Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment Request, 2509-2527 [2014-00481]

Agencies

• FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
• FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2509-2527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. 
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC 
requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may 
do so by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be 
required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to 
submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy 
comments.
    All comments received, including attachments and other supporting 
materials, are part of the public record and subject to public 
disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or 
supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate 
for public disclosure.
    Board: You may submit comments, which should refer to 
``Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (FFIEC 031 and 041),'' 
by any of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: https://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include reporting 
form number in the subject line of the message.
     FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
     Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at 
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: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 
on the FDIC Web site.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: comments@FDIC.gov. 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 https://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 
submission@omb.eop.gov.

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 (https://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 https://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 https://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, https://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 https://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 https://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 https://www.idfpr.com/DFI/CCD/ccd_renewal_forms.asp; Tex. Dep't of Banking, Money Transmission 
License Renewal Application 2013-2014, available at https://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 https://www.ncua.gov/DataApps/Documents/PF201206.pdf.
    \23\ NCUA, Changes to the NCUA 5300 Call Report Effective June 
2013 at 1 (2013), available at https://www.ncua.gov/DataApps/Documents/CRC201306.pdf.
    \24\ NCUA, Changes to the NCUA Form 4501A--Credit Union Profile 
Effective September 30, 2013, available at https://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\ https://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