[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52560-52568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18396]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board 
Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) 
is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the 
Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M; OMB No. 
7100-0341).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Reserve Board Clearance 
Officer--Nuha Elmaghrabi--Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, [email protected], (202) 
452-3884.
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal 
Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board 
authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign 
OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or 
sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are 
incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved 
collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the 
PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of 
information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal 
Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance 
officer, whose name appears above.

Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of the Extension for Three 
Years, With Revision, of the Following Information Collection

    Collection title: Capital Assessments and Stress Test Reports.
    Collection identifier: FR Y-14A/Q/M.
    OMB control number: 7100-0341.
    Effective Dates: September 30, 2022; December 31, 2022; and June 
30, 2023.
    Frequency: Annually, quarterly, and monthly.
    Respondents: These collections of information are applicable to 
bank holding companies (BHCs), U.S. intermediate holding companies 
(IHCs), and covered savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) with 
$100 billion or more in total consolidated assets, as based on: (i) the 
average of the firm's total consolidated assets in the four most recent 
quarters as reported quarterly on the firm's Consolidated Financial 
Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C); or (ii) if the firm has not 
filed an FR Y-9C for each of the most recent four quarters, then the 
average of the firm's total consolidated assets in the most recent 
consecutive quarters as reported quarterly on the firm's FR Y-9C. 
Reporting is required as of the first day of the quarter immediately 
following the quarter in which the respondent meets this asset 
threshold, unless otherwise directed by the Board.
    Estimated number of respondents: FR Y-14A/Q: 36; FR Y-14M: 34; \1\ 
FR Y-14 On-going
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The estimated number of respondents for the FR Y-14M is 
lower than for the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-14A because, in recent years, 
certain respondents to the FR Y-14A and FR Y-14Q have not met the 
materiality thresholds to report the FR Y-14M due to their lack of 
mortgage and credit activities. The Board expects this situation to 
continue for the foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Automation Revisions: 36; FR Y-14 Attestation On-going: 8.
    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-14A: 1,330 hours; FR Y-
14Q: 1,999 hours; FR Y-14M: 1,071 hours; FR Y-14 On-going Automation 
Revisions: 480 hours; FR Y-14 Attestation On-going: 2,560 hours.
    Estimated annual burden hours: FR Y-14A: 47,880 hours; FR Y-14Q: 
287,852 hours; FR Y-14M: 436,968 hours; FR Y-14 On-going Automation 
Revisions: 17,280 hours; FR Y-14 Attestation On-going: 20,480 hours.
    General description of report: This family of information 
collections is composed of the following three reports:

[[Page 52561]]

     The annual FR Y-14A collects quantitative projections of 
balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of 
macroeconomic scenarios and qualitative information on methodologies 
used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In certain circumstances, a firm may be required to re-
submit its capital plan. See 12 CFR 225.8(e)(4); 12 CFR 
238.170(e)(4). Firms that must re-submit their capital plan 
generally also must provide a revised FR Y-14A in connection with 
their resubmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The quarterly FR Y-14Q collects granular data on various 
asset classes, including loans, securities, trading assets, and pre-
provision net revenue (PPNR) for the reporting period.
     The monthly FR Y-14M is comprised of three retail 
portfolio- and loan-level schedules, and one detailed address-matching 
schedule to supplement two of the portfolio- and loan-level schedules.
    The data collected through the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports (FR Y-14 
reports) provide the Board with the information needed to help ensure 
that large firms have strong, firm[hyphen]wide risk measurement and 
management processes supporting their internal assessments of capital 
adequacy and that their capital resources are sufficient, given their 
business focus, activities, and resulting risk exposures. The data 
within the reports are used to set firms' stress capital buffer 
requirements. The data are also used to support other Board supervisory 
efforts aimed at enhancing the continued viability of large firms, 
including continuous monitoring of firms' planning and management of 
liquidity and funding resources, as well as regular assessments of 
credit risk, market risk, and operational risk, and associated risk 
management practices. Information gathered in this data collection is 
also used in the supervision and regulation of respondent financial 
institutions. Respondent firms are currently required to complete and 
submit up to 17 filings each year: one annual FR Y-14A filing, four 
quarterly FR Y-14Q filings, and 12 monthly FR Y-14M filings. Compliance 
with the information collection is mandatory.
    Current actions: On March 1, 2022, the Board published a notice in 
the Federal Register (87 FR 11432) requesting public comment for 60 
days on the extension, with revision, of the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports. The 
proposed revisions would have enabled the Board to better identify 
risks not currently captured in the stress test, facilitate data 
reconciliation, and mitigate ambiguity within the instructions. The 
comment period for this notice expired on May 2, 2022. The Board 
received three comment letters from banking organizations and one 
comment letter from a banking industry group. The Board has adopted the 
proposed revisions, except as discussed below.

Detailed Discussion of Public Comments

General

    The Board proposed to implement revisions to the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-
14M effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date, and revisions to 
the FR Y-14A effective for the December 31, 2022, as of date. To allow 
firms time to adequately implement, test, and confirm that they comply 
with the new reporting requirements, one commenter asked that all FR Y-
14Q/M revisions be delayed from the proposed implementation date of 
September 30, 2022, until June 30, 2023 (or later), and another 
commenter requested implementation of these revisions be postponed 
until the September 30, 2023, as of date.
    The Board is cognizant of firm burden as it relates to regulatory 
reporting. Some of the proposed changes are critical for the 
supervisory stress test and so need to be implemented in time for use 
in the 2023 supervisory stress test. Unless otherwise specified, the 
Board has adopted revisions as proposed, effective for the September 
30, 2022, as of date for the FR Y-14Q and FR Y-14M and effective for 
the December 31, 2022, as of date for the FR Y-14A. However, to reduce 
firm burden, the Board has delayed some of the revisions to FR Y-14Q, 
Schedule H (Wholesale) and all the revisions to FR Y-14Q, Schedule L 
(Counterparty) until the June 30, 2023, as of date.

Counterparty

Client-Cleared Derivatives

    On FR Y-14Q, Schedule L.5 (Derivatives and Securities Financing 
Transactions (SFT) Profile), firms are required to rank their top 25 
counterparties by certain counterparty methodologies (methodology #1). 
The Board proposed to also require firms to rank their top 25 
counterparties based purely on exposures to client-cleared derivatives 
(methodology #2), and to exclude such exposures from methodology #1. 
Additionally, the Board proposed adding language to the Schedule L.5 
instructions requiring firms to incorporate all relevant client-cleared 
derivative exposures for all items in Schedule L.5, once the top 25 
counterparties from methodology #1 have been identified.
    One commenter did not support these proposed revisions for two 
reasons. First, the commenter noted that the Board already receives 
granular information on client-cleared derivatives throughout Schedule 
L.5 and stated that it would be burdensome for firms to provide the 
granular data on client-cleared derivatives necessary to rank them.
    Second, the commenter asserted that exposures to client-cleared 
derivatives are currently excluded from FR Y-14A, Schedule A.5 
(Counterparty Credit Risk), item 3 (Counterparty Default Losses) and 
3.a (Impact of Counterparty Default Hedges). Therefore, as proposed, 
firms would be required to maintain dual processes for providing 
counterparty exposures on the FR Y-14A and FR Y-14Q reports. The 
commenter asserted that these dual processes, combined with the 
difficulties in maintaining two ranking methodologies described above, 
would be burdensome to firms, and that, since client-cleared 
derivatives are not included in the calculation of stressed losses, it 
is unclear what benefit this information would provide to justify the 
additional firm burden.
    In response, the Board notes that, while granular information on 
client-cleared derivatives are reportable in Schedule L.5, the top-25 
ranking produces valuable insights that allow the Board to more 
effectively monitor exposures to client-cleared derivatives and 
provides better information regarding the materiality of these 
exposures.
    Further, while it is true that the exposure to client cleared 
derivatives is excluded from the FR Y-14A, firms are already required 
to report in FR Y-14Q, Schedule L.5, a wide range of information (both 
qualitative and quantitative) that goes beyond direct inputs used for 
estimating the largest counterparty default losses that are reported in 
FR Y-14A, Schedule A.5, items 3 and 3.a.
    Additionally, the commenter recommended that, if the Board did 
adopt these proposed changes, the Board should provide information as 
to (1) if a counterparty is of sufficient size to be captured in both 
rankings (methodologies #1 and #2), are firms required to report this 
counterparty twice or only once under methodology #1, and (2) under 
methodology #2, whether aggregate columns, such as ``Total Net Current 
Exposure (CE),'' should only include client-cleared derivative exposure 
to the parent entity under the ranking methodology or should instead be 
inclusive of both

[[Page 52562]]

client-clearing and non-client-clearing exposure to a firm.
    The Board has adopted the revision as proposed with two exceptions. 
First, the Board has clarified in the instructions the reporting 
between methodology #1 and methodology #2. Notably, the Board clarified 
that firms are not required to report the same counterparty in both 
methodologies (i.e., the same counterparty should not appear in the 
top-25 rankings for methodology #1 and methodology #2). Second, in 
light of the burden of providing granular data noted by the commenter, 
the Board has delayed adoption of this revision until the FR Y-14Q 
reported as of June 30, 2023.

Securities Financing Transactions (SFTs)

    The Board proposed to revise the definitions of ``Unstressed Mark-
to-Market Received SFTs'' and ``Stressed Mark-to-Market Received SFTs'' 
on FR Y-14Q, Schedule L (Counterparty) to specify that in cases where 
close-out netting is not enforceable, firms must report zero. Three 
commenters pointed out that this guidance conflicts with two existing 
FR Y-14 Q&As (Y140001386 and Y140001492). Per one commenter, the 
guidance in Q&A Y140001386 appears to require firms to remove any 
consideration of the ``received'' leg of the transaction, whereas the 
guidance in Q&A Y140001492 would allow for consideration of the net 
exposure of an individual SFT but restrict netting across multiple 
transactions where no master netting agreement is in place. The 
commenter notes that their understanding of the reporting on Schedule L 
should align with the guidance provided in Q&A Y140001492, as that 
interpretation better captures the economics of a transaction, and 
would prefer the instructions be revised to agree with that 
interpretation. In addition, per the commenter, these proposed 
revisions may be interpreted to further restrict the offsetting of the 
posted and received legs in determining net current exposure of an 
individual transaction.
    The Board agrees that the guidance provided in Q&A Y140001492 
better captures the economics of a transaction, and so has modified the 
instructions so that firms are required to report ``Unstressed Mark-to-
Market Received SFTs'' and ``Stressed Mark-to-Market Received SFTs'' in 
a manner that aggregates the received amount across an unenforceable 
agreement for each transaction that has a net positive mark-to-market 
value, effective for the June 30, 2023, as of date.
    The general instructions for Schedule L state that ``for regular/
unstressed submissions, counterparty exposures on sub-schedules L.1-L.4 
should be limited to transactions for which the firm computes credit 
valuation adjustment (CVA) for its public financial statement reporting 
under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or applicable 
standard.'' In the ``Net Current Exposure (Net CE)'' item of Schedule 
L.1, the Board proposed to add language clarifying that this item 
should be reported for both derivatives and fair-value SFTs. One 
commenter noted that firms do not compute CVA for SFTs in public 
financial statement reporting, and so asked that the Board specify 
whether SFTs should be included in the ``Net Current Exposure (Net 
CE)'' item of Schedule L.1.
    In response, the Board has clarified in the instructions that in 
the unstressed submission, firms are required to include fair-valued 
SFTs in Net CE reporting, to the extent that the firm computes CVA for 
them for the public financial statement reporting under U.S. GAAP or 
applicable standard. In contrast, fair-valued SFTs are expected to be 
included in Stressed Net CE reporting regardless of whether the firm 
computes CVA, given the general instructions of Schedule L that states 
that ``the scope of counterparty exposures on sub-schedules L.1-L.4 in 
CCAR/stressed submission is expected to be larger and incorporates 
transactions that would not typically require CVA for public financial 
statement reporting under GAAP or applicable standard but which may 
pose a gap risk to the firm, requiring CVA, should the post-stress 
value of collateral be insufficient to cover post-stress derivatives 
exposure.'' The Board has adopted this revision effective for the June 
30, 2023, as of date.
    The Board proposed to clarify that firms must include SFT exposures 
when they act as agents on behalf of clients for which a credit 
guarantee has been provided against the borrowers' defaults in Schedule 
L.5. One commenter noted that the proposal did not address how to 
report guarantees provided in sponsored repurchase programs in which a 
firm, as a sponsoring member, guarantees the performance of the clients 
to a central counterparty clearing house (CCP). The commenter 
recommended the Board clarify how these guarantees should be reported.
    The Board confirms that the guarantees associated with sponsored 
repurchase programs in which the firm, as a sponsoring member, 
guarantees the client's performance to CCPs should be reported in 
Schedule L.5. However, the Board has not revised the instructions, as 
the instructions already state that the firm should report its exposure 
arising from the credit guarantee it provides against the borrower's 
default. The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, except that 
it has delayed implementation until the June 30, 2023, as of date.

Other Revisions

    The Board proposed to clarify that if a consolidated or parent 
counterparty is selected as a counterparty comprising 95% of a firm's 
CVA, then a firm's exposures to all the counterparties and legal 
entities associated with the consolidated or parent counterparty must 
be included and reported in Schedule L.1 (Derivatives profile by 
counterparty and aggregate across all counterparties), rather than 
including only counterparties and legal entities with which the firm 
has a CVA. One commenter pointed out that this proposed revision would 
contradict the response to FR Y-14 Q&A Y140001356, which states that 
firms are not required to include the active agreements that do not 
have actual trades on the reporting as of date. The commenter 
recommended that the Board instead clarify the instructions to be 
consistent with the interpretation in Q&A Y140001356.
    The Board notes that the proposed revision is consistent with the 
response to Q&A Y140001356. Q&A Y140001356 covers a related case in 
which a firm has active agreements that do not have actual trades on 
the reporting date. The proposed revision related to a different case 
in which a firm has actual trades on the reporting date but does not 
compute CVA on them. In this case, while CVA is zero, not all 
counterparty data is expected to be zero or null (such as notional, 
gross CE, etc.). Under the proposed revisions, a firm would have been 
required to report these exposures to all the counterparties/legal 
entities associated with the consolidated/parent counterparty 
reportable in Schedule L.1, regardless of their CVA values. The Board 
has adopted this revision as proposed, but has delayed implementation 
until the June 30, 2023, as of date.
    The Board proposed to clarify that in the ``Non-Cash Collateral 
Type'' item of Schedule L.5.1 (Derivative and SFT information by 
counterparty legal entity and netting set/agreement), firms must 
include all non-cash collateral or initial margin that was posted or 
received in actuality, as opposed to only non-cash collateral allowed 
under a given agreement. One commenter recommended the Board specify 
that

[[Page 52563]]

firms should not report this item for legally unenforceable agreements 
and in cases where no agreement is in place.
    Given the structure of applicable transactions, the Board agrees 
with the commenter and has clarified the instructions so that firms 
should not report the ``Non-Cash Collateral Type'' field in Schedule 
L.5.1 in cases where there is no legal agreement in place, or the 
agreement is not legally enforceable. The Board has adopted this 
revision effective for the June 30, 2023, as of date.
    The Board proposed to require firms to report counterparty 
attribute information (e.g., industry code) at the consolidated parent 
level (firms were already required to report this information at the 
counterparty legal entity level). One commenter sought several 
clarifications about this proposed change. First, firms are currently 
required to report the internal rating of consolidated/parent 
counterparties in the ``Consolidated/Parent Counterparty Internal 
Rating'' item. Per the commenter, firms generally assign ratings and 
grades at the counterparty legal entity level, and a parent 
counterparty would only receive a grade or rating if the firm had 
transactions with that entity directly. The commenter suggested that 
the Board revise the instructions to cover situations where a parent 
counterparty is not rated or graded by the firm and recommended two 
approaches. Under the first approach, firms would report default grades 
(e.g., the firm would report BB- for all such counterparties). Under 
the second approach, firms would report the mean or median rating 
across counterparty legal entities to form a composite rating. The 
commenter noted that the information provided under the second approach 
would have limited value to the Board as it is already reported in a 
separate item.
    Second, in the ``Consolidated/Parent Counterparty Industry Code'' 
item, firms are required to report a North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code if one is available. The commenter 
requested clarification on whether the primary business activity of the 
parent should be determined by looking at the contributions of revenue 
across subsidiaries or whether parent entities should be aligned to 
holding company NAICS codes.
    The Board proposed to capture attribute information at the 
consolidated parent level, as it would have enabled the Board to better 
identify exposures to the same organizational structure (e.g., parent 
and subsidiary). However, the Board acknowledges the concerns and data 
limitations raised by the commenter. Upon further review of the 
proposed changes considering the concerns raised in the comment, the 
Board has not adopted the proposed changes to require firms to report 
counterparty attribute information at the consolidated parent level.
    The Board did not propose any revisions to the ``Agreement Role'' 
item on Schedule L.5.1. In this item, firms are required to report 
``NA'' when the transactions do not relate to centrally cleared or 
exchange traded derivatives, when the reported counterparty is a CCP, 
or when the firm is a clearing member of a CCP or an exchange and the 
exchange does not guarantee the client's performance to the CCP or 
exchange. One commenter suggested that for back-to-back derivatives 
(i.e., when a firm is acting as a financial intermediary on behalf of 
the client and enters into an offsetting transaction with a CCP or an 
exchange), firms should be required to report ``Principal'' instead of 
``NA''. According to the commenter, this approach would enable the 
Board to differentiate these exposures from the firms' exposures to the 
CCP arising from transactions, which firms enter into as a principal in 
house derivatives, as well as to potentially remove these exposures as 
inputs to the calculation of stressed losses. The Board will consider 
this revision for a future proposal.

Trading

Public Welfare Investments

    The Board proposed to require firms to isolate certain private 
equity exposures that qualify as public welfare investments in FR Y-
14Q, Schedule F.24 (Private Equity). One commenter asked the Board to 
clarify whether the new items added for public welfare investments are 
intended to capture affordable housing investments not eligible for tax 
credits. The commenter also asked the Board to confirm that such tax 
oriented public welfare investments should instead be reported in 
Schedule F.25 (Other Fair Value Assets) if fair-value option (FVO) has 
been elected for the investment.
    The Board confirms that the new items added to Schedule F.24 for 
public welfare investments were not intended to capture public welfare 
investments eligible for tax credits, and that such tax oriented public 
welfare investments should instead be reported in Schedule F.25 if held 
at fair value, including if FVO has been elected for the investment. 
The Board has adjusted the proposed revisions to the Schedule F.24 
instructions to clarify both of these matters and has otherwise adopted 
the revisions as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of 
date.

Other Revisions

    The Board proposed to better delineate the exposures that should be 
included in the ``FVO Hedges'' and ``[Accrual Loan] AL Hedges'' 
versions of Schedule F (Trading). One commenter was supportive of these 
changes, though questioned whether firms needed to provide all of the 
sub-schedules of Schedule F for these versions. Specifically, the 
commenter suggested that Schedule F.22 (IDR-Corporate Credit) and F.23 
(IDR-Jump to Default) be left blank for the ``FVO Hedges'' and ``AL 
Hedges'' versions. The commenter's rationale is twofold. First, the 
data submitted on these schedules either does not affect the macro 
scenario projections or are not used by firms to determine 
macroeconomic scenario projections, and so the data are only 
informational or are only used in the calculation of trading 
incremental default losses (i.e., not relevant for the macro scenario 
projections). Second, these schedules are operationally burdensome for 
firms to provide as they require firmwide aggregation and netting.
    The Board agrees with the commenter's rationales and has revised 
the instructions to indicate that Schedules F.22 and F.23 are not 
required for the FVO Hedges and AL Hedges submissions, effective for 
the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board did not propose any changes to the treatment of non-fair 
value private equity investment exposures for determining stressed 
losses. However, one commenter recommended that the Board subject these 
exposures to the macro scenario, and not to the global market shock 
scenario. The Board indicated in a final FR Y-14 notice from 2020 \3\ 
that it believes the macro scenario is more appropriate than the global 
market shock for evaluating losses associated with non-fair value 
private equity exposures but would continue to analyze the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 85 FR 86560 (December 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board is still reviewing the scenario treatment of non-fair 
value private equity exposures and will consider revising this 
treatment in a future Federal Register notice.

Wholesale

Informal Advised or Guidance Lines

    The Board proposed to revise the definition of informal advised or 
guidance lines on FR Y-14Q, Schedule

[[Page 52564]]

H.1 (Corporate) to be an authorization for a line of credit that is 
unknown to the customer. These lines are excluded from reporting on 
Schedule H.1. The Schedule H.1 instructions also require firms to 
include ``. . . any unused commitments that are reported on FR Y-9C, 
Schedule L [Derivatives and Off-Balance Sheet Items] that would be 
reported in the relevant FR Y-9C category if such loans were drawn.'' 
One commenter said that this proposed revision would require firms to 
report certain credit facilities as commitments in Schedule H.1, even 
though such facilities are intentionally structured and documented such 
that the lender is not under any legal obligation to extend credit or 
purchase assets (defined facilities). Two commenters further noted that 
there are several definitions of commitments across various Board rules 
and reporting forms. The commenters requested the Board align the 
definition of commitment on Schedule H.1 with that of FR Y-9C, Schedule 
L, or with the definition from the capital rule. Per the commenters, 
this would reduce operational burden on reporting firms and would lead 
to more consistent practices across firms. If the definition of 
commitment is not made the same across Schedule H.1, Schedule L, and 
the capital rule, then the commenters asked the Board to clearly 
delineate how these definitions differ. The commenters added that if 
the Board does not align the definitions as recommended, then it should 
clarify what lines of credit ``unknown to the customer'' means.
    The clarification of the definition of informal advised or guidance 
lines was intended to bring Schedule H.1 more clearly into alignment 
with the FR Y-9C. However, the Board acknowledges the concerns raised 
by the commenter. To avoid confusion and clarify the relationship to 
the FR Y-9C, the Board has not adopted the proposed revisions to the 
definition of informal advised or guidance lines. Further, to ensure 
alignment with the FR Y-9C, the Board has removed the language 
surrounding the exclusions of informal advised or guidance lines. The 
aforementioned reference to FR Y-9C, Schedule L will remain in the 
instructions without any exclusions, which should mitigate ambiguity. 
Given the comments surrounding firm burden, the Board has delayed 
implementation of this revision until the June 30, 2023, as of date.

Internal Ratings Mapping

    The Board proposed to add ``Minimum Probability of Default,'' 
``Maximum Probability of Default,'' and ``[Probability of Default] PD 
Calculation Method'' items to FR Y-14Q, Schedule H.4 (Internal Risk 
Rating). Per the proposal, these items would enable the Board to better 
assess credit risk across firms by providing benchmark values for 
internal ratings. Two commenters raised several issues with this 
proposal. First, firms may segment their portfolios and assign certain 
PDs to internal ratings within each segment. This could lead to a wide 
range of PDs for firms' internal risk ratings and possibly overlapping 
minimum and maximum PDs across different ratings. Such overlap would 
not allow the Board to easily compare credit risk across firms, and so 
may not be appropriate for use in supervisory models. In addition, some 
firms may assign a single PD to a given internal rating, and so the 
data provided may not be very useful to accomplish the intended goal of 
the proposed changes. Given the diversity in practice across firms, one 
commenter requested that the Board acknowledge that these items would 
not be used by supervisory models to determine stressed losses, and 
another commenter recommended that the Board not adopt these proposed 
changes.
    Second, firms are already required to report PD information at the 
facility level in FR Y-14Q, Schedules H.1 and H.2 (Commercial Real 
Estate). The commenters noted that this facility-level data provides 
more insight than minimum and maximum PD. The commenter added that 
while firms could provide the minimum and maximum PD for their internal 
ratings, the firm may not hold any exposures that have PDs equivalent 
to the minimum or maximum PD for a given internal rating. By contrast, 
PD data already required on Schedules H.1 and H.2 allow the Board to 
see the exact PDs of reported exposures. Per the commenters, the fact 
that firms may not have any exposures at the minimum and maximum PD for 
a given internal rating and the fact that firms already reported 
facility-level PD information mean that the additional burden of 
reporting the minimum and maximum PD for a given internal rating is not 
justified.
    Third, one commenter asserted that there may be a future proposal 
to the capital rule to eliminate the existing internal ratings-based 
approach. If this occurs, it would no longer be appropriate to require 
the reporting of these items, per the commenter. Given the possibility 
of this occurring, the commenter suggests firms should not be required 
to provide these items due to the burden of creating a process that may 
be obviated in the near future.
    Commenters also requested information regarding how this data will 
be used, how firms should report if certain ratings do not have 
associated PD ranges, and how firms should report situations where a PD 
is assigned to an internal rating but there are no exposures with that 
PD reportable in Schedules H.1 or H.2 (i.e., whether a firm would still 
be required to include such a portfolio segment in establishing the 
range of PDs for a given rating). One commenter also suggested that 
these items should be changed to alpha-numeric characters to allow 
firms to report ``NA'' and ``Null'' values, as well as be expanded from 
the proposed four-decimal places to seven decimal places, as some firms 
have PD ranges that extend beyond four decimal places. Finally, one 
commenter recommended that the ``PD Calculation Method'' item 
instructions specify how firms should report hybrid calculation methods 
that consider through the cycle and point in time aspects (as proposed, 
firms can only select one of those two options as their PD calculation 
method).
    The Board notes that the ``Minimum PD'' and ``Maximum PD'' items 
are intended to give additional context with regard to understanding a 
firms' internal ratings. Current reporting on Schedule H (Wholesale) 
without these items has resulted in inconsistent ratings detail across 
firms, and the addition of these items will produce useful data points 
for interpreting the ratings. The reporting of these items creates an 
opportunity for firms to provide a more robust view of their internal 
ratings to help the Board better assess credit risk. Additionally, the 
free text field will remain available for firms to provide further 
explanation if necessary.
    In addition, reporting the calculation method at the level of the 
internal rating will provide the Board with additional detail in 
assessing the PDs reported, with a lower burden than requiring this 
data at a facility level. It may be the case that a firm does not hold 
any exposures at the minimum and maximum PDs reported for each internal 
rating; however, the PD information is still crucial in allowing the 
Board to better interpret internal ratings. Further, the Board has not 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule to revise the 
capital rule to eliminate the existing internal ratings-based approach.
    Lastly, to reduce burden and to be responsive to commenters, the 
Board has revised the instructions to allow for the reporting of ``NA'' 
for internal ratings that do not have exposures in a reporting quarter, 
to expand the character limit for these items to allow firms to report 
up to seven decimal places, and to add a hybrid calculation option to 
the ``Calculation Method''

[[Page 52565]]

item. The Board has adopted this revision effective for the September 
30, 2022, as of date.

Capital

Capital Action Assumptions

    Planned capital actions are the capital actions firms would expect 
to take under baseline conditions, and alternative capital actions are 
the capital actions firms would expect to take under stressed 
conditions. The Board proposed to change the capital action assumptions 
of the FR Y-14A, Schedule A (Summary) CCAR submission under the 
supervisory severely adverse scenario from planned capital actions to 
alternative capital actions. In addition, the Board proposed to add the 
definitions and assumptions of capital actions required per the capital 
plan rule, as set forth in CCAR Q&A GEN0500, to the instructions for FR 
Y-14A, Schedule A. One commenter was supportive of the change in the 
capital action assumptions for the CCAR submission under the 
supervisory severely adverse scenario. However, the commenter pointed 
out that the proposal seemed to apply two of the assumptions to 
alternative capital actions that were intended only to apply to planned 
capital actions in the severely adverse scenario. These assumptions 
were: (1) that the dollar value of dividends, repurchases, and 
redemptions of capital instructions do not vary from the amount in the 
Internal baseline scenario, and (2) that the dollar value of the 
issuance of capital instruments does not vary by scenario from the 
amount in the Internal baseline scenario unless the scenario directly 
impacts shareholder's equity or consideration paid in connection with a 
planned merger or acquisition.
    The Board confirms that these two assumptions would not apply to 
alternative capital actions and are no longer necessary to include in 
the instructions because planned capital actions will only be used in 
the baseline scenario. The Board has removed these two assumptions from 
the instructions and has adopted this revision effective for the 
December 31, 2022, as of date. In addition, the Board has rescinded 
CCAR Q&A GEN0500 because it refers to the prior instructions, which 
required firms to use planned capital actions in the supervisory 
severely adverse scenario, and would therefore cause confusion.

Interest Expense

    The Board proposed to add an ``Interest expense for the quarter 
(net of swaps)'' item to FR Y-14Q, Schedule C (Regulatory Capital 
Instruments). One commenter asked for clarification for whether firms 
should report quarter-to-date profit and loss (P&L) movement of the 
interest expense on the subordinated debt instrument only, as opposed 
to total interest expense.
    The Board confirms that the commenter's interpretation is correct 
in that firms should report quarterly P&L for the specific subordinated 
debt instrument net of P&L attributable to swaps. The Board has revised 
the instructions to clarify this reporting and has adopted this 
revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add an ``Interest expense for the quarter 
(with swaps, excluding any gains or losses due to the fair value 
adjustment of ASC 815/FAS 133 hedges)'' item to Schedule C. One 
commenter asked the Board to confirm that firms would need to report 
quarter-to-date interest profit and loss movement on debt plus swap 
interest (i.e., debt couponing and amortization of original issuance 
discount/premium) and underwriting fee plus swap interest accrued and 
realized cashflow in this item.
    The Board confirms that the commenter's interpretation is correct 
in that firms should report the quarterly P&L for the specific 
subordinated debt instrument including any underwriting fees and 
income/expense due to swaps but excluding the gains/losses due to any 
fair value adjustments over the quarter. With respect to realized cash 
flow, firms should only report cash flow from swaps to the extent that 
they are included in interest expense on subordinated debt. The Board 
has revised the instructions to clarify this reporting and has adopted 
this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add an ``Interest expense for the quarter 
(with swaps, this number should reconcile to the quarterly number 
reported in FR Y-9C BHCK4397 for all subordinated debt instruments)'' 
item to Schedule C. One commenter asked for clarification for whether 
firms should report quarter-to-date movement on interest plus the 
Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 133 fair value adjustment for both 
debt and swaps in this item.
    The ``Interest expense for the quarter (with swaps, this number 
should reconcile to the quarterly number reported in FR Y-9C BHCK4397 
for all subordinated debt instruments)'' item is meant to capture the 
entirety of interest expense on the subordinated debt instrument, 
inclusive of swaps and fair value adjustments. The sum of this item 
across all subordinated debt securities should reconcile to the 
interest expense on subordinated debt that is reported on the FR Y-9C. 
The Board has revised the instructions to clarify this reporting and 
has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of 
date.

Other Revisions

    The Board proposed to add a ``Fair value adjustment at the quarter 
end for subordinated debt securities that are carried at fair value'' 
item to Schedule C. One commenter asked how this proposed item would 
interact with the existing ``Fair value of associated swaps 
($Millions)'' item also on Schedule C. Specifically, the commenter 
wanted clarification on whether the proposed item is meant to capture 
all fair value adjustments on long term debt that have a fair value 
hedge relationship while the existing item is meant to capture only the 
fair value of outstanding swaps. Additionally, the commenter also 
sought clarification on whether the proposed item is asking for the FAS 
133 basis adjustment (if not, then firms would report a zero value, as 
a subordinated debt portfolio is not reported at fair value), and 
whether the existing item should include accrued interest.
    The proposed ``Fair value adjustments at the quarter end for 
subordinated debt securities carried at fair value'' item was meant to 
capture the quarterly fair value adjustment made to the security that 
flows through a firm's income statement as interest expense on 
subordinated debt. The existing item ``Fair value of associated swaps 
($ Millions)'' captures the total fair value of outstanding swaps on 
this security, and not the quarterly movements (e.g., fair value 
adjustments). The Board has revised the instructions to clarify this 
reporting and has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 
2022, as of date.

Retail

Modified Loans

    The Board proposed to clarify that ``Modification Type'' (FR Y-14M, 
Schedule A (Domestic First Lien), item 74; Schedule B (Domestic Home 
Equity), item 77) should only be completed if firms report ``1'' in 
``Workout Type Completed'' (Schedule A, item 77; Schedule B, item 61), 
indicating that a loan has been modified. The instructions for 
``Workout Type Completed'' specify that firms must report ``1'' in the 
month that the modification is complete and the new loan terms are in 
effect. One commenter asked the Board to clarify whether ``Modification 
Type'' should only be completed in the month that

[[Page 52566]]

modification is complete and the new loan terms are in effect.
    The Board notes that ``Workout Type Completed'' should only be 
reported in the month the workout was completed. Per the instructions, 
``Modification Type'' should be filled out for all months the loan is 
currently operating under modified terms (including the month that 
``Workout Type Completed'' = 1). The Board has revised the instructions 
for ``Modification Type'' to clarify how to report this item and has 
adopted the revision, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    One commenter pointed out that ``Modification Type'' requires firms 
to report ``0'' if a loan has not been modified, but this is 
inconsistent with the proposed changes requiring firms to only report 
this item if a loan has been modified, as indicated in ``Workout Type 
Completed.'' The commenter asked for clarification for how to report 
this item for loans that have not been modified.
    The Board notes that if a loan is not operating under modified 
terms, then ``Modification Type'' should be populated as ``0 = Loan has 
not been modified.'' If ``Workout Type Completed'' = 1 (Modification), 
then ``Modification Type'' should be coded with an allowable value 
other than ``0.'' The Board has updated the instructions to clarify 
this point and has adopted the revision, effective for the September 
30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed several revisions to the ``Modification Type'' 
item to allow for multiple types of modifications to a loan, such as 
modifications caused by the COVID event. One commenter sought 
clarification from the Board on how COVID-related deferral or 
forbearance plans should be reported in ``Modification Type.'' Per an 
April 2020, interagency statement,\4\ COVID-related deferral or 
forbearance plans should not be treated as modifications, as they are 
temporary plans to reduce the hardships faced by the borrower. The 
commenter recommended that firms only report ``Modification Type'' in 
cases where the modification is due to loss or mitigation efforts, and 
not to capture COVID-related deferrals or forbearances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting 
for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the 
Coronavirus (Revised)'' April 7, 2020. Interagency Statement on Loan 
Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with 
Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (Revised) 
(federalreserve.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Board notes that it proposed to add ``Workout Type 
Started'' to Schedule A (item 143) and Schedule B (item 120) of the FR 
Y-14M. All forbearances should be reported under ``Workout Type 
Started'' and ``Workout Type Completed,'' regardless of the cause of 
the forbearance. If any modification to the terms of the loan occurs as 
a result, then it should be reported in ``Modification Type.'' The 
Board has adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 
30, 2022, as of date.
    One commenter asked how non-loss mitigation-related modification 
plans (non-default) (e.g., plans under the Service Members Relief Act 
(SCRA)) should be treated in ``Modification Type.'' The commenter notes 
that in FR Y-14 Q&A Y140001307, the Board indicated that loans under 
SCRA plans should be considered as active loss mitigation.
    The Board has clarified that if the loan is active under loss 
mitigation, then ``Modification Type'' should reflect the type of 
accommodation the loan is undergoing (per Q&A Y140001307, SCRA plans 
should be considered as active loss mitigation).
    One commenter asked how firms should report ``Modification Type'' 
in cases where the type of modification is unknown. Per the commenter, 
a loan that was modified under a Home Affordable Modification Program 
(HAMP) may have offered the borrower a variety of types of 
modification, and this level of detail is not available in certain loan 
systems, particularly for loans that were modified prior to 2013.
    The Board acknowledges that there may be cases where loan 
modification information is unknown. Firms must report the value that 
reflects the current modification arrangement using all information 
available. To address this comment, the Board has added option 
``99=Other'' to ``Modification Type.'' Firms should report ``99=Other'' 
if no information regarding the modification is available. The Board 
has also updated ``Modification Type'' to remove reference to any 
specific program (such as HAMP). The Board has adopted this revision 
effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add an option to ``Modification Type'' for 
firms to report when the loan modification results in recapitalization. 
One commenter asked the Board to provide a definition for the 
``Recapitalization'' option.
    The Board has added a definition for ``Recapitalization'' to 
``Modification Type'' to capture instances where accrued and/or 
deferred principal, interest, servicing advances, expenses, fees, etc. 
are capitalized into the unpaid principal balance of the modified loan. 
The Board has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 
2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to retire several options in the ``Modification 
Type'' and ``Workout Type Completed'' items, considering the proposed 
addition of other items. One commenter asked how historical reporting 
would be updated or aligned to the new values.
    The Board notes that historical reporting will remain unchanged 
from the current practice, which requires firms to report items and 
values based on the forms and instructions for a given as of date. The 
Board has adopted these revisions as proposed, effective for the 
September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add several reportable values to 
``Modification Type'' on Schedule B, one of which was ``99 = Other''. 
However, this item already had the ``26 = Other'' option. One commenter 
asked what the difference was between the options of ``26 = Other'' and 
``99 = Other'' for ``Modification Type'' on Schedule B.
    The Board did not intend to have two values indicating the same 
modification type, and so has removed ``26=Other'' from ``Modification 
Type'' on Schedule B, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to retire the ``9 = Proprietary Other'' option 
of ``Modification Type'' on Schedules A and B. FR Y-14 Q&A Y140000738 
previously specified that firms should report home equity modifications 
that do not meet the definition of modification, as defined in the FR 
Y-14M instructions, as ``9 = Proprietary Other'' in ``Modification 
Type.'' One commenter asked how firms should report such loans once the 
``9 = Proprietary Other'' option has been retired.
    Firms should report the code that reflects the current modification 
arrangement using all information available. If no information 
regarding the modification type is available, then firms should report 
as ``99=Other.'' The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, 
effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    One commenter asked whether the Board proposed to retire the ``13 = 
HELOC Line Renewal (Regular)'' and ``14 = HELOC Line Renewal (loss 
mitigation strategy)'' options from ``Modification Type'' on Schedule 
B. The instructions for these values have been stricken out, but the 
options themselves were not.
    The Board did not intend to strike out the instructions for these 
values and has updated the instructions accordingly. These values were 
not removed from ``Modification Type'' on Schedule B,

[[Page 52567]]

and the Board did not propose any revisions to these values. The Board 
has adopted this revision effective for the September 30, 2022, as of 
date.
    The Board proposed to add an option to ``Workout Type Completed'' 
for firms to report ``17=Partial Claim/Junior Lien'' on Schedules A and 
B. The proposed instructions for ``Workout Type Completed'' would have 
required firms to report ``17=Partial Claim/Junior Lien'' in the month 
that a loan partial claim or the origination of a junior lien resulting 
from loss mitigation was completed. One commenter noted that some 
modifications, such as Federal Housing Authority (FHA)-HAMP Combination 
Loan Modifications and Partial Claims, may result in a partial claim. 
These modifications establish an affordable monthly payment, resolve 
the outstanding mortgage payment arrearages, and permanently modify the 
first mortgage monthly payment. The commenter added that these 
modifications are zero-interest subordinate liens that will include a 
portion of the amount to be resolved and if borrowers meet the 
requirements, a principal deferment. The remainder is added to the 
principal loan balance of the first mortgage and extends the term for 
30 years at a fixed interest rate. The commenter would like the Board 
to clarify how to report these types of modifications in the ``Workout 
Type Completed'' items.
    If a workout program results in a partial claim or junior lien, 
then ``Workout Type Completed'' should be coded as ``17=Partial Claim/
Junior Lien.'' If the workout program results in a change to terms of 
the loan, then ``Workout Type Completed'' should be reported as ``1--
Modification'' and ``Modification Type'' should be reported using the 
code that best reflects the modification. The Board has adopted this 
revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add a ``Workout Type Started'' item to 
Schedule A. Firms would be required to report this item for any loan 
where a loss mitigation effort has started or is in progress for the 
current month. One commenter asked how firms should report situations 
where a modification plan that was reported in a prior period fails and 
in the current reporting period, a new plan starts.
    In cases where loss mitigation efforts fail, firms should report 
``Workout Type Completed'' as ``0=No workout completed or unsuccessful 
resolution of loss mitigation effort.'' If in the current month a new 
effort begins, firms should report ``Workout Type Started'' with the 
relevant allowable value. The Board has revised the instructions to 
clarify this reporting, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of 
date.
    One commenter asked how firms should report situations where they 
offer a borrower a trial period for a modified loan that could 
subsequently result in a loan modification. In these cases, the 
commenter sought clarification as to whether firms should report the 
date that the trial period began or when the modification program 
began.
    Firms should report ``Workout Type Started'' with the appropriate 
value in the month(s) the trial started and throughout the trial period 
for loans that enter a trial period for a modification. The Board has 
adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, 
as of date.
    The Board proposed to add new options for the ``Workout Type 
Completed'' item on Schedule B. However, the Board did not provide 
proposed definitions for these new options. One commenter asked the 
Board to provide these definitions.
    The Board has updated the instructions to provide definitions for 
all new values in ``Workout Type Completed'' on Schedule B that align 
with the definitions for the ``Workout Type Completed'' item on 
Schedule A. The Board has adopted this revision effective for the 
September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to revise the language in the instructions for 
FR Y-14M, Schedule A, items 87 (``Principal Deferred Amount'') and 89 
(``Principal Write-Down Amount'') to expand the circumstances under 
which firms would report these items, as currently these items are only 
reported if a loan has been modified. One commenter pointed out that 
the Board did not propose to revise the equivalent items on Schedule B 
(items 59 and 73, respectively), even though these items are also only 
reported if a loan has been modified. The commenter suggested that the 
Board also make these revisions to the corresponding Schedule B items, 
for consistency.
    The Board agrees that the corresponding items on Schedule B should 
have been updated and has revised the instructions to align the 
applicable items on Schedule B with those on Schedule A. The Board has 
adopted these revisions effective for the September 30, 2022, as of 
date.

Other Revisions

    The Board proposed to require firms to provide the loan-level fair 
value of loans reported on FR Y-14M, Schedule A, if those loans are 
measured under the FVO or are held-for-sale (HFS). Currently, firms are 
required to indicate whether a loan is measured at fair value under the 
FVO or is HFS but are not required to provide the fair value of a given 
loan. One commenter raised two objections to this proposal. First, many 
firms do not have the fair value of FVO or HFS loans readily available. 
Rather, per the commenter, fair value adjustments on FVO or HFS loans 
are recorded and accounted for as a block and are not individually 
broken out. The commenter added that requiring firms to provide loan-
level fair values would be burdensome on firms and would require 
significant manual effort as the data is not readily available.
    Second, firms are already required to report aggregated fair value 
FVO and HFS amounts for retail loans on FR Y-14Q, Schedule J (Retail 
FVO/HFS). In the commenter's view, since the Board currently collects 
similar information at the portfolio level, firms should not be 
required to report fair value amounts at the loan level.
    Collecting loan-level fair value information for mortgages allows 
the Board to better monitor and assess risks surrounding FVO mortgages, 
which is limited when using the aggregated FR Y-14Q data. Receiving 
timely information regarding the fair value of mortgages is essential 
since these assets are highly sensitive to current market conditions, 
which can change rapidly. Therefore, mortgages held at fair value have 
different risk profile than those held at amortized cost. Given this, 
it is imperative that the Board receives loan-level fair value data for 
these exposures. The Board has adopted this revision as proposed, 
effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to remove items 57 (``Capitalization'') and 98 
(``Interest Rate Reduced'') from FR Y-14M, Schedule A, as they are no 
longer needed. One commenter suggested that, for consistency, the Board 
should also remove the equivalent items (items 57 and 71, respectively) 
from Schedule B.
    The Board agrees that the equivalent items on Schedule B should 
also be removed, as they are no longer needed given other adopted 
revisions. The Board has updated the instructions to remove these items 
from Schedule B. The Board has adopted these revisions effective for 
the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add ``Actual Payment Amount'' (item 142) to 
Schedule A. In this item, firms would have reported the actual dollar 
amount of the interest payment received in the reporting month, 
excluding fee payments. One commenter questioned

[[Page 52568]]

how to report situations where there is an additional principal 
curtailment received with the payment, and how firms should report if 
multiple payments are received in a given reporting month.
    To reduce ambiguity, the Board has modified the proposed 
instructions to indicate that firms should report the total payment 
received in a given month, including principal curtailment received 
with the payment.
    One commenter asked whether principal and interest reversals should 
be factored into ``Actual Payment Amount,'' or if it should only 
capture received amounts.
    For clarity, the Board has modified the proposed instructions to 
indicate that firms should report the total payment received in a given 
month, net of any reversals. The Board has adopted the proposal to add 
the ``Actual Payment Amount'' item to Schedule A, with these 
modifications, effective for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    The Board proposed to add options for the Bloomberg Short-Term Bank 
Yield (BSBY) to the ``[Adjustable Rate Mortgage] ARM Index'' item on 
Schedules A (item 32) and B (item 29). There were no comments on the 
proposed changes; however, one commenter did have two questions about 
this item. First, the commenter noted that the Federal Home Loan Bank 
of San Francisco announced earlier this year that it will stop 
publishing all Cost of Fund Indices (COFI). The ``ARM Index'' item 
currently contains options for firms to report COFI. The commenter 
further noted that loans that reference COFI have been updated to 
reference other indices and sought clarification as to whether firms 
should continue to report COFI, which was the reference index at 
origination, or the updated indices. Second, the commenter also pointed 
out that the ``ARM Index'' item requires firms to report origination 
values. The commenter recommended that this be changed so that firms 
report the current index values, as it would provide more useful 
information to the Board and be less burdensome on firms, as the 
current index information is readily available.
    The Board notes that COFI has not been retired and firms can 
continue to report COFI in ``ARM Index.'' Firms should continue to 
report legacy loans that reference COFI using the COFI options in ``ARM 
Index.'' In addition, origination values allow the Board to adequately 
assess underwriting decisions at the time of origination, which can 
inform changes in credit availability over time. The Board acknowledges 
that receiving current value information would also be beneficial and 
will consider this suggestion for a future proposal. The Board has 
adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the September 30, 2022, 
as of date.

Balances

    In general, bank cards allow firms to pay outstanding balances over 
time, while charge cards must be fully paid off each billing cycle. 
Some products have features of both bank and charge cards, in that only 
a portion of the outstanding balance can be rolled over to the next 
billing cycle. The Board proposed to revise the definition of ``Charge 
cards'' (item 3.b) on FR Y-14Q, Schedule M.1 (Quarter-end balances) to 
specify that if a charge card loan has a pay-over-time feature, then 
the entire balance must be reported in this item. One commenter said 
that this revision would cause misalignment between Schedule M and item 
6.a. (Credit cards) of FR Y-9C, Schedule C (Loans and Leases), and 
asked whether this misalignment was intentional.
    The definition of item 3.b on FR Y-14Q, Schedule M requires firms 
to report the applicable balance that is also reported in FR Y-9C, 
Schedule HC-C, items 6.a and 6.d (Other consumer loans). Therefore, the 
Schedule M.1 and FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C instructions would align, and 
the Board has adopted the revision as proposed, effective for the 
September 30, 2022, as of date.
    Several items on FR Y-14Q, Schedule M.1, reference various FR Y-9C 
items where applicable balances are reported. The Board proposed to add 
a reference to FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, item 9.a (Loans to nondepository 
financial institutions) to Schedule M.1, item 2.c (SME cards and 
corporate cards), as balances required in item 2.c could be reported in 
item 9.a. One commenter requested that the Board also add references to 
FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, items 2.a (Loans to U.S. banks and other U.S. 
depository institutions), 2.b (Loans to foreign banks), 3 (Loans to 
finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers), and 7 
(Loans to foreign governments and official institutions) to Schedule 
M.1, item 2.c, as balances reported in those FR Y-9C items could also 
meet the definition listed for item 2.c. Relatedly, the commenter noted 
that for congruency, any FR Y-9C items added to be referenced to 
Schedule M.1, item 2.c, should also be added to Schedule M.2 (FR Y-9C 
Reconciliation), item 2 (SME cards and corporate cards).
    The Board agrees with the commenter that there could be loans 
reported in other FR Y-9C items that meet the definition for reporting 
in Schedule M.1, item 2.c. Given this, the Board has revised the 
instructions for item 2.c to add references to FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-C, 
items 2.a, 2.b, 3, and 7. In response to the comment and for data 
reconciliation purposes, the Board has also added applicable items to 
Schedule M.2, item 2. The Board has adopted these revisions effective 
for the September 30, 2022, as of date.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 22, 2022.

Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-18396 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P