Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@ascott1

ascott1/gist:d0adf54f110e0fd681a5

Created September 30, 2014 09:46
Show Gist options

  • Select an option

    Learn more about clone URLs
  • Save ascott1/d0adf54f110e0fd681a5 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Learn more about clone URLs
Save ascott1/d0adf54f110e0fd681a5 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Raw
gistfile1.json
{
"abstract": "The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is amending subpart B of Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the official interpretation to the regulation (Remittance Rule). This final rule extends a temporary provision that permits insured institutions to estimate certain pricing disclosures pursuant to section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Absent further action by the Bureau, that exception would have expired on July 21, 2015. Based on a determination that the termination of the exception would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers, the Bureau is extending the temporary exception by five years from July 21, 2015, to July 21, 2020. The Bureau is also making several clarifications and technical corrections to the regulation and commentary.",
"action": "Final rule; official interpretation.",
"agency_names": [
"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"
],
"amendments": [
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"32",
"a",
"2"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"1",
"iv",
"B"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"33",
"c",
"2",
"iii"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"A",
"31"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"A",
"40"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"30",
"c",
"Interp",
"2",
"i"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"30",
"c",
"Interp",
"2",
"ii"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"30",
"g",
"Interp",
"1"
]
],
[
"POST",
[
"1005",
"30",
"g",
"Interp",
"2"
]
],
[
"POST",
[
"1005",
"30",
"g",
"Interp",
"3"
]
],
[
"POST",
[
"1005",
"31",
"a",
"2",
"Interp",
"5"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"31",
"a",
"3",
"Interp",
"1"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"31",
"a",
"3",
"Interp",
"2"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"4"
],
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"5"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"5"
],
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"6"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"6"
],
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"7"
]
],
[
"POST",
[
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"4"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"31",
"e",
"Interp",
"1"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"7"
],
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"8"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"8"
],
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"9"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"9"
],
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"10"
]
],
[
"MOVE",
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"10"
],
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"11"
]
],
[
"POST",
[
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"7"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"33",
"c",
"Interp",
"5"
]
],
[
"PUT",
[
"1005",
"33",
"c",
"Interp",
"12",
"i"
]
]
],
"cfr_parts": [
"1005"
],
"cfr_title": 12,
"changes": {
"1005-30-c-Interp-2-i": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"30",
"c",
"Interp",
"2",
"i"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "i. A remittance transfer is received at a location in a foreign country if funds are to be received at a location physically outside of any State, as defined in \u00a7 1005.2(l). A specific pick-up location need not be designated for funds to be received at a location in a foreign country. If it is specified that the funds will be transferred to a foreign country to be picked up by the designated recipient, the transfer will be received at a location in a foreign country, even though a specific pick-up location within that country has not been designated. If it is specified that the funds will be received at a location on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country, the transfer will be received in a State.",
"text": "i. A remittance transfer is received at a location in a foreign country if funds are to be received at a location physically outside of any State, as defined in \u00a7 1005.2(l). A specific pick-up location need not be designated for funds to be received at a location in a foreign country. If it is specified that the funds will be transferred to a foreign country to be picked up by the designated recipient, the transfer will be received at a location in a foreign country, even though a specific pick-up location within that country has not been designated. If it is specified that the funds will be received at a location on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country, the transfer will be received in a State.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-30-c-Interp-2-ii": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"30",
"c",
"Interp",
"2",
"ii"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "ii. For transfers to a designated recipient's account, whether funds are to be received at a location physically outside of any State depends on where the recipient's account is located. If the account is located in a State, the funds will not be received at a location in a foreign country. Accounts that are located on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country are located in a State.",
"text": "ii. For transfers to a designated recipient's account, whether funds are to be received at a location physically outside of any State depends on where the recipient's account is located. If the account is located in a State, the funds will not be received at a location in a foreign country. Accounts that are located on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country are located in a State.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-30-g-Interp-1": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"30",
"g",
"Interp",
"1"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "1.<E T=\"03\">Determining whether a consumer is located in a State.</E>Under \u00a7 1005.30(g), the definition of \u201csender\u201d means a consumer in a State who, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, requests a remittance transfer provider to send a remittance transfer to a designated recipient. A sender located on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country is located in a State. For transfers from a consumer's account, whether a consumer is located in a State depends on where the consumer's account is located. If the account is located in a State, the consumer will be located in a State for purposes of the definition of \u201csender\u201d in \u00a7 1005.30(g), notwithstanding comment 3(a)-3. Accounts that are located on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country are located in a State. Where a transfer is requested electronically or by telephone and the transfer is not from an account, the provider may make the determination of whether a consumer is located in a State based on information that is provided by the consumer and on any records associated with the consumer that the provider may have, such as an address provided by the consumer.",
"text": "1. Determining whether a consumer is located in a State. Under \u00a7 1005.30(g), the definition of \u201csender\u201d means a consumer in a State who, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, requests a remittance transfer provider to send a remittance transfer to a designated recipient. A sender located on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country is located in a State. For transfers from a consumer's account, whether a consumer is located in a State depends on where the consumer's account is located. If the account is located in a State, the consumer will be located in a State for purposes of the definition of \u201csender\u201d in \u00a7 1005.30(g), notwithstanding comment 3(a)-3. Accounts that are located on a U.S. military installation that is physically located in a foreign country are located in a State. Where a transfer is requested electronically or by telephone and the transfer is not from an account, the provider may make the determination of whether a consumer is located in a State based on information that is provided by the consumer and on any records associated with the consumer that the provider may have, such as an address provided by the consumer.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-30-g-Interp-2": [
{
"action": "POST",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"30",
"g",
"Interp",
"2"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "2.<E T=\"03\">Personal, family, or household purposes.</E>Under \u00a7 1005.30(g), a consumer is a \u201csender\u201d only where he or she requests a transfer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer who requests a transfer primarily for other purposes, such as business or commercial purposes, is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). For transfers from an account that was established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, a remittance transfer provider may generally deem that the transfer is requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and the consumer is therefore a \u201csender\u201d under \u00a7 1005.30(g). But if the consumer indicates that he or she is requesting the transfer primarily for other purposes, such as business or commercial purposes, then the consumer is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g), even if the consumer is requesting the transfer from an account that is used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.",
"text": "2. Personal, family, or household purposes. Under \u00a7 1005.30(g), a consumer is a \u201csender\u201d only where he or she requests a transfer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer who requests a transfer primarily for other purposes, such as business or commercial purposes, is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). For transfers from an account that was established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, a remittance transfer provider may generally deem that the transfer is requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and the consumer is therefore a \u201csender\u201d under \u00a7 1005.30(g). But if the consumer indicates that he or she is requesting the transfer primarily for other purposes, such as business or commercial purposes, then the consumer is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g), even if the consumer is requesting the transfer from an account that is used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-30-g-Interp-3": [
{
"action": "POST",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"30",
"g",
"Interp",
"3"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "3.<E T=\"03\">Non-consumer accounts.</E>A provider may deem that a transfer that is requested to be sent from an account that was not established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, such as an account that was established as a business or commercial account or an account held by a business entity such as a corporation, not-for-profit corporation, professional corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, as not being requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer requesting a transfer from such an account therefore is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). Additionally, a transfer that is requested to be sent from an account held by a financial institution under a<E T=\"03\">bona fide</E>trust agreement pursuant to \u00a7 1005.2(b)(3) is not requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and a consumer requesting a transfer from such an account is therefore not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g).",
"text": "3. Non-consumer accounts. A provider may deem that a transfer that is requested to be sent from an account that was not established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, such as an account that was established as a business or commercial account or an account held by a business entity such as a corporation, not-for-profit corporation, professional corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, as not being requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer requesting a transfer from such an account therefore is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). Additionally, a transfer that is requested to be sent from an account held by a financial institution under a bona fide trust agreement pursuant to \u00a7 1005.2(b)(3) is not requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and a consumer requesting a transfer from such an account is therefore not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g).",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-31-a-2-Interp-5": [
{
"action": "POST",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"31",
"a",
"2",
"Interp",
"5"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "5.<E T=\"03\">Disclosures provided by fax.</E>For purposes of disclosures required to be provided pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31 or \u00a7 1005.36, disclosures provided by facsimile transmission (<E T=\"03\">i.e.,</E>fax) are considered to be provided in writing for purposes of providing disclosures in writing pursuant to subpart B and are not subject to the requirements for electronic disclosures set forth in \u00a7 1005.31(a)(2).",
"text": "5. Disclosures provided by fax. For purposes of disclosures required to be provided pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31 or \u00a7 1005.36, disclosures provided by facsimile transmission (i.e., fax) are considered to be provided in writing for purposes of providing disclosures in writing pursuant to subpart B and are not subject to the requirements for electronic disclosures set forth in \u00a7 1005.31(a)(2).",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-31-a-3-Interp-1": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"31",
"a",
"3",
"Interp",
"1"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "1.<E T=\"03\">Transactions conducted partially by telephone.</E>Except as provided in comment 31(a)(3)-2, for transactions conducted partially by telephone, providing the information required by \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1) to a sender orally does not fulfill the requirement to provide the disclosures required by \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1). For example, a sender may begin a remittance transfer at a remittance transfer provider's dedicated telephone in a retail store, and then provide payment in person to a store clerk to complete the transaction. In such cases, all disclosures must be provided in writing. A provider complies with this requirement, for example, by providing the written pre-payment disclosure in person prior to the sender's payment for the transaction, and the written receipt when the sender pays for the transaction.",
"text": "1. Transactions conducted partially by telephone. Except as provided in comment 31(a)(3)-2, for transactions conducted partially by telephone, providing the information required by \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1) to a sender orally does not fulfill the requirement to provide the disclosures required by \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1). For example, a sender may begin a remittance transfer at a remittance transfer provider's dedicated telephone in a retail store, and then provide payment in person to a store clerk to complete the transaction. In such cases, all disclosures must be provided in writing. A provider complies with this requirement, for example, by providing the written pre-payment disclosure in person prior to the sender's payment for the transaction, and the written receipt when the sender pays for the transaction.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-31-a-3-Interp-2": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"31",
"a",
"3",
"Interp",
"2"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "2.<E T=\"03\">Oral telephone transactions.</E>Section 1005.31(a)(3) applies to transactions conducted orally and entirely by telephone, such as transactions conducted orally on a landline or mobile telephone. A remittance transfer provider may treat a written or electronic communication as an inquiry when it believes that treating the communication as a request would be impractical. For example, if a sender physically located abroad contacts a U.S. branch of the sender's financial institution and attempts to initiate a remittance transfer by first sending a mailed letter, further communication with the sender by letter may be impractical due to the physical distance and likely mail delays. In such circumstances, a provider may conduct the transaction orally and entirely by telephone pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(a)(3) when the provider treats that initial communication as an inquiry and subsequently responds to the consumer's inquiry by calling the consumer on a telephone and orally gathering or confirming the information needed to identify and understand a request for a remittance transfer and otherwise conducts the transaction orally and entirely by telephone.",
"text": "2. Oral telephone transactions. Section 1005.31(a)(3) applies to transactions conducted orally and entirely by telephone, such as transactions conducted orally on a landline or mobile telephone. A remittance transfer provider may treat a written or electronic communication as an inquiry when it believes that treating the communication as a request would be impractical. For example, if a sender physically located abroad contacts a U.S. branch of the sender's financial institution and attempts to initiate a remittance transfer by first sending a mailed letter, further communication with the sender by letter may be impractical due to the physical distance and likely mail delays. In such circumstances, a provider may conduct the transaction orally and entirely by telephone pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(a)(3) when the provider treats that initial communication as an inquiry and subsequently responds to the consumer's inquiry by calling the consumer on a telephone and orally gathering or confirming the information needed to identify and understand a request for a remittance transfer and otherwise conducts the transaction orally and entirely by telephone.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-31-b-2-Interp-4": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"5"
]
},
{
"action": "POST",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"4"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "4.<E T=\"03\">Web site of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.</E>Section 1005.31(b)(2)(vi) requires a remittance transfer provider to disclose the name, toll-free telephone number(s), and Web site of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Providers may satisfy this requirement by disclosing the Web site of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's homepage,<E T=\"03\">www.consumerfinance.gov,</E>as shown on Model Forms A-32, A-34, A-35, and A-39. Alternatively, providers may, but are not required to, disclose the Bureau's Web site as the address of a page on the Bureau's Web site that provides information for consumers about remittance transfers, currently,<E T=\"03\">consumerfinance.gov/sending-money</E>, as shown on Model Form A-31. In addition, providers making disclosures in a language other than English pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(g) may, but are not required to, disclose the Bureau's Web site as a page on the Bureau's Web site that provides information for consumers about remittance transfers in the relevant language, if such Web site exists. For example, a provider that is making disclosures in Spanish under \u00a7 1005.31(g) may, but is not required to, disclose the Bureau's Web site on Spanish-language disclosures as the page on the Bureau's Web site that provides information regarding remittance transfers in Spanish, currently<E T=\"03\">consumerfinance.gov/envios.</E>This optional disclosure is shown on Model A-40. The Bureau will publish a list of any other foreign language Web sites that provide information regarding remittance transfers.",
"text": "4. Web site of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Section 1005.31(b)(2)(vi) requires a remittance transfer provider to disclose the name, toll-free telephone number(s), and Web site of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Providers may satisfy this requirement by disclosing the Web site of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's homepage, www.consumerfinance.gov, as shown on Model Forms A-32, A-34, A-35, and A-39. Alternatively, providers may, but are not required to, disclose the Bureau's Web site as the address of a page on the Bureau's Web site that provides information for consumers about remittance transfers, currently, consumerfinance.gov/sending-money, as shown on Model Form A-31. In addition, providers making disclosures in a language other than English pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(g) may, but are not required to, disclose the Bureau's Web site as a page on the Bureau's Web site that provides information for consumers about remittance transfers in the relevant language, if such Web site exists. For example, a provider that is making disclosures in Spanish under \u00a7 1005.31(g) may, but is not required to, disclose the Bureau's Web site on Spanish-language disclosures as the page on the Bureau's Web site that provides information regarding remittance transfers in Spanish, currently consumerfinance.gov/envios. This optional disclosure is shown on Model A-40. The Bureau will publish a list of any other foreign language Web sites that provide information regarding remittance transfers.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-31-b-2-Interp-5": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"6"
]
}
],
"1005-31-b-2-Interp-6": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"31",
"b",
"2",
"Interp",
"7"
]
}
],
"1005-31-e-Interp-1": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"31",
"e",
"Interp",
"1"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "1.<E T=\"03\">Request to send a remittance transfer.</E>Except as provided in \u00a7 1005.36(a), pre-payment and combined disclosures are required to be provided to the sender when the sender requests the remittance transfer, but prior to payment for the transfer. Whether a consumer has requested a remittance transfer depends on the facts and circumstances. A sender that asks a provider to send a remittance transfer, and provides transaction-specific information to the provider in order to send funds to a designated recipient, has requested a remittance transfer. A sender that has sent an email, fax, mailed letter, or similar written or electronic communication has not requested a remittance transfer if the provider believes that it is impractical for the provider to treat that communication as a request and if the provider treats the communication as an inquiry and subsequently responds to that inquiry by calling the consumer on a telephone and orally gathering or confirming the information needed to process a request for a remittance transfer.<E T=\"03\">See</E>comment 31(a)(3)-2. Likewise, a consumer who solely inquires about that day's rates and fees to send to Mexico has not requested the provider to send a remittance transfer. Conversely, a sender who asks the provider at an agent location to send money to a recipient in Mexico and provides the sender and recipient information to the provider has requested a remittance transfer.",
"text": "1. Request to send a remittance transfer. Except as provided in \u00a7 1005.36(a), pre-payment and combined disclosures are required to be provided to the sender when the sender requests the remittance transfer, but prior to payment for the transfer. Whether a consumer has requested a remittance transfer depends on the facts and circumstances. A sender that asks a provider to send a remittance transfer, and provides transaction-specific information to the provider in order to send funds to a designated recipient, has requested a remittance transfer. A sender that has sent an email, fax, mailed letter, or similar written or electronic communication has not requested a remittance transfer if the provider believes that it is impractical for the provider to treat that communication as a request and if the provider treats the communication as an inquiry and subsequently responds to that inquiry by calling the consumer on a telephone and orally gathering or confirming the information needed to process a request for a remittance transfer. See comment 31(a)(3)-2. Likewise, a consumer who solely inquires about that day's rates and fees to send to Mexico has not requested the provider to send a remittance transfer. Conversely, a sender who asks the provider at an agent location to send money to a recipient in Mexico and provides the sender and recipient information to the provider has requested a remittance transfer.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-32-a-2": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"32",
"a",
"2"
],
"node_type": "regtext",
"tagged_text": "(2)<E T=\"03\">Sunset date.</E>Paragraph (a)(1) of this section expires on July 21, 2020.",
"text": "(2) Sunset date. Paragraph (a)(1) of this section expires on July 21, 2020.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-33-a-1-iv-B": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"1",
"iv",
"B"
],
"node_type": "regtext",
"tagged_text": "(B) Delays related to a necessary investigation or other special action by the remittance transfer provider or a third party as required by the provider's fraud screening procedures or in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5311<E T=\"03\">et seq.,</E>Office of Foreign Assets Control requirements, or similar laws or requirements;",
"text": "(B) Delays related to a necessary investigation or other special action by the remittance transfer provider or a third party as required by the provider's fraud screening procedures or in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq., Office of Foreign Assets Control requirements, or similar laws or requirements;",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-33-a-Interp-10": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"11"
]
}
],
"1005-33-a-Interp-7": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"8"
]
},
{
"action": "POST",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"7"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "7.<E T=\"03\">Failure to make funds available by disclosed date of availability\u2014fraud and other screening procedures.</E>Under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B), a remittance transfer provider's failure to deliver funds by the disclosed date of availability is not an error if such delay is related to the provider's or any third party's investigation necessary to address potentially suspicious, blocked or prohibited activity, and the provider did not and could not have reasonably foreseen the delay so as to enable it to timely disclose an accurate date of availability when providing the sender with a receipt or combined disclosure. For example, no error occurs if delivery of funds is delayed because, after the receipt is provided, the provider's fraud screening system flags a remittance transfer because the designated recipient has a name similar to the name of a blocked person under a sanctions program and further investigation is needed to determine that the designated recipient is not actually a blocked person. Similarly, no error occurs where, after disclosing a date of availability to the sender, a remittance transfer provider receives specific law enforcement information indicating that the characteristics of a remittance transfer match a pattern of fraudulent activity, and as a result, the provider deems it necessary to delay delivery of the funds to allow for further investigation. However, if a delay could have been reasonably foreseen, the exception in \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B) would not apply. For example, if a provider knows in time to make a disclosure that all remittance transfers to a certain geographic area must undergo screening procedures that routinely delay such transfers by two days, the provider's failure to include the additional two days in its disclosure of the date of availability constitutes an error if delivery of the funds is indeed delayed beyond the disclosed date of availability.",
"text": "7. Failure to make funds available by disclosed date of availability\u2014fraud and other screening procedures. Under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B), a remittance transfer provider's failure to deliver funds by the disclosed date of availability is not an error if such delay is related to the provider's or any third party's investigation necessary to address potentially suspicious, blocked or prohibited activity, and the provider did not and could not have reasonably foreseen the delay so as to enable it to timely disclose an accurate date of availability when providing the sender with a receipt or combined disclosure. For example, no error occurs if delivery of funds is delayed because, after the receipt is provided, the provider's fraud screening system flags a remittance transfer because the designated recipient has a name similar to the name of a blocked person under a sanctions program and further investigation is needed to determine that the designated recipient is not actually a blocked person. Similarly, no error occurs where, after disclosing a date of availability to the sender, a remittance transfer provider receives specific law enforcement information indicating that the characteristics of a remittance transfer match a pattern of fraudulent activity, and as a result, the provider deems it necessary to delay delivery of the funds to allow for further investigation. However, if a delay could have been reasonably foreseen, the exception in \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B) would not apply. For example, if a provider knows in time to make a disclosure that all remittance transfers to a certain geographic area must undergo screening procedures that routinely delay such transfers by two days, the provider's failure to include the additional two days in its disclosure of the date of availability constitutes an error if delivery of the funds is indeed delayed beyond the disclosed date of availability.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-33-a-Interp-8": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"9"
]
}
],
"1005-33-a-Interp-9": [
{
"action": "MOVE",
"destination": [
"1005",
"33",
"a",
"Interp",
"10"
]
}
],
"1005-33-c-2-iii": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"33",
"c",
"2",
"iii"
],
"node_type": "regtext",
"tagged_text": "(iii) In the case of an error under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section that occurred because the sender provided incorrect or insufficient information in connection with the remittance transfer, the remittance transfer provider shall provide the remedies required by paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A)(<E T=\"03\">1</E>) and (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section within three business days of providing the report required by paragraph (c)(1) or (d)(1) of this section except that the provider may agree to the sender's request, upon receiving the results of the error investigation, that the funds be applied towards a new remittance transfer, rather than be refunded, if the provider has not yet processed a refund. The provider may deduct from the amount refunded or applied towards a new transfer any fees actually imposed on or, to the extent not prohibited by law, taxes actually collected on the remittance transfer as part of the first unsuccessful remittance transfer attempt except that the provider shall not deduct its own fee.",
"text": "(iii) In the case of an error under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section that occurred because the sender provided incorrect or insufficient information in connection with the remittance transfer, the remittance transfer provider shall provide the remedies required by paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section within three business days of providing the report required by paragraph (c)(1) or (d)(1) of this section except that the provider may agree to the sender's request, upon receiving the results of the error investigation, that the funds be applied towards a new remittance transfer, rather than be refunded, if the provider has not yet processed a refund. The provider may deduct from the amount refunded or applied towards a new transfer any fees actually imposed on or, to the extent not prohibited by law, taxes actually collected on the remittance transfer as part of the first unsuccessful remittance transfer attempt except that the provider shall not deduct its own fee.",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-33-c-Interp-12-i": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"33",
"c",
"Interp",
"12",
"i"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "i. A sender instructs a remittance transfer provider to send US$100 to a designated recipient in local currency, for which the provider charges a transfer fee of US$10 (and thus the sender pays the provider $110). The provider's correspondent imposes a fee of US$15 that it deducts from the amount of the transfer. The sender provides incorrect or insufficient information that results in non-delivery of the remittance transfer as requested. Once the provider determines that an error occurred because the sender provided incorrect or insufficient information, the provider must provide the report required by \u00a7 1005.33(c)(1) or (d)(1) and inform the sender, pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(c)(1) or (d)(1), that it will refund US$95 to the sender within three business days, unless the sender chooses to apply the US$95 towards a new remittance transfer and the provider agrees. Of the $95 that is refunded to the sender, $10 reflects the refund of the provider's transfer fee, and $85 reflects the refund of the amount of funds provided by the sender in connection with the transfer which was not properly transmitted. The provider is not required to refund the US$15 fee imposed by the correspondent (unless the $15 will be refunded to the provider by the correspondent).",
"text": "i. A sender instructs a remittance transfer provider to send US$100 to a designated recipient in local currency, for which the provider charges a transfer fee of US$10 (and thus the sender pays the provider $110). The provider's correspondent imposes a fee of US$15 that it deducts from the amount of the transfer. The sender provides incorrect or insufficient information that results in non-delivery of the remittance transfer as requested. Once the provider determines that an error occurred because the sender provided incorrect or insufficient information, the provider must provide the report required by \u00a7 1005.33(c)(1) or (d)(1) and inform the sender, pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(c)(1) or (d)(1), that it will refund US$95 to the sender within three business days, unless the sender chooses to apply the US$95 towards a new remittance transfer and the provider agrees. Of the $95 that is refunded to the sender, $10 reflects the refund of the provider's transfer fee, and $85 reflects the refund of the amount of funds provided by the sender in connection with the transfer which was not properly transmitted. The provider is not required to refund the US$15 fee imposed by the correspondent (unless the $15 will be refunded to the provider by the correspondent).",
"title": null
}
}
],
"1005-33-c-Interp-5": [
{
"action": "PUT",
"node": {
"child_labels": [],
"label": [
"1005",
"33",
"c",
"Interp",
"5"
],
"node_type": "interp",
"tagged_text": "5.<E T=\"03\">Amount appropriate to resolve the error.</E>For purposes of the remedies set forth in \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(i)(A), (c)(2)(i)(B), (c)(2)(ii)(A)(<E T=\"03\">1</E>), and (c)(2)(i)(A)(<E T=\"03\">2</E>) the amount appropriate to resolve the error is the specific amount of transferred funds that should have been received if the remittance transfer had been effected without error. The amount appropriate to resolve the error does not include consequential damages. For example, when the amount that was disclosed pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1)(vii) was received by the designated recipient before the provider must determine the appropriate remedy for an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv), no additional amounts are required to resolve the error after the remittance transfer provider refunds the appropriate fees and taxes paid by the sender pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(B) or (c)(2)(iii), as applicable.",
"text": "5. Amount appropriate to resolve the error. For purposes of the remedies set forth in \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(i)(A), (c)(2)(i)(B), (c)(2)(ii)(A)(1), and (c)(2)(i)(A)(2) the amount appropriate to resolve the error is the specific amount of transferred funds that should have been received if the remittance transfer had been effected without error. The amount appropriate to resolve the error does not include consequential damages. For example, when the amount that was disclosed pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1)(vii) was received by the designated recipient before the provider must determine the appropriate remedy for an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv), no additional amounts are required to resolve the error after the remittance transfer provider refunds the appropriate fees and taxes paid by the sender pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(B) or (c)(2)(iii), as applicable.",
"title": null
}
}
]
},
"contact": "Jane G. Raso and Shiri Wolf, Counsels; Eric Goldberg, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700 or",
"document_number": "2014-20681",
"effective_on": "2014-11-17",
"footnotes": {
"1": "Public Law 111-203 was signed into law on July 21, 2010. Between February 2012 and August 2013, the Bureau issued several final rules concerning remittance transfers pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act (collectively, the 2013 Final Rule or the Remittance Rule). The Remittance Rule took effect on October 28, 2013.",
"10": "In August 2013, the Bureau adopted a clarification and a technical correction to the Remittance Rule. 78 FR 49365 (Aug. 14, 2013).",
"11": "The comments submitted regarding this proposed rule are <em data-original=\"E-03\">available at https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-01606.</em>",
"12": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/remittances-transfer-rule-amendment-to-regulation-e/.</em>",
"13": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/category/remittances/.</em>",
"14": "The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number for this information collection is 3170-0032.",
"15": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Request for Approval under the Generic Clearance: Compliance Costs and Other Effects of Regulation, <em data-original=\"E-03\">available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201205-3170-003&amp;icID=209232.</em>",
"16": "Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) wrote a no-action letter on December 14, 2012, that concludes it will not recommend enforcement actions to the SEC under Regulation E if a broker-dealer provides disclosures as though the broker-dealer were an insured institution for purposes of the temporary exception. The letter is <em data-original=\"E-03\">available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/2012/financial-information-forum-121412-rege.pdf.</em>",
"17": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">See generally http://www.ncua.gov/dataapps/qcallrptdata/Pages/default.aspx</em>.",
"18": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> 79 FR 2509 (Jan. 14, 2014); FDIC Financial Institution Letter FIL 4-2014.",
"19": "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999 section 2, comment 6 (2000), <em data-original=\"E-03\">available at http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/electronic%20transactions/ueta_final_99.pdf.</em>",
"2": "The remittance transfer data collected for the period beginning on January 1, 2014 and ending on March 31, 2014, is the first quarter in which data related to remittance transfers was collected as part of the FFIEC Call Report; the specific questions and responses are discussed below. The data for this one quarter is the only FFIEC Call Report data available to the Bureau for review and analysis. The Bureau has some concerns about some of the responses and has noted those concerns where relevant in this <em data-original=\"E-04\">Federal Register</em> notice. The Bureau expects to continue to monitor responses to future FFIEC Call Reports to questions related to remittance transfers in the FFIEC Call Report.",
"20": "At the time of the April Proposal, the additional URLs had not \u201cgone live.\u201d Since the April Proposal, the Bureau published the additional URLs, as well as pages containing the same information in Vietnamese, Mandarin, Korean, Tagalog, Russian, Arabic, and Haitian Creole. The pages contain information regarding consumers' rights under the Remittance Rule, how consumers can use the receipts that they receive from providers, and how and when to lodge a complaint with the Bureau.",
"21": "The Bureau understands that broker-dealers may also rely on the temporary exception because a SEC no-action letter concluded that the SEC staff would not recommend enforcement action to the SEC under Regulation E if a broker-dealer provides disclosures as if the broker-dealer were an insured institution for purposes of the temporary exception. The letter is <em data-original=\"E-03\">available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/2012/financial-information-forum-121412-rege.pdf.</em>",
"22": "The Bureau provided a detailed discussion of the reasons that lead to it making the preliminary determination that the termination of the temporary exception on July 21, 2015, would have a negative impact on the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See generally</em> 79 FR 23234 (April 25, 2014).",
"23": "In the April Proposal, the Bureau stated that a particular institution may use one information aggregator to provide it with the covered third-party fee information, and another to provide it with the exchange rate information. 79 FR 23245 (Apr. 25, 2014). The Bureau also stated that it found that an insured institution that uses an information aggregator must generally also use that aggregator to help process the remittance transfer. <em data-original=\"E-03\">Id.</em>",
"24": "Nostro accounts are accounts established by U.S. institutions with foreign banks, and funds in the accounts are funds in the account are typically denominated in the currency of that country. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> 79 FR at 23245 (Apr. 25, 2014).",
"25": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> 77 FR 6257 (Feb. 7, 2012); 78 FR 6025 (Jan. 29, 2013).",
"26": "One large bank commenter suggested that the Bureau clarify current comment 33(c)(12)-i by revising it to add the remittance transfer provider's fee to the total refund amount. The Bureau believes that the technical correction to comment 33(c)-12.i addresses the commenter's concern.",
"27": "Section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau, when prescribing a rule under the Federal consumer financial laws, to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial products or services; the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact on consumers in rural areas.",
"28": "The Bureau also solicited feedback from other agencies with supervisory and enforcement authority regarding Regulation E and the Remittance Rule.",
"29": "As noted above in the Section-by-Section Analysis, the temporary exception does not apply to broker-dealers. However, SEC staff issued a no-action letter in December 2012 stating that it will not recommend an enforcement action under Regulation E against broker-dealers that provide disclosures consistent with the requirements of the temporary exception. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/2012/financial-information-forum-121412-rege.pdf.</em>",
"3": "The Bureau's analysis determined 691 depository institutions identified themselves as remittance transfer providers, and 680 of the said 691 institutions reported that they provide wire transfer services during the first quarter of 2014. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See generally</em> FFIEC Call Report data in response to the March 2014 Call Report, <em data-original=\"E-03\">available at https://cdr.ffiec.gov/public/.</em>",
"30": "Prior to the adoption of this final rule, \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii), as clarified by current comment 33(c)-12, already prohibited remittance transfer providers from deducting their own fees from the amount refunded to a sender or applied to a new transfer in the case of an error pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) because the sender provided incorrect or insufficient information in connection with the transfer.",
"31": "5 U.S.C. 601, <em data-original=\"E-03\">et seq.</em> The Bureau is not aware of any small governmental units or not-for-profit organizations to which the proposal would apply.",
"32": "5 U.S.C. 601(3) (the Bureau may establish an alternative definition after consultation with the Small Business Administration and an opportunity for public comment).",
"33": "5 U.S.C. 603-605.",
"34": "5 U.S.C. 609.",
"35": "For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, \u201csmall entities\u201d is defined in the RFA to include small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small government jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). A \u201csmall business\u201d is determined by application of Small Business Administration regulations and reference to the North American Industry Classification System (\u201cNAICS\u201d) classifications and size standards. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A \u201csmall organization\u201d is any \u201cnot-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.\u201d 5 U.S.C. 601(4). A \u201csmall governmental jurisdiction\u201d is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(5).",
"36": "The definition of \u201cremittance transfer provider\u201d includes a safe harbor under which a person who provided 100 or fewer remittance transfers in the previous calendar year and provides 100 or fewer such transfers in the current calendar year, it is deemed not to be providing remittance transfers for a consumer in the normal course of its business, and is thus not a remittance transfer provider. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> &#167; 1005.30(f)(2).",
"37": "Small Bus. Admin., Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, <em data-original=\"E-03\">http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf</em>. Under what were the relevant size standards in place when the Bureau issued the April Proposal, the thresholds were $500 million for insured depository institutions and credit unions, and $19 million for non-depository institutions that are remittance transfer providers. The SBA increased the threshold from $500 to $550 million for insured depository institutions and credit unions, and from $19 million to $20.5 million for non-depository institutions remittance transfer providers, but the adjustments do not does not change the Bureau's analysis. The Bureau adopts NAICS code 522390 (&#8220;Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation&#8221;) as the most relevant code for remittance transfer providers that are not depository institutions. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> 79 FR 33647 (June 12, 2014).",
"38": "Many State-licensed money transmitters act through agents. However, the Remittance Rule applies to remittance transfer providers and explains, in official commentary, that a person is not deemed to be acting as a provider when it performs activities as an agent on behalf of a provider. Comment 30(f)-1. Furthermore, for the purpose of this analysis, the Bureau assumes that providers, and not their agents, will assume any costs associated with implementing the modifications.",
"4": "Although the FFIEC Call Report covered the period from January 1 through March 31, 2014, this question, concerning the volume of transfers sent, asked about the period October 28 through December 31, 2013. (The remittance rule went into effect on October 28, 2013.)",
"5": "Pursuant to the Remittance Rule, transfers of $15 or less are not considered remittance transfers under the rule. Accordingly, although the FFIEC Call Report notes a very low median transaction amount for remittance transfers (approximately $9), the Bureau believes that the typical size of the transfers sent by depository institutions and credit unions is a larger number.",
"6": "The Bureau lacks data on remittance transfers sent by broker-dealers.",
"7": "The Bureau created two additional permanent exceptions by regulation in \u00a7 1005.32(b)(2) and (b)(3). They are discussed below.",
"8": "<em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> 78 FR 66251 (Nov. 5, 2013). The list, which is also maintained on the Bureau's Web site, contains countries whose laws the Bureau believes prevent remittance transfer providers from determining, at the time the required disclosures must be provided, the exact exchange rate for a transfer involving a currency exchange. However, if the provider has information that a country's laws or the method by which transactions are conducted in that country permit a determination of the exact disclosure amount, the provider may not rely on the Bureau's list. When the Bureau first issued the list of such countries on September 26, 2012, the Bureau stated that the list is subject to change, and invited the public to suggest additional countries to add to the list. The Bureau continues to accept suggestions on potential changes to this list and analyzes those suggestions as they are received.",
"9": "On July 10, 2012, the Bureau published a technical correction to the Remittance Rule. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> 77 FR 40459 (Jul. 10, 2012)."
},
"fr_citation": "79 FR 55970",
"fr_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/18/2014-20681/no-title-available",
"fr_volume": 79,
"initial_effective_on": "2014-11-17",
"publication_date": "2014-09-18",
"regulation_id_numbers": [
"3170-AA45"
],
"section_by_section": [
{
"children": [
{
"children": [
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"page": 55976,
"paragraphs": [
"As noted in the April Proposal, the Remittance Rule applies when a sender located in a \u201cState\u201d sends funds to a designated recipient at a location in a \u201cforeign country.\u201d <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> &#167; 1005.30(c) and (g). Further, the Rule specifies that in the context of transfers to or from an account, the Rule's application depends on the location of the account rather than the account owner's physical location at the time of transfer. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> comments 30(c)-2.ii and 30(g). The Rule does not, however, specifically address the status of a transfer that is sent to or from a U.S. military installation located in a foreign country, nor does the definition of &#8220;State&#8221; in subpart A of Regulation E (&#167; 1005.2(l)) directly address the definition's application to a U.S. military installation.",
"In the April Proposal, the Bureau recognized that the Remittance Rule's application to transfers sent to and from U.S. military installations located abroad could, in some cases, lead to confusion. Specifically, the Bureau had received inquiries about whether U.S. military installations located abroad should be treated as located in a State or in a foreign country. The Bureau noted that application of the Remittance Rule might also differ depending on whether the transfer was sent to or from a depository institution account or would be picked up by the recipient at a location on the military installation. For example, there could be confusion as to whether the Remittance Rule applies when a consumer in the United States sends a cash transfer to be picked up by a recipient at a financial institution (not into the recipient's account) on a U.S. military base in a foreign country. Depending on whether the financial institution is deemed to be at a location in a \u201cforeign country\u201d or a \u201cState,\u201d the Remittance Rule may or may not apply. There might also be confusion about whether a cash transfer from a consumer on a foreign military installation to a recipient in the surrounding country would be subject to the rule, again depending on whether the foreign military installation is deemed to be in a \u201cState.\u201d",
"The Bureau noted in the April Proposal, however, that the application of the Remittance Rule could be different for transfers from accounts of persons located on U.S. military installations abroad. When a transfer is made from such an account, whether the sender is located in a State is determined by the location of the sender's account rather than the physical location of the sender at the time of the transaction. Similarly, whether or not the Remittance Rule applies to transfers from the United States to accounts of different persons stationed at U.S. military installations abroad could differ, depending on the locations of those recipients' accounts. Thus, there may also be confusion as to whether the Remittance Rule applies when a transfer is sent from an account in the United States to an account located at a U.S. military installation abroad, to the extent such accounts exist.",
"In light of the complexity of these issues, the Bureau sought comment on whether it would be advisable to provide further clarity on this point and also sought data regarding these issues. The Bureau acknowledged in the April Proposal that it did not then have sufficient information or data to make a determination regarding whether the Remittance Rule should (or should not) treat foreign military installations as \u201cStates\u201d for purposes of the Remittance Rule, both in the context of transfers received in cash and in the context of transfers sent to or from an account that is located on a military installation. Accordingly, the Bureau sought data on the relative number of transfers sent to and from individuals and/or accounts located on U.S. military installations in foreign countries. In addition, the Bureau sought comment on the appropriateness of extending any clarification regarding U.S. military installations to other U.S. government installations abroad, such as U.S. diplomatic missions.",
"The Bureau received several comments on this issue. While a small number of commenters reported on the number of transfers they send to overseas military installations, commenters did not provide data on the relative number of transfers sent to and from such installations. The vast majority of commenters, however, recommended that the Bureau treat U.S. military installations abroad as located \u201con U.S. soil,\u201d and therefore exempt transfers sent to such installations from the Remittance Rule. Commenters favoring this approach provided various rationales. Several commenters, including a large bank, a community bank, and a State trade association, recommended exempting remittance transfers to U.S. military installations abroad from the Rule. They stated that such transfers present lower risks to consumers than remittance transfers sent from the United States to other foreign locations, because transfers involving U.S. military installations are generally sent to and from U.S. financial institutions, in U.S. dollars, using U.S. payment systems (thus subject to the rules of those systems). They further argued that such transfers do not involve fluctuating exchange rates, and will likely be subject to U.S. consumer protection laws (insofar as the recipient institution is a U.S. financial institution).",
"Other commenters, including community banks, large banks, credit unions, and trade associations, noted that other statutory and regulatory regimes currently treat U.S. military installations located abroad as located in the United States. For example, a large bank noted that deposits in foreign branches of U.S. financial institutions that are located on a U.S. military installation and governed by Department of Defense regulations are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, while deposits in foreign branches that are not located on such installations are not. A national trade association and a federal credit union similarly noted that the U.S. Postal Service treats mail sent from the United States to U.S. military installations overseas as domestic mail. Several other commenters, including a number of credit unions, urged the Bureau to exempt transfers to U.S. military installations abroad because, they claimed, many remittance transfer providers were already treating such installations as located on \u201cU.S. soil.\u201d",
"A few commenters did not support treating U.S. military installations as \u201cStates\u201d for purposes of the Remittance Rule. One consumer group argued that the Bureau should treat military installations abroad as located in a foreign country because individuals who send remittance transfers to family members stationed abroad should receive the protections of the Remittance Rule. Other commenters, including a group of national trade associations, noted that any solution that applied exclusively to military installations would pose logistical challenges, because it may be difficult to determine whether a recipient or a recipient's account is located on a military installation. These commenters were either silent about how the Bureau should resolve the issue of money transfers to U.S. military installations or advocated that the Bureau maintain the status quo.",
"Based on its review of the comments received and its own analysis of this issue, the Bureau is persuaded, for the reasons discussed below, that transfers to individuals and accounts located on U.S. military installations located abroad, as well as transfers from individuals and their accounts located on U.S. military installations abroad to designated recipients in the United States, should be excluded from the Remittance Rule's application. Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing revisions to the commentary to the definitions of \u201cdesignated recipient\u201d (\u00a7 1005.30(c)) and \u201csender\u201d (\u00a7 1005.30(g)). These revisions clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a transfer qualifies as a \u201cremittance transfer\u201d under the Rule, persons or accounts that are located on a U.S. military installation abroad are considered to be located in a State. Pursuant to these revisions, revised comment 30(c)-2.i explains that funds that will be received at a location on a U.S. military installation that is physically located abroad are received in a State, and revised comment 30(c)-2.ii explains that, for transfers that are sent to a recipient's account, an account that is located on a U.S. military installation abroad is considered to be located in a State. As revised, comment 30(g)-1 now explains that senders or senders' accounts that are located on U.S. military installations that are physically located abroad are located in a State for purposes of subpart B.",
"The Bureau believes this approach provides clarity without undermining the important consumer protections provided by the Remittance Rule. The Bureau agrees with the majority of commenters that transfers from the United States to a U.S. military installation located abroad share many of the characteristics of domestic transfers, and as such harbor less risk for consumers than a typical remittance transfer. In sum, while the Bureau agrees that servicemembers and their families deserve to receive the same consumer protections that are available to all other consumers, the Bureau agrees with those commenters who asserted that the consumer protection concerns associated with transfers sent to locations in a foreign country generally do not apply to transfers sent to U.S. military installations abroad. Meanwhile, the Bureau notes that transfers from locations on U.S. military installations abroad to recipients in foreign countries may, in many circumstances, qualify as remittance transfers. Unlike the quasi-domestic nature of transfers to the U.S. military installations abroad, transfers from those installations to foreign countries are typically sent without the protection of laws and rules in place for domestic transfers and are more likely to be involve a foreign currency exchange. The Bureau will continue to monitor, through its complaint intake processes and other channels, whether particular concerns arise with respect to transfers involving U.S. military installations abroad.",
"The Bureau declines to adopt the bright-line test proposed by one money transmitter commenter that would have allowed remittance transfer providers to determine an account's location by looking at whether the account was held with a United States or a foreign financial institution. The Bureau believes that such a rule would be over-broad in that it would exclude transfers that are sent to accounts located in foreign branches of U.S. financial institutions, of which the Bureau believes there are many. Such transfers, with the limited exception of transfers to foreign branches located on U.S. military installations abroad, as discussed above, currently qualify as remittance transfers under the Rule, and the Bureau did not intend to change this result when it proposed to clarify the treatment of U.S. military installations.",
"The Bureau acknowledges that, as noted by a few commenters, there may be some scenarios in which it is impossible for the remittance transfer provider to know that the transfer will be sent to a location or account located on a U.S. military installation. The Bureau notes, however, that such scenarios already exist regardless of whether the transfer involves a U.S. military installation located abroad; indeed, the Bureau has previously addressed these scenarios in existing comment 30(c)-2.iii, which explains that, where a sender does not specify information about a designated recipient's account, a provider may make the determination of whether funds will received in a foreign country based on \u201cother information.\u201d Thus, those providers who currently make a determination about the location of a recipient or a recipient's account by, for example, looking at the routing number and address of the branch of the financial institution receiving the transfer, can continue to do so; the revised commentary merely provides that where they have specific information that the account is located on a U.S. military installation, they can treat the account as located in a State, notwithstanding any information to the contrary derived from the account's routing number.",
"Finally, the Bureau is not finalizing a provision that would address the application of the Remittance Rule to other U.S. government installations abroad. The Bureau did not receive any comments indicating that there is actual or potential confusion with respect to the Remittance Rule's application to non-military U.S. installations located in foreign countries."
],
"title": "Application of the Remittance Rule to U.S. Military Installations Abroad"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"page": 55978,
"paragraphs": [
"Section 1005.30(g) provides that a \u201csender\u201d under subpart B of Regulation E means a consumer in a State who primarily for personal, family, or household purposes requests a remittance transfer provider to send a remittance transfer to a designated recipient. Together with the definition of \u201cremittance transfer\u201d in \u00a7 1005.30(e), this means that for the Remittance Rule to apply to an electronic transfer of funds, the transfer must have been requested by a consumer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.",
"In response to certain questions about how to determine whether the Remittance Rule applies to transfers sent from an account that is not an account for the purposes of Regulation E, such as a business account, the Bureau proposed to add comment 30(g)-2 to explain that a consumer is a \u201csender\u201d only if the consumer requests a transfer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The proposed comment would have also explained that for transfers from an account, the primary purpose for which the account was established determines whether a transfer from that account is requested for personal, family, or household purposes. Accordingly, under the proposed clarification, a transfer is not requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes if it is sent from an account that was not established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, such as an account that was established as a business or commercial account or an account held by a business entity such as a corporation, not-for-profit corporation, professional corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, and a person requesting a transfer from such an account therefore is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). Having reviewed the comments received and for the reasons set forth below, the Bureau is adopting comment 30(g)-2 with the modifications explained below.",
"One of the two consumer group commenters supported this aspect of the April Proposal. Industry commenters generally supported clarifying that the Remittance Rule does not apply to transfers sent from business accounts. Several trade association commenters also supported the change but noted that some financial institutions may re-code accounts that were initially set up as consumer accounts as business accounts, based on the way an accountholder uses the account. The trade association commenters asserted that the Bureau should clarify that financial institutions could rely on the way the account is identified in their records at the time the transfer is requested to determine whether the transfer is made for personal, family, or household purposes. One large money transmitter commenter expressed concern about proposed comment 30(g)-2, because it interpreted the proposed comment to mean that a remittance transfer provider must apply the Remittance Rule to any transfer from a consumer account, even if the customer indicates that the transfer is for a business purpose. The commenter asserted that this interpretation would result in compliance burden for some money transmitters. It explained that it offers customers the ability to send transfers from accounts, but because it does not hold the accounts, it does not know whether those accounts are consumer or non-consumer accounts. Therefore, it relies on the purpose of a transfer, as indicated by its customer, to determine if the transfer is a remittance transfer for purposes of the Rule. A large bank commenter requested that the Bureau adopt additional commentary to clarify that the Remittance Rule does not apply to transfers from accounts held by a financial institution under a <em data-original=\"E-03\">bona fide</em> trust agreement because those accounts do not meet the definition of &#8220;account&#8221; under the general provisions of Regulation E.",
"The Bureau has considered the comments and, for reasons discussed in more detail below, is adopting as proposed the aspect of proposed comment 30(g)-2 that would have explained the definition of a \u201csender.\u201d The Bureau is also adding new comment 30(g)-3, in which it is adopting the aspect of proposed comment 30(g)-2 that would have explained that a transfer sent from a non-consumer account is not requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and therefore a consumer requesting a transfer from such an account is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g).",
"Additionally, the Bureau is explaining in comment 30(g)-3 that a transfer from an account held by a financial institution under a <em data-original=\"E-03\">bona fide</em> trust agreement is also not requested for personal, family, or household purposes, and therefore a consumer requesting a transfer from such an account is not a sender under &#167; 1005.30(g). Section 1005.2(b)(3) provides that the term &#8220;account&#8221; in Regulation E does not include an account held by a financial institution under a <em data-original=\"E-03\">bona fide</em> trust agreement. The Bureau believes that adding this clarification to comment 30(g)-3 is consistent with the Bureau's intent to clarify that insofar as a transfer is sent from an account, the Remittance Rule only applies to transfers from accounts that fall within the definition of &#8220;account&#8221; under the general provisions of Regulation E.",
"The Bureau is not adopting the aspect of the proposed comment 30(g)-2 that would have explained that the primary purpose for which the account was established determines whether a transfer from that account is for personal, family, or household purposes. Upon further consideration, the Bureau believes that this aspect of the proposed comment could have been interpreted to mean that a provider would have to apply the Remittance Rule to all transfers from a consumer account, even in situations in which the sender indicates that the primary purpose of the transfer is a non-consumer purpose. Although the Bureau continues to believes that a provider should be able to rely on the primary purpose for which the account was established to determine whether a transfer from that account is for personal, family, or household purposes, the Bureau believes that applying the Rule to all transfers from a consumer account, even in situations in which the sender indicates that the primary purpose of the transfer is a non-consumer purpose, would be in tension with the definition of a \u201csender.\u201d The Bureau is also concerned that such a bright-line test could cause compliance burden, as suggested above by a large money transmitter, if required in all cases. The Bureau further believes that it is appropriate to draw a clear line with respect to the applicability of the Remittance Rule to transfers sent from accounts that were not established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes for providers who have access to that information. \n ",
"Accordingly, as adopted, comment 30(g)-2 explains that a consumer is a \u201csender\u201d only where he or she requests a transfer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and that a consumer who requests a transfer primarily for other purposes, such as business or commercial purposes, is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). It further explains that if a consumer requests a transfer from an account that was established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, then a remittance transfer provider may generally deem that the transfer is requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and the consumer is therefore a \u201csender\u201d under \u00a7 1005.30(g). However, if the consumer indicates that he or she is requesting the transfer primarily for other purposes, such as business or commercial purposes, then the provider may deem the consumer not to be a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g), even if the consumer is requesting the transfer from an account that is used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.",
"Comment 30(g)-3 explains that a provider may deem that a transfer that is requested to be sent from an account that was not established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, such as an account that was established as a business or commercial account or an account held by a business entity such as a corporation, not-for-profit corporation, professional corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, as not being requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer requesting a transfer be sent from such an account therefore is not a sender under \u00a7 1005.30(g). The comment also explains that a transfer that is sent from an account held by a financial institution under a <em data-original=\"E-03\">bona fide</em> trust agreement pursuant to &#167; 1005.2(b)(3) is not requested primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and a consumer requesting a transfer from such an account therefore is not a sender under &#167; 1005.30(g).",
"Lastly, as discussed above, several trade association commenters suggested that the Bureau adopt guidance that would permit a financial institution to rely on the way an account is identified in its records at the time the transfer is requested (rather than when the account was established) to determine whether the transfer is made primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The Bureau is not adopting this recommendation. The Bureau proposed comment 30(g)-2 to provide additional clarification that transfers from accounts that do not meet the definition of \u201caccount\u201d under the general provisions of Regulation E are not subject to the Remittance Rule. Pursuant to \u00a7 1005.2(b)(1), an account at a financial institution is an \u201caccount\u201d for purposes of Regulation E if it was \u201c <em data-original=\"E-03\">established</em> primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.&#8221; (Emphasis added.) In other words, the primary purpose for which an account was established determines whether the account is an &#8220;account&#8221; for purposes of Regulation E. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that adopting this suggestion would be inconsistent with &#167; 1005.2(b)(1), which is a long-standing part of Regulation E. Insofar as commenters did not suggest why accounts should be treated differently for purposes of subpart B of Regulation E, the Bureau is not adopting this suggestion."
],
"title": "Non-Consumer Accounts"
}
],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-30-c",
"1005-30-g"
],
"page": 55976,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "1005.30(c) Designated Recipient & 1005.30(g) Sender"
}
],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-30"
],
"page": 55976,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "Section 1005.30 Remittance Transfer Definitions"
},
{
"children": [
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-31-a"
],
"page": 55979,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "31(a) General Form of Disclosures"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [
{
"offset": 618,
"paragraph": 1,
"reference": "19"
}
],
"labels": [
"1005-31-a-2"
],
"page": 55979,
"paragraphs": [
"EFTA, as implemented by the Remittance Rule, generally requires remittance transfer providers to provide disclosures required by subpart B of Regulation E to the sender in writing. \u00a7 1005.31(a)(2). But neither the statute nor the Remittance Rule specifies what qualifies as a writing (except to state that written disclosures may be provided on any size of paper, as long as the disclosures are clear and conspicuous, <em data-original=\"E-03\">see</em> comment 31(a)(2)-2). The Bureau proposed comment 31(a)(2)-5, which would have explained that disclosures provided pursuant to &#167; 1005.31 or &#167; 1005.36 by facsimile transmission (<em data-original=\"E-03\">i.e.,</em> fax) are written disclosures for purposes of providing disclosures in writing pursuant to subpart B of Regulation E, and are not subject to the requirements for electronic disclosures set forth in &#167; 1005.31(a)(2). Pursuant to &#167; 1005.31(a)(2) and comment 31(a)(2)-1, a provider may provide the pre-payment disclosure to a sender in electronic form, without regard to the applicable requirements of the E-Sign Act, only if a sender electronically requests the provider to send the remittance transfer. However, with respect to other disclosures required by subpart B of Regulation E, the provider would have to comply with the consumer consent and other applicable provisions of the E-Sign Act. Proposed comment 31(a)(2)-5 would have reflected similar guidance with respect to disclosures made by fax. For the reasons set forth below, comment 31(a)(2)-5 is adopted as proposed.",
"Industry commenters overwhelmingly supported this aspect of the April Proposal. Several commenters asserted that the Bureau should expand the interpretation of \u201cwritten disclosures\u201d to include any electronic disclosure if the provider has met its obligations to comply with the E-Sign Act. Consumer group commenters had mixed reactions: one consumer group commenter supported the proposal, but the other asserted that faxes should be subject to the requirements for electronic disclosures set forth in \u00a7 1005.31(a)(2) because they are considered electronic records under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act of 1999.\n The Bureau has considered the comments and believes it is appropriate to use the Bureau's interpretive authority under EFTA to treat disclosures provided pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31 or \u00a7 1005.36 by fax as \u201cwritten disclosures\u201d for purposes of the Remittance Rule.",
"As the Bureau explained in the April Proposal, it considers disclosures made by fax to be a \u201cwriting\u201d under the Remittance Rule because such disclosures are generally received on paper in a form the sender can retain. Additionally, the Bureau does not believe that treating faxes as writings will have any significant negative impact on the benefits consumers derive from the Remittance Rule, both because many consumers have long communicated with remittance transfer providers via fax and those consumers accept faxes as a legitimate and efficient method of communication. The Bureau observes that the consumer group that opposed interpreting disclosures provided via fax as written disclosures did not contend that such an interpretation would have a significant negative impact on the benefits consumers derive from the Remittance Rule. Thus, the Bureau believes it appropriate to interpret faxes as \u201ca writing\u201d for purposes of providing disclosures pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31 and \u00a7 1005.36. The Bureau, however, does not believe that it is necessary to clarify that any electronic disclosure constitutes a \u201cwriting\u201d if the provider complies with the E-Sign Act. As discussed above, the Remittance Rule permits a provider to provide electronic disclosures instead of written disclosures, when such electronic disclosures are provided pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(a)(2) as clarified by comment 31(a)(2)-1."
],
"title": "31(a)(2) Written and Electronic Disclosures"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-31-a-3"
],
"page": 55980,
"paragraphs": [
"Section 1005.31(e)(1) states that a remittance transfer provider must provide the pre-payment disclosure when the sender requests the remittance transfer, but prior to payment for the transfer. Section 1005.31(a)(3) permits providers to make these pre-payment disclosures orally if the \u201ctransaction is conducted orally and entirely by telephone\u201d and if certain other language and disclosure requirements are met. The Bureau recognized in the April Proposal that a provider may be uncertain as to how to comply with the timing requirements set forth in \u00a7 1005.31(e)(1) where a sender is neither physically present nor in \u201creal time\u201d communication with a provider's staff. To provide further clarification, the Bureau proposed to revise comment 31(a)(3)-2 to set forth that a remittance transfer provider may treat a written or electronic communication as an inquiry when it believes that treating the communication as a request would be impractical. In such circumstances, as long as the provider otherwise conducted the transaction orally and entirely by telephone, the provider could provide disclosures orally as permitted by \u00a7 1005.31(a)(3). The Bureau also proposed two conforming edits to comments 31(a)(3)-1 and 31(e)-1 to accommodate this change: the proposed revision to 31(a)(3)-1 would have distinguished the scenario proposed in revised 31(a)(3)-2 from a situation in which a sender requests a remittance transfer in person; the revision to 31(e)-1 would have clarified that a sender has not requested a remittance transfer for purposes of triggering the timing requirements set forth in \u00a7 1005.31(e)(1) where the provider treats the request as an inquiry.",
"All commenters who commented on this part of the Proposal generally supported the Bureau's proposed revisions, with the majority of commenters expressing support without reservation. Some commenters provided additional, specific feedback. For example, one consumer group stated that it supported the proposed revision only if the consumer who made the initial request in writing received a disclosure that his request was being treated as an inquiry. A number of trade associations sought additional illustrations of when it would be \u201cimpractical\u201d for a provider to treat a communication as a request for a transfer. Finally, one community bank proposed that the Bureau allow providers to provide oral disclosures whenever a sender so requests.",
"The Bureau is finalizing the revisions as proposed with one change to improve clarity (specifically, removing \u201cFor example\u201d). The Bureau declines to adopt the suggestion that providers be allowed to give oral disclosures whenever a sender opts for oral disclosures. As stated in its February 2012 <em data-original=\"E-04\">Federal Register</em> notice, the Bureau believes that Congress did not intend to permit remittance transfer providers to satisfy the disclosure requirements orally, except in limited scenarios, as set forth in the Remittance Rule and in this final rule.",
"With respect to the comment that a remittance transfer provider should be required to inform the sender that the provider is treating the sender's communication as an inquiry, the Bureau does not believe this additional, independent disclosure requirement is necessary. By definition, the provider provides the pre-payment disclosure before the consumer has paid for the remittance transfer; at this point in the transaction, there is little risk of consumer harm. Further, the Bureau believes the sender is likely to know and understand the status of his or her transaction in the course of the sender's subsequent oral communication with the provider. Finally, with respect to the request for further clarity regarding when it would be impractical for a provider to treat a communication as a request, the Bureau believes that the proposed comment, which the Bureau is adopting with a non-substantive change to improve its clarity, provides sufficient guidance in the form of a specific example."
],
"title": "31(a)(3) Disclosures for Oral Telephone Transactions"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-31-b"
],
"page": 55980,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "31(b) Disclosure Requirements"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [
{
"offset": 884,
"paragraph": 0,
"reference": "20"
}
],
"labels": [
"1005-31-b-2"
],
"page": 55980,
"paragraphs": [
"Section 1005.31(b)(2)(vi) requires a remittance transfer provider to disclose the contact information for the Bureau, including the Bureau's Web site URL and its toll-free telephone number. The Remittance Rule does not specify which Bureau Web site URL should be provided on receipts, but the Model Forms published by the Bureau list the Bureau's Internet homepage\u2014 <em data-original=\"E-03\">www.consumerfinance.gov. See</em> Model Forms A-31, A-32, A-34, A-35, A-39, and A-40 of appendix A. In the April Proposal, the Bureau explained that it was creating a single page that would contain resources relevant to remittance transfers at <em data-original=\"E-03\">www.consumerfinance.gov/sending-money,</em> as well as a Spanish language Web site that would have resources relevant to remittance transfers at <em data-original=\"E-03\">www.consumerfinance.gov/enviar-dinero.</em>\n \n\n Accordingly, the Bureau proposed to add comment 31(b)(2)-4 to explain that: (1) Providers could satisfy the requirement to disclose the Bureau's Web site by disclosing the Web address shown on Model Forms A-31, A-32, A-34, A-35, A-39, and A-40 of appendix A, (2) alternatively, providers could, but were not required to, disclose the Bureau's remittance-specific Web site, currently, <em data-original=\"E-03\">www.consumerfinance.gov/sending-money,</em> and (3) providers making disclosures in a language other than English could, but were not required to, disclose a Bureau Web site that would provide information for consumers in the relevant language, if such Web site exists.",
"Commenters generally expressed support for the proposed comment. Several commenters, however, sought additional confirmation that the proposed optional disclosures would remain optional. In addition, a consumer group sought confirmation that providers would only be permitted to provide a link to the Bureau's non-English Web site where the disclosure was provided in that same non-English language.",
"As the Bureau stated in both the proposed comment text and the discussion of that text in the preamble of the April Proposal, the alternative disclosures included in comment 31(b)(2)-4 are <em data-original=\"E-03\">optional,</em> and do not require remittance transfer providers to change existing receipts. Thus, while it urges providers to provide consumers with the most relevant, updated information available from the Bureau, the Bureau confirms that, at this time, providers can continue to disclose the Web site previously listed on all Model Forms. Likewise, the April Proposal was clear that providers may only disclose the Bureau's non-English Web site if they make disclosures in the &#8220;relevant&#8221; language used in the non-English Web site. The Bureau will publish a list of any URLs it maintains containing specific information about remittances in foreign languages on its Web site, currently, <em data-original=\"E-03\">http://www.consumerfinance.gov/remittances-transfer-rule-amendment-to-regulation-e/.</em>\n \n ",
"For the reasons above, the Bureau is adopting proposed new comment 31(b)(2)-4 substantially as proposed, with minor revisions to include references to revised URLs and revised model forms that illustrated the alternative disclosures proposed by the comment. Specifically, the URLs for the English- and Spanish-language, remittance-specific Web sites are <em data-original=\"E-03\">consumerfinance.gov/sending-moneyandconsumerfinance.gov/envois,</em> respectively. The comment also clarifies that the Bureau will make available a list of other foreign-language URLs for Web sites that provide specific information about remittance transfers. In addition, to accommodate new comment 31(b)(2)-4, the Bureau is renumbering current comments 31(b)(2)-4, -5, and -6 as comments 31(b)(2)-5, -6, and -7, respectively, without any other changes. Finally, the Bureau is revising forms A-31 and A-40 of appendix A to illustrate the optional disclosures set forth in new comment 31(b)(2)-4. The other Model Forms remain unchanged."
],
"title": "31(b)(2) Receipt"
}
],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-31"
],
"page": 55979,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "Section 1005.31 Disclosures"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [
{
"offset": 1048,
"paragraph": 1,
"reference": "21"
},
{
"offset": 643,
"paragraph": 10,
"reference": "22"
},
{
"offset": 724,
"paragraph": 11,
"reference": "23"
},
{
"offset": 557,
"paragraph": 13,
"reference": "24"
}
],
"labels": [
"1005-32"
],
"page": 55981,
"paragraphs": [
"As discussed above, EFTA section 919(a)(4)(A) establishes a temporary exception for insured institutions with respect to the statute's general requirement that remittance transfer providers must disclose exact amounts to senders. EFTA 919(a)(4)(B) provides that the exception shall terminate five years after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (<em data-original=\"E-03\">i.e.,</em> July 21, 2015), unless the Bureau issues a rule to extend the temporary exception up to five more years (<em data-original=\"E-03\">i.e.,</em> July 21, 2020). Specifically, the statute permits the Bureau to extend the temporary exception to July 21, 2020, if the Bureau determines that the termination of the temporary exception on July 21, 2015, would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. EFTA section 919(a)(4)(B). The Bureau implemented the temporary exception by adopting &#167; 1005.32(a) in the Remittance Rule.",
"Section 1005.32(a)(1) provides that a remittance transfer provider may give estimates for disclosures related to: (1) The exchange rate used by the provider; (2) the total amount that will be transferred to the designated recipient inclusive of covered third-party fees, if any; (3) any covered third-party fees and (4) the amount that will be received by the designated recipient (after deducting covered third-party fees), if the provider meets three conditions. The three conditions are: (1) The provider must be an insured institution; (2) the provider must not be able to determine the exact amounts for reasons beyond its control; and (3) the transfer must be sent from the sender's account with the provider. Section 1005.32(a)(2) provides that the temporary exception expires on July 21, 2015. Section 1005.32(a)(3) provides that insured depository institutions, insured credit unions, and uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign depository institutions are considered \u201cinsured institutions\u201d for purposes of the temporary exception.\n \n ",
"As discussed above, the Bureau proposed to amend \u00a7 1005.32(a)(2) to extend the expiration date of the temporary exception from July 21, 2015, to July 21, 2020, after it had reached a preliminary determination that the expiration of the temporary exception on July 21, 2015, would negatively impact the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. The determination was based on the Bureau's own understanding of the remittance transfer market, information the Bureau gathered through approximately 35 interviews with remittance transfer providers, service providers, and consumer groups regarding the temporary exception, outreach to industry and consumers groups on the Remittance Rule generally, and a review of comment letters to prior remittance rulemakings and related materials. In the April Proposal, the Bureau sought comments on its preliminary determination that the expiration of the temporary exception on July 21, 2015, would have a negative impact on the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. The Bureau also sought comments on whether it should extend the exception for a period less than the full five years permitted by statute or place other limits on the use of the temporary exception.",
"The Bureau additionally solicited comments on the current consumer impact of the temporary exception, as well as the potential consumer impact of either the expiration or the extension of the exception. For the reasons stated below, the Bureau has reached a final determination that the expiration of the temporary exception on July 21, 2015, would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers, and is therefore adopting the change to \u00a7 1005.32(a)(2) as proposed.",
"Industry commenters overwhelmingly supported the proposed extension of the temporary exception from July 21, 2015, to July 21, 2020. They generally agreed with the Bureau's description of the remittance transfer market and preliminary determination that the expiration of the temporary exception would have a negative impact on the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers, emphasizing that the expiration of the temporary exception on July 21, 2015, would cause some insured institutions to either exit the market or significantly reduce the number of destinations to which they send remittances.",
"Furthermore, comments from industry commenters were generally consistent with the Bureau's understanding of how insured institutions are complying with the Remittance Rule's requirements regarding disclosures of the applicable exchange rate and covered third party fees, including the compliance practices of small institutions. Some commenters, ranging from credit unions to a large bank, stated that they rely on larger service providers to help disclose covered third-party fees and exchange rates. Industry commenters also were largely in accord with the Bureau's understanding of the drawbacks to wire transfer alternatives such as international ACH and closed-network remittance transfer products that resemble products offered by money transmitters. Several trade association commenters asserted that even with the expansion of international ACH products and the development of new closed network systems, such expansion will provide a solution only for remittance transfers to a limited set of destination countries and that providers would have difficulty sending remittance transfers to some destinations without reliance on the temporary exception. This is consistent with the Bureau's understanding of current market conditions based on its interviews with many providers and service providers in the course of developing the April Proposal.",
"A number of bank and credit union commenters stated that they rely on the temporary exception, and trade association commenters stated that many of their members rely on the temporary exception for at least some portion of the remittance transfers sent by their customers and members. Several trade association commenters asserted that the ability of insured institutions to rely on the temporary exception is critical for certain remittance transfers and emphasized that there are real limitations that exist in open network payment systems that currently prevent insured institutions from being able to disclose actual amounts in all cases. A number of community bank and credit union commenters, as well as the trade associations that represent them, stated that the expiration of the temporary exception could cause many community banks to either exit the remittance transfer market or significantly cut back the scope of their services.",
"Some industry commenters, including a correspondent bank and several trade associations, expressed concern that, even if the Bureau extended the temporary exception by five years, insured institutions would not be able to develop a comprehensive solution that would allow them to disclose exact covered third-party fees and exchange rates for every corridor they currently serve by July 2020. Several industry commenters also asserted that the Bureau should work with Congress to change the temporary exception into a permanent one, and one commenter suggested that the Bureau should make the temporary exception permanent without waiting for Congress to act.",
"As discussed above, the Bureau sought comments on the current consumer impact of the temporary exception, as well as the potential impact of either the expiration or the extension of the exception. One State credit union trade association stated that its member credit unions indicated that they have not received any complaints from members who received disclosures containing estimated disclosures. A number of community bank and credit union commenters, as well as the trade associations that represent them, stated that the expiration of the temporary exception could cause many community banks to either exit the remittance transfer market or significantly cut back the scope of their services. They asserted that such a reduction would negatively impact consumers, because it would reduce the availability of remittance transfer services. They also expressed the concern that such a reduction could limit competition and drive up prices.",
"The two consumer group commenters opposed this part of the April Proposal. One of the consumer group commenters asserted that, rather than extend the exception for the maximum of five years permitted by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau should limit the extension of the temporary exception. Specifically, this commenter suggested that the Bureau should: (1) Only extend the temporary exception for up to two years and reassess a further extension then; (2) limit the use of the exception to remittance transfers for which disclosing exact amounts is particularly difficult or impossible; or (3) reissue the proposal for additional comment and provide more specific information on the current state of compliance. The other consumer group commenter asserted that if the Bureau were to extend the temporary exception, then it should also require insured institutions that rely on the temporary exception to disclose to customers that money transmitters would be able to provide consumers with exact disclosures.",
"The Bureau has considered the comments and, for the reasons discussed below, is finalizing as proposed the extension of the temporary exception to July 21, 2020, because the Bureau has made the determination that the expiration of the temporary exception would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. Comments from industry commenters generally confirmed the Bureau's original understanding of the remittance transfer market and preliminary determination that the expiration of the temporary exception would have a negative impact on the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers.\n In particular, the Bureau understands that insured institutions typically send remittances in the form of wire transfers over open networks. With respect to a wire transfer, the insured institution that acts as the remittance transfer provider typically does not have control over, or a relationship with, all of the participants involved in a remittance transfer, to facilitate the provider's ability to control or obtain information about the applicable exchange rate and covered third-party fees with exactitude. Additionally, the communication systems used to send wire transfers typically do not facilitate two-way, real-time transmission of such information. While the Bureau understands that industry is working to restructure relationships and communication systems to provide more precise pricing information, this process is not yet complete.",
"While some insured institutions provide exact disclosures of the exchange rate and covered third-party fees for all of their remittance transfers, the Bureau understands that many rely on the temporary exception when disclosing the exchange rate and/or covered third-party fees for at least some portion of transfers initiated by their own consumer customers and as applicable, transfers they send on behalf of other providers. The Bureau also understands that many insured institutions, in particular small institutions, rely almost entirely on larger, intermediary service providers to act as information aggregators to provide them with the applicable exchange rate to disclose and/or covered third-party fee information.\n \n ",
"With respect to the disclosure of the exchange rate, insured institutions have reported to the Bureau that they have found that one way to provide an exact exchange rate is to convert the funds to the applicable foreign currency based on a fixed exchange rate that the provider either obtains directly or from an information aggregator. However, the Bureau has learned that insured institutions cannot provide a fixed exchange rate for a number of currencies and rely on the temporary exception (or the Bureau's permanent exception for transfers to certain countries, \u00a7 1005.32(b)(2)) when disclosing the applicable exchange rate in such situations. The Bureau understands that these currencies are either (1) so thinly traded that insured institutions or their service providers find that purchasing such currencies and obtaining a fixed exchange rate for consumer wire transfers is impossible, impracticable, or economically undesirable, or (2) impracticable to purchase for other reasons (<em data-original=\"E-03\">e.g.,</em> foreign laws may bar the purchase of that currency in the United States). Further, even if obtaining and disclosing a fixed exchange rate were possible, the Bureau further understands that typically, the volume of remittance transfers involving such currencies is often low and providers believe that it is impracticable to expend significant resources to provide a fixed rate for these low-volume transactions.",
"With respect to covered third-party fees, the Bureau understands that information aggregators, described above, could directly generate the information from foreign banks in their correspondent banking networks or with whom they have other contractual relationships. Additionally, the Bureau understands that for a number of foreign destinations, these entities try to control the amount of covered third-party fees, or eliminate such fees altogether, by sending remittance transfers through nostro accounts they have established with various foreign banks,\n using certain methods to send wire transfers that put participants processing the wire transfer on notice not to deduct a fee from the transfer amount, or through a combination of both.",
"The information aggregators have reported to the Bureau that as a result of proactively obtaining covered third-party fee information from foreign banks and using methods that control or eliminate such fees, they and, as applicable, their remittance transfer provider clients are typically disclosing exact covered third-party fees where they believe they are able to do so, even though they might have additional flexibility pursuant to the temporary exception to provide estimates instead. But at the same time, information aggregators have reported that the methods that allow insured institutions to control or eliminate covered third-party fees are not reliable in controlling or eliminating such fees for all of the destinations to which they send wire transfers. Additionally, with respect to obtaining covered third-party fees directly from foreign banks, a number of information aggregators have indicated that fee information gathered in this manner could be incomplete because it is not available for all institutions involved in all of the remittance transfers they send. Accordingly, a number of insured institutions have to rely on the temporary exception when sending at least some of their wire transfers.",
"The Bureau also sought information from insured institutions about their use of potential alternative methods of sending remittance transfers. In particular, the Bureau sought to understand whether insured institutions could control or eliminate covered third-party fees if they sent remittance transfers using international ACH instead of open network wire transfer systems. The Bureau understands that the Federal Reserve's international ACH product\u2014FedGlobal ACH\u2014generally restricts the deduction of fees from transfer amounts sent through the FedGlobal system, but is nonetheless used only for a small portion of insured institutions' remittance transfers. The Bureau has found that although a number of insured institutions use international ACH for commercial international money transfers, many did not see international ACH developing into an alternative to wire transfers in the near term. A number of insured institutions have reported that international ACH reaches far fewer destinations than wire transfers. They also expressed concern that developing an international ACH service for remittance transfers would involve costs and changes in operation systems that outweigh the potential long-term cost savings as well as any additional value of facilitating compliance with the Remittance Rule.",
"The Bureau also sought information from insured institutions about developing closed network remittance transfer products that resemble products offered by money transmitters that could allow them to control or eliminate covered third-party fees. The Bureau also understands that a small number of the largest institutions have already developed such products. However, most of the insured institutions that the Bureau interviewed did not set up closed network alternatives to wire transfers and indicated that they did not have plans to develop them. As discussed above, several trade association commenters believed that the expansion of international ACH products and the development of new closed network systems will not provide a comprehensive solution.",
"For the above reasons and those stated more fully in the April Proposal, the Bureau also believes that it is unlikely that there would be near-term solutions that would address the challenges in open-network payment systems that prevent insured institutions from being able to disclose exact amounts for all of the foreign destinations to which they send remittance transfers. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that it is appropriate to extend the length of the temporary exception for the full five years permitted by statute, rather than a shorter length of time (or not at all). The Bureau continues to believe that insured institutions will not be able to make the significant progress necessary for all institutions and corridors to warrant terminating the exception before July 2020, and does not believe that reassessing the situation after seeking additional public comment now or in two years would cause it to reach a different conclusion. At the same time, however, the Bureau believes that making the exception permanent in this rulemaking would be beyond its scope, which, pursuant to EFTA section 919(a)(4)(B), focused (on this issue) on whether the Bureau should extend the temporary exception by five additional years. Nevertheless, the Bureau will continue to monitor market and technological developments in open network payment systems. The Bureau expects insured institutions to continue to work towards providing actual disclosures for all remittance transfers by July 2020. The Bureau also notes that through its supervision of insured institutions it will continue to monitor the use of the exception, whether it is being abused, and whether and how providers are working towards finding a permanent solution for all remittance transfers.",
"The Bureau also believes that it is appropriate to extend the temporary exception without modifications or additional requirements. As noted above, the Bureau continues to believe that insured institutions are unable to make the significant progress necessary for the Bureau to cause the temporary exception to terminate before July 2020. Furthermore, the Bureau is not aware of evidence that insured institutions are improperly using the temporary exception or that consumers are being harmed by its use in particular or, more generally, by the receipt of disclosures containing estimates. The Bureau understands that although use of the temporary exception varies, the exception appears to be used for the minority of eligible transfers from insured institutions. The FFIEC Call Report asked banks to estimate the number of remittance transfers sent between October 28 and December 31, 2013, to which they applied the temporary exception. The FFIEC Call Report data suggest that the temporary exception is only used in approximately 10 percent of transfers sent by banks that are considered remittance transfer providers under the rule. Additionally, no data was submitted to the Bureau in response to the request in the April Proposal, and the Bureau is aware of no data, that contradicts its view that use of the temporary exception is limited to cases where providers (and their service providers) deem its use to be necessary.",
"Lastly, the Bureau believes that it would be inappropriate to require insured institutions that disclose estimates pursuant to the temporary exception to inform their customers that money transmitters may provide consumers with exact disclosures. The Bureau notes that Congress expressly permitted any remittance transfer provider to disclose estimates in lieu of exact amounts in certain cases without any additional disclosure. <em data-original=\"E-03\">See</em> &#167; 1005.32(b)(1) (permanent exception for transfers to certain countries) and (b)(2) (advance transfers) without any additional disclosure. Insofar as money transmitters rely on these exceptions set forth in the Remittance rule, it cannot be said that they are disclosing exact amounts in those cases."
],
"title": "Section 1005.32 Estimates"
},
{
"children": [
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-33-a"
],
"page": 55984,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "1005.33(a) Definition of Error"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-33-a-1"
],
"page": 55984,
"paragraphs": [
"Section 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B) provides that a delay is not an \u201cerror\u201d if it is related to the remittance transfer provider's fraud screening procedures or in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq., Office of Foreign Assets Control requirements, or similar laws or requirements. Section 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B). In the April Proposal, the Bureau explained that it did not intend for this provision to apply to delays related to routine fraud screening procedures; accordingly, the Bureau proposed to revise \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B) to apply only to delays related to individualized investigation or other special action. To provide additional guidance, the Bureau proposed a new comment 33(a)-7, which would have explained that a delay is not an error where it is caused by an investigation or other special action necessary to address potentially suspicious, blocked, or prohibited activity.",
"The proposed comment included two examples of the types of delays that would not constitute an error under proposed \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B), namely, a delay that occurs after a screening process flags a designated recipient's name as a potentially blocked individual, and a delay that occurs because the transfer is flagged as being similar to previous fraudulent activity. The proposed comment contrasted these two examples with delays caused by \u201cordinary fraud or other screening procedures, where no potentially fraudulent, suspicious, blocked or prohibited activity is identified,\u201d which would not have qualified for the exception.",
"The Bureau sought comment on whether the proposed change to the regulatory text and related examples and description in the commentary accurately reflected industry practice and/or provided sufficient guidance on the types of permissible delays. The single consumer group that commented on this issue expressed its support for the proposed changes. Some industry commenters, including a large bank and a community bank, generally expressed support for the Bureau's effort to provide further clarity on the types of delays that qualify for the error exception, opining that the revisions suggested would cover the majority of relevant, screening-related delays.",
"The majority of commenters who addressed the issue, however, opposed the Bureau's proposed changes, for a variety of different reasons. Commenters, including State and national trade associations, credit unions, small and large banks, and a bank holding company, generally expressed concern that the revised language would discourage important fraud, terrorism, and anti-money laundering screenings by exposing providers that regularly conduct such screenings to liability under Regulation E. Other commenters, including a large money transmitter and a number of State credit union trade associations, argued that there is a false dichotomy between procedures that are \u201cnecessary\u201d or \u201cspecial\u201d and those that are \u201cordinary.\u201d They noted that enhanced screening procedures are a standard, routine part of most remittance transfer providers' \u201cordinary\u201d business, and that whether or not such procedures are \u201cnecessary\u201d cannot always be determined at the outset of an investigation.",
"A similar concern was expressed by a large money transmitter commenter. Among other concerns, it argued that the two examples proposed by the Bureau in proposed comment 33(a)-7 were too narrow, and the commenter opposed the use of the term \u201cindividualized\u201d to characterize the types of procedures that would qualify for the exception under revised \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B). According to this commenter's description of its standard fraud screening procedures, the Bureau's choice of examples and terminology did not adequately capture screening procedures that apply to certain categories of transfers\u2014known as \u201cblock screenings\u201d\u2014rather than only to a particular transfer. For example, the commenter explained that remittance transfer providers sometimes receive real-time information from law enforcement that transfers going to a certain geographic area (<em data-original=\"E-03\">e.g.,</em> a particular country or part of a country) could have a high percentage likelihood of being related to a criminal operation. When the provider receives such information, it may temporarily delay all transfers that fit the characteristics identified by law enforcement. According to the commenter, under the proposed language, it would be unclear whether when such &#8220;block screenings&#8221; resulted in a delay, the commenter could would be able to rely on the &#167; 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B) exception.",
"The Bureau is mindful that commenters are wary of any requirement that they view as creating potential liability for what they deem to be standard operational procedures. The Bureau believes, however, that the commenters have largely based their concerns on an inaccurate and overly narrow interpretation of the proposed revisions. The Bureau's proposal was related to disclosure; it did not dictate to remittance transfer providers the type of screening procedures they could adopt. The proposal would simply have required that, where a provider ordinarily applies a certain type of procedure in connection with a certain type of transfer, the provider account for any additional length of time associated with that screening into its disclosure of the estimated date of availability. This requirement would have applied whether the additional time was 30 minutes or five days\u2014in other words, if the provider knew that a procedure would apply to a particular remittance transfer and would delay that remittance transfer for a period of time (whether it be 30 minutes or five days), the provider would have been required to adjust the disclosed date of availability accordingly.",
"Nonetheless, the Bureau understands that its attempt in proposed comment 33(a)-7 to draw a distinction between \u201cordinary\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d investigations could be construed as not accurately or completely capturing the types of procedures that the Bureau believes could qualify as an exception under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B). Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing comment 33(a)-7 with a modification to clarify whether the remittance transfer provider could have reasonably foreseen the delay at the time the provider provided the date of availability disclosure. Specifically, comment 33(a)-7 now explains that a delay does not constitute an error, if such delay is related to the provider's or any third party's investigation necessary to address potentially suspicious, blocked or prohibited activity, and the provider did not, and could not have reasonably foreseen the delay so as to enable it to timely disclose an accurate date of availability when providing the sender with a receipt or combined disclosure. In addition, the Bureau is adding two additional examples to comment 33(a)-7 to illustrate the application of the revised language. The first example clarifies that there is no error where a provider delays a remittance transfer in order to investigate specific law enforcement information indicating that a remittance transfer may match a pattern of fraudulent activity if it was not reasonable to disclose that delay when the provider disclosed the date of availability. The second example states that, if a provider knows in time to make a timely disclosure that all remittance transfers to a certain area undergo a two-day long screening procedure, the provider must include an additional two days in its disclosure of the date of availability.",
"The Bureau notes that these examples do not represent the only situations that could satisfy this exception. The unique nature of the screenings at issue and the variety of business practices and technical capabilities among remittance transfer providers do not allow the Bureau to address every possible scenario. Furthermore, the Bureau emphasizes that nothing in the changes adopted herein should be construed as limiting a provider's ability to perform necessary screenings. Instead, the Bureau intends the revision to clarify that providers cannot avoid liability for an error in situations where they could have reasonably foreseen the delay so as to enable them to timely disclose an accurate date of availability but failed to disclose that date to the sender. Whether a provider could have reasonably foreseen a delay in time to make changes to its disclosure depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the transfer. The Bureau believes that its approach in the final rule, as opposed to the April Proposal, responds to commenters' concerns that the proposed language was perhaps too narrow and did not allow for flexibility arising out of the varied nature of fraud and other screenings.",
"Finally, as proposed, the Bureau is renumbering existing comments 33(a)-7 through -10 as comments 33(a)-8 through -11, respectively, to reflect the insertion of new comment 33(a)-7."
],
"title": "1005.33(a)(1) Types of Transfers or Inquiries Covered"
},
{
"children": [],
"footnote_refs": [
{
"offset": 703,
"paragraph": 4,
"reference": "25"
},
{
"offset": 901,
"paragraph": 5,
"reference": "26"
}
],
"labels": [
"1005-33-c"
],
"page": 55985,
"paragraphs": [
"Section 1005.33(c)(2) implements EFTA section 919(d)(1)(B) and establishes procedures and remedies for correcting an error under the Remittance Rule. In particular, where there has been an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) for failure to make funds available to a designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability, \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(ii) generally permits a sender to choose either: (1) To obtain a refund of the amount the sender paid to the remittance transfer provider in connection with the remittance transfer that was not properly transmitted, or an amount appropriate to resolve the error, or (2) to have the provider resend to the designated recipient the amount appropriate to resolve the error, at no additional cost to the sender or designated recipient. However, if the error resulted from the sender providing incorrect or insufficient information, \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) requires a provider to refund or, at the consumer's request, reapply to a new transfer, the total amount that the sender paid to the provider, but it permits the provider to deduct from this amount fees actually imposed and, where not otherwise prohibited by law, taxes actually collected as part of the first unsuccessful remittance transfer attempt. Comment 33(c)-12 provides guidance on how a remittance transfer provider should determine the amount to refund to the sender, or to apply to a new transfer, pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii). As explained in comment 33(c)-12, \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) does not permit a provider to deduct its own fees from the amount refunded or applied to a new transfer. The Bureau proposed to amend \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) by incorporating this guidance in current comment 33(c)-12 in the text of proposed \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii).",
"Proposed \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) would have stated that in the case of an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) that occurred because the sender provided incorrect or insufficient information in connection with the remittance transfer, the remittance transfer provider shall provide the remedies required by \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (B) within three business days of providing the report required by \u00a7 1005.33(c)(1) or (d)(1) except that the provider may agree to the sender's request, upon receiving the results of the error investigation, that the funds be applied towards a new remittance transfer, rather than be refunded, if the provider has not yet processed a refund. Proposed \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) also would have provided that the provider may deduct from the amount refunded or applied towards a new transfer any fees actually imposed on or, to the extent not prohibited by law, taxes actually collected on the remittance transfer as part of the first unsuccessful remittance transfer attempt except that the provider shall not deduct its own fee.",
"In connection with the proposed change to \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii), the Bureau also proposed to modify comment 33(c)-5 by adding an example to further explain how a remittance transfer provider should determine the appropriate amount to resolve any error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv). Proposed comment 33(c)-5 would have explained that if the designated recipient received the amount that was disclosed pursuant to \u00a7 1005.31(b)(1)(vii) before the provider must determine the appropriate remedy, the amount appropriate to resolve the error would be limited to the refund of the appropriate fees and taxes that the sender paid, as determined by \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(B) or (c)(2)(iii) as applicable.",
"One consumer group commented on this aspect of the Proposal and supported the proposed clarifications. Industry commenters had mixed reactions. Several bank commenters and trade associations supported, or did not object to, the specific clarifications that the Bureau had proposed. However, a number of industry commenters asserted the general concern that it was not fair to prohibit remittance transfer providers from deducting their own fees from the amount refunded to a sender or applied to a new transfer in the case of an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv), due to the sender providing incorrect or insufficient information.",
"Current \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii), as clarified by current comment 33(c)-12, already prohibits remittance transfer providers from deducting their own fees in the situation described above. Proposed \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) would have stated more explicitly what is already required under current \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii), and, relatedly, proposed comment 33(c)-5 would have illustrated the existing requirement regarding the appropriate refund amount required to resolve an error pursuant to \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) with an example. Further, this refund requirement has been part of the Remittance Rule since it was initially adopted in February 2012 and has been was in place since the rule took effect in October 2013.\n The Bureau did not intend for the April Proposal to reopen the issue of what the appropriate remedy would be in the case of an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) that occurred because a sender did not provide correct or sufficient information in connection with a remittance transfer. The Bureau simply intended for the April Proposal clarify \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) as previously adopted. The Bureau considers comments from industry commenters regarding whether it is appropriate for them to have to deduct their own fees from the amount refunded to a sender or applied to a new transfer in the case of an error under \u00a7 1005.33(a)(1)(iv), due to the sender providing incorrect or insufficient information in connection with the transfer, to be outside the scope of this rulemaking.",
"Finally, consistent with the Bureau's intent to clarify the requirement with respect to the appropriate remedy under \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii), the Bureau is adopting a technical correction to comment 33(c)-12.i to describe the total amount that a sender has paid the provider, the total amount of the refund that such sender will receive, and the portion of the total refund that is attributable to the provider's refund of its own fee in greater detail. The Bureau believes that revised comment 33(c)-12.i provides greater clarity with respect to how the total refund amount is calculated but the changes adopted do not alter the calculations. The Bureau believes that it is appropriate to adopt this technical correction without notice and comment because the correction is consistent with the Bureau's intent to clarify the requirement with respect to the appropriate remedy under \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii).\n \n ",
"For the above reasons, the Bureau is adopting \u00a7 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) and comment 33(c)-5 as proposed, with the addition of the technical correction to comment 33(c)-12.i."
],
"title": "1005.33(c) Time Limits and Extent of Investigation"
}
],
"footnote_refs": [],
"labels": [
"1005-33"
],
"page": 55984,
"paragraphs": [],
"title": "Section 1005.33 Procedures for Resolving Errors"
}
]
}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment