Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E) Temporary Delay of Effective Date, 6025-6027 [2013-01595]
Download as PDF
6025
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 78, No. 19
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1005
[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0050]
RIN 3170–AA33
Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation
E) Temporary Delay of Effective Date
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing
this final rule to delay the February 7,
2013, effective date of final rules
published by the Bureau on February 7,
2012, and August 20, 2012 (collectively,
2012 Final Rule), that amend Regulation
E, which implements the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). The 2012
Final Rule implements statutory
requirements set forth in section 1073 of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank
Act) regarding remittance transfers. The
Bureau is delaying the effective date of
the 2012 Final Rule pending the
finalization of a proposal, published on
December 31, 2012 (December 2012
Proposal), that would address three
narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule.
The Bureau will determine the new
effective date when it finalizes the
December 2012 Proposal.
DATES: The effective date of the Final
Rules published February 7, 2012 (77
FR 6194) and August 20, 2012 (77 FR
50244) and technical correction
published July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40459)
is delayed. The Bureau will publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing the new effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Goldberg or Lauren Weldon, Counsels,
or Dana Miller, Senior Counsel, Division
of Research, Markets, and Regulations,
Bureau of Consumer Financial
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Protection, 1700 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435–
7700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act 1
amended the EFTA 2 to create a new
comprehensive consumer protection
regime for remittance transfers sent by
consumers in the United States to
individuals and businesses in foreign
countries. For covered transactions sent
by remittance transfer providers, section
1073 creates a new EFTA section 919,
and generally requires: (i) The provision
of disclosures prior to and at the time
of payment by the sender for the
transfer; (ii) cancellation and refund
rights; (iii) the investigation and remedy
of errors by providers; and (iv) liability
standards for providers for the acts of
their agents.
On February 7, 2012, the Bureau
published a final rule to implement
section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 77
FR 6194 (February Final Rule).3 On
August 20, 2012, the Bureau published
a supplemental rule adopting a safe
harbor for determining which
companies are not remittance transfer
providers subject to the February Final
Rule because they do not provide
remittance transfers in the normal
course of business, and modifying
several aspects of the February Final
Rule regarding remittance transfers that
are scheduled before the date of transfer.
77 FR 50244. The 2012 Final Rule
adopted an effective date of February 7,
2013. In the February Final Rule, the
Bureau stated that it would continue to
monitor implementation of the new
statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Bureau has subsequently engaged
in dialogue with both industry and
consumer groups regarding
implementation efforts and compliance
concerns.
Upon further review and analysis of
these concerns, the Bureau published
the December 2012 Proposal to refine
several narrow aspects of the 2012 Final
Rule. 77 FR 77188 (Dec. 31, 2012). The
1 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, section
1073 (2010).
2 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. EFTA section 919 is
codified in 15 U.S.C. 1693o–1.
3 A technical correction to the February Final
Rule was published on July 10, 2012. 77 FR 40459.
For simplicity, that technical correction is
incorporated into the term ‘‘February Final Rule.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Bureau also proposed to extend the
2012 Final Rule’s effective date until 90
days after the finalization of the
December 2012 Proposal. The comment
period on both the proposed substantive
changes and the new effective date of
the 2012 Final Rule closes on January
30, 2013.4 The Bureau intends to
finalize the proposal expeditiously
following the close of this comment
period.
Given the impending February 7,
2013 effective date of the 2012 Final
Rule, the Bureau simultaneously
solicited comment on whether it should
temporarily delay the effective date
pending finalization of the December
2012 Proposal. The comment period on
this narrow aspect of the December 2012
Proposal closed on January 15, 2013.
II. Overview of Comments and
Outreach
The Bureau received approximately
43 comments on its December 2012
Proposal to delay the effective date of
the 2012 Final Rule beyond February 7,
2013. Commenters generally supported,
or did not oppose, the temporary delay.
All commenters that addressed the
effective date either directly expressed
support for or did not object to the
proposed delay or indirectly supported
the proposed delay by addressing the
December 2012 Proposal’s 90-day
proposed extension.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
Based on comments received, the
Bureau is temporarily delaying the
effective date for the 2012 Final Rule
pending finalization of the December
2012 Proposal. The new effective date
will be determined when the
substantive refinements to the December
2012 Proposal are finalized. The new
effective date will be after February 7,
2013. As noted above, the Bureau
proposed that the 2012 Final Rule and
any revisions resulting from the
December 2012 Proposal would become
effective 90 days after the Bureau
finalizes the proposal.
4 Details on how to submit a comment on both the
substantive changes in the proposal and the new
effective date of the Final Rule, are available at 77
FR 77188 (Dec. 31, 2012) or at https://
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/12/31/201231170/electronic-fund-transfers-regulation-e.
Comments must be submitted on or before January
30, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
6026
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
IV. Status of the Bureau’s Remittance
Rule Safe Harbor Countries List
On September 26, 2012, the Bureau
issued a safe harbor list of countries that
qualify for an exception in the 2012
Final Rule that permits estimated
disclosures of certain figures where the
laws of the recipient country do not
permit a determination of the exact
amounts.5 In that issuance, the Bureau
explained that it would not remove
countries from the list before May 1,
2013. In light of the temporary delay of
the effective date of the 2012 Final Rule,
the Bureau will reassess the earliest date
on which, if necessary, countries may be
removed from the list in connection
with the finalization of the December
2012 Proposal, although that date will
not be before May 1, 2013.
In the meantime, the Bureau
continues to welcome input on possible
amendments to the list. The Bureau’s
September 26, 2012 issuance on the safe
harbor list of countries contains details
on how to submit this feedback.
V. Legal Authority and Effective Date
Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act
creates a new section 919 of the EFTA
and requires remittance transfer
providers to provide disclosures to
senders of remittance transfers,
pursuant to rules prescribed by the
Bureau. In particular, providers must
give a sender a written pre-payment
disclosure containing specified
information applicable to the sender’s
remittance transfer. The provider must
also provide a written receipt that
includes the information provided on
the pre-payment disclosure, as well as
additional specified information. EFTA
section 919(a). In addition, EFTA
section 919(d) directs the Bureau to
promulgate rules regarding appropriate
cancellation and refund policies and to
investigate and remedy errors by
providers.
In addition to the statutory mandates
set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, EFTA
section 904(a) authorizes the Bureau to
prescribe regulations necessary to carry
out the purposes of the title. The
express purposes of the EFTA, as
amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, are to
establish ‘‘the rights, liabilities, and
responsibilities of participants in
electronic fund and remittance transfer
systems’’ and to provide ‘‘individual
consumer rights.’’ EFTA section 902(b).
EFTA section 904(c) further provides
that regulations prescribed by the
Bureau may contain any classifications,
differentiations, or other provisions, and
5 See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/
201209_CFPB_Remittance-Rule-Safe-HarborCountries-List.pdf (Sept. 26, 2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
may provide for such adjustments or
exceptions for any class of electronic
fund transfers or remittance transfers,
that the Bureau deems necessary or
proper to effectuate the purposes of the
title, to prevent circumvention or
evasion, or to facilitate compliance.
This final rule will be effective on the
date of publication in the Federal
Register. Under section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
the required publication or service of a
substantive rule shall be made not less
than 30 days before its effective date,
except for (1) a substantive rule which
grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative
rules and statements of policy; or (3) as
otherwise provided by the agency for
good cause found and published with
the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This final rule
does not establish any requirements but
rather delays the effective date of the
2012 Final Rule pending the finalization
of the December 2012 Proposal.
Therefore, under section 553(d)(1) of the
APA, the Bureau is publishing this final
rule less than 30 days before its effective
date because it is a substantive rule
which grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction. 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The Bureau further
finds it has good cause pursuant to
section 553(d)(3) of the APA to dispense
with the 30-day delayed effective date
requirement because, on balance, the
need to implement immediately the
delay of the 2012 Final Rule’s February
7, 2013 effective date before that date
occurs outweighs the need for affected
parties to prepare for this delay.
VI. Section 1022(b)(2) of the DoddFrank Act
Section V of the December 2012
Proposal contained the Bureau’s
preliminary analysis under section
1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act of the
potential costs of the December 2012
Proposal to consumers and covered
persons (as defined in Dodd-Frank Act
section 1002(6), 12 U.S.C. 5481(6)). In
the final portion of that section, the
Bureau addressed the impact of the
proposed delay of the effective date on
covered persons and consumers. See
Section V.3. of the December 2012
Proposal.
In the proposal, the Bureau stated that
the temporary delay of the 2012 Final
Rule’s effective date would generally
benefit remittance transfer providers by
delaying the start of any ongoing
compliance costs. The additional time
might also enable providers (and their
vendors) to build solutions that cost less
than those that might otherwise have
been possible.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Bureau also recognized that the
proposed temporary delay of the
effective date would impose some costs
on senders by temporarily delaying the
time when they would receive the
benefits of Dodd-Frank section 1073 and
the 2012 Final Rule from February 7,
2013 to the ultimate effective date.
Thus, consumers at most will only lose
benefits from Dodd-Frank section 1073
that would have accrued during the
length of the temporary delay. (As noted
above, the Bureau has not yet
determined when the 2012 Final Rule
will take effect but has proposed that it
would become effective 90 days after
the Bureau finalizes the December 2012
Proposal.) The Bureau also noted that
senders may benefit from the temporary
delay to the extent that both the
proposed refinements and the
additional time providers have to
implement the 2012 Final Rule may
eliminate any disruptions in the
provision of remittance transfer
services.
Further, the Bureau is not aware of
any unique impact that this final rule
might have on insured depository
institutions or insured credit unions
with total assets of $10 billion or less as
described in section 1026(a) of the
Dodd-Frank Act, or on rural consumers.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, requires each agency to consider
the potential impact of its regulations on
small entities, including small
businesses, small governmental units,
and small not-for-profit organizations.
The RFA generally requires an agency to
conduct an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule
subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements, unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The Bureau did not perform an IFRA
because it determined and certified that
the December 2012 Proposal, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Bureau did not receive any
comments regarding its certification of
the delayed effective date proposed in
the December 2012 Proposal, and is
adopting that aspect of the December
2012 Proposal without change.
A FRFA is not required for this final
rule because it will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will temporarily delay
the February 7, 2013 effective date of
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the 2012 Final Rule, pending the
finalization of the December 2012
Proposal that would address three
narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule.
The Bureau will determine the new
effective date when it finalizes the
December 2012 Proposal. The delay in
effective date will generally benefit
small remittance transfer providers, by
delaying the start of any ongoing
compliance costs. The additional time
might also enable providers (and their
vendors) to build solutions that cost less
than those that might otherwise have
been possible.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby
certifies that the final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis
The Bureau may not conduct or
sponsor, and, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a respondent is not
required to respond to, an information
collection unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The Bureau
determined that the December 2012
Proposal’s proposed delay of the
effective date of the 2012 Final Rule
does not impose any new
recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure
requirements on covered persons or
members of the public that would be
collections of information requiring
OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq. The Bureau did not receive any
comments regarding this conclusion, to
which the Bureau adheres.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1005
Banking, banks, Consumer protection,
Credit unions, Electronic fund transfers,
National banks, Remittance transfers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Savings associations.
Dated: January 19, 2013.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2013–01595 Filed 1–25–13; 4:15 pm]
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 162
[Docket No. USCBP–2011–0022; CBP Dec.
13–04]
RIN 1651–AA94
Internet Publication of Administrative
Seizure and Forfeiture Notices
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCIES:
This final rule adopts, with
one change, a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Federal Register on February 8, 2012,
that proposed to allow for publication of
notices of seizure and intent to forfeit on
an official U.S. Government forfeiture
Web site. CBP anticipates that this rule’s
amendments will reduce administrative
costs and improve the effectiveness of
CBP’s notice procedures as Internet
publication will reach a broader range of
the public and provide access to more
parties who may have an interest in the
seized property.
DATES: Final Rule effective February 28,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McKenzie, Director, Fines,
Penalties and Forfeitures Division,
Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, (202) 344–1808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
On February 8, 2012, CBP published
in the Federal Register (77 FR 6527) a
proposed rule to amend title 19 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR)
regarding the manner by which CBP
provides notice of intent to forfeit seized
property appraised at more than $5,000
and seized property appraised at $5,000
or less. CBP proposed to utilize the
Department of Justice (DOJ) forfeiture
Web site, located at www.forfeiture.gov,
to post seizure and forfeiture notices for
property appraised in excess of $5,000
in value for 30 consecutive days,
including seizures by the U.S. Border
Patrol,1 where appropriate. The DOJ
forfeiture Web site currently contains a
list of pending notices of civil and
criminal forfeiture actions in various
1 Please note that the agency’s formal designation
is the U.S. Border Patrol (or USBP), while the CBP
Headquarters element of the Border Patrol is known
as the Office of Border Patrol (OBP). Officers of the
USBP are commonly referred to as either Border
Patrol agents or Border Patrol officers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6027
district courts and Federal Government
agencies. Under the proposed
regulation, CBP would no longer be
required to publish administrative
seizure and forfeiture notices for three
successive weeks in a newspaper
circulated at the CBP port and in the
judicial district where CBP seized the
property. CBP would continue to
provide direct written notice to all
known parties-in-interest of the seizure/
forfeiture action and include the Web
site posting address and the expected
dates of publication in that notice.
To retain flexibility in the process
pertaining to the higher-valued
merchandise (appraised at more than
$5,000), CBP proposed to retain the
discretion, as circumstances warrant, to
publish additional notice in a print
medium for at least three successive
weeks. For example, CBP would have
the discretion to publish a notice of
seizure and forfeiture in a newspaper in
general circulation at the port and the
judicial district nearest the seizure, or
with wider or national circulation,
when recommended by the pertinent
U.S. Attorney’s office or court of
jurisdiction. Also, CBP would have the
discretion to publish notice of seizure
and forfeiture in a non-English language
or other community newspaper to
ensure reaching a particular community
that may have a particular interest in or
connection to the seizure. Similarly,
CBP would have the discretion to
publish notice of seizure and forfeiture
in a trade or industry publication that
serves a particular commercial
community to ensure reaching a party
when it is difficult to identify a vessel
or other conveyance owner.
Under the proposed rule, CBP also
would publish seizure and forfeiture
notices on the DOJ forfeiture Web site
for 30 consecutive days for seized
property appraised at $5,000 or less.
This additional notice would not
replace the current procedure of CBP
posting notice at the customhouse
nearest the place of seizure. However,
the proposed amendment would specify
that in situations where Border Patrol
agents make the seizure, the posting
would be at the appropriate Border
Patrol sector office.
Benefits of Internet Posting
As explained in the NPRM, CBP
believes that using the Internet to
publish CBP seizure and forfeiture
notices will provide notice to a broader
range of the public without the
geographical limitations that exist under
the current procedure’s reliance solely
on local print publications or
customhouse postings. Under this final
rule, Internet posting will be available
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6025-6027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01595]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 6025]]
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1005
[Docket No. CFPB-2012-0050]
RIN 3170-AA33
Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E) Temporary Delay of
Effective Date
AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is
issuing this final rule to delay the February 7, 2013, effective date
of final rules published by the Bureau on February 7, 2012, and August
20, 2012 (collectively, 2012 Final Rule), that amend Regulation E,
which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). The 2012
Final Rule implements statutory requirements set forth in section 1073
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-
Frank Act) regarding remittance transfers. The Bureau is delaying the
effective date of the 2012 Final Rule pending the finalization of a
proposal, published on December 31, 2012 (December 2012 Proposal), that
would address three narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule. The Bureau
will determine the new effective date when it finalizes the December
2012 Proposal.
DATES: The effective date of the Final Rules published February 7, 2012
(77 FR 6194) and August 20, 2012 (77 FR 50244) and technical correction
published July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40459) is delayed. The Bureau will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the new effective
date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Goldberg or Lauren Weldon,
Counsels, or Dana Miller, Senior Counsel, Division of Research,
Markets, and Regulations, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700
G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act \1\ amended the EFTA \2\ to
create a new comprehensive consumer protection regime for remittance
transfers sent by consumers in the United States to individuals and
businesses in foreign countries. For covered transactions sent by
remittance transfer providers, section 1073 creates a new EFTA section
919, and generally requires: (i) The provision of disclosures prior to
and at the time of payment by the sender for the transfer; (ii)
cancellation and refund rights; (iii) the investigation and remedy of
errors by providers; and (iv) liability standards for providers for the
acts of their agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, section 1073 (2010).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. EFTA section 919 is codified in 15
U.S.C. 1693o-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2012, the Bureau published a final rule to implement
section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 77 FR 6194 (February Final
Rule).\3\ On August 20, 2012, the Bureau published a supplemental rule
adopting a safe harbor for determining which companies are not
remittance transfer providers subject to the February Final Rule
because they do not provide remittance transfers in the normal course
of business, and modifying several aspects of the February Final Rule
regarding remittance transfers that are scheduled before the date of
transfer. 77 FR 50244. The 2012 Final Rule adopted an effective date of
February 7, 2013. In the February Final Rule, the Bureau stated that it
would continue to monitor implementation of the new statutory and
regulatory requirements. The Bureau has subsequently engaged in
dialogue with both industry and consumer groups regarding
implementation efforts and compliance concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A technical correction to the February Final Rule was
published on July 10, 2012. 77 FR 40459. For simplicity, that
technical correction is incorporated into the term ``February Final
Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon further review and analysis of these concerns, the Bureau
published the December 2012 Proposal to refine several narrow aspects
of the 2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 77188 (Dec. 31, 2012). The Bureau also
proposed to extend the 2012 Final Rule's effective date until 90 days
after the finalization of the December 2012 Proposal. The comment
period on both the proposed substantive changes and the new effective
date of the 2012 Final Rule closes on January 30, 2013.\4\ The Bureau
intends to finalize the proposal expeditiously following the close of
this comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Details on how to submit a comment on both the substantive
changes in the proposal and the new effective date of the Final
Rule, are available at 77 FR 77188 (Dec. 31, 2012) or at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/12/31/2012-31170/electronic-fund-transfers-regulation-e. Comments must be submitted on or before
January 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the impending February 7, 2013 effective date of the 2012
Final Rule, the Bureau simultaneously solicited comment on whether it
should temporarily delay the effective date pending finalization of the
December 2012 Proposal. The comment period on this narrow aspect of the
December 2012 Proposal closed on January 15, 2013.
II. Overview of Comments and Outreach
The Bureau received approximately 43 comments on its December 2012
Proposal to delay the effective date of the 2012 Final Rule beyond
February 7, 2013. Commenters generally supported, or did not oppose,
the temporary delay. All commenters that addressed the effective date
either directly expressed support for or did not object to the proposed
delay or indirectly supported the proposed delay by addressing the
December 2012 Proposal's 90-day proposed extension.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
Based on comments received, the Bureau is temporarily delaying the
effective date for the 2012 Final Rule pending finalization of the
December 2012 Proposal. The new effective date will be determined when
the substantive refinements to the December 2012 Proposal are
finalized. The new effective date will be after February 7, 2013. As
noted above, the Bureau proposed that the 2012 Final Rule and any
revisions resulting from the December 2012 Proposal would become
effective 90 days after the Bureau finalizes the proposal.
[[Page 6026]]
IV. Status of the Bureau's Remittance Rule Safe Harbor Countries List
On September 26, 2012, the Bureau issued a safe harbor list of
countries that qualify for an exception in the 2012 Final Rule that
permits estimated disclosures of certain figures where the laws of the
recipient country do not permit a determination of the exact
amounts.\5\ In that issuance, the Bureau explained that it would not
remove countries from the list before May 1, 2013. In light of the
temporary delay of the effective date of the 2012 Final Rule, the
Bureau will reassess the earliest date on which, if necessary,
countries may be removed from the list in connection with the
finalization of the December 2012 Proposal, although that date will not
be before May 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201209_CFPB_Remittance-Rule-Safe-Harbor-Countries-List.pdf (Sept. 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the meantime, the Bureau continues to welcome input on possible
amendments to the list. The Bureau's September 26, 2012 issuance on the
safe harbor list of countries contains details on how to submit this
feedback.
V. Legal Authority and Effective Date
Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new section 919 of the
EFTA and requires remittance transfer providers to provide disclosures
to senders of remittance transfers, pursuant to rules prescribed by the
Bureau. In particular, providers must give a sender a written pre-
payment disclosure containing specified information applicable to the
sender's remittance transfer. The provider must also provide a written
receipt that includes the information provided on the pre-payment
disclosure, as well as additional specified information. EFTA section
919(a). In addition, EFTA section 919(d) directs the Bureau to
promulgate rules regarding appropriate cancellation and refund policies
and to investigate and remedy errors by providers.
In addition to the statutory mandates set forth in the Dodd-Frank
Act, EFTA section 904(a) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations
necessary to carry out the purposes of the title. The express purposes
of the EFTA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, are to establish ``the
rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic
fund and remittance transfer systems'' and to provide ``individual
consumer rights.'' EFTA section 902(b). EFTA section 904(c) further
provides that regulations prescribed by the Bureau may contain any
classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide
for such adjustments or exceptions for any class of electronic fund
transfers or remittance transfers, that the Bureau deems necessary or
proper to effectuate the purposes of the title, to prevent
circumvention or evasion, or to facilitate compliance.
This final rule will be effective on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), the required publication or service of a substantive rule
shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except
for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of
policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This final rule does not
establish any requirements but rather delays the effective date of the
2012 Final Rule pending the finalization of the December 2012 Proposal.
Therefore, under section 553(d)(1) of the APA, the Bureau is publishing
this final rule less than 30 days before its effective date because it
is a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The Bureau further finds it
has good cause pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the APA to dispense
with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement because, on balance,
the need to implement immediately the delay of the 2012 Final Rule's
February 7, 2013 effective date before that date occurs outweighs the
need for affected parties to prepare for this delay.
VI. Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act
Section V of the December 2012 Proposal contained the Bureau's
preliminary analysis under section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act of
the potential costs of the December 2012 Proposal to consumers and
covered persons (as defined in Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(6), 12
U.S.C. 5481(6)). In the final portion of that section, the Bureau
addressed the impact of the proposed delay of the effective date on
covered persons and consumers. See Section V.3. of the December 2012
Proposal.
In the proposal, the Bureau stated that the temporary delay of the
2012 Final Rule's effective date would generally benefit remittance
transfer providers by delaying the start of any ongoing compliance
costs. The additional time might also enable providers (and their
vendors) to build solutions that cost less than those that might
otherwise have been possible.
The Bureau also recognized that the proposed temporary delay of the
effective date would impose some costs on senders by temporarily
delaying the time when they would receive the benefits of Dodd-Frank
section 1073 and the 2012 Final Rule from February 7, 2013 to the
ultimate effective date. Thus, consumers at most will only lose
benefits from Dodd-Frank section 1073 that would have accrued during
the length of the temporary delay. (As noted above, the Bureau has not
yet determined when the 2012 Final Rule will take effect but has
proposed that it would become effective 90 days after the Bureau
finalizes the December 2012 Proposal.) The Bureau also noted that
senders may benefit from the temporary delay to the extent that both
the proposed refinements and the additional time providers have to
implement the 2012 Final Rule may eliminate any disruptions in the
provision of remittance transfer services.
Further, the Bureau is not aware of any unique impact that this
final rule might have on insured depository institutions or insured
credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less as described in
section 1026(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, or on rural consumers.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each
agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small
entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and
small not-for-profit organizations. The RFA generally requires an
agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Bureau did not perform an
IFRA because it determined and certified that the December 2012
Proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Bureau did not receive any
comments regarding its certification of the delayed effective date
proposed in the December 2012 Proposal, and is adopting that aspect of
the December 2012 Proposal without change.
A FRFA is not required for this final rule because it will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule will temporarily delay the February 7, 2013
effective date of
[[Page 6027]]
the 2012 Final Rule, pending the finalization of the December 2012
Proposal that would address three narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule.
The Bureau will determine the new effective date when it finalizes the
December 2012 Proposal. The delay in effective date will generally
benefit small remittance transfer providers, by delaying the start of
any ongoing compliance costs. The additional time might also enable
providers (and their vendors) to build solutions that cost less than
those that might otherwise have been possible.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that the final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
The Bureau may not conduct or sponsor, and, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a respondent is not required to respond to, an
information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The Bureau determined that the December 2012 Proposal's
proposed delay of the effective date of the 2012 Final Rule does not
impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on
covered persons or members of the public that would be collections of
information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Bureau did not receive any comments
regarding this conclusion, to which the Bureau adheres.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1005
Banking, banks, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Electronic fund
transfers, National banks, Remittance transfers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Dated: January 19, 2013.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2013-01595 Filed 1-25-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P