Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Notices 12557

upon the relationships established

between Eximbank and its 30 City/State

Partners.

The collection of the information will

enable Eximbank to assess and report to

the U.S. Congress the private sector’s

view of its programs’ competitiveness,

as required by law.

SUMMARY: The following summarizes the

information collection proposal

submitted to OMB.

(1) Type of request: New.

(2) Number of forms submitted: One.

(3) Form Number: EIB 95–4.

(4) Title of information collection:

Export-Import Bank Questionnaire of

City/State Partners.

(5) Frequency of Use: Annual.

(6) Respondents: City/State export

finance organizations.

(7) Estimated total number of annual

responses: 30.

(8) Estimated total number of hours

needed to fill out the form: 15.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Copies of the proposed application may

be obtained from Tamzen Reitan Agency

Clearance Officer, (202) 565–3333.

Comments and questions should be

directed to Mr. Jeff Hill, Office of

Management and Budget, Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Room 3235,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–3176.

All comments should be submitted

within two weeks of this notice; if you

intend to submit comments but are

unable to meet this deadline, please

advise by telephone that comments will

be submitted late.

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Tamzen C. Reitan,

Agency Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–5449 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690–01–M

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Information Collection Submitted to

OMB for Review

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of information collection

submitted to OMB for review and

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35),

the FDIC hereby gives notice that it has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) a request for OMB

review of the information collection

described below.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently

approved collection.

Title: Consolidated Reports of Condition

and Income (Insured State

Nonmember Commercial and Savings

Banks).

Form Number: FFIEC 031, 032, 033,

034.

OMB Number: 3064–0052.

Expiration Date of OMB Clearance: July

31, 1995.

Respondents: Insured State Nonmember

Commercial and Savings Banks.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Number of Respondents: 7,011.

Number of Responses per Respondent:

4.

Total Annual Responses: 28,044.

Average Number of Hours per Response:

26.87.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 753,429.

OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202)

395–7340, Office of Management and

Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project

3064–0052, Washington, DC 20503.

FDIC Contact: Steven F. Hanft, (202)

898–3907, Office of the Executive

Secretary, Room F–400, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550

17th Street NW., Washington, DC

20429.

Comments: Comments on this collection

of information are welcome and

should be submitted on or before

March 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the submission

may be obtained by calling or writing

the FDIC contact listed above.

Comments regarding the submission

should be addressed to both the OMB

reviewer and the FDIC contact listed

above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC

is submitting for OMB review changes

to the Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council (FFIEC)

Consolidated Reports of Condition and

Income (call Report) filed quarterly by

insured state nonmember commercial

and savings banks. The Federal Reserve

Board (FRB) and the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are

also submitting these changes for OMB

review for the banks under their

supervision.

The proposed revisions to the Call

Report that are the subject of this

request have been mandated by the

FFIEC and are scheduled to take effect

as of March 31, 1995. The proposed

changes affect several existing Call

Report schedules. Unless otherwise

indicated, the Call Report changes apply

to all four sets of report forms (FFIEC

031, 032, 033, and 034). Nonetheless, as

is customary for Call Report changes,

banks will be advised that, for the

March 31, 1995, report date, they may

provide reasonable estimates for any

new or revised item for which the

requested information is not readily

available. The changes for which OMB

approval is requested are summarized as

follows:

Deletions and Reductions in Detail

The level of detail with which

restructured loans and leases that are in

compliance with modified terms are

reported in the memoranda section of

Schedule RC–C, ‘‘Loans and Lease

Financing Receivables,’’ would be

reduced. For all banks, the current

separate items for the various non-realestate loan categories will be combined

into a single item for ‘‘all other loans

and all lease financing receivables.’’ In

addition, banks with foreign offices or

with $300 million or more in total assets

that file the FFIEC 031 and 032 report

forms also will report a single total for

their restructured commercial loans to

and their restructured leases of non-U.S.

addressees.

Call Report items in the seven

following areas would be deleted:

(1) Schedule RC–R, item 3, ‘‘Total

qualifying capital allowable under the

risk-based capital guidelines.’’

(2) The quarterly average of

‘‘Obligations (other than securities and

leases) of states and political

subdivisions in the U.S.’’ in Schedule

RC–K, item 6.a(6) on the FFIEC 031,

item 6.f on the FFIEC 032, and

Memorandum item 1 on the FFIEC 033.

This average has not been collected

from banks with less than $100 million

in assets that file the FFIEC 034 report

form.

(3) The four components of

mandatory convertible debt, net of

dedicated stock, in Schedule RC–M,

items 7.a through 7.d on the FFIEC 031

and 032, items 6.a through 6.9 on the

FFIEC 033, and items 8.a through 8.d on

the FFIEC 034. The item for the total

amount of mandatory convertible debt,

net of dedicated stock, would be

retained.

(4) The year-to-day reconcilement of

the allocated transfer risk reserve in

Schedule RI–B, Part II. This

reconcilement has been collected only

from banks with foreign offices or with

total assets of $300 million or more that

file the FFIEC 031 or 032 report forms.

(5) The quarterly reconcilement of the

agricultural loan loss deferral account in

Schedule RC–M, items 10.a through

10.e. This reconcilement has been

collected only from banks with total

assets of less than $100 million that file

the FFIEC 034 report.

(6) Recoveries of ‘‘Special-Category

Loans’’ in Schedule RI–B, Part I,

Memorandum item 1 on the FFIEC 031
12558 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Notices

and 032, Memorandum item 3 on the

FFIEC 033, and Memorandum item 2 on

the FFIEC 034. This item has been

collected from national banks only.

(7) The yes-no question on ‘‘Personnel

changes among the three senior officers

of the bank during the quarter’’ in

Schedule RC–M, item 6 on the FFIEC

034. This item has been completed only

by banks with total assets of less than

$100 million that file the FFIEC 034

report form.

New Items

Call Report items in the eight

following areas would be added:

(1) Notional Amounts/Par Values of OffBalanced Sheet Derivatives

At present, all banks report notional

amount/par value data for interest rate,

foreign exchange rate, and other

commodity and equity contracts in

items 11 through 13 of Schedule RC–L,

‘‘Off-Balance Sheet Items.’’ The existing

items will be expanded to separate

exchange-traded contracts from overthe-counter contracts and to separate

equity derivative contracts from

commodity and other contracts. (Spot

foreign exchange contracts would also

be reported separately.) In addition, for

each of the four types of undelying risk

exposures (i.e., interest rate, foreign

exchange, equity, and commodity and

other), the total notional amount/par

value of contracts held for trading and

held for purposes other than trading

will be reported separately, with the

latter further divided between contracts

that are marked to market for Call

Report purposes and those that are not.

(2) Gross Fair Values of Off-Balance

Sheet Derivatives

For banks with foreign offices or with

$100 million or more in total assets that

file the FFIEC 031, 032, or 033 report

forms, Schedule RC–L will also be

expanded to include gross fair value

data for derivatives. (This information

will not be collected from small banks

that file the FFIEC 034 report forms.)

For each of the four types of underlying

risk exposures, the gross positive and

gross negative fair values will be

reported separately for (i) contracts held

for trading purposes, (ii) contracts held

for purposes other than trading that are

marked to market, and (iii) contracts

held for purposes other than trading that

are not marked to market. When

reporting gross fair values, no netting of

contracts would be permitted.

(3) Income-Related Information

Encompassing Off-Balance Sheet

Derivative Activities

Additional memorandum items to

Schedule RI, ‘‘Income Statement, ’’ will

be reported by banks with foreign

offices or with $100 million or more in

total assets that file the FFIEC 031, 032,

or 033 report forms. First, banks will

provide a breakdown of trading revenue

that has been included in the body of

the Schedule RI income statement. For

each of the four types of underlying risk

exposures, banks will report the

combined revenue from trading cash

and derivative instruments. Second, for

derivatives held for purposes other than

trading, banks will report the effect that

these contracts had on the bank’s

income as reported in Schedule RI.

There will be separate disclosure of (i)

the net increase (decrease) to interest

income, (ii) the net increase (decrease)

to interest expense, and (iii) the effect

on noninterest income and expense of

these of-balance-sheet derivative

contracts.

(4) Risk-Based Capital Reporting

changes

For those banks that complete

Schedule RC–R in its entirety, the

schedule’s memorandum section will be

revised to provide for the collection of

remaining maturity data for long-dated

contracts and for four additional types

of derivative contracts: gold contracts,

other precious metals contracts, other

commodity contracts, and equity

contracts. The two replacement cost

items currently collected for interest

rate and foreign exchange rate contracts

will be deleted and replaced with a

single new item for a bank’s current

credit exposure across all derivative

contracts and counterparties, taking into

account legally enforceable bilateral

netting agreements that are recognized

for risk-based capital purposes.

(5) Investments in ‘‘High-Risk Mortgage

Securitiess’’ and ‘‘Structured Notes’’

Four memorandum items would be

added to Schedule RC–B, ‘‘Securities,’’

in which banks will separately report

the amortized cost and fair value of any

‘‘high-risk mortgage securities’’ and of

any ‘‘structured notes’’ that are held in

either the held-to-maturity or availablefor-sale portfolios.

(6) Sales of Proprietary Mutual Funds

and Annuities

Currently banks are required to report

separately the dollar amount of sales

during the quarter for money market

funds, equity securities funds, debt

securities funds, other mutual funds,

and annuities in Schedule RC–M,

‘‘Memoranda.’’ The five existing mutual

fund and annuity items combine sales of

proprietary, private label, and third

party products. The banking agencies

would add one item to Schedule RC–M

in which banks will report separately

the total sales during the quarter of

proprietary mutual funds and annuities.

(7) Reporting of Reciprocal Demand

Balances for Insurance Assessment

Purposes

The banking agencies would add new

items to Schedule RC–O, ‘‘Other Data

for Deposit Insurance Assessments,’’ in

order to separately identify the amount

of the following three types of

adjustments to a bank’s reported

demand deposits that are related to

reciprocal demand balances and are

needed for deposit insurance

assessment purposes: (i) Amount by

which demand deposits would be

reduced if reciprocal demand balances

between the reporting bank and savings

associations were reported on a net

basis rather than a gross basis in

Schedule RC–E, (ii) Amount by which

demand deposits would be increased if

reciprocal demand balances between the

reporting bank and U.S. branches and

agencies of foreign banks were reported

on a gross basis rather than a net basis

in Schedule RC–E, and (iii) Amount by

which demand deposits would be

reduced if cash items in process of

collection were included in the

calculation of net reciprocal demand

balances between the reporting bank

and U.S. banks and savings associations

in Schedule RC–E.

(8) Disclosure of the Acquisition Date

When Push Down Accounting Has Been

Applied

Push down accounting is the

establishment of a new accounting basis

for a bank in its separate financial

statements (including its Call Report) as

a result of a substantive change in

control. The banking agencies would

add an item to the Memoranda section

of Schedule RI, ‘‘Income Statement,’’ to

reveal the date when any such

transactions have taken place.

Instructional Changes

The Call Report instructions will be

updated in certain places to incorporate

references to FASB Statement No. 114,

‘‘Accounting by Creditors for

Impairment of a Loan.’’ Statement No.

114 defines impairment and sets forth

measurement methods for estimating

the portion of the total allowance for

loan and lease losses attributable to

impaired loans. The banking agencies

also propose instructional changes

relating to the reporting of mortgage-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Notices 12559

backed securities in the body of

Schedule RC–B, ‘‘Securities,’’ so that

item 4 of Schedule RC–B will include

all mortgage-backed securities. In

addition, the Call Report instructions

will be clarified in response to questions

about the reporting of lines of credit

extended to bank insiders,

participations in pools of residential

mortgages, refundable loan commitment

fees, and stock subscription payments.

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5438 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

[Docket No. R–0806]

Policy Statement on Payments System

Risk; Daylight Overdraft Pricing

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The Board has approved a

modification of the increase in the fee

charged to depository institutions for

daylight overdrafts incurred in their

accounts at the Reserve Banks that had

been scheduled to take effect on April

13, 1995. As a result of the sizeable

reductions in daylight overdrafts

already achieved, as well as concerns

about the possible effects of further

rapid fee increases, the Board has

approved an increase in the daylight

overdraft fee to an effective daily rate of

15 basis points rather than 20 basis

points. (The 15-basis-point fee equals an

annual rate of 36 basis points, quoted on

the basis of a 360-day year and a 24-

hour day.) The Board will evaluate the

desirability of any further increases in

the daylight overdraft fee, based on the

objectives of the payments system risk

program, two years after the

implementation of the 15-basis-point

fee. Any changes in the fee resulting

from that review will be announced

with a reasonable lead-time for

implementation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey C. Marquardt, Assistant Director

(202/452–2360) or Paul Bettge, Manager

(202/452–3174), Division of Reserve

Bank Operations and Payment Systems,

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System. For the hearing

impaired only: Telecommunications

Device for the Deaf, Dorothea Thompson

(202/452–3544).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Daylight

Overdraft Fee Policy

The Board’s initial policy statement

aimed at controlling daylight overdrafts,

which became effective in 1986 (50 FR

21120, May 22, 1985), encouraged

depository institutions to establish

voluntary daylight overdraft limits, or

caps, across all large-value payment

systems. The cap levels were

subsequently reduced by the Board,

effective in 1988, in an effort to reduce

further the level of overdrafts (52 FR

29255, August 6, 1987).

While daylight overdrafts associated

with funds transfers appeared to

stabilize somewhat after the

introduction of caps, daylight overdrafts

associated with securities transfers,

which were exempt from the original

caps, continued to grow strongly. The

Board became concerned, however, that

further reductions in cap levels might

seriously disrupt long-established

market practices for settling financial

transactions. Thus, in 1987, the Board

commissioned two studies of the

fundamental issues concerning

payments system risk by a staff task

force and an industry advisory group.

Both groups agreed that the Federal

Reserve’s provision of free daylight

overdraft credit was a subsidy that

encouraged the overuse of such credit

by private institutions. The advisory

group emphasized the flexibility of

daylight overdraft fees as a marketoriented means of allocating daylight

credit to depository institutions that

valued it most highly, while allowing

them to determine the least costly

means of reducing these overdrafts.

The task force identified the following

set of public policy objectives for the

Board’s daylight overdraft program:

• Low direct credit risk to the Federal

Reserve,

• Low direct credit risk to the private

sector,

• Low systemic risk,

• Rapid final payments,

• Low operating expense of making

payments,

• Equitable treatment of all service

providers and users in the payments

system,

• Effective tools for implementing

monetary policy, and

• Low transaction costs in the

Treasury securities market.

The task force recognized that the

pursuit of these objectives might, at

times, result in competing policy goals,

and that policy options would need to

be evaluated on the basis of whether

they achieved an appropriate balance of

the objectives. In particular, a policy

might need to balance considerations of

direct risks to the Federal Reserve, on

the one hand, and systemic risks on the

other.

After completion of the two studies,

the Board sought public comment on

the issues associated with charging fees

for daylight overdrafts, along with a

number of other issues relating to its

payments system risk program. The

Board abolished cross-system net debit

caps, but retained caps on overdrafts in

Federal Reserve accounts, effective in

1991 (55 FR 22087, May 31, 1990). In

1992, the Board announced its intention

to charge fees for daylight overdrafts (57

FR 47084, October 14, 1992). The Board

also announced that the fee would be

phased in so the Board could monitor

the impact of the fee and make

adjustments, if necessary.

The current effective daily fee of 10

basis points was implemented on April

14, 1994. Under the policy adopted in

1992, the fee is scheduled to increase to

20 basis points on April 13, 1995, and

to 25 basis points on April 11, 1996.

(The annual rate charged for daylight

overdrafts is quoted on the basis of a

360-day year and a 24-hour day. The

annual rates are officially quoted as 24,

48, and 60 basis points. The annual rate

is converted to an effective daily rate by

multiplying it by the fraction of the day

that the Fedwire funds transfer system

operates, currently 10 hours out of 24.

This document will refer to the effective

daily rates, because they are commonly

used in public discussions of the

daylight overdraft fee.)

II. Impact of the Initial Daylight

Overdraft Fee

In the aggregate, daylight overdrafts in

Federal Reserve accounts have fallen by

roughly 40 percent in response to the

initial 10-basis-point fee. Significant

reductions in overdrafts occurred

immediately upon implementation of

fees, and the resulting levels of

overdrafts have remained fairly constant

since that time. Peak overdrafts, defined

as the maximum aggregate daylight

overdraft at the end of each minute

during an operating day, have fallen

from $124 billion, on average, during

the six months before implementation of

fees, to $70 billion, on average, from

April 14 through the last reserve

maintenance period in 1994. Over the

same period, aggregate per-minute

average overdrafts, the base measure

upon which fees are assessed, dropped

from $70 billion to $43 billion. These

figures represent reductions of 43

percent and 39 percent respectively, in

aggregate peak and per-minute average

overdrafts.