55970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public 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. 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1005 

[Docket No. CFPB–2014–0008] 

RIN 3170–AA45 

Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation 

E) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule; official 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 17, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

G. Raso and Shiri Wolf, Counsels; Eric 

Goldberg, Senior Counsel, Office of 

Regulations, at (202) 435–7700 or CFPB_

RemittanceRule@consumerfinance.gov. 

Please also visit the following Web site 

for additional information about the 

Remittance Rule: http://

www.consumerfinance.gov/remittancestransfer-rule-amendment-toregulation-e/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

This final rule amends regulations 

that implement provisions of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) that 

establish a new system of federal 

protections for remittance transfers sent 

by consumers in the United States to 

individuals and businesses in foreign 

countries.1 The amendments in this 

final rule extend by five years an 

exception in the rule that allows 

remittance transfer providers flexibility 

in meeting disclosure requirements that 

the Bureau believes would otherwise 

cause some remittance transfer 

providers to stop sending certain 

transfers, as well as making 

clarifications and technical corrections 

on various issues. The Bureau proposed 

these amendments in April 2014 (the 

April Proposal or the Proposal). 

A. Temporary Exception for Estimated 

Disclosures 

The Dodd-Frank Act provisions 

adopted by Congress as section 919(a)(4) 

of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act 

(EFTA) generally requires that 

consumers be provided with exact 

pricing disclosures before paying for a 

remittance transfer. However, Congress 

created a temporary provision that 

allowed insured institutions for several 

years to provide estimated disclosures 

where exact information could not be 

determined for reasons beyond their 

control. The provision was apparently 

designed to provide a transition period 

to allow credit unions, banks, and thrifts 

to develop better communication 

mechanisms with foreign financial 

institutions that may help execute wire 

transfers and certain other types of 

remittance transfers. 

The statute provides that the 

exception shall expire five years after 

the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, or 

July 21, 2015, but permits the Bureau, 

if it determines that expiration of the 

temporary exception would negatively 

affect the ability of insured institutions 

to send remittances to locations in 

foreign countries, to extend the 

temporary exception for up to ten years 

after enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act 

(i.e., to July 21, 2020). EFTA section 

919(a)(4)(B). Having made that 

determination after a period of public 

comment, the Bureau is now extending 

the Regulation E estimation provision 

that implements this statutory 

provision, § 1005.32(a) in the 

Remittance Rule, to July 21, 2020. 

B. Additional Clarifications 

The Bureau is also adopting several 

clarifications and technical corrections 

to the Remittance Rule. First, the Bureau 

is clarifying that U.S. military 

installations abroad are considered to be 

located in a State for purposes of the 

Remittance Rule. Second, the Bureau is 

clarifying that whether a remittance 

transfer from an account is for personal, 

family, or household purposes (and 

thus, whether the transfer could be a 

remittance transfer) may be determined 

by ascertaining the primary purpose of 

the account. Third, the Bureau is 

clarifying that faxes are considered 

writings for purposes of satisfying 

certain provisions of the Remittance 

Rule that require remittance transfer 

providers to provide disclosures in 

writing, and that, in certain 

circumstances, a provider may provide 

oral disclosures after receiving a 

remittance inquiry from a consumer in 

writing. Fourth, the final rule permits 

providers to include the Bureau’s new 

remittance-specific consumer Web 

pages as the Bureau Web site that 

providers must disclose on remittance 

transfer receipts. Finally, the Bureau is 

clarifying two of the rule’s error 

resolution provisions: What constitutes 

an ‘‘error’’ caused by delays related to 

fraud and related screenings, and the 

remedies for certain errors, including 

the clarification of a comment in the 

official interpretation to the rule. 

II. Background 

A. Types of Remittance Transfers 

As the Bureau discussed in more 

detail when it first published the 

Remittance Rule in February 2012, 

consumers can choose among several 

methods of transferring money to 

foreign countries (February 2012 Final 

Rule). 77 FR 6194 (Feb. 7, 2012). These 

methods generally involve either closed 

network or open network systems, 

although hybrids between open and 

closed networks also exist. Consistent 

with EFTA section 919, the Remittance 

Rule applies to remittance transfers sent 

through any electronic mechanism, 

including closed network and open 

network systems, or some hybrid of the 

two. As detailed below, in practice, the 

situations in which the temporary 

exception applies frequently involve 

remittance transfers sent through open 

networks. 

Closed Networks and Money 

Transmitters 

In a closed network, a remittance 

transfer provider uses either its own 

operations or a network of agents or 

other partners to collect funds from 

senders in the United States and 

disburse those funds to designated 

recipients abroad. Through the 

provider’s contractual arrangements 

with those agents or other partners, the 

provider typically can exercise some 

control over the remittance transfer from 

end to end, including the ability to set, 

limit, and/or learn of fees, exchange 

rates, and other terms of service. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55971 

2The 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 Federal Register 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. 

3The 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. See 

generally FFIEC Call Report data in response to the 

March 2014 Call Report, available at https://

cdr.ffiec.gov/public/. 

Accordingly, the Bureau expects that a 

provider that is sending remittance 

transfers using some version of a closed 

network is likely able to leverage its 

control and knowledge of the transfer 

terms in order to be able to disclose the 

exact exchange rates and third-party 

fees that apply to remittance transfers. 

Non-depository institutions, known 

generally as money transmitters, are the 

type of remittance transfer providers 

that most frequently use closed 

networks to send remittance transfers. 

Remittance transfers sent through 

money transmitters can be funded by 

the sender and received abroad using a 

variety of payments devices. However, 

the Bureau believes that most 

remittance transfers sent by money 

transmitters are currently sent and 

received abroad in cash, rather than as, 

for example, debits from and/or direct 

deposits to accounts held by depository 

institutions or credit unions. 

Open Networks and Wire Transfers 

As the data discussed below 

indicates, the most common form of 

open network remittance transfer is a 

wire transfer, an electronically 

transmitted order that directs a 

receiving institution to deposit funds 

into an identified beneficiary’s account. 

Indeed, virtually all bank respondents to 

the March 2014 Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council 

(FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of 

Condition and Income (FFIEC Call 

Report) 2 who reported that they were 

remittance transfer providers said they 

provided wire transfer services to 

consumers.3 Unlike closed network 

transactions, which generally can only 

be sent to entities that have signed on 

to work with the specific provider in 

question, wire transfers can reach most 

banks (or other similar institutions) 

worldwide through national payment 

systems that are connected through 

correspondent and other intermediary 

bank relationships. Also unlike closed 

networks, open networks are typically 

used to send funds from and to accounts 

at depository institutions, credit unions, 

or similar financial institutions. The 

Bureau believes that the great majority 

of open network transfers are provided 

by insured institutions (including credit 

unions) and that, in turn, open network 

transfers are the most common type of 

remittance transfer provided by insured 

institutions and broker-dealers. 

However, some money transmitters also 

use open networks to send some or all 

of their remittance transfers. 

In an open network, the remittance 

transfer provider with which the 

consumer interfaces (i.e., the originating 

institution), typically does not have 

control over, or a relationship with, all 

of the participants in transmitting the 

remittance transfer. The originating 

institution may communicate indirectly 

with the designated recipient’s 

institution by sending funds and 

payment instructions to a correspondent 

institution, which will then transmit the 

instructions and funds to the designated 

recipient’s institution directly, such as 

in the form of a book transfer, or 

indirectly through other intermediary 

institutions (a serial payment). 

Alternatively, under certain 

circumstances, the originating 

institution may send payment 

instructions directly to the designated 

recipient’s institution, but it will 

nevertheless rely on a network of 

intermediary bank relationships to send 

funds for settlement (a cover payment). 

In some cases, depending on how the 

transfer is sent, any one of the 

intermediary institutions through which 

the remittance transfer passes may 

deduct a fee from the principal amount 

(sometimes referred to as a lifting fee). 

Likewise, if the originating institution 

does not conduct any necessary 

currency exchange, any institution 

through which the funds pass 

potentially could perform the currency 

exchange before the designated 

recipient’s institution deposits the funds 

into the designated recipient’s account. 

Institutions involved in open network 

transfers may learn about each other’s 

practices regarding fees or other matters 

through contractual or other 

relationships, through experience in 

sending such transfers over time, 

through reference materials, through 

information provided by consumers, or 

through surveying other institutions. 

However, at least until the 

implementation of the Remittance Rule, 

intermediary and designated recipient 

institutions did not, as a matter of 

uniform practice, communicate with 

originating institutions regarding the 

fees and exchange rates that institutions 

might apply to transfers. Further, the 

communication systems used to send 

these transfers typically do not facilitate 

two-way, real-time transmission of 

information about the exchange rate and 

fees associated with the transfers sent 

through an open network. See generally 

78 FR 30662, 30663 (May 22, 2013). 

International ACH 

In recent years, some depository 

institutions and credit unions have 

begun to send remittance transfers 

through the automated clearing house 

(ACH) system, although use of ACH for 

consumer transfers is limited. In the 

FFIEC Call Report for the quarter ending 

March 31, 2014, only 78 of the 691 

depository institutions that reported 

being remittance transfer providers also 

reported that they provide international 

ACH services for consumers. When the 

Bureau first issued the Remittance Rule 

in February 2012, the Bureau explained 

that it considered international ACH 

transfers to be open network 

transactions. Like wire transfers, 

international ACH transfers can involve 

payment systems in which a large 

number of institutions may participate, 

such that the originating institution and 

the designated recipient’s institution 

may have no direct relationship. The 

Bureau acknowledged, however, that 

international ACH transfers also share 

some characteristics of closed network 

transfers. The agreements among 

gateway ACH operators in the United 

States and foreign entities involved may 

be used to control the amount and type 

of fees that are charged and/or exchange 

rates that are applied to a remittance 

transfer. To maintain consistency with 

the Bureau’s prior rulemakings, 

international ACH transfers are 

discussed herein as open network 

transactions. 

Available Remittance Transfer Market 

Share Data 

Based on available information and as 

discussed in greater detail below, the 

Bureau believes that closed network 

transactions facilitated by money 

transmitters make up the great majority 

of the remittance transfers sent. 

Relatedly, the Bureau believes that 

money transmitters collectively send far 

more remittance transfers each year than 

depository institutions and credit 

unions. In January 2014, in connection 

with a ‘‘larger participant’’ rulemaking 

(discussed in greater detail below), the 

Bureau estimated that money 

transmitters annually send about 150 

million international money transfers, 

most of which the Bureau believes 

would likely qualify as remittance 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4Although 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.) 5Pursuant 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. 

6The Bureau lacks data on remittance transfers 

sent by broker-dealers. 

7The Bureau created two additional permanent 

exceptions by regulation in § 1005.32(b)(2) and 

(b)(3). They are discussed below. 

transfers pursuant to § 1005.30(e) and, 

thus, be covered by the Remittance 

Rule. See 79 FR 5302, 5306. (Jan. 31, 

2014). By comparison, information 

reported by credit unions to the 

National Credit Union Administration 

(NCUA) through the NCUA Call Report 

and Credit Union Profile forms (NCUA 

Call Report) suggests that credit unions 

may have collectively sent less than one 

percent of this total in 2013 (i.e. less 

than 1 million remittance transfers 

collectively). Data from the FFIEC Call 

Report confirm that depository 

institutions send many more remittance 

transfers than credit unions, but still far 

fewer than money transmitters. 

Specifically, the data show that banks 

that are considered remittance transfer 

providers pursuant to § 1005.30(f) 

collectively sent about 2.2 million 

remittance transfers from October 28 

through December 31, 2013.4

Annualizing this figure (without any 

seasonal adjustments to account for the 

fact that this data cover the ChristmasNew Year holiday season, which the 

Bureau understands to be traditionally a 

time of increased transfer volume), the 

Bureau estimates that depository 

institutions collectively sent at most 

13.2 million international transfers in 

2013. This figure is less than 10 percent 

of the estimated 150 million remittance 

transfers sent by money transmitters. 

Although the Bureau believes that 

money transmitters are responsible for 

sending the great majority of the 

remittance transfers, it believes that the 

typical size of transfers sent by 

depository institutions and credit 

unions is larger than the typical size of 

transfers sent by a money transmitter.5

A transfer sent by a depository 

institution or credit union may be in the 

thousands of dollars, while the Bureau 

estimates that the typical size of 

remittance transfers sent by money 

transmitters is in the hundreds of 

dollars.6

B. Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

amended EFTA by establishing a new 

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 created 

a new EFTA section 919. It generally 

requires: (i) The disclosure of the actual 

exchange rate and remitted amount to 

be received prior to and at the time of 

payment by the consumer; (ii) 

cancelation and refund rights; (iii) the 

investigation and remedy of errors by 

providers; and (iv) liability standards for 

providers for the acts of their agents. 15 

U.S.C. 1693o–1. 

EFTA section 919 provides two 

exceptions to the requirement that 

providers disclose actual amounts.7 The 

first, the temporary exception, is an 

accommodation for insured depository 

institutions and credit unions, in 

apparent recognition of the fact that 

these institutions might need additional 

time to develop the necessary systems 

or protocols to disclose the exchange 

rates and/or covered third-party fees 

that could be imposed on a remittance 

transfer. The temporary exception 

permits an insured institution that is 

sending a remittance transfer from the 

sender’s account to provide reasonably 

accurate estimates of the amount of 

currency to be received where that 

institution is ‘‘unable to know [the 

amount], for reasons beyond its control’’ 

at the time that the sender requests a 

transfer through an account held with 

the institution. EFTA section 

919(a)(4)(A). The temporary exception 

sunsets five years from the date of 

enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (i.e., 

July 21, 2015), but EFTA section 919, as 

added by section 1073 of the DoddFrank Act, permits the Bureau to extend 

that date up to five more years (i.e., 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 

depository institutions and insured 

credit unions to send remittance 

transfers. EFTA section 919(a)(4)(B). 

The second statutory exception in 

EFTA section 919 is permanent. The 

exception provides that if the Bureau 

determines that a recipient country does 

not legally allow, or that the method by 

which the transactions are made in the 

recipient country does not allow, a 

remittance transfer provider to know the 

amount of currency that will be received 

by the designated recipient, the Bureau 

may prescribe rules addressing the 

issue. EFTA section 919(c). 

C. Remittance Rulemakings Under the 

Dodd-Frank Act 

The Bureau initially issued 

regulations to implement section 1073 

of the Dodd-Frank Act in February 2012, 

which was followed by two significant 

rounds of amendments and some 

additional minor clarifications and 

technical corrections. The consolidated 

Remittance Rule took effect on October 

28, 2013. 

The 2012 Final Rules 

The Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System (the Board) first 

proposed in May 2011 to amend 

Regulation E to implement the 

remittance transfer provisions in section 

1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 76 FR 

29902 (May 23, 2011). On February 7, 

2012, the Bureau finalized the Board’s 

proposal, as authority to implement the 

new Dodd-Frank Act provisions 

amending EFTA had transferred from 

the Board to the Bureau on July 21, 

2011. See 12 U.S.C. 5581(a)(1); 12 U.S.C. 

5481(12) (defining ‘‘enumerated 

consumer laws’’ to include EFTA). 

The Remittance Rule includes 

provisions that generally require a 

remittance transfer provider to provide 

to a sender a written pre-payment 

disclosure containing detailed 

information about the transfer requested 

by the sender. The information 

includes, among other things, the 

exchange rate, certain fees and taxes, 

and the amount to be received by the 

designated recipient. In addition to the 

pre-payment disclosure, the provider 

also must furnish to a sender a written 

receipt when payment is made for the 

transfer. The receipt must include the 

information provided on the prepayment disclosure, as well as 

additional information, such as the date 

of availability of the funds, the 

designated recipient’s name and, if 

provided, contact information, and 

information regarding the sender’s error 

resolution and cancellation rights. In 

some cases, a provider may provide the 

required disclosures orally or via text 

message. Section 1005.31(a)(3)–(5). As is 

noted below, the Bureau subsequently 

modified provisions regarding the 

disclosure of foreign taxes and certain 

recipient institution fees in May 2013. 

The Remittance Rule generally 

requires that the required disclosures 

state the actual exchange rate, if any, 

that will apply to a remittance transfer, 

and the actual amount that will be 

received by the designated recipient of 

the transfer, unless an exception 

applies. Section 1005.32(a) implements 

the temporary exception. Section 

§ 1005.32(b)(1) implements the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55973 

8See 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. 

9On July 10, 2012, the Bureau published a 

technical correction to the Remittance Rule. See 77 

FR 40459 (Jul. 10, 2012). 

10 In August 2013, the Bureau adopted a 

clarification and a technical correction to the 

Remittance Rule. 78 FR 49365 (Aug. 14, 2013). 

11The comments submitted regarding this 

proposed rule are available at https:// 

federalregister.gov/a/2014-01606. 

12Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

remittances-transfer-rule-amendment-to-regulatione/. 

13Available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

blog/category/remittances/. 

permanent statutory exception. As 

implemented by the Bureau, this 

permanent exception permits a 

remittance transfer provider to rely on a 

list of countries published by the 

Bureau to determine whether estimates 

may be provided.8 The Remittance Rule 

also implements EFTA sections 919(d) 

and (f), which direct the Bureau to 

promulgate error resolution standards 

and rules regarding appropriate 

cancellation and refund policies, as well 

as standards of liability for remittance 

transfer providers. 

The Bureau amended the Remittance 

Rule on August 20, 2012.9 These 

amendments include a safe harbor 

defining which persons are not 

remittance transfer providers for 

purposes of the Remittance Rule, 

because they do not provide remittance 

transfers in the normal course of their 

business. The amendments also include 

provisions that apply to remittance 

transfers that are scheduled significantly 

in advance of the date of transfer, 

including a provision that allows a 

provider to estimate certain disclosure 

information for such transfers. See 

§ 1005.32(b)(2). 

The 2013 Final Rule 

Following the initial publication of 

the Remittance Rule in February 2012, 

the Bureau engaged in dialogue with 

both industry and consumer groups 

regarding implementation efforts and 

compliance concerns. As an outgrowth 

of those conversations, the Bureau 

proposed amendments to specific 

aspects of the Remittance Rule in a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on December 31, 2012, in 

order to avoid potentially significant 

disruptions to the provision of 

remittance transfers. See 77 FR 77188 

(Dec. 31, 2012). The Bureau then 

decided to delay temporarily the 

Remittance Rule’s original effective date 

of February 7, 2013, in order to 

complete this additional rulemaking. 

See 78 FR 6025 (Jan. 29, 2013). 

The Bureau finalized these proposed 

amendments in May 2013. 78 FR 30662 

(May 23, 2013). In these amendments, 

the Bureau modified the Remittance 

Rule to make optional the requirement 

to disclose taxes collected on the 

remittance transfer by a person other 

than the remittance transfer provider 

and in certain circumstances, the 

requirement to disclose fees imposed by 

a designated recipient’s institution 

(defined as non-covered third-party 

fees). In place of these two disclosure 

requirements, the Remittance Rule now 

requires providers, where applicable, to 

add disclaimers to the disclosures they 

must provide to sender. The disclaimers 

must inform senders that due to noncovered third-party fees and taxes 

collected on the transfer by a person 

other than the remittance transfer 

provider, the designated recipient may 

receive less than the amount listed on 

the disclosures as the total amount of 

funds that will be received by him or 

her. The May 2013 amendments also 

created an additional permanent 

exception that allows providers to 

estimate, if they choose to, non-covered 

third-party fees and taxes collected on 

the remittance transfer by a person other 

than the provider. See § 1005.32(b)(3). 

Finally, the Bureau revised the error 

resolution provisions that apply when a 

remittance transfer is not delivered to a 

designated recipient because the sender 

provided incorrect or insufficient 

information.10 The Remittance Rule 

then became effective on October 28, 

2013. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Regarding Larger Participants 

Section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

establishes that the Bureau may 

supervise certain nonbank covered 

persons that are ‘‘larger participants’’ in 

consumer financial markets, as defined 

by rule. 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B). 

Pursuant to this authority, the Bureau 

published a proposal on January 31, 

2014, to identify a nonbank market for 

international money transfers and 

define ‘‘larger participants’’ of this 

market that would be subject to the 

Bureau’s supervisory program. 79 FR 

5302 (Jan. 31, 2014). Specifically, the 

proposal would extend Bureau 

supervisory authority to any nonbank 

international money transfer provider 

that has at least one million aggregate 

annual international money transfers to 

determine compliance with, among 

other things, the Remittance Rule. The 

comment period on this proposal ended 

on April 1, 2014, and the Bureau is in 

the process of preparing to issue a final 

rule.11

D. Implementation Initiatives for the 

Remittance Rule and Related Activities 

The Bureau has been actively engaged 

in an initiative to support 

implementation of the Remittance Rule. 

For example, the Bureau has established 

a Web page that contains links to 

various industry and consumer 

resources.12 These resources include a 

small entity compliance guide that 

provides a plain-language summary of 

the Remittance Rule and highlights 

issues that businesses, in particular 

small businesses, may want to consider 

when implementing the Remittance 

Rule. In conjunction with the release of 

this final rule, the Bureau is revising the 

compliance guide to update its text to 

reflect the changes to the Remittance 

Rule adopted herein and improve the 

guide’s clarity. A video overview of the 

Remittance Rule and its requirements, 

model forms, and other resources are 

also available. 

Consumer resources the Bureau has 

created include answers to frequently 

asked questions regarding international 

money transfers, and materials that 

consumer groups and other stakeholders 

can use to educate consumers about the 

new rights provided to them by the 

Remittance Rule.13 Some of these 

resources are available in languages 

other than English. The Bureau has also 

conducted media interviews in English 

and Spanish and participated in other 

public engagements to publicize the 

new consumer rights available under 

the Remittance Rule. The Bureau 

continues to provide ongoing guidance 

support to assist industry and others 

with interpreting the Remittance Rule, 

and has sent staff to speak at 

conferences and in other for a, both to 

provide additional guidance on the 

Remittance Rule, and learn from 

providers and others about efforts to 

comply with the Rule. 

III. Summary of the Rulemaking 

Process 

A. Fact Gathering Concerning the 

Temporary Exception 

As noted, EFTA section 919(a)(4)(B) 

permits the Bureau to issue a rule to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

14The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

control number for this information collection is 

3170–0032. 

15See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Request for Approval under the Generic Clearance: 

Compliance Costs and Other Effects of Regulation, 

available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201205-3170- 

003&icID=209232. 

16Staff 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 available at http://www.sec.gov/

divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/2012/financialinformation-forum-121412-rege.pdf. 

17See generally http://www.ncua.gov/dataapps/

qcallrptdata/Pages/default.aspx. 

18See 79 FR 2509 (Jan. 14, 2014); FDIC Financial 

Institution Letter FIL 4–2014. 

extend the temporary exception if it 

determines that the termination of the 

exception on July 21, 2015, would 

negatively affect the ability of insured 

institutions to send remittance transfers. 

In February 2012, the Bureau noted that 

some industry commenters urged the 

Bureau at that time to make the 

temporary exception permanent, or in 

the alternative, extend the exception to 

July 21, 2020. The Bureau declined to 

extend the exception in February 2012. 

It believed then that it would have been 

premature to make a determination on 

the extension of the temporary 

exception three years in advance of the 

July 2015 sunset date, prior to the rule’s 

release, and before the market has had 

a chance to respond to the regulatory 

requirements. See 77 FR 6194, 6202, 

and 6243 (Feb. 7, 2012). 

Since the Bureau first issued the 

Remittance Rule, the Bureau has 

supplemented its understanding of the 

remittance transfer market through 

information received in the course of 

subsequent rulemakings, additional 

research and monitoring of the market, 

and initiatives related to the 

implementation of the Remittance Rule. 

The additional research and monitoring 

have included in-depth conversations 

with several remittance transfer 

providers about how they have 

implemented the requirements of the 

Remittance Rule, participation in 

industry conferences and related 

meetings, as well as similar monitoring 

efforts. In addition, Bureau staff 

conducted interviews with 

approximately 35 industry stakeholders 

and consumer groups after the 

Remittance Rule took effect in 

connection with this rulemaking.14

Through these interviews, the Bureau 

gathered information regarding 

providers’ reliance on the temporary 

exception for certain remittance 

transfers, and whether viable 

alternatives currently exist for those 

transfers. The Bureau conducted the 

interviews in order to build on the 

Bureau’s existing knowledge and assist 

it in making a determination as to 

whether expiration of the temporary 

exception on July 21, 2015, would 

negatively affect the ability of insured 

institutions to send remittance 

transfers.15

The industry stakeholders that the 

Bureau contacted included both 

remittance transfer providers and 

service providers. The Bureau contacted 

community banks, regional banks, credit 

unions, nonbank service providers, and 

very large banks that send remittance 

transfers on behalf of their retail 

customers and on behalf of other 

providers. The Bureau also contacted 

remittance transfer providers that are 

broker-dealers. The Bureau believes that 

broker-dealers may send transfers via 

open networks, similar to those used by 

many insured institutions.16 The Bureau 

also contacted nonbank money 

transmitters that use open networks to 

send some of their transfers. Although 

the temporary exception only applies to 

insured institutions, the Bureau 

believed that interviewing certain 

nonbank money transmitters that send 

open network transfers without being 

able to rely on the temporary exception 

would help the Bureau better 

understand what methods exist for 

providing exact disclosures for open 

network transfers. The service providers 

that the Bureau contacted included 

correspondent banks and corporate 

credit unions, bankers’ banks, and 

foreign banks that offer correspondent 

banking services to U.S.-based 

remittance transfer providers, or act as 

intermediaries in the payment clearing 

and settlement chain. Insofar as the 

conversations were voluntary, the 

Bureau did not ultimately speak with 

every institution it contacted. 

As noted above, the Bureau has also 

reviewed NCUA Call Report.17 The data 

provided information on the number 

and types of remittances sent by credit 

unions, the methods by which credit 

unions send remittance transfers, and 

the payment systems credit unions 

utilize to send remittance transfers. 

Additionally, as discussed above, the 

Bureau has reviewed FFIEC Call Report 

data about remittance transfer practices. 

On the forms due in April 2014 

regarding the reporting period from 

January 1 through March 31, 2014, 

depository institutions were required to 

provide select information, including, as 

relevant here, information on the types 

of remittance transfers provided and, for 

institutions that provide more than 100 

transfers per year, the number and 

dollar value of remittance transfers sent 

by the reporting institutions in their 

capacity as remittance transfer 

providers. The report also included 

information on the frequency with 

which a reporting institution uses the 

temporary exception in its role as a 

remittance transfer provider.18

The Bureau notes that the data from 

the NCUA and FFIEC Call Reports do 

not cover every practice, or every type 

of remittance transfer providers and 

service providers that the Bureau has 

researched and interviewed through its 

market monitoring efforts. However, as 

noted in the April Proposal, the FFIEC 

and NCUA Call Reports have the 

potential to provide valuable 

quantitative data to complement the 

more in-depth qualitative information 

that the Bureau has been able to gather 

through interviews and other sources 

because the scope of the data covers 

every depository institution and credit 

union reporting to the NCUA and 

FFIEC, respectively. At this point, the 

value of the data collected in the first 

quarter FFIEC Call Report is limited in 

part because there has only been one 

reporting cycle. The Bureau will 

continue to monitor the data, with a 

focus on trends over time. The Bureau 

also expects to continue to assess the 

data as depository institutions become 

more familiar with these new reporting 

requirements. Finally, to the extent that 

responses to the FFIEC Call Report can 

provide an accurate measure of the 

extent of the utilization of the temporary 

exception by insured institutions, this 

measure is not the only, nor necessarily 

the primary factor that the Bureau has 

considered in determining whether to 

extend the temporary exception under 

EFTA section 919(a)(4)(B). 

The Bureau also notes that in 

connection with the April Proposal, it 

consulted with consumer groups to 

attempt to identify the effects, if any, 

that estimating covered third-party fees 

and exchange rates may have on 

consumers, as well as the potential 

effect on consumers of the expiration of 

the temporary exception, and, in the 

alternative, its extension to July 21, 

2020. 

B. Summary of the April Proposal 

As noted above, in April 2014, the 

Bureau proposed amendments to 

various provisions of the Remittance 

Rule to extend a temporary provision 

that permits insured institutions to 

estimate certain third-party fees and 

exchange rates, and to clarify or revise 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55975 

several regulatory provisions and 

official interpretations previously 

adopted by the Bureau. 

The primary focus of the April 

Proposal was the temporary exception. 

The Bureau proposed to extend the 

Regulation E estimation provision in 

§ 1005.32(a). That provision allows 

remittance transfer providers to estimate 

certain third-party fees and exchange 

rates associated with a remittance 

transfer, if certain conditions are met. 

Specifically, a remittance transfer 

provider may rely on the temporary 

exception if (1) the provider is an 

insured depository institution or credit 

union; (2) the remittance transfer is sent 

from the sender’s account with the 

provider; and (3) the provider cannot 

determine the exact amounts for reasons 

outside of its control. Based on its 

outreach and internal research and 

analysis, the Bureau preliminarily 

determined that the termination of the 

temporary exception would negatively 

affect the ability of insured institutions 

to send remittance transfers. Thus, the 

Bureau proposed to amend 

§ 1005.32(a)(2) by extending the 

temporary exception by five years from 

July 21, 2015, to July 21, 2020. 

C. Additional Clarifications 

The Bureau also proposed several 

clarificatory amendments and technical 

corrections to the Remittance Rule. 

First, the Bureau sought comment on 

whether (and if so, how) it should 

clarify treatment of U.S. military 

installations located in foreign countries 

for purposes of the Remittance Rule. 

The Bureau explained in the April 

Proposal that it believes there is a 

potential for confusion in the treatment 

of these transfers, because the 

Remittance Rule does not expressly 

address their status. Second, the Bureau 

proposed to clarify that whether a 

transfer from an account is for personal, 

family, or household purposes (and 

thus, whether the transfer is a 

remittance transfer) can be determined 

by ascertaining the purpose for which 

the account was created. Third, the 

Bureau proposed to clarify that faxes are 

considered writings for purposes of 

certain disclosure provisions of the 

Remittance Rule, and that, in certain 

circumstances, a remittance transfer 

provider may provide oral disclosures, 

after receiving a remittance inquiry from 

a consumer in writing. Finally, the 

Bureau proposed to clarify two of the 

rule’s error resolution provisions. More 

specifically, the Bureau proposed to 

clarify what constitutes an ‘‘error’’ 

caused by delays related to fraud and 

related screening, and the remedies for 

certain errors. 

D. Comments Received 

The Bureau received more than 30 

comments on the April Proposal. The 

majority of comments were submitted 

by industry commenters, including 

depository institutions of various sizes, 

money transmitters, and industry trade 

associations. In addition, the Bureau 

received comment letters from two 

consumer groups. 

Industry commenters overwhelmingly 

supported the April Proposal, and 

agreed with the Bureau’s preliminary 

determination that the expiration of the 

temporary exception would have a 

negative impact on the ability of insured 

institutions to send remittance transfers. 

In support of the April Proposal, several 

institutions and industry trade 

associations explained how and why 

they used the temporary exception. 

Industry commenters further asserted 

that the temporary exception is critical 

and that they would not have the ability 

to disclose exact amounts for all 

remittance transfers by July 2015. Other 

commenters expressed concern 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. 

The two consumer group commenters 

both opposed this part of the April 

Proposal. One consumer group 

commenter asserted that the Bureau 

should limit the extension of the 

temporary exception to situations where 

it was necessary, as defined by the 

Bureau, or for shorter period of time, 

rather than the full five years permitted 

by the Dodd-Frank Act. The other 

consumer group commenter asserted 

that if the Bureau were to extend the 

temporary exception, then it should 

require insured institutions that rely on 

the exception to disclose to customers 

that money transmitters (i.e., remittance 

transfer providers that are not insured 

institutions and, thus, are not permitted 

by the Remittance Rule to rely on the 

temporary exception) would provide 

consumers with exact disclosures. 

With respect to the Bureau’s request 

for comment and data regarding the 

treatment of transfers to and from U.S. 

military installations located in foreign 

countries, the Bureau received several 

comments, but only limited data. 

Industry commenters generally urged 

the Bureau to determine that military 

installations located in foreign countries 

be treated as being located in a State, so 

that, for example, transfers from a State 

to a U.S. military installation located in 

a foreign country would not be covered 

by the Remittance Rule. These 

commenters asserted that transfers to or 

from a U.S. military installation were no 

different than domestic transfers that are 

already exempt from the Remittance 

Rule. One consumer group, however, 

urged that the Bureau take the opposite 

approach, and treat a U.S. military 

installation located in a foreign country 

as being located in the foreign country. 

This consumer group asserted that 

transfers received on a military 

installation in a foreign country should 

not be treated differently from transfers 

received outside the installation in the 

foreign country. 

As for the Bureau’s other proposed 

amendments, commenters generally 

supported the proposed changes, 

although some noted particular 

objections. Specifically, with respect to 

the proposed clarification concerning 

the treatment of faxes as writings, one 

commenter, a consumer group, opposed 

the change, arguing that faxes should 

only be allowed to comply with the 

Remittance Rule’s disclosure 

requirements where the sender has 

consented to receive the disclosure by 

fax by providing E-Sign consent. 

Commenters also supported the 

Bureau’s proposal that would permit 

alternatives to disclosing the URL for 

the Bureau’s Web site on required 

receipts, as well as the Bureau’s 

proposal that would permit remittance 

transfer providers to respond to written 

requests for a remittance transfer with 

oral disclosures, when providing 

written disclosures would be 

impractical. Commenters similarly 

supported the proposal to permit 

providers to look to the type of account 

from which the transfer is being sent to 

determine if the transfer is a remittance 

transfer (although, as discussed in 

greater detail below, one large money 

transmitter opposed the proposal, to the 

extent the proposal would have been a 

mandatory change). 

The Bureau also received several 

comments regarding the proposed 

changes to the Remittance Rule’s error 

resolution and remedy provisions. 

These comments were mixed. Regarding 

the proposed change clarifying the 

circumstances under which provider 

delay due to certain fraud screening 

would not be considered an error under 

the Rule, several commenters contended 

that the Bureau’s proposed approach 

was too narrow, and that it would 

exclude several categories of screeningrelated delays that should be included 

in the Remittance Rule’s exception. 

Other industry commenters disagreed; 

they supported the proposed change, 

and noted that it would cover the 

majority, if not all, of the delays 

financial institutions experience related 

to fraud screening. One consumer group 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter also supported these 

proposed changes. With respect to the 

proposed clarifications to the remedies 

for certain errors, some industry 

commenters supported, or did not 

oppose, the proposed clarifications, 

although several argued that providers 

should not have to refund their fees, in 

cases where the designated recipient did 

not receive the remittance transfer by 

the date of availability disclosed by the 

provider, because the sender had 

provided incorrect or insufficient 

information. Finally, several 

commenters urged the Bureau to adjust 

other parts of the Remittance Rule that 

were beyond the scope of the April 

Proposal. 

In addition to the comments received 

on the April Proposal, Bureau staff 

conducted outreach with various parties 

about the issues raised by the Proposal 

or raised in comments. Records of these 

outreach conversations are reflected in 

ex parte submissions included in the 

rulemaking record (accessible by 

searching by the docket number 

associated with this final rule at 

www.regulations.gov). 

IV. Legal Authority 

Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

created a new section 919 of EFTA and 

requires remittance transfer providers to 

provide disclosures to senders of 

remittance transfers, pursuant to rules 

prescribed by the Bureau. As discussed 

above, the Dodd-Frank Act established a 

temporary exception in amending 

EFTA, which provides that subject to 

rules prescribed by the Bureau, insured 

depository institutions and insured 

credit unions may provide estimates of 

the amount to be received where the 

remittance transfer provider is ‘‘unable 

to know [the amount], for reasons 

beyond its control’’ at the time that the 

sender requests a transfer to be 

conducted through an account held 

with the provider. EFTA section 

919(a)(4)(A). The Dodd-Frank Act 

further establishes that the exception 

shall terminate five years from the date 

of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act 

(i.e., July 21, 2015), unless the Bureau 

determines that the termination of the 

exception would negatively affect the 

ability of depository institutions and 

credit unions to send remittance 

transfers. In which case, the Bureau may 

extend the application of the exception 

to not longer than ten years after the 

enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (i.e., 

July 21, 2020). EFTA section 

919(a)(4)(B). 

In addition, EFTA section 919(d) 

provides for specific error resolution 

procedures and directs the Bureau to 

promulgate rules regarding appropriate 

cancellation and refund policies. 

Finally, EFTA section 919(f) requires 

the Bureau to establish standards of 

liability for remittance transfer 

providers, including those providers 

that act through agents. Except as 

described below, the final rule is 

adopted under the authority provided to 

the Bureau in EFTA section 919, and as 

more specifically described in this 

Supplementary Information. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 1005.30 Remittance Transfer 

Definitions 

1005.30(c) Designated Recipient & 

1005.30(g) Sender 

Application of the Remittance Rule to 

U.S. Military Installations Abroad 

As noted in the April Proposal, the 

Remittance Rule applies when a sender 

located in a ‘‘State’’ sends funds to a 

designated recipient at a location in a 

‘‘foreign country.’’ See § 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. See 

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 ‘‘State’’ in subpart A of 

Regulation E (§ 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 ‘‘foreign country’’ or 

a ‘‘State,’’ 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 ‘‘State.’’ 

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 

‘‘States’’ 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55977 

military installations abroad as located 

‘‘on U.S. soil,’’ 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 ‘‘U.S. soil.’’ 

A few commenters did not support 

treating U.S. military installations as 

‘‘States’’ 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 ‘‘designated recipient’’ 

(§ 1005.30(c)) and ‘‘sender’’ 

(§ 1005.30(g)). These revisions clarify 

that, for purposes of determining 

whether a transfer qualifies as a 

‘‘remittance transfer’’ 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 overbroad 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 ‘‘other information.’’ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Non-Consumer Accounts 

Section 1005.30(g) provides that a 

‘‘sender’’ 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 ‘‘remittance transfer’’ in § 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 

‘‘sender’’ 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 

§ 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 recode 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 

bona fide trust agreement because those 

accounts do not meet the definition of 

‘‘account’’ 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 ‘‘sender.’’ 

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 

§ 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 bona fide 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 

§ 1005.30(g). Section 1005.2(b)(3) 

provides that the term ‘‘account’’ in 

Regulation E does not include an 

account held by a financial institution 

under a bona fide 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 

‘‘account’’ 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 nonconsumer 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 nonconsumer purpose, would be in tension 

with the definition of a ‘‘sender.’’ 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55979 

19Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999 

section 2, comment 6 (2000), available at http://

www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/

electronic%20transactions/ueta_final_99.pdf. 

Accordingly, as adopted, comment 

30(g)–2 explains that a consumer is a 

‘‘sender’’ 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 § 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 ‘‘sender’’ under 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 1005.30(g). The comment also explains 

that a transfer that is sent from an 

account held by a financial institution 

under a bona fide trust agreement 

pursuant to § 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 

§ 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 ‘‘account’’ under the 

general provisions of Regulation E are 

not subject to the Remittance Rule. 

Pursuant to § 1005.2(b)(1), an account at 

a financial institution is an ‘‘account’’ 

for purposes of Regulation E if it was 

‘‘established primarily for personal, 

family, or household purposes.’’ 

(Emphasis added.) In other words, the 

primary purpose for which an account 

was established determines whether the 

account is an ‘‘account’’ for purposes of 

Regulation E. Accordingly, the Bureau 

believes that adopting this suggestion 

would be inconsistent with 

§ 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. 

Section 1005.31 Disclosures 

31(a) General Form of Disclosures 

31(a)(2) Written and Electronic 

Disclosures 

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. 

§ 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, see comment 31(a)(2)–2). 

The Bureau proposed comment 

31(a)(2)–5, which would have explained 

that disclosures provided pursuant to 

§ 1005.31 or § 1005.36 by facsimile 

transmission (i.e., 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 

§ 1005.31(a)(2). Pursuant to 

§ 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 ESign 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 ‘‘written disclosures’’ 

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 § 1005.31(a)(2) 

because they are considered electronic 

records under the Uniform Electronic 

Transaction Act of 1999.19 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 § 1005.31 or § 1005.36 by 

fax as ‘‘written disclosures’’ for 

purposes of the Remittance Rule. 

As the Bureau explained in the April 

Proposal, it considers disclosures made 

by fax to be a ‘‘writing’’ 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 ‘‘a 

writing’’ for purposes of providing 

disclosures pursuant to § 1005.31 and 

§ 1005.36. The Bureau, however, does 

not believe that it is necessary to clarify 

that any electronic disclosure 

constitutes a ‘‘writing’’ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

20At the time of the April Proposal, the 

additional URLs had not ‘‘gone live.’’ 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. 

§ 1005.31(a)(2) as clarified by comment 

31(a)(2)–1. 

31(a)(3) Disclosures for Oral Telephone 

Transactions 

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 ‘‘transaction is 

conducted orally and entirely by 

telephone’’ 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 

§ 1005.31(e)(1) where a sender is neither 

physically present nor in ‘‘real time’’ 

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 § 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 § 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 

‘‘impractical’’ 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 ‘‘For 

example’’). 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 Federal Register 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. 

31(b) Disclosure Requirements 

31(b)(2) Receipt 

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— 

www.consumerfinance.gov. See 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 www.consumerfinance.gov/

sending-money, as well as a Spanish 

language Web site that would have 

resources relevant to remittance 

transfers at www.consumerfinance.gov/

enviar-dinero.20 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 remittancespecific Web site, currently, 

www.consumerfinance.gov/sendingmoney, 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 nonEnglish 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 optional, 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 ‘‘relevant’’ 

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, http://

www.consumerfinance.gov/remittancestransfer-rule-amendment-toregulation-e/. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55981 

21The 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 available at http://www.sec.gov/

divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/2012/financialinformation-forum-121412-rege.pdf. 

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 

consumerfinance.gov/sendingmoneyandconsumerfinance.gov/envois, 

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. 

Section 1005.32 Estimates 

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 DoddFrank Act (i.e., July 21, 2015), unless the 

Bureau issues a rule to extend the 

temporary exception up to five more 

years (i.e., 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 § 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 

‘‘insured institutions’’ for purposes of 

the temporary exception.21

As discussed above, the Bureau 

proposed to amend § 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 § 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

22The 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. See generally 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. Id. 

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.22 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, realtime 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.23

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, 

§ 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 (e.g., 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55983 

24Nostro 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. See 

79 FR at 23245 (Apr. 25, 2014). 

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,24 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 thirdparty 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 thirdparty 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—FedGlobal ACH—generally 

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. See 

§ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

forth in the Remittance rule, it cannot be 

said that they are disclosing exact 

amounts in those cases. 

Section 1005.33 Procedures for 

Resolving Errors 

1005.33(a) Definition of Error 

1005.33(a)(1) Types of Transfers or 

Inquiries Covered 

Section 1005.33(a)(1)(iv)(B) provides 

that a delay is not an ‘‘error’’ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

‘‘ordinary fraud or other screening 

procedures, where no potentially 

fraudulent, suspicious, blocked or 

prohibited activity is identified,’’ 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 

‘‘necessary’’ or ‘‘special’’ and those that 

are ‘‘ordinary.’’ They noted that 

enhanced screening procedures are a 

standard, routine part of most 

remittance transfer providers’ 

‘‘ordinary’’ business, and that whether 

or not such procedures are ‘‘necessary’’ 

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 

‘‘individualized’’ to characterize the 

types of procedures that would qualify 

for the exception under revised 

§ 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—known 

as ‘‘block screenings’’—rather 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 (e.g., 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 ‘‘block screenings’’ resulted 

in a delay, the commenter could would 

be able to rely on the 

§ 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—in 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 

‘‘ordinary’’ and ‘‘necessary’’ 

investigations could be construed as not 

accurately or completely capturing the 

types of procedures that the Bureau 

believes could qualify as an exception 

under § 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55985 

25See 77 FR 6257 (Feb. 7, 2012); 78 FR 6025 (Jan. 

29, 2013). 

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. 

1005.33(c) Time Limits and Extent of 

Investigation 

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 § 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) for 

failure to make funds available to a 

designated recipient by the disclosed 

date of availability, § 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, 

§ 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 

§ 1005.33(c)(2)(iii). As explained in 

comment 33(c)–12, § 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 § 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) 

by incorporating this guidance in 

current comment 33(c)–12 in the text of 

proposed § 1005.33(c)(2)(iii). 

Proposed § 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) would 

have stated that in the case of an error 

under § 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 

§ 1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (B) within 

three business days of providing the 

report required by § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 1005.33(a)(1)(iv), due 

to the sender providing incorrect or 

insufficient information. 

Current § 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 § 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) would have 

stated more explicitly what is already 

required under current 

§ 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 § 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 2013.25 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

26One 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. 

27Section 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. 

28The Bureau also solicited feedback from other 

agencies with supervisory and enforcement 

authority regarding Regulation E and the 

Remittance Rule. 

§ 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 

§ 1005.33(c)(2)(iii).26

For the above reasons, the Bureau is 

adopting § 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. 

VI. Effective Date 

The Bureau proposed to have all of 

the changes included in the April 

Proposal take effect thirty days after 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. The Bureau had based 

the proposed implementation period on 

its belief that remittance transfer 

providers would only be required to 

make minimal changes to their practices 

to align them with the changes included 

in the Proposal. The Bureau sought 

comment on the proposed effective date, 

including on whether a later effective 

date would be more appropriate. Several 

industry commenters, including several 

trade associations representing credit 

unions and a money transmitter, asked 

the Bureau to adopt a longer 

implementation period, arguing that the 

changes proposed would require 

changes to compliance, training, and 

disclosure procedures. The majority of 

these commenters asked for a 90-day 

implementation period, while the 

money transmitter commenter asked for 

a 12-month implementation period. The 

Bureau agrees to provide a longer 

implementation period for this final rule 

in order to allow industry sufficient 

time to make the changes to systems and 

procedures that providers and their 

service providers deem necessary. 

Insofar as the clarifications adopted 

herein are largely optional or meant to 

clarify existing practices or 

requirements of the Remittance Rule, 

the Bureau does not believe that their 

implementation should result in 

significant operational changes for 

providers that would require a 12- 

month implementation period. 

Accordingly, the final rule will take 

effect 60 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

VII. Section 1022(b)(2) Analysis 

A. Overview 

In developing this final rule, the 

Bureau has considered potential 

benefits, costs, and impacts 27 and has 

consulted or offered to consult with the 

prudential regulators and the Federal 

Trade Commission, including regarding 

the consistency of this final rule with 

prudential, market, or systemic 

objectives administered by such 

agencies.28

The analysis below considers the 

benefits, costs, and impacts of the key 

provisions of this final rule against the 

baseline provided by the current 

Remittance Rule. This final rule makes 

the following changes to the Remittance 

Rule. First, this final rule extends the 

temporary exception in the Remittance 

Rule that permits insured depository 

institutions and insured credit unions to 

estimate the exchange rate and covered 

third-party fees under specified 

circumstances, from July 21, 2015, to 

July 21, 2020. 

Second, this final rule makes several 

clarifying amendments and technical 

corrections to the current Remittance 

Rule concerning: The application of the 

Rule to transfers to and from locations 

on U.S. military installations abroad; the 

treatment of transfers from consumer 

and non-consumer accounts; the 

treatment of faxes; the treatment by a 

remittance transfer provider of a 

communication regarding a potential 

remittance transfer as an inquiry; the 

Web site addresses to be disclosed on 

consumer receipts; and error resolution 

provisions related to delays and 

remedies. With respect to these 

provisions, the analysis considers the 

benefits and costs to senders 

(consumers) and remittance transfer 

providers (covered persons). The Bureau 

has discretion in future rulemakings to 

choose the most appropriate baseline for 

that particular rulemaking. 

The Bureau notes at the outset that 

the analysis below generally provides a 

qualitative discussion of the benefits, 

costs, and impacts of the final rule. The 

Bureau believes that quantification of 

the potential benefits, costs, and 

impacts of the provisions is not 

possible. There are limited data on 

consumer behavior, which would be 

essential for quantifying the benefits or 

costs to consumers. The Bureau also 

lacks information about the accuracy of 

estimates for exchange rates and 

covered third-party fees that could help 

inform the Bureau of the potential cost 

to consumers of extending the 

temporary exception to July 21, 2020, in 

terms of the benefit foregone of 

receiving actual (as opposed to 

estimated) information. Further, there 

are still limited data about the 

remittance transfer market such that the 

Bureau cannot presently quantify the 

potential benefits, costs, and impacts of 

the provisions on remittance transfer 

providers. Nonetheless, the Bureau has 

reviewed the available data about the 

remittance transfer market, which now 

includes responses in the NCUA and 

FFIEC Call Report filings. As noted 

above, the Bureau believes that the 

additional data have enhanced the 

Bureau’s understanding of the 

remittance transfer offerings of credit 

unions and depositary institutions, 

including with respect to the number of 

transfer sent and the methods used to 

send those transfers. As is discussed 

above, and consistent with the Bureau’s 

prior estimates, the data suggest that 

credit unions may have sent less than 

one percent, and depositary institutions 

less than 10 percent, of the estimated 

total of 150 million international 

remittance transfers sent by money 

transmitters in 2013. 

B. Potential Benefits and Costs to 

Consumers and Covered Persons 

1. Extension of the Temporary 

Exception to July 21, 2020 

This final rule amends the current 

Remittance Rule by providing that 

remittance transfer providers may 

estimate exchange rates and covered 

third-party fees until July 21, 2020 

(rather than July 21, 2015, as in the 

current Remittance Rule), if (1) the 

provider is an insured depository 

institution or credit union; (2) the 

remittance transfer is sent from the 

sender’s account with the provider; and 

(3) the provider cannot determine the 

exact amounts for reasons outside of its 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55987 

29As noted above in the Section-by-Section 

Analysis, the temporary exception does not apply 

to broker-dealers. However, SEC staff issued a noaction 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. See http://www.sec.gov/

divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/2012/financialinformation-forum-121412-rege.pdf. 

control.29 The analysis below considers 

the benefits, costs, and impacts of 

extending the exception against a 

baseline of allowing the exception to 

expire on July 21, 2015. 

a. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

As the Bureau stated in its impact 

analysis in the April Proposal, relative 

to accurate disclosures, estimated 

disclosures strike a different balance 

between accuracy and access, 

potentially offering less accuracy but 

also potentially preserving greater 

access. 77 FR at 6274. The Bureau 

believes that extending the temporary 

exception may benefit those consumers 

who use insured institutions’ remittance 

services because some of those services 

may otherwise be discontinued if the 

exception were to sunset on July 21, 

2015. Specifically, the extension may 

benefit these consumers by preserving 

their current method of sending 

remittance transfers, particularly if 

alternatives are more expensive or less 

convenient, to the extent that such 

alternatives exist at all. 

Extending the temporary exception 

may also provide benefits to consumers 

in the form of avoiding increased prices. 

This benefit depends on the extent to 

which providing exact information (as 

opposed to estimates) would require 

insured institutions or their service 

providers to take costly steps to provide 

that information, and the extent to 

which those institutions would then 

pass those costs to the consumers. 

As stated above, the Bureau 

understands that disclosures containing 

estimates may be less accurate than 

those that disclose exact amounts. 

Disclosures that accurately reflect actual 

covered third-party fees and exchange 

rates may make it easier for a consumer 

to know whether a designated recipient 

is going to receive an intended sum of 

money, or the amount in U.S. dollars 

that the consumer must send to deliver 

a specific amount of foreign currency to 

a designated recipient. Extending the 

temporary exception may impose a cost 

on consumers in the form of these 

foregone benefits, if the estimated 

disclosures they receive from insured 

depository institutions and credit 

unions tend to deviate from the actual 

amount. Accurate disclosures may also 

make it easier for consumers to compare 

prices across providers. Accordingly, 

the Bureau believes there may be a cost 

associated with an extension of the 

temporary exception in that consumers 

may be less likely to engage in 

comparisons, if they believe that they 

cannot rely on estimated disclosures. 

However, as stated elsewhere in the 

preamble, the Bureau believes that the 

temporary exception is likely used in a 

small portion of all remittance transfers. 

To date, the Bureau is not aware of any 

evidence of abuse of the temporary 

exception; providers appear to use it 

only when necessary. Therefore, the 

Bureau believes that the overall costs to 

consumers of extending the temporary 

exception are not significant. 

b. Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons 

The information the Bureau has 

gathered with respect to how insured 

depository institutions and credit 

unions are, or are not, using the 

temporary exception, along with the 

Bureau’s other efforts to understand 

industry’s compliance with the 

requirements of the Remittance Rule, 

have provided the Bureau with a basis 

to determine that if the temporary 

exception were to sunset on July 21, 

2015, its expiration would have a 

negative impact on the ability of insured 

institutions to send remittance transfers. 

The Bureau expects that extending the 

temporary exception to July 21, 2020, 

may benefit insured institutions that 

rely on the temporary exception to send 

remittance transfers by mitigating the 

negative impact of its earlier expiration. 

The Bureau believes that there may not 

be a cost to insured institutions of 

extending the exemption because it 

would not require them to alter current 

practices. 

The Bureau understands that many 

insured institutions have already taken 

significant steps toward disclosing 

actual exchange rates and covered thirdparty fees when they believe they are 

able to do so. At the same time, the 

Bureau also understands that some 

small and some large insured 

institutions rely on the temporary 

exception for remittance transfers from 

accounts in which they believe covered 

third-party fee and/or exchange rate 

information are not readily available. 

Some of these institutions have 

indicated to the Bureau that they are 

unlikely to find an alternative to their 

reliance on the temporary exception by 

July 21, 2015, for at least some portion 

of the remittance transfers for which 

they currently use the temporary 

exception. 

For insured institutions, the Bureau 

believes that a potential benefit 

associated with extending the temporary 

exception may come from preserving 

the segment of their business for which 

they rely on the temporary exception 

and for which they are unable to find a 

practical or cost-effective alternative. 

The Bureau acknowledges that the 

magnitude of this benefit is related to 

the overall significance of that particular 

segment of business for an insured 

institution and whether that institution 

uses the exception to estimate the 

disclosure of exchange rates or covered 

third-party fees (or both). With respect 

to the disclosure of exchange rates, the 

Bureau acknowledges that the 

magnitude of this benefit may be 

marginal because the exception’s use for 

this purpose is limited. As for the 

disclosure of covered third-party fees, 

the Bureau believes that the benefit may 

be relatively greater to the extent that 

such estimation is more frequent. 

An additional benefit of extending the 

temporary exception may be that it 

could provide additional time for 

insured institutions to search for 

efficient and cost-effective ways to 

disclose actual exchange rates and 

covered third-party fees in lieu of 

disclosing estimates. For instance, the 

Bureau believes that by 2020, insured 

institutions may develop more effective 

methods of communication between 

members of an open network that would 

allow for on-time verification of thirdparty fees and exchange rates. 

2. Application of the Remittance Rule to 

U.S. Military Installations Abroad 

The analysis below discusses the 

potential benefits and costs for 

consumers and covered persons that 

may result from clarifying that for 

purposes of the Remittance Rule: (1) 

Where a sender specifies that the funds 

will be received at a U.S. military 

installation that is physically located in 

a foreign country, a transfer will be 

considered as having been received in a 

State (and thus the Remittance Rule 

would not apply); (2) where a sender 

specifies that the funds will be received 

in an account that is located on a U.S. 

military installation abroad, the transfer 

will be considered as having been 

received in a State; and (3) a sender 

located on a U.S. military installation 

that is physically located in a foreign 

country is considered to be located in a 

State. 

a. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

This clarification should not affect 

consumers who send remittance 

transfers to U.S. military installations 

located abroad using remittance transfer 

providers that currently treat such 

transfers as exempt from the Remittance 

Rule. As stated above, the Bureau 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

understands that the majority of 

providers already treat transfers to U.S. 

military installations abroad in this 

manner. A smaller number of 

consumers who send transfers to U.S. 

military installations using providers 

who are providing disclosures in such 

instances may incur a cost, insofar as 

their provider currently applies the 

Remittance Rule to such transfers, but 

will no longer be required to do so in 

the light of this clarification. However, 

the Bureau believes this cost to be 

minimal, for the following reasons. 

The Bureau believes that transfers to 

U.S. military installations located 

abroad share many of the characteristics 

of domestic transfers, and as such 

harbor less risk related to, for example, 

disclosures of fees, inaccuracies in 

exchange rates, and the timing of 

availability of funds, than a typical 

remittance transfer. A majority of 

commenters agree. Therefore, the 

benefit to consumers of the additional 

protections provided by the Remittance 

Rule for the affected transfers is likely 

to be insubstantial. Further, to the 

extent that some providers treated U.S. 

military installations abroad as being in 

a foreign location, consumers may also 

receive potential benefits from this 

clarification in the form of more 

consistent service across providers. 

Finally, consumers who send transfers 

from a U.S. military installation to a 

designated recipient in a foreign country 

will benefit from the protections of the 

rule including, for example, 

cancellation and error resolution rights, 

if previously those transfers were not 

subject to its requirements. 

b. Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons 

As the Bureau explained in the April 

Proposal, it believed that without 

clarification, there was a potential for 

confusion about whether the 

requirements of the Remittance Rule 

apply to remittance transfers sent to and 

from U.S. military installations located 

in foreign countries. Accordingly, the 

Bureau believes that this clarification 

may benefit remittance transfer 

providers by facilitating compliance 

without the added cost of determining 

how to interpret the Remittance Rule as 

it relates to transfers involving U.S. 

military installations. The Bureau 

understands that most remittance 

transfer providers currently treat U.S. 

military installations located in foreign 

countries as being located in States for 

the purposes of the Rule. Because this 

clarification is consistent with most 

providers’ existing practices, the Bureau 

does not expect any material costs on 

covered persons. To the extent that 

certain providers have interpreted the 

Remittance Rule to require disclosures 

to consumers sending remittance 

transfers to U.S. military installations 

located in foreign countries, those 

providers will now benefit from the cost 

savings associated with being able to 

stop providing those disclosures. 

Conversely, there may be a cost to 

providers to the extent that previously 

they did not apply the rule to transfers 

sent from a U.S. military installation 

abroad to a designated recipient in a 

foreign country and now will have to 

apply the rule to those transfers. 

3. Application of the Remittance Rule to 

Consumer and Non-Consumer Accounts 

The Remittance Rule only applies to 

transfers that are requested primarily for 

personal, family, or household 

purposes. This final rule clarifies that a 

remittance transfer provider may 

generally deem that the transfer is 

requested primarily for personal, family, 

or household purposes if the transfer is 

sent from an account that was 

established primarily for personal, 

family, or household purposes. The 

final rule also clarifies that a provider 

may deem that a transfer sent from a 

non-consumer account, such as a 

business account or account held by a 

financial institution under a bona fide 

trust agreement pursuant to 

§ 1005.2(b)(3), as not being requested 

primarily for personal, family, or 

household purposes. 

a. Benefit and Costs to Consumers 

As discussed below, the Bureau 

believes that remittance transfer 

providers are currently treating transfers 

from non-consumer accounts as being 

outside the scope of the Remittance 

Rule, and transfers from consumer 

accounts as being within the scope of 

the rule. Thus, the Bureau does not 

foresee any material impact on the costs 

or benefits to consumers from the 

clarification. 

b. Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons 

The Bureau believes that remittance 

transfer providers are currently treating 

transfers from non-consumer accounts 

as being outside the scope of the 

Remittance Rule, and transfers from 

consumer accounts as being within the 

scope of the rule. Thus, the Bureau does 

not foresee any material impact on the 

costs or benefits to providers from the 

clarification. The Bureau also generally 

believes that it is less costly to 

determine whether a transfer is subject 

to the Rule on the account level than 

having to make a transfer-by-transfer 

determination of whether the Rule 

applies. To the extent that some covered 

persons are using the more costly 

transfer-by-transfer method to identify 

whether the Remittance Rule applies to 

a particular transfer and choose to 

change to this method, this final rule 

may reduce their compliance costs. 

4. Disclosures Made by Fax; Disclosures 

for Oral Telephone Transactions; 

Bureau’s Web Site on Receipts 

The Bureau is adopting several 

clarifications regarding the format of 

disclosures. First, the final rule clarifies 

that disclosures provided pursuant to 

§ 1005.31 and § 1005.36 that are 

transmitted by fax may be considered a 

‘‘writing’’ under the Remittance Rule. 

Second, the final rule permits providers 

to treat a written or electronic 

communication as an inquiry in cases 

where treating such communication as a 

request would be impractical. In 

response to such inquiries, the provider 

may provide pre-payment disclosures 

orally—but only when transactions are 

conducted orally and entirely by 

telephone. Third, this final rule 

specifies that remittance transfer 

providers may satisfy the requirement to 

disclose the Bureau’s Web site on the 

receipts by listing either the Bureau’s 

main Web page, or the Bureau’s Web 

page that provides information about 

remittance transfers, or the Bureau’s 

Web page in a language other than 

English, if it exists, insofar as a provider 

is making disclosures in that language 

pursuant to § 1005.31(g). 

a. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

The Bureau believes that the 

clarification regarding the treatment of 

faxes is consistent with current practice. 

Thus, the Bureau does not believe that 

there are any material benefits or costs 

to consumers. The clarification 

regarding written or electronic inquiries 

is unlikely to create any material 

benefits or costs to consumers, because 

the Bureau believes that the clarification 

would conform the rule to providers’ 

current practice. As the Bureau 

develops its Web page dedicated to 

remittance transfers, including creating 

Web pages in languages other than 

English, consumers may benefit from 

more direct access to these resources. 

The Bureau does not expect any 

material cost to consumers from this 

clarification. 

b. Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons 

The Bureau believes that to the extent 

remittance transfer providers already 

send disclosures via fax, they treat those 

faxes as a ‘‘writing.’’ Accordingly, the 

Bureau does not expect any material 

benefits or costs to covered persons. 

As discussed above, the Bureau 

believes that the clarification regarding 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55989 

30Prior to the adoption of this final rule, 

§ 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 

§ 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) because the sender provided 

incorrect or insufficient information in connection 

with the transfer. 

written or electronic inquiries would 

conform the rule to providers’ current 

practice. Accordingly, the Bureau 

believes that the clarification would 

have minimal impact on covered 

persons. To the extent that it has any 

impact, the impact may be a positive 

one in that the clarification may benefit 

covered persons by clarifying that they 

have the option to respond to such 

inquiries orally if treating the 

communication as a request would be 

impractical. Further, because the 

clarification represents an option, but 

not a requirement, the Bureau does not 

believe that there will be material costs 

to covered persons, because it does not 

require a change in their current 

practices. The Bureau also does not 

believe that the clarification regarding 

Bureau’s Web site will impose any 

material costs or benefits on covered 

persons. The clarification merely 

provides them with an option to display 

Bureau Web pages other than the 

Bureau’s main Web site, but does not 

require a change in current practices. 

5. Delays Related to Fraud Screening 

The current Remittance Rule provides 

that a delay in relaying the funds is not 

an ‘‘error’’ 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. This final rule clarifies 

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 have, and could not have reasonably 

obtained, sufficient information about 

the delay to enable it to timely disclose 

an accurate date of availability when 

providing the sender with a receipt or 

combined disclosure. 

a. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

The Bureau believes that this 

clarification will benefit consumers who 

currently experience delays due to fraud 

screening procedures, insofar as 

remittance transfer providers have or 

could have reasonably obtained 

sufficient information about the delay to 

enable them to timely disclose an 

accurate date of availability. As 

discussed above, the Bureau expects 

that the clarification will lead to some 

providers adjusting their existing 

disclosure practices to ensure 

compliance with the final rule. The 

Bureau believes that the consumers who 

are the customers of these providers will 

benefit from more accurate disclosure of 

the date of availability. The Bureau does 

not foresee any material costs on 

consumers from this clarification. 

b. Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons 

This change to the Remittance Rule is 

a clarification of what the Bureau 

intended the rule to be in the first 

instance. (The Bureau is making this 

revision because the Bureau believes the 

original rule may have been unclear.) 

This change does not impose any 

material costs on those providers that 

already include delays due to fraud 

screening in their method of disclosing 

the date of availability of funds to 

recipient. Other providers may incur 

costs to make adjustments to their 

practices to ensure that they are 

complying with the Rule; however, 

these are only costs intended to bring 

the disclosure practices up to the 

intended understanding of the 

Remittance Rule, and do not constitute 

additional costs imposed by this final 

rule. 

6. Refunds in Case of Errors Resulting 

From the Sender Providing Incorrect or 

Insufficient Information 

In cases of errors resulting from the 

sender providing incorrect or 

insufficient information, 

§ 1005.33(c)(2)(iii) now explicitly states 

that a remittance transfer provider may 

not deduct its own fees from the amount 

refunded or applied to a new transfer.30

This clarifies what was already required 

by the current Remittance Rule—a 

refund of the provider’s own fee for 

errors that occur pursuant to 

§ 1005.33(a)(1)(iv). Related to 

§ 1005.33(c)(2)(iii), the Bureau is also 

adding an example to further explain 

how a remittance transfer provider 

should determine the appropriate 

amount to resolve any error under 

§ 1005.33(a)(1)(iv). 

a. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

The Bureau believes that there will be 

no material impact on consumers, 

because the Bureau believes that 

remittance transfer providers are not 

deducting their own fees when 

remedying an error pursuant to 

§ 1005.33(a)(1)(iv) because the sender 

provided incorrect or insufficient 

information in connection with the 

transfer. 

b. Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons 

The Bureau believes that there will be 

no material benefits or costs on covered 

persons, because this final rule has 

simply clarified existing requirements 

under the rule that have been in place 

as of the effective date in October 2013. 

C. Access to Consumer Financial 

Products and Services 

The Bureau expects that the 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

will not decrease consumers’ access to 

consumer financial products and 

services. On the contrary, by extending 

the temporary exception, the Bureau 

believes that this final rule may preserve 

consumers’ current set of options for 

sending remittance transfers to 

destinations for which insured 

institutions rely on the temporary 

exception, compared to a market in 

which the temporary exception expires 

in July of 2015. The Bureau believes that 

there will not be a material impact of 

the technical corrections and 

clarifications of this final rule on 

consumer access to remittance transfer 

services. 

D. Impact on Depository Institutions 

and Credit Unions With $10 Billion or 

Less in Total Assets 

As discussed above, the Bureau 

understands that with regard to 

remittance transfers sent from accounts, 

the majority of insured institutions that 

are remittance transfer providers obtain 

information about exchange rates and 

covered third-party fees from a limited 

number of service providers that are 

either very large insured institutions or 

large nonbank service providers. The 

Bureau believes that this applies to 

depository institutions and credit 

unions with $10 billion or less in total 

assets. Given that reliance, the nature of 

the impacts on these institutions is 

likely be similar to the effects on larger 

depository institutions. 

In addition, the Bureau believes that 

the specific impacts of the extension of 

the temporary exception on depository 

institutions and credit unions depends 

on a number of factors, including 

whether such institutions are remittance 

transfer providers, the importance of 

remittance transfers for such 

institutions, the methods that such 

insured institutions use to send 

remittance transfers, and the number of 

institutions or countries to which they 

send remittance transfers. Information 

that the Bureau obtained during prior 

remittance rulemaking efforts, as well as 

data from the FFIEC and NCUA Call 

Reports, suggest that among depository 

institutions and credit unions that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

31 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. 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. 

35For purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

final rule on small entities, ‘‘small entities’’ 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 ‘‘small 

business’’ is determined by application of Small 

Business Administration regulations and reference 

to the North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’) classifications and size 

standards. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A ‘‘small organization’’ 

is any ‘‘not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(4). A ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ 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). 

36The definition of ‘‘remittance transfer 

provider’’ 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. See § 1005.30(f)(2). 

37Small Bus. Admin., Table of Small Business 

Size Standards Matched to North American 

Industry Classification System Codes, http://

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_

Standards_Table.pdf. 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 (‘‘Other Activities 

Related to Credit Intermediation’’) as the most 

relevant code for remittance transfer providers that 

are not depository institutions. See 79 FR 33647 

(June 12, 2014). 

38Many 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. 

provide any remittance transfers, an 

institution’s asset size and the number 

of remittance transfers sent by the 

institution are positively, though 

imperfectly, related. The Bureau 

therefore expects that among depository 

institutions and credit unions with $10 

billion or less in total assets that provide 

any remittance transfers, compared to 

such larger institutions, a greater share 

will qualify for the safe harbor related 

to the definition of ‘‘remittance transfer 

provider’’ and therefore would be 

entirely unaffected by the proposed 

extension, because they are not subject 

to the requirements of the Remittance 

Rule. See § 1005.30(f)(2). 

E. Impact of the Proposal on Consumers 

in Rural Areas 

Senders in rural areas may experience 

different impacts from this final rule 

than other senders. The Bureau does not 

have data with which to analyze these 

impacts in detail. To the extent that the 

extension of the temporary exception 

impacts remittance transfer providers by 

allowing them to continue to provide 

remittance transfer services, this final 

rule may disproportionately benefit 

senders living in rural areas. Consumers 

in rural areas may have fewer options 

for sending remittance transfers, and 

therefore may benefit more than other 

consumers from a change that keeps 

more providers in the market. The 

Bureau does not expect that any of the 

other changes will have a material 

impact on consumers in rural areas. 

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Overview 

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.31

The RFA defines a ‘‘small business’’ as 

a business that meets the size standard 

developed by the Small Business 

Administration pursuant to the Small 

Business Act.32

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.33

The Bureau also is subject to certain 

additional procedures under the RFA 

involving the convening of a panel to 

consult with small entity 

representatives prior to proposing a rule 

for which an IRFA is required.34

The Bureau is certifying this final 

rule. A FRFA is not required for this 

rule because it will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

B. Affected Small Entities 

The analysis below evaluates the 

potential economic impact of this final 

rule on small entities as defined by the 

RFA.35 This final rule applies to entities 

that satisfy the definition of ‘‘remittance 

transfer provider,’’ which is any person 

that provides remittance transfers for a 

consumer in the normal course of its 

business, regardless of whether the 

consumer holds an account with such 

person. See § 1005.30(f).36 Potentially 

affected small entities include insured 

depository institutions and credit 

unions that have $550 million or less in 

assets and that provide remittance 

transfers in the normal course of their 

business, as well as non-depository 

institutions that have annual receipts 

that do not exceed $20.5 million and 

that provide remittance transfers in the 

normal course of their business.37 With 

respect to the non-depository 

institutions, the affected small nondepository entities may include Statelicensed money transmitters, brokerdealers, and other money transmission 

companies.38 This analysis examines 

the benefits, costs, and impacts of the 

key provisions of this final rule relative 

to the baseline provided by the current 

Remittance Rule. The Bureau has 

discretion in future rulemakings to 

choose the most appropriate baseline for 

that particular rulemaking. 

C. Extension of the Temporary 

Exception 

This final rule extends the temporary 

exception that permits insured 

institutions to provide estimated 

disclosures, instead of exact disclosures 

as is generally required under the 

Remittance Rule, under certain 

circumstances, from July 21, 2015, to 

July 21, 2020. The Bureau believes that 

the extension of the temporary 

exception would not impose a cost on 

any insured institutions, because the 

extension would not require them to 

alter current practices but instead 

maintain the status quo. 

D. Additional Clarifications 

With regard to changes in this final 

rule concerning the treatment of 

transfers sent from consumer and nonconsumer accounts, the treatment of 

faxes, when a provider may treat a 

communication regarding a potential 

remittance transfer as an inquiry, the 

Web site addresses to be disclosed on 

consumer receipts, and error resolution 

provisions related to delays and 

remedies, the Bureau does not believe 

that any of the provisions would have 

any material cost impact on any 

remittance transfer providers for the 

reasons stated in the Section 1022(b)(2) 

Analysis. 

With respect to the provisions of this 

final rule concerning the treatment of 

U.S. military installations located in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55991 

foreign countries for purposes of the 

Remittance Rule, the Bureau believes 

that remittance transfer providers that 

are small entities will not be 

significantly impacted, for the following 

reasons. This final rule clarifies that an 

account that is located on a U.S. 

military installation that is physically 

located in a foreign country is 

considered to be located in a State. It 

does not change the current Remittance 

Rule, insofar as the current rule does not 

contain specific guidance regarding how 

to treat such transfers. The final rule 

provides similar clarification with 

respect to transfers sent and received by 

senders (rather than from an account). 

The Bureau understands that many, if 

not most, servicemembers and other 

consumers stationed at U.S. military 

bases abroad opened their accounts in 

the United States. Accordingly, the 

Bureau believes that the impact on 

small insured institutions and credit 

unions that provide account-based 

transfers should be relatively limited, 

because this rule is not adjusting how 

transfers to and from those accounts are 

to be treated. For transfers to and from 

accounts located on a U.S. military 

installation abroad and for non-account 

based transfers, the Bureau believes that 

the impact will similarly be limited 

because the Bureau understands that the 

changes in the rule are largely in 

accordance with providers’ current 

practice. 

E. Cost of Credit for Small Entities 

This final rule does not apply to 

credit transactions or to commercial 

remittances. Therefore, the Bureau does 

not expect this rule to increase the cost 

of credit for small businesses. With a 

few exceptions, this final rule generally 

does not change or lowers the cost of 

compliance for depositories and credit 

unions, many of which offer small 

business credit. Any effect of this final 

rule on small business credit, however, 

would be highly attenuated. This final 

rule also generally does not change or 

lowers the cost of compliance for money 

transmitters. Money transmitters 

typically do not extend credit to any 

entity, including small businesses. 

F. Certification 

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) (PRA), 

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 the information 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. Regulation E, 12 CFR Part 

1005, currently contains collections of 

information approved by OMB. The 

Bureau’s OMB control number for 

Regulation E is 3170–0014. 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, the Bureau solicited 

comments concerning the relative 

number of transfers sent to and from 

individuals and/or accounts located on 

U.S. military installations located in 

foreign countries and understands that 

remittance transfers to and from U.S. 

military installations abroad constitute a 

very small percentage of the overall 

remittance transfer market. 

Furthermore, the Bureau understands, 

and received comments to support the 

understanding, that remittance transfer 

providers currently treat such transfers 

as being within the United States, i.e., 

akin to domestic transfers not subject to 

the Remittance Rule. As such, the 

Bureau believes that remittance 

providers, in the ordinary course of 

their business, are in most instances 

already providing all applicable notices 

and disclosures required by this 

clarification, and therefore, there is no 

material change in burden of the 

previously identified information 

collections. Other changes required 

under this final rule do not affect 

information collection practices. 

Therefore, the Bureau does not believe 

that any of the changes adopted in this 

final rule will have a substantial impact 

on the Bureau’s current collections of 

information pursuant to Regulation E 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under section 

3507(d) of the PRA. 

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. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set forth in preamble, 

the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1005 to 

read as follows: 

PART 1005—ELECTRONIC FUND 

TRANSFERS (REGULATION E) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1005 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5512, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 

1693b. Subpart B is also issued under 12 

U.S.C. 5601. 

Subpart B—Requirements for 

Remittance Transfers 

■ 2. Amend § 1005.32 to revise 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 1005.32 Estimates. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Sunset date. Paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section expires on July 21, 2020. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 1005.33 to revise 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(B) and (c)(2)(iii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1005.33 Procedures for resolving errors. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(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; 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix A to part 1005 is 

amended by revising Model Forms A–31 

and A–40 to read as follows: 

APPENDIX A TO PART 1005—MODEL 

DISCLOSURES AND FORMS 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER18SE14.015</GPH>

A-31 -Model Form for Receipts for Remittance Transfers Exchanged into Local 

Currency(§ 1005.31(b)(2)) 

ABC company 10M XY2i AV:<!.111l<! 

l\nyt<>)'lll, 1\l:lystate 12'3 45 

Sl!WSI:I': Pat J<>ne~> 

.100 ~here street 

linYtOW'l, lin]Wh<!.re j;43U 221~us-1212 

1\ECIJ?l:liill'l': 

'e«r.l<>s 'G~.l! 

123 Cal,le ,X~l< 

~l<iCO (:Jcty Me~ico 

PlC:&-UP MlCA'l'IOlll 

AllC . Co!!IP<my 

6!) Alienida nt 

)(e'(i<:o citY Mexico 

~:ra.n:s£er Amourtt: 

Tr-an.sfet, l'e:ea.: 

'l'r~fer Ta~<eS: 

'l'otal: 

Tfansftt Amoiurt·: 

othi>t re\Oei 

$100 .• 00. 

'f$'7.110 

'f$s.oo. 

'l, 221'.0'0 MXN 

-30.00 W(N: 

l<e!'il'ient may :receiv:e l~ess <In" to fees <:barq"d .by the .r<!clpia!tt~ s. bank 

and foteil<(n· taJ<es. 

Y~u :have a ri'ght ,t'?: 5li!3put_e err9--rs: in your. t:ransapti.on·. l:f you th:i,nk "~:h'!'re 

is an errli)r, .contact us w1l;hin lifO 

days at .aoo~ 113~4 SG7 or "Www-.. abCC:OniFf~nY> com. YoU" -can also 

conta<>t us for a written eliPlm>at.ioii i>f your tights. 

Y<>u >C.a'!t <::an~lc for a. tull reflln<i 

within .30 minutes of P"Yl"""t:< unleli1lt th" fimi:is have <reen pioked 1lfl or depbitited. 

/;'<>;: qq,eet:C~ o<: :C""'Pl<>~nta •'botrl; .PiliC 

Company, ¢o:nbct: 

ll:tl!te Re<Jnla:toey Aqenoy aoo-tn~zzaz 

W>~W• s~ater<>guf.at<>;cyannSY. qov 

C<.jl)lUll!<'ir Fi:nandil J!~mte":tio:n :il:u:.rean 

.SSJ'H11~2:au 

as5-1:a!l-2'372 fMITDD) 

c<>n$U!11e'rt:inl!h<i~ .·go'lt/'J!Iending,-.m<>ne;t: 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55993 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–C 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In Supplement I to Part 1005: ■ a. Under Section 1005.30—Remittance 

Transfer Definitions: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER18SE14.016</GPH>

A-40- Model Form for Combined Disclosures for Remittance Transfers Exchanged 

into Local Currency- Spanish(§ 1005.31(b)(3)) 

ABC company 

1000 X¥2 Av~e 

~. Anyst•t.e 12:!14$ 

RE.MI'!'Ell'l'ai l!a~ ~¢1!'1 .. 

100 Anywhere Street 

Anyt<M>, llnY!oihe.re s4~21 

222-SSS-1212 

Dl!STIN.,'!'AI!l:O> 

Carlo!! G<lme:.* 

1.23 C!ill" .XXX Otv.<lad. de Mexi<t<>, D. F. 

MUi.;;o 

PI!N'l'O DE l'AOOl 

ABC C<ll!paey 

liS ~I"'O.da m 

cl.ll<lad. de Mexiw, ll.li' .• Mexi.;;o 

cmtidad <1e ED:vio:r 

Ca:r;qos pol: llhVit:~: 

.lii!Pile!Ot:<>s <1.111 ·•nvto! 

cantidll<i de Env.to: 

.ot:ros casoil por Endln 

'!'ot8l al Oe.l!t'1natoio: 

$lOO,o.o 

+$7.00 

+$3;.00 

$11.0.00 

'1, %27.00 :MlCii 

,..30.00-

l, 197 • 00 IIXN 

El l>em'f1o1aJ:'it:~ podr:la reoU>il: me:r.:os dir.:ero det>i.<IO 11. laa coilliil'i<m"a 

c<>btoad!ls p'>'t •1 ·l>.moo del 

be:r.:enl'!a:t::to e tlllpUes'to>l illltr.m~iitoii. 

IJst'ed tieDe el. <lerec!IQ :<fe'. !li"out£r 

errore!!. en n tJ::ans~c;n. Si cree quill h!IY :un error, con!:Jiceenos detu:ro de ll!.O dtas al 80!H123-4567 o www.abcc<il!!pi!ny.COIII. '!'iiillbitn pue<til 

e<>nta.;;tarnos paz:a '*'tener. una 

expli'Oa<:i~. es.orita de B)IS <l.ereol!<>B. 

Puede :::.1~<:'llar el mvio y reo'i.bb: un :cee!llbolao total dent~ <ie. '30 minut<>B de h&ber reali:liad<> el pag'>',. a no aer qlie loa .fOJ:idoe hay""' trido l:e.;;<igi<IOOI o 

4epositadQ5. 

Para pteguntu o preeentar un& ~oe;ja 

llob're uc C<:qjaey, :contac:te a: 

$t~~-~~i:i:£YAgj!npy 

....,.,.~>tatel:l!<!'l!lat<>;yaqeruw.gov 

C<>llll1!m.Ol"' !'1-<:i.a:l Ptote¢tlon Bureau: 

1155-111-2312 

855-729.-'2:372 l'I'TY/'I'Dill 

<::o.....-dinance•qov/"nvios 
55994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

■ i. Under Paragraph 30(c), paragraphs 

2.i and 2.ii are revised. 

■ ii. Under Paragraph 30(g), paragraph 

1 is revised and paragraphs 2 and 3 are 

added. 

■ b. Under Section 1005.31— 

Disclosures: 

■ i. Under Paragraph 31(a)(2), 

paragraph 5 is added. 

■ ii. Under Paragraph 31(a)(3), 

paragraphs 1 and 2 are revised. 

■ iii. Under Paragraph 31(b)(2), 

paragraphs 4, 5, 6 are redesignated as 

paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. 

■ iv. Under Paragraph 31(b)(2), 

paragraph 4 is added. 

■ v. Under Paragraph 31(e), paragraph 1 

is revised. 

■ c. Under Section 1005.33—Procedures 

for Resolving Errors: 

■ i. Under Paragraph 33(a), paragraphs 

7, 8, 9, 10 are redesignated as 

paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11. 

■ ii. Under Paragraph 33(a), paragraph 

7 is added. 

■ iii. Under Paragraph 33(c), paragraph 

5 is revised. 

■ iv. Under Paragraph 33(c), paragraph 

12.i is revised. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Supplement I to Part 1005—Official 

Interpretations 

* * * * * 

Section 1005.30—Remittance Transfer 

Definitions 

* * * * * 

30(c) Designated Recipient 

* * * * * 

2. Location in a foreign country. 

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 § 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. 

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. 

* * * * * 

30(g) Sender 

1. Determining whether a consumer is 

located in a State. Under § 1005.30(g), the 

definition of ‘‘sender’’ 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 ‘‘sender’’ in § 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. 

2. Personal, family, or household purposes. 

Under § 1005.30(g), a consumer is a ‘‘sender’’ 

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 § 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 ‘‘sender’’ 

under § 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 § 1005.30(g), 

even if the consumer is requesting the 

transfer from an account that is used 

primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes. 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 1005.30(g). 

* * * * * 

Section 1005.31—Disclosures 

31(a) General Form of Disclosures 

* * * * * 

31(a)(2) Written and Electronic Disclosures 

* * * * * 

5. Disclosures provided by fax. For 

purposes of disclosures required to be 

provided pursuant to § 1005.31 or § 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 

§ 1005.31(a)(2). 

31(a)(3) Disclosures for Oral Telephone 

Transactions 

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 § 1005.31(b)(1) to a 

sender orally does not fulfill the requirement 

to provide the disclosures required by 

§ 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. 

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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

31(b) Disclosure Requirements 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55995 

31(b)(2) Receipt 

* * * * * 

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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

31(e) Timing 

1. Request to send a remittance transfer. 

Except as provided in § 1005.36(a), prepayment 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. 

* * * * * 

Section 1005.33 Procedures for Resolving 

Errors 

33(a) Definition of Error 

* * * * * 

7. Failure to make funds available by 

disclosed date of availability—fraud and 

other screening procedures. Under 

§ 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

33(c) Time Limits and Extent of Investigation 

* * * * * 

5. Amount appropriate to resolve the error. 

For purposes of the remedies set forth in 

§ 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 § 1005.31(b)(1)(vii) was received 

by the designated recipient before the 

provider must determine the appropriate 

remedy for an error under § 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 

§ 1005.33(c)(2)(ii)(B) or (c)(2)(iii), as 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

12. * * * 

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 nondelivery 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 § 1005.33(c)(1) or (d)(1) 

and inform the sender, pursuant to 

§ 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). 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20681 Filed 9–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0369; Airspace 

Docket No. 14–ANM–4] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Modification of VOR Federal Airway 

V–298 in the Vicinity of Pasco, WA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action modifies VOR 

Federal airway V–298 in the vicinity of 

Pasco, WA. The FAA is taking this 

action due to the Pasco, WA (PSC), VHF 

Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Distance 

Measuring Equipment (DME) facility 

that provides navigation aid (NAVAID) 

guidance for a portion of V–298, being 

relocated. This action will ensure the 

safety and efficient management of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES