[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13758-13765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment 
Request-Thrift Financial Report: Schedule CMR

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites 
the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed 
and continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507. OTS will submit the proposed 
information collection requirement described below to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.
    Further, OTS requests comments on the replacement of Schedule 
Consolidated Maturity/Rate (CMR) of the Thrift Financial Report (TFR) 
with a new schedule to be known as Risk Exposure Data (RED). Schedule 
RED will reduce the data collection burden on institutions while at the 
same time increase the flexibility and granularity of the data 
collected. The proposed Schedule RED will also increase the flexibility 
of the agency's Net Portfolio Value (NPV) model and assist the agency 
in better monitoring individual institution and system-wide credit 
risk.

DATES: Submit written comments on or before May 19, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referring to the collection by title of the 
proposal or by OMB approval number, to: Information Collection 
Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. Send a facsimile transmission to 
(202) 906-6518. Or send e-mail to: 
[email protected]. OTS will post comments and the 
related index on the OTS Internet Site at www.ots.treas.gov. In 
addition, interested persons may inspect comments at the Public Reading 
Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment, call 
(202) 906-5922, send an e-mail to [email protected], or send a 
facsimile transmission to (202) 906-7755.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flood, Senior Financial 
Economist, (202) 906-6254, Economic Analysis Division, or Teresa A. 
Scott, Counsel (Banking and Finance), (202) 906-6478, Regulations and 
Legislation Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Office of Thrift 
Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title of Proposal: Thrift Financial Report: Schedule CMR.
    OMB Number: 1550-0023.
    Form Number: Schedule RED of the Thrift Financial Report.
    Abstract: Currently, Schedule CMR provides all the institution-
level inputs to OTS's NPV model, the agency's key resource for 
measuring interest-rate risk. The NPV model: (1) Complements and 
supplements on-site exams with quarterly off-site monitoring; (2) helps 
identify aggregate patterns unapparent at the level of the individual 
institution; and (3) by employing scenario analysis, draws attention to 
thrifts with unusually large risk exposures. Further, the NPV model 
effectively offers thrifts a quarterly risk-management consultancy 
function. It is therefore centrally important to the agency and the 
thrift industry that the NPV model operates reliably, is 
understandable, and adapts itself regularly to advances in the 
analytical state of the art, as well as to changes in market 
conditions, including new financial instruments and other innovations.

A. Why Replace Schedule CMR?

    Future improvements on the NPV model should focus both on its 
benefiting savings associations and improving OTS's oversight 
responsibility. Both of these objectives can be met by replacing 
Schedule CMR with Schedule RED.
    Proposed Schedule RED reduces the data collection burden by 
changing the manner in which data is collected while at the same time 
increasing the flexibility of the NPV model. Further, Schedule RED 
addresses concerns raised by some institutions about shortcomings in 
the NPV model that are caused by the nature of data collected in the 
current CMR format. Lastly, Schedule RED permits OTS to collect certain 
new data to aid in calibrating the NPV model and measuring credit 
quality.

1. Simplification and Burden Reduction

    Schedule RED will simplify, and thereby reduce the burden of, the 
reporting process for both OTS and reporting thrifts. Switching to the 
proposed new schedule will result in a substantial net reduction in the 
number of field definitions. Indeed, Schedule RED has roughly half the 
number of fields as the current CMR (and therefore half the field 
definitions to implement, and field instructions to understand). Since 
the data burden falls both upon OTS and the submitting institutions, 
both parties benefit from this reduction. To see better how this will 
work, interested parties can find the full details of the proposed new 
form and its instructions on the OTS Web site at: http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/r.cfm?84259.html.
    The current CMR collects data in 535 individual CMR cells (numbered 
between 001 and 903) plus 26 additional fields in the supplemental 
tables, for a total of 561 fields. Each of these fields potentially has 
a separate, idiosyncratic definition in the CMR instructions, although 
there are currently some shared definitions.\1\ Each separate 
definition must be implemented by programming logic and/or data-entry 
training. In contrast, the number of position attributes defined by the 
proposed RED is 262 `` less than half that of the CMR. Among these, 
there are considerable overlaps in definitions (e.g., position balance 
is defined identically for most positions), so that the total number of 
distinct instructions for RED fields is currently 84 (with 116 
instructions overall `` including those not attached to specific input 
fields).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, CMR 006 through 010 are all weighted average 
remaining maturities on different buckets of fixed-rate mortgages, 
with the same rules for calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of Schedule RED's simplification is reflected in 
the collection of fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) data. Schedule CMR collects 
FRM data in three sections on two pages of the schedule: balances, 
coupons, and maturities (CMR 001-125); miscellaneous aggregate 
memoranda (CMR 501-508); and warehouse loans (CMR 578). In all, there 
are 107 separate cells on CMR collecting data on FRM loans and 
mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Because many of these cells collect 
the same sort of information for different aggregation buckets, only 18

[[Page 13759]]

instruction paragraphs are needed to describe these cells. In the 
latter two sections `` aggregate memoranda and warehouse loans `` FRMs 
are commingled with adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), multifamily 
mortgages, and non-residential mortgages.
    Schedule RED collects FRM data in two separate sections: FRMs (10 
fields, 4 of which are new ``credit-risk'' attributes); and loan 
memoranda (8 fields). Ignoring the credit-risk attributes, there are in 
all 14 separate fields on RED collecting data on FRM loans and MBS, and 
only 14 instruction paragraphs are needed to describe these cells.
    A simplistic comparison of the CMR cell count for FRMs (107) to the 
RED attribute count (14) would overstate the benefits of the RED 
because the CMR is restricted to one data point per cell, while the RED 
will typically take multiple observations of each attribute field. A 
more informative comparison is between the instruction counts (18 CMR 
vs. 14 RED), since these represent the business logic that must be 
written, tested, deployed, and maintained in reporting software. By 
this measure, the RED represents a 29% reduction in reporting burden 
relative to the current CMR.

2. Flexibility

    The current CMR format is rigid in defining the data it accepts. 
For example, the definition of the five coupon buckets for fixed-rate 
mortgages currently covers the following ranges: <7%, 7-8%, 8-9%, 9-
10%, and 10%. With few exceptions, mortgages above 7% have 
not been issued for some time, and refinancing to the current lower 
rates has been intense. As a result, CMR's data bucketing has less 
value in the current environment, as nearly all new mortgages and 
refinancings fall into the first bucket. Addressing this problem by 
redefining the bucket ranges requires reprinting the form, editing the 
instructions, and testing the edit and NPV model software. This process 
may take several filing cycles to complete. When rates rise again, the 
process would have to be repeated.
    These transitions would be unnecessary with Schedule RED, because 
flexibility is built into its structure. The basic structure of 
Schedule RED is similar to that currently used to collect supplemental 
positions (for example, the supplemental OBS or supplemental assets and 
liabilities tables). All data in the RED would be entered into tables, 
the rows of which represent financial positions held by the thrift, and 
the columns of which are the attributes of those positions. For 
example, here is one of the proposed RED tables, for ARM servicing 
rights:

                                                        Adjustable-Rate Mortgage-Servicing Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Original        Remaining
   Type        Balance        maturity        maturity        Rate code        Margin        Service fee    Sub-serviced       FHA  VA      Conventional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............
----------
           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............
           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............
----------
           ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  .............
----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTS believes that proposed Schedule RED eliminates most of the 
rigidities present in the current CMR layout while still providing 
pertinent data for input into the NPV model.

3. Increased Data Detail

a. Increased Granularity
    While slashing the field count in half, the RED would increase the 
number of data points by collecting finer-grained observations on each 
field. All reporting schemes entail bucketing with some degree of 
categorization, i.e., granularity. By definition, all loans within a 
given bucket are treated identically--typically by assuming that all 
loans lie at the center of the bucket. For example, suppose loans in 
the 2-to-5-year rate-reset bucket have an average rate-reset frequency 
of exactly 3.5 years. Thus, the NPVs and sensitivities of loans at one 
end or another of a bucket will tend to be less accurate. These 
estimation differences do not necessarily disappear when the whole 
bucket is averaged. To the extent that the NPV model's results guide 
supervision policy, this less accurate estimate of the loan 
characteristics may adversely affect some thrifts, while arbitrarily 
rewarding others.
    Reducing bucket sizes to shrink the potential measurement error can 
alleviate this ``bucketing burden.'' This increases granularity and 
necessarily reduces the average magnitude of the estimation error in 
measuring loan characteristics. However, changing bucket ranges 
requires flexibility in the structure of the reporting schedule.
    In the case of Schedule CMR, increasing granularity means adding 
cells. Because the cells are indexed sequentially, this requires 
renumbering and/or redefining some cells. For example, in the case of 
FRMs, there are 5 coupon buckets.\2\ Inserting a new column (i.e., a 
new bucket) on this page of the form would require either: (a) 
inserting cells with non-sequential numbers; or (b) renumbering all 
subsequent cells in the form. Either solution necessitates a 
redefinition of certain cells, and either is likely to create confusion 
and implementation difficulties. As a result, increases in data 
granularity are infrequent under the current Schedule CMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Schedule CMR page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of Schedule RED, the number of observations collected 
is open-ended, and all bucketing is handled through the aggregation 
rules defined in the instructions to the form.\3\ Thus, increasing or 
decreasing granularity in any particular dimension involves only a 
change to the instructions. Of course, the reporting institutions (or 
their vendors) must still implement this change. However, these changes 
in aggregation rules do not redefine the attributes collected, but only 
the number and composition of the observations reported. Increases in 
the number of observations (the granularity) for a particular 
instrument have no impact on reporting elsewhere on the form. At the 
same time, it is similarly possible to add (or remove) to the list of 
RED attributes collected without affecting reporting elsewhere on the 
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See discussion infra.

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

[[Page 13760]]

b. Aggregation Rules
    Using Schedule RED simplifies the aggregation of data thrifts 
supply. At present, the conversion of accounting data to CMR fields 
often involves awkward aggregation rules. For example, balances of 
fixed-rate fixed-maturity deposits (FRFMD) are reported in buckets that 
depend on both original and remaining maturity. At the same time, 
balances on brokered FRFMD (a subset of the total) are bucketed only by 
original maturity. This reduces the number of cells on the form by 
requiring differential aggregation procedures be applied to total vs. 
brokered balances.
    Moreover, many aggregations must be ``unwound'' within the NPV 
model by applying assumptions about how the aggregation should, or 
might, have occurred. Such derived disaggregations inevitably result in 
less accurate estimates. The crucial difference between proposed 
Schedule RED's system of aggregation and that applied on the CMR is 
that the RED Schedule's aggregation rules (described below) are set in 
the written instructions, rather than being built into the structure of 
the form itself. The upshot is that adjustments to the aggregation 
rules--to increase or decrease the level of detail collected--will be 
significantly simpler, as they would not affect the structure of the 
form or the definitions of the fields.
    Schedule RED allows a wide range of possibilities for aggregating 
position information. For example, at one extreme, if institutions so 
chose, RED could allow contract-by-contract reporting of all loans in 
the portfolio and account-by-account reporting of deposits. At the 
other extreme, Schedule RED could accept highly aggregated positions, 
representing large segments of the portfolio as single position 
entries.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Again, this is in contrast to Schedule CMR, for which the 
degree of aggregation of position information is built into the 
structure of the form itself. This inflexibility is one of the 
motivations for moving to Schedule RED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Schedule RED will however constrain the degree of aggregation. In 
other words, Schedule RED imposes a maximal degree of position 
aggregation (or, equivalently, a minimum degree of granularity). Under 
this proposal, reporting institutions could potentially break positions 
down into more detail than required by the aggregation constraint 
(possibly down to the contract-by-contract level), but never less. Here 
are the proposed maximum aggregation limits for fixed-rate mortgages:

Maximum Aggregation Constraints

    Aggregation Rule: Mortgages and MBS that match simultaneously on 
*all* of the following criteria can be aggregated together and reported 
as a single position:

1. Mortgage and MBS:
    [sbull] 30-year mortgage loans
    [sbull] 30-year MBS backed by conventional mortgages
    [sbull] 30-year MBS backed by FHA or VA mortgages
    [sbull] 15-year mortgage loans
    [sbull] 15-year MBS
    [sbull] Balloon mortgage loans
    [sbull] Balloon MBS
2. Coupon buckets (in quarter-point increments, as follows):
    [sbull] 0.00 to 0.25%
    [sbull] 0.26 to 0.50%
    [sbull] 0.51 to 0.75%
    [sbull] 0.76 to 1.00%
    [sbull] 1.01to 1.25%
    [sbull] Etc.
3. [IF SUBMITTED] Borrower credit rating type
4. [IF SUBMITTED] 5-digit zip code

    Mortgages or MBS that differ in *any* of the above criteria cannot 
be aggregated together into the same position. NOTE: The aggregation 
(i.e., bucketing) rules are subject to change.
    There are two reasons for such constraints. First, to support 
current legacy applications, and to track industry trends over time, it 
must be possible for OTS to convert data submitted in the new RED 
Schedule back into the legacy CMR format. As a result, Schedule RED 
must always be at least as detailed as Schedule CMR. Second, OTS would 
like to see the benefit of the increased reporting detail that Schedule 
RED allows.
    OTS is contemplating allowing any filing firm to submit non-
aggregated data (that is, account-by-account position data). OTS 
anticipates that many filers may find this latter option very 
attractive, as it alleviates the burden of maintaining programming 
logic and operator intervention necessary to calculate the 
aggregations. It may also result in cost reductions when providing the 
requested information.

4. New Attributes for Loans

    Schedule RED includes several new fields measuring basic loan 
attributes, such as loan-to-value (LTV), borrower credit rating, and 
collateral. The three largest potential benefits from this innovation 
are the improvement in OTS's ability to calibrate the NPV model,\5\ 
assess interest rate risk in relation to portfolio risk attributes, and 
the possibility that the NPV model could someday provide OTS 
institutions with an analytical toolkit that approximates the Basel II 
internal-models approach. This could, after further comment and review, 
and consistent with systems developed by the other federal banking 
agencies, open the door for OTS-regulated institutions to qualify for 
more risk-sensitive capital treatment for their mortgage and retail 
assets in a manner analogous to the evolving standards of Basel II. 
There is clearly much to be done before such analytics could be 
deployed, but the underlying credit-quality data would be needed during 
the development and testing phases, well before any deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, cash-out refinancing tends to create higher 
prepayment speeds for low-LTV mortgages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One area where the availability of these new dimensions could 
improve the quality of the interest-rate risk measurement involves 
credit spreads on loans. Currently, we are forced to assume a fixed, 
one-size-fits-all credit spread for all institutions, implicitly 
assuming that none of the observed differences in interest rates across 
institutions is due to risk. With credit-quality information, we can 
realistically assign credit-risk-adjusted discount rates to cash flows 
in the model, improving the quality of the final NPV measurement.
    OTS recognizes that some reporting institutions may be reluctant or 
unable to provide new loan attributes, as these have not been reported 
heretofore on the TFR. As a result, OTS proposes that reporting of 
these attributes under Schedule RED be optional.

B. Side-by-Side Comparison of Schedules RED and CMR

    To assist the industry in assessing the impact of the proposed RED 
schedule, this section uses FRMs to exemplify the differences between 
current CMR procedures and the proposed Schedule RED. The relevant 
sections of Schedule CMR (pages 30 and 34 of the TFR) and of Schedule 
RED (FRM and loan memoranda tables) are attached here for reference 
(See http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/78155.pdf for the full CMR form). In 
addition, included is a table that provides a full side-by-side 
comparison of the two schedules.

Schedule RED

[[Page 13761]]



                                                                  Fixed-Rate Mortgages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Original     Remaining     Amortization                   Credit       Credit
              Type                 Balance       Coupon      maturity     maturity         period          LTV         rating    rating type   Zip code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........
--------------------------------
                                 ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........
--------------------------------
                                 ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........
--------------------------------
                                 ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........
--------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                     Loan Memoranda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Accrued     Advances for    Unamortized                 Unrealized
              Type                 Warehouse        Non          interest      taxes and        yield       Valuation       gains
                                                 performing     receivable     insurance     adjustment     allowance     (losses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ............  .............  .............  ............  ..............  ...........  ............
--------------------------------
                                 ............  .............  .............  ............  ..............  ...........  ............
--------------------------------
                                 ............  .............  .............  ............  ..............  ...........  ............
--------------------------------
                                 ............  .............  .............  ............  ..............  ...........  ............
--------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13762]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20MR03.000


[[Page 13763]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20MR03.001


[[Page 13764]]


                                            CMR/RED Comparison Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CMR                                 RED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Information structure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data inputs............................  535 cells + 26 fields.......  262 fields.
Distinct instructions..................  220 paragraphs..............  116 paragraphs.
Granularity increases possible.........  No..........................  Yes.
----------------------------------------
                                             Credit-risk measurement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTV....................................  No..........................  Yes (optional).
Borrower credit rating.................  No..........................  Yes (optional).
Commercial loan ratings................  No..........................  Yes (optional).
Commercial borrower ratings............  No..........................  Yes (optional).
Commercial loan SNC status.............  No..........................  Yes (optional).
Consumer loan collateral...............  No..........................  Yes (optional).
Non-performing loans...................  Limited.....................  Limited.
Valuation allowances...................  Limited.....................  Limited.
----------------------------------------
                                                  Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic exposure data...............  No..........................  Yes (optional).
----------------------------------------
                                                    Bucketing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-rate mortgages:
    Mortgage vs. MBS...................  No..........................  Yes.
    Coupon range.......................  Five 100 bp ranges..........  25 bp ranges as needed.
    Borrower credit rating.............  No..........................  Yes.
    Location...........................  No..........................  Yes.
Adjustable-rate mortgages:
    Mortgage vs. MBS...................  No..........................  Yes.
    Reset frequency....................  2 or 3 buckets..............  monthly.
    Rate index.........................  No..........................  Yes.
    Teaser vs. non-teaser..............  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Current vs. lagging index..........  Partial.....................  Yes.
    Distance to lifetime cap...........  4 buckets...................  100 bp ranges as needed.
    Periodic caps......................  Partial.....................  Yes.
    Periodic floors....................  Partial.....................  Yes.
    Borrower credit rating.............  No..........................  Yes.
    Location...........................  No..........................  Yes.
Fixed-rate other real estate loans:
    Balloon multifamily/amortizing       Yes.........................  Yes.
     multifamily/2nd mortgage/land.
    Coupon range.......................  Five 100 bp ranges..........  25 bp ranges as needed.
    Borrower credit rating.............  No..........................  Yes.
    Location...........................  No..........................  Yes.
Adjustable-rate other real estate
 loans:
    Balloon multifamily/amortizing       Yes.........................  Yes.
     multifamily/2nd mortgage/land.
    Rate index.........................  Limited.....................  Yes.
    Distance to lifetime cap...........  No..........................  100 bp ranges as needed.
    Borrower credit rating.............  No..........................  Yes.
    Location...........................  No..........................  Yes.
Commercial loans:
    Adjustable vs. fixed-rate..........  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Rate index (adjustable rate).......  No..........................  Yes.
Consumer loans:
    Adjustable vs. fixed-rate..........  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Rate index (adjustable rate).......  No..........................  Yes.
    Borrower credit rating.............  No..........................  Yes.
    Location...........................  No..........................  Yes.
Fixed-rate mortgage servicing rights:
    Servicing by vs. for others........  Limited.....................  Yes.
    Coupon range.......................  Five 100 bp ranges..........  25 bp ranges as needed.
Adjustable-rate mortgage servicing
 rights:
    Servicing by vs. for others........  Limited.....................  Yes.
    Rate index.........................  No..........................  Yes.
    Current vs. lagging index..........  Yes.........................  Yes.
Money market assets:
    Instrument type....................  Partial.....................  Yes.
Fixed-rate fixed-maturity deposits:
    Deposit type.......................  No..........................  Yes.
    Coupon range.......................  No..........................  25 bp ranges as needed.
    Original maturity..................  3 ranges....................  12-mo. ranges as needed.
    Remaining maturity.................  4 ranges....................  3-mo. (short-term) or 12-mo. ranges as
                                                                        needed.

[[Page 13765]]

 
Variable-rate fixed-maturity deposits:
    Deposit type.......................  No..........................  Yes.
    Rate index.........................  No..........................  Yes.
    Remaining maturity.................  3 ranges....................  3-mo. (short-term) or 12-mo. ranges as
                                                                        needed.
Non-maturity deposits:
    Deposit type.......................  Yes.........................  Yes.
Other liabilities:
    Liability type.....................  Yes.........................  Yes.
Commitments to buy, sell or originate:
    Firm vs. optional..................  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Buy/sell/originate.................  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Underlying type....................  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Mortgage subtype...................  Yes.........................  Yes.
    MDP subtype........................  Yes.........................  Yes.
    Long vs. short.....................  Yes.........................  Yes.
Construction loans in process (LIP):
    Coupon range.......................  No..........................  25 bp ranges as needed.
Interest-rate derivatives (swaps,
 swaptions, caps, collars, floors,
 futures and options):
    Position-level.....................  Yes.........................  Yes.
Self-valued instruments:
    Instrument type....................  Limited.....................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Request for Comments

    OTS invites comment on all aspects of the proposed Schedule RED 
and, in particular, whether the proposal will in fact reduce reporting 
burden, aid in more flexible data collection, and provide an 
opportunity for more accurate analysis of institution-specific and 
industry-wide interest rate risk. Consideration should be given to the 
amount of data collected and the ease of obtaining the data. Moreover, 
comments are requested on the amount of transition costs to convert 
from Schedule CMR to Schedule RED and the extent to which cost savings 
would be realized over time as a result of change.
    Further, OTS requests comments on:
    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of OTS;
    b. The accuracy of OTS's estimate of the burden of the proposed 
information collection;
    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on 
respondents, including through the use information technology.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Affected Public: Business or for profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 915.
    Estimated Frequency of Response: Four times per year.
    Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 12 hours.
    Estimated Total Burden: 43,920 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Marilyn K. Burton, (202) 906-6467, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: March 14, 2003.
Deborah Dakin,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division.
[FR Doc. 03-6652 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P