net’’ may not be a legitimate
deposit-soliciting Web site for an insured
depository institution.
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2014 / Notices
‘‘Community Bank of ABC’’ (as
identified by the signage displayed on
the facility) where it accepts deposits.
XYZ Bank would report this trade name
(and any other trade names it uses at
other office locations where it accepts or
solicits deposits) in proposed item 8.c of
Schedule RC–M. XYZ Bank also has a
loan production office and a mortgage
lending subsidiary that operate under
the trade names of ‘‘XYZ Consumer
Loans’’ and ‘‘XYZ Mortgage Company,’’
respectively, neither of which accepts or
solicits deposits. Thus, neither of these
two trade names would be reported in
proposed item 8.c.
VII. Total Liabilities of an Institution’s
Parent Depository Institution Holding
Company That Is Not a Bank or Savings
and Loan Holding Company
In the February 2013 Federal Register
notice, the agencies proposed to collect
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 this proposed
data item, such an 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 Act. Two
banking organizations, one bankers’
association, and one life insurers’
association submitted comments on the
proposed reporting of holding company
total liabilities. After consideration of
the comments received, the agencies
have determined not to pursue
implementation of this proposed item at
this time.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Request for Comment
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jan 13, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
Stuart Feldstein,
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities
Division, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, January 6, 2014.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 24th day of
December 2013.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–00481 Filed 1–13–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Joint 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: Notice of information collection
to be submitted to OMB for review and
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
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
required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. On August 12,
2013, the agencies, under the auspices
of the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council (FFIEC), requested
public comment for 60 days on
proposed revisions to the regulatory
capital components and ratios portion of
Schedule RC–R, Regulatory Capital, in
the Consolidated Reports of Condition
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2527
and Income (Call Report or FFIEC 031
and FFIEC 041) and to the Regulatory
Capital Reporting for Institutions
Subject to the Advanced Capital
Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101). The
proposed revisions to the Call Report
and the FFIEC 101 are reflective of the
revised regulatory capital rules issued
by the agencies in July 2013 (revised
regulatory capital rules).
After considering the comments
received on the proposed revisions, the
FFIEC and the agencies will proceed
with the proposed reporting revisions
with some modifications as described in
sections II and III of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below. The
proposed revisions to the FFIEC 101
and, if applicable, Call Report Schedule
RC–R would be effective March 31,
2014, for institutions subject to the
advanced approaches risk-based capital
rule (advanced approaches institutions)
that are not savings and loan holding
companies. Advanced approaches
institutions that are savings and loan
holding companies subject to the
revised regulatory capital rules would
begin reporting the revised FFIEC 101
effective March 31, 2015. All other
institutions that are required to file the
Call Report would begin reporting the
revised Call Report Schedule RC–R
effective March 31, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before February 13, 2014.
ADDRESSES: 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: Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC, area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments by
email if possible. Comments may be
sent to: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Attention:
1557–0081 and 1557–0239, 400 7th
Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop
9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In
addition, comments may be sent by fax
to (571) 465–4326 or 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.
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2014-01-14 |
| File Created | 2014-01-14 |