Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices 34183

1Reserve Banks may also provide services to a

limited set of other institutions, such as state

member banks that are not defined as depository

institutions. Further, the Reserve Banks may

provide services to other entities if directed to do

so as fiscal agent of the United States.

2ACH Vision 2000 Task Force Recommendations,

NACHA, 1997; The Role of the Federal Reserve and

the Banking Industry in the Retail Electronic

Payments Systems of the Future, The Bankers

Roundtable, April 1998.

3The Federal Reserve in the Payments System,

Federal Reserve Regulatory Service 7–139.

4Standards Related to Priced-Services Activities

of the Federal Reserve Banks, Federal Reserve

Regulatory Service 7–136.

5The Board received seventeen comments from

small banks and thrifts, fourteen comments from

national and regional banks, nine comments from

ACH associations and clearinghouses, seven

comments from credit unions, five comments from

Reserve Banks, three comments from private-sector

operators, and three comments from consultants,

law firms, and corporate associations.

6This summary of comments reflects

commenters’ formal responses to the request for

comment as well as the views expressed at the

December 1999 meeting.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 22, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–13257 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

[Docket No. R–1037]

Modifying Federal Reserve ACH

Deposit Deadlines and Pricing

Practices Relative to Private-Sector

ACH Operators

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Based on comments received

in response to its request for comment

last year, the Board has concluded that

the Federal Reserve Banks’ deposit

deadlines and pricing practices for

automated clearing house (ACH)

transactions exchanged with privatesector ACH operators should be

modified. The Board is considering

specific modifications to these

deadlines and pricing practices, which

could be implemented as early as mid2001, and requests comment on these

proposed modifications.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 25, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments, which should

refer to Docket No. R–1037, may be

mailed to Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, 20th and C

Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551 or

mailed electronically to

regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.

Comments addressed to Ms. Johnson

also may be delivered to the Board’s

mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15

p.m. and to the security control room

outside of those hours. Both the mail

room and the security control room are

accessible from the courtyard entrance

on 20th Street between Constitution

Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments

may be inspected in Room MP–500

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays,

pursuant to § 261.12, except as provided

in § 261.14, of the Board’s Rules

Regarding Availability of Information,

12 CFR 261.12 and 261.14.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

K. Walton II, Manager (202/452–2660);

Michele Braun, Project Leader (202/

452–2819); or Jeffrey S.H. Yeganeh,

Senior Financial Services Analyst (202/

728–5801); for the hearing impaired

only, contact Janice Simms,

Telecommunication Device for the Deaf

(202/872–4984).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Federal Reserve Banks are

collectively the largest ACH operator

and process more than 80 percent of

commercial interbank ACH transactions.

Private-sector ACH operators (PSOs)

process the remaining transactions and

typically provide services, including

processing and settling ACH

transactions, similar to those offered by

the Reserve Banks. PSOs also rely on the

Reserve Banks’ ACH services for the

delivery and settlement of some

transactions in which either the

originating depository financial

institution (ODFI) or receiving

depository financial institution (RDFI) is

not their customer.

The Reserve Banks’ authority to

provide payment services is limited by

law to services provided to depository

institutions.1 The Reserve Banks,

however, allow depository institutions

to send or receive their ACH

transactions through intermediaries,

such as PSOs, and treat those

intermediaries as agents of the

depository institutions they serve.

Nevertheless, all depository institutions

are currently subject to the same

Reserve Bank prices and service

guidelines regardless of how they send

or receive their ACH transactions to and

from the Reserve Banks.

Some industry representatives have

expressed concerns that the Reserve

Banks’ price and service level policies

have created barriers to open and

vigorous competition among ACH

operators because the policies do not

recognize the role played by operators

in the ACH system.2 Specifically, these

representatives have maintained that the

Reserve Banks’ deposit deadlines and

price structure do not permit the PSOs

to compete effectively in the provision

of ACH services to depository

institutions.

The Federal Reserve Board recognizes

the benefits of competition in the

provision of payment services. In a 1990

white paper on the Federal Reserve in

the payments system, the Board stated

that ‘‘the role of the Federal Reserve in

providing payments services is to

promote the integrity and efficiency of

the payments mechanism and to ensure

the provision of payment services to all

depository institutions on an equitable

basis, and to do so in an atmosphere of

competitive fairness.’’ 3 In addition, the

Board’s standards for priced services

activities note that ‘‘Federal Reserve

actions are implemented in a manner

that ensures fairness to other providers

of payment services.’’ 4

In response to the industry’s

concerns, the Board requested comment

last year on the benefits and drawbacks

of modifying the Reserve Banks’ deposit

deadlines and pricing practices for ACH

transactions exchanged with PSOs (64

FR 27793, May 21, 1999). Specifically,

the Board requested comment on

whether the Reserve Banks should (1)

modify their deposit deadlines and

processing schedules, (2) modify their

pricing structure for interoperator

transactions, and (3) limit any

modifications to PSOs only.

II. Summary of Comments

The Board received fifty-eight

responses to its request for comment.5

Thirty-two commenters supported and

twenty-six commenters opposed

modifications to the Reserve Banks’

deposit deadlines and pricing practices.

Those supporting modifications

generally tended to be larger depository

institutions and ACH associations that

believed modifications would improve

competition in the provision of ACH

services. Those opposing modifications

generally tended to be smaller or

medium-sized depository institutions

that believed any modifications would

lead to higher Reserve Bank fees, which

in turn would make them less able to

compete in the market for origination

services with institutions that use PSO

ACH services. Given the diversity in the

commenters’ views, Board staff invited

commenters to a meeting in December

1999 to discuss interoperator issues

more fully and to explore alternative

approaches to addressing these issues.6

A. Deposit Deadlines

The Board requested comment on the

benefits and drawbacks of the Reserve

34184 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices

Banks establishing different deposit and

delivery deadlines for PSOs and

depository institutions. PSOs maintain

that they are unable to offer competitive

deposit deadlines and delivery

schedules to their customers because

they are subject to the same deposit

deadlines and delivery schedules that

Reserve Banks offer to depository

institutions.

Commenters suggested a number of

solutions to address this issue. One

suggestion was that the Reserve Banks

could offer PSOs later deposit and

earlier delivery deadlines to enable

PSOs, in turn, to offer competitive

deadlines to their customers. Another

potential solution was for the industry

to adopt a uniform interoperator deposit

deadline at which all operators would

deposit transactions with one another.

Other commenters, however, advocated

the status quo because they did not

believe that Reserve Bank deadlines

place PSOs at a competitive

disadvantage.

B. Pricing Structure

The Board also requested comment on

the benefits and drawbacks of the

Reserve Banks modifying their pricing

structure for interoperator transactions.

PSOs maintain that the Reserve Banks’

current pricing structure has placed

them at a competitive disadvantage.

Specifically, the main concern regarding

the Reserve Banks’ current pricing

structure is the asymmetry in the ability

of operators to charge each other’s

customers. The Reserve Banks consider

both the ODFI and RDFI in an

interoperator transaction to be their

customers and charge both accordingly.

PSOs, on the other hand, can only

charge their own customer in an

interoperator transaction. Some

commenters also expressed concern

about the Reserve Banks’ ability to

charge monthly account servicing fees

to all depository institutions, including

those that send or receive all their ACH

transactions through PSOs.

Some commenters suggested that the

Reserve Banks should modify their

pricing structure for interoperator

transactions such that they assess fees

only to their direct customers.

Commenters also suggested that the

Reserve Banks should abolish the

monthly account servicing fee for

depository institutions that send and

receive all of their ACH transactions

through a PSO. Commenters believed

that these suggested modifications

would eliminate the asymmetry noted

earlier and would result in a similar

customer pricing structure for Reserve

Banks and PSOs in which each operator

would charge its direct customer only.

Other commenters were concerned that

any modifications to the Reserve Banks’

pricing structure could result in an

increase in fees to Reserve Bank

customers that do not use the services

of a PSO and, thus, opposed any change

to the current pricing structure.

C. Eligibility

The Board also requested comment on

whether any modifications to the

Reserve Banks’ deadlines and pricing

structure should be limited to ACH

operators or extended to other

intermediaries, such as third-party

processors and correspondents.

Specifically, because many of the

characteristics that distinguish ACH

operators from other intermediaries do

not affect how Reserve Banks provide

ACH services, the Board was interested

whether all intermediaries should be

eligible for modified deadlines and

pricing. Further, the Board requested

comment on whether the Reserve Banks

should rely on the National Automated

Clearing House Association’s (NACHA)

ACH operator definition if they were to

limit modifications to ACH operators.

Some commenters suggested that only

ACH operators should be eligible for

modified deadlines and pricing. These

commenters noted that Reserve Banks

compete with ACH operators in the

provision of ACH operator services and,

thus, only ACH operators should be

eligible for any modifications. These

commenters also stated that the Reserve

Banks should use NACHA’s ACH

operator definition to determine

eligibility for modified deadlines and

pricing rather than develop their own

definition. Other commenters, however,

suggested that if the Reserve Banks’

ACH processing is not affected by the

type of intermediary from which they

receive transactions or to which they

deliver transactions, then all

intermediaries should be eligible for

modified deadlines and pricing.

III. Enhancing Competition

The Board has carefully considered

the commenters’ views and has

concluded that the Reserve Banks’

deposit deadlines and pricing structure

for ACH transactions exchanged with

private-sector ACH operators should be

modified. The Board believes that

adopting certain deadline and pricing

modifications for interoperator

transactions would enhance

competition in the provision of ACH

operator services to depository

institutions.

To determine what modifications

might be appropriate to enhance

competition in the market for ACH

operator services, the Reserve Banks

examined the types of services PSOs

receive from the Reserve Banks when

they send transactions to depository

institutions through the Reserve Banks.

Similarly, the Reserve Banks examined

the types of services they receive from

PSOs when they send transactions to

depository institutions through PSOs.

First, an operator provides other

operators’ customers with access to

depository institutions on its network.

Each of these networks essentially is

comprised of telecommunications links

that permit the transmission of ACH

files between participating depository

institutions and the operator. While

each operator’s network might employ

different technologies with different

levels of complexity, the costs

associated with these networks are

primarily fixed. For interoperator

transactions, the ability to access

depository institutions on other

networks allows an operator (1) to

forego the costs associated with

establishing a direct connection to all

depository institutions and (2) to

provide its own customers with the

ability to send ACH transactions to any

depository institution. Thus, when an

operator provides other operators’

customers with access to a depository

institution on its network, it provides

value to those customers and the

operators that serve them.

Second, an operator processes

transactions it receives from other

operators and delivers those

transactions to depository institutions

on its network. Processing ACH

transactions requires computing and

other resources, which have both fixed

and variable components. Therefore, it

is reasonable for an operator to charge

transaction fees to recover the costs

associated with processing ACH

transactions.

Third, the Reserve Banks provide

settlement for all ACH transactions they

process, including interoperator

transactions. Other operators do not

settle interoperator transactions that are

processed by the Reserve Banks. As a

result, the Reserve Banks incur

accounting, computing, and other costs

when they settle ACH interoperator

transactions for depository institutions

that use PSOs. Thus, the Reserve Banks

are providing a service not provided by

other operators when they settle

interoperator transactions they process.

The Board has concluded that

competition in the provision of ACH

operator services would be enhanced

through modifications to the deposit

deadlines and delivery schedules for

interoperator transactions and the

adoption of a new pricing structure for

these transactions. Specifically, the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices 34185

7 Immediate settlement items are items that are

settled on the same banking day as they are

received while next-day settlement items are items

that are settled on the banking day after they are

received. The Reserve Banks’ banking day for the

receipt of ACH items is from 3:00 a.m. eastern time

to 2:59 a.m. eastern time on the next calendar day.

Only returns and National Association of Check

Safekeeping items are eligible for immediate

settlement.

8The Board understands that some depository

institutions that use a PSO prefer to minimize the

number of settlements they receive for their ACH

transactions. Most of these institutions already

receive and reconcile two settlements one from

their PSO, another from the Reserve Banks and do

not want to receive a third settlement for ACH

transactions that PSOs exchange directly using the

Private ACH Exchange (PAX) system. Thus, PSOs

use the Reserve Banks to send some transactions

destined to other PSOs, which minimizes

settlements but results in three-operator

transactions.

Board believes that deposit deadlines

for interoperator transactions should

enable Reserve Banks and PSOs to

establish competitive deposit deadlines

and delivery schedules for their

customers. The Board also believes that

the Reserve Banks should adopt a price

structure for interoperator transactions

that is consistent with the cost structure

associated with processing interoperator

transactions. This new price structure

should include a fee to access

depository institutions on the Reserve

Banks’ ACH network, a fee to process

interoperator transactions, and a

settlement fee to recover the Reserve

Banks’ settlement costs. The Board

believes that these changes, along with

the ability of PSOs to assess

interoperator fees to Reserve Banks,

should enhance competition in the

provision of ACH operator services to

depository institutions.

IV. Proposed Modifications

The Board has developed a specific

proposal to modify the Reserve Banks’

deadlines and pricing structure for ACH

interoperator transactions that it

believes will promote competition in

the provision of ACH services and

address the concerns raised by some

commenters. The Board is requesting

comment on this proposal.

The Board proposes the following

deadlines and pricing structure for ACH

interoperator transactions that are

processed by the Reserve Banks:

• Deposit deadlines: The Board

proposes that the Reserve Banks work

collaboratively with ACH operators to

establish interoperator deposit

deadlines by which the Reserve Banks

and the PSOs would exchange

interoperator transactions.

• Pricing structure: The Board

proposes the following price structure

for interoperator transactions processed

by the Reserve Banks.

—First, the Reserve Banks would charge

ACH operators a monthly network

access fee for each routing number

they access on the Reserve Banks’

ACH network.

—Second, the Reserve Banks would

charge ACH operators per-item fees

for transactions they send through the

Reserve Banks’ ACH network.

—Third, the Reserve Banks would

charge depository institutions that

send and receive all their transactions

through PSOs a monthly settlement

fee rather than the current monthly

account servicing fee.

—Fourth, the Reserve Banks would pay

PSOs for transactions they send to

depository institutions through those

PSOs.

• Eligibility: The Board proposes to

limit the modified deadlines and pricing

structure to intermediaries that are

defined as ACH operators in the

NACHA rules.

A. Deposit Deadlines

The Board proposes that the Reserve

Banks work collaboratively with ACH

operators to establish interoperator

deposit deadlines by which the Reserve

Banks and the PSOs would exchange

interoperator transactions. The Reserve

Banks’ preliminary recommendation is

that one interoperator deposit deadline

be established at 2:30 p.m. eastern time

for immediate settlement items and that

another interoperator deposit deadline

for next-day settlement items be

established at 3:00 a.m. eastern time.7

The Reserve Banks would accept

interoperator transactions from PSOs

and send interoperator transactions to

PSOs at the new deposit deadlines.

Clearly, ACH operators, including the

Reserve Banks, would need to establish

their own deposit and delivery

deadlines for their customers. Further,

the PSOs could establish other

deadlines by which they would

exchange interoperator transactions

among themselves.

If the Reserve Banks’ preliminary

recommendation for interoperator

deposit deadlines were adopted, the

Reserve Banks would require their

customers to deposit next-day

settlement items half an hour earlier

than they do today. The Reserve Banks,

however, currently receive almost all

their ACH volume well before the

deposit deadlines and deadline

extensions have become much less

frequent. The recommended deposit

deadlines would require no change in

deposit times for Reserve Bank

customers depositing immediate

settlement items. As a result, the

recommended exchange deadlines

would likely have minimal effects on

the processing schedules of Reserve

Bank customers. Further, because

Reserve Banks would deposit

transactions with PSOs at the

interoperator deposit deadlines, PSOs

should be able to offer their customers

deposit and delivery deadlines that are

competitive with those offered by the

Reserve Banks. Thus, the Board’s

general proposal for interoperator

deposit deadlines, as well as the specific

Reserve Bank deposit deadline

recommendation, would likely enhance

competition with minimal effect on

depository institutions.

Interoperator deposit deadlines,

however, pose problems for transactions

that involve three operators. Currently,

a small fraction of the volume that PSOs

deposit with the Reserve Banks is

destined to other PSOs, which results in

some transactions being processed by

three operators.8 With interoperator

deposit deadlines, however, if an

operator receives a transaction from

another operator at the interoperator

deposit deadline that is destined to a

third operator, the middle operator

would be unable to forward the

transaction timely because the deadline

to deposit transactions with the third

operator would have already passed.

Moreover, three-operator transactions

tend to be inefficient because they result

in redundant processing by multiple

operators before they are delivered to

the RDFI.

One way to address this issue is for

NACHA to prohibit three-operator

transactions. The Board suggests that

NACHA evaluate whether its ACH

operator definition should be revisited

to require operators to exchange

interoperator transactions directly with

the operator serving the RDFI. In any

case, to ensure that the Reserve Banks

are able to forward the transactions to

the RDFI’s PSO by the interoperator

deposit deadline, the Board proposes

that the Reserve Banks require all ACH

transactions that need to be forwarded

to another operator, including

transactions deposited by a PSO, be

deposited by the Reserve Banks’ regular

customer deposit deadline.

B. Pricing Structure for Interoperator

Transactions

The Board proposes a new threetiered pricing structure for interoperator

transactions processed by the Reserve

Banks. Under the proposed structure,

the Reserve Banks would charge PSOs

and their customers fees (1) to access

the Reserve Banks’ ACH network, (2) to

process interoperator transactions they

receive from PSOs, and (3) to settle

34186 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices

9The Reserve Banks would no longer provide

customer service to depository institutions for

transactions they send or receive through a PSO.

These institutions would have to direct transaction

and service-related inquiries to their PSOs. The

Reserve Banks, however, would continue to provide

customer service on settlement-related questions.

10NACHA recently adopted modifications to its

definition of an ACH operator (NACHA Operating

Rules, section 13.1.1). To qualify as a private-sector

ACH operator, an entity must execute an agreement

with NACHA to comply with or perform all of the

following: adhere to NACHA operating rules and

other applicable laws and regulations; execute

agreements with a minimum of twenty independent

depository institutions that bind the depository

institutions NACHA operating rules and the

private-sector ACH operator’s rules; provide

clearing, delivery, and settlement services for

intraoperator transactions; exchange interoperator

transactions with other ACH operators; process and

edit files based on the requirements of NACHA

operating rules; evaluate the creditworthiness of

and apply risk control measures to their customers;

adhere to the Federal Reserve’s Policy Statement on

Privately Operated Multilateral Settlement Systems;

and adhere to any NACHA performance standards

for ACH operators. Under this definition, Electronic

Payments Network, Visa, and American Clearing

House are considered to be private-sector ACH

operators. The Reserve Banks reserve the right to

preempt any NACHA rule in their ACH operating

circular. Thus, the Reserve Banks reserve the right

to establish their own operator definition should

they object to any future modifications to NACHA’s

definition of an ACH operator. 11Federal Reserve Regulatory Service, 7–145.2.

interoperator transactions for depository

institutions that send and receive all

their transactions through a PSO. The

Reserve Banks plan to maintain the

current fee structure for their customers

and do not anticipate any increases in

fees resulting from this proposal.

In developing a pricing structure for

interoperator transactions, the Reserve

Banks used a cost-based approach to set

fees. In their analysis, the Reserve Banks

attempted to identify costs related to

network access, processing, and

settlement and to price those

components separately. Further, the

Reserve Banks excluded certain costs

that might not be incurred when

services are provided to ACH operators

so that the interoperator fee structure

would reflect, as closely as possible, the

cost structure for interoperator

transactions.

Specifically, the Board proposes the

following fee structure for interoperator

transactions. The price ranges outlined

below are based on preliminary cost

analyses by the Reserve Banks. First, the

Reserve Banks would charge the PSOs a

monthly network access fee of between

$5 and $10 for each routing number to

which they send transactions on the

Reserve Banks’ ACH network. Second,

the Reserve Banks would charge PSOs a

per-item fee of between $0.002 and

$0.004 to process interoperator

transactions sent to RDFIs on the

Reserve Banks’ ACH network. And

third, rather than the current monthly

account servicing fee, the Reserve Banks

would charge depository institutions

that send and receive all their

transactions through PSOs a monthly

settlement fee per routing number

(projected to be about $20) to settle

interoperator transactions.9

An important additional feature of the

Board’s overall proposal is that the

Reserve Banks would pay PSOs for

commercial and government ACH

transactions they deliver to RDFIs

through PSOs. These fees would

compensate the PSOs for the services

they provide to Reserve Banks by

delivering transactions to RDFIs on their

networks.

An open issue that remains

unresolved is how fees that PSOs would

charge Reserve Banks would be

restrained. The Board examined

alternative approaches to restrain fees

charged by operators. First, the Board

considered limiting the interoperator

fees Reserve Banks would pay to PSOs

to the PSOs’ published fees. In practice,

however, because a PSO’s published

customer fee structure may be different

from its interoperator fee structure and

because not all operators publish fees or

charge all of their customers their

published fees, it would be difficult to

ascertain whether the interoperator fees

charged by an operator are reasonable.

Alternatively, the Board considered

allowing the Reserve Banks to pay PSOs

the same fees they charge PSOs. This

mechanism, while creating parity,

would require PSOs to adopt the

Reserve Banks’ pricing structure, which

may not be reflective of the PSOs’ cost

structures. The Board believes that the

continued growth of the ACH network

would be enhanced by maintaining low,

cost-based interoperator fees. Thus, the

Board requests comment on how the

fees that operators charge each other

might be restrained to encourage the

continued growth of the ACH network.

C. Eligibility

The Board proposes that the deadline

and price structure modifications be

limited to any intermediary that is

defined as an operator under NACHA

rules.10 The role of operators in the ACH

system is separate and distinct from the

role of other ACH intermediaries.

Generally, ACH operators play a

significant role in protecting the

integrity of the overall ACH network

and ensuring the interoperability and

efficiency of the overall network. From

a service perspective, the primary

distinction between ACH operators and

other intermediaries is that operators

provide clearing, delivery, and

settlement services for intraoperator

transactions and exchange interoperator

transactions with other operators. Thirdparty processors typically do not

provide settlement services for

transactions they process while

correspondent banks typically do not

provide the comprehensive clearing and

delivery services provided by operators.

Thus, the Reserve Banks tend to

compete with PSOs, and not third-party

processors or correspondent banks, in

providing services to depository

institutions. Further, because NACHA’s

operator definition does not preclude

other entities from becoming new

operators, it is possible that some of the

larger correspondents or third-party

processors might become operators to

compete with the established operators.

V. Competitive Impact

The Board must conduct a

competitive impact analysis when it

considers a major operational change

such as that being proposed for

interoperator transactions.11

Specifically, the Board must determine

whether the proposed deadlines and

pricing structure have a direct and

material adverse effect on the ability of

other service providers to compete

effectively with the Reserve Banks in

providing similar services, and if so,

whether the adverse effect on

competition is due to differing legal

powers or constraints, or due to a

dominant market position deriving from

such legal differences.

The purpose of the proposed

modifications is to address the concerns

expressed by commenters with respect

to the Reserve Banks’ current deposit

deadlines and pricing practices. The

proposed modifications will enhance

the ability of PSOs to compete with the

Reserve Banks in providing ACH

operator services to depository

institutions. Further, depository

institutions and other intermediaries

should also benefit as they are likely to

see a more competitive market for the

provision of ACH operator services,

which could result in lower costs to

process their ACH transactions. Thus,

the Board does not anticipate any

adverse effects on competition resulting

from this proposal.

VI. Conclusion

The Board requests comment on the

proposed modifications. Specifically,

the Board is interested in commenters’

views on whether the proposed

modifications enhance competition in

the market for ACH operator services.

Further, the Board requests comment on

how the fees that operators charge each

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices 34187

other might be restrained to encourage

the continued growth of the ACH

network.

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, May 22, 2000.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–13207 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Wednesday,

May 31, 2000.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal

Reserve Board Building, 20th and C

Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments,

promotions, assignments,

reassignments, and salary actions)

involving individual Federal Reserve

System employees.

2. Any matters carried forward from a

previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board;

202–452–3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may

call 202–452–3206 beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before the meeting for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting; or you may

contact the Board’s Web site at http://

www.federalreserve.gov for an

electronic announcement that not only

lists applications, but also indicates

procedural and other information about

the meeting.

Dated: May 24, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–13425 Filed 3–24–00; 12:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Statement

of Federal Financial Accounting

Standards (SFFAS) No. 18).

Board Action: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No.

92–463), as amended, and the FASAB

Rules Of Procedure, as amended in

October, 1999, notice is hereby given

that the Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued

Statement of Federal Financial

Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 18,

Amendments to Accounting Standards

for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees in

SFFAS No. 2.

The Board approved the Statement in

February 2000, and submitted it to

FASAB principals for a 90-day review.

The review period closed on May 19,

2000.

SFFAS No. 18 provides the following

new requirements to improve financial

reporting for subsidy costs and

performance of Federal credit programs:

• Report subsidy reestimates in two

distinct components: the interest rate

reestimate and the technical/default

reestimate. The former is a reestimate

due to a change in interest rates used in

calculating the subsidy expense. The

latter is a reestimate due to changes

made in projected cash flows after

reevaluating all the risk factors as of the

financial statement date.

• Display a reconciliation on an

entity-wide basis between the beginning

and the ending balances of the subsidy

cost allowance for direct loans and the

liability for loan guarantees, reported in

an entity’s balance sheet.

• Provide a narrative to disclose and

discuss events and changes in economic

conditions and legislation that have had

a significant and measurable effect on

the subsidy costs of direct loans and

loan guarantees.

The standards prescribed in SFFAS

No. 18 are effective for periods

beginning after September 30, 2000.

Hard copies of the statement will be

mailed to the FASAB mailing list. It is

also available on the FASAB web site at

www.financenet.gov/fasab.htm or by

calling 202–512–7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441

G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V,

Washington, DC 20548, or call (202)

512–7350.

Authority: Federal Advisory Committee

Act. Pub. L. No. 92–463.

Dated: May 23, 2000.

Wendy M. Comes,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00–13306 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610–01–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Privacy Act of 1974; System of

Records

AGENCY: General Services

Administration.

ACTION: Notice of a revised system of

records subject to the Privacy Act of

1974.

SUMMARY: The General Services

Administration (GSA) is providing

notice of a revision to the system of

records, Disbursement and Accounts

Payable Files (GSA/PPFM–1). The

revision expands the categories of

individuals covered by the system to

include contractual and appointed

experts and consultants. It also includes

the purpose for the system and updates

information on the system manager, the

authority for the system, and changes

due to automation.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

revisions must be provided by June 26,

2000. The proposed revision will

become effective without further notice

on June 26, 2000 unless comments

require otherwise.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: GSA Privacy Act Officer,

General Services Administration, CAI,

1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC

20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jinaita Kanarchuk by phone, 202–501–

1452, or e-mail

jinaita.kanarchuk@gsa.gov.

GSA/PPFM–1

SYSTEM NAME:

Disbursement and Accounts Payable

Files.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

System records are located in GSA’s

finance centers as follows:

Heartland Finance Center, 1500 East

Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO 64131.

Greater Southwest Finance Center,

819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX

76102.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM:

Current and former employees; and

contractual or appointed experts and

consultants.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

The system provides for reporting

each account’s status. Records may

include but are not limited to name,

address, telephone number, vendor

identification number, and Social

Security number.