[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2509-2527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00481]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AGENCY: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2510]]
SUMMARY: 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.
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 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 [email protected].
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC
requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may
do so by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be
required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to
submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy
comments.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record and subject to public
disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or
supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate
for public disclosure.
Board: You may submit comments, which should refer to
``Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (FFIEC 031 and 041),''
by any of the following methods:
Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include reporting
form number in the subject line of the message.
FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted,
unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public
comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500
of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets NW.) between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
FDIC: You may submit comments, which should refer to ``Consolidated
Reports of Condition and Income, 3064-0052,'' by any of the following
methods:
Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments
on the FDIC Web site.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include ``Consolidated Reports
of Condition and Income, 3064-0052'' in the subject line of the
message.
Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, Attn: Comments, Room NYA-
5046, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F
Street) on business days between 7:00 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)
[[Page 2511]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 for-profit.
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
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.
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 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 78 FR 12141-12154, Feb. 21, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 2512]]
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, Public Law 111-203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 78 FR 30924-30925, May 23, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[cir] 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\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ One question would be posed annually as of June 30 rather
than semiannually after it is posed initially as of March 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] 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
[cir] 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Percentage is based on analysis of third quarter 2012 Call
Report data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2513]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Agency Information Collection Activities, 76 FR 5253, 5261
(Jan. 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FFIEC and the agencies further explained that they currently
believe that most institutions maintain distinct transaction and
nontransaction savings deposit products specifically intended 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 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 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.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
[[Page 2514]]
(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 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.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. 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
[[Page 2515]]
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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 2516]]
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.
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
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Per analysis of 2011 and 2012 Call Report data.
\14\ Per analysis of 2011 Call Report data; the ratio for all
banks was 13.8 percent in 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: overdraft-
related 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 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
[[Page 2517]]
conducted through the use of ATMs or RSUs owned, operated, or branded
by the reporting institution.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 non-consumer 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 non-consumers. 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 double-
count 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 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
[[Page 2518]]
Report instructions for these proposed new items to address some of the
comments raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As with the proposed consumer deposit balances reporting
requirement, the determination as to whether an institution has $1
billion or more 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
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 overdraft-
related, 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
[[Page 2519]]
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
Dodd-Frank 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 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 Dodd-Frank 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 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
[[Page 2520]]
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 non-financial 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 low-cost 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
non-depository 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 non-depository companies to make
certain international transfers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Sec. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 2521]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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-to-date 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 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 one-time 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
[[Page 2522]]
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.
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 100-transfer 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 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
[[Page 2523]]
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 service-by-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 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 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2524]]
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 state-licensed 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 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.
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
[[Page 2525]]
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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/1998/fil9846b.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 2526]]
data in the Call Report because they have long reported their primary
Internet Web site address in the Call Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-bank 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XYZ Bank operates one or more branch offices under the trade name
of
[[Page 2527]]
``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.
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 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