# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 776: Letter concerns the exportation of main office state credit card rates by interstate national bank. (03/18/97)

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0776

## Section

- **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 776
- **Heading:** Letter concerns the exportation of main office state credit card rates by interstate national bank. (03/18/97)
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / Letter concerns the exportation of main office state credit card rates by interstate national bank. (03/18/97)

## Text

The Bank’s credit card operations are conducted, as will be described, in the main office state at its
1
credit card center located near the Bank’s main office. Because the credit card center is simply a business unit
within the Bank, for purposes of clarity, this opinion recognizes that its activities, operations and functions are
those of the Bank.
Comptroller of the Currency
Administrator of National Banks
Washington, DC 20219
March 18, 1997
Interpretive Letter #776
April 1997
[ ]
12 U. S.C. 85
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Dear [ ]:
This is in response to your inquiry concerning the use of interest rates permitted by the state
of a Bank’s main office in connection with credit card loans to the Bank’s credit card holders
who reside in other states where the Bank has branches. We note that the Bank currently does
not have branches in more than one state but is considering acquiring interstate branches
through mergers with affiliated banks in other states. Your question concerns the impact of
these mergers on the Bank’s ability to use interest rates permitted by the laws of its main
office state. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Bank may use the interest rates
permitted by the law of its main office state with respect to extensions of credit made to
holders of credit cards issued by the Bank regardless of the state in which they reside.
I. Background
A. Current and proposed structure of the Bank’s credit card operations
You have stated that the Bank currently provides the vast majority of the credit card lending
undertaken by the corporate family from its main office state. Following the mergers, you
represent that the Bank intends to conduct its credit card operations as it currently conducts
them and seeks to continue to use the interest rates, as that term is used within the meaning of
1
redit card operations
You have stated that the Bank currently provides the vast majority of the credit card lending
undertaken by the corporate family from its main office state. Following the mergers, you
represent that the Bank intends to conduct its credit card operations as it currently conducts
them and seeks to continue to use the interest rates, as that term is used within the meaning of
1

- 2 -
See 61 Fed. Reg. 4849, 4869 (Feb. 9, 1996) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001).
2
The facts set forth in this letter are based on those set forth in your inquiry of November 5, 1996, as
3
supplemented by information supplied by you in telephone conversations with OCC staff.
We note that you have represented that strategic planning, significant capital expenditures and major
4
policy decisions, such as changes in the credit approval criteria, are subject to the approval of executive
management located at a site in the main office state certified as a branch of the Bank.
You note, however, that from time to time these functions are performed at the Bank’s direction
5
through an outside, non-affiliated vendor which may be located anywhere. The location of services provided by
third parties is irrelevant for purposes of section 85. See, e.g., Cades v, H&R Block, 43 F. 3d 869, 874 (4th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2247 (1995) (Cades).
12 U.S.C. § 85 and OCC regulations, permitted by the main office state, to out-of-state customers.
2
You have represented that following the merger of the various affiliated banks, to avoid
customer confusion regarding what usury laws govern credit card agreements, the Bank will
make it clear to each borrower that the interest applicable to extensions of credit under the
credit card is governed by applicable Federal and the Bank’s main office state law.

B. Credit card lending activities undertaken in the main office state
According to your description, the Bank conducts virtually all of its credit card operations in
and from its main office state
eements, the Bank will
make it clear to each borrower that the interest applicable to extensions of credit under the
credit card is governed by applicable Federal and the Bank’s main office state law.

B. Credit card lending activities undertaken in the main office state
According to your description, the Bank conducts virtually all of its credit card operations in
and from its main office state. These functions include:
3
•
the setting of all credit and other policies and the making of all decisions
regarding product pricing and terms ;
4
•
the drafting, approval, design and printing of all account agreements, billing
statements, customer communications and other forms;
•
the development and approval of all marketing plans, strategies and programs
and product plans and product changes and related materials, documentation
and customer communications;
•
the design, development, printing and mailing of all materials, documentation
and customer communications related to marketing plans, strategies and
programs and product plans and product changes ;
5
•
the receipt and processing of all applications by mail and telephone, and
applications that are transmitted electronically, including by facsimile, internal
computer systems, and the internet;

- 3 -
You note that in a very small minority of instances, a credit which otherwise would be rejected may be
6
approved by the Bank if the branch which has direct dealings with the customer assumes financial responsibility
for that account. Even in these instances, however, the processing and servicing of the card is identical to those
approved by the Bank in the usual manner. We understand that less than 1% of credit cards are issued under this
alternative procedure
otherwise would be rejected may be
6
approved by the Bank if the branch which has direct dealings with the customer assumes financial responsibility
for that account. Even in these instances, however, the processing and servicing of the card is identical to those
approved by the Bank in the usual manner. We understand that less than 1% of credit cards are issued under this
alternative procedure.
The Bank has advised that the accounts have not and will not be booked to individual branches though
7
the Bank does retain information that indicates how a particular account was initiated such as through a direct
mail solicitation, a telephone solicitation, receipt of an unsolicited application, or through an application
forwarded by a branch.
A few functions are performed, pursuant to the Bank’s direction, by a nonaffiliated vendor located in a
8
state where the Bank has neither its main office nor does it plan to have branches. These functions include
mailing reissued cards, preparing and mailing monthly billing statements, processing payments where the third
party is designated as the addressee, mailing credit cards and the accompanying disclosures for some limited
programs and servicing and collecting accounts for some limited programs. As stated in footnote 5, supra, the
location of functions performed by third parties is irrelevant for purposes of section 85.
•
the obtaining of credit reports and the gathering and verifying of other
information necessary to evaluate applications and make credit decisions;

•
the making of all underwriting and credit decisions;
6
•
the embossing and mailing of credit cards for most new accounts with the
accompanying disclosures and agreements;
•
the maintenance of all credit card accounts (the Bank, through the credit card
center -- not the branches -- is considered to own all of the accounts);
7
•
the provision of customer service and collection functions.8
C
•
the making of all underwriting and credit decisions;
6
•
the embossing and mailing of credit cards for most new accounts with the
accompanying disclosures and agreements;
•
the maintenance of all credit card accounts (the Bank, through the credit card
center -- not the branches -- is considered to own all of the accounts);
7
•
the provision of customer service and collection functions.8
C. Credit card activities undertaken at the branches
For the most part, the role of branches of the affiliated banks (which would become branches
of the Bank following the merger) in the Bank’s credit card operations is to act, from time to
time, as a facilitator of communication between the Bank in the main office state and the
credit card holder. In this respect, you have identified the following communications that
from time to time, may be facilitated at a branch:
•
facilitating the application process by displaying application forms on lobby
racks or otherwise providing them to customers; assisting customers in filling

- 4 -
You have represented that only a small minority of applications are forwarded by a branch and, of
9
those, most are simply mailed by the branch to the Bank.
You have represented that in-person notice of approvals rarely occurs and then only in connection
10
with some of the applications that have been forwarded by a branch, itself a rare occurrence as discussed in
footnote 9, supra.
In this respect, you have represented that only a small minority of these types of contacts between the
11
credit cardholder and the Bank occur at a branch and many of these contacts are limited to notifying the bank of
address changes or obtaining copies of statements. Moreover, even with respect to these contacts, as stated, the
branch merely acts as a conduit for communication between the Bank and the cardholder
u have represented that only a small minority of these types of contacts between the
11
credit cardholder and the Bank occur at a branch and many of these contacts are limited to notifying the bank of
address changes or obtaining copies of statements. Moreover, even with respect to these contacts, as stated, the
branch merely acts as a conduit for communication between the Bank and the cardholder.
out the forms; and if the forms are returned to the branch, forwarding them to
the Bank in the main office state ;
9
•
orally informing customers of the credit decision made by the Bank in the main
office state ;
10
•
in a small minority of cases, receiving credit card payments which are recorded
on the company’s computer system and forwarded to the Bank in the main
office state for processing.
•
with respect to complaints, assisting the customer in communicating with the
Bank in the main office state, although the branches do have the capability to
provide balance and credit limit information.
11
II. Discussion
A. Applicability of the main office state’s rates under the current structure
It is beyond dispute, under the corporate family’s current structure, that the Bank may charge
customers in both the Bank’s main office state and in other states interest rates on its credit
card loans in accordance with the rates permitted by the law of the Bank’s main office state.
See Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Firsts of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978) (Marquette)
(bank located in Nebraska may charge interest rates permitted by Nebraska law to Minnesota
customers); Wiseman v. State Bank & Trust Co., N.A., 854 S.W.2d 725 (Ark. 1993) (national
bank located in one state may use the interest rates permitted by that state for customers in a
second state even though the national bank’s parent company is incorporated in that second
state); OCC Interpretive Letter No. 721, March 6, 1996, reprinted in [1995-96 Transfer
Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep
innesota
customers); Wiseman v. State Bank & Trust Co., N.A., 854 S.W.2d 725 (Ark. 1993) (national
bank located in one state may use the interest rates permitted by that state for customers in a
second state even though the national bank’s parent company is incorporated in that second
state); OCC Interpretive Letter No. 721, March 6, 1996, reprinted in [1995-96 Transfer
Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 81-036 (national bank located in one state may use
that state’s interest rates for consumer loan borrowers in a second state where the bank has an
affiliate that performed certain ministerial functions with respect to the making of the
consumer loans).

- 5 -
B. Applicability of the main office state’s rates following the interstate mergers
You ask, however, whether following the acquisition of the Bank’s affiliated banks in other
states, resulting in the offices of the acquired banks becoming branches of the Bank, this
practice can be continued if the Bank continues its current credit card lending procedures.
1. Statutory requirements and OCC precedent permitting a bank to
charge
rates permitted by branch state
Title 12 U.S.C. § 85 provides, in pertinent part, that a national bank “may . . . charge on any
loan . . . interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State . . . where the bank is located.”
As the Supreme Court stated in Marquette:
Section 85 was originally enacted as § 30 of the National Bank Act of 1864
[citation omitted]. The congressional debates surrounding the enactment of §
30 were conducted on the assumption that a national bank was ‘located’ for
purposes of the section in the State named in its organization certificate.
[Citation omitted.] Omaha Bank cannot be deprived of this location merely
because it is extending credit to residents of a foreign state.
Marquette at p. 310.
It is thus clear that, prior to the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and
Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-328, 108 Stat
ocated’ for
purposes of the section in the State named in its organization certificate.
[Citation omitted.] Omaha Bank cannot be deprived of this location merely
because it is extending credit to residents of a foreign state.
Marquette at p. 310.
It is thus clear that, prior to the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and
Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-328, 108 Stat. 2338 (enacted September
29, 1994) (the Riegle-Neal Act) (which for the first time paved the way for general interstate
branching by national banks), the interest rates authorized by the main office state could be
applicable under the above-referenced clause of section 85 notwithstanding the fact that not
all of the activities undertaken in connection with an interstate loan were undertaken at the
main office or even in the main office state. Thus, as the OCC noted in Interpretive Letter
No. 707, n. 9, January 31, 1996, reprinted in [1995-96 Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep.
(CCH) ¶ 81-022, the Supreme Court in Marquette recognized that the Nebraska bank
involved in the case “systematically solicits” Minnesota residents for credit cards to be used
in transactions with Minnesota merchants, and honors sales drafts from merchants who
initially deposit them with Minnesota banks for forwarding to the Nebraska bank. Id. at 310-
313. See also Cades, supra at n. 5, pp. 873-874 (face-to-face solicitation and signing of all
loan documents by borrower in state other than state the interest rates of which were to be
charged did not affect the legality of those rates). Likewise, the OCC has long recognized
that essential activities associated with the lending function may occur in a multitude of
locations and that such occurrences do not impact a bank’s ability to charge the rates
permitted by the main office state. These functions include accepting applications, processing
interest rates of which were to be
charged did not affect the legality of those rates). Likewise, the OCC has long recognized
that essential activities associated with the lending function may occur in a multitude of
locations and that such occurrences do not impact a bank’s ability to charge the rates
permitted by the main office state. These functions include accepting applications, processing

- 6 -
See, e.g., Interpretive Letter No. 634, July 23, 1993, reprinted in [1993-1994 Transfer Binder] Fed.
12
Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 83,518; Interpretive Letter No. 667, October 12, 1994 reprinted in [1994-1995
Decisions] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 83,615; Interpretive Letter No. 636, July 23, 1993, reprinted in [1993-
1994 Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH)¶ 83,520; Interpretive Letter No. 343, May 24, 1985, reprinted
in [1985-1987 Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 85,513; Interpretive Letter by J.T. Watson, Deputy
Comptroller of the Currency (February 5, 1974) (unpublished); Interpretive Letter by Thomas G. DeShazo,
Deputy Comptroller of the Currency (April 5, 1973) (unpublished).
The Court, citing Seattle Trust & Savings Bank v. Bank of California, N.A., 492 F.2d 48, 51 (9th
13
Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 844 (1974), recognized that a bank could be considered to be located in a state where
it had a branch.
There is no need in this letter to reiterate the full analysis set forth in this letter regarding the location
14
of a bank for purposes of section 85. That analysis is summarized where necessary and fully incorporated into
and relied upon in this letter.
applications, approving loans, closing loans and disbursing funds. Given modern banking
12
technology and practices, it is not necessary and, in many cases, not feasible, to require that
these functions occur at the main office in order to justify use of the interest rates permitted by
the state of the bank’s main office
where necessary and fully incorporated into
and relied upon in this letter.
applications, approving loans, closing loans and disbursing funds. Given modern banking
12
technology and practices, it is not necessary and, in many cases, not feasible, to require that
these functions occur at the main office in order to justify use of the interest rates permitted by
the state of the bank’s main office.
But the Court in Marquette also recognized the possible impact on the applicability of the
main office state’s interest rate laws of a branch of the bank in the state where the borrower
resides. The Court, however, had no reason to resolve this issue and did not resolve it.
13
As the OCC previously has recognized, for purposes of section 85, a national bank is
“located” in any state in which it has its main office or a branch. See OCC Interpretive Letter
No. 686, September 11, 1995, reprinted in [1995-96 Transfer Binder] Fed. Banking L. Rep.
(CCH) ¶ 81-001 ; Letter No. 707. Having determined in those letters that the bank may be
14
located in more than one state for purposes of section 85, those letters then addressed the
question of whether the bank could charge interest under the law of the branch state -- not the
main office state -- with respect to certain loans made by the bank to residents of the branch
state, the main office state and any other state. Both letters concluded that if a clear nexus
exists between the branch and the loan, then the interest rates permitted by the law of the
branch state could be utilized. In Letter No. 686, the loans inquired about were originated at
the branch following application by the customer at that branch, loan proceeds were disbursed
from the branch and the loan was booked at the branch. Interpretive Letter No
letters concluded that if a clear nexus
exists between the branch and the loan, then the interest rates permitted by the law of the
branch state could be utilized. In Letter No. 686, the loans inquired about were originated at
the branch following application by the customer at that branch, loan proceeds were disbursed
from the branch and the loan was booked at the branch. Interpretive Letter No. 707 reached a
similar conclusion with respect to loans where application was made at the branch, loan
closings occurred at the branch, loan proceeds were either disbursed at the branch or disbursal
was initiated at the branch and the bank booked the loan, for its own internal operational
purposes, at the branch.

- 7 -

2. Impact of the Riegle-Neal Act on a bank’s ability to charge rates
permitted by its main office state
The foregoing letters specifically held in abeyance the question of the circumstances under
which the rates of the main office state could be charged to customers residing in branch
states. See Letter 686 at n. 1 (stating that we “note that other questions may arise under
Section 85 as a result of the advent of interstate banking by national banks . . . [including]
whether a national bank may export interest rates permitted by the law of the state in which its
main office is located to customers in another state where the bank has a branch”).
Your inquiry now presents that issue and provides the first opportunity for the OCC to
examine the issue of use of interest rates permitted by a bank’s main office state following the
enactment of the Riegle-Neal Act.
In adopting this Act, Congress provided in section 111 (the “usury savings clause”) that:
No provision of this title and no amendment made by this title to any
other provision of law shall be construed as affecting in any way--
ides the first opportunity for the OCC to
examine the issue of use of interest rates permitted by a bank’s main office state following the
enactment of the Riegle-Neal Act.
In adopting this Act, Congress provided in section 111 (the “usury savings clause”) that:
No provision of this title and no amendment made by this title to any
other provision of law shall be construed as affecting in any way--
(3) the applicability of [section 85] or [the usury provisions] of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
While this provision indicates that section 85 is to be interpreted without regard to the legal
impact of any of the provisions of the Riegle-Neal Act, Sen. Roth, the sponsor of this
provision, clearly stated the Congressional understanding of the usury provisions that
underlay the usury savings clause. As sponsor of the provision, courts have recognized that
Sen. Roth’s views may provide a “weighty gloss” on the meaning of legislation. See, e.g.,
Galvin v. U.L. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 527 (1954).
As Sen. Roth stated:
[I]t is clear that the conferees intend that a bank in State A that approves
a loan, extends the credit, and disburses the proceeds to a customer in
State B, may apply the law of State A even if the bank has a branch or
agent in State B and even if that branch or agent performed some
ministerial functions such as providing credit card or loan applications
or receiving payments.
Id. at S12790. On the other hand, Sen. Roth stated that:
[T]he savings clause is not intended to suggest that when a
branch makes a loan to a borrower who resides in the same State
as the branch that somehow the branch can use [section 85] . . .
to impose the loan charges authorized by the laws of some other
al functions such as providing credit card or loan applications
or receiving payments.
Id. at S12790. On the other hand, Sen. Roth stated that:
[T]he savings clause is not intended to suggest that when a
branch makes a loan to a borrower who resides in the same State
as the branch that somehow the branch can use [section 85] . . .
to impose the loan charges authorized by the laws of some other

- 8 -
A more detailed discussion of the importance of uniformity is contained in Interpretive Letter No. 707
15
at n. 10 and the accompanying text.
As stated, because of the conclusion that we reach under the facts presented we do not at this time
16
address other theories which may permit the Bank to charge rates permitted by the main office state. Likewise, it
is beyond the scope of this response to address whether factual circumstances, other than those posed by the
Bank, would establish a nexus justifying the imposition of the rates of any particular state.
State. When the branch makes such an in-State loan to a local
customer, the law of the State where the branch and customer are
located applies.
140 Cong. Rec. S12789 (daily ed. Sept. 13, 1994).
As the OCC has noted, Sen. Roth was concerned that interstate branching not be used by a
bank to charge interest rates permitted by a state in which the bank had branches but which
had no nexus to a particular loan. See Interpretive Letter No. 707 at n. 11. The conclusion
reached in this letter clearly does not implicate Sen. Roth’s concern because the usury laws of
the Bank’s main office state are being applied by the Bank, and there are clearly a variety of
significant contacts between the Bank’s loans and its main office state.
This conclusion is fully consistent with the purposes underlying the usury savings clause as
explained by Sen
at n. 11. The conclusion
reached in this letter clearly does not implicate Sen. Roth’s concern because the usury laws of
the Bank’s main office state are being applied by the Bank, and there are clearly a variety of
significant contacts between the Bank’s loans and its main office state.
This conclusion is fully consistent with the purposes underlying the usury savings clause as
explained by Sen. Roth:
The essential point of my amendment is that a branch of a bank that
provides credit across State lines may impose its State law loan charges
even though there is a branch of that same bank in the State of its
customer. The savings clause is intended to preserve this efficiency of
uniformity from the credit-provider’s viewpoint, notwithstanding formal
or structural changes that may occur through mergers within a bank
holding company under this legislation . . . . 15
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, based on the facts described herein, we agree that the Bank may
charge interest rates permitted by the law of the Bank’s main office state to credit card
customers no matter where they reside.16
Sincerely,
/s/
Julie L. Williams
Chief Counsel

## Nearby sections

- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0776. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.