[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49423-49427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20048]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 49423]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Parts 1, 16, and 28
[Docket ID: OCC-2010-0017]
RIN 1557-AD36
Alternatives to the Use of External Credit Ratings in the
Regulations of the OCC
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (the Act) directs all Federal agencies to review, no
later than one year after enactment, any regulation that requires the
use of an assessment of credit-worthiness of a security or money market
instrument and any references to or requirements in regulations
regarding credit ratings. The agencies are also required to remove
references or requirements of reliance on credit ratings and to
substitute an alternative standard of credit-worthiness.
Through this ANPR, the OCC seeks comment on the implementation of
section 939A with respect to its regulations (other than risk-based
capital regulations, which are the subject of a separate ANPR issued
jointly with the other Federal banking agencies), including alternative
measures of credit-worthiness that may be used in lieu of credit
ratings.
DATES: Comments on this ANPR must be received by October 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to:
OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC
is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by
the Federal eRulemaking Portal or e-mail, if possible. Please use the
title ``Alternatives to the Use of External Credit Ratings in the
Regulations of the OCC'' to facilitate the organization and
distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal--``regulations.gov'': Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Select ``Document Type'' of ``Proposed
Rules,'' and in ``Enter Keyword or ID Box,'' enter Docket ID ``OCC-
2010-0017,'' and click ``Search.'' On ``View By Relevance'' tab at
bottom of screen, in the ``Agency'' column, locate the advance notice
of proposed rulemaking for OCC, in the ``Action'' column, click on
``Submit a Comment'' or ``Open Docket Folder'' to submit or view public
comments and to view supporting and related materials for this
rulemaking action.
Click on the ``Help'' tab on the Regulations.gov home page
to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for
submitting or viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and
related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the
comment period.
E-mail: [email protected].
Mail: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E
Street, SW., Mail Stop 2-3, Washington, DC 20219.
Fax: (202) 874-5274.
Hand Delivery/Courier: 250 E Street, SW., Mail Stop 2-3,
Washington, DC 20219.
Instructions: You must include ``OCC'' as the agency name and
``Docket ID OCC-2010-0017'' in your comment. In general, OCC will enter
all comments received into the docket and publish them on the
Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or
personal information that you provide such as name and address
information, e-mail addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received,
including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the
public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any
information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider
confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to
this advance notice of proposed rulemaking by any of the following
methods:
Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Select ``Document Type'' of ``Public
Submissions,'' in ``Enter Keyword or ID Box,'' enter Docket ID ``OCC-
2010-0017,'' and click ``Search.'' Comments will be listed under ``View
By Relevance'' tab at bottom of screen. If comments from more than one
agency are listed, the ``Agency'' column will indicate which comments
were received by the OCC.
Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect
and photocopy comments at the OCC, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC.
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.
Docket: You may also view or request available background
documents and project summaries using the methods described above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OCC: Michael Drennan, Senior Advisor,
Credit and Market Risk Division, (202) 874-5670; or Carl Kaminski,
Senior Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202)
874-5090; or Beth Kirby, Special Counsel, Securities and Corporate
Practices Division, (202) 874-5210, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 939A of the Act requires each Federal agency to review (1)
any regulation issued by such agency that requires the use of an
assessment of the credit-worthiness of a security or money market
instrument; and (2) any references to or requirements in such
regulations regarding credit ratings.\1\ Each Federal agency must then
modify any such regulations identified by the review * * * to remove
any reference to or requirement of reliance on credit ratings and to
substitute in such regulations such standard of credit-worthiness as
each respective agency shall determine as appropriate for such
regulations. In developing substitute standards of credit-worthiness,
an agency shall seek to establish, to the extent feasible, uniform
standards of
[[Page 49424]]
credit-worthiness for use by the agency, taking into account the
entities it regulates that would be subject to such standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, section 939A (July 21,
2010).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ANPR describes the areas where the OCC's regulations, other
than those that establish regulatory capital requirements, currently
rely on credit ratings; sets forth the considerations underlying such
reliance; and requests comment on potential alternatives to the use of
credit ratings. The OCC and the other Federal banking agencies are
issuing a separate joint advance notice of proposed rulemaking focused
on the agencies' risk-based capital frameworks.
II. OCC Regulations Referencing Credit Ratings
The non-capital regulations of the OCC include various references
to and requirements for use of a credit rating issued by a nationally
recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO).\3\ For example, the
OCC's regulations regarding permissible investment securities,
securities offerings, and international activities each reference or
rely upon NRSRO credit ratings.\4\ A description of these regulations
is set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An NRSRO is an entity registered with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) under section 15E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. See, 15 U.S.C. 78o-7, as implemented by 17 CFR
240.17g-1.
\4\ See generally, 12 CFR part 1 (investment securities), 12 CFR
part 16 (securities offerings), and 12 CFR part 28 (international
banking activities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Investment Securities Regulations
The OCC's investment securities regulations at 12 CFR part 1 use
credit ratings as a factor for determining the credit quality,
liquidity/marketability, and appropriate concentration levels of
investment securities purchased and held by national banks. For
example, under these rules, an investment security must not be
``predominantly speculative in nature.'' \5\ The OCC rules provide that
an obligation is not ``predominantly speculative in nature'' if it is
rated investment grade or, if unrated, is the credit equivalent of
investment grade. ``Investment grade,'' in turn, is defined as a
security rated in one of the four highest rating categories by two or
more NRSROs (or one NRSRO if the security has been rated by only one
NRSRO).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, 12 CFR 1.5(e).
\6\ 12 CFR 1.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit ratings are also used to determine marketability in the case
of a security that is offered and sold pursuant to Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 144A. Under Part 1, a 144A security is deemed
to be marketable if it is rated investment grade or the credit
equivalent of investment grade.
In addition, credit ratings are used to determine concentration
limits on certain investment securities. For example, Part 1 limits
holdings of Type IV small business related securities of any one issuer
that are rated in the third or fourth highest investment grade rating
categories to 25 percent of the bank's capital and surplus.\7\ However,
there is no concentration limit for small business-related securities
that are rated in the highest or second highest investment grade
categories.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A Type IV investment security includes certain small
business related securities, commercial mortgage related securities,
or residential mortgage related securities. See, 12 CFR 1.2(m).
\8\ See, 12 CFR 1.3(e), 1.2(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Safety and Soundness Standards
In addition to current regulatory provisions that generally limit
banks to purchasing securities that are rated investment grade or, if
not rated, are the credit equivalent of investment grade, OCC
regulations also require that banks make the investments consistent
with safe and sound banking practices.\9\ Specifically, banks must
consider the interest rate, credit, liquidity, price and other risks
presented by investments, and the investments must be appropriate for
the particular bank.\10\ Whether a security is an appropriate
investment for a particular bank will depend upon a variety of factors,
including the bank's capital level, the security's impact on the
aggregate risk of the portfolio, and management's ability to measure
and manage bank-wide risks. In addition, a bank must determine that
there is adequate evidence that the obligor possesses resources
sufficient to provide for all required payments on its obligations.\11\
Each bank also must maintain records available for examination purposes
adequate to demonstrate that it meets the above requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 12 CFR 1.5.
\10\ 12 CFR 1.5(a).
\11\ 12 CFR 1.5(b).
\12\ 12 CFR 1.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCC has issued guidance on safe and sound investment securities
practices. The OCC expects banks to understand the price sensitivity of
securities before purchase (pre-purchase analysis) and on an ongoing
basis.\13\ Appropriate ongoing due diligence includes the ability to
assess and manage the market, credit, liquidity, legal, operational and
other risks of investment securities. As a matter of sound practice,
banks are expected to perform quantitative tests to ensure that they
thoroughly understand the accompanying cash flow and interest rate
risks of their investment securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ OCC Bulletin 98-20, ``Supervisory Policy Statement on
Investment Securities and End-User Derivatives Activities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound investment practices dictate additional due diligence for
purchases of certain structured or complex investment securities. The
more complex a security's structure, the more due diligence that bank
management should conduct. For securities with long maturities or
complex options management should understand the structure and price
sensitivity of its securities purchased. For complex asset-backed
securities, such as collateralized debt obligations, bank management
should ensure that they understand the security's structure and how the
security will perform in different default environments.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ OCC Bulletin 2002-19, ``Unsafe and Unsound Investment
Portfolio Practices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Standards
Three options for replacing the references to external credit
ratings in the OCC's investment securities regulations include the
following.
1. Credit Quality Based Standard
One alternative would be to replace the references to credit
ratings with a standard that is focused primarily on credit quality.
The OCC could adopt standards similar to those applied to unrated
securities. Specifically, banks could be required to document, through
their own credit assessment and analysis, that the security meets
specified internal credit rating standards.
Part 1 permits the purchase of investment securities that are not
predominately speculative in nature. Under the current rules, a
security is not predominately speculative in nature if it is rated
investment grade or, if unrated, is the credit-equivalent of investment
grade. To show that a non-rated security is the credit equivalent of
investment grade, a bank must document, through its own credit
assessment and analysis, that the security is a strong ``pass'' asset
under its internal credit rating standards. (Because most internal bank
rating systems ``pass'' some credit exposures that are not, or would
not be, rated investment grade, a security will generally have to be
rated higher than the bottom tier of internal credit rating ``pass''
standards in order to be the credit equivalent of investment grade.)
Moreover, as a prudent credit practice, the OCC currently expects banks
to
[[Page 49425]]
review the quality of material holdings of non-rated securities on an
ongoing basis after purchase. Banks that fail to perform and document
the necessary credit analysis are not in compliance with 12 CFR part 1
and the sound investment practices outlined in OCC Bulletin 98-20,
``Supervisory Policy Statement on Investment Securities and End-User
Derivatives Activities.''
If the OCC adopts a general credit-quality based test that does not
rely on external credit ratings, the OCC could require banks to
determine that their investment securities meet certain credit quality
standards. Banks could be required to document an internal credit
assessment and analysis demonstrating that the issuer of a security is
an entity that has an adequate capacity to meet its financial
commitments, is subject only to moderate credit risk, and for whom
expectations of default risk are currently low. As is currently the
case for non-rated securities,\15\ the OCC would require banks to
document their credit assessment and analysis using systems and
criteria similar to the bank's internal loan credit grading system.
These reviews would be subject to examiner review and classification,
similar to the process used for loan classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, 12 CFR 1.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this alternative were adopted, national banks would continue to
be expected to understand and manage the associated price, liquidity
and other-related risks associated with their investment securities
activities.
2. Investment Quality Based Standard
As an alternative to a standard that focuses solely on credit-
worthiness, the OCC could adopt a broader ``investment quality''
standard that, in addition to credit-worthiness elements (such as the
timely repayment of principal and interest and the probability of
default), such a standard also would establish criteria for
marketability, liquidity and price risk associated with market
volatility.
As previously noted, the OCC's current investment securities
regulations and guidance emphasize that national banks must consider,
as appropriate, credit, liquidity, and market risk, as well as any
other risks presented by proposed securities activities. An investment
quality based standard could reflect some combination of these
considerations and place quantitative limits on banks' investment
securities activities based on the levels and types of risks in its
portfolio. As with the credit quality standard, the OCC could require
banks to document their credit assessment and analysis using systems
and criteria similar to the bank's internal loan credit grading system.
Such reviews would be subject to examiner review and classification,
similar to the process used for loan classifications.
Under such a standard, a security with a low probability of default
may nevertheless be deemed ``predominantly speculative in nature,'' and
therefore impermissible, if, under the new standard, it is deemed to be
subject to significant liquidity or market risk. This would be
consistent with current OCC guidance, which warns that complex and
illiquid instruments often can involve greater risk than actively
traded, more liquid securities. Oftentimes, this higher potential risk
arising from illiquidity is not captured by standardized financial
modeling techniques. Such risk is particularly acute for instruments
that are highly leveraged or that are designed to benefit from
specific, narrowly defined market shifts. If market prices or rates do
not move as expected, the demand for such instruments can evaporate,
decreasing the market value of the instrument below the modeled value.
3. Reliance on Internal Risk Ratings
A third alternative could establish a credit worthiness standard
that is based on a bank's internal risk rating systems. The OCC could
require a bank to document its credit assessment and analysis using
systems and criteria similar to its internal loan credit rating system.
Such reviews also would be subject to examiner review and
classification, similar to the process used for loan classifications.
The bank regulatory agencies use a common risk rating scale to
identify problem credits. The regulatory definitions are used for all
credit relationships--commercial, retail, and those that arise outside
lending areas, such as from capital markets. The regulatory ratings
``special mention,'' ``substandard,'' ``doubtful,'' and ``loss''
identify different degrees of credit weakness. Therefore, for example,
the rule could define all investments deemed ``special mention'' or
worse as predominately speculative. Credits that are not covered by
these definitions would be ``pass'' credits, for which no formal
regulatory definition exists (because regulatory ratings currently do
not distinguish among pass credits). Many banks have internal rating
systems that distinguish between levels of credit-worthiness in the
regulatory ``pass'' grade. In these systems, ``pass'' grades that
denote lower levels of credit-worthiness usually do not equate to
investment grade as defined in the current rule.
This option would be similar to the OCC's current treatment of
unrated securities. Part 1 permits the purchase of investment
securities that are not predominately speculative in nature. Under the
current rules, a security is not predominately speculative in nature if
it is rated investment grade, or if unrated, is the credit-equivalent
of investment grade. National banks must document, through its own
credit assessment and analysis, that the security is a strong ``pass''
asset under its internal credit rating standards to demonstrate that a
non-rated security is the credit equivalent of investment grade.
Because most internal bank rating systems ``pass'' some credit
exposures that are not, or would not be, rated investment grade, a
security will generally have to be rated higher than the bottom tier of
internal credit rating ``pass'' standards in order to be the credit
equivalent of investment grade.
B. Securities Offerings
Securities issued by national banks are not covered by the
registration provisions and SEC regulations governing other issuers'
securities under the Securities Act of 1933. However, the OCC has
adopted part 16 to require disclosures related to national bank-issued
securities. Part 16 includes references to ``investment grade''
ratings. For example, section 16.6, which provides an optional
abbreviated registration system for debt securities that meet certain
criteria, requires that a security receive an investment grade rating
in order to qualify for the abbreviated registration system.\16\ The
OCC designed the requirements of the abbreviated registration system to
ensure that potential purchasers of nonconvertible debt have access to
necessary information on the issuing bank and commonly controlled
depository institutions, as well as the appropriate knowledge and
experience to evaluate that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In addition, section 16.2(g) defines the term ``investment
grade'' as a security that is rated in one of the top four ratings
categories by each NRSRO that has rated the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 16 also cross-references to SEC regulations governing the
offering of securities under the Securities Act of 1933 that may
include references to or reliance on NRSRO credit ratings. The SEC is
preparing to undertake a similar review of its regulations in
accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act.\17\ The OCC will consider any
proposed and final changes to SEC regulations that are
[[Page 49426]]
cross-referenced in part 16 in deciding whether to amend the references
to the SEC's regulations in part 16, and whether the application of the
SEC's regulations continues to be appropriate under part 16 in order to
provide comparable investor protections covering bank-issued
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/regreformcomments.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. International Banking Activities
Pursuant to section 4(g) of the International Banking Act
(IBA),\18\ foreign banks with Federal branches or agencies must
establish and maintain a capital equivalency deposit (CED) with a
member bank located in the state where the Federal branch or agency is
located. The IBA authorizes the OCC to prescribe regulations describing
the types and amounts of assets that qualify for inclusion in the CED,
``as necessary or desirable for the maintenance of a sound financial
condition, the protection of depositors, creditors, and the public
interest.'' \19\ At 12 CFR 28.15, OCC regulations set forth the types
of assets eligible for inclusion in a CED. Among these assets are
certificates of deposit, payable in the United States, and banker's
acceptances, provided that, in either case, the issuer or the
instrument is rated investment grade by an internationally recognized
rating organization, and neither the issuer nor the instrument is rated
lower than investment grade by any such rating organization that has
rated the issuer or the instrument.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 12 U.S.C. 3102(g).
\19\ 12 U.S.C. 3102(g)(4).
\20\ See, 12 CFR 28.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Request for Comment
The OCC is seeking public input as it begins reviewing its
regulations pursuant to section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act. In
particular, the OCC is seeking comment on alternative measures of
credit-worthiness that may be used instead of credit ratings in the
regulations described in this ANPR. Commenters are encouraged to
address the specific questions set forth below; the OCC also invites
comment on any and all aspects of this ANPR.
General Questions
1. In some cases the regulations described in this ANPR use credit
ratings for purposes other than measuring credit-worthiness (for
example, the definition of ``marketability'' at 12 CFR 1.2(f)(3)).
Should the Dodd-Frank Act's requirement for the removal of references
to credit ratings be construed to prohibit the use of credit ratings as
a proxy for measuring other characteristics of a security, for example,
liquidity or marketability?
2a. If continued reliance on credit ratings is permissible for
purposes other than credit-worthiness, should the OCC permit national
banks to continue to use credit ratings in their risk assessment
process for the purpose of measuring the liquidity and marketability of
investment securities, even though alternative measures to determine
credit-worthiness would be prescribed?
2b. What alternative measures could the OCC and banks use to
measure the marketability, and liquidity of a security?
3. What are the appropriate objectives for any alternative
standards of credit-worthiness that may be used in regulations in place
of credit ratings?
4. In evaluating potential standards of credit-worthiness, the
following criteria appear to be most relevant; that is, any alternative
to credit ratings should:
a. Foster prudent risk management;
b. Be transparent, replicable, and well defined;
c. Allow different banking organizations to assign the same
assessment of credit quality to the same or similar credit exposures;
d. Allow for supervisory review;
f. Differentiate among investments in the same asset class with
different credit risk; and
g. Provide for the timely and accurate measurement of negative and
positive changes in investment quality, to the extent practicable.
Are these criteria appropriate? Are there other relevant criteria?
Are there standards of credit-worthiness that can satisfy these
criteria?
5. The OCC recognizes that any measure of credit-worthiness likely
will involve tradeoffs between more refined differentiation of credit-
worthiness and greater implementation burden. What factors are most
important in determining the appropriate balance between precise
measurement of credit risk and implementation burden in considering
alternative measures of credit-worthiness?
6. Would the development of alternatives to the use of credit
ratings, in most circumstances, involve cost considerations greater
than those under the current regulations? Are there specific cost
considerations that the OCC should take into account? What additional
burden, especially at community and regional banks, might arise from
the implementation of alternative methods of measuring credit-
worthiness?
7. The credit rating alternatives discussed in this ANPR differ, in
certain respects, from those being proposed by the OCC and other
federal banking agencies for regulatory capital purposes. The OCC
believes such distinctions are consistent with current differences in
the application and evaluation of credit quality for evaluating loans
and investment securities and those used for risk-based capital
standards. Are such distinctions warranted? What are the benefits and
costs of using different standards for different regulations?
Alternatives for Replacing References to Credit Ratings in Part 1
8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative
standards described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION?
9. Should the credit-worthiness standard include only high quality
and highly liquid securities? Should the standard include specific
standards on probability of default? Should the standard vary by asset
class? Are there other alternative credit-worthiness standards that
should be considered?
10. If the OCC relied upon internal rating systems, should the
credit-worthiness standard include any pass grade or should it only be
mapped to higher grades of pass?
11. Alternatively, should the banking regulators revise the current
regulatory risk rating system to include more granularity in the pass
grade and develop a credit-worthiness standard based upon the
regulatory risk rating system?
12. Should the OCC adopt standards for marketability and liquidity
separate from the credit-worthiness standard? If so, how should this
differ from the credit-worthiness standard?
13. Should an alternative approach establish different levels of
quality that, for example, govern the amount of securities that may be
held?
14. Should an alternative approach take into account the ability of
a security issuer to repay under stressed economic or market
environments? If so, how should stress scenarios be applied?
15. Should an assessment of credit-worthiness link directly to a
bank's loan rating system (for example, consistent with the higher
quality credit ratings)?
16. Should a bank be permitted to consider credit assessments and
other analytical data gathered from third parties that are independent
of the seller or counterparty? What, if any, criteria or standards
should the OCC impose on the use of such assessments and data?
17. Should a bank be permitted to rely on an investment quality or
credit quality determination made by another financial institution or
another third party that is independent of the seller or counterparty?
What, if any, criteria or
[[Page 49427]]
standards should the OCC impose on the use of such opinions?
18. Which alternative would be most appropriate for community banks
and why?
19. Are there other alternatives that ought to be considered?
20. What level of due diligence should be required when considering
the purchase of an investment security? How should the OCC set minimum
standards for monitoring the performance of an investment security over
time so that banks effectively ensure that their investment securities
remain ``investment quality'' as long as they are held?
Alternatives Credit-Worthiness Standards for Credit Ratings in
Regulations Pertaining to Securities Issuances and International
Banking Activities (Parts 16 and 28)
As discussed above, the OCC's regulations include a number of other
references to credit ratings, including in regulations pertaining to
securities issuances \21\ and international banking activities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Certain limitations in Part 16 refer to a security that is
``investment grade,'' which means that it is rated in one of the top
four rating categories by each NSRSO that has rated the security.
See, e.g, 12 CFR 16.2(g), and 12 CFR 16.6(a)(4).
\22\ A foreign bank's capital equivalency deposits may consist
of certificates of deposit, payable in the United States, and
banker's acceptances, provided that, in either case, the issuer or
the instrument is rated investment grade by an internationally
recognized rating organization, and neither the issuer nor the
instrument is rated lower than investment grade by any such rating
organization that has rated the issuer or the instrument. 12 CFR
28.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Are there considerations, in addition to those discussed above,
that the agency should address in developing alternative credit-
worthiness standards for regulations pertaining to securities issuances
or international banking activities?
22. What standard or standards should the OCC adopt to replace the
investment grade requirement in section 16.6? Please comment on how the
alternative standard will ensure that potential purchasers of
nonconvertible debt have access to necessary information about the
issuing bank and have the appropriate knowledge and experience to
evaluate that information?
23. What standard or standards should the OCC adopt to specify the
types of assets eligible for inclusion in the CED under Part 28
(section 4(g) of the IBA)? To what extent are alternative standards
consistent with maintenance of sound financial condition, and the
protection of depositors, creditors, and the public interest?
Dated: August 9, 2010.
By the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.
John C. Dugan,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2010-20048 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-01-P