[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17821-17825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8204]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 8

[Docket No. 01-05]
RIN 1557-AB90


Assessment of Fees; National Banks; District of Columbia Banks

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) proposes 
to amend the formula it uses to assess independent credit card banks. A 
national bank is considered independent for purposes of this proposal 
if it engages primarily in credit card operations and is not affiliated 
with a full-service national bank. Under the revised assessment 
structure, all credit card banks would continue to be assessed based on 
balance sheet assets. Independent credit card banks would pay an 
additional assessment component based on the ``receivables 
attributable'' to credit card accounts owned by the bank. This 
additional assessment is intended to result in payment by these banks 
of a more appropriate share of the OCC's expenses than under the 
current book-asset assessment structure.
    The OCC also proposes to raise the surcharge for all institutions 
with composite ratings of 3, 4, or 5 under the Uniform Financial 
Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) (also referred to as the CAMELS 
rating) and for Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks that 
receive a composite rating of 3, 4, or 5 under the ROCA rating system. 
This amendment will enable the OCC to allocate more equitably the 
expenses we incur in supervising institutions that are experiencing 
significant problems, which necessitate more extensive utilization of 
OCC resources. The ratings-based surcharge will apply to both the 
asset-based assessments and the independent credit card bank 
assessments. The proposal also applies the ratings-based surcharge to 
the independent trust bank assessment.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to, and may be inspected and 
copied at: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mailstop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219, 
Attention: Docket No. 01-05. In addition, comments may be sent via 
facsimile at (202) 874-4448 or via Internet at 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitchell E. Plave, Senior Attorney, 
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 874-5090; or 
Daniel L. Pearson, National Bank Examiner, Credit Risk, (202) 874-5170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises approximately 2,200 
national banks and 58 Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in 
the United States, accounting for nearly 60 percent of the nation's 
banking assets. Our mission is to ensure a safe, sound, and competitive 
national banking system that supports the citizens, communities, and 
economy of the United States.
    The OCC funds the activities it undertakes to carry out this 
mission predominantly through assessments on institutions we regulate. 
The National Bank Act authorizes the OCC to collect assessments, fees, 
or other charges as necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
responsibilities of the OCC. 12 U.S.C. 482 (Supp. 1999). The statute 
requires that our charges be set to meet the Comptroller's expenses in 
carrying out authorized activities. Id. The OCC, under part 8, 
currently assesses national banks and Federal branches and agencies 
according to a formula based on factors such as a bank's size and 
condition and whether it is the ``lead'' bank or ``non-lead'' bank 
among national banks in a holding company.\1\ The OCC also imposes an 
additional assessment on independent trust banks based on the amount of 
trust assets they manage.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``lead bank'' is the largest national bank controlled by a 
company, based on a comparison of the total assets held by each 
national bank controlled by that company as reported in each bank's 
most recent Consolidated Report of Condition (Including Domestic and 
Foreign Subsidiaries) (Call Report). 12 CFR 8.2(a)(6)(ii)(A).
    \2\ 65 FR 75859 (December 5, 2000), to be codified at 12 CFR 
8.6(c). An ``independent trust bank'' for purposes of Sec. 8.6 is a 
national bank that (a) has trust powers, (b) does not primarily 
offer full-service banking, and (c) is not affiliated with a full-
service national bank. A bank will be considered as not primarily 
offering full-service banking if it derives more than 50 percent of 
its interest and non-interest income from credit card operations or 
trust activities, or the terms of the bank's charter restrict its 
ability to engage in a full range of permissible banking activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independent Credit Card Banks

    The OCC's assessment regulations do not currently distinguish 
independent credit card banks chartered by the OCC from other national 
banks. As a result, independent credit card banks pay assessments 
according to the same formula that applies to full-service national 
banks. That formula is comprised of a fixed component based solely on a 
bank's asset size plus a variable component derived by multiplying 
asset amounts in excess of certain thresholds by a series of declining 
marginal rates.\3\ The assessment amount that results from this 
computation may then be adjusted based on a bank's condition and on 
whether it is a ``lead bank'' or a ``non-lead bank.'' The amount of 
assets on a bank's balance sheet is, however, the most significant 
component of the current assessment computation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The assessment formula is set out at 12 CFR 8.2. The 
elements of the formula, including the marginal rates, may change 
from year to year and are announced in the OCC's annual ``Notice of 
Comptroller of the Currency Fees'' (Notice of Fees). See 12 CFR 8.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The magnitude and complexity of the business of independent credit 
card banks is not fully reflected by the volume of assets reported on 
their balance sheets as of a particular date. For example, in order to 
comply with restrictions governing affiliate transactions, most private 
label credit card banks sell their receivables within twenty-four hours 
of their production. Other independent credit card banks regularly 
securitize substantial amounts of their receivables. A credit card 
bank's balance sheet, therefore, is not, by itself, a useful measure of 
the resources the OCC must expend to supervise this type of bank, nor 
is it a fair measure of the

[[Page 17822]]

value of the national bank charter to the enterprise. As a result, the 
assessments the OCC currently applies to these banks do not represent 
the banks' fair share of the OCC's overall expenses. In contrast, 
credit card banks that are affiliated with full-service national banks 
typically already pay their fair share of the OCC's expenses when the 
organization is viewed as a whole. The OCC not only collects the book-
asset based assessment from both the full-service and the credit card 
bank, but we also achieve efficiencies resulting from the coordinated 
supervision of the affiliated banks. The proposal would amend the OCC's 
assessment regulation to revise the formula for independent credit card 
banks to better align our assessment structure for these banks with the 
extent of the OCC's responsibilities and activities attributable to 
those banks.

Institutions With Composite Ratings of 3, 4, or 5 Under UFIRS or ROCA

    The OCC adds a surcharge to the asset-based assessment for national 
banks and Federal branches and agencies that have composite ratings of 
3, 4, or 5 under UFIRS (also referred to as the CAMELS rating) \4\ or 
ROCA \5\, as appropriate. This surcharge reflects the greater 
supervisory resources demanded by the circumstances of these lower-
rated institutions. The OCC's experience since 1997, when we introduced 
the surcharge,\6\ has shown that the current surcharge for these 
institutions does not adequately compensate the OCC for the additional 
demands on its resources given the substantial level of supervision 
these banks warrant. Therefore, the OCC proposes to raise the 
surcharge, commensurate with supervisory demands. The proposal 
differentiates between banks with UFIRS or ROCA ratings of 3 from those 
with ratings of 4 or 5, based on the comparative demands these 
institutions make on the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAMELS is an acronym that stands for capital, assets, 
management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.
    \5\ The ROCA rating system rates risk management, operational 
controls, compliance, and asset quality.
    \6\ See 62 FR 64135 (December 4, 1997); 12 CFR 8.2(a)(7); 12 CFR 
8.2(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of the Proposal and Request for Comment

Independent Credit Card Bank Assessment

    The proposal would amend 12 CFR 8.2 by adding a new paragraph (c) 
that increases assessments on independent credit card banks by adding 
an off-balance sheet ``receivables attributable'' component to the 
assessment structure for these banks. For purposes of this proposal, 
``independent credit card banks'' are banks that primarily engage in 
credit card operations and are not affiliated with a full-service 
national bank.\7\ A bank will be considered ``primarily engaged in 
credit card operations'' if it is a bank described in section 
2(c)(2)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act (a so-called ``CEBA credit 
card bank''),\8\ or if the ratio of its total gross receivables 
attributable to the bank's balance sheet assets exceeds 50%. A bank is 
a ``full-service national bank'' for purposes of this rule if more than 
50% of its interest and non-interest income is generated by activities 
other than credit card operations or trust activities and the bank's 
charter permits it to conduct all authorized banking activities.\9\ The 
proposal uses the same test for affiliation (i.e., the definition of 
``affiliate'' appearing in 12 U.S.C. 221a(b)) that was used in the 
recently adopted rule affecting independent trust banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Charters, Corporate Manual at 21-22 (1998) (describing 
credit card banks).
    \8\ See 12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(F) (excluding from the definition 
of the term ``bank'' in the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) an 
institution that engages only in credit card operations and 
satisfies certain other conditions). This provision was added to the 
BHCA by the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987.
    \9\ This definition also applies for purposes of the independent 
trust bank rule. See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Receivables attributable'' is the total amount of outstanding 
balances due on credit card accounts owned by an independent credit 
card bank (the receivables attributable to those accounts) on the last 
day of the assessment period. Receivables attributable is a measure of 
the volume of a credit card bank's business. Given that some credit 
card banks retain receivables on the bank's books, the proposal would 
allow independent credit card banks to deduct those on-book receivables 
from total gross receivables attributable in order to avoid assessing 
those assets twice. Independent credit card banks will report 
receivables attributable data to the OCC on a semiannual basis.
    An independent credit card bank's assessment will be determined by 
adding to its book asset-based assessment an additional amount 
determined by its level of receivables attributable. The dollar amount 
of the additional assessment will be published each year in the Notice 
of Fees.\10\ The amounts of the additional assessment will be adjusted 
to reflect changes in the OCC's expenses. The OCC anticipates, however, 
that the initial semiannual charge to be paid in July, 2001, would be 
in the range of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 12 CFR 8.6(b).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              The additional semiannual assessment is
 If the bank's total off-                     Column C
balance sheet receivables ----------------------------------------------
     attributable are           Over Column A       But less than Column
                                  (million)             B (million )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                0                      $100                $40,000
             $100                     1,000                 60,000
            1,000                     5,000                 80,000
            5,000                                          100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our supervisory experience indicates that an additional assessment 
component based on receivables attributable is appropriate because the 
volume of an independent credit card bank's off-balance sheet credit 
card business, together with the amount of its balance sheet assets, is 
a better indicator of the amount of resources expended by the OCC with 
respect to that bank than balance sheet assets alone.

Alternative Approach

    We invite comment on an alternative to the receivables-attributable 
method that would be based on the transaction flow associated with a 
bank's credit card operations. ``Transaction flow'' means the total net 
amounts charged to cards issued by the bank during each semi-annual 
assessment period. Like receivables attributable, transaction flow is 
also a better measure of the volume and nature of an independent credit 
card bank's business than balance sheet assets as of a fixed date.
    An assessment based on transaction flow would be calculated using 
the step approach we propose in this rule for receivables 
attributable--that is, the dollar amount of the additional assessment 
would be based on the amount of a bank's transaction flow. The 
transaction flow amounts would be set to recover an appropriate share 
of the OCC's costs attributable to these banks and would be in addition 
to the assessment calculated on balance sheet assets under 12 CFR 8.2. 
The specific rate schedule for transaction flow would be adjusted 
annually to reflect changes in the OCC's expenses.
    We invite comment on the relative merits of the transaction-flow 
and receivables-attributable methods as measures of the volume and 
likely complexity of an independent credit card bank's business. We 
also invite comment on whether the information needed to compute an 
assessment is easier for banks to obtain and report for one method 
rather than the other. The OCC currently does not gather data on either 
total transaction flow or receivables attributable from credit card

[[Page 17823]]

banks. Our supervisory experience indicates, however, that independent 
credit card banks maintain receivables-attributable information in the 
ordinary course of business or that this information would be readily 
available to independent credit card banks for purposes of calculating 
the receivables-attributable assessment. Under the proposal, the OCC 
would collect receivables-attributable data on a regular basis. 
Commenters are invited to suggest ways of minimizing the reporting 
burden for either the receivable attributable approach or the 
transaction flow alternative.

Assessment Surcharge for Institutions With Composite UFIRS or ROCA 
Ratings of 3, 4, or 5

    OCC data show that there is a significant increase in the 
supervisory demands on the OCC once an institution's composite UFIRS or 
ROCA rating moves from 1 or 2 to 3, 4, or 5. Since introducing the 
surcharge in 1997, we have found that the demand placed on the OCC by 
these lower-rated institutions is greater than was anticipated in 1997. 
Not only have the supervisory needs increased for institutions with a 3 
rating, we have found they are even greater when institutions are rated 
4 or 5. Accordingly, we propose to increase the surcharge for all 
lower-rated institutions.
    The surcharge is to be applied to all components of an 
institution's assessment, not only the asset-based assessment. Thus, 
for instance, an independent credit card bank will calculate its asset-
based component and receivables attributable component, add those two 
together, and multiply the sum by the amount of the ratings-based 
surcharge. An independent trust bank would follow the same method, 
using the managed assets component.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 12 CFR 8.6(c) (assessments on independent trust banks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, banks with composite UFIRS or ROCA ratings of 3 
will be assessed a surcharge of 50%; banks with composite ratings of 4 
or 5 will be assessed a 100% surcharge. By linking assessments with the 
condition of the banks supervised, a greater proportion of increased 
OCC resources attributable to banks whose condition requires additional 
attention is funded by those banks, rather than by the national banking 
system as a whole.\12\ This proposed approach would enable the OCC's 
assessment revenue to expand or contract in a way that responds to the 
changing demands on the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed regulation text permits the OCC to limit the 
amount of the surcharge. We currently contemplate, for example, that 
lower-rated full-service national banks would pay a surcharge only 
on the first $20 billion in book assets. The OCC will publish this 
limit and any similar limit that may apply to surcharges on lower-
rated independent credit card or independent trust banks in the 
Notice of the Comptroller of the Currency Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Solicitation

    The OCC requests comment on all aspects of this proposal, as well 
as on alternatives to the proposal. We also ask for comment on the 
impact of this proposal on small independent credit card banks and on 
community banks. The OCC recognizes that these banks operate with more 
limited resources than larger institutions and may present a different 
risk profile. Thus, the OCC specifically requests comment on the impact 
of the proposal on small banks' and community banks' current resources, 
and whether the goals of the proposal could be achieved, for these 
banks, through an alternative approach.
    Finally, the OCC requests comment on whether the proposal is 
written clearly and is easy to understand. Section 722 of the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act requires each federal agency to use plain language in 
all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The OCC 
invites comment on how to make this rule clearer. For example, you may 
wish to discuss:
    (1) Whether we have organized the material to suit your needs;
    (2) Whether the requirements of the rule are clear; or
    (3) Whether there is something else we could do to make the rule 
easier to understand.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the OCC must either 
provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with a 
proposed rule or certify that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes 
of this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and proposed regulation, the 
OCC defines ``small independent credit card banks'' to be those banks 
with less than $100 million in total assets.
    What follows is an IRFA that addresses the increase in the lower-
rated bank surcharge and invites the public's comments on the propose 
rule's impact on small entities. With respect to the increase in 
assessments for independent credit card banks, however, the OCC 
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this 
conclusion is that the rule will apply to a very small portion of 
national banks. The final rule will affect only nineteen small 
independent credit card banks, representing less than 1% of all 
national banks. The OCC does not believe this to be a substantial 
number of small entities.

A. Reasons for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule; Legal Basis for the 
Rule

    The National Bank Act authorizes the OCC to collect assessments, 
fees, or other charges as necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
responsibilities of the OCC. 12 U.S.C. 482 (Supp. 1999). The OCC adds a 
surcharge to the asset-based assessment for national banks and Federal 
branches and agencies that have composite ratings of 3, 4, or 5 under 
UFIRS or ROCA. This surcharge reflects the greater OCC supervisory 
resources warranted by lower-rated institutions. We propose an increase 
in the surcharge because OCC's experience is that the current surcharge 
does not adequately compensate the OCC for the OCC's supervision of 
lower rated-institutions.

B. Requirements of the Proposed Rule; Effect on Small Businesses

    The proposed rule would require that lower-rated banks, 
specifically those with UFIRS or ROCA ratings of 3, 4, or 5, pay a 
surcharge on their base assessments. The surcharge would be a 
percentage of the base assessment. Thus, for instance, a bank would 
calculate its asset-based component and, in the case of independent 
credit card or independent trust banks its separate component for 
receivables attributable and managed assets; add those components 
together; and then multiply the sum by the amount of the ratings-based 
surcharge.
    Under the proposal, banks with composite UFIRS or ROCA ratings of 3 
will be assessed a surcharge of 50%; banks with composite ratings of 4 
or 5 will be assessed a 100% surcharge. For example, a bank with $100 
million in book assets would pay a base assessment of $39,340. If it is 
a 3-rated bank, it would add to that base amount $19,670 (50% of base). 
If the bank is a 4 or 5-rated institution, it would pay a surcharge of 
$39,340 (100%). A bank would not pay a surcharge once it moves into one 
of the upper two ratings.

C. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    As discussed supra, by statute, the OCC funds its operations 
through assessments on national banks and Federal branches and 
agencies. Therefore, there are no alternatives to charging banks an 
assessment to meet

[[Page 17824]]

our supervisory responsibilities. The OCC sets assessments that reflect 
the nature of those responsibilities. At present, there is an imbalance 
in the surcharge between the level of our supervision of lower-rated 
banks and their contributions to the overall assessment pool--the 
current surcharge passes the burden of supervision beyond lower-rated 
institutions to better rated banks that consume far fewer OCC 
resources. The OCC considered the alternative of leaving the surcharge 
in place, but does not view that as appropriate, given the elevated 
level of supervisory attention required for these institutions.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    For purposes of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the OCC invites comment on:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information contained in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking is necessary for the proper 
performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information 
has practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on 
the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques 
or other forms of information technology; and
    (5) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, 
maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
    Respondents are not required to respond to this collection of 
information unless the final regulation displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The collection of information requirements contained in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for review under emergency processing procedures. 
The OCC is requesting OMB clearance by May 4, 2001. Comments on the 
collection of information should be sent to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project Number 1557-to be assigned, Washington, D.C. 20503, 
with copies to Jessie Dunaway, Legislative and Regulatory Activities 
Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., 
Mailstop 8-4, Washington, DC 20219.
    The information collection requirements contained in 12 CFR part 8 
are contained in section 8.2(c). Under this section, the proposed 
regulation would require national banks to provide the OCC with 
``receivables-attributable'' and, as an alternative, ``transaction-
flow'' data from independent credit card banks, meaning national banks 
that primarily engage in credit card operations and are not affiliated 
with a full service national bank. ``Receivables attributable'' are the 
total amount of outstanding balances due on credit card accounts owned 
by an independent credit card bank (the receivables attributable to 
those accounts) on the last day of an assessment period. ``Transaction 
flow'' is the total net amount charged to credit cards issued by a bank 
during each semi-annual assessment period.
    The OCC is contemplating amending its assessment regulation to 
increase the assessments on independent credit card banks, basing the 
increase either on receivables attributable or transaction flow. The 
OCC has data sufficient to establish an initial rate that independent 
credit card banks would pay under a formula based on receivables 
attributable. If the OCC chooses to adopt the transaction-flow method, 
however, it will need data to set the initial rate. Even if the OCC 
adopts the receivables-attributable method, the OCC will need 
receivables attributable information semiannually to refine the 
assessment formula as time goes on.

Receivables Attributable

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35.
    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 2.
    Frequency of Response: Semiannually.
    Estimated Hours per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 70 burden hours.

Transaction Flow

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35.
    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 2.
    Frequency of Response: Semiannually.
    Estimated Hours per Response: 2 hours.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 140 burden hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 210 burden hours.

VI. Executive Order 12866

    The OCC has determined that this proposal is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 
104-4 (2 U.S.C. 1532) (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that an agency 
prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule 
likely to result in a federal mandate that may result in the 
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. If a 
budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a 
rule. The OCC has determined that the proposed rule will not result in 
expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this 
rulemaking requires no further analysis under the Unfunded Mandates 
Act.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 8

    National banks.

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC proposes to 
amend part 8 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 8--ASSESSMENT OF FEES; NATIONAL BANKS; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
BANKS

    1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 481, 482, and 3102 and 3108; 15 U.S.C. 
78c and 781; and 26 D.C. Code 102.

    2. In Sec. 8.2:
    A. Paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(5) are removed; and
    B. New paragraphs (c) and (d) are added to read as follows:


Sec. 8.2  Semiannual assessment.

* * * * *
    (c) Additional assessment for independent credit card banks. (1) 
General rule. In addition to the assessment calculated according to 
Sec. 8.2(a), each independent credit card bank will pay an assessment 
based on receivables attributable to credit card accounts owned by the 
bank. This assessment will be computed by adding to its book asset-
based assessment an additional amount determined by its level of 
receivables attributable. The dollar amount of the additional 
assessment will be published each year in the ``Notice of Comptroller 
of the

[[Page 17825]]

Currency Notice of Fees,'' described at Sec. 8.8 of this part.
    (2) Credit card banks affiliated with full-service national banks. 
The OCC will assess an independent credit card bank in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, notwithstanding that the bank is 
affiliated with a full-service national bank, if the OCC concludes that 
the affiliation is intended to evade the assessment regulation.
    (3) Definitions. For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, the 
following definitions apply:
    (i) Affiliate has the same meaning as this term has in 12 U.S.C. 
221a(b).
    (ii) Engaged primarily in card operations means a bank described in 
section 2(c)(2)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1841(c)(2)(F)) or whose ratio of total gross receivables attributable 
to the bank's balance sheet assets exceeds 50%.
    (iii) Full-service national bank is a national bank that generates 
more than 50% of its interest and non-interest income from activities 
other than credit card operations or trust activities and is authorized 
according to its charter to engage in all types of permissible banking 
activities.
    (iv) Independent credit card bank is a national bank that engages 
primarily in credit card operations and is not affiliated with a full-
service national bank.
    (v) Receivables attributable is the total amount of outstanding 
balances due on credit card accounts owned by an independent credit 
card bank (the receivables attributable to those accounts) on the last 
day of the assessment period, minus receivables retained on the bank's 
balance sheet as of that day.
    (4) Reports of receivables attributable. Independent credit card 
banks will report receivables attributable data to the OCC semiannually 
when specified by the OCC.
    (d) Subject to any limit that the OCC prescribes in the Notice of 
the Comptroller of the Currency Fees, the OCC shall apply a surcharge 
to the semiannual assessment computed in accordance with paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section. This surcharge will be determined by 
multiplying the semiannual assessment computed in accordance with 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section by--
    (1) 1.5, in the case of any bank that receives a composite rating 
of 3 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) and 
any Federal branch or agency that receives a composite rating of 3 
under the ROCA rating system (which rates risk management, operational 
controls, compliance, and asset quality) at its most recent 
examination; and
    (2) 2.0, in the case of any bank that receives a composite UFIRS 
rating of 4 or 5 and any Federal branch or agency that receives a 
composite rating of 4 or 5 under the ROCA rating system at its most 
recent examination.
    3. In Sec. 8.6:
    A. A new paragraph (c)(1)(iii) is added; and
    B. Paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii) are redesignated as (c)(3)(iii) 
and (c)(3)(iv) and a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 8.6  Fees and assessments for examinations and investigations; 
independent trust banks.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Surcharge based on condition of the bank. Subject to any 
limit that the OCC prescribes in the Notice of the Comptroller of the 
Currency Fees, the OCC shall adjust the semiannual assessment computed 
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section by 
multiplying that figure by 1.5 for each independent trust bank that 
receives a composite rating of 3 under the Uniform Financial 
Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) at its most recent examination and 
by 2.0 for each bank that receives a composite UFIRS rating of 4 or 5 
at such examination.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Full-service national bank is a national bank that generates 
more than 50% of its interest and non-interest income from activities 
other than credit card operations or trust activities and is authorized 
according to its charter to engage in all types of permissible banking 
activities.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 26, 2001.
John D. Hawke, Jr.,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 01-8204 Filed 4-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P