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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

6025 

Vol. 78, No. 19 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 

1Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, section 

1073 (2010). 

2 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. EFTA section 919 is 

codified in 15 U.S.C. 1693o–1. 

3A technical correction to the February Final 

Rule was published on July 10, 2012. 77 FR 40459. 

For simplicity, that technical correction is 

incorporated into the term ‘‘February Final Rule.’’ 

4 Details on how to submit a comment on both the 

substantive changes in the proposal and the new 

effective date of the Final Rule, are available at 77 

FR 77188 (Dec. 31, 2012) or at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/12/31/2012- 

31170/electronic-fund-transfers-regulation-e. 

Comments must be submitted on or before January 

30, 2013. 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1005 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0050] 

RIN 3170–AA33 

Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation 

E) Temporary Delay of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

this final rule to delay the February 7, 

2013, effective date of final rules 

published by the Bureau on February 7, 

2012, and August 20, 2012 (collectively, 

2012 Final Rule), that amend Regulation 

E, which implements the Electronic 

Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). The 2012 

Final Rule implements statutory 

requirements set forth in section 1073 of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank 

Act) regarding remittance transfers. The 

Bureau is delaying the effective date of 

the 2012 Final Rule pending the 

finalization of a proposal, published on 

December 31, 2012 (December 2012 

Proposal), that would address three 

narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule. 

The Bureau will determine the new 

effective date when it finalizes the 

December 2012 Proposal. 

DATES: The effective date of the Final 

Rules published February 7, 2012 (77 

FR 6194) and August 20, 2012 (77 FR 

50244) and technical correction 

published July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40459) 

is delayed. The Bureau will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the new effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Goldberg or Lauren Weldon, Counsels, 

or Dana Miller, Senior Counsel, Division 

of Research, Markets, and Regulations, 

Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435– 

7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act 1

amended the EFTA 2 to create a new 

comprehensive consumer protection 

regime for remittance transfers sent by 

consumers in the United States to 

individuals and businesses in foreign 

countries. For covered transactions sent 

by remittance transfer providers, section 

1073 creates a new EFTA section 919, 

and generally requires: (i) The provision 

of disclosures prior to and at the time 

of payment by the sender for the 

transfer; (ii) cancellation and refund 

rights; (iii) the investigation and remedy 

of errors by providers; and (iv) liability 

standards for providers for the acts of 

their agents. 

On February 7, 2012, the Bureau 

published a final rule to implement 

section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 77 

FR 6194 (February Final Rule).3 On 

August 20, 2012, the Bureau published 

a supplemental rule adopting a safe 

harbor for determining which 

companies are not remittance transfer 

providers subject to the February Final 

Rule because they do not provide 

remittance transfers in the normal 

course of business, and modifying 

several aspects of the February Final 

Rule regarding remittance transfers that 

are scheduled before the date of transfer. 

77 FR 50244. The 2012 Final Rule 

adopted an effective date of February 7, 

2013. In the February Final Rule, the 

Bureau stated that it would continue to 

monitor implementation of the new 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

The Bureau has subsequently engaged 

in dialogue with both industry and 

consumer groups regarding 

implementation efforts and compliance 

concerns. 

Upon further review and analysis of 

these concerns, the Bureau published 

the December 2012 Proposal to refine 

several narrow aspects of the 2012 Final 

Rule. 77 FR 77188 (Dec. 31, 2012). The 

Bureau also proposed to extend the 

2012 Final Rule’s effective date until 90 

days after the finalization of the 

December 2012 Proposal. The comment 

period on both the proposed substantive 

changes and the new effective date of 

the 2012 Final Rule closes on January 

30, 2013.4 The Bureau intends to 

finalize the proposal expeditiously 

following the close of this comment 

period. 

Given the impending February 7, 

2013 effective date of the 2012 Final 

Rule, the Bureau simultaneously 

solicited comment on whether it should 

temporarily delay the effective date 

pending finalization of the December 

2012 Proposal. The comment period on 

this narrow aspect of the December 2012 

Proposal closed on January 15, 2013. 

II. Overview of Comments and 

Outreach 

The Bureau received approximately 

43 comments on its December 2012 

Proposal to delay the effective date of 

the 2012 Final Rule beyond February 7, 

2013. Commenters generally supported, 

or did not oppose, the temporary delay. 

All commenters that addressed the 

effective date either directly expressed 

support for or did not object to the 

proposed delay or indirectly supported 

the proposed delay by addressing the 

December 2012 Proposal’s 90-day 

proposed extension. 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

Based on comments received, the 

Bureau is temporarily delaying the 

effective date for the 2012 Final Rule 

pending finalization of the December 

2012 Proposal. The new effective date 

will be determined when the 

substantive refinements to the December 

2012 Proposal are finalized. The new 

effective date will be after February 7, 

2013. As noted above, the Bureau 

proposed that the 2012 Final Rule and 

any revisions resulting from the 

December 2012 Proposal would become 

effective 90 days after the Bureau 

finalizes the proposal. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
6026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5See http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

201209_CFPB_Remittance-Rule-Safe-HarborCountries-List.pdf (Sept. 26, 2012). 

IV. Status of the Bureau’s Remittance 

Rule Safe Harbor Countries List 

On September 26, 2012, the Bureau 

issued a safe harbor list of countries that 

qualify for an exception in the 2012 

Final Rule that permits estimated 

disclosures of certain figures where the 

laws of the recipient country do not 

permit a determination of the exact 

amounts.5 In that issuance, the Bureau 

explained that it would not remove 

countries from the list before May 1, 

2013. In light of the temporary delay of 

the effective date of the 2012 Final Rule, 

the Bureau will reassess the earliest date 

on which, if necessary, countries may be 

removed from the list in connection 

with the finalization of the December 

2012 Proposal, although that date will 

not be before May 1, 2013. 

In the meantime, the Bureau 

continues to welcome input on possible 

amendments to the list. The Bureau’s 

September 26, 2012 issuance on the safe 

harbor list of countries contains details 

on how to submit this feedback. 

V. Legal Authority and Effective Date 

Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

creates a new section 919 of the EFTA 

and requires remittance transfer 

providers to provide disclosures to 

senders of remittance transfers, 

pursuant to rules prescribed by the 

Bureau. In particular, providers must 

give a sender a written pre-payment 

disclosure containing specified 

information applicable to the sender’s 

remittance transfer. The provider must 

also provide a written receipt that 

includes the information provided on 

the pre-payment disclosure, as well as 

additional specified information. EFTA 

section 919(a). In addition, EFTA 

section 919(d) directs the Bureau to 

promulgate rules regarding appropriate 

cancellation and refund policies and to 

investigate and remedy errors by 

providers. 

In addition to the statutory mandates 

set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, EFTA 

section 904(a) authorizes the Bureau to 

prescribe regulations necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the title. The 

express purposes of the EFTA, as 

amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, are to 

establish ‘‘the rights, liabilities, and 

responsibilities of participants in 

electronic fund and remittance transfer 

systems’’ and to provide ‘‘individual 

consumer rights.’’ EFTA section 902(b). 

EFTA section 904(c) further provides 

that regulations prescribed by the 

Bureau may contain any classifications, 

differentiations, or other provisions, and 

may provide for such adjustments or 

exceptions for any class of electronic 

fund transfers or remittance transfers, 

that the Bureau deems necessary or 

proper to effectuate the purposes of the 

title, to prevent circumvention or 

evasion, or to facilitate compliance. 

This final rule will be effective on the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register. Under section 553(d) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

the required publication or service of a 

substantive rule shall be made not less 

than 30 days before its effective date, 

except for (1) a substantive rule which 

grants or recognizes an exemption or 

relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative 

rules and statements of policy; or (3) as 

otherwise provided by the agency for 

good cause found and published with 

the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This final rule 

does not establish any requirements but 

rather delays the effective date of the 

2012 Final Rule pending the finalization 

of the December 2012 Proposal. 

Therefore, under section 553(d)(1) of the 

APA, the Bureau is publishing this final 

rule less than 30 days before its effective 

date because it is a substantive rule 

which grants or recognizes an 

exemption or relieves a restriction. 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The Bureau further 

finds it has good cause pursuant to 

section 553(d)(3) of the APA to dispense 

with the 30-day delayed effective date 

requirement because, on balance, the 

need to implement immediately the 

delay of the 2012 Final Rule’s February 

7, 2013 effective date before that date 

occurs outweighs the need for affected 

parties to prepare for this delay. 

VI. Section 1022(b)(2) of the DoddFrank Act 

Section V of the December 2012 

Proposal contained the Bureau’s 

preliminary analysis under section 

1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act of the 

potential costs of the December 2012 

Proposal to consumers and covered 

persons (as defined in Dodd-Frank Act 

section 1002(6), 12 U.S.C. 5481(6)). In 

the final portion of that section, the 

Bureau addressed the impact of the 

proposed delay of the effective date on 

covered persons and consumers. See 

Section V.3. of the December 2012 

Proposal. 

In the proposal, the Bureau stated that 

the temporary delay of the 2012 Final 

Rule’s effective date would generally 

benefit remittance transfer providers by 

delaying the start of any ongoing 

compliance costs. The additional time 

might also enable providers (and their 

vendors) to build solutions that cost less 

than those that might otherwise have 

been possible. 

The Bureau also recognized that the 

proposed temporary delay of the 

effective date would impose some costs 

on senders by temporarily delaying the 

time when they would receive the 

benefits of Dodd-Frank section 1073 and 

the 2012 Final Rule from February 7, 

2013 to the ultimate effective date. 

Thus, consumers at most will only lose 

benefits from Dodd-Frank section 1073 

that would have accrued during the 

length of the temporary delay. (As noted 

above, the Bureau has not yet 

determined when the 2012 Final Rule 

will take effect but has proposed that it 

would become effective 90 days after 

the Bureau finalizes the December 2012 

Proposal.) The Bureau also noted that 

senders may benefit from the temporary 

delay to the extent that both the 

proposed refinements and the 

additional time providers have to 

implement the 2012 Final Rule may 

eliminate any disruptions in the 

provision of remittance transfer 

services. 

Further, the Bureau is not aware of 

any unique impact that this final rule 

might have on insured depository 

institutions or insured credit unions 

with total assets of $10 billion or less as 

described in section 1026(a) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, or on rural consumers. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, requires each agency to consider 

the potential impact of its regulations on 

small entities, including small 

businesses, small governmental units, 

and small not-for-profit organizations. 

The RFA generally requires an agency to 

conduct an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule 

subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Bureau did not perform an IFRA 

because it determined and certified that 

the December 2012 Proposal, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Bureau did not receive any 

comments regarding its certification of 

the delayed effective date proposed in 

the December 2012 Proposal, and is 

adopting that aspect of the December 

2012 Proposal without change. 

A FRFA is not required for this final 

rule because it will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will temporarily delay 

the February 7, 2013 effective date of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6027 

1Please note that the agency’s formal designation 

is the U.S. Border Patrol (or USBP), while the CBP 

Headquarters element of the Border Patrol is known 

as the Office of Border Patrol (OBP). Officers of the 

USBP are commonly referred to as either Border 

Patrol agents or Border Patrol officers. 

the 2012 Final Rule, pending the 

finalization of the December 2012 

Proposal that would address three 

narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule. 

The Bureau will determine the new 

effective date when it finalizes the 

December 2012 Proposal. The delay in 

effective date will generally benefit 

small remittance transfer providers, by 

delaying the start of any ongoing 

compliance costs. The additional time 

might also enable providers (and their 

vendors) to build solutions that cost less 

than those that might otherwise have 

been possible. 

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby 

certifies that the final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

The Bureau may not conduct or 

sponsor, and, notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, a respondent is not 

required to respond to, an information 

collection unless it displays a currently 

valid OMB control number. The Bureau 

determined that the December 2012 

Proposal’s proposed delay of the 

effective date of the 2012 Final Rule 

does not impose any new 

recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure 

requirements on covered persons or 

members of the public that would be 

collections of information requiring 

OMB approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq. The Bureau did not receive any 

comments regarding this conclusion, to 

which the Bureau adheres. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1005 

Banking, banks, Consumer protection, 

Credit unions, Electronic fund transfers, 

National banks, Remittance transfers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Savings associations. 

Dated: January 19, 2013. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01595 Filed 1–25–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 162 

[Docket No. USCBP–2011–0022; CBP Dec. 

13–04] 

RIN 1651–AA94 

Internet Publication of Administrative 

Seizure and Forfeiture Notices 

AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with 

one change, a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) published in the 

Federal Register on February 8, 2012, 

that proposed to allow for publication of 

notices of seizure and intent to forfeit on 

an official U.S. Government forfeiture 

Web site. CBP anticipates that this rule’s 

amendments will reduce administrative 

costs and improve the effectiveness of 

CBP’s notice procedures as Internet 

publication will reach a broader range of 

the public and provide access to more 

parties who may have an interest in the 

seized property. 

DATES: Final Rule effective February 28, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McKenzie, Director, Fines, 

Penalties and Forfeitures Division, 

Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, (202) 344–1808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 8, 2012, CBP published 

in the Federal Register (77 FR 6527) a 

proposed rule to amend title 19 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) 

regarding the manner by which CBP 

provides notice of intent to forfeit seized 

property appraised at more than $5,000 

and seized property appraised at $5,000 

or less. CBP proposed to utilize the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) forfeiture 

Web site, located at www.forfeiture.gov, 

to post seizure and forfeiture notices for 

property appraised in excess of $5,000 

in value for 30 consecutive days, 

including seizures by the U.S. Border 

Patrol,1 where appropriate. The DOJ 

forfeiture Web site currently contains a 

list of pending notices of civil and 

criminal forfeiture actions in various 

district courts and Federal Government 

agencies. Under the proposed 

regulation, CBP would no longer be 

required to publish administrative 

seizure and forfeiture notices for three 

successive weeks in a newspaper 

circulated at the CBP port and in the 

judicial district where CBP seized the 

property. CBP would continue to 

provide direct written notice to all 

known parties-in-interest of the seizure/ 

forfeiture action and include the Web 

site posting address and the expected 

dates of publication in that notice. 

To retain flexibility in the process 

pertaining to the higher-valued 

merchandise (appraised at more than 

$5,000), CBP proposed to retain the 

discretion, as circumstances warrant, to 

publish additional notice in a print 

medium for at least three successive 

weeks. For example, CBP would have 

the discretion to publish a notice of 

seizure and forfeiture in a newspaper in 

general circulation at the port and the 

judicial district nearest the seizure, or 

with wider or national circulation, 

when recommended by the pertinent 

U.S. Attorney’s office or court of 

jurisdiction. Also, CBP would have the 

discretion to publish notice of seizure 

and forfeiture in a non-English language 

or other community newspaper to 

ensure reaching a particular community 

that may have a particular interest in or 

connection to the seizure. Similarly, 

CBP would have the discretion to 

publish notice of seizure and forfeiture 

in a trade or industry publication that 

serves a particular commercial 

community to ensure reaching a party 

when it is difficult to identify a vessel 

or other conveyance owner. 

Under the proposed rule, CBP also 

would publish seizure and forfeiture 

notices on the DOJ forfeiture Web site 

for 30 consecutive days for seized 

property appraised at $5,000 or less. 

This additional notice would not 

replace the current procedure of CBP 

posting notice at the customhouse 

nearest the place of seizure. However, 

the proposed amendment would specify 

that in situations where Border Patrol 

agents make the seizure, the posting 

would be at the appropriate Border 

Patrol sector office. 

Benefits of Internet Posting 

As explained in the NPRM, CBP 

believes that using the Internet to 

publish CBP seizure and forfeiture 

notices will provide notice to a broader 

range of the public without the 

geographical limitations that exist under 

the current procedure’s reliance solely 

on local print publications or 

customhouse postings. Under this final 

rule, Internet posting will be available 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with