[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5253-5265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1815]


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

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

AGENCIES: 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.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, and the 
FDIC (the ``agencies'') may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent 
is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it 
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. On September 30, 2010, 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),

[[Page 5254]]

which are currently approved collections of information. After 
considering the comments received on the proposal, the FFIEC and the 
agencies will proceed with most, but not all, of the reporting changes 
that had been proposed and they will also revise two other Call Report 
items in response to commenters' recommendations. For some of the 
reporting changes that the agencies plan to implement, limited 
modifications have been made to the original proposals in response to 
the comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB 
control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
    OCC: You should direct all written comments to: Communications 
Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mailstop 2-3, 
Attention: 1557-0081, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In 
addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874-5274, or by 
electronic mail to [email protected]. You may personally 
inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 250 E 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) 874-4700. 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.
    Board: You may submit comments, which should refer to 
``Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (FFIEC 031 and 041),'' 
by any of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on the http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: regs.comments@ federalreserve.gov. Include 
reporting form number in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
     Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, 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 
http://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 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays.
    FDIC: You may submit comments, which should refer to ``Consolidated 
Reports of Condition and Income, 3064-0052,'' by any of the following 
methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 
on the FDIC Web site.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected]. Include ``Consolidated Reports 
of Condition and Income, 3064-0052'' in the subject line of the 
message.
     Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, (202) 898-3877, Counsel, Attn: 
Comments, Room F-1086, 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 a.m. and 5 p.m.
    Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html 
including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected 
at the FDIC Public Information Center, Room E-1002, 3501 Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 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, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

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 can be obtained at the FFIEC's Web site (http://www.ffiec.gov/ffiec_report_forms.htm).
    OCC: Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 874-5090, 
Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
    Board: Cynthia Ayouch, Acting 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.
    Report Title: Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call 
Report).
    Form Number: Call Report: FFIEC 031 (for banks with domestic and 
foreign offices) and FFIEC 041 (for banks with domestic offices only).
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

OCC

    OMB Number: 1557-0081.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,491 national banks.
    Estimated Time per Response: 53.25 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 317,583 burden hours.

Board

    OMB Number: 7100-0036.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 841 State member banks.
    Estimated Time per Response: 55.19 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 185,659 burden hours.

FDIC

    OMB Number: 3064-0052.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,713 insured State nonmember 
banks.
    Estimated Time per Response: 40.42 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 761,998 burden hours.
    The estimated time per response for 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 
Call Report is estimated to range from 17 to 665 hours per quarter, 
depending on an individual institution's circumstances.

[[Page 5255]]

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), and 12 U.S.C. 
1817 (for insured State nonmember commercial and savings banks). 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, for identifying 
areas of focus for both on-site and off-site examinations, and for 
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 
are also used to calculate institutions' deposit insurance and 
Financing Corporation assessments and national banks' semiannual 
assessment fees.

Current Actions

I. Overview

    On September 30, 2010, the agencies requested comment on proposed 
revisions to the Call Report (75 FR 60497). The agencies proposed to 
implement certain changes to the Call Report requirements as of March 
31, 2011, to provide data needed for reasons of safety and soundness or 
other public purposes. The proposed revisions would assist the agencies 
in gaining a better understanding of banks' credit and liquidity risk 
exposures, primarily through enhanced data on lending and 
securitization activities and sources of deposits. The banking agencies 
also proposed certain revisions to the Call Report instructions.
    The agencies collectively received comments from 23 respondents: 
thirteen banks, three bankers' associations, two law firms, two 
insurance consultants, an insurance company, a deposit listing service, 
and an individual. Respondents tended to comment on one or more 
specific aspects of the proposal rather than addressing each individual 
proposed Call Report revision. One bankers' association observed that 
it supports the objective of the agencies' proposal, but it also 
provided comments on several of the proposed Call Report revisions. 
Another bankers' association reported that its ``members have expressed 
no concerns with many of the agencies' proposed revisions,'' but it 
suggested that the agencies make several changes to the revisions. Only 
three commenters expressed an overall view on the proposal. One banker 
stated that ``I generally support the Agencies proposal,'' but added 
that a few items deserve further consideration. The individual who 
commented stated that ``[i]n form and virtually all substance I agree 
with the requests for data and changes for the definitions.'' In 
contrast, another banker expressed ``deep concern over the proposed 
changes,'' adding that ``this is not the time to place additional 
burdens on community banks.''
    In addition, one bankers' association provided comments on the 
definition of core deposits, which was not part of the agencies' 
proposal. The association noted that the definition currently 
incorporates a $100,000 threshold for time deposits, which was the 
standard maximum deposit insurance amount prior to the enactment of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 
111-203 (July 21, 2010). This legislation permanently increased the 
standard maximum amount to $250,000 on July 21, 2010. Accordingly, the 
bankers' association urged the agencies to adjust the core deposit 
threshold to $250,000 for consistency with the deposit insurance limit. 
Another bankers' association also addressed the permanent increase in 
the standard maximum deposit insurance amount from $100,000 to 
$250,000, indicating that this change removed the need to continue to 
base the identification of core deposits on the $100,000 threshold. The 
association recommended that the agencies revise and update the Call 
Report accordingly.
    This second bankers' association also recommended that the agencies 
revise and update Call Report Schedule RC-O, Other Data for Deposit 
Insurance and FICO Assessments, ``to eliminate items that are no longer 
necessary in light of the new method for calculating the deposit 
insurance assessment base, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.'' The 
agencies note that the FDIC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
on November 24, 2010,\1\ to amend its deposit insurance assessment 
regulations to implement the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that 
changes the assessment base from one based on domestic deposits to one 
based on assets. The agencies will soon be publishing an initial PRA 
Federal Register notice to request comment on proposed revisions to 
Schedule RC-O that will support the proposed changes in the FDIC's 
method of calculating an institution's assessment base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR 72582, November 24, 2010, at http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2010/10proposeAD66.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following section of this notice describes the proposed Call 
Report changes and discusses the agencies' evaluation of the comments 
received on the proposed changes, including modifications that the 
FFIEC and the agencies have decided to implement in response to those 
comments. The following section also addresses the agencies' response 
to the comments from the two bankers' associations concerning the 
definition of core deposits, which was not an element of the agencies' 
September 30, 2010, Call Report proposal.
    In summary, after considering the comments received on the proposed 
Call Report revisions, the FFIEC and the agencies plan to move forward 
as of the March 31, 2011, report date with most, but not all, of the 
proposed reporting changes after making certain modifications in 
response to the comments. The agencies will not implement the items for 
interest income and quarterly averages for automobile loans as had been 
proposed, but will add items for automobile loans to the other Call 
Report schedules for which this revision had been proposed. After 
evaluating the automobile loan data that banks report, the agencies may 
propose in the future to collect interest income and quarterly averages 
for such loans. In addition, the agencies have decided not to add the 
proposed breakdown of deposits of individuals, partnerships, and 
corporations into deposits of individuals and deposits of partnerships 
and corporations. The agencies also are not proceeding with a proposed 
instructional change that would have revised the treatment of assets 
and liabilities whose interest rates have reached contractual ceilings 
or floors when reporting repricing data. The proposed breakdown of life 
insurance assets into general and separate account assets will be 
modified to also include a category for hybrid account assets. Finally, 
to implement revised definitions for core deposits and non-core 
funding, the agencies will add two-way breakdowns of two existing items 
for certain deposits with a remaining maturity of one year or less in 
the Call Report deposits schedule.
    The agencies recognize institutions' need for lead time to prepare 
for reporting changes. Thus, consistent with

[[Page 5256]]

longstanding practice, for the March 31, 2011, report date, banks 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. Furthermore, the 
specific wording of the captions for the new or revised Call Report 
data items and the numbering of these data items discussed in this 
notice should be regarded as preliminary.
    Type of Review: Revision and extension of currently approved 
collections.

II. Discussion of Proposed Call Report Revisions

    The agencies received comments expressing support for, or no 
comments specifically addressing, the following revisions, and 
therefore these revisions will be implemented effective March 31, 2011, 
as proposed:
     A breakdown of the existing items for commercial mortgage-
backed securities between those issued or guaranteed by U.S. Government 
agencies and sponsored-agencies and those that are not in Schedule RC-
B, Securities, and Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities;
     Breakdowns of the existing items for loans and other real 
estate owned (OREO) covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements by loan and 
OREO category in Schedule RC-M, Memoranda, along with a breakdown of 
the existing items in Schedule RC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, 
Leases, and Other Assets, for reporting past due and nonaccrual U.S. 
Government-guaranteed loans to segregate those covered by FDIC loss-
sharing agreements (which would be reported by loan category) from 
other guaranteed loans. The categories of covered loans to be reported 
would be (1) 1-4 family residential construction loans, (2) Other 
construction loans and all land development and other land loans, (3) 
Loans secured by farmland, (4) Revolving, open-end loans secured by 1-4 
family residential properties and extended under lines of credit, (5) 
Closed-end loans secured by first liens on 1-4 family residential 
properties, (6) Closed-end loans secured by junior liens on 1-4 family 
residential properties, (7) Loans secured by multifamily (5 or more) 
residential properties, (8) Loans secured by owner-occupied nonfarm 
nonresidential properties, (9) Loans secured by other nonfarm 
nonresidential properties, (10) Loans to finance agricultural 
production and other loans to farmers (on the FFIEC 031 \2\), (11) 
Commercial and industrial loans, (12) Consumer credit cards, (13) 
Consumer automobile loans, (14) Other consumer loans, and (15) All 
other loans and all leases \3\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As originally proposed, ``Loans to finance agricultural 
production and other loans to farmers'' would have been one of the 
categories of covered loans on the FFIEC 041. For consistency with 
the loan categories included in Schedule RC-N on the FFIEC 041, the 
agencies will include ``Loans to finance agricultural production and 
other loans to farmers'' within ``All other loans and all leases.'' 
See footnote 3.
    \3\ For individual loan and lease subcategories within ``All 
other loans and all leases'' that exceed 10 percent of total loans 
and leases covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements, the amount of 
covered loans in that subcategory must be itemized in Schedule RC-M, 
item 13.a.(5), and in Schedule RC-N, item 11.e. To simplify and 
clarify the reporting of these individual subcategories in these two 
items, the agencies will include preprinted captions for each of the 
individual subcategories within ``All other loans and all leases'' 
to facilitate banks' efforts to itemize these subcategories. As 
originally proposed, banks would have had to enter the titles of the 
subcategories themselves. Specifically, Schedule RC-M, item 
13.a.(5), and Schedule RC-N, item 11.e, will have preprinted 
captions for the following loan and lease subcategories: (1) Loans 
to depository institutions and acceptances of other banks, (2) Loans 
to foreign governments and official institutions, (3) Other loans 
(i.e., Obligations (other than securities and leases) of States and 
political subdivisions in the U.S. and Loans to nondepository 
financial institutions and other loans); (4) on the FFIEC 031 only, 
Loans secured by real estate in foreign offices, and (5) Lease 
financing receivables. On the FFIEC 041 only, ``Other loans'' also 
would include ``Loans to finance agricultural production and other 
loans to farmers.'' A preprinted caption would be provided on the 
FFIEC 041 for ``Loans to finance agricultural production and other 
loans to farmers,'' which would be applicable to banks with $300 
million or more in total assets and banks with less than $300 
million in total assets that have loans to finance agricultural 
production and other loans to farmers exceeding five percent of 
total loans at which the amount of ``Loans to finance agricultural 
loans and other loans to farmers'' included in ``All other loans and 
all leases'' covered by FDIC loss-sharing agreements exceeds the 10 
percent threshold for itemization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New items for the total assets of captive insurance and 
reinsurance subsidiaries in Schedule RC-M, Memoranda;
     New Memorandum items in Schedule RI, Income Statement, for 
credit valuation adjustments and debit valuation adjustments included 
in trading revenues for banks with total assets of $100 billion or 
more;
     A change in reporting frequency from annual to quarterly 
for the data reported in Schedule RC-T, Fiduciary and Related Services, 
on collective investment funds and common trust funds for those banks 
that currently report fiduciary assets and income quarterly, i.e., 
banks with fiduciary assets greater than $250 million or gross 
fiduciary income greater than 10 percent of bank revenue; and
     Instructional revisions that address the reporting of 
construction loans following the completion of construction in Schedule 
RC-C, part I, Loans and Leases, and other schedules that collect loan 
data.
    The agencies received one or more comments specifically addressing 
or otherwise relating to each of the following proposed revisions:
     A breakdown by loan category of the existing Memorandum 
items for ``Other loans and leases'' that are troubled debt 
restructurings and are past due 30 days or more or in nonaccrual status 
(in Schedule RC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, Leases, and Other 
Assets) or are in compliance with their modified terms (in Schedule RC-
C, part I, Loans and Leases) as well as the elimination of the 
exclusion from reporting restructured troubled consumer loans in these 
Memorandum items;
     A breakdown of ``Other consumer loans'' into automobile 
loans and all other consumer loans in the Call Report schedules in 
which loan data are reported: Schedule RC-C, part I, Loans and Leases; 
Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities; Schedule RC-K, Quarterly 
Averages; Schedule RC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, Leases, and 
Other Assets; Schedule RI, Income Statement; and Schedule RI-B, part I, 
Charge-offs and Recoveries on Loans and Leases;
     A new Memorandum item for the estimated amount of 
nonbrokered deposits obtained through the use of deposit listing 
service companies in Schedule RC-E, Deposit Liabilities;
     A breakdown of the existing items for deposits of 
individuals, partnerships, and corporations between deposits of 
individuals and deposits of partnerships and corporations in Schedule 
RC-E, Deposit Liabilities;
     A new Schedule RC-V, Variable Interest Entities, for 
reporting the categories of assets of consolidated variable interest 
entities (VIEs) that can be used only to settle the VIEs' obligations, 
the categories of liabilities of consolidated VIEs without recourse to 
the bank's general credit, and the total assets and total liabilities 
of other consolidated VIEs included in the bank's total assets and 
total liabilities, with these data reported separately for 
securitization trusts, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, and 
other VIEs;
     A breakdown of the existing item for ``Life insurance 
assets'' in Schedule RC-F, Other Assets, into items for general account 
and separate account life insurance assets; and
     Instructional changes (1) incorporating residential 
mortgages held for trading within the scope of Schedule

[[Page 5257]]

RC-P, 1-4 Family Residential Mortgage Banking Activities, and (2) 
revising the treatment of assets and liabilities whose interest rates 
have reached contractual ceilings or floors for purposes of reporting 
maturity and repricing data in Schedule RC-B, Securities; Schedule RC-
C, part I, Loans and Leases; Schedule RC-E, Deposit Liabilities; and 
Schedule RC-M, Memoranda.
    The comments related to each of these proposed revisions are 
discussed in Sections II.A. through II.G. of this notice along with the 
agencies' response to these comments. The agencies also received 
comments regarding a change in the definition of core deposits, which 
is derived from Call Report data and which the agencies had not 
included in their proposal. The core deposit issue is discussed in 
Section II.H.

A. Troubled Debt Restructurings

    The banking agencies proposed that banks report additional detail 
on loans that have undergone troubled debt restructurings in Call 
Report Schedule RC-C, part I, Loans and Leases, and Schedule RC-N, Past 
Due and Nonaccrual Loans, Leases, and Other Assets. More specifically, 
Schedule RC-C, part I, Memorandum item 1.b, ``Other loans and all 
leases'' restructured and in compliance with modified terms, and 
Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1.b, Restructured ``Other loans and all 
leases'' that are past due or in nonaccrual status and included in 
Schedule RC-N, would be broken out to provide information on 
restructured troubled loans for many of the loan categories reported in 
the bodies of Schedule RC-C, part I, and Schedule RC-N. The breakout 
would also include ``Loans to individuals for household, family, and 
other personal expenditures'' whose terms have been modified in 
troubled debt restructurings, which are currently excluded from the 
reporting of troubled debt restructurings in the Call Report.
    In the aggregate, troubled debt restructurings for all insured 
institutions have grown from $6.9 billion at year-end 2007, to $24.0 
billion at year-end 2008, to $58.1 billion at year-end 2009, with a 
further increase to $80.3 billion as of September 30, 2010. The 
proposed additional detail on troubled debt restructurings in Schedules 
RC-C, part I, and RC-N would enable the agencies to better understand 
the level of restructuring activity at banks, the categories of loans 
involved in this activity, and, therefore, whether banks are working 
with their borrowers to modify and restructure loans. In particular, to 
encourage banks to work constructively with their commercial borrowers, 
the agencies issued guidance on commercial real estate loan workouts in 
October 2009 and small business lending in February 2010. Although this 
guidance has explained the agencies' expectations for prudent workouts, 
the agencies and the industry would benefit from additional reliable 
data outside the examination process to assess restructuring activity 
for commercial real estate loans and commercial and industrial loans. 
Further, it is important to separately identify commercial real estate 
loan restructurings from commercial and industrial loan restructurings 
given that the value of the real estate collateral is a consideration 
in a bank's decision to modify the terms of a commercial real estate 
loan in a troubled debt restructuring, but such collateral protection 
would normally be absent from commercial and industrial loans for which 
a loan modification is being explored because of borrowers' financial 
difficulties.
    It is also anticipated that other loan categories will experience 
continued workout activity in the coming months given that most asset 
classes have been adversely impacted by the recent recession. This 
impact is evidenced by the increase in past due and nonaccrual assets 
across virtually all asset classes during the past two to three years.
    Presently, banks report loans and leases restructured and in 
compliance with their modified terms (Schedule RC-C, part I, Memorandum 
item 1) with separate disclosure of (a) loans secured by 1-4 family 
residential properties (in domestic offices) and (b) other loans and 
all leases (excluding loans to individuals for household, family, and 
other personal expenditures). This same breakout is reflected in 
Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1, for past due and nonaccrual 
restructured troubled loans. The broad category of ``other loans'' in 
Schedule RC-C, part I, Memorandum item 1.b, and Schedule RC-N, 
Memorandum item 1.b, does not permit an adequate analysis of troubled 
debt restructurings. In addition, the disclosure requirements for 
troubled debt restructurings under generally accepted accounting 
principles do not exempt restructurings of loans to individuals for 
household, family, and other personal expenditures. Therefore, if the 
Call Report added more detail to match the reporting of loans in 
Schedule RC-C, part I, and Schedule RC-N, the new data would provide 
the banking agencies with the level of information necessary to assess 
banks' troubled debt restructurings to the same extent that other loan 
quality and performance indicators can be assessed. However, the 
agencies note that, under generally accepted accounting principles, 
troubled debt restructurings do not include changes in lease agreements 
\4\ and they therefore propose to exclude leases from Schedule RC-C, 
part I, Memorandum item 1, and from Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting 
Standards Codification (ASC) paragraph 470-60-15-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the banking agencies' proposed breakdowns of existing 
Memorandum item 1.b in both Schedule RC-C, part I, and Schedule RC-N 
would create new Memorandum items in both schedules covering troubled 
debt restructurings of ``1-4 family residential construction loans,'' 
``Other construction loans and all land development and other land 
loans,'' loans ``Secured by multifamily (5 or more) residential 
properties,'' ``Loans secured by owner-occupied nonfarm nonresidential 
properties,'' ``Loans secured by other nonfarm nonresidential 
properties,'' ``Commercial and industrial loans,'' and ``All other 
loans (including loans to individuals for household, family, and other 
personal expenditures).'' \5\ If restructured loans in any category of 
loans (as defined in Schedule RC-C, part I) included in restructured 
``All other loans'' exceeds 10 percent of the amount of restructured 
``All other loans,'' the amount of restructured loans in this category 
or categories must be itemized and described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For banks with foreign offices, the Memorandum items for 
restructured real estate loans would cover such loans in domestic 
offices. In addition, banks with foreign offices or with $300 
million or more in total assets would also provide a breakdown of 
restructured commercial and industrial loans between U.S. and non-
U.S. addressees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Schedule RC-C, part I, Memorandum item 1, and Schedule RC-
N, Memorandum item 1, are intended to capture data on loans that have 
undergone troubled debt restructurings as that term is defined in U.S. 
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). However, the captions 
of these two Memorandum items include only the term ``restructured'' 
rather than explicitly mentioning troubled debt restructurings, which 
has led to questions about the scope of these Memorandum items. 
Accordingly, the agencies proposed to revise the captions so they 
clearly indicate the loans to be reported in Schedule RC-C, part I, 
Memorandum item 1, and Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1, are troubled 
debt restructurings.
    The agencies received comments from three bankers' associations on 
the proposed additional detail on loans that have undergone troubled 
debt

[[Page 5258]]

restructurings. Two of the commenters recommended the agencies defer 
the proposed troubled debt restructuring revisions, including the new 
breakdowns by loan category, until the FASB finalizes proposed 
clarifications to the accounting for troubled debt restructurings by 
creditors.\6\ In addition, two of the bankers' associations recommended 
retaining the term ``restructured'' in the caption titles instead of 
changing to the term ``troubled debt restructurings,'' stating that 
changing this term would result in the collection of only a subset of 
total restructurings and would misrepresent banks' efforts to work with 
their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU): Receivables 
(Topic 310), Clarifications to Accounting for Troubled Debt 
Restructurings by Creditors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, banks currently report loans and leases 
restructured and in compliance with their modified terms in Schedule 
RC-C, part I, Memorandum item 1, with separate disclosure of (a) loans 
secured by 1-4 family residential properties and (b) other loans and 
all leases. This same breakout is currently collected for past due and 
nonaccrual restructured loans in Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1. 
Although the captions for these line items do not use the term 
``troubled debt restructurings,'' the line item instructions generally 
characterize loans reported in these items as troubled debt 
restructurings and direct the reader to the Glossary entry for 
``troubled debt restructurings'' for further information. Furthermore, 
the Glossary entry states that ``all loans that have undergone troubled 
debt restructurings and that are in compliance with their modified 
terms must be reported as restructured loans in Schedule RC-C, part I, 
Memorandum item 1.'' Therefore, the agencies' longstanding intent has 
been to collect information on troubled debt restructurings in these 
line items, and these items were not designed to include loan 
modifications and restructurings that do not constitute troubled debt 
restructurings (e.g., where a bank grants a concession to a borrower 
who is not experiencing financial difficulties).
    The accounting standards for troubled debt restructurings are set 
forth in ASC Subtopic 310-40, Receivables--Troubled Debt Restructurings 
by Creditors (formerly FASB Statement No. 15, ``Accounting by Debtors 
and Creditors for Troubled Debt Restructurings,'' as amended by FASB 
Statement No. 114, ``Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a 
Loan''). This is the accounting basis for the current reporting of 
restructured troubled loans in existing Schedule RC-C, part I, 
Memorandum items 1.a and 1.b, and Schedule RC-N, Memorandum items 1.a 
and 1.b. The proposed breakdown of the total amount of restructured 
``other loans'' in existing Memorandum item 1.b in both schedules would 
result in additional detail on loans already within the scope of ASC 
Subtopic 310-40. To the extent the clarifications emanating from the 
FASB proposed accounting standards update may result in banks having to 
report certain loans as troubled debt restructurings that had not 
previously been identified as such, this accounting outcome will arise 
irrespective of the proposed breakdown of the ``other loans'' category 
in Schedule RC-C, part I, Memorandum item 1, and Schedule RC-N, 
Memorandum item 1. Therefore, the agencies will implement the new 
breakdown for the reporting of troubled debt restructurings as 
proposed.
    However, to simplify and clarify the reporting of loan categories 
within ``All other loans'' that exceed 10 percent of the amount of 
``All other loans'' restructured in troubled debt restructurings, as 
described above, the agencies will include preprinted captions for the 
various possible loan categories to facilitate banks' efforts to 
itemize and describe these categories. Specifically, Schedule RC-C, 
Memorandum item 1.f, and Schedule RC-N, Memorandum item 1.f, will have 
preprinted captions for the following loan categories: (1) Loans 
secured by farmland (in domestic offices), (2) Loans to depository 
institutions and acceptances of other banks, (3) Loans to finance 
agricultural production and other loans to farmers (on the FFIEC 031), 
(4) Credit cards, (5) Automobile loans, (6) Other consumer loans, (7) 
Loans to foreign governments and official institutions, (8) Other loans 
(i.e., Obligations (other than securities and leases) of States and 
political subdivisions in the U.S. and Loans to nondepository financial 
institutions and other loans),\7\ and (9) on the FFIEC 031, Loans 
secured by real estate in foreign offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On the FFIEC 041 only, ``Other loans'' also would include 
``Loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to 
farmers.'' A preprinted caption would be provided on the FFIEC 041 
for ``Loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to 
farmers,'' which would be applicable to banks with $300 million or 
more in total assets and banks with less than $300 million in total 
assets that have loans to finance agricultural production and other 
loans to farmers exceeding five percent of total loans at which the 
amount of ``Loans to finance agricultural loans and other loans to 
farmers'' included in ``All other loans'' restructured in troubled 
debt restructurings exceeds the 10 percent threshold for 
itemization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Automobile Loans

    The banking agencies proposed to add a breakdown of the ``other 
consumer loans'' loan category in several Call Report schedules in 
order to separately collect information on automobile loans. The 
affected schedules would be Schedule RC-C, part I, Loans and Leases; 
Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities; Schedule RC-K, Quarterly 
Averages; Schedule RC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, Leases, and 
Other Assets; Schedule RI, Income Statement; and Schedule RI-B, part I, 
Charge-offs and Recoveries on Loans and Leases. Auto loans would 
include loans arising from retail sales of passenger cars and other 
vehicles such as minivans, vans, sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks, 
and similar light trucks for personal use. This new loan category would 
exclude loans to finance fleet sales, personal cash loans secured by 
automobiles already paid for, loans to finance the purchase of 
commercial vehicles and farm equipment, and auto lease financing.
    Automobile loans are a significant consumer business for many large 
banks. Because of the limited disclosure of auto lending on existing 
regulatory reports, supervisory oversight of auto lending is presently 
diminished by the need to rely on the examination process and public 
information sources that provide overall market information but not 
data on idiosyncratic risks.
    Roughly 65 percent of new vehicle sales and 40 percent of used 
vehicle sales are funded with auto loans. According to household 
surveys and data on loan originations, banks are an important source of 
auto loans. In 2008, this sector originated approximately one-third of 
all auto loans. Finance companies, both independent entities and 
affiliates of auto manufacturers, originated a bit more than one-third, 
while credit unions originated a bit less than one-quarter. In addition 
to originating auto loans, some banks purchase auto loans originated by 
other entities, which suggests that commercial banks could be the 
largest holder of auto loans.
    Despite the importance of banks to the auto loan market, the 
agencies know less about banks' holdings of auto loans than is known 
about finance company, credit union, and savings association holdings 
of these loans. All nonbank depository institutions are required to 
report auto loans on their respective regulatory reports, including 
savings associations, which originate less than five percent of auto 
loans. On their

[[Page 5259]]

regulatory reports, credit unions must provide not only the outstanding 
amount of new and used auto loans, but also the average interest rate 
and the number of loans. In a monthly survey, the Federal Reserve 
collects information on the amount of auto loans held by finance 
companies. As a consequence, during the financial crisis when funds 
were scarce for finance companies in general and the finance companies 
affiliated with automakers in particular, a lack of data on auto loans 
at banks hindered the banking agencies' ability to estimate the extent 
to which banks were filling in the gap in auto lending left by the 
finance companies.
    Additional disclosure regarding auto loans on bank Call Reports is 
especially important with the implementation of the amendments to ASC 
Topics 860, Transfers and Servicing, and 810, Consolidation, resulting 
from ASU No. 2009-16 (formerly Statement of Financial Accounting 
Standards (SFAS) No. 166, Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets 
(FAS 166)), and ASU No. 2009-17 (formerly SFAS No. 167, Amendments to 
FASB Interpretation No. 46(R) (FAS 167)), respectively. Until 2010, 
Call Report Schedule RC-S had provided the best supervisory information 
on auto lending because it included a separate breakout of securitized 
auto loans outstanding as well as securitized auto loan delinquencies 
and charge-offs. However, the accounting changes brought about by the 
amendments to ASC Topics 860 and 810 mean that if the auto loan 
securitization vehicle is now required to be consolidated, securitized 
auto lending previously reported on Schedule RC-S will be grouped as 
part of ``other consumer loans'' on Schedules RC-C, part I; RC-D; RC-K; 
RC-N; RI; and RI-B, part I, which diminishes supervisors' ability to 
assess auto loan exposures and performance.
    Finally, separating auto lending from other consumer loans would 
assist the agencies in understanding consumer lending activities at 
individual institutions. When an institution holds both auto loans and 
other types of consumer loans (other than credit cards, which are 
currently reported separately), the current combined reporting of these 
loans in the Call Report tends to mask any significant differences that 
may exist in the performance of these portfolios. For example, a bank 
could have a sizeable auto loan portfolio with low loan losses, but its 
other consumer lending, which could consist primarily of unsecured 
loans, could exhibit very high loss rates. The current blending of 
these divergent portfolios into a single Call Report loan category 
makes it difficult to adequately monitor consumer loan performance.
    The agencies received three comments from banks and one comment 
from a bankers' association on the proposal to separately collect 
information on automobile loans in Call Report schedules containing 
loan category data. The three banks requested an exemption from the 
proposed reporting requirements for smaller banks, with one of the 
banks seeking the exemption only for reporting auto loan interest 
income and quarterly averages. The bankers' association stated that 
this revision should not create a significant burden for future loans 
because core data processors generally have the ability to break out 
loan types, but it also asked for clarification on the reporting for 
situations in which auto loans are extended for multiple purposes. In 
addition, the bankers' association observed that some community banks 
do not have data readily available on the types or purposes of existing 
consumer loans, which would prevent them from determining the purpose 
of loans collateralized by autos, i.e., for the purchase of the auto or 
for some other purpose, without searching paper loan files.
    After considering these comments, the agencies continue to believe 
the reporting of information on auto loans from all banks is necessary 
for the agencies to carry out their supervisory and regulatory 
responsibilities and meet other public policy purposes. However, the 
agencies agree that the reporting of interest income and quarterly 
averages for auto loans may be particularly burdensome for banks to 
report. Therefore, the agencies will not implement the proposed 
collection of auto loan data on Schedule RI, Income Statement, or 
Schedule RC-K, Quarterly Averages, in 2011. Instead, the agencies will 
evaluate the auto loan data that will begin to be collected in the 
other Call Report schedules in March 2011 and reconsider whether to 
collect data on interest income and quarterly averages for auto loans. 
A decision to propose to collect auto loan interest income and 
quarterly averages would be subject to notice and comment.
    Regarding the request for clarification of the reporting treatment 
for auto loans extended for multiple purposes and existing consumer 
loans with autos as collateral, the agencies have concluded that, to 
reduce burden, all consumer loans originated or purchased before April 
1, 2011, that are collateralized by automobiles, regardless of the 
purpose of the loan, are to be classified as auto loans and included in 
the new Call Report items for auto loans. For consumer loans originated 
or purchased on or after April 1, 2011, banks should exclude from auto 
loans any personal cash loans secured by automobiles already paid for 
and consumer loans where some of the proceeds are used to purchase an 
auto and the remainder of the proceeds are used for other purposes.

C. Nonbrokered Deposits Obtained Through the Use of Deposit Listing 
Service Companies

    In its semiannual report to the Congress covering October 1, 2009, 
through March 31, 2010, the FDIC's Office of Inspector General 
addressed causes of bank failures and material losses and noted that 
``[f]ailed institutions often exhibited a growing dependence on 
volatile, non-core funding sources, such as brokered deposits, Federal 
Home Loan Bank advances, and Internet certificates of deposit.'' \8\ At 
present, banks report information on their funding in the form of 
brokered deposits in Memorandum items 1.b through 1.d of Schedule RC-E, 
Deposit Liabilities. Data on Federal Home Loan Bank advances are 
reported in items 5.a.(1) through (3) of Schedule RC-M, Memoranda. 
These data are an integral component of the banking agencies' analyses 
of individual institutions' liquidity and funding, including their 
reliance on non-core sources to fund their activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.fdicig.gov/semi-reports/sar2010mar/OIGSar2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deposit brokers have traditionally provided intermediary services 
for financial institutions and investors. However, the Internet, 
deposit listing services, and other automated services now enable 
investors who focus on yield to easily identify high-yielding deposit 
sources. Such customers are highly rate sensitive and can be a less 
stable source of funding than typical relationship deposit customers. 
Because they often have no other relationship with the bank, these 
customers may rapidly transfer funds to other institutions if more 
attractive returns become available.
    The agencies expect each institution to establish and adhere to a 
sound liquidity and funds management policy. The institution's board of 
directors, or a committee of the board, also should ensure that senior 
management takes the necessary steps to monitor and control liquidity 
risk. This process includes establishing procedures, guidelines, 
internal controls, and limits for managing and monitoring liquidity and 
reviewing the institution's liquidity

[[Page 5260]]

position, including its deposit structure, on a regular basis. A 
necessary prerequisite to sound liquidity and funds management 
decisions is a sound management information system, which provides 
certain basic information including data on non-relationship funding 
programs, such as brokered deposits, deposits obtained through the 
Internet or other types of advertising, and other similar rate 
sensitive deposits. Thus, an institution's management should be aware 
of the number and magnitude of such deposits.
    To improve the banking agencies' ability to monitor potentially 
volatile funding sources, the agencies proposed to close a gap in the 
information currently available to them through the Call Report by 
adding a new Memorandum item to Schedule RC-E in which banks would 
report the estimated amount of deposits obtained through the use of 
deposit listing services that are not brokered deposits.
    A deposit listing service is a company that compiles information 
about the interest rates offered on deposits, such as certificates of 
deposit, by insured depository institutions. A particular company could 
be a deposit listing service (compiling information about certificates 
of deposits) as well as a deposit broker (facilitating the placement of 
certificates of deposit). A deposit listing service is not a deposit 
broker if all of the following four criteria are met:
    (1) The person or entity providing the listing service is 
compensated solely by means of subscription fees (i.e., the fees paid 
by subscribers as payment for their opportunity to see the rates 
gathered by the listing service) and/or listing fees (i.e., the fees 
paid by depository institutions as payment for their opportunity to 
list or ``post'' their rates). The listing service does not require a 
depository institution to pay for other services offered by the listing 
service or its affiliates as a condition precedent to being listed.
    (2) The fees paid by depository institutions are flat fees: They 
are not calculated on the basis of the number or dollar amount of 
deposits accepted by the depository institution as a result of the 
listing or ``posting'' of the depository institution's rates.
    (3) In exchange for these fees, the listing service performs no 
services except (A) the gathering and transmission of information 
concerning the availability of deposits; and/or (B) the transmission of 
messages between depositors and depository institutions (including 
purchase orders and trade confirmations). In publishing or displaying 
information about depository institutions, the listing service must not 
attempt to steer funds toward particular institutions (except that the 
listing service may rank institutions according to interest rates and 
also may exclude institutions that do not pay the listing fee). 
Similarly, in any communications with depositors or potential 
depositors, the listing service must not attempt to steer funds toward 
particular institutions.
    (4) The listing service is not involved in placing deposits. Any 
funds to be invested in deposit accounts are remitted directly by the 
depositor to the insured depository institution and not, directly or 
indirectly, by or through the listing service.
    The agencies received 15 comments (nine banks, three bankers' 
associations, two law firms, and one deposit listing service) that 
addressed the proposed collection of the estimated amount of deposits 
obtained through the use of deposit listing services that are not 
brokered deposits. Only the two law firms supported the addition of the 
proposed Memorandum item to the Call Report. The other 13 commenters 
expressed varying degrees of opposition to the proposal.
    The deposit listing service recommended the agencies withdraw this 
proposal because not all listing services serve the same types of 
customers, not all listing service deposits can be easily tracked and 
controlled, not all listing services represent a source of high-yield 
deposits, and the collection of the proposed Memorandum item may 
dissuade bank examiners from appropriately evaluating the volatility 
and rate sensitivity of deposits reported in the item. Seven of the 
banks opposing this proposed Memorandum item raised these same four 
arguments. The other two banks and two of the bankers' associations 
that objected to the proposed item cited the difficulty in identifying 
and tracking deposits obtained from listing services. The other 
bankers' association expressed concern that the addition of a new Call 
Report item on deposits obtained from listing services, which are 
currently included in core deposits, ``will be a first step to exclude 
these funds from being considered core deposits.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Section II.H. below for information on a change in the 
definition of core deposits unrelated to the proposed Memorandum 
item for nonbrokered deposits obtained through the use of deposit 
listing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the two law firms supporting this proposed Call Report 
revision characterized it as ``a step in the right direction,'' ``long 
overdue,'' and ``a necessary and vital step toward developing a 
rational policy concerning access to the national deposit funding 
markets by banks.'' One law firm commented that ``[s]ince the FDIC 
issued a Final Rule in 2009 to revise insurance assessments on brokered 
deposits (12 CFR part 327), * * * numerous IDIs have turned away from 
accepting brokered deposits in favor of unregulated and opaque deposits 
from deposit listing services as an alternative (and less scrutinized) 
source for their non-core out-of-area funding.'' The other law firm 
made a similar observation, adding that the proposed Memorandum item 
``will provide important information to regulators about each banks' 
deposit funding sources.''
    Although commenters, including the deposit listing service, 
expressed concern about the ability to identify deposits obtained 
through the use of listing services, the deposit listing service 
described itself ``[a]s a closed, member-only listing service'' and 
stated that it ``has always provided banks with tracking utilities and 
reports that will allow for the analysis of deposits being generated'' 
through the use of the listing service, thereby easing ``administrative 
burdens for our financial institution subscribers.'' The listing 
service also noted that this ``is not the case with most or all other 
listing services.'' In addition, the deposit listing service stated 
that:

    Further complicating matters is the fact that some public, open 
listing services, national publications and rate-advertising 
Websites will post a bank's rate without the bank's authorization. 
These sources routinely pick up the bank's rates from its own 
Website, without the institution's knowledge. Because the bank did 
not initiate the advertisements (and may not even be aware that they 
exist), the bank will not be able to quantify deposits coming from 
these other sources for the purpose of the call report.

    One bank made a similar observation about rate-advertising Web 
sites, stating that ``[w]e do not pay to have our rates listed on such 
sites since we concentrate on relationships with local customers but it 
is possible that some of our customers opened their accounts with us 
based on those listings.'' The bank recommended that, if the proposed 
Memorandum item is added to the Call Report, ``the instructions should 
exempt deposits acquired based on deposit listing services when the 
bank did not take any action to have its rates listed by the service.''
    The agencies acknowledge that, unless a deposit listing service 
offers deposit tracking to its bank customers, the precise amount of 
deposits obtained through the use of listing services is not readily 
determinable. It was for this

[[Page 5261]]

reason that the agencies specifically proposed that banks report the 
estimated amount of listing service deposits. Furthermore, although 
some comment letters suggested the agencies' proposed new Memorandum 
item was designed to capture all deposits obtained via the Internet, 
that is not the intended scope of the proposed item.
    In their comments, the deposit listing service and several banks 
expressed concern that the addition of the proposed Memorandum item to 
the Call Report will ``encourage examiners to simply apply a blanket 
assumption of volatility and rate sensitivity to all deposits'' 
reported in the new item. One bankers' association questioned what 
would be served if the agencies were to collect this information. The 
estimated amount of deposits obtained through deposit listing services, 
and how the estimate changes over time, will serve as additional data 
points for examiners as they begin their comprehensive fact-specific 
evaluations of the stability of banks' deposit bases. The collection of 
the proposed item is not intended to eliminate examiners' assessments 
of depositors' characteristics, which of necessity entails a thorough 
analysis of the risk factors associated with a bank's depositors and 
how bank management identifies, measures, manages, and controls these 
risks. Information on the level and trend of an individual bank's 
deposits obtained through the use of listing services also will assist 
examiners in planning how they will evaluate liquidity and funds 
management during examinations of the bank. From a surveillance 
perspective, significant changes in a bank's use of listing service 
deposits may trigger supervisory follow-up prior to the next planned 
examination.
    After considering the comments on its proposal, the agencies have 
decided to proceed with the proposed new Memorandum item for the 
estimated amount of deposits obtained through the use of deposit 
listing services. As mentioned above, the new item is not intended to 
capture all deposits obtained through the Internet, such as deposits 
that a bank receives because a person or entity has seen the rates the 
bank has posted on its own Web site or on a rate-advertising Web site 
that has picked up and posted the bank's rates on its site without the 
bank's authorization. Accordingly, the final instructions will state 
that the objective of the Memorandum item is to collect the estimated 
amount of deposits obtained as a result of action taken by the bank to 
have its deposit rates listed by a listing service, and the listing 
service is compensated for this listing either by the bank whose rates 
are being listed or by the persons or entities who view the listed 
rates. However, the final instructions for the Memorandum item also 
will indicate that the actual amount of nonbrokered listing service 
deposits, rather than an estimate, should be reported for those 
deposits acquired through the use of a service that offers deposit 
tracking. A bank should establish a reasonable and supportable 
estimation process for identifying listing service deposits that meet 
these reporting parameters and apply this process consistently over 
time.

D. Deposits of Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations

    In Call Report Schedule RC-E, Deposit Liabilities, banks currently 
report separate breakdowns of their transaction and nontransaction 
accounts (in domestic offices) by category of depositor. The 
predominant depositor category is deposits of ``Individuals, 
partnerships, and corporations,'' which comprises more than 90 percent 
of total deposits in domestic offices. The recent crisis has 
demonstrated that business depositors' behavioral characteristics are 
significantly different than the behavioral characteristics of 
individuals. Thus, separate reporting of deposits of individuals versus 
deposits of partnerships and corporations would enable the banking 
agencies to better assess the liquidity risk profile of institutions 
given differences in the relative stability of deposits from these two 
sources.
    As proposed to be revised, Schedule RC-E, item 1, ``Individuals, 
partnerships, and corporations,'' would be split into item 1.a, 
``Individuals,'' and item 1.b, ``Partnerships and corporations.'' Under 
this proposal, accounts currently reported in item 1 for which the 
depositor's taxpayer identification number, as maintained on the 
account in the bank's records, is a Social Security Number (or an 
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number \10\) should be treated as 
deposits of individuals. In general, all other accounts currently 
reported in item 1 should be treated as deposits of partnerships and 
corporations. However, Schedule RC-E, item 1, also includes all 
certified and official checks. To limit the reporting burden of this 
proposed change, official checks in the form of money orders and 
travelers checks would be reported as deposits of individuals. 
Certified checks and all other official checks would be reported as 
deposits of partnerships and corporations. The agencies requested 
comment on this approach to reporting certified and official checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is a tax 
processing number only available for certain nonresident and 
resident aliens, their spouses, and dependents who cannot get a 
Social Security Number. It is a 9-digit number, beginning with the 
number ``9,'' in a format similar to a Social Security Number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies received three comments from banks and two comments 
from bankers' associations on the proposal for separate reporting of 
deposits of individuals versus deposits of partnerships and 
corporations. Two bank commenters requested the exemption of smaller 
banks from this proposed reporting requirement. The third bank and the 
two bankers' associations stated the proposal would require significant 
system programming changes and the bank also questioned the 
meaningfulness of the separate information. These commenters indicated 
that if the new deposit breakdown were adopted, it should be deferred 
until either December 31, 2011, or March 31, 2012, to allow time for 
banks to make the necessary systems changes. The bankers' associations 
also recommended that all certified and official checks be reported 
together in one of the two depositor categories, with one of the 
associations expressing a preference for reporting all of these checks 
as deposits of partnerships and corporations. Finally, one bankers' 
association recommended that all brokered deposits and all uninvested 
trust funds be reported as deposits of partnerships and corporations, 
and all mortgage escrows be reported as deposits of individuals.
    The agencies have reconsidered their proposal for banks to report 
deposits of individuals separately from deposits of partnerships and 
corporations in Schedule RC-E. Although the agencies continue to 
believe that information distinguishing between deposits of individuals 
and deposits of partnerships and corporations would enhance the 
agencies ability to assess the liquidity risk profile of institutions, 
they acknowledge the proposed reporting revision could necessitate 
extensive programming changes and impose significant reporting burden. 
As a result of this reevaluation, the agencies have decided not to 
implement this proposed Call Report revision.

E. Variable Interest Entities

    In June 2009, the FASB issued accounting standards that have 
changed the way entities account for securitizations and special 
purpose entities. ASU No. 2009-16 (formerly FAS 166) revised ASC Topic 
860, Transfers and Servicing, by eliminating the concept of a 
``qualifying special-

[[Page 5262]]

purpose entity'' (QSPE) and changing the requirements for derecognizing 
financial assets. ASU No. 2009-17 (formerly FAS 167) revised ASC Topic 
810, Consolidation, by changing how a bank or other company determines 
when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled 
through voting or similar rights, i.e., a ``variable interest entity'' 
(VIE), should be consolidated. For most banks, ASU Nos. 2009-16 and 
2009-17 took effect January 1, 2010.
    Under ASC Topic 810, as amended, determining whether a bank is 
required to consolidate a VIE depends on a qualitative analysis of 
whether that bank has a ``controlling financial interest'' in the VIE 
and is therefore the primary beneficiary of the VIE. The analysis 
focuses on the bank's power over and interest in the VIE. With the 
removal of the QSPE concept from generally accepted accounting 
principles that was brought about in amended ASC Topic 860, a bank that 
transferred financial assets to an SPE that met the definition of a 
QSPE before the effective date of these amended accounting standards 
was required to evaluate whether, pursuant to amended ASC Topic 810, it 
must begin to consolidate the assets, liabilities, and equity of the 
SPE as of that effective date. Thus, when implementing amended ASC 
Topics 860 and 810 at the beginning of 2010, banks began to consolidate 
certain previously off-balance securitization vehicles, asset-backed 
commercial paper conduits, and other structures. Going forward, banks 
with variable interests in new VIEs must evaluate whether they have a 
controlling financial interest in these entities and, if so, 
consolidate them. In addition, banks must continually reassess whether 
they are the primary beneficiary of VIEs in which they have variable 
interests.
    For those VIEs that banks must consolidate, the banking agencies' 
Call Report instructional guidance advises institutions to report the 
assets and liabilities of these VIEs on the Call Report balance sheet 
(Schedule RC) in the balance sheet category appropriate to the asset or 
liability. However, ASC paragraph 810-10-45-25 \11\ requires a 
reporting entity to present ``separately on the face of the statement 
of financial position: a. Assets of a consolidated variable interest 
entity (VIE) that can be used only to settle obligations of the 
consolidated VIE [and] b. Liabilities of a consolidated VIE for which 
creditors (or beneficial interest holders) do not have recourse to the 
general credit of the primary beneficiary.'' This requirement has been 
interpreted to mean that ``each line item of the consolidated balance 
sheet should differentiate which portion of those amounts meet the 
separate presentation conditions.'' \12\ In requiring separate 
presentation for these assets and liabilities, the FASB agreed with 
commenters on its proposed accounting standard on consolidation that 
``separate presentation * * * would provide transparent and useful 
information about an enterprise's involvement and associated risks in a 
variable interest entity.'' \13\ The banking agencies concur that 
separate presentation would provide similar benefits to them and other 
Call Report users, particularly since data on securitized assets that 
are reconsolidated are no longer reported on Call Report Schedule RC-S, 
Servicing, Securitization, and Asset Sale Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Formerly paragraph 22A of FIN 46(R), as amended by FAS 167.
    \12\ Deloitte & Touche LLP, ``Back on-balance sheet: 
Observations from the adoption of FAS 167,'' May 2010, page 4 
(http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Services/audit-enterprise-risk-services/Financial-Accounting-Reporting/f3a70ca28d9f8210VgnVCM200000bb42f00aRCRD.htm).
    \13\ See paragraphs A80 and A81 of FAS 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the presentation requirements discussed above, the 
banking agencies proposed to add a new Schedule RC-V, Variable Interest 
Entities, to the Call Report in which banks would report a breakdown of 
the assets of consolidated VIEs that can be used only to settle 
obligations of the consolidated VIEs and liabilities of consolidated 
VIEs for which creditors do not have recourse to the general credit of 
the reporting bank. The following proposed categories for these assets 
and liabilities would include some of the same categories presented on 
the Call Report balance sheet (Schedule RC): Cash and balances due from 
depository institutions, Held-to-maturity securities; Available-for-
sale securities; Securities purchased under agreements to resell, Loans 
and leases held for sale; Loans and leases, net of unearned income; 
Allowance for loan and lease losses; Trading assets (other than 
derivatives); Derivative trading assets; Other real estate owned; Other 
assets; Securities sold under agreements to repurchase; Derivative 
trading liabilities; Other borrowed money (other than commercial 
paper); Commercial paper; and Other liabilities. These assets and 
liabilities would be presented separately for securitization vehicles, 
asset-backed commercial paper conduits, and other VIEs.
    In addition, the agencies proposed to include two separate items in 
new Schedule RC-V in which banks would report the total amounts of all 
other assets and all other liabilities of consolidated VIEs (i.e., all 
assets of consolidated VIEs that are not dedicated solely to settling 
obligations of the VIE and all liabilities of consolidated VIEs for 
which creditors have recourse to the general credit of the reporting 
bank). The collection of this information would help the agencies 
understand the total magnitude of consolidated VIEs. These assets and 
liabilities also would be reported separately for securitization 
vehicles, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, and other VIEs.
    The asset and liability information collected in Schedule RC-V 
would represent amounts included in the reporting bank's consolidated 
assets and liabilities reported on Schedule RC, Balance Sheet, i.e., 
after eliminating intercompany transactions.
    The agencies received one comment from a bankers' association that 
addressed proposed Schedule RC-V. The bankers' association recommended 
delaying the March 2011 effective date of this new schedule until a 
later quarter because the collection of the data to be reported in the 
schedule, given the proposed level of granularity, would be mostly a 
manual process involving spreadsheets until systems modifications could 
be made.
    Because the Call Report balance sheet is completed on a 
consolidated basis, the VIE amounts that banks would report in new 
Schedule RC-V are amounts that, through the consolidation process, 
already must be reported in the appropriate balance sheet asset and 
liability categories. These balance sheet categories, by and large, 
have been carried over into Schedule RC-V. Schedule RC-V distinguishes 
between assets of consolidated VIEs that can be used only to settle 
obligations of the consolidated VIEs and assets not meeting this 
condition as well as liabilities of consolidated VIEs for which 
creditors do not have recourse to the general credit of the reporting 
bank and liabilities not meeting this condition. This distinction is 
based on existing disclosure requirements applicable to financial 
statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, to which the banks 
likely to have material amounts of consolidated VIE assets and 
liabilities to report have been subject for one year. Thus, these banks 
should have a process in place, even if manual, for segregating VIE 
assets and liabilities based on this distinction.
    The agencies recognize that the proposed separate reporting of 
consolidated VIE assets and liabilities by the type of VIE activity, 
i.e., securitization vehicles, ABCP conduits, and other VIEs, goes 
beyond the

[[Page 5263]]

disclosure requirements in U.S. GAAP. Otherwise, the proposed data 
requirements for Schedule RC-V have been based purposely on the GAAP 
framework. Thus, the agencies have concluded that it would be 
appropriate to proceed with the introduction of new Schedule RC-V in 
March 2011 as proposed. Banks are reminded that, as mentioned above, 
they may provide reasonable estimates in their March 31, 2011, Call 
Report 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.

F. Life Insurance Assets

    Banks purchase and hold bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies 
as assets, the premiums for which may be used to acquire general 
account or separate account life insurance policies. Banks currently 
report the aggregate amount of their life insurance assets in item 5 of 
Call Report Schedule RC-F, Other Assets, without regard to the type of 
policies they hold.
    Many banks have BOLI assets, and the traditional distinction 
between those life insurance policies that represent general account 
products and those that represent separate account products has meaning 
with respect to the degree of credit risk involved as well as 
performance measures for the life insurance assets in a volatile market 
environment. In a general account policy, the general assets of the 
insurance company issuing the policy support the policy's cash 
surrender value. In a separate account policy, the policy's cash 
surrender value is supported by assets segregated from the general 
assets of the insurance carrier. Under such an arrangement, the 
policyholder neither owns the underlying separate account created by 
the insurance carrier on its behalf nor controls investment decisions 
in the account. Nevertheless, the policyholder assumes all investment 
and price risk.
    A number of banks holding separate account life insurance policies 
have recorded significant losses in recent years due to the volatility 
in the markets and the vulnerability to market fluctuations of the 
instruments that are investment options in separate account life 
insurance policies. Information distinguishing between the cash 
surrender values of general account and separate account life insurance 
policies would allow the banking agencies to track banks' holdings of 
both types of life insurance policies with their differing risk 
characteristics and changes in their carrying amounts resulting from 
their performance over time. Accordingly, the banking agencies proposed 
to split item 5 of Schedule RC-F into two items: item 5.a, ``General 
account life insurance assets,'' and item 5.b, ``Separate account life 
insurance assets.''
    Two insurance consultants and an insurance company submitted 
comments supporting the agencies' proposal to add a breakdown of life 
insurance assets by type of policy to the Call Report. However, all 
three commenters noted that the evolution of life insurance products in 
recent years has led to a third type of policy becoming more prevalent 
in the banking industry: Hybrid accounts. Such accounts combine 
features of general and separate account products by providing the 
additional asset protection offered by separate accounts while also 
providing a guaranteed minimum interest-crediting rate, which is common 
to general accounts. They recommended the agencies revise their 
proposal from a two-way to a three-way breakdown of life insurance 
assets or, although not the preferable approach, advise banks with 
hybrid account life insurance assets to report them together with 
general account life insurance assets because they have more general 
account characteristics. Because of the agencies' interest in being 
better able to understand the risk characteristics of banks' holdings 
of life insurance assets, the agencies have decided to implement the 
three-way breakdown of these assets consistent with the commenters' 
recommendation.

G. Call Report Instructional Revisions

1. Reporting of 1-4 Family Residential Mortgages Held for Trading in 
Schedule RC-P
    The banking agencies began collecting information in Schedule RC-P, 
1-4 Family Residential Mortgage Banking Activities in Domestic Offices, 
in September 2006. At that time, the instructions for Schedule RC-C, 
part I, Loans and Leases, indicated that loans generally could not be 
classified as held for trading. Therefore, all 1-4 family residential 
mortgage loans designated as held for sale were reportable in Schedule 
RC-P. In March 2008, the banking agencies provided instructional 
guidance establishing conditions under which banks were permitted to 
classify certain assets (e.g., loans) as trading, and specified that 
loans classified as trading assets should be excluded from Schedule RC-
C, part I, Loans and Leases, and reported instead in Schedule RC-D, 
Trading Assets and Liabilities (if the reporting threshold for this 
schedule were met). However, the agencies neglected to address the 
reporting treatment in Schedule RC-P of 1-4 family residential loans 
that met the conditions for classification as trading assets. 
Therefore, the agencies are proposing to correct this by providing 
explicit instructional guidance that all 1-4 family residential 
mortgage banking activities, whether held for sale or trading purposes, 
are reportable on Schedule RC-P.
    The agencies received one comment from a bankers' association on 
the proposed guidance on the reporting of 1-4 family residential 
mortgages held for trading in Schedule RC-P. The commenter supported 
the proposed clarification and requested further clarification on the 
reporting of repurchases and indemnifications in this schedule. The 
commenter suggested separate reporting of loan repurchases from 
indemnifications for all subitems of Schedule RC-P, item 6, 
``Repurchases and indemnifications of 1-4 family residential mortgage 
loans during the quarter.''
    In September 2010, the agencies clarified the Call Report 
instructions for Schedule RC-P, item 6, to explain which repurchases of 
1-4 family residential mortgage loans are reportable in this item. 
Specifically, instructional guidance was provided stating that banks 
should exclude 1-4 family residential mortgage loans that have been 
repurchased solely at the discretion of the bank from item 6. The 
agencies do not believe there is a supervisory need to separate the 
reporting of loan repurchases from indemnifications in Schedule RC-P, 
item 6, but welcome comments regarding any further clarifications to 
these reporting instructions.
2. Maturity and Repricing Data for Assets and Liabilities at 
Contractual Ceilings and Floors
    Banks report maturity and repricing data for debt securities (not 
held for trading), loans and leases (not held for trading), time 
deposits, and other borrowed money in Call Report Schedule RC-B, 
Securities; Schedule RC-C, part I, Loans and Leases; Schedule RC-E, 
Deposit Liabilities; and Schedule RC-M, Memoranda, respectively. The 
agencies use these data to assess, at a broad level, a bank's exposure 
to interest rate risk. The instructions for reporting the maturity and 
repricing data currently require that when the interest rate on a 
floating rate instrument has reached a contractual floor or ceiling 
level, which is a form of embedded option, the instrument is to be 
treated as ``fixed rate'' rather than ``floating rate'' until the rate 
is again free

[[Page 5264]]

to float. As a result, a floating rate instrument whose interest rate 
has fallen to its floor or risen to its ceiling is reported based on 
the time remaining until its contractual maturity date rather than the 
time remaining until the next interest rate adjustment date (or the 
contractual maturity date, if earlier). This reporting treatment is 
designed to capture the potential effect of the embedded option under 
particular interest rate scenarios.
    The American Bankers Association (ABA) requested that the agencies 
reconsider the reporting treatment for floating rate loans with 
contractual floors and ceilings. More specifically, the ABA recommended 
revising the instructions so that floating rate loans would always be 
reported based on the time remaining until the next interest rate 
adjustment date without regard to whether the rate on the loan has 
reached a contractual floor or ceiling.
    The agencies considered this request and concluded that an 
instructional revision was warranted, provided it applied to all 
floating rate instruments for which repricing information is reported 
in the Call Report, but the extent to which the revision applied to 
floors and ceilings should be narrower than recommended by the ABA. The 
agencies concluded that when a floating rate instrument is at its 
contractual floor or ceiling and the embedded option has intrinsic 
value to the bank, the floor or ceiling should be ignored and the 
instrument should be treated as a floating rate instrument. However, if 
the embedded option has intrinsic value to the bank's counterparty, the 
contractual floor or ceiling should continue to be taken into account 
and the instrument should be treated as a fixed rate instrument. For 
example, when the interest rate on a floating rate loan reaches its 
contractual ceiling, the embedded option represented by the ceiling has 
intrinsic value to the borrower and is a detriment to the bank because 
the loan's yield to the bank is lower than what it would have been 
without the ceiling. When the interest rate on a floating rate loan 
reaches its contractual floor, the embedded option represented by the 
floor has intrinsic value to the bank and is a benefit to the bank 
because the loan's yield to the bank is higher than what it would have 
been without the floor.
    Accordingly, the agencies proposed to revise the instructions for 
reporting maturity and repricing data in the four Call Report schedules 
identified above. As proposed, the instructions would indicate that a 
floating rate asset that has reached its contractual ceiling and a 
floating rate liability that has reached its contractual floor would be 
treated as a fixed rate instrument and reported based on the time 
remaining until its contractual maturity date. In contrast, the 
instructions would state that a floating rate asset that has reached 
its contractual floor and a floating rate liability that has reached 
its contractual ceiling would be treated as a floating rate instrument 
and reported based on the time remaining until the next interest rate 
adjustment date (or the contractual maturity date, if earlier).
    The agencies received comments from two bankers' associations on 
this proposed instructional change. One bankers' association 
recommended the agencies adopt their proposed approach only for 
floating rate loans reported in Schedule RC-C, part I. This bankers' 
association opposed extending the same proposed approach to the other 
three Call Report schedules in which repricing data are reported for 
certain other floating rate instruments because its ``members believe 
that not enough research has been completed'' to understand the effect 
of the proposed instructional change on how these other instruments 
would be reported. The other bankers' association recommended against 
proceeding with the proposed instructional change because of the 
implementation burden associated with the multiple systems that would 
need to be revised. This association also observed that the revised 
information for floating rate instruments at contractual ceilings and 
floors would be commingled with the maturity and repricing information 
for all of the other instruments in the same asset or liability 
category.
    After considering the comments received, the agencies have decided 
not to change the instructions for reporting repricing information for 
floating rate instruments at contractual ceilings and floors in 
Schedules RC-B; RC-C; part I, RC-E; and RC-M. Such floating rate 
instruments should continue to be reported in these schedules in 
accordance with the longstanding requirement that the instruments be 
treated as ``fixed rate'' rather than ``floating rate'' until their 
rate is again free to float.

H. Definitions of Core Deposits and Non-Core Funding

    As previously mentioned, two bankers' associations submitted 
comments addressing the definition of core deposits, which was not part 
of the agencies' proposed Call Report revisions for March 2011. The 
associations noted that the definition of this term, which is used in 
the calculation of ratios published by the agencies in the Uniform Bank 
Performance Report (UBPR), currently incorporates a $100,000 threshold 
for time deposits. This amount was the standard maximum deposit 
insurance amount before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, which 
permanently increased the standard maximum amount to $250,000 on July 
21, 2010. Consequently, one bankers' association urged the agencies to 
adjust the core deposit threshold to $250,000 for consistency with the 
deposit insurance limit. Similarly, the second bankers' association 
stated this change in the standard maximum deposit insurance amount 
eliminated the need to continue to base the identification of core 
deposits on the $100,000 threshold. This association recommended that 
references in the Call Report to $100,000 be revised and updated.
    The banking agencies publish the UBPR quarterly to facilitate peer 
comparisons of bank performance by bankers, examiners, and bank 
analysts. UBPR data are calculated primarily from data reported in the 
Call Report. The UBPR includes a liquidity page that contains 
calculated values for a variety of predefined ratios, including several 
ratios measuring core and non-core funding dependency. The agencies' 
staffs use these ratios for offsite surveillance purposes to identify 
institutions with potentially heightened risk characteristics, while 
examiners may use these ratios in their reports, as appropriate, for 
benchmarking purposes in their liquidity analyses.
    At present, the UBPR defines core deposits as the sum of demand 
deposits, negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts, automatic 
transfer service (ATS) accounts, money market deposit accounts (MMDA), 
other savings deposits, and time deposits of less than $100,000. All 
time deposits with balances of $100,000 or more, including those with 
balances between $100,000 and $250,000, are not included in core 
deposits for UBPR purposes.
    The UBPR also defines an associated concept, non-core liabilities, 
as total time deposits of $100,000 or more, other borrowed money, 
foreign office deposits, securities sold under agreements to 
repurchase, Federal funds purchased, and brokered deposits of less than 
$100,000. Thus, for example, all fully insured time deposits in amounts 
greater than $100,000 are currently deemed to be non-core liabilities. 
Finally, the UBPR further refines the concept of non-core liabilities 
by separately defining short-term non-core liabilities as those non-
core liabilities with maturities of one year or less.

[[Page 5265]]

    For purposes of liquidity evaluations conducted during safety-and-
soundness examinations, examiners are expected to consider a variety of 
factors in assessing the stability of a bank's deposit base. Given that 
such an assessment is complex and fact specific, a bank's core deposit 
and non-core funding ratios calculated by the UBPR are best viewed as a 
starting point for further liquidity analysis. Furthermore, a strong 
case can be made that the current UBPR definitions of core deposits and 
non-core funds are not the appropriate starting point for analysis 
given the permanent change in the standard maximum deposit insurance 
amount to $250,000. At present, non-brokered time deposits of $100,000 
or more with fully insured balances are automatically being deemed non-
core funds in the current UBPR. Although examiners can, and are 
expected to, look through ratios to assess the underlying stability of 
deposits, it seems inappropriate to automatically penalize all such 
deposits with a non-core funding designation in the UBPR.
    Accordingly, after considering the comments from the two bankers' 
associations, the agencies have concluded that non-brokered time 
deposits with balances between $100,000 and $250,000 should be 
considered core deposits rather than non-core liabilities for UBPR 
calculation purposes. The agencies further believe that, for 
consistency, this increased deposit threshold should be incorporated at 
the same time into the UBPR definitions of non-core liabilities and 
short-term non-core liabilities. Although the definitional changes for 
core deposits and non-core liabilities can be implemented using 
information currently collected in the Call Report, each of two 
existing Call Report items would need to be revised to support an 
updated definition of short-term non-core liabilities that reflects the 
increased standard maximum insurance amount of $250,000. Therefore, 
effective with the Call Report for March 31, 2011, the agencies have 
decided to implement a further breakdown of two items in Schedule RC-E, 
Deposit Liabilities, as follows:
    (1) Existing Memorandum item 1.d.(2), ``Brokered deposits of 
$100,000 or more with a remaining maturity of one year or less,'' would 
be split into new Memorandum item 1.d.(2), ``Brokered deposits of 
$100,000 through $250,000 with a remaining maturity of one year or 
less,'' and new Memorandum item 1.d.(3), ``Brokered deposits of more 
than $250,000 with a remaining maturity of one year or less,'' and
    (2) Existing Memorandum item 4.b, ``Time deposits of $100,000 or 
more with a remaining maturity of one year or less,'' would be split 
into new Memorandum item 4.b, ``Time deposits of $100,000 through 
$250,000 with a remaining maturity of one year or less,'' and new 
Memorandum item 4.c, ``Time deposits of more than $250,000 with a 
remaining maturity of one year or less.''
    For UBPR calculation purposes beginning with Call Report data 
reported as of March 31, 2011, core deposits will be defined as the sum 
of demand deposits, NOW accounts, ATS accounts, MMDAs, other savings 
deposits, and total time deposits of $250,000 or less, minus brokered 
deposits of $250,000 or less. Non-core liabilities will be defined as 
the sum of total time deposits of more than $250,000, brokered deposits 
of $250,000 or less, other borrowed money, foreign office deposits, 
securities sold under agreements to repurchase, and Federal funds 
purchased. Short-term non-core liabilities will be defined as the sum 
of time deposits of more than $250,000 with a remaining maturity of one 
year or less, brokered deposits of $250,000 or less with a remaining 
maturity of one year or less, other borrowed money with a remaining 
maturity of one year or less, foreign office deposits with a remaining 
maturity of one year or less, securities sold under agreements to 
repurchase, and Federal funds purchased.

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.

    Dated: January 20, 2011.
Michele Meyer,
Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 24, 
2011.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
    Dated at Washington, DC, this 20th day of January 2011.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1815 Filed 1-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P