[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36589-36593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12810]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36589]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 205
[Regulation E; Docket No. R-1270]
Electronic Fund Transfers
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule; official staff interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is amending Regulation E, which implements the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the official staff commentary to the
regulation. Regulation E requires that financial institutions make a
receipt available at the time a consumer initiates an electronic fund
transfer (EFT) at an electronic terminal. The final rule creates an
exception from this requirement for EFTs of $15 or less.
DATES: The final rule is effective August 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivian W. Wong, Attorney, or Ky Tran-
Trong, Counsel, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, at (202)
452-2412 or (202) 452-3667. For users of Telecommunications Device for
the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Background
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA or Act) (15 U.S.C. 1693 et
seq.), enacted in 1978, provides a basic framework establishing the
rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic
fund transfer (EFT) systems. The EFTA is implemented by the Board's
Regulation E (12 CFR part 205). Examples of the types of transfers
covered by the Act and regulation include transfers initiated through
an automated teller machine (ATM), point-of-sale (POS) terminal,
automated clearinghouse (ACH), telephone bill-payment plan, or remote
banking service. The Act and regulation provide for disclosure of the
terms and conditions of an EFT service; documentation of EFTs by means
of terminal receipts and periodic account activity statements;
limitations on consumer liability for unauthorized transfers;
procedures for error resolution; and certain rights related to
preauthorized EFTs. The Act and regulation also prescribe restrictions
on the unsolicited issuance of ATM and debit cards and other access
devices.
The official staff commentary (12 CFR part 205 (Supp. I))
interprets the requirements of Regulation E to facilitate compliance
and provides protection from liability under sections 915 and 916 of
the EFTA for financial institutions and persons subject to the Act. 15
U.S.C. 1693m(d)(1). The commentary is updated periodically to address
significant questions that arise.
II. Background and Overview of Comments Received
Under the EFTA and Regulation E, financial institutions must make a
receipt available at the time a consumer initiates an EFT at an
electronic terminal.\1\ For this purpose, electronic terminals include
ATMs and POS terminals. The receipt requirement applies whenever an EFT
is made at an electronic terminal, regardless of the transaction
amount.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section 906 of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. 1693d) and 12 CFR
205.9(a).
\2\ The terminal receipt requirement does not apply to
transactions initiated through a telephone operated by a consumer,
or to transactions initiated by a consumer ``by a means analogous in
function to a telephone.'' Thus, the receipt requirement does not
apply to Internet transactions, where a consumer uses a computer to
visit a merchant's web site to purchase goods or services. See Sec.
205.2(h); comment 2(h)-1(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to industry representatives, the receipt requirement has
been an obstacle to their ability to respond to recent shifts in
consumer payment preferences from cash to debit cards, particularly in
environments that exclusively handle small-dollar transactions. For
vending machines, for example, the costs associated with installing and
servicing additional printing equipment capable of providing terminal
receipts have been an impediment to offering cashless payment options.
For public mass transit systems, the time required to provide each
consumer with a receipt for debit card transactions at the gate or on a
vehicle would cause delays that render the use of debit cards
impractical in such circumstances.
On December 1, 2006, the Board published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to eliminate the requirement to provide a receipt to
consumers at POS and other electronic terminals for transactions of $15
or less. 71 FR 69500. In support of the proposal, the Board cited the
implementation costs and the growing consumer preference for using
debit cards in all types of transactions, regardless of the dollar
amount of the transaction.\3\ In addition, the Board noted that while
receipts may be important to consumers for moderate- to high-value
transactions, receipts may be less significant for small-dollar
transactions because consumers are less likely to retain them for proof
of payment or for account management purposes given the limited risk of
loss to the consumer. Moreover, consumers would continue to receive a
record of each transaction on their periodic statements and retain the
right to assert an error arising from that transaction with their
account-holding financial institution, provided notice was given within
the required time frames.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Elizabeth Olson, Who Needs Pocket Change When You've Got
Plastic?, N.Y. Times, Jun. 17, 2007, at BU5. See also Geoffrey
Gerdes and Jack Walton II, ``Trends in the Use of Payment
Instruments in the United States,'' Federal Reserve Bulletin 180,
181 (Spring 2005), and Ron Borzekowski, Elizabeth Kiser, and Shaista
Ahmed, Consumers' Use of Debit Cards: Patterns, Preferences, and
Price Response (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Financial and Economic Discussion Series 2006-16, April 2006).
\4\ See 12 CFR 205.9(b) and 205.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board received 56 comment letters in response to the proposal.
Commenters included banks, credit unions, card associations, financial
and other industry trade associations, consumer groups, and individual
consumers. A majority of the comment letters were submitted by industry
while nearly 20 letters were submitted by individual consumers or
consumer groups. In general, financial institutions and other industry
commenters supported the Board's proposal to eliminate the receipt
requirement for small-dollar transactions although many of these
commenters urged the Board to increase the dollar threshold for the
[[Page 36590]]
exception. Specifically, these commenters advocated an increase in the
dollar threshold from $15 to $25, stating that a higher threshold would
provide greater flexibility in the future to accommodate consumer
preferences for electronic forms of payment in more market segments in
the future. Industry commenters also favored a $25 threshold for
consistency with current payment card association rules that waive the
personal identification number (PIN) and signature authorization
requirements for certain merchants for transactions under $25.
Consumer group commenters believed that the $15 threshold was too
high and stated that a $5 threshold would be sufficient to accommodate
the retail environments that currently do not accept debit cards.
Consumer groups also suggested some additional consumer protections be
implemented along with the exception, including limiting the exception
only to retail environments that do not conduct any transactions over
the dollar threshold.
The Board received comments from 18 individual consumers. While six
individual consumers supported the Board's proposal, the rest of the
comments from individual consumers opposed the proposal, citing a need
for receipts for various reasons, including account management, fraud
detection, and reimbursement and income tax substantiation purposes.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
The Board is amending Regulation E to eliminate the requirement for
providing terminal receipts for EFTs of $15 or less. The revisions are
being adopted largely as proposed without substantive change. Pursuant
to its authority under section 904(c) of the EFTA, the Board is
adopting this limited exception to effectuate the purpose of the Act
and facilitate the use and acceptance of debit cards in transactions
where that option does not currently exist due to the compliance
burdens associated with the receipt requirement.\5\ In addition, a
revision to the commentary clarifies that the fact that a financial
institution does not make a terminal receipt available for an EFT of
$15 or less is not an error for purposes of the error resolution
provisions in Sec. 205.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section 904(c) of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. 1693b(c)) provides
that the rules issued by the Board ``may contain such
classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may
provide for any adjustments and exceptions for any class of
electronic fund transfers'' that in the judgment of the Board are
``necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of [the Act], to
prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate
compliance therewith.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 205.9 Receipts at Electronic Terminals; Periodic Statements
Consumer Need for a Receipt
Most commenters agreed that an exception from the receipt
requirement would be appropriate to facilitate consumers' use of debit
cards in locations that do not currently offer that option. Many
individual consumer commenters, however, opposed the Board's proposal,
offering various reasons for needing receipts. A majority of these
commenters stated that they use terminal receipts to accurately enter
the transaction amounts in their financial records to track their
finances or to independently verify transactions listed on their
periodic statement. A few consumer commenters stated that the receipts
can be used as proof of purchase to obtain reimbursements by employers
or to substantiate tax deductions. Several of these individual consumer
commenters also raised concerns that eliminating the receipt
requirement for transactions of $15 or less might make it more
difficult for consumers to dispute these transactions. These commenters
asserted that without the receipt to serve as evidence to support a
consumer's claim of error, consumers may be less likely to prevail in a
dispute with the financial institution.
As noted in the proposal, the intended purpose of making a terminal
receipt available to a consumer at the time the consumer initiates an
EFT was to provide a record of the transaction equivalent to a
cancelled check.\6\ Receipts may also serve to assist consumers in
tracking their purchases for account management purposes. However, in
certain retail environments, the burden in costs or delays in
transaction time of making receipts available to consumers may
discourage merchants and others from offering consumers the option to
use a debit card, thus potentially limiting consumer payment options.
The Board has previously recognized this potential obstacle in the
context of vending machines in particular. In its March 1997 Report to
the Congress on the Application of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to
Electronic Stored-Value Products (1997 Report), the Board noted that
the delay in transaction time from printing a receipt might discourage
the use of machines accepting products that require receipts.\7\ The
Board also noted in the 1997 Report the additional compliance costs of
the receipt requirement. Moreover, in other retail environments, the
requirement to provide receipts may be impractical, such as in the case
of mass transit systems where the time required to print a receipt for
each consumer purchasing single fares with a debit card would cause
delays that would significantly conflict with a transit system's need
to handle a heavy volume of transactions within short time periods. In
these circumstances, a consumer using cash would not be provided a
receipt for transactions conducted in these environments nor would the
consumer expect one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See National Commission on Electronic Fund Transfers, EFT in
the United States: Policy Recommendations in the Public Interest,
47-48 (1977). See also S. Rep. No. 915, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 5
(1978) (noting that ``receipts * * * would give the consumer written
verification of the amount, date, and type of transfer and the
person paid.'').
\7\ See Report to the Congress on the Application of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act to Electronic Stored-Value Products 50-
51 (March 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board believes that receipts are of minimal benefit to
consumers in small-dollar transactions for several reasons. First,
consumers are less likely to obtain a receipt or retain it for such
transactions due to the limited risk of loss. Furthermore, even without
a receipt for small-dollar transactions, consumers have other means to
track their finances. For example, in addition to receiving a record of
each transaction on periodic statements, consumers can in most cases
access information on specific transactions before receiving their
periodic statements from their financial institutions through the
telephone and often through the Internet as well. For expense
reimbursement and tax substantiation purposes, consumers can use their
periodic statements for small-dollar transactions if documentary
evidence is needed. Also, while a receipt may be helpful for a consumer
in disputing a transaction with their account-holding financial
institution for certain types of errors, the absence of a receipt does
not affect the consumer's right to assert any error with their
financial institution.
In light of the foregoing, the Board is exercising its authority
under section 904(c) of the EFTA (15 U.S.C. 1693b) to create an
exception to the receipt requirement that applies to EFTs of $15 or
less. See Sec. 205.9(a) and (e). The Board believes that the limited
exception to the receipt requirement has significant potential benefits
for consumers because the exception will facilitate compliance with the
regulation and allow financial institutions to offer consumers the
[[Page 36591]]
additional option of using a debit card in retail environments where
the costs and time delays of making receipts available now effectively
preclude merchants from offering that option. Proposed Sec. 205.9(e)
is revised in the final rule, for consistency with Sec. 205.9(a), to
state that the exception applies to the general requirement to ``make
available'' a terminal receipt at the time of the EFT. No substantive
change is intended.
The Board also notes that the types of retail environments making
use of the exception will likely be limited to circumstances where
providing a receipt is impractical. In retail environments that process
both large- and small-dollar transactions, merchants still will be
required to make receipts available for those higher-dollar
transactions, and the Board believes they will be unlikely to change
their practices based on the dollar amount of the transaction.
Similarly, merchants that provide receipts for purposes other than to
comply with Regulation E, for example to facilitate merchandise
returns, likely still would make receipts available for all
transactions.
A few commenters requested clarification regarding the
applicability of the proposed exception to ATM transactions. In the
proposal, the Board stated that the proposed exception would apply to
deposits at ATMs of $15 or less.\8\ These commenters interpreted the
statement as limiting the exception to ATM deposits and suggested that
the exception should apply to all transactions conducted at an ATM. The
Board did not intend to so limit the exception but instead to note that
the exception could potentially apply to all transactions at an ATM,
including deposits. Nevertheless, the Board anticipates that for
operational reasons, financial institutions would continue to make
receipts available for ATM transactions, regardless of the amount of
transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 71 FR at 69502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A small number of commenters suggested that instead of excepting
small-dollar transactions altogether from the requirement to provide
receipts, receipts should be provided to consumers upon request.
Currently, comment 9(a)-1 already states that receipts may be provided
only upon a consumer's request. As discussed above, however, in some
retail environments, such as vending machines, the burdens associated
with installing and maintaining printing equipment would be an obstacle
to merchant acceptance of debit cards, even if the receipts are only
provided upon request.
Dollar Threshold
The Board specifically requested comment on whether $15 is the
appropriate threshold for the proposed exception. Several industry
commenters suggested that the threshold should be set at $25 to be
consistent with current card association rules that waive requirements
for signature or PIN authorization for transactions under that amount
for certain retailers. These commenters stated that having different
dollar amount thresholds for receipts and authorization requirements
would be confusing to consumers and would be difficult to implement in
terms of training staff and reprogramming terminals. Industry
commenters also asserted that a $25 threshold would better accommodate
rising costs than the $15 threshold and provide greater flexibility for
expansion of the use of debit cards in additional retail environments.
Consumer group commenters and some individual consumers, however,
thought the proposed threshold was too high, and they suggested that
the threshold be the minimum amount necessary to address the limited
circumstances cited by the industry. Thus, consumer groups recommended
a threshold of no more than $5, which they stated would be sufficient
to accommodate the types of retail environments discussed in the
proposal. One consumer commenter suggested that the amount be lowered
to $10, which the commenter believed would still take into account
future price increases.
The final rule provides an exception for transactions of $15 or
less, as proposed. As discussed in the proposal, the Board believes
that the $15 threshold strikes an appropriate balance between
industry's need for flexibility to offer cashless payment options in a
variety of retail environments and consumers' need for receipts in
higher-dollar transactions. Commenters did not provide any data that
suggests that a higher or lower threshold than the one proposed by the
Board better or more appropriately balances the costs and benefits of
the exception. The $5 threshold suggested by consumer groups may be
sufficient today to enable consumers to use debit cards in a majority
of retail environments where the option to use a debit card is
currently unavailable.\9\ The Board believes, however, that such a low
threshold might not sufficiently accommodate price increases that may
occur in these retail environments over time. A lower threshold might
also foreclose the possibility of additional retail environments
accepting cashless payments in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Vending industry data indicates that the average cost in
2005 for food and beverages sold in vending machines was about 75
cents for candy, $1 for bottled beverages, and $2 for frozen and
refrigerated food products. ``State of the Vending Industry Report:
Operators Slow to Invest; Sales Rise 3 Points in 2005,'' Automatic
Merchandiser, 40-62 (August 2006). A survey of major transit systems
in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, indicates the
maximum one-way fares range between $2 and $5 for subway systems. In
addition, according to one creator of smart-card based payment
solutions for municipal parking, the average purchase in parking
meters using its smart-card system is $1.39. See Ryan Kline, ``No
Change, No Problem With Smart Card Enabled Meters,'' SecureID News
(Mar. 28, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also did not provide strong arguments for increasing the
threshold. While a $25 threshold would make the rule consistent with
the card association rules that waive signature and PIN authorization
for certain transactions under that amount, the Board does not believe
consumers would be confused by a different dollar threshold for
receiving receipts because these two rules fulfill different goals and
purposes. The Board will continue to monitor the market need for the
exception and revisit this dollar threshold as necessary.
Additional Consumer Protections
The Board solicited comment in the proposal on whether the Board
should adopt any additional consumer protections in connection with the
proposed exception. Most industry commenters thought that current
consumer protections were sufficient and that additional protections
were not necessary. A couple of industry commenters, however, suggested
that a notice be posted at the terminal informing consumers that a
receipt will not be provided for transactions of $15 or less. The Board
believes that, on balance, the consumer benefit from receiving this
notice is outweighed by the costs of imposing the burden on financial
institutions of providing this notice. Many of the retail environments
that would take advantage of the exception, such as vending machines,
do not currently provide receipts for cash transactions. The Board
believes that consumers will not expect a receipt when using a debit
card in those environments. Thus, a notice informing them of the lack
of a receipt is unnecessary.
Consumer group commenters proposed some additional consumer
protections. First, consumer groups advocated that receipts should be
required in transactions where additional fees are imposed because
[[Page 36592]]
they believe receipts are helpful to alert consumers to these fees.
Although a merchant or ATM operator would be aware of any fees it may
impose in connection with a debit card transaction, it is the Board's
understanding that information about transaction fees charged by the
consumer's account-holding financial institution in connection with an
EFT typically would not be transmitted to merchants or to ATM operators
unless the terminal is owned and operated by the financial institution.
Thus, a receipt that is made available in such circumstances is
unlikely to alert the consumer to all fees that may be charged in the
transaction. Accordingly, the Board declines to adopt the suggestion.
Nonetheless, the Board agrees that consumers should be made aware in
some manner of all of the fees that may be imposed before entering into
a transaction.
Consumer group commenters also suggested that the exception should
not be available in retail environments where transactions of both
small- and large-dollar amounts are processed. As previously noted,
however, the Board expects that for operational reasons, many
businesses that process transactions of varying amounts will still make
receipts available for all transactions, regardless of amount.
Moreover, limiting the exception in the manner suggested would add
additional complexity to the rule, and therefore, the Board believes
the rule should be applied consistently for ease of compliance.
Section 205.11 Procedures for Resolving Errors
11(a) Definition of Error
Comment 11(a)-6, as proposed, clarified that the fact that a
financial institution does not make a terminal receipt available for a
transaction of $15 or less is not a billing error for purposes of
Sec. Sec. 205.11(a)(1)(vi) or (vii).\10\ No comments were received
regarding this provision, and the comment is adopted as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section 205.11(a)(1)(vi) defines an ``error'' to include an
EFT not identified in accordance with Sec. 205.9 or Sec.
205.10(a). Section 205.11(a)(1)(vii) states that a consumer's
request for documentation required by Sec. 205.9 or Sec. 205.10(a)
or for additional information or clarification concerning an EFT is
also considered an ``error'' for error resolution purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA)
generally requires an agency to perform an assessment of the rule's
expected impact on small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, the
regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under the RFA is not
required if an agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and provides a statement providing the factual basis for such
certification. Based on the analysis and reasons stated below, the
Board certifies that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
1. Statement of the need for, and objectives of, the final rule.
The EFTA was enacted to provide a basic framework establishing the
rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic
fund transfer systems. The primary objective of the EFTA is the
provision of individual consumer rights. 15 U.S.C. 1693. The EFTA
authorizes the Board to prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose
and provisions of the statute. 15 U.S.C. 1693b(a). The Act expressly
states that the Board's regulations may contain ``such classifications,
differentiations, or other provisions, * * * as, in the judgment of the
Board, are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of [the Act],
to prevent circumvention or evasion [of the Act], or to facilitate
compliance [with the Act].'' 15 U.S.C. 1693b(c).
The Board is revising Regulation E to provide financial
institutions relief from the requirement to make available terminal
receipts at the time of a transaction for EFTs of $15 or less. The
Board believes that these revisions to Regulation E are within
Congress's broad grant of authority to the Board to adopt provisions
that carry out the purposes of the statute and to facilitate compliance
with the EFTA. These revisions facilitate financial institutions'
compliance with the EFTA in small-dollar transactions by eliminating
obstacles to the use of electronic payment methods in such transactions
where the value to the consumer of having a record of the transaction
in the form of a terminal receipt is limited.
2. Issues raised by comments in response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. In accordance with section 603(a) of the RFA, the
Board conducted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in
connection with the proposed amendments. 71 FR 69502-03. The Board did
not receive any comments on its regulatory flexibility analysis with
respect to providing an exception from the requirement to make terminal
receipts available for EFTs of $15 or less.
3. Small entities affected by the final rule. The requirement to
make available receipts when a consumer initiates an EFT at an
electronic terminal applies to all financial institutions, regardless
of their size. Accordingly, the proposed exception would reduce the
burden and compliance costs for small institutions by providing relief
from the requirement to make terminal receipts available to consumers
at the time of the transaction where the transaction amount is $15 or
less.
4. Other federal rules. The Board has not identified any federal
rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final revisions to
Regulation E.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule
under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The final rule contains requirements subject to the
PRA. The collection of information that is required by this final rule
is found in 12 CFR part 205. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and
an organization is not required to respond to, this information
collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0200. This
collection of information is required to provide benefits for consumers
and is mandatory (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.). The respondents/
recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small
businesses. Institutions are required to retain records for 24 months.
The final rule provides relief to financial institutions from the
requirement to make available terminal receipts to consumers for all
EFTs of $15 or less. The burden associated with use of this exception
was previously estimated in the proposed rule and reported in documents
filed with OMB. Under the Board's prior analysis, respondents that are
currently providing receipts for EFTs of $15 or less would face a one-
time burden of 8 hours (one business day) to reprogram and update their
systems if they wish to make use of the exception. The Board did not
receive any comments on the burden estimate provided in the proposal.
Although the current requirement to make receipts available for all
transactions initiated at an electronic terminal applies to financial
institutions, third parties, such as merchants, typically make receipts
available on behalf of an account-holding financial institution. In
retail environments that do not currently accept debit cards, the
financial
[[Page 36593]]
institution's burden under Regulation E due to the receipt requirement
will not be impacted if the merchant should choose to accept debit
cards for transactions of $15 or less without printing a receipt. Under
the final rule, however, an account-holding financial institution may
also choose to program its ATMs to make receipts available only for
transactions above $15. For purposes of this PRA analysis, the Board
estimates that if approximately 100 of the 1,289 institutions subject
to the Board's supervisory authority program their ATMs in this manner,
the resulting total annual burden for this requirement would be 800
hours. This would increase the total annual burden of this information
collection from 83,866 hours to 84,666 hours for the first year the
financial institution elects to take advantage of the exception.
Thereafter, the Board estimates that the burden of making receipts
available will decrease as a result of the new exception. Nevertheless,
as stated above, the Board anticipates that financial institutions will
likely continue to make receipts available for all transactions
regardless of the amount and therefore incur no costs in reprogramming
their ATMs.
The other federal financial agencies are responsible for estimating
and reporting to OMB the total paperwork burden for the institutions
for which they have administrative enforcement authority. They may, but
are not required to, use the Board's burden estimates. The Board
estimates that if 1,500 of the approximately 19,300 depository
institutions program their ATMs to take advantage of the exception, the
resulting increase in their total estimated annual burden for complying
with Regulation E as a whole would be 12,000 hours.
Because the records would be maintained by the institutions and the
notices are not provided to the Board, no issue of confidentiality
arises under the Freedom of Information Act.
Text of Final Revisions
Comments are numbered to comply with Federal Register publication
rules.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 205
Consumer protection, Electronic fund transfers, Federal Reserve
System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 12 CFR part 205 and the
Official Staff is amended as follows:
PART 205--ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (REGULATION E)
0
1. The authority citation for part 205 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1693b.
0
2. Section 205.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and adding paragraph (e), to read as follows:
Sec. 205.9 Receipts at electronic terminals; periodic statements.
(a) Receipts at electronic terminals--General. Except as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, a financial institution shall make a
receipt available to a consumer at the time the consumer initiates an
electronic fund transfer at an electronic terminal. The receipt shall
set forth the following information, as applicable:
* * * * *
(e) Exception for receipts in small-value transfers. A financial
institution is not subject to the requirement to make available a
receipt under paragraph (a) of this section if the amount of the
transfer is $15 or less.
0
3. In Supplement I to part 205, under section 205.11--Procedures for
Resolving Errors, under 11(a) Definition of Error, paragraph 6 is
added, to read as follows:
Supplement I to Part 205--Official Staff Interpretations
* * * * *
Section 205.11--Procedures for Resolving Errors
11(a) Definition of Error
* * * * *
0
6. Terminal receipts for transfers of $15 or less. The fact that an
institution does not make a terminal receipt available for a transfer
of $15 or less in accordance with Sec. 205.9(e) is not an error for
purposes of Sec. Sec. 205.11(a)(1)(vi) or (vii).
* * * * *
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, June 27, 2007.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-12810 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P