Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB, 2659-2662 [2014-00489]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
which are published in the monthly
statistical releases Finance Companies
(G.20) and Consumer Credit (G.19), in
the quarterly statistical release Financial
Accounts of the United States (Z.1), and
in the Federal Reserve Bulletin (Tables
1.51, 1.52, and 1.55).
Current Actions: On November 6,
2013, the Federal Reserve published a
notice in the Federal Register (78 FR
66714) requesting public comment for
60 days on the proposal to extend, with
revision, the Domestic Finance
Company Report of Consolidated Assets
and Liabilities. The comment period for
this notice expired on January 6, 2014.
The Federal Reserve did not receive any
comments. The revisions will be
implemented as proposed.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, January 9, 2014.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014–00490 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Announcement of Board
Approval Under Delegated Authority
and Submission to OMB
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
final approval of a proposed information
collection by the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System (Board)
under OMB delegated authority,
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB
Regulations on Controlling Paperwork
Burdens on the Public). Board-approved
collections of information are
incorporated into the official OMB
inventory of currently approved
collections of information. Copies of the
Paperwork Reduction Act Submission,
supporting statement and approved
collection of information instrument(s)
are placed into OMB’s public docket
files. The Federal Reserve may not
conduct or sponsor, and the respondent
is not required to respond to, an
information collection that has been
extended, revised, or implemented on or
after October 1, 1995, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance
Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Office of the
Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452–3829.
Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202)
263–4869, Board of Governors of the
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
Federal Reserve System, Washington,
DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta
Ahmed—Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 10235,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Final approval under OMB delegated
authority of the extension, with revision,
of the following information collection:
Report title: Interchange Transaction
Fees Surveys.
Agency form number: FR 3064a and
FR 3064b.
OMB Control number: 7100–0344.
Frequency: FR 3064a—Biennial; FR
3064b—Annual.
Reporters: Issuers of debit cards (FR
3064a) and payment card networks (FR
3064b).
Estimated annual reporting hours: FR
3064a: 111,600 hours; FR 3064b: 1,350
hours.
Estimated average hours per response:
FR 3064a: 200 hours; FR 3064b: 75
hours.
Number of respondents: FR 3064a:
558; FR 3064b: 18.
General description of report: This
information collection is authorized by
subsection 920(a) of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, which was amended by
section 1075(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
15 U.S.C. 1693o-2. This subsection
requires the Board to disclose (on a
biennial basis) aggregate or summary
information concerning the costs
incurred, and interchange transaction
fees charged or received, by issuers or
payment card networks in connection
with the authorization, clearance or
settlement of electronic debit
transaction as the Board considers
appropriate and in the public interest.
15 U.S.C. 1693o-2(a)(3)(B). It also
provides the Board with authority to
require issuers and payment card
networks to provide information to
enable the Board to carry out the
provisions of the subsection. Response
to these surveys is mandatory.
In accordance with the statutory
requirement, the Board currently
releases aggregate or summary
information from the FR 3064b survey
responses, and, average interchange fees
at the network level. However, as
proposed, the Board will release, at the
network level, the percentage of total
number of transactions, the percentage
of total value of transactions, and the
average transaction value for exempt
and not-exempt issuers obtained on the
FR 3064b. The Board has determined to
release this information both because it
can already be calculated based on the
information the Board currently releases
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2659
on average interchange fees and because
the Board believes the release of such
information may be useful to issuers
and merchants in choosing payment
card networks in which to participate
and to policymakers in assessing the
effect of Regulation II on the level of
interchange fees received by issuers
over time. However, the remaining
individual issuer and payment card
information collected on these surveys
will be treated as confidential under
exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), which protects
information that, if released, would
cause substantial harm to the
competitive position of the survey
respondents. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)
(exempting from disclosure ‘‘trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information obtained from a person and
privileged or confidential’’).
Abstract: The Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (DoddFrank Act) requires the Board to
disclose (on a biennial basis) aggregate
or summary information concerning the
costs incurred, and interchange
transaction fees charged or received, by
issuers or payment card networks in
connection with the authorization,
clearing, or settlement of electronic
debit transactions as the Board
considers appropriate or in the public
interest. The data from these surveys are
used in fulfilling that disclosure
requirement. In addition, the Board uses
data from the payment card network
survey (FR 3064b) to publicly report on
an annual basis the extent to which
networks have established separate
interchange fees for exempt and covered
issuers.1 Finally, the Board uses the data
from these surveys in determining
whether to propose revisions to the
interchange fee standards in Regulation
II (12 CFR Part 235). The Dodd-Frank
Act provides the Board with authority to
require debit card issuers and payment
card networks to submit information in
order to carry out provisions of the
Dodd-Frank Act regarding interchange
fee standards.
Current Actions: On October 18, 2013,
the Board published a notice in the
Federal Register (78 FR 62352)
requesting public comment for 60 days
on the proposal to extend, with revision,
the Interchange Transaction Fees
Surveys. The comment period expired
on December 17, 2013. The Board
received five comment letters regarding
the proposed revisions to these surveys.
The comments are summarized and
addressed below.
1 Average debit card interchange fee by payment
card network, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
paymentsystems/regii-average-interchange-fee.htm.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2660
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Summary of Public Comments
The Board received comments from
one financial institution, one banking
industry trade association, a joint letter
from eight banking industry associations
(including the one association that
responded separately), and two payment
card networks. Some general comments
were received regarding the treatment of
confidential data, time schedule,
reporting panel, and report format.
Commenters also provided input on
how to categorize debit card
transactions. In addition, one
commenter focused on specific data
items proposed for collection in the
debit card issuer survey. The
commenter asked the Board to include
additional reporting categories within
fixed and variable costs and additional
clarification on affiliated processor costs
and international fraud losses. The
subsequent sections of this notice
address the comments on and
modifications to specific surveys.
General Comments
The Board asked specific questions
and commenters provided several
comments that are relevant to both the
debit card issuer survey (FR 3064a) and
the payment card network survey (FR
3064b). These topics included the
reporting burden to complete the
surveys, reporting panel, report format,
usefulness of the information collected,
and opportunities to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected.
One commenter encouraged the Board
to allow completion of the surveys on a
consolidated basis at the holding
company level rather than at the
individual affiliate level. The
commenter suggested that requiring
individual issuer responses, as opposed
to holding company-level responses,
would be burdensome with little
apparent benefit. The survey already
requests respondents to provide these
data at the bank holding company level
to reduce respondent burden. Issuers
will continue to have the opportunity to
respond at the charter level if needed.
Two commenters suggested that
exempt issuers (those with less than $10
billion in assets) be added to the
reporting panel and allowed to
participate voluntarily in the debit card
issuer survey.2 The Board does not
believe it would be appropriate to
include exempt issuer costs in the
determination of the interchange fee
standard for covered issuers. Moreover,
2 Section
235.8(b) of the Board’s Regulation II
requires that issuers covered by the interchange fee
standards in Regulation II file reports with the
Board.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
because some covered issuers have
small debit card programs, the Board
already collects data on costs of small
debit card programs through its survey
of covered issuers. Further, there are
other channels, such as certain
questions contained in the payment
card network survey (FR 3064b), to
provide information on the effect of
Regulation II on small issuers. For these
reasons, the survey will not be
expanded to cover exempt issuers.
Two commenters requested that the
Board continue to conduct follow-up
interviews with respondents after
survey responses are submitted to
improve the quality of the data received,
increase the consistency of responses,
and reconcile inconsistencies across
responses. The Board will continue the
existing follow-up process, which has
worked well in improving the quality of
the data.
Two commenters requested that
respondents be allowed to elaborate on
their responses to particular questions.
For example, issuers may want to
elaborate on any assumptions that they
had to use to calculate certain cost
items. This flexibility can increase the
quality of survey responses and enable
the Board to check for consistency
across respondents. The surveys
currently have comment boxes that can
be used for this purpose.
The Board also requested comment on
the cost of providing information and
feasibility of automating the information
collection. The Board did not receive
any comments on these questions.
In response to the Board’s question on
how single-message (PIN) and dualmessage (signature) transactions should
be categorized, several commenters
suggested that the Board should not
equate PIN authentication with singlemessage networks and signature
authentication with dual-message
networks. One commenter further
suggested that the Board collect
information solely on the messaging
system of the network (single-message
or dual-message) without regard to the
methods by which transactions
processed or routed on that network
may be authenticated. The Board agrees
with these comments and will continue
to categorize debit card transactions by
message type and deemphasize the link
between message type and
authentication method. Further, because
a network may be able to process both
single-message and dual-message
transactions, the Board will clarify
Question 3 in Section I of the Payment
Card Network Survey to reflect this, and
to collect information from the network
for each message type.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Debit Card Issuer Survey (FR 3064a)
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section I: Respondent Information
Question 3: Do you have a general-use
prepaid card program?—The Board
proposed to delete this question because
it is redundant given that issuers with
general-use prepaid card programs
complete Section V. The Board did not
receive any comments on this section.
This section will be implemented as
proposed with clarifying changes as
appropriate.
Section II: All Debit Card Transactions
(Including General-Use Prepaid Card
Transactions) and Section V: GeneralUse Prepaid Card Transactions
Question 1: General-use prepaid card
exemption: Exempt vs. non-exempt
general-use prepaid card transactions—
The Board proposed to modify question
1.d by deleting line item 1d.1 (Volume
and Value), All general-use prepaid
card transactions between January 1
and September 30, 2011. As the rule
went into effect on October 1, 2011,
collecting data for this time frame was
necessary to compare 2011 data before
and after the effective date, but the split
time frame is no longer relevant. The
Board did not receive any comments on
this section. This section will be
implemented as proposed and
subsequent line items will be
renumbered.
Section II: All Debit Card Transactions,
Section III: All Single-Message (PIN)
Debit Card Transactions, Section IV: All
Dual-Message (Signature) Debit Card
Transactions, and Section V: GeneralUse Prepaid Card Transactions
Question 3: Cost of authorization,
clearance, and settlement—The Board
proposed to add questions 3e and 3f to
break out the fixed and variable cost
components for line items 3b.1 In-house
costs and 3b.2 Third-party processing
fees, respectively. The Board also
proposed adding definitions for variable
and fixed costs to the instructions.3 In
addition, the Board proposed to modify
the instruction for Question 3 to exclude
transaction monitoring costs as part of
the costs of authorization, clearance,
and settlement. Transactions monitoring
costs are reported in Question 5, Fraud
prevention and data security costs, line
item 5a.1 Transactions monitoring cost
tied to authorization. One commenter
stated that the variable cost/fixed cost
3 Fixed costs are defined as costs that do not vary
with changes in the number or value of transaction
over the course of the reporting period (i.e.,
calendar year 2013 for this application of the
survey).
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
dichotomy is not an appropriate means
for identifying incremental
authorization, clearance, and settlement
costs. The commenter believes that the
definition of ‘‘costs of authorization,
clearance, and settlement’’ fails to
include all costs related to a debit card
issuer’s authorization, clearance, and
settlement activities. The commenter
recommended that the set of costs be
expanded to all debit card costs to
provide the Board a more
comprehensive accounting of debit card
program costs and put authorization,
clearance, and settlement costs in
context. The commenter provided a list
of categories of costs that should be
included and recommended that these
categories be reported as individual cost
items.
Many of the proposed categories of
costs are included in various sections in
the survey and those that are not
included are costs that the Board did
not consider as part of the interchange
fee standard in Regulation II. Including
these additional cost categories and
requiring issuers to report at a more
detailed level would not significantly
enhance the Board’s understanding of
the relevant costs for Regulation II and
would represent a significant burden to
respondents. For these reasons, the set
and format of data collected will be
implemented as proposed.
One commenter asserted that the
treatment of affiliated processor costs at
the cost of service to the affiliate
processor rather than the cost to the
issuer ignores common inter-affiliate
cost accounting practices under which
the issuer is charged an imputed markup for services provided by the affiliated
processor. The commenter asserted that
the proposed change would result in
issuers that use affiliates for transaction
processing services reporting lower cost
data than they would have reported had
they used an unaffiliated processor. The
Board will modify the instructions for
Question 3 to allow affiliated processor
costs to be reported at the cost to the
issuer, provided that the cost to the
issuer is determined in a way that is
consistent with fees that the affiliated
processor would charge to an
unaffiliated debit card issuer.
One commenter suggested that
international fraud losses be included as
part of reported fraud losses. The
commenter noted that international
fraud losses are a material cost and are
tied to domestic debit cards. The Board
notes that international fraud losses
arise from transactions that are outside
the scope of Regulation II. As such,
international fraud losses are analogous
to ATM fraud losses, which are also not
included. For these reasons, the survey
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
will not be modified to include
international fraud losses.
General Instructions
The Board proposed to change the
timing for conducting the calendar year
2013 survey, making the survey
available by February 3, 2014, with
responses due by March 17, 2014.
Future surveys would revert to the
original schedule (mid-February to midApril). Two commenters recommended
a 90-day completion period for the debit
card issuer survey to allow ample time
for internal review before the surveys
are submitted to the Board.4 Given the
potential need to expeditiously adjust
the Regulation II interchange fee
standard, in the event the Board does
not prevail on appeal, the 2014 time
frame will remain as proposed;
however, the time frame to compete
future year surveys will be increased to
90 days.
Payment Card Network Survey (FR
3064b)
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section I: Respondent Information
Is your payment card network a
single-message (PIN) or dual-message
(signature) network? The Board
requested comment on a payment card
network’s ability to process singlemessage transactions across dualmessage networks and vice versa. In
addition, the Board requested comment
on how such transactions should be
categorized. As mentioned above,
several commenters suggested that the
Board not equate PIN authentication
with single-message networks and
signature authentication with dualmessage networks in either survey. The
commenters suggested that the Board
collect information solely on the
messaging system of the network
(single-message or dual-message)
without regard to the methods by which
transactions processed or routed on that
network may be authenticated. The
Board concurs and the surveys will
continue to categorize debit card
transactions as single- or dual-message
without the inference that all messages
of a given type use the same
authentication method. In addition, the
survey will collect information from the
network for each message type.
4 To enable the Board to collect and use updated
data if necessary to respond quickly to pending
litigation regarding Regulation II, the Board
proposed to accelerate the schedule for calendar
year 2013 survey, making the survey available by
February 3, 2014, with responses due by March 17,
2014.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2661
Section II: Debit Card Transactions
Small issuer exemption: Transactions
using card of exempt vs. non-exempt
issuers—The Board proposed to revise
this section by deleting line item 1e.1
(Volume and Value), All settled
purchase transactions between January
1, 2011–September 30, 2011, because
the timeframe is no longer relevant. The
Board did not receive any comments on
this section. This section will be
implemented as proposed and
subsequent line items will be
renumbered.
Transactions using card of exempt vs.
non-exempt issuers (January 1, 2011–
September 30, 2011)—The Board
proposed to revise this section by
deleting line items 1f through 1f.2 as the
timeframe is no longer relevant. The
Board did not receive any comments on
this section. This section will be
implemented as proposed and
subsequent line items will be
renumbered.
General-use prepaid card exemption:
Exempt vs. non-exempt general-use
prepaid card transactions and Generaluse prepaid card exemption:
Interchange fees on exempt vs. nonexempt card transactions—The Board
proposed to revise line items 1g and 2i
by requiring networks to allocate
volume, value, and interchange fee
revenue for exempt general-use prepaid
card transactions between transactions
using prepaid cards issued by exempt
(small) issuers (adding line items 1g.1.1
and 2i.1.1) and transactions using
prepaid cards issued by non-exempt
issuers (adding line items 1g.1.2. and
2i.1.2). Currently, payment card
networks are required to allocate
volume and value of general-use
prepaid card transactions, and
associated interchange fee revenue,
between exempt and non-exempt
general-use prepaid card transactions
and interchange fees. Under Regulation
II, a general-use prepaid card
transaction may be exempt from the
interchange fee standards either because
the card is issued by an issuer that
qualifies for the small issuer exemption
or because the card qualifies for the
prepaid card exemption, irrespective of
the size of the issuer. The proposed
break out of these data would allow the
Board to determine which type of
exemption applies to each exempt
transaction, thus improving
interpretation of these data. The Board
did not receive any comments on this
section. This section will be
implemented as proposed.
Small issuer exemption: Interchange
fees on transactions using card of
exempt vs. non-exempt issuers—The
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2662
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Board proposed to revise this section by
deleting line items 2g.1, All interchange
fees paid to issuers between January 1,
2011–September 30, 2011, as these
timeframes are no longer relevant. The
Board did not receive any comments on
this section. This section will be
implemented as proposed and
subsequent line items will be
renumbered.
Small issuer exemption: Network fees
received from exempt vs. non-exempt
issuers—The Board proposed to revise
this section by deleting line items 3c.1,
All network fees received from issuers
that settled between January 1, 2011–
September 30, 2011, and line items 3d
through 3d.2, as these timeframes are no
longer relevant. The Board did not
receive any comments on this section.
This section will be implemented as
proposed and subsequent line items will
be renumbered.
Small issuer exemption: Payments
and incentives paid to exempt vs. nonexempt issuers—The Board proposed to
revise this section by deleting line items
4c.1, All payment and incentives paid to
issuers between January 1, 2011–
September 30, 2011, and line items 4d
through 4d.2, as these timeframes are no
longer relevant. The Board did not
receive any comments on this section.
This section will be implemented as
proposed and subsequent line items will
be renumbered.
General Instructions
Response Confidentiality and
Burden—The Board proposed to revise
the confidentiality statement to indicate
that the Board may release some
information identified by network by
total, or as an average: the percent of
total number and value of transactions
for exempt and non-exempt issuers; and
the average transaction value for
exempt, non-exempt, and all issuers. To
date, the Board has only published this
information in the aggregate across
networks. One network commenter
expressed concern regarding the
confidentiality of survey data, stating
that the Board’s current justification
does not constitute a public policy
rationale that justifies the publication of
additional non-public and proprietary
data. This information can already be
approximated at the network level from
the information the Board currently
releases on the network’s average
interchange fees. The precise networkspecific information may be useful to
issuers (both exempt and non-exempt)
and merchants in choosing payment
card networks in which to participate
and to policymakers in assessing the
effect of Regulation II on the level of
interchange fees received by exempt and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
non-exempt issuers over time. For
example, the disclosure of the percent of
total number and value of transactions
for exempt and non-exempt issuers may
assist exempt issuers in identifying
networks that may have operations
focused on those issuers. For these
reasons, the revisions to the
confidentiality statement will be
implemented as proposed.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, January 9, 2014.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014–00489 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 112 3095]
GeneLink, Inc.; foruTM International
Corporation; Analysis of Proposed
Consent Orders To Aid Public
Comment
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreements.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The consent agreements in
this matter settle alleged violations of
federal law prohibiting unfair or
deceptive acts or practices or unfair
methods of competition. The attached
Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders to
Aid Public Comment describes both the
allegations in the draft complaints and
the terms of the consent orders—
embodied in the consent agreements—
that would settle these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a
comment at https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
genelinkconsent or https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
forutmconsent online or on paper, by
following the instructions in the
Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below. Write ‘‘Genelink, Inc.-Consent
Agreement; File No. 112–3095’’ or
‘‘foruTM International CorporationConsent Agreement; File No. 112–3095’’
on your comment and file your
comment online at https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
genelinkconsent or https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
forutmconsent https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
fidelitynationalconsent by following the
instructions on the web-based form. If
you prefer to file your comment on
paper, mail or deliver your comment to
the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Room H–113 (Annex D), 600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carolyn Hann, 202–326–2745, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and
FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR § 2.34, notice is
hereby given that the above-captioned
consent agreements containing consent
orders to cease and desist, having been
filed with and accepted, subject to final
approval, by the Commission, have been
placed on the public record for a period
of thirty (30) days. The following
Analysis to Aid Public Comment
describes the terms of the consent
agreements, and the allegations in the
complaints. An electronic copy of the
full text of the consent agreement
packages can be obtained from the FTC
Home Page (for January 7, 2014), on the
World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/
os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be
obtained from the FTC Public Reference
Room, Room 130–H, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580,
either in person or by calling (202) 326–
2222.
You can file a comment online or on
paper. For the Commission to consider
your comment, we must receive it on or
before February 6, 2014. Write
‘‘Genelink, Inc.-Consent Agreement; File
No. 112–3095’’ or ‘‘foruTM International
Corporation-Consent Agreement; File
No. 112–3095’’ on your comment. Your
comment—including your name and
your state—will be placed on the public
record of this proceeding, including, to
the extent practicable, on the public
Commission Web site, at https://
www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.
As a matter of discretion, the
Commission tries to remove individuals’
home contact information from
comments before placing them on the
Commission Web site.
Because your comment will be made
public, you are solely responsible for
making sure that your comment does
not include any sensitive personal
information, like anyone’s Social
Security number, date of birth, driver’s
license number or other state
identification number or foreign country
equivalent, passport number, financial
account number, or credit or debit card
number. You are also solely responsible
for making sure that your comment does
not include any sensitive health
information, like medical records or
other individually identifiable health
information. In addition, do not include
any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2659-2662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00489]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board
Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the final approval of a proposed
information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16
(OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public).
Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the
official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of
information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission,
supporting statement and approved collection of information
instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal
Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required
to respond to, an information collection that has been extended,
revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Reserve Board Clearance
Officer--Cynthia Ayouch--Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202)
452-3829.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact
(202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer--Shagufta Ahmed--Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive
Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension, with
revision, of the following information collection:
Report title: Interchange Transaction Fees Surveys.
Agency form number: FR 3064a and FR 3064b.
OMB Control number: 7100-0344.
Frequency: FR 3064a--Biennial; FR 3064b--Annual.
Reporters: Issuers of debit cards (FR 3064a) and payment card
networks (FR 3064b).
Estimated annual reporting hours: FR 3064a: 111,600 hours; FR
3064b: 1,350 hours.
Estimated average hours per response: FR 3064a: 200 hours; FR
3064b: 75 hours.
Number of respondents: FR 3064a: 558; FR 3064b: 18.
General description of report: This information collection is
authorized by subsection 920(a) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
which was amended by section 1075(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 15 U.S.C.
1693o-2. This subsection requires the Board to disclose (on a biennial
basis) aggregate or summary information concerning the costs incurred,
and interchange transaction fees charged or received, by issuers or
payment card networks in connection with the authorization, clearance
or settlement of electronic debit transaction as the Board considers
appropriate and in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 1693o-2(a)(3)(B). It
also provides the Board with authority to require issuers and payment
card networks to provide information to enable the Board to carry out
the provisions of the subsection. Response to these surveys is
mandatory.
In accordance with the statutory requirement, the Board currently
releases aggregate or summary information from the FR 3064b survey
responses, and, average interchange fees at the network level. However,
as proposed, the Board will release, at the network level, the
percentage of total number of transactions, the percentage of total
value of transactions, and the average transaction value for exempt and
not-exempt issuers obtained on the FR 3064b. The Board has determined
to release this information both because it can already be calculated
based on the information the Board currently releases on average
interchange fees and because the Board believes the release of such
information may be useful to issuers and merchants in choosing payment
card networks in which to participate and to policymakers in assessing
the effect of Regulation II on the level of interchange fees received
by issuers over time. However, the remaining individual issuer and
payment card information collected on these surveys will be treated as
confidential under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), which protects information that, if released, would cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of the survey respondents.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (exempting from disclosure ``trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and
privileged or confidential'').
Abstract: The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) requires the Board to disclose (on a biennial
basis) aggregate or summary information concerning the costs incurred,
and interchange transaction fees charged or received, by issuers or
payment card networks in connection with the authorization, clearing,
or settlement of electronic debit transactions as the Board considers
appropriate or in the public interest. The data from these surveys are
used in fulfilling that disclosure requirement. In addition, the Board
uses data from the payment card network survey (FR 3064b) to publicly
report on an annual basis the extent to which networks have established
separate interchange fees for exempt and covered issuers.\1\ Finally,
the Board uses the data from these surveys in determining whether to
propose revisions to the interchange fee standards in Regulation II (12
CFR Part 235). The Dodd-Frank Act provides the Board with authority to
require debit card issuers and payment card networks to submit
information in order to carry out provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act
regarding interchange fee standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average debit card interchange fee by payment card network,
https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regii-average-interchange-fee.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Actions: On October 18, 2013, the Board published a notice
in the Federal Register (78 FR 62352) requesting public comment for 60
days on the proposal to extend, with revision, the Interchange
Transaction Fees Surveys. The comment period expired on December 17,
2013. The Board received five comment letters regarding the proposed
revisions to these surveys. The comments are summarized and addressed
below.
[[Page 2660]]
Summary of Public Comments
The Board received comments from one financial institution, one
banking industry trade association, a joint letter from eight banking
industry associations (including the one association that responded
separately), and two payment card networks. Some general comments were
received regarding the treatment of confidential data, time schedule,
reporting panel, and report format. Commenters also provided input on
how to categorize debit card transactions. In addition, one commenter
focused on specific data items proposed for collection in the debit
card issuer survey. The commenter asked the Board to include additional
reporting categories within fixed and variable costs and additional
clarification on affiliated processor costs and international fraud
losses. The subsequent sections of this notice address the comments on
and modifications to specific surveys.
General Comments
The Board asked specific questions and commenters provided several
comments that are relevant to both the debit card issuer survey (FR
3064a) and the payment card network survey (FR 3064b). These topics
included the reporting burden to complete the surveys, reporting panel,
report format, usefulness of the information collected, and
opportunities to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected.
One commenter encouraged the Board to allow completion of the
surveys on a consolidated basis at the holding company level rather
than at the individual affiliate level. The commenter suggested that
requiring individual issuer responses, as opposed to holding company-
level responses, would be burdensome with little apparent benefit. The
survey already requests respondents to provide these data at the bank
holding company level to reduce respondent burden. Issuers will
continue to have the opportunity to respond at the charter level if
needed.
Two commenters suggested that exempt issuers (those with less than
$10 billion in assets) be added to the reporting panel and allowed to
participate voluntarily in the debit card issuer survey.\2\ The Board
does not believe it would be appropriate to include exempt issuer costs
in the determination of the interchange fee standard for covered
issuers. Moreover, because some covered issuers have small debit card
programs, the Board already collects data on costs of small debit card
programs through its survey of covered issuers. Further, there are
other channels, such as certain questions contained in the payment card
network survey (FR 3064b), to provide information on the effect of
Regulation II on small issuers. For these reasons, the survey will not
be expanded to cover exempt issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 235.8(b) of the Board's Regulation II requires that
issuers covered by the interchange fee standards in Regulation II
file reports with the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters requested that the Board continue to conduct follow-
up interviews with respondents after survey responses are submitted to
improve the quality of the data received, increase the consistency of
responses, and reconcile inconsistencies across responses. The Board
will continue the existing follow-up process, which has worked well in
improving the quality of the data.
Two commenters requested that respondents be allowed to elaborate
on their responses to particular questions. For example, issuers may
want to elaborate on any assumptions that they had to use to calculate
certain cost items. This flexibility can increase the quality of survey
responses and enable the Board to check for consistency across
respondents. The surveys currently have comment boxes that can be used
for this purpose.
The Board also requested comment on the cost of providing
information and feasibility of automating the information collection.
The Board did not receive any comments on these questions.
In response to the Board's question on how single-message (PIN) and
dual-message (signature) transactions should be categorized, several
commenters suggested that the Board should not equate PIN
authentication with single-message networks and signature
authentication with dual-message networks. One commenter further
suggested that the Board collect information solely on the messaging
system of the network (single-message or dual-message) without regard
to the methods by which transactions processed or routed on that
network may be authenticated. The Board agrees with these comments and
will continue to categorize debit card transactions by message type and
deemphasize the link between message type and authentication method.
Further, because a network may be able to process both single-message
and dual-message transactions, the Board will clarify Question 3 in
Section I of the Payment Card Network Survey to reflect this, and to
collect information from the network for each message type.
Debit Card Issuer Survey (FR 3064a)
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section I: Respondent Information
Question 3: Do you have a general-use prepaid card program?--The
Board proposed to delete this question because it is redundant given
that issuers with general-use prepaid card programs complete Section V.
The Board did not receive any comments on this section. This section
will be implemented as proposed with clarifying changes as appropriate.
Section II: All Debit Card Transactions (Including General-Use Prepaid
Card Transactions) and Section V: General-Use Prepaid Card Transactions
Question 1: General-use prepaid card exemption: Exempt vs. non-
exempt general-use prepaid card transactions--The Board proposed to
modify question 1.d by deleting line item 1d.1 (Volume and Value), All
general-use prepaid card transactions between January 1 and September
30, 2011. As the rule went into effect on October 1, 2011, collecting
data for this time frame was necessary to compare 2011 data before and
after the effective date, but the split time frame is no longer
relevant. The Board did not receive any comments on this section. This
section will be implemented as proposed and subsequent line items will
be renumbered.
Section II: All Debit Card Transactions, Section III: All Single-
Message (PIN) Debit Card Transactions, Section IV: All Dual-Message
(Signature) Debit Card Transactions, and Section V: General-Use Prepaid
Card Transactions
Question 3: Cost of authorization, clearance, and settlement--The
Board proposed to add questions 3e and 3f to break out the fixed and
variable cost components for line items 3b.1 In-house costs and 3b.2
Third-party processing fees, respectively. The Board also proposed
adding definitions for variable and fixed costs to the instructions.\3\
In addition, the Board proposed to modify the instruction for Question
3 to exclude transaction monitoring costs as part of the costs of
authorization, clearance, and settlement. Transactions monitoring costs
are reported in Question 5, Fraud prevention and data security costs,
line item 5a.1 Transactions monitoring cost tied to authorization. One
commenter stated that the variable cost/fixed cost
[[Page 2661]]
dichotomy is not an appropriate means for identifying incremental
authorization, clearance, and settlement costs. The commenter believes
that the definition of ``costs of authorization, clearance, and
settlement'' fails to include all costs related to a debit card
issuer's authorization, clearance, and settlement activities. The
commenter recommended that the set of costs be expanded to all debit
card costs to provide the Board a more comprehensive accounting of
debit card program costs and put authorization, clearance, and
settlement costs in context. The commenter provided a list of
categories of costs that should be included and recommended that these
categories be reported as individual cost items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fixed costs are defined as costs that do not vary with
changes in the number or value of transaction over the course of the
reporting period (i.e., calendar year 2013 for this application of
the survey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the proposed categories of costs are included in various
sections in the survey and those that are not included are costs that
the Board did not consider as part of the interchange fee standard in
Regulation II. Including these additional cost categories and requiring
issuers to report at a more detailed level would not significantly
enhance the Board's understanding of the relevant costs for Regulation
II and would represent a significant burden to respondents. For these
reasons, the set and format of data collected will be implemented as
proposed.
One commenter asserted that the treatment of affiliated processor
costs at the cost of service to the affiliate processor rather than the
cost to the issuer ignores common inter-affiliate cost accounting
practices under which the issuer is charged an imputed mark-up for
services provided by the affiliated processor. The commenter asserted
that the proposed change would result in issuers that use affiliates
for transaction processing services reporting lower cost data than they
would have reported had they used an unaffiliated processor. The Board
will modify the instructions for Question 3 to allow affiliated
processor costs to be reported at the cost to the issuer, provided that
the cost to the issuer is determined in a way that is consistent with
fees that the affiliated processor would charge to an unaffiliated
debit card issuer.
One commenter suggested that international fraud losses be included
as part of reported fraud losses. The commenter noted that
international fraud losses are a material cost and are tied to domestic
debit cards. The Board notes that international fraud losses arise from
transactions that are outside the scope of Regulation II. As such,
international fraud losses are analogous to ATM fraud losses, which are
also not included. For these reasons, the survey will not be modified
to include international fraud losses.
General Instructions
The Board proposed to change the timing for conducting the calendar
year 2013 survey, making the survey available by February 3, 2014, with
responses due by March 17, 2014. Future surveys would revert to the
original schedule (mid-February to mid-April). Two commenters
recommended a 90-day completion period for the debit card issuer survey
to allow ample time for internal review before the surveys are
submitted to the Board.\4\ Given the potential need to expeditiously
adjust the Regulation II interchange fee standard, in the event the
Board does not prevail on appeal, the 2014 time frame will remain as
proposed; however, the time frame to compete future year surveys will
be increased to 90 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To enable the Board to collect and use updated data if
necessary to respond quickly to pending litigation regarding
Regulation II, the Board proposed to accelerate the schedule for
calendar year 2013 survey, making the survey available by February
3, 2014, with responses due by March 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment Card Network Survey (FR 3064b)
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section I: Respondent Information
Is your payment card network a single-message (PIN) or dual-message
(signature) network? The Board requested comment on a payment card
network's ability to process single-message transactions across dual-
message networks and vice versa. In addition, the Board requested
comment on how such transactions should be categorized. As mentioned
above, several commenters suggested that the Board not equate PIN
authentication with single-message networks and signature
authentication with dual-message networks in either survey. The
commenters suggested that the Board collect information solely on the
messaging system of the network (single-message or dual-message)
without regard to the methods by which transactions processed or routed
on that network may be authenticated. The Board concurs and the surveys
will continue to categorize debit card transactions as single- or dual-
message without the inference that all messages of a given type use the
same authentication method. In addition, the survey will collect
information from the network for each message type.
Section II: Debit Card Transactions
Small issuer exemption: Transactions using card of exempt vs. non-
exempt issuers--The Board proposed to revise this section by deleting
line item 1e.1 (Volume and Value), All settled purchase transactions
between January 1, 2011-September 30, 2011, because the timeframe is no
longer relevant. The Board did not receive any comments on this
section. This section will be implemented as proposed and subsequent
line items will be renumbered.
Transactions using card of exempt vs. non-exempt issuers (January
1, 2011-September 30, 2011)--The Board proposed to revise this section
by deleting line items 1f through 1f.2 as the timeframe is no longer
relevant. The Board did not receive any comments on this section. This
section will be implemented as proposed and subsequent line items will
be renumbered.
General-use prepaid card exemption: Exempt vs. non-exempt general-
use prepaid card transactions and General-use prepaid card exemption:
Interchange fees on exempt vs. non-exempt card transactions--The Board
proposed to revise line items 1g and 2i by requiring networks to
allocate volume, value, and interchange fee revenue for exempt general-
use prepaid card transactions between transactions using prepaid cards
issued by exempt (small) issuers (adding line items 1g.1.1 and 2i.1.1)
and transactions using prepaid cards issued by non-exempt issuers
(adding line items 1g.1.2. and 2i.1.2). Currently, payment card
networks are required to allocate volume and value of general-use
prepaid card transactions, and associated interchange fee revenue,
between exempt and non-exempt general-use prepaid card transactions and
interchange fees. Under Regulation II, a general-use prepaid card
transaction may be exempt from the interchange fee standards either
because the card is issued by an issuer that qualifies for the small
issuer exemption or because the card qualifies for the prepaid card
exemption, irrespective of the size of the issuer. The proposed break
out of these data would allow the Board to determine which type of
exemption applies to each exempt transaction, thus improving
interpretation of these data. The Board did not receive any comments on
this section. This section will be implemented as proposed.
Small issuer exemption: Interchange fees on transactions using card
of exempt vs. non-exempt issuers--The
[[Page 2662]]
Board proposed to revise this section by deleting line items 2g.1, All
interchange fees paid to issuers between January 1, 2011-September 30,
2011, as these timeframes are no longer relevant. The Board did not
receive any comments on this section. This section will be implemented
as proposed and subsequent line items will be renumbered.
Small issuer exemption: Network fees received from exempt vs. non-
exempt issuers--The Board proposed to revise this section by deleting
line items 3c.1, All network fees received from issuers that settled
between January 1, 2011-September 30, 2011, and line items 3d through
3d.2, as these timeframes are no longer relevant. The Board did not
receive any comments on this section. This section will be implemented
as proposed and subsequent line items will be renumbered.
Small issuer exemption: Payments and incentives paid to exempt vs.
non-exempt issuers--The Board proposed to revise this section by
deleting line items 4c.1, All payment and incentives paid to issuers
between January 1, 2011-September 30, 2011, and line items 4d through
4d.2, as these timeframes are no longer relevant. The Board did not
receive any comments on this section. This section will be implemented
as proposed and subsequent line items will be renumbered.
General Instructions
Response Confidentiality and Burden--The Board proposed to revise
the confidentiality statement to indicate that the Board may release
some information identified by network by total, or as an average: the
percent of total number and value of transactions for exempt and non-
exempt issuers; and the average transaction value for exempt, non-
exempt, and all issuers. To date, the Board has only published this
information in the aggregate across networks. One network commenter
expressed concern regarding the confidentiality of survey data, stating
that the Board's current justification does not constitute a public
policy rationale that justifies the publication of additional non-
public and proprietary data. This information can already be
approximated at the network level from the information the Board
currently releases on the network's average interchange fees. The
precise network-specific information may be useful to issuers (both
exempt and non-exempt) and merchants in choosing payment card networks
in which to participate and to policymakers in assessing the effect of
Regulation II on the level of interchange fees received by exempt and
non-exempt issuers over time. For example, the disclosure of the
percent of total number and value of transactions for exempt and non-
exempt issuers may assist exempt issuers in identifying networks that
may have operations focused on those issuers. For these reasons, the
revisions to the confidentiality statement will be implemented as
proposed.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 9,
2014.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-00489 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
