This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

5302 

Vol. 79, No. 21 

Friday, January 31, 2014 

1Public Law 111–203, § 1024, 124 Stat. 1376, 

1987 (2010) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 5514). 

2The provisions of 12 U.S.C. 5514 apply to 

certain categories of covered persons, described in 

subsection (a)(1), and expressly exclude from 

coverage persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5515(a) or 

5516(a). ‘‘Covered persons’’ include ‘‘(A) any 

person that engages in offering or providing a 

consumer financial product or service; and (B) any 

affiliate of a person described [in (A)] if such 

affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.’’ 

12 U.S.C. 5481(6). 

3 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(A), (D), (E). The Bureau also 

has the authority to supervise any nonbank covered 

person that it ‘‘has reasonable cause to determine, 

by order, after notice to the covered person and a 

reasonable opportunity . . . to respond . . . is 

engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses 

risks to consumers with regard to the offering or 

provision of consumer financial products or 

services.’’ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C); see also 12 CFR 

part 1091 (prescribing procedures for making 

determinations under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C)). In 

addition, the Bureau has supervisory authority over 

very large depository institutions and credit unions 

and their affiliates. 12 U.S.C. 5515(a). Furthermore, 

the Bureau has certain authorities relating to the 

supervision of other depository institutions and 

credit unions. 12 U.S.C. 5516(c)(1), (e). One of the 

Bureau’s mandates under the Dodd-Frank Act is to 

ensure that ‘‘Federal consumer financial law is 

enforced consistently without regard to the status 

of a person as a depository institution, in order to 

promote fair competition.’’ 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(4). 

4 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B), (a)(2); see also 12 U.S.C. 

5481(5) (defining ‘‘consumer financial product or 

service’’). 

5The first three rules defined larger participants 

of markets for consumer reporting, 77 FR 42874 

(July 20, 2012) (Consumer Reporting Rule), 

consumer debt collection, 77 FR 65775 (Oct. 31, 

2012) (Consumer Debt Collection Rule), and student 

loan servicing, 78 FR 73383 (Dec. 6, 2013) (Student 

Loan Servicing Rule). 

6The Proposed Rule would describe one market 

for consumer financial products or services, which 

the Proposed Rule labels ‘‘international money 

transfers.’’ The proposed definition would not 

encompass all activities that could be considered 

international money transfers. Any reference herein 

to ‘‘the international money transfer market’’ means 

only the particular market for international money 

transfers identified by the Proposed Rule. 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1090 

[Docket No. CFPB–2014–0003] 

RIN 3170–AA25 

Defining Larger Participants of the 

International Money Transfer Market 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) 

proposes to amend the regulation 

defining larger participants of certain 

consumer financial product and service 

markets by adding a new section to 

define larger participants of a market for 

international money transfers. The 

Bureau proposes this rule pursuant to 

its authority, under the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act, to supervise certain 

nonbank covered persons for 

compliance with Federal consumer 

financial law and for other purposes. 

The Bureau has the authority to 

supervise nonbank covered persons of 

all sizes in the residential mortgage, 

private education lending, and payday 

lending markets. In addition, the Bureau 

has the authority to supervise nonbank 

‘‘larger participant[s]’’ of markets for 

other consumer financial products or 

services, as the Bureau defines by rule. 

The proposal (Proposed Rule) would 

identify a nonbank market for 

international money transfers and 

define ‘‘larger participants’’ of this 

market that would be subject to the 

Bureau’s supervisory authority. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. Because 

paper mail in the Washington, DC area 

and at the Bureau is subject to delay, 

commenters are encouraged to submit 

comments electronically. You may 

submit comments, identified by Docket 

No. CFPB–2014–0003 or RIN 3170– 

AA25, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

In general, all comments received will 

be posted without change to their 

content. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington DC 20552. 

In addition, comments will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying at 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You 

can make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the public record and 

will be subject to public disclosure. 

Submit only information that you wish 

to make available publicly. Do not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as account numbers or Social 

Security numbers. Comments will not 

be edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information, such as name and 

address information, email addresses, or 

telephone numbers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edna Boateng, Senior Consumer 

Financial Protection Analyst, (202) 435– 

7697, Amanda Quester, Senior Counsel, 

(202) 365–0702, or Brian Shearer, 

Attorney, (202) 435–7794, Office of 

Supervision Policy, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview 

Section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (Dodd-Frank Act), codified at 12 

U.S.C. 5514,1 gives the Bureau 

supervisory authority over all nonbank 

covered persons 2 offering or providing 

three enumerated types of consumer 

financial products or services: (1) 

Origination, brokerage, or servicing of 

consumer loans secured by real estate, 

and related mortgage loan modification 

or foreclosure relief services; (2) private 

education loans; and (3) payday loans.3

The Bureau also has supervisory 

authority over ‘‘larger participant[s] of a 

market for other consumer financial 

products or services,’’ as the Bureau 

defines by rule.4

This Proposed Rule, if adopted, 

would be the fourth in a series of 

rulemakings to define larger participants 

of markets for other consumer financial 

products or services for purposes of 12 

U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B).5 The Proposed 

Rule would establish the Bureau’s 

supervisory authority over certain 

nonbank covered persons participating 

in a market for international money 

transfers.6

The Bureau is authorized to supervise 

nonbank covered persons subject to 12 

U.S.C. 5514 of the Dodd-Frank Act for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5303 

7 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(1). 

8See 12 U.S.C. 5514(b) (authorizing the Bureau 

both to conduct examinations and to require reports 

from entities subject to supervision). 

9CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual 

(Oct. 1, 2012), available at http://www.consumer

finance.gov/guidance/supervision/manual/. 

10CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual, 

Remittance Transfer Examination Procedures (Oct. 

22, 2013), available at http://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/201310_cfpb_remittance-transferexamination-procedures.pdf. 

11 77 FR 6194 (Feb. 7, 2012); 77 FR 40459 (July 

10, 2012); 77 FR 50244 (Aug. 20, 2012); 78 FR 6025 

(Jan. 29, 2013); 78 FR 30662 (May 22, 2013); 78 FR 

49365 (Aug. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 CFR part 

1005, subpart B). These changes implement the new 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act requirements imposed 

by the Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111–203, 

§ 1073, 124 Stat. 1376, 2060 (2010). For additional 

information about the Remittance Rule, see http:// 

www.consumerfinance.gov/remittances-transferrule-amendment-to-regulation-e/. 

12The Bureau’s supervisory authority also 

extends to service providers of those covered 

persons that are subject to supervision under 12 

U.S.C. 5514(a)(1). 12 U.S.C. 5514(e); see also 12 

U.S.C. 5481(26) (defining ‘‘service provider’’). 

13 12 CFR 1090.100–.103. 

14 77 FR 42874, 42875 (Consumer Reporting 

Rule); 77 FR 65775, 65777 (Consumer Debt 

Collection Rule); 78 FR 73383, 73384 (Student Loan 

Servicing Rule). 

15 15 U.S.C. 1693o–1(g); 12 CFR 1005.2, 1005.30. 

16 12 CFR 1090.104(a), 1090.105(a) (providing 

definitions of ‘‘annual receipts,’’ which the Bureau 

used in crafting the proposed definition of 

‘‘aggregate annual international money transfer’’). 

17As a result, some terms may have different 

definitions for purposes of the Proposed Rule than 

they do for purposes of Regulation E. The definition 

of ‘‘consumer’’ in § 1090.101 is ‘‘an individual or 

an agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf 

of an individual,’’ 12 CFR 1090.101, while the 

definition of ‘‘consumer’’ in Regulation E is ‘‘a 

natural person,’’ 12 CFR 1005.2(e). The definition 

of ‘‘person’’ in § 1090.101 is ‘‘an individual, 

partnership, company, corporation, association 

(incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, 

cooperative organization, or other entity,’’ 12 CFR 

Continued 

purposes of: (1) Assessing compliance 

with Federal consumer financial law; (2) 

obtaining information about such 

persons’ activities and compliance 

systems or procedures; and (3) detecting 

and assessing risks to consumers and 

consumer financial markets.7 The 

Bureau conducts examinations, of 

various scopes, of supervised entities. In 

addition, the Bureau may, as 

appropriate, request information from 

supervised entities without conducting 

examinations.8

The Bureau prioritizes supervisory 

activity among nonbank covered 

persons on the basis of risk, taking into 

account, among other factors, the size of 

each entity, the volume of its 

transactions involving consumer 

financial products or services, the size 

and risk presented by the market in 

which it is a participant, the extent of 

relevant State oversight, and any field 

and market information that the Bureau 

has on the entity. Such field and market 

information might include, for example, 

information from complaints and any 

other information the Bureau has about 

risks to consumers. 

The specifics of how an examination 

takes place vary by market and entity. 

However, the examination process 

generally proceeds as follows. Bureau 

examiners contact the entity for an 

initial conference with management and 

often request records and other 

information. Bureau examiners will 

ordinarily also review the components 

of the supervised entity’s compliance 

management system. Based on these 

discussions and a preliminary review of 

the information received, examiners 

determine the scope of an on-site 

examination and then coordinate with 

the entity to initiate the on-site portion 

of the examination. While on-site, 

examiners spend a period of time 

holding discussions with management 

about the entity’s policies, processes, 

and procedures; reviewing documents 

and records; testing transactions and 

accounts for compliance; and evaluating 

the entity’s compliance management 

system. Examinations may involve 

issuing confidential examination 

reports, supervisory letters, and 

compliance ratings. In addition to the 

process described above, the Bureau 

may also conduct off-site examinations. 

The Bureau has published a general 

examination manual describing the 

Bureau’s supervisory approach and 

procedures.9 As explained in the 

manual, the Bureau will structure 

examinations to address various factors 

related to a supervised entity’s 

compliance with Federal consumer 

financial law and other relevant 

considerations. On October 22, 2013, 

the Bureau released procedures specific 

to remittance transfers for use in the 

Bureau’s examinations of entities within 

its supervisory authority.10 If this 

Proposed Rule is adopted, the Bureau 

will use those examination procedures 

in supervising international money 

transfers. The procedures include 

instructions on examining for 

compliance with, among other laws and 

regulations, new requirements in 

subpart B of Regulation E relating to 

remittance transfers (Remittance Rule), 

which went into effect on October 28, 

2013.11

The States have been active in 

regulation of money transmission, with 

forty-seven States and the District of 

Columbia requiring entities to obtain a 

license to engage in money 

transmission, as defined by applicable 

law. Many States also actively examine 

money transmitters. If the Proposed 

Rule is adopted, the Bureau would 

coordinate with appropriate State 

regulatory authorities in examining 

larger participants of the international 

money transfer market. 

This Proposed Rule would establish a 

category of nonbank covered persons 

that is subject to the Bureau’s 

supervisory authority under 12 U.S.C. 

5514 by defining ‘‘larger participants’’ of 

a market for international money 

transfers.12 The Proposed Rule pertains 

only to that purpose and would not 

impose new substantive consumer 

protection requirements. Nonbank 

covered persons generally are subject to 

the Bureau’s regulatory and enforcement 

authority, and any applicable Federal 

consumer financial law, regardless of 

whether they are subject to the Bureau’s 

supervisory authority. 

II. Summary of Proposed Rule 

The Bureau’s existing largerparticipant rule, 12 CFR part 1090, 

prescribes various procedures, 

definitions, standards, and protocols 

that apply with respect to all markets in 

which the Bureau has defined larger 

participants.13 Those generally 

applicable provisions, which are 

codified in subpart A, would also be 

applicable for the international money 

transfer market described by this 

Proposed Rule. The definitions in 

§ 1090.101 should be used, unless 

otherwise specified, when interpreting 

terms in this Proposed Rule. 

The Bureau includes relevant market 

descriptions and larger-participant tests, 

as it develops them, in subpart B.14

Accordingly, the Proposed Rule 

defining larger participants of the 

international money transfer market 

would become § 1090.107 in subpart B. 

The Proposed Rule would define an 

international money transfer market that 

would cover certain electronic transfers 

of funds sent by nonbanks that are 

international money transfer providers. 

To be included in this proposed market, 

transfers would have to be requested by 

a sender in a State to be sent to a 

designated recipient in a foreign 

country. The Proposed Rule’s 

definitions are modeled in part on the 

definition of ‘‘remittance transfer’’ and 

related terms in the Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act (EFTA) and its 

implementing regulation, Regulation 

E.15 Some of the Proposed Rule’s 

definitions also are modeled in part on 

definitions in prior larger-participant 

rules.16 The definitions in existing 

§ 1090.101 apply for terms that the 

Proposed Rule does not define, such as 

‘‘person’’ and ‘‘consumer.’’ 17


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1090.101, while the definition of ‘‘person’’ in 

Regulation E is ‘‘a natural person or an 

organization, including a corporation, government 

agency, estate, trust, partnership, proprietorship, 

cooperative, or association,’’ 12 CFR 1005.2(j). 

18As the Bureau has explained in prior 

rulemakings, the criterion selected for one market 

in a larger-participant rulemaking is not necessarily 

appropriate for any other market that may be the 

subject of a future rulemaking. Instead, the Bureau 

expects to tailor each test to the market to which 

it will be applied. 77 FR 42874, 42876 (Consumer 

Reporting); 77 FR 65775, 65778 (Consumer Debt 

Collection); 78 FR 73383, 73384 n.16 (Student Loan 

Servicing). 

19 12 CFR 1090.102. 

20 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

21The term ‘‘international money transfer’’ is very 

similar to the term ‘‘remittance transfer’’ as defined 

in the Remittance Rule, 12 CFR 1005.30(e). 

However, the definitions differ in some substantive 

respects as specified below, including, for example, 

that transfers of $15 or less can be ‘‘international 

money transfers’’ but not ‘‘remittance transfers.’’ 

Other definitions in this Proposed Rule are 

similarly based on Regulation E. Usage, or 

omission, of specific language from the EFTA or 

Regulation E in the Proposed Rule is not an 

endorsement by the Bureau of any specific 

interpretation of the EFTA or Regulation E. 

22CFPB, Report on Remittance Transfers 6 (July 

20, 2011), available athttp://www.consumer

finance.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Report_

20110720_RemittanceTransfers.pdf. Federal law 

requires money transmitters that meet certain 

criteria to register as a ‘‘money services business’’ 

with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). 

31 U.S.C. 5330; 31 CFR 1010.100(ff), 1022.380. Most 

States also have licensing requirements for similar 

types of entities. 

23Manuel Orozco et al., Inter-American Dialogue, 

The Market for Money Transfers: Ranking of 

Remittance Service Providers in Latin America and 

the Caribbean 4 (Oct. 23, 2012), available at 

http://www.thedialogue.org/uploads/Remittances_

and_Development/LatAm_Final_120712.pdf. Like 

cash-to-cash transfers, some of the transfers to bank 

accounts rely on closed networks, though others 

rely on open networks (between an entity and nonagents or non-affiliates) or reflect some 

characteristics of both open and closed network 

transactions. 

The Proposed Rule also would set 

forth a test to determine whether a 

nonbank covered person is a larger 

participant of the international money 

transfer market. An entity would be a 

larger participant if it has at least one 

million aggregate annual international 

money transfers.18 As prescribed by 

existing § 1090.102, any nonbank 

covered person that qualifies as a larger 

participant would remain a larger 

participant until two years after the first 

day of the tax year in which the person 

last met the applicable test.19

Pursuant to existing § 1090.103, a 

person would be able to dispute 

whether it qualifies as a larger 

participant in the international money 

transfer market. The Bureau would 

notify an entity when the Bureau 

intended to undertake supervisory 

activity; the entity would then have an 

opportunity to submit documentary 

evidence and written arguments in 

support of its claim that it was not a 

larger participant. Section 1090.103(d) 

provides that the Bureau may require 

submission of certain records, 

documents, and other information for 

purposes of assessing whether a person 

is a larger participant of a covered 

market; this authority would be 

available to the Bureau to facilitate its 

identification of larger participants of 

the international money transfer market, 

just as in other markets. 

III. Legal Authority and Procedural 

Matters 

A. Rulemaking Authority 

The Bureau is issuing this Proposed 

Rule pursuant to its authority under: (1) 

12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2), which 

authorize the Bureau to supervise larger 

participants of markets for consumer 

financial products or services, as 

defined by rule; (2) 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(7), 

which, among other things, authorizes 

the Bureau to prescribe rules to facilitate 

the supervision of covered persons 

under 12 U.S.C. 5514; and (3) 12 U.S.C. 

5512(b)(1), which grants the Bureau the 

authority to prescribe rules as may be 

necessary or appropriate to enable the 

Bureau to administer and carry out the 

purposes and objectives of Federal 

consumer financial law, and to prevent 

evasions of such law. 

B. Proposed Effective Date of Final Rule 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

generally requires that rules be 

published not less than 30 days before 

their effective dates.20 The Bureau 

proposes that the final rule arising from 

this Proposed Rule would be effective 

no earlier than 60 days after publication. 

IV. Section-By-Section Analysis 

Section 1090.107—International Money 

Transfer Market 

Proposed § 1090.107 relates to 

international money transfers.21 As a 

general matter, international money 

transfers are electronic transfers of 

funds sent by nonbanks from consumers 

in the United States to persons or 

entities abroad. 

Many consumers who send money 

abroad do so through money transmitter 

companies that are nonbanks.22 Many 

money transmitters operate through 

closed networks, receiving and 

disbursing funds through their own 

outlets or through agents such as 

grocery stores, neighborhood 

convenience stores, or depository 

institutions. Some money transmitters 

may send transfers of any size, while 

others cap the size of transfers they 

send. 

For an international transfer 

conducted through a money transmitter, 

a consumer typically provides basic 

identifying information about himself 

and the recipient and often pays cash 

sufficient to cover the transfer amount 

and any fees charged by the money 

transmitter. The consumer may be 

provided a confirmation code, which 

the consumer relays to the recipient. 

The money transmitter sends an 

instruction to a specified payout 

location or locations in the recipient’s 

country where the recipient may pick 

up the transferred funds, often in cash 

and local currency, upon presentation of 

the confirmation code and/or other 

identification on or after a specified 

date. These transfers generally are 

referred to as cash-to-cash transfers. 

Many money transmitters provide 

other types of transfers. For example, 

money transmitters may permit transfers 

to be initiated using credit cards, debit 

cards, or bank account debits and may 

use Web sites, agent locations, standalone kiosks, or telephone lines to do so. 

Abroad, money transmitters and their 

partners may allow funds to be 

deposited into recipients’ bank 

accounts, distributed directly onto 

prepaid cards, or credited to mobile 

phone accounts. Funds also can be 

transferred among consumers’ nonbank 

accounts identified by individuals’ 

email addresses or mobile phone 

numbers. According to one survey of 

companies that send funds from the 

United States to Latin America and the 

Caribbean, 75 percent permit consumers 

to send transfers of funds that can be 

deposited directly into recipients’ bank 

accounts, including transfers initiated 

through the internet.23

Although this Proposed Rule would 

apply only to nonbank covered persons, 

depository institutions and credit 

unions, including those already subject 

to the Bureau’s supervisory authority, 

also offer consumers international 

transfer services. This is often done by 

way of wire transfers. 

International transfers play a critical 

role in the lives of many consumers in 

the United States. U.S. consumers send 

funds abroad for a number of reasons, 

including to assist family or friends 

with their expenses, to pay for 

purchases of goods, to pay the tuition of 

children studying abroad, or to purchase 

real estate. Data from the 2011 Current 

Population Survey (2011 CPS) show that 

more than 4 million households 

nationwide had used nonbanks to 

transfer funds to friends and family 

abroad in the preceding year, and more 

than 7 million households had used 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5305 

24Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., National Survey of 

Unbanked and Underbanked Households 32 (Sept. 

2012), available at 

http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2012_

unbankedreport.pdf (2011 CPS Report) (stating that 

3.7 percent of households used ‘‘nonbank 

remittances’’ as defined in the survey in the 

preceding year); id at 142–43 (providing estimate of 

120 million U.S. households in 2011 for purposes 

of the survey); id. at 79 (estimating the number of 

households that have used ‘‘nonbank remittances’’ 

as defined in the survey at any time in the past). 

25See CFPB, Report on Remittance Transfers 

17–21 (July 20, 2011); see also 77 FR 6194, 6199 

(Feb. 7, 2012). 

26See 77 FR 6194, 6199 (Feb. 7, 2012). 

27Public Law 111–203, § 1073, 124 Stat. 1376, 

2060 (2010). 

28 77 FR 6194 (Feb. 7, 2012); 77 FR 40459 (July 

10, 2012); 77 FR 50244 (Aug. 20, 2012); 78 FR 6025 

(Jan. 29, 2013); 78 FR 30662 (May 22, 2013); 78 FR 

49365 (Aug. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 CFR part 

1005, subpart B). 

29Public Law 111–203, § 1073(a)(4). 124 Stat. 

1376, 2060 (2010) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1693o– 

1(a)); 12 CFR 1005.31–.32. 30Public Law 111–203, § 1073(a)(4), 124 Stat. 

1376, 2060 (2010) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1693o– 

1(d)(3)); 12 CFR 1005.34. 31Public Law 111–203, § 1073(a)(4), 124 Stat. 

1376, 2060 (2010) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1693o– 

1(d)); 12 CFR 1005.33. 32 International money transfers are consumer 

financial products or services pursuant to the DoddFrank Act. See 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(iv) (defining 

‘‘financial product or service’’ to include ‘‘engaging 

in deposit-taking activities, transmitting or 

exchanging funds, or otherwise acting as a 

custodian of funds or any financial instrument for 

use by or on behalf of a consumer’’); 12 U.S.C. 

5481(5)(A) (defining ‘‘consumer financial product 

or service’’ to include financial products or services 

that are offered or provided for use by consumers 

primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(v) 

(defining ‘‘financial product or service’’ to include 

generally ‘‘selling, providing, or issuing stored 

value or payment instruments,’’ with specific 

exclusions); 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(vii) (defining 

‘‘financial product or service’’ to include generally 

‘‘providing payments or other financial data 

processing products or services to a consumer by 

any technological means,’’ with specific 

exclusions). 

33 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(4). 

34The Bureau based its market estimates 

primarily on confidential State supervisory data for 

the year 2012 that it received from California, New 

York, and Ohio pursuant to memoranda of 

understanding. From New York and Ohio, the 

Bureau received national figures for per-licensee 

dollar volume and number of transfers that 

aggregate international transfers, domestic transfers, 

and some other regulated transactions. The data 

received from California on per-licensee dollar 

volume and number of transfers include only 

outbound international transfers. Therefore, the 

type of data that California provided most closely 

matches the market activity defined in the Proposed 

Rule. However, the California data do not include 

national figures for individual entities; instead, the 

data only include transfers initiated in California. 

None of the data sets obtained from the States 

distinguish between transfers initiated by 

consumers and those initiated by businesses. 

In addition to the State data, the Bureau used the 

following sources: The FinCEN Money Services 

Business Registration List; public Web sites; CFPB 

market research; and the licensee lists from 

regulatory agencies in 47 States and the District of 

Columbia described below. The Bureau also used 

data on nonbank remittance use from the 2011 

CPS’s June 2011 Unbanked/Underbanked 

Supplement, which is available at http://thedata

web.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html and described 

at http://www.census.gov/prod/techdoc/cps/

cpsjun11.pdf. The Bureau looked specifically at 

data for respondents who reported that they or 

someone in their household had gone to a nonbank 

to give or send money to relatives or friends living 

outside the United States at least once in the past 

30 days (i.e., respondents who answered questions 

20–22 positively and reported one or more 

instances in response to question 23). The Bureau 

sorted the responses by State using the Census State 

code (GESTCEN) and adjusted them to reflect each 

State’s population using the CPS Supplement 

Person Weight (PWSUPWGT). The Bureau used the 

resulting figures to generate the following estimates 

of each State’s share of all U.S. consumers living in 

households that had sent nonbank remittances in 

the last 30 days (‘‘relative CPS shares’’): Arkansas 

(0.17%); Alabama (0.89%); Arkansas (0.52%); 

Arizona (3.31%); California (22.70%); Colorado 

(0.97%); Connecticut (1.17%); District of Columbia 

(0.30%); Delaware (0.19%); Florida (8.37%); 

Georgia (3.73%); Hawaii (0.52%); Iowa (0.73%); 

Idaho (0.27%); Illinois (6.00%); Indiana (0.28%); 

Kansas (0.46%); Kentucky (0.16%); Louisiana 

(0.75%); Massachusetts (1.85%); Maryland (1.51%); 

Maine (0.08%); Michigan (0.21%); Minnesota 

(0.41%); Missouri (0.82%); Mississippi (0.10%); 

Montana (0.06%); North Carolina (2.91%); North 

Dakota (0.06%); Nebraska (0.25%); New Hampshire 

(0.04%); New Jersey (3.81%); New Mexico (0.62%); 

Nevada (1.35%); New York (8.49%); Ohio (1.48%); 

Oklahoma (1.30%); Oregon (0.51%); Pennsylvania 

(1.00%); Rhode Island (0.59%); South Carolina 

(0.25%); South Dakota (0.14%); Tennessee (0.44%); 

Texas (15.61%); Utah (0.57%); Virginia (1.20%); 

Vermont (0.03%); Washington (0.90%); Wisconsin 

(1.78%); West Virginia (0.03%); and Wyoming 

(0.08%). Thus, according to the Bureau’s estimates, 

the three States from which it obtained confidential 

Continued 

nonbanks to make such transfers at 

some time in the past.24

Transferring money to international 

recipients can present unique 

challenges for consumers and providers, 

many of which are addressed in the 

Remittance Rule recently issued by the 

Bureau. Pricing for transfers is complex 

and may depend not only on fees and 

taxes, but also on exchange rates. 

Because wholesale currency markets 

fluctuate constantly, the exchange rates 

applied to individual international 

transfers may change from day to day, 

or even over the course of the day, 

depending on how frequently providers 

update their retail rates. Providers may 

also vary their exchange rates and fees 

charged based on a range of other 

factors, such as the sending and 

receiving locations, and the size and 

speed of the transfer. Taxes may vary 

depending on the type of provider, the 

laws of the recipient country, and 

various other factors. As a result, 

determining how much money will 

actually be received and which provider 

offers the lowest price can be 

challenging for consumers, particularly 

when not provided with proper 

disclosures.25 In some cases, language 

barriers may further complicate 

consumers’ ability to obtain and 

understand transaction information 

from providers and their agents.26

The Bureau believes that compliance 

with recent legislative and regulatory 

changes will significantly improve the 

predictability of remittances and 

provide consumers with better price 

information. Congress amended the 

EFTA in the Dodd-Frank Act.27 The 

Bureau then implemented the 

amendments to the EFTA by 

promulgating the Remittance Rule, 

which went into effect on October 28, 

2013.28 The Remittance Rule created a 

comprehensive new system of consumer 

protections for remittance transfers sent 

by consumers in the United States to 

individuals and businesses in foreign 

countries. First, the amendments 

generally require that information be 

disclosed prior to and at the time of 

payment by the sender for the transfer.29

Second, under the Remittance Rule, 

consumers will generally have thirty 

minutes after making payment to cancel 

a transaction.30 Third, the Remittance 

Rule increases consumer protections 

when transfers go awry by requiring 

providers to investigate disputes and 

remedy certain types of errors.31 The 

Remittance Rule applies to any 

institutions that send remittance 

transfers in the normal course of their 

business, including banks, credit 

unions, money transmitters, brokerdealers, and others. The Bureau and 

prudential regulators can examine 

depository institutions and credit 

unions within their supervisory 

authority for compliance with 

Regulation E, including the new 

Remittance Rule. 

Finalization of this Proposed Rule 

would bring nonbanks that are larger 

participants of the international money 

transfer market 32 within the Bureau’s 

supervisory jurisdiction, thereby 

promoting the Bureau’s objective of 

enforcing Federal consumer financial 

law consistently without regard to 

whether a person is a depository 

institution.33 Supervision of larger 

participants of the international money 

transfer market would help to ensure 

that nonbank entities that provide a 

significant portion of the transactions to 

which the Remittance Rule applies are 

complying with these new and 

important consumer protections, as well 

as with other applicable requirements of 

Federal consumer financial law, 

including the prohibition on unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. 

The Bureau lacks precise data on the 

international money transfer market. 

However, available data sources, 

including public information and 

confidential State supervisory data 

provided by three States,34 enabled the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

supervisory data (California, New York, and Ohio) 

together accounted for 32.7 percent of U.S. 

consumers who reported that their households had 

sent nonbank remittances in the last 30 days in the 

2011 CPS. 

35The Bureau conducted entity-level analysis and 

produced highly approximated entity-by-entity 

estimates to inform its general understanding of the 

market and of the likely market coverage associated 

with potential activity thresholds. These entitylevel approximations of dollar volume and number 

of transfers are not dispositive of whether the 

Bureau would ever seek to initiate supervisory 

activity or whether, in the event of a person’s 

assertion that it is not a larger participant, the 

person would be found to be a larger participant 

under 12 CFR 1090.103. 

36The following analysis will hereinafter be cited 

as ‘‘State License Review.’’ To arrive at the estimate 

that 340 nonbanks are international money transfer 

providers, the Bureau reviewed lists of licensees 

from 47 States and the District of Columbia. Most 

of the lists were publicly available online at the 

following addresses: Alaska Department of 

Commerce, Community, and Economic 

Development, http://www.dced.state.ak.us/bsc/

money_service_businesses.html; Arizona 

Department of Financial Institutions, http:// 

azdfi.gov/Consumers/Licensees/licenses.asp?list=

MT&name=Money%20Transmitters; Arkansas 

Securities Department, http:// 

www.securities.arkansas.gov/page/339/moneyservices; California Department of Business 

Oversight, http://www.dbo.ca.gov/Licensees/money

_transmitters/money_transmitters_directory.asp; 

Colorado Division of Banking, http:// 

www.dora.state.co.us/pls/real/bidS_Search.Search_

Page; Connecticut Department of Banking, http:// 

www.ct.gov/dob/cwp/view.asp?a=2233&q=29786

2&dobNAV_GID=1663; Delaware Office of the State 

Bank Commissioner, http://banking.delaware.gov/

information/nondepsearch.shtml; Georgia 

Department of Banking and Finance, https:// 

dbfweb.dbf.state.ga.us/WebCCData.html; Hawaii 

Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, 

http://cca.hawaii.gov/dfi/; Idaho Department of 

Finance, http://finance.idaho.gov/Money

Transmitter/MoneyTransmitterLicense.aspx; 

Illinois Department of Financial and Profession 

Regulation, http://www.idfpr.com/dfi/ccd/ccd_

licensees.asp#trans; Indiana Department of 

Financial Institutions, http://extranet.dfi.in.gov/ 

dfidb/nondepcalist.aspx; Iowa Division of Banking, 

http://www.idob.state.ia.us/; State Bank 

Commissioner of Kansas, http:// 

www.osbckansas.org/; Kentucky Department of 

Financial Institutions, http://www.kfi.ky.gov/Pages/ 

default.aspx; Louisiana Office of Financial 

Institutions, http://www.ofi.state.la.us/soclist.htm; 

Maine Department of Professional and Financial 

Regulation, http://www.maine.gov/pfr/consumer

credit/rosters/index.htm; Massachusetts Division of 

Banks, http://license.dob.state.ma.us/licensee

list.asp; Michigan Department of Insurance and 

Financial Services, http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/fis/

ind_srch/ConsumerFinance/Search.asp; Minnesota 

Department of Commerce, http://www.commerce.

state.mn.us/LicenseLookupMain.html; Mississippi 

Department of Banking and Consumer Finance, 

http://www.dbcf.state.ms.us/documents/lists/

moneytransmitter.pdf; Missouri Division of Finance, 

http://finance.mo.gov/licenseesearch/; Nebraska 

Department of Banking and Finance, http:// 

www.ndbf.ne.gov/soc/soclicensees.shtml; New 

Hampshire Banking Department, http:// 

www.nh.gov/banking/consumer-credit/

information.htm; New Jersey Department of 

Banking and Insurance, https://www20.state.nj.us/

DOBI_LicSearch/bnkSearch.jsp; New York 

Department of Financial Services, http:// 

www.dfs.ny.gov/banking/moneytransmitter.htm; 

North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, https:// 

www.nccob.org/Online/MTS/MTSCompany

Listing.aspx; North Dakota Department of Financial 

Institutions, http://www.nd.gov/dfi/regulate/reg/

consumer.asp?list1=MT&sort2=city&city3=&

name4=&Submit=Search; Ohio Department of 

Commerce, http://www.com.state.oh.us/

default.aspx; Oklahoma Banking Department, 

http://www.ok.gov/banking/Money_Transmitter_

Listing.html; Oregon Division of Finance and 

Corporate Securities, http://www4.cbs.state.or.us/

ex/all/mylicsearch/index.cfm?fuse

action=main.show_main&group_id=20&profession_

id=23&profession_sub_id=23000%20; Rhode Island 

Department of Business Regulation, http:// 

www.dbr.state.ri.us/documents/divisions/banking/

program_operations/List_of_Electronic_Money_

Transfers.pdf; South Dakota Department of Labor 

and Regulation, http://dlr.sd.gov/banking/money_

transmitters.aspx; Tennessee Department of 

Financial Institutions, http://www.tennessee.gov/

tdfi/banking/Lic_MT.shtml; Texas Department of 

Banking, http://www.banking.state.tx.us/supreglic

_ent.asp; Utah Department of Financial Institutions, 

http://www.dfi.state.ut.us/MonTrans.htm; Vermont 

Department of Financial Regulation, http:// 

www.dfr.vermont.gov/banking/verify-license; 

Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions, http:// 

www.scc.virginia.gov/bfi/reg_inst/trans.pdf; 

Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, 

http://www.wdfi.org/fi/lfs/licensee_lists/

Default.asp?Browse=SOC; Wyoming Division of 

Banking, https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/

banking/home/areas-of-regulation/moneytransmitters/licensee-list. The Bureau obtained lists 

upon request from State agencies that do not 

publish this data but did not receive lists from 

Montana, New Mexico, or South Carolina because 

those States do not require licenses for money 

transmission. Approximately 500 entities were 

identified on these lists. Based on company-specific 

research regarding every entity identified in the 

lists, the Bureau estimated that about 340 entities 

either offered international money transfers to 

consumers in the United States or might offer such 

transfers. As with its other market estimates for this 

rulemaking, the Bureau emphasizes that the 

estimate of 340 international money transfer 

providers could be either high or low due to 

limitations in the available data. For instance, the 

estimate does not account for entities that may be 

operating without a license in any State. On the 

other hand, the estimate includes entities that the 

Bureau could not rule out as possible international 

money transfer providers, but some of these entities 

might not actually provide international money 

transfers. 

37The analysis in this footnote will hereinafter be 

cited as ‘‘CA Extrapolation.’’ The Bureau used the 

information from California in estimating market 

size because it includes only outbound 

international transfers. In conducting the 

extrapolation, the Bureau included entities that are 

among the 340 entities identified by the State 

License Review and that do not have a significant 

number of business-initiated transfers and 

aggregated their total reported transfers and dollars 

transmitted. The Bureau used the relative CPS share 

for California calculated in the manner described 

above to estimate the percentage of international 

money transfers from the United States that 

originate in California. The Bureau thus divided the 

California totals by California’s relative CPS share 

(0.227) to obtain estimates of the total size of the 

nationwide international money transfer market. 

This extrapolation was augmented by substituting 

for one entity the estimate it provided of its 

remittance transfers in a comment letter submitted 

in response to a prior Bureau rulemaking because 

the definition of ‘‘remittance transfer’’ closely aligns 

with the definition of ‘‘international money 

transfer’’ in the Proposed Rule. These calculations 

resulted in the Bureau’s estimate that the 

international money transfer market transferred $49 

billion through 152 million individual transfers in 

2012. 

Using the 2011 CPS data to estimate market size 

may result in some imprecision. For instance, the 

questions in the 2011 CPS related to remittance use 

ask about transactions that differ somewhat from 

the definition of ‘‘international money transfer’’ in 

this Proposed Rule. Additionally, the Bureau’s 

relative CPS share calculations are based on CPS 

questions that asked whether consumers in each 

State had used nonbank remittances, not how many 

such transactions were sent from a State or how 

much money was sent from a State. Thus, the 

Bureau’s market size figures assume that 

California’s share of transfers and dollar volume 

sent from the United States is the same as 

California’s share of U.S. consumers who live in 

households that send such transfers. 

The data that the Bureau received from California 

also do not match perfectly the Proposed Rule’s 

definition of ‘‘international money transfers.’’ Most 

significantly, the California data include some 

transactions initiated by businesses. The Bureau 

identified a few entities that the Bureau believes 

provide a significant number of business-initiated 

transfers, in addition to providing international 

money transfers initiated by consumers. The Bureau 

could not delineate between consumer-initiated and 

business-initiated transfers for these entities and 

has excluded figures attributable to those entities 

from the California data because including them 

could result in a large overstatement of the volume 

of dollars transmitted in the international money 

transfer market. This exclusion does not, however, 

have a significant effect on the Bureau’s estimate of 

total market transfers because even when all of 

these entities’ transfers are included, the total 

nationwide transfer estimate stills round to roughly 

150 million transfers. The Bureau notes that even 

with this exclusion of entities that send a 

significant amount of business-initiated transfers, 

the estimates of market size may be inflated by 

business-initiated transfers sent by other entities. 

Outside estimates suggest that the Bureau’s 

estimate of total dollar volume, $49 billion, is 

reasonable. The Bureau of Economic Analysis 

estimates that the foreign-born population resident 

in the United States sent $36.5 billion in ‘‘personal 

transfers’’ to households abroad in 2012. Bureau of 

Econ. Analysis, Personal Transfers, 1992:I–2013:II, 

available at http://www.bea.gov/international/

supplemental_statistics.htm. A private consulting 

firm estimates that in 2005, $42 billion in 

international transfers were made by money 

Bureau to conduct three analyses to gain 

a general understanding of the basic 

contours of this nonbank market. These 

analyses produced rough estimates of 

(1) the overall number of nonbanks that 

provide international money transfers; 

(2) the dollar volume and number of 

international money transfers marketwide; and (3) the dollar volume and 

number of international money transfers 

provided by nonbanks that provide at 

least 500,000, one million, or three 

million transactions per year.35

For its first analysis, the Bureau 

reviewed State licensing information 

and estimated that approximately 340 

nonbanks provide international money 

transfers.36 The Bureau’s second 

analysis, an extrapolation of 

confidential supervisory data from 

California to generate nationwide 

estimates, indicates that the nonbank 

market of international money transfers, 

as defined here, accounted for roughly 

$50 billion transferred and 150 million 

individual transfers in 2012.37


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5307 

transmitters in the United States. KPMG LLP Econ. 

& Valuation Servs., 2005 Money Services Business 

Industry Survey Study for Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network 5 (Sept. 26, 2005), available 

at http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/reports/

pdf/FinCEN_MSB_2005_Survey.pdf. 

A 2008 U.S. Census Bureau survey, in contrast, 

suggested that monetary transfers from U.S. 

households to family and friends abroad totaled 

approximately $12 billion in one year. Elizabeth M. 

Grieco et al., Who in the United States Sends and 

Receives Remittances? An Initial Analysis of the 

Monetary Transfer Data From the August 2008 CPS 

Migration Supplement, U.S. Census Bureau 

Working Paper No. 87 (Nov. 2010), available at 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/

documentation/twps0087/twps0087.html. All of 

these estimates, like the Bureau’s estimates here, are 

based on assumptions that could limit their 

accuracy. Further, the transfers that were 

considered in each of the estimates do not match 

the Bureau’s proposed definition of ‘‘international 

money transfer.’’ Therefore, variation in the 

estimates should be expected. 

38The analysis listed in this footnote will 

hereinafter be referred to as ‘‘Analysis of State 

Supervisory Data.’’ The Bureau used confidential 

State supervisory data and other sources to estimate 

the 2012 market share, dollars transferred, and 

number of transfers of entities in the proposed 

market that are licensed in California, New York, 

and Ohio. Two different methodologies were used 

to generate estimates for entities, depending on the 

States to which the entity reported and the nature 

of its business. 

First, the Bureau used national figures reported 

to New York and Ohio to estimate an entity’s 

number of transfers if the Bureau believed that the 

transaction figure for the entity reflected in the New 

York or Ohio data was likely to reflect only 

international money transfers. The assessment of 

whether a New York or Ohio figure for a given 

entity was likely to include any transactions beyond 

international money transfers was made based on 

FinCEN registration information and market 

research. 

Second, where California data were available, the 

Bureau used the California data to extrapolate an 

estimate of the national number of transfers for 

entities for which (1) no New York or Ohio 

information was available or (2) the New York or 

Ohio data included product offerings that are not 

international money transfers. To scale up the 

California figures to nationwide estimates, the 

Bureau first determined the States in which each 

entity operated based on FinCEN registration 

information. The Bureau estimated the percentage 

of U.S. international money transfers that originated 

in each State by calculating the relative CPS shares 

described above, and for each entity aggregated the 

relative CPS shares for all of the States in which the 

entity operated to determine the entity’s cumulative 

CPS share. The Bureau then multiplied the transfers 

reported to California for each entity by the ratio 

of the entity’s cumulative CPS share to California’s 

relative CPS share to get a nationwide estimate. For 

example, if California’s relative CPS share made up 

half of an entity’s cumulative CPS share, the 

California data for that entity would be multiplied 

by 2. Where the results of this process generated a 

figure for any one entity that exceeded the number 

that the entity had reported to New York or Ohio, 

the Bureau used the lower figure because the 

Bureau assumed that the entity’s actual number and 

dollar volume of international money transfers did 

not exceed the inclusive figures reported to New 

York or Ohio. The Bureau recognizes that this 

methodology assumes that an entity’s market share 

is constant in all States of operation, which is an 

assumption that may result in an over- or underestimation of a particular entity’s national volume 

or of the number of entities that provide a given 

number of international money transfers. Further, 

use of the FinCEN registration information to 

determine States of operation could lead to 

inaccuracies to the extent that a money services 

business provides international money transfers in 

some States but not in other States in which it 

operates. 

The Bureau derived its estimates for one firm 

using information from a comment received in 

response to a previous rulemaking, as in the CA 

Extrapolation above. Additionally, in order to 

account for data limitations for certain entities that 

provide transactions that are not international 

money transfers, the Bureau did not estimate figures 

for possible international money transfer providers 

identified in the State License Review in two 

circumstances: First, because the Bureau could not 

differentiate business-initiated transactions from 

consumer-initiated transactions in the State 

licensing data it received, the Bureau excluded 

entities that appeared to provide a significant 

amount of business-initiated transactions. 

(Conversely, if an entity did not provide a 

significant amount of business-initiated transfers, 

the Bureau assumed that all transfers it provided 

were consumer-initiated.) Second, as mentioned 

above, the Bureau did not derive an estimate for an 

entity if it was not licensed in California and the 

Bureau believed that the transaction figure for the 

entity in the New York and Ohio data mixed 

international money transfers with other 

transactions. In all, there are 6 entities excluded for 

these reasons that reported over 1 million transfers 

to New York or Ohio or that accounted for over 1 

million transfers when the California figure was 

scaled up. Given the over-inclusive nature of the 

figures reported to the States for these 6 entities, the 

Bureau has not derived estimates for these entities 

or included them or their transactions in its 

analysis, although some of these entities may be 

larger participants under the proposed threshold. 

Aside from these 6 entities, the Bureau derived 

per-firm estimates for firms in the California, New 

York, and Ohio data and, in doing so, identified 10 

entities that sent over 3 million international money 

transfers, 23 entities that sent over 1 million 

international money transfers, and 26 entities that 

sent over 500,000 international money transfers. 

Using the per-firm estimates and the overall market 

size estimate from the CA Extrapolation, the Bureau 

then estimated that: (1) The 10 entities with over 

3 million transfers account for approximately 77 

percent of market transactions, (2) The 23 entities 

with over 1 million transactions per year account 

for approximately 93 percent of market 

transactions, and (3) The 26 entities with over 

500,000 transfers account for approximately 94 

percent of market transactions. The Bureau 

recognizes that 94 percent may overestimate the 

combined market share of entities with over 

500,000 transactions. For instance, the State License 

Review identified about 310 other entities that 

operate or may operate as international money 

transfer providers and, based on this estimate, such 

entities would together account for only 6 percent 

of transactions in the market. Although the Bureau’s 

market share estimates are very inexact, it is 

nevertheless clear from the Bureau’s analysis that 

firms providing over one million international 

money transfers per year account for the vast 

majority of transactions in the market. 

39One rough indicator of the likelihood that an 

entity provides more than 500,000 international 

money transfers is the number of States in which 

the entity is licensed. More than three-fourths of the 

California, New York, and Ohio licensees that were 

found to provide over 500,000 international money 

transfers per year in the Analysis of State 

Supervisory Data are licensed in more than 10 

States. At the same time, licensure in more than 10 

States does not necessarily indicate that the entity 

provides more than 500,000 international money 

transfers. For instance, the Bureau estimates that 

less than three-fifths of the 42 entities that are both 

licensed in more than 10 States and licensed in 

California, New York, or Ohio provide more than 

500,000 international money transfers. In contrast, 

the Bureau’s State License Review indicates that 

only 6 entities are licensed in more than 10 States 

but not licensed in California, New York, or Ohio. 

This suggests that the data received from California, 

New York, and Ohio are likely to include most of 

the entities that send over 500,000 international 

money transfers per year. 

40 In light of the close similarity between the 

Remittance Rule’s definition of ‘‘remittance 

transfer’’ and the Proposed Rule’s international 

money transfer market, the Bureau expects that 

most transfers in the international money transfer 

market would be subject to the Remittance Rule. 

Continued 

The Bureau’s third analysis developed 

entity-specific estimates of the number 

of international money transfers sent in 

2012. Estimates were mostly derived 

using confidential supervisory data 

obtained from California, New York, 

and Ohio pursuant to memoranda of 

understanding. Using this analysis, the 

Bureau generated the following highly 

approximated estimates for the year 

2012: (1) The highest tier of the market 

consists of about 10 nonbanks that each 

sent over 3 million international money 

transfers and together accounted for 

about three-fourths of all international 

money transfers; (2) The second tier of 

the market consists of about 15 

nonbanks that each sent between 1 and 

3 million international money transfers, 

accounting collectively for about onesixth of all international money 

transfers; (3) Very few nonbanks sent 

between 500,000 and 1 million 

international money transfers, 

accounting collectively for about 1.5 

percent of all international money 

transfers; and (4) The limited remaining 

market share is divided among a few 

hundred nonbanks that each sent less 

than 500,000 transfers in 2012.38 These 

estimates do not include providers that 

are not licensed in California, New 

York, or Ohio, but based on market 

research and a review of licensing data 

the Bureau believes that most entities 

that provide over 500,000 international 

money transfers per year are licensed in 

at least one of those three States.39

The Bureau is proposing at this time 

to define a nonbank market consisting 

solely of international money transfers. 

As explained above, such transfers 

present challenges to providers and 

consumers that distinguish international 

money transfers from other transactions, 

such as domestic money transfers. 

These challenges may include, for 

example, foreign exchange rates, foreign 

taxes, and legal, administrative, and 

language complexities related to the fact 

that the funds are transferred to a 

foreign country. Many international 

money transfers are subject to new 

protections under the Dodd-Frank Act 

and the Remittance Rule.40 The 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

However, some transfers that would be in the 

international money transfer market under the 

Proposed Rule would not be ‘‘remittance transfers.’’ 

For instance, transfers of $15 or less are not be 

covered by the Remittance Rule. 12 CFR 

1005.30(e)(2)(i). 

41 12 CFR 1090.104(a) (Consumer Reporting 

Rule); 12 CFR 1090.105(a) (Debt Collection Rule); 

13 CFR 121.104 (SBA). 

42 12 CFR 1090.104(a) (Consumer Reporting 

Rule); 12 CFR 1090.105(a) (Debt Collection Rule). 

43However, a nonbank covered person’s aggregate 

annual international money transfers may include 

transfers in which the nonbank covered person 

acted as an agent on behalf of an affiliated company 

that provided the transfer. This is because such 

transfers would be included in the annual 

international money transfers of the affiliated 

company and a nonbank covered person’s aggregate 

annual international money transfers would include 

the annual international money transfers of each of 

its affiliated companies due to the affiliate 

aggregation requirement discussed below. 

44 15 U.S.C. 1693o–1(f); 12 CFR 1005.35. This is 

also consistent with the data obtained by the 

Bureau, which generally include transactions 

conducted by agents on behalf of a provider in the 

transaction total for the provider. 

45See Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 12 

CFR part 1005, Supp. I, comment 30(f)–1. 

Proposed Rule would enable the Bureau 

to supervise nonbanks that are larger 

participants of the international money 

transfer market to assess compliance 

with these new protections and to 

evaluate risks that arise when 

consumers send money abroad. 

Section 1090.107(a)—Market-Related 

Definitions 

Unless otherwise specified, the 

definitions in § 1090.101 should be used 

when interpreting terms in this 

Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule 

would define additional terms relevant 

to the proposed international money 

transfer market. These terms would 

include ‘‘international money transfer,’’ 

which delineates the scope of the 

identified market; ‘‘designated 

recipient,’’ ‘‘international money 

transfer provider,’’ ‘‘sender,’’ and 

‘‘State’’; and ‘‘aggregate annual 

international money transfers,’’ which 

the Proposed Rule would use as the 

criterion for assessing larger-participant 

status. 

In drafting definitions in the Proposed 

Rule, the Bureau has used the definition 

of ‘‘remittance transfer’’ and related 

definitions from the Remittance Rule as 

a model because remittance transfers 

make up a very substantial portion of 

the market activity in the international 

money transfer market the Bureau is 

seeking to define. Additionally, the 

Remittance Rule definitions are familiar 

to industry and the Bureau. The Bureau 

has made adjustments to the Remittance 

Rule definitions as discussed below to 

reflect the distinct needs of this largerparticipant rulemaking. These 

adjustments stem in part from the fact 

that the Remittance Rule imposes 

substantive consumer protection 

requirements, while the largerparticipant rule differentiates larger 

participants from other participants in 

the international money transfer market 

in order to establish a supervisory 

program. Thus, in some instances, the 

Proposed Rule’s definitions diverge 

from those of the Remittance Rule to 

account for the different regulatory 

purposes. 

The Bureau seeks comment on each of 

the definitions set forth in the Proposed 

Rule and any suggested additions, 

clarifications, modifications, or 

alternatives. 

Aggregate annual international 

money transfers. The Bureau proposes 

to use aggregate annual international 

money transfers as the criterion that 

would be used in assessing whether an 

entity is a larger participant of the 

international money transfer market. 

The proposed definition of ‘‘aggregate 

annual international money transfers’’ 

was informed by the method of 

calculating ‘‘annual receipts’’ used by 

the Bureau in prior larger-participant 

rulemakings, which in turn is modeled 

in part on the method used by the U.S. 

Small Business Administration (SBA) in 

calculating ‘‘annual receipts’’ to 

determine whether an entity is a small 

business.41 Proposed § 1090.107(a) 

would define the term ‘‘aggregate 

annual international money transfers’’ 

as the ‘‘annual international money 

transfers’’ of a nonbank covered person, 

aggregated with the ‘‘annual 

international money transfers’’ of its 

affiliated companies, as calculated 

according to instructions set forth in the 

definition and discussed below. 

Calculating annual international 

money transfers. Similar to the 

calculations in the consumer reporting 

and consumer debt collection largerparticipant rules, ‘‘annual international 

money transfers’’ of a nonbank covered 

person would be calculated in one of 

two ways depending on how long a 

person has been in business.42 If the 

nonbank covered person has been in 

business for three or more completed 

calendar years, the Bureau would divide 

the total number of international money 

transfers provided by the nonbank 

covered person over the last three 

completed calendar years by three. If the 

nonbank covered person has been in 

business for less than three completed 

calendar years, the Bureau would 

calculate the total number of 

international money transfers provided 

by the nonbank covered person during 

the time that the nonbank covered 

person has been in business, divide by 

the total number of weeks the nonbank 

covered person has been in business, 

and multiply by 52. This calculation 

would provide a prorated figure that is 

comparable to the approach used for 

entities that have been in business for 

the entire three-year period. 

Transfers involving agents. The 

proposed definition specifies how to 

count transfers provided with the 

assistance of an agent. The Bureau 

believes that agents play an important 

role in the proposed market for 

international money transfers. Under 

the Proposed Rule, the annual 

international money transfers of a 

nonbank covered person would include 

international money transfers in which 

an agent acts on that person’s behalf. 

The annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

would not include international money 

transfers in which another person 

provided the international money 

transfers and the nonbank covered 

person performed activities as an agent 

on behalf of that other person.43 In other 

words, an international money transfer 

provided by an international money 

transfer provider with the help of an 

agent acting on the provider’s behalf 

would count towards the annual 

international money transfers of the 

provider but not the agent. 

For purposes of this part of the 

definition, an ‘‘agent’’ would include an 

agent or authorized delegate, as defined 

under State or other applicable law, or 

an affiliated company of a person that 

provides international money transfers 

when such agent, authorized delegate, 

or affiliated company acts for that 

person. The definition of ‘‘affiliated 

company’’ is found in 12 CFR 1090.101. 

Including transactions conducted by 

an agent in calculating a provider’s 

annual international money transfers is 

consistent with the Remittance Rule, 

which places liability on the remittance 

transfer provider for violations by an 

agent when the agent is acting for the 

provider.44 Not counting transactions 

conducted solely as an agent for a 

provider in assessing the agent’s annual 

international money transfers is also 

consistent with the Bureau’s 

determination that, for purposes of the 

Remittance Rule, agents acting on behalf 

of a remittance transfer provider are not, 

in doing so, themselves acting as 

remittance transfer providers.45

Although entities that act solely as 

agents would not normally be larger 

participants of the market under the 

Proposed Rule, the Bureau would have 

the authority to supervise service 

providers to larger participants of the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5309 

46 12 U.S.C. 5514(e); see also 12 U.S.C. 

5481(26)(A) (defining service provider). 47The Bureau also has the authority to supervise 

any nonbank covered person that it ‘‘has reasonable 

cause to determine, by order, after notice to the 

covered person and a reasonable opportunity . . . 

to respond . . . is engaging, or has engaged, in 

conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard 

to the offering or provision of consumer financial 

products or services.’’ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C). 48 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(3)(B). 

49 12 CFR 1005.30(c). 

50See Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 

comment 30(c). 

51See Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 

comment 30(c)–2. 

52 12 CFR 1005.30(e). 

53Because an international money transfer 

provider must be a nonbank covered person, 

transfers are not international money transfers 

unless they are sent by a nonbank. 

54 12 CFR 1005.30(e)(2)(i). 

55 15 U.S.C. 1693o–1(g)(2)(B). The Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System previously 

determined by rule that financial institutions are 

not subject to the EFTA section 906(a) requirement 

to provide electronic terminal receipts for smallvalue transfers of $15 or less. See 12 CFR 1005.9(e). 

market.46 Accordingly, where an agent 

acts as a service provider to a larger 

participant, the Bureau would have the 

authority to supervise the agent’s 

performance of services for the larger 

participant.47 In light of these 

considerations, the Bureau proposes to 

count transactions in which an agent 

acts on behalf of a provider towards the 

annual international money transfers of 

that provider, and not towards the 

annual international money transfers of 

the agent itself. 

Affiliate aggregation. Under the DoddFrank Act, the activities of affiliated 

companies are to be aggregated for 

purposes of computing activity levels 

for rules—like this Proposed Rule— 

under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1).48 The 

‘‘aggregate annual international money 

transfers’’ for each nonbank covered 

person would be the sum of the annual 

international money transfers of the 

nonbank covered person and the annual 

international money transfers of all 

affiliated companies. The annual 

international money transfers of each 

affiliated company would be calculated 

separately. For purposes of this 

calculation, each affiliated company 

would be treated as if it were an 

independent nonbank covered person. 

Accordingly, if the period of 

measurement for two affiliated 

companies differs because one affiliate 

has not been in business for at least 

three calendar years, the annual 

international money transfers of each 

entity would be calculated using the 

applicable period of measurement for 

each. 

Paragraph (iii)(B) of the proposed 

definition of aggregate annual 

international money transfers sets forth 

the method of aggregating the annual 

international money transfers of a 

nonbank covered person and its 

affiliated companies when affiliation 

has started or ended within the nonbank 

covered person’s period of 

measurement. As proposed, once a 

person is acquired by or acquires an 

affiliated company, the annual 

international money transfers from each 

affiliated company would be calculated 

for the entire period of measurement 

that is applicable to each affiliate, and 

then aggregated. The annual 

international money transfers of a 

formerly affiliated company would not 

be included in a nonbank covered 

person’s aggregate annual international 

money transfer calculation if the 

affiliation ceased before the nonbank 

covered person’s applicable period of 

measurement, but would be included 

for the full period of measurement if the 

affiliation ceased during the applicable 

period of measurement. 

Designated recipient. Proposed 

§ 1090.107(a) would define ‘‘designated 

recipient’’ to include any person 

specified by the sender as the 

authorized recipient of an international 

money transfer to be received at a 

location in a foreign country. This 

proposed definition is based on the 

definition of ‘‘designated recipient’’ in 

the Remittance Rule,49 but replaces 

‘‘remittance transfer’’ with 

‘‘international money transfer’’ and 

incorporates the larger-participant 

definition of ‘‘person’’ from 12 CFR 

1090.101. The Bureau intends the term 

‘‘designated recipient’’ to be interpreted 

based on the interpretation of the term 

in the Remittance Rule, including its 

commentary,50 to the extent appropriate 

given the definitions’ different 

regulatory contexts. For example, the 

Official Interpretations to Regulation E 

provide that a remittance transfer is to 

be received at a location in a foreign 

country if funds are to be received at a 

location physically outside of any 

State.51 The Bureau intends the same 

interpretation to apply to an 

international money transfer. 

International money transfer. 

Proposed § 1090.107(a) would define 

the term ‘‘international money transfer’’ 

to mean the electronic transfer of funds 

requested by a sender that is sent by an 

international money transfer provider to 

a designated recipient. The term would 

apply regardless of whether the sender 

holds an account with the international 

money transfer provider, and regardless 

of whether the transaction also is an 

‘‘electronic fund transfer,’’ as defined in 

Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.3(b). The 

term would not include certain transfers 

related to the purchase or sale of a 

security or commodity that are excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘electronic fund 

transfer’’ under 12 CFR 1005.3(c)(4). 

The proposed definition of 

‘‘international money transfer’’ tracks 

the Remittance Rule’s definition of 

‘‘remittance transfer,’’ 52 except for two 

deviations. First, the Bureau has 

replaced the term ‘‘remittance transfer 

provider’’ where it appears in 12 CFR 

1005.30(e) with the term ‘‘international 

money transfer provider.’’ 53

Second, the Bureau is proposing to 

define ‘‘international money transfer’’ 

without regard to the amount of the 

transfer. By contrast, the Remittance 

Rule includes an exclusion for transfers 

of $15 or less 54 because the Dodd-Frank 

Act’s definition of ‘‘remittance transfer’’ 

does not include transfers ‘‘in an 

amount that is equal to or lesser than 

the amount of a small-value transaction 

determined, by rule, to be excluded 

from the requirements under section 

906(a) [of the EFTA].’’ 55 While the 

Dodd-Frank Act’s definition of 

‘‘remittance transfer’’ is applicable to 

the Remittance Rule, it is not applicable 

to the Bureau’s authority to supervise 

larger participants in markets for 

consumer financial products or services. 

The Bureau believes that small-value 

transactions comprise part of the same 

market as larger transactions and, as 

discussed below, the number of 

international money transfers provided 

by an international money transfer 

provider reflects the extent of a 

provider’s market participation. 

Moreover, as defined in the Proposed 

Rule, international money transfers are 

consumer financial products or services 

regardless of the size of a particular 

transfer. The Bureau is not aware of 

substantial administrative challenges 

that would make it difficult to include 

small-value transactions when counting 

the total number of international money 

transfers provided by a nonbank 

covered person. Indeed, the State 

supervisory data obtained by the Bureau 

for this rulemaking do not exclude 

transfers of $15 or less. Accordingly, the 

Bureau believes that it would be 

appropriate to count all transactions 

regardless of dollar amount in the 

criterion for what constitutes a larger 

participant of the proposed market. 

The Bureau intends the term 

‘‘international money transfer’’ to be 

interpreted in the same manner as the 

term ‘‘remittance transfer,’’ with the 

terms ‘‘electronic transfer of funds’’ and 

‘‘sent by an international money transfer 

provider’’ interpreted based on the 

interpretation of parallel terms in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

56See Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 

comment 30(e)–1, –2. 

57Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 

comment 30(e)–3. 

58 12 CFR 1005.30(f). 

59 ‘‘Nonbank covered person’’ includes (1) any 

person that engages in offering or providing a 

consumer financial product or service; and (2) any 

affiliate of a person that engages in offering or 

providing a consumer product or service if such 

affiliate acts as a service provider to such person, 

but does not include any persons described in 12 

U.S.C. 5515(a) and 5516(a). 12 CFR 1090.101. 

60 12 CFR 1005.30(f). 

61Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 

comment 30(f). 

62 12 CFR 1005.30(g). 

63Official Interpretations to Regulation E, 

comment 30(g). 

64The Bureau has proposed adopting the 

definition in Regulation E with minor stylistic 

changes to the last clause of the definition. Cf. 12 

CFR 1005.2(l) (‘‘ ‘State’ means any State, territory, 

or possession of the United States; the District of 

Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or 

any political subdivision of the thereof in this 

paragraph (l).’’) (emphasis added). 

Regulation E,56 to the extent appropriate 

given the definitions’ different 

regulatory contexts. For example, the 

Bureau intends to interpret the 

‘‘international money transfer’’ 

definition consistently with the 

discussion in comment 30(e)–3 to 

Regulation E of transactions that are and 

are not included within the definition of 

‘‘remittance transfer.’’ 57

International money transfer provider. 

Proposed § 1090.107(a) would define 

the term ‘‘international money transfer 

provider’’ to mean any nonbank covered 

person that provides international 

money transfers for a consumer, 

regardless of whether the consumer 

holds an account with such person. 

Consistent with the Proposed Rule’s 

definition of ‘‘international money 

transfer,’’ the proposed definition of 

‘‘international money transfer provider’’ 

tracks the definition of ‘‘remittance 

transfer provider’’ in the Remittance 

Rule closely,58 with the following 

exceptions. First, the proposed 

definition replaces ‘‘remittance transfer’’ 

with ‘‘international money transfer.’’ 

Second, for consistency with the rest of 

the larger-participant rule, the proposed 

definition replaces the first reference to 

‘‘person’’ with ‘‘nonbank covered 

person’’ 59 and incorporates the largerparticipant rule’s definition of 

‘‘consumer’’ rather than the Regulation 

E definition. Third, the Bureau has not 

incorporated from the ‘‘remittance 

transfer provider’’ definition the 

requirement that transfers be provided 

‘‘in the normal course of business.’’ 60

The Bureau believes that such a 

limitation is unnecessary in the 

definition of ‘‘international money 

transfer provider’’ because the Proposed 

Rule would not impose any new 

business conduct obligations and would 

require that an international money 

transfer provider have at least one 

million aggregate annual international 

money transfers to be a larger 

participant. 

The Bureau intends the commentary 

to the Remittance Rule 61 to be used to 

guide interpretation of the term 

‘‘international money transfer provider’’ 

in proposed § 1090.107(a), to the extent 

appropriate given the definitions’ 

different regulatory contexts. 

Sender. Proposed § 1090.107(a) would 

define the term ‘‘sender’’ to mean a 

consumer in a State who primarily for 

personal, family, or household purposes 

requests an international money transfer 

provider to send an international money 

transfer to a designated recipient. This 

proposed definition largely tracks the 

definition of ‘‘sender’’ in the Remittance 

Rule, but replaces ‘‘remittance transfer’’ 

with ‘‘international money transfer’’ and 

‘‘remittance transfer provider’’ with 

‘‘international money transfer 

provider.’’ 62 For consistency with the 

rest of the larger-participant rule, the 

Proposed Rule also incorporates the 

definition of ‘‘consumer’’ from the 

larger-participant rule rather than the 

definition from Regulation E. The 

Bureau intends the term ‘‘sender’’ to be 

interpreted in the same manner as the 

term ‘‘sender’’ in the Remittance Rule,63

to the extent appropriate given the 

definitions’ different regulatory 

contexts. 

State. Proposed § 1090.107(a) would 

define the term ‘‘State’’ to mean any 

State, territory, or possession of the 

United States; the District of Columbia; 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or 

any political subdivision thereof. This 

proposed definition is drawn from the 

definition of ‘‘State’’ in Regulation E 

subpart A 64 and is intended to be 

interpreted accordingly. 

1090.107(b)—Test To Define Larger 

Participants 

Criterion. The Bureau has broad 

discretion in choosing a criterion for 

assessing whether a nonbank covered 

person is a larger participant of a 

market. For any specific market, there 

might be several criteria, used alone or 

in combination, that could be viewed as 

reasonable alternatives. For the 

international money transfer market, the 

Bureau is considering a number of 

criteria, including aggregate annual 

international money transfers, annual 

receipts, and annual transmitted dollar 

volume. The Bureau invites comment 

on these three possible criteria as well 

as suggestions for other criteria that 

commenters believe might be superior. 

Among these three, the Bureau 

proposes to use aggregate annual 

international money transfers as the 

criterion that establishes which entities 

are larger participants of the 

international money transfer market. 

The definitions of ‘‘international money 

transfers’’ and ‘‘aggregate annual 

international money transfers’’ are 

discussed above. Aggregate annual 

international money transfers is an 

appropriate criterion because it 

measures in several meaningful ways 

the nonbank provider’s level of 

participation in the proposed market 

and impact on consumers. First, the 

number of transfers reflects the extent of 

interactions an international money 

transfer provider has with consumers. 

Each transfer represents a single 

interaction with at least one consumer. 

Second, the number of transfers is a 

relatively durable metric in the face of 

changing market conditions such as 

exchange rates or inflation. Third, 

because international money transfer 

providers often are paid, in part, on a 

per-transfer basis, the number of 

transfers is related to the revenue 

received, another indicator of market 

participation. 

The Bureau anticipates that aggregate 

annual international money transfers 

would be relatively straightforward and 

objective for an international money 

transfer provider to calculate, as the 

occasion to do so arises. The Bureau 

expects that many market participants 

already assemble data generally related 

to the number of international 

transactions that they provide for 

internal business purposes, particularly 

because many providers are 

compensated on a per-transfer basis. 

Moreover, many providers are required 

to report transaction data to State 

regulators. These existing practices will 

help providers to estimate their 

aggregate annual international money 

transfers. The Bureau expects that some 

market participants may choose to track 

the number of remittance transfers they 

provide each year, which could provide 

another source for estimates of aggregate 

annual international money transfers 

because the definition of the criterion 

roughly tracks the definition of 

‘‘remittance transfer’’ used in the 

Remittance Rule. Accordingly, the 

Bureau believes that many market 

participants interested in doing so 

already would have sufficient data to 

estimate whether their aggregate annual 

international money transfers exceed a 

given transaction threshold. 

The Bureau does not have precise and 

comprehensive data on the number of 

international money transfers provided 

by international money transfer 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5311 

65Analysis of State Supervisory Data. 66 Id. As noted above, this estimate is based on 

the Bureau’s review of confidential licensing data 

from California, New York, and Ohio and does not 

include entities that are not licensed in any of those 

States. In addition to the other possible sources of 

error identified in the Analysis of State Supervisory 

Data, the Bureau has not assessed affiliations of 

market participants. The Bureau’s estimates 

therefore would not include entities that might have 

less than a threshold number of annual 

international money transfers on their own but that 

would meet the threshold when their transfers are 

aggregated with their affiliated companies’ 

transfers. 

67 Id. 

68 Id. 

69According to Bureau estimates, less than 10 

percent of market participants would be larger 

participants using the proposed threshold. See 

Analysis of State Supervisory Data (approximately 

25 larger participants); State License Review 

(approximately 340 market participants). 

70Analysis of State Supervisory Data. 

71 Id. 

72Specifically, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(A) calls for 

the Bureau 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 12 U.S.C. 5516, and the impact on 

consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 

5512(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before 

and during the rulemaking, with appropriate 

prudential regulators or other Federal agencies, 

regarding consistency with objectives those 

agencies administer. The manner and extent to 

which the provisions of 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2) apply 

to a rulemaking of this kind that does not establish 

standards of conduct are unclear. Nevertheless, to 

inform this rulemaking more fully, the Bureau 

performed the analysis and consultations described 

in those provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

providers, as defined in this Proposed 

Rule, or on any of the other criteria that 

are being considered. However, as 

described above, the Bureau obtained 

confidential supervisory data from 

California, New York, and Ohio 

regulators, and has used the 2011 CPS, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

(FinCEN) data listing the States in 

which individual money services 

businesses operate, entity-level data 

from public Web sites, CFPB market 

research, and licensee lists from 

regulatory agencies in 47 States and the 

District of Columbia. The Bureau 

believes that these data sources can 

adequately inform the decision of 

setting a threshold using the criterion of 

aggregate annual international money 

transfers.65

Threshold. Under the Proposed Rule, 

a nonbank covered person would be a 

larger participant of the international 

money transfer market if the nonbank 

covered person has at least one million 

aggregate annual international money 

transfers. As stated above, the Bureau 

estimates the proposed threshold of one 

million aggregate annual international 

money transfers would bring within the 

Bureau’s supervisory authority 

approximately 25 international money 

transfer providers.66

The Bureau anticipates that the 

proposed aggregate annual international 

money transfer threshold of one million 

would be consistent with the objective 

of supervising market participants that 

represent a substantial portion of the 

international money transfer market and 

have a significant impact on consumers. 

According to the Bureau’s estimates, the 

approximately 25 international money 

transfer providers that meet the 

proposed threshold collectively 

provided about 140 million transfers in 

2012, with a total volume of about $40 

billion.67 The Bureau estimates that 

these nonbanks are responsible for 

approximately 90 percent of transfers in 

the nonbank market for international 

money transfers.68 They consist of both 

entities that send money to most of the 

countries in the world and entities that 

focus on sending money to particular 

recipient countries or regions. The 

proposed threshold would subject to the 

Bureau’s supervisory authority only 

entities that can reasonably be 

considered larger participants of the 

proposed market.69

The Bureau is also considering a 

lower or higher threshold. For example, 

the Bureau estimates that a lower 

aggregate annual international money 

transfer threshold of 500,000 would 

allow the Bureau to supervise about 3 

additional entities that together account 

for about 1.5 percent of transfers in this 

market.70 Alternatively, the Bureau 

estimates that an aggregate annual 

international money transfer threshold 

of three million would likely allow the 

Bureau to supervise the 10 largest 

participants of the proposed market, 

which collectively provide 

approximately three-fourths of the 

transfers in this market.71

In proposing a threshold, the Bureau 

has used a global-market approach that 

would apply a single threshold 

regardless of destination. The Bureau is 

also considering, as an alternative, 

establishing different thresholds for 

different destination regions. Setting a 

threshold for each region would allow 

the Bureau to set lower thresholds for 

entities that transfer funds to regions 

where the overall number of 

international money transfers is lower 

and higher thresholds for destination 

regions for which the overall number of 

international money transfers is higher. 

Entities that dominate the market for 

transfers to lower-volume destination 

regions might be more likely to meet the 

larger-participant test if the Bureau used 

a regional approach in setting the 

threshold. However, the Bureau is not 

aware of data sources that would 

support regional segmentation of this 

nature at this time. Additionally, even if 

data were available to support regional 

segmentation, the Bureau is concerned 

that such an approach would be very 

difficult to administer over time, as 

regional boundaries and volumes could 

shift in response to any number of 

factors including market forces and 

geopolitical events, which could lead to 

frequent adjustments to the market 

definitions and corresponding 

thresholds. 

V. Request for Comments 

The Bureau invites comment on all 

aspects of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and on the specific issues 

on which comment is solicited 

elsewhere herein, including on any 

appropriate modifications or exceptions 

to the Proposed Rule. 

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

A. Overview 

The Bureau is considering potential 

benefits, costs, and impacts of the 

Proposed Rule.72 The Bureau requests 

comment on the preliminary analysis 

presented below as well as submissions 

of additional data that could inform the 

Bureau’s analysis of the costs, benefits, 

and impacts of the Proposed Rule. In 

developing the Proposed Rule, the 

Bureau has consulted with or offered to 

consult with the Federal Trade 

Commission, the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, and the National Credit 

Union Administration, regarding, 

among other things, consistency with 

any prudential, market, or systemic 

objectives administered by such 

agencies. 

The Proposed Rule defines a category 

of nonbanks that would be subject to the 

Bureau’s nonbank supervision program 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B). The 

proposed category would include 

‘‘larger participants’’ of a market for 

‘‘international money transfers’’ 

described in the Proposed Rule. 

Participation in this market would be 

measured on the basis of aggregate 

annual international money transfers. If 

a nonbank covered person’s aggregate 

annual international money transfers 

(measured as a three-year moving 

average of the number of annual 

international money transfers, 

aggregated with the annual international 

money transfers of affiliated companies) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

73The Bureau has discretion in any rulemaking 

to choose an appropriate scope of analysis with 

respect to potential benefits and costs and an 

appropriate baseline. The Bureau, as a matter of 

discretion, has chosen to describe a broader range 

of potential effects to inform the rulemaking more 

fully. 

74Another approach to considering the benefits, 

costs, and impacts of the Proposed Rule would be 

to focus almost entirely on the supervision-related 

costs for larger participants and omit a broader 

consideration of the benefits and costs of increased 

compliance. As noted above, the Bureau has, as a 

matter of discretion, chosen to describe a broader 

range of potential effects to inform the rulemaking 

more fully. 

75 2011 CPS Report 32, 142–43. 

equaled or exceeded one million, it 

would be a larger participant. If an 

entity has been in business for less than 

three completed calendar years, its 

annual international money transfers 

would be the average amount of 

international money transfers per year 

over the course of its time in business. 

B. Potential Benefits and Costs to 

Consumers and Covered Persons 

This analysis considers the benefits, 

costs, and impacts of the key provisions 

of the Proposed Rule against a baseline 

that includes the Bureau’s existing rules 

defining larger participants in certain 

markets.73 Many States have 

supervisory programs relating to money 

transfers, which may consider aspects of 

consumer financial protection law. 

However, at present, there is no Federal 

program for supervision of nonbanks 

that are international money transfer 

providers with respect to consumer 

financial protection law. The Proposed 

Rule extends the Bureau’s supervisory 

authority over international money 

transfer providers that are larger 

participants of the international money 

transfer market. This includes the 

authority to supervise for compliance 

with the EFTA and the Remittance Rule. 

The Bureau notes at the outset that 

limited data are available with which to 

quantify the potential benefits, costs, 

and impacts of the Proposed Rule. For 

example, although the Bureau has 

confidential supervisory data from 

California, New York, and Ohio from 

which it can estimate the number and 

size of international money transfer 

providers, the Bureau lacks detailed or 

comprehensive information about their 

rates of compliance or noncompliance 

with Federal consumer financial law 

and about the range of, and costs of, 

compliance mechanisms used by market 

participants. 

In light of these data limitations, this 

analysis generally provides a qualitative 

discussion of the benefits, costs, and 

impacts of the Proposed Rule. General 

economic principles, together with the 

limited data that are available, provide 

insight into these benefits, costs, and 

impacts. Where possible, the Bureau has 

made quantitative estimates based on 

these principles and data as well as on 

its experience of undertaking 

supervision in other markets. 

The discussion below describes three 

categories of potential benefits and 

costs. First, the Proposed Rule, if 

adopted, would authorize the Bureau’s 

supervision of larger participants of the 

international money transfer market. 

Larger participants of the proposed 

market might respond to the possibility 

of supervision by changing their 

systems and conduct, and those changes 

might result in costs, benefits, or other 

impacts. Second, if the Bureau 

undertakes supervisory activity at 

specific international money transfer 

providers, those entities would incur 

costs from responding to supervisory 

activity, and the results of these 

individual supervisory activities might 

also produce benefits and costs. Third, 

the Bureau analyzes the costs that might 

be associated with entities’ efforts to 

assess whether they would qualify as 

larger participants under the rule. 

1. Benefits and Costs of Responses to the 

Possibility of Supervision 

The Proposed Rule would subject 

larger participants of the international 

money transfer market to the possibility 

of Bureau supervision. That the Bureau 

would be authorized to undertake 

supervisory activities with respect to a 

nonbank covered person who qualified 

as a larger participant would not 

necessarily mean the Bureau would in 

fact undertake such activities regarding 

the covered person in the near future. 

Rather, supervision of any particular 

larger participant as a result of this 

rulemaking would be probabilistic in 

nature. For example, the Bureau would 

examine certain larger participants on a 

periodic or occasional basis. The 

Bureau’s decisions about supervision 

would be informed, as applicable, by 

the factors set forth in 12 U.S.C. 

5514(b)(2), relating to the size and 

transaction volume of individual 

participants, the risks their consumer 

financial products and services pose to 

consumers, the extent of State consumer 

protection oversight, and other factors 

the Bureau may determine are relevant. 

Each entity that believed it qualified as 

a larger participant would know that it 

might be supervised and might gauge, 

given its circumstances, the likelihood 

that the Bureau would initiate an 

examination or other supervisory 

activity. 

The prospect of potential supervisory 

activity could create an incentive for 

larger participants to allocate additional 

resources and attention to compliance 

with Federal consumer financial law, 

potentially leading to an increase in the 

level of compliance. They might 

anticipate that by doing so (and thereby 

decreasing risk to consumers), they 

could decrease the likelihood of their 

actually being subject to supervisory 

activities as the Bureau evaluated the 

factors outlined above. In addition, an 

actual examination would be likely to 

reveal any past or present 

noncompliance, which the Bureau 

could seek to correct through 

supervisory activity or, in some cases, 

enforcement actions. Larger participants 

might therefore judge that the prospect 

of supervision increases the potential 

consequences of noncompliance with 

Federal consumer financial law, and 

they might seek to decrease that risk by 

taking steps to identify and cure or 

mitigate any noncompliance. 

The Bureau believes it is likely that 

many market participants would 

increase compliance in response to the 

Bureau’s supervisory activity authorized 

by the Proposed Rule. However, because 

finalization of the Proposed Rule itself 

would not require any international 

money transfer provider to alter its 

performance of international money 

transfers, any estimate of the amount of 

increased compliance would be both an 

estimate of current compliance levels 

and a prediction of market participants’ 

behavior in response to a final rule. The 

data that the Bureau currently has do 

not support a specific quantitative 

estimate or prediction. But, to the extent 

that international money transfer 

providers allocate resources to 

increasing their compliance in response 

to the Proposed Rule, that response 

would result in both benefits and 

costs.74

a. Benefits From Increased Compliance 

Increased compliance with consumer 

financial laws by larger participants in 

the international money transfer market 

would be beneficial to consumers who 

send international money transfers. The 

number of American consumers who 

could potentially be affected is 

significant. As noted above, data from 

the 2011 CPS show that more than 4 

million U.S. households had used 

nonbanks to send money abroad to 

friends and family in the preceding 

year.75 Increasing the rate of compliance 

with Federal consumer financial laws 

would benefit consumers and the 

consumer financial market by providing 

more of the protections mandated by 

those laws. 

The EFTA and the Remittance Rule 

offer substantial consumer protections 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5313 

76 12 U.S.C. 5531. 

77The CFPB Supervision and Examination 

Manual provides further guidance on how the 

UDAAP prohibition applies to supervised entities 

and is available at 

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/guidance/

supervision/manual. 

78Bureau estimate based on 2011 CPS data, 

which is available at http://thedata

web.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html and described 

at http://www.census.gov/prod/techdoc/cps/

cpsjun11.pdf. 

79Further potential benefits to consumers, 

covered persons, or both might arise from the 

Bureau’s gathering of information during 

Continued 

for international money transfers that 

are also remittance transfers. Together, 

the EFTA and the Remittance Rule 

clarify the remittance process for 

consumers by requiring the provision of 

standardized disclosures about pricing 

as well as increased consumer 

protections when transfers do not go as 

planned. For consumers, this should 

increase the transparency of remittance 

prices and facilitate dispute resolution 

when errors occur. 

More broadly, the Bureau would be 

examining for compliance with other 

Federal consumer financial laws, which 

would include examining for whether 

larger participants of the international 

money transfer market engage in unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive acts or practices 

(UDAAPs).76 Conduct that does not 

violate an express prohibition of another 

Federal consumer financial law may 

nonetheless constitute a UDAAP.77 To 

the extent that any international money 

transfer provider is currently engaged in 

any UDAAPs, the cessation of the 

unlawful act or practice would benefit 

consumers. International money transfer 

providers might improve policies and 

procedures in response to possible 

supervision in order to avoid engaging 

in UDAAPs. 

The possibility of supervision also 

may help make incentives to comply 

with Federal consumer financial laws 

more consistent between the likely 

larger participants and banks, which are 

already subject to Federal supervision 

with respect to Federal consumer 

financial laws. Although some 

nonbanks are already subject to State 

supervision, introducing the possibility 

of Federal supervision could encourage 

nonbanks that are likely larger 

participants to devote additional 

resources to compliance. It could also 

help ensure that the benefits of Federal 

oversight reach consumers who do not 

have ready access to bank-provided 

international transfers. In 2011, 

approximately one-sixth of individuals 

who sent money abroad to friends and 

family through a nonbank did not have 

a bank account.78

b. Costs of Increased Compliance 

To the extent that nonbank larger 

participants would decide to increase 

resources dedicated to compliance in 

response to the possibility of increased 

supervision, the entities would bear any 

direct cost of any changes to their 

systems, protocols, or personnel. Any 

such increase in costs could be passed 

on in part to consumers. Whether and 

to what extent entities would increase 

resources dedicated to compliance and/ 

or pass those costs to consumers would 

depend not only on the entities’ current 

practices and the changes they decide to 

make, but also on market conditions. 

The Bureau lacks detailed information 

with which to predict what portion of 

any cost of increased compliance would 

be borne by international money 

transfer providers or passed on to 

consumers. When or if such a cost were 

borne by consumers, consumers might 

respond by changing the frequency or 

amount of international money transfers 

sent. 

In considering any potential price 

effect of the Proposed Rule, it is 

important to take into account the fact 

that nonbanks below the largerparticipant threshold would not be 

subject to supervision as a result of this 

rule. Because their costs would be 

unaffected by the Proposed Rule, their 

pricing should also not be affected. To 

the extent that nonbank larger 

participants raise their prices in 

response to this rule, small international 

money transfer providers could 

potentially seem attractive relative to 

larger participants. This potential effect 

could reduce the likelihood that larger 

participants would choose to increase 

their prices in response to the Proposed 

Rule. 

2. Benefits and Costs of Individual 

Supervisory Activities 

In addition to the responses of market 

participants anticipating supervision, 

the possible consequences of the 

Proposed Rule would include the 

responses to and effects of individual 

examinations or other supervisory 

activity that the Bureau might conduct 

in the international money transfer 

market. 

a. Benefits of Supervisory Activities 

Supervisory activity could provide 

several types of benefits. For example, 

as a result of supervisory activity, the 

Bureau and an entity might uncover 

deficiencies in the entity’s policies and 

procedures. The Bureau’s examination 

manual calls for the Bureau generally to 

prepare a report of each examination, to 

assess the strength of the entity’s 

compliance mechanisms, and to assess 

the risks the entity poses to consumers, 

among other things. The Bureau would 

share examination findings with the 

entity because one purpose of 

supervision is to inform the entity of 

problems detected by examiners. Thus, 

for example, an examination might find 

evidence of widespread noncompliance 

with Federal consumer financial law, or 

it might identify specific areas where an 

entity has inadvertently failed to 

comply. These examples are only 

illustrative of the kinds of information 

an examination might uncover. 

Detecting and informing entities about 

such problems should be beneficial to 

consumers. When the Bureau notifies an 

entity about risks associated with an 

aspect of its activities, the entity is 

expected to adjust its practices to reduce 

those risks. That response may result in 

increased compliance with Federal 

consumer financial law, with benefits 

like those described above. Or it may 

avert a violation that would have 

occurred had Bureau supervision not 

detected the risk promptly. The Bureau 

may also inform entities about risks 

posed to consumers that fall short of 

violating the law. Action to reduce those 

risks would also be a benefit to 

consumers. 

Given the obligations international 

money transfer providers have under 

Federal consumer financial law and the 

existence of efforts to enforce such law, 

the results of supervision also may 

benefit international money transfer 

providers under supervision by 

detecting compliance problems early. 

When an entity’s noncompliance results 

in litigation or an enforcement action, 

the entity must face both the costs of 

defending its actions and the penalties 

for noncompliance, including potential 

liability for damages to private 

plaintiffs. The entity must also adjust its 

systems to ensure future compliance. 

Changing practices that have been in 

place for long periods of time can be 

expected to be relatively difficult 

because they may be severe enough to 

represent a serious failing of an entity’s 

systems. Supervision may detect flaws 

at a point when correcting them would 

be relatively inexpensive. Catching 

problems early can, in some situations, 

forestall costly litigation. To the extent 

early correction limits the amount of 

consumer harm caused by a violation, it 

can help limit the cost of redress. In 

short, supervision might benefit 

international money transfer providers 

under supervision by, in the aggregate, 

reducing the need for other more 

expensive activities to achieve 

compliance.79


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5314 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

supervisory activities. The goals of supervision 

include informing the Bureau about activities of 

market participants and assessing risks to 

consumers and to markets for consumer financial 

products and services. The Bureau may use this 

information to improve regulation of consumer 

financial products and services and to improve 

enforcement of Federal consumer financial law, in 

order to better serve its mission of ensuring 

consumers’ access to fair, transparent, and 

competitive markets for such products and services. 

Benefits of this type would depend on what the 

Bureau learns during supervision and how it uses 

that knowledge. For example, because the Bureau 

would examine a number of covered persons in the 

international money transfer market, the Bureau 

would build an understanding of how effective 

compliance systems and processes function in that 

market. 

80This estimate was derived using confidential 

supervisory Bureau data on the duration of on-site 

payday loan examinations at nonbanks. For 

purposes of this calculation, the Bureau counted its 

payday loan examinations for which the on-site 

portion had been completed. The Bureau counted 

only the on-site portion of an examination, which 

included time during the on-site period of the 

examination that examiners spent examining the 

entity while off-site for holiday or other travel 

considerations. However, the Bureau did not count 

time spent scoping an examination before the onsite portion of the examination or summarizing 

findings or preparing reports of examination 

afterwards. 

81Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational 

Employment Statistics (OES) Survey, May 2012 

estimates for NAICS code 522300, available at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_522300.htm. 

82Bureau of Labor Statistics series 

CMU2025220000000D, Quarters 2 and 3 2012, 

available at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/

CMU2025220000000D?data_tool=XGtable. 

83Assuming that individuals are compensated for 

40 hour work weeks, this is calculated as follows: 

[(0.1*77.52+31.53)/0.671]*40*10. 

84This assumption is based on research on 

remittances suggesting that the average price of 

sending money abroad from the United States is 

roughly 6.42 percent of the total amount sent. 

World Bank, Remittance Prices Worldwide, An 

Analysis of Trends in the Average Total Cost of 

Migrant Remittance Services (Sept. 2013) 11 

(percentage is average price of $200 transfers in Q3 

2013), available at https://

remittanceprices.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/

RPW_Report_Sep2013.pdf. The Bureau measured 

proportion of revenues using the following 

equation: Proportion of 

revenues={[(0.1*77.52+31.53)/0.671]*40*10}/

{1,000,000*200*0.0642}. 

85A $200 average transfer size is a conservative 

estimate. Review of the CA Extrapolation figures 

($49 billion total market dollar volume and 152 

million total market transfers) suggests that the 

average transaction size is just over $300. For 

entities reporting to California, New York, and Ohio 

that sent over 500,000 transfers, the Analysis of 

State Supervisory Data suggests that the average 

transfer size is about $300. Using a $300 average 

transfer size, the cost of supervision would be 

approximately 0.12 percent of total revenues for an 

entity that sends 1 million transfers per year. Other 

sources from 2005 and 2008 also suggest a higher 

average transfer size. Ole E. Andreassen, Remittance 

Service Providers in the United States: How 

Remittance Firms Operate and How They Perceive 

Their Business Environment 15–16 (June 2006), 

available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INT

PAYMENTREMMITTANCE/Resources/Business

modelsFSEseries.pdf ($550); Bendixen & Amandi, 

Survey of Latin American Immigrants in the United 

States 23 (Apr. 30, 2008), available at 

idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/ 

getdocument.aspx?docnum=35063818 ($325). 

b. Costs of Supervisory Activities 

The potential costs of actual 

supervisory activities would arise in 

two categories. The first would involve 

any costs to individual international 

money transfer providers of increasing 

compliance in response to the Bureau’s 

findings during supervisory activity and 

to supervisory actions. These costs 

would be similar in nature to the 

possible compliance costs, described 

above, that larger participants in general 

might incur in anticipation of possible 

supervisory actions. This analysis will 

not repeat that discussion. The second 

category would be the cost of supporting 

supervisory activity. 

Supervisory activity may involve 

requests for information or records, onsite or off-site examinations, or some 

combination of these activities. For 

example, in an on-site examination, 

Bureau examiners generally contact the 

entity for an initial conference with 

management. That initial contact is 

often accompanied by a request for 

information or records. Based on the 

discussion with management and an 

initial review of the information 

received, examiners determine the 

scope of the on-site exam. While on-site, 

examiners spend some time in further 

conversation with management about 

the entity’s policies, procedures, and 

processes. The examiners also review 

documents, records, and accounts to 

assess the entity’s compliance and 

evaluate the entity’s compliance 

management system. As with the 

Bureau’s other examinations, 

examinations of nonbank larger 

participants in the international money 

transfer market could involve issuing 

confidential examination reports and 

compliance ratings. The Bureau’s 

examination manual describes the 

supervision process and indicates what 

materials and information an entity 

could expect examiners to request and 

review, both before they arrive and 

during their time on-site. 

The primary cost an entity would face 

in connection with an examination 

would be the cost of employees’ time to 

collect and provide the necessary 

information. If the Proposed Rule is 

adopted, the frequency and duration of 

examinations of any particular entity 

would depend on a number of factors, 

including the size of the entity, the 

compliance or other risks identified, 

whether the entity has been examined 

previously, and the demands on the 

Bureau’s supervisory resources imposed 

by other entities and markets. 

Nevertheless, some rough estimates may 

be useful to provide a sense of the 

magnitude of potential staff costs that 

entities might incur. 

The cost of supporting supervisory 

activity may be calibrated using prior 

Bureau experience in supervision. The 

Bureau considers its nonbank payday 

lender examinations as a reasonable 

proxy for the duration and labor 

intensity of potential international 

money transfer provider examinations. 

Although there are many differences, 

the nonbank payday lending market is 

more like the nonbank market for 

international money transfers than other 

nonbank markets the Bureau currently 

supervises because both markets involve 

point-of-sale transactions involving 

similar dollar amounts. 

The average duration of the on-site 

portion of Bureau nonbank payday 

exams is approximately 8 weeks.80

Assuming that each exam requires 2 

weeks of preparation time by 

international money transfer provider 

staff prior to the exam as well as on-site 

assistance by staff throughout the 

duration of the exam, the Bureau 

assumes that the typical examination in 

this nonbank market would require 10 

weeks of staff time. The Bureau has not 

suggested that counsel or any particular 

staffing level is required during an 

examination. However, for purposes of 

this analysis, the Bureau assumes, 

conservatively, that an entity might 

dedicate the equivalent of one full-time 

compliance officer and one-tenth of a 

full-time attorney to the exam. The 

average hourly wage of a compliance 

officer in a nonbank entity that operates 

in activities related to credit 

intermediation is $31.53, and the 

average hourly wage of a lawyer in the 

same industry is $77.52.81 Assuming 

that wages account for 67.1 percent of 

total compensation,82 the total labor cost 

of an examination would be about 

$23,500.83 The Bureau estimates that 

the cost for an entity that sends 1 

million transfers per year, with an 

average transfer amount of $200, would 

be approximately 0.18 percent of total 

revenue from such transfers for that 

year.84 Note that this is a conservative 

estimate in several respects because it 

reflects revenue only from this line of 

business and uses a relatively small 

average international money transfer 

size as well as the minimum number of 

transactions that a larger participant 

would provide.85

The overall costs of supervision in the 

international money transfer market 

would depend on the frequency and 

extent of Bureau examinations. Neither 

the Dodd-Frank Act nor the Proposed 

Rule specifies a particular level or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5315 

86The Bureau declines to predict at this time 

precisely how many examinations it would 

undertake at each international money transfer 

provider if the Proposed Rule is adopted. However, 

if the Bureau were to examine each entity that 

would be a larger participant of the international 

money transfer market under the Proposed Rule 

once every two years, the expected annual labor 

cost of supervision per larger participant would be 

approximately $11,750 (the cost of one 

examination, divided by two). This would account 

for 0.09 percent of the international money transfer 

revenue of an entity that sends one million transfers 

in a year, assuming an average transaction amount 

of $200. 

87Another alternative under consideration is 

setting different thresholds for each region. As 

alluded to earlier, international money transfer 

submarkets tend to be segmented by corridor: 

Individuals wishing to send remittances to El 

Salvador, for example, cannot easily substitute 

transfers to Moldova. One could define a largerparticipant threshold for different geographic 

regions so that the entities that provide the most 

transfers to a given region could be supervised. 

Given the paucity of data on region-specific 

transactions, however, any definition of these 

thresholds might be more difficult to establish and 

to administer over time. 

frequency of examinations.86 The 

frequency of examinations would 

depend on a number of factors, 

including the Bureau’s understanding of 

the conduct of market participants and 

the specific risks they pose to 

consumers; the responses of larger 

participants to prior examinations; and 

the demands that other markets make on 

the Bureau’s supervisory resources. 

These factors can be expected to change 

over time, and the Bureau’s 

understanding of these factors may 

change as it gathers more information 

about the market through its supervision 

and by other means. The Bureau 

therefore declines to predict, at this 

point, precisely how many 

examinations in the international 

money transfer market it would 

undertake in a given year. 

3. Costs of Assessing Larger-Participant 

Status 

The larger-participant rule does not 

require nonbanks to assess whether they 

are larger participants. However, the 

Bureau acknowledges that in some cases 

international money transfer providers 

might decide to incur costs to assess 

whether they qualify as larger 

participants or potentially dispute their 

status. 

Larger-participant status would 

depend on a nonbank’s aggregate annual 

international money transfers. As noted 

above, the Bureau expects that many 

market participants already assemble 

general data related to the number of 

international transactions that they 

provide for internal business purposes. 

Moreover, many providers are required 

to report transaction data to State 

regulators. Further, the definition of the 

criterion proposed in this rule roughly 

tracks the definition of ‘‘remittance 

transfer’’ used in the Remittance Rule, 

and the Bureau expects that some 

market participants may choose to track 

the number of remittance transfers they 

provide each year. These preexisting 

activities could assist entities in 

estimating whether they are larger 

participants. 

To the extent that some international 

money transfer providers do not already 

know whether their transactions exceed 

the threshold, such nonbanks might, in 

response to the Proposed Rule, develop 

new systems to count their transactions 

in accordance with the proposed 

definition of ‘‘international money 

transfer.’’ The data that the Bureau 

currently has do not support a detailed 

estimate of how many international 

money transfer providers would engage 

in such development or how much they 

would spend. Regardless, international 

money transfer providers would be 

unlikely to spend significantly more on 

specialized systems to count 

transactions than it would cost to be 

supervised by the Bureau as larger 

participants. It bears emphasizing that 

even if expenditures on a counting 

system successfully proved that an 

international money transfer provider 

was not a larger participant, it would 

not necessarily follow that the entity 

could not be supervised. The Bureau 

can supervise specific international 

money transfer providers whose 

conduct the Bureau determines, 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C), 

poses risks to consumers. Thus, an 

international money transfer provider 

choosing to spend significant amounts 

on an accounting system directed 

toward the larger-participant test could 

not be sure it would not be subject to 

Bureau supervision notwithstanding 

those expenses. The Bureau therefore 

believes very few if any international 

money transfer providers would 

undertake such expenditures. 

4. Consideration of Alternatives 

The Bureau is considering two major 

alternatives: Using a measure other than 

number of international money transfers 

to define the market and choosing a 

different threshold to define larger 

participants. 

First, the Bureau is considering 

various other criteria for assessing 

larger-participant status, including 

annual receipts from international 

money transfers and annual transmitted 

dollar volume. Calculating either of 

those metrics may be more involved 

than calculating the number of 

international money transfers. If so, a 

given nonbank might face greater costs 

for evaluating or disputing whether it 

qualified as a larger participant should 

the occasion to do so to arise. The 

Bureau expects that for both annual 

receipts and annual transmitted dollar 

volume it could choose a suitable 

threshold for which the number of 

larger participants, among those 

nonbanks participating in the market 

today, would be the same as the number 

of nonbanks expected to qualify under 

the Proposed Rule. Consequently, the 

costs, benefits, and impacts of 

supervisory activities should not 

depend on which criterion the Bureau 

uses. 

The second possible alternative the 

Bureau is considering is selecting a 

different threshold. One alternative 

would be to set the threshold 

substantially higher—for example at 

three million aggregate annual 

international money transfers—and 

cover only the very largest nonbanks in 

the market. Under such an alternative, 

the benefits of supervision to both 

consumers and covered persons would 

likely be reduced because entities 

impacting a substantial number of 

consumers and/or consumers in 

important market segments might be 

omitted. On the other hand, the 

potential costs to covered persons 

would of course be reduced if fewer 

entities were defined as larger 

participants and thus fewer were subject 

to the Bureau’s supervisory authority on 

that basis. Conversely, lowering the 

threshold would subject more entities to 

the Bureau’s supervisory authority, but 

the total direct costs for actual 

examination activity might not change 

substantially because the Bureau 

conducts exams on a risk basis and 

would not necessarily examine more 

entities even if the rule’s coverage were 

broader.87

C. Potential Specific Impacts of the 

Proposed Rule 

1. Depository Institutions and Credit 

Unions With $10 Billion or Less in Total 

Assets, As Described in Dodd-Frank Act 

Section 1026 

The Proposed Rule would not apply 

to depository institutions or credit 

unions of any size. However, it might 

have some impact on depository 

institutions or credit unions that 

provide international transfers. For 

example, if the relative price of 

nonbanks’ international money transfers 

were to increase due to increased costs 

related to supervision, then depository 

institutions or credit unions of any size 

might benefit by the relative change in 

costs. These effects, if any, would likely 

be small. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5316 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

88 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The term ‘‘‘small 

organization’ means any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field, unless an agency 

establishes [an alternative definition after notice 

and comment].’’ Id. at 601(4). The term ‘‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’ means governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand, unless an agency 

establishes [an alternative definition after notice 

and comment].’’ Id. at 601(5). The Bureau is not 

aware of any small governmental units or small notfor-profit organizations to which the Proposed Rule 

would apply. 

89 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The Bureau may establish an 

alternative definition after consultation with SBA 

and an opportunity for public comment. 

90 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

91 5 U.S.C. 609. 

92 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 522390). The 

Bureau believes that larger participants in the 

proposed international money transfer market are 

likely to be classified in North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 522390, ‘‘Other 

Activities Related to Credit Intermediation.’’ NAICS 

lists ‘‘[m]oney transmission services’’ as an index 

entry corresponding to this code. See http:// 

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=

522390&search=2012NAICSSearch. The Bureau 

welcomes comment on whether this or any other 

NAICS code is most appropriate for this market. 

The Bureau is aware that a nonbank larger 

participant of the proposed international money 

transfer market might be classified in a NAICS code 

other than the one that includes money 

transmission services. For example, some larger 

participants may be classified under NAICS code 

522320 for financial transactions processing, 

reserve, and clearing house activities. NAICS lists 

‘‘[e]lectronic funds transfer services’’ as an index 

entry corresponding to code 522320. See http:// 

www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?

code=522320&search=2012. 

93The Bureau was able to access revenue figures 

of potential larger participants from New York’s 

confidential licensing data as well as the 

Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System & Registry 

(NMLS), a centralized licensing database used by 

many States to manage their license authorities 

with respect to various consumer financial 

industries, including money transmitters. The 

NMLS provided the Bureau with information 

regarding specific entities pursuant to a 

memorandum of understanding. The revenue 

figures that the Bureau used did not include annual 

receipts of affiliates, as those terms are defined by 

the SBA. 13 CFR 121.104 (annual receipts); 13 CFR 

121.103 (affiliation). As mentioned above, the 

Bureau identified 23 entities among the California, 

New York, and Ohio licensees that it believes 

would be larger participants under the Proposed 

Rule. 9 of these entities had less than $19 million 

in receipts according to information from the NMLS 

and confidential licensing data from New York. As 

explained above in the Analysis of State 

Supervisory Data, there are an additional 6 entities 

for which the Bureau was not able to estimate 

international money transfers because the data 

received include a significant amount of businessinitiated transactions or include other transactions 

that are not likely to constitute international money 

transfers. The Bureau believes it is possible that 

some of these 6 entities would be larger 

participants. Of the 6 entities, the Bureau estimates 

that 1 has annual receipts under $19 million based 

on data from the NMLS and New York. Although 

there may be additional larger participants that the 

Bureau has not identified because they are not 

licensed in California, New York, or Ohio, it is 

unlikely that there are many more small entities 

that would be subject to the Proposed Rule because 

as explained above the Bureau’s market research 

suggests that most entities that provide one million 

or more transfers per year are licensed in at least 

one of those three States. 

94U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, 

American FactFinder, Finance and Insurance: 

Subject Series—Estab. and Firm Size: Summary 

Statistics by Revenue Size of Firms for the United 

States, available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 

faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/product

view.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_52SSSZ4

&prodType=table (NAICS code 522390). 

95The Bureau believes that this a conservative 

estimate for the most applicable NAICS code 

(522390) because the Bureau estimates that only 

about 10 larger participants licensed in California, 

New York, or Ohio would be small businesses, 

accounting for approximately 0.2 percent of the 

roughly 5,000 small firms within NAICS code 

522390. Alternatively, the Bureau notes that the 

SBA’s size standard for NAICS code 522320, 

‘‘Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and 

Clearing House Activities,’’ is $35.5 million in 

annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS code 

522320). Using that size standard, the Bureau 

estimates that 12 of the 23 entities that the Bureau 

identified as potential larger participants among the 

California, New York, and Ohio licensees might be 

small businesses. Among the 6 additional entities 

mentioned above for which the Bureau could not 

estimate transaction amounts, the Bureau estimates 

that 2 would be small businesses under this 

standard based on receipts information from NMLS 

and New York. There could be additional small 

entities that are larger participants but were not 

included in the foregoing estimates because they are 

not licensed in California, New York, or Ohio, but 

as noted above it is unlikely that there would be 

many such entities. According to the 2007 

Economic Census, there are at least 1,800 small 

firms classified under NAICS code 522320. U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, American 

FactFinder, Finance and Insurance: Subject Series— 

Estab. and Firm Size: Summary Statistics by 

Revenue Size of Firms for the United States, 

available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_

52SSSZ4&prodType=table (NAICS code 522320). 

Therefore, under the Bureau’s analysis, this 

Proposed Rule would impact less than 1 percent of 

the small businesses in the industry under that 

NAICS code. 

96Because the Bureau has not assessed the 

affiliations of potential larger participants, the 

Bureau’s estimate of small entity larger participants 

may include some larger participants that are not 

in fact small entities due to the receipts of their 

affiliates, which are counted towards an entity’s 

annual receipts for purposes of assessing whether 

2. Impact of the Provisions on 

Consumers in Rural Areas 

Because the rule applies uniformly to 

international money transfers of both 

rural and non-rural consumers, the rule 

should not have a unique impact on 

rural consumers. The Bureau is not 

aware of any evidence suggesting that 

rural consumers have been 

disproportionately harmed by 

international money transfer providers’ 

failure to comply with Federal 

consumer financial law. The Bureau 

would welcome any comments that may 

provide information related to how 

international money transfers affect 

rural consumers. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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.88

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.89

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) of any 

proposed rule subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking requirements, 

unless the agency certifies that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.90

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.91

The undersigned certifies that the 

Proposed Rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

and that an IRFA is therefore not 

required. 

The Proposed Rule would define a 

class of international money transfer 

providers as larger participants of the 

international money transfer market and 

thereby authorize the Bureau to 

undertake supervisory activities with 

respect to those nonbanks. The 

Proposed Rule adopts a threshold for 

larger-participant status of one million 

aggregate annual international money 

transfers. Under what the Bureau 

believes is the most relevant SBA 

threshold, an international money 

transfer provider is a small business 

only if its annual receipts are below $19 

million.92 Of the approximately 25 

potential larger participants identified 

by the Bureau among the California, 

New York, and Ohio licensees, the 

Bureau estimates there are 

approximately 10 providers with annual 

receipts under $19 million.93

According to the 2007 Economic 

Census, there are more than 5,000 small 

firms in the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) industry 

the Bureau believes is applicable to 

most international money transfer 

providers.94 Therefore, according to the 

Bureau’s analysis, this rule would 

impact less than one percent of the 

small businesses in the industry.95 For 

these reasons, the Proposed Rule would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.96


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5317 

an entity is a small business concern under the 

SBA’s definition. 13 CFR 121.104(d). Conversely, it 

is possible there are additional small firms that 

have less than one million annual international 

money transfers on their own, but that would meet 

the proposed threshold of one million transfers 

when their transfers are aggregated with their 

affiliated companies’ transfers. However, the 

Bureau anticipates no more than a very few such 

cases, if any, in the international money transfer 

market. 

97As discussed above, the Bureau estimates that 

the cost of participating in an examination would 

be approximately 0.18 percent of annual revenue 

from international money transfers for an entity at 

the threshold of 1 million aggregate annual 

international money transfers. 

98The Bureau is aware that there are likely 

thousands of service providers to potential larger 

participants of the international money transfer 

market. Many of these service providers might be 

considered to be in the industry with NAICS code 

522390 for other activities related to credit 

intermediation. As discussed above, according to 

the 2007 Economics Census, there are more than 

5,000 small firms in the industry. Other service 

providers may be classified in NAICS code 522320 

for financial transactions processing, reserve, and 

clearing house activities, which includes at least 

1,800 small firms. Still other service providers, 

including many retail agents, are likely to be 

considered in other NAICS codes corresponding to 

the service provider’s primary business activities. 

As noted above with respect to larger participants 

themselves, the frequency and duration of 

examinations that would be conducted at any 

particular service provider would depend on a 

variety of factors. However, it is implausible that in 

any given year the Bureau would conduct 

examinations of a substantial number of the more 

than 5,000 small firms in NAICS code 522390, the 

more than 1,800 small firms in NAICS code 522320, 

or the small firm service providers that happen to 

be in any other NAICS code. Moreover, the impact 

of supervisory activities, including examinations, at 

such small firm service providers can be expected 

to be less, given the Bureau’s exercise of its 

discretion in supervision, than at the larger 

participants themselves. 

Additionally, and in any event, the 

Bureau believes that the Proposed Rule 

would not result in a ‘‘significant 

impact’’ on any small entities that could 

be affected. The rule does not itself 

impose any business conduct 

obligations. As previously noted, when 

and how often the Bureau would in fact 

engage in supervisory activity, such as 

an examination, with respect to a larger 

participant (and, if so, the extent of such 

activity) would depend on a number of 

considerations, including the Bureau’s 

allocation of resources and the 

application of the statutory factors set 

forth in 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(2). Given the 

Bureau’s finite supervisory resources, 

and the range of industries over which 

it has supervisory responsibility for 

consumer financial protection, when 

and how often a given international 

money transfer provider would be 

supervised is uncertain. Moreover, 

when supervisory activity occurred, the 

costs that would result from such 

activity are expected to be minimal in 

relation to the overall activities of an 

international money transfer provider.97

Finally, 12 U.S.C. 5514(e) authorizes 

the Bureau to supervise service 

providers to nonbank covered persons 

encompassed by 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1), 

which includes larger participants. 

Because the Proposed Rule would not 

address service providers, effects on 

service providers need not be discussed 

for purposes of this RFA analysis. Even 

were such effects relevant, the Bureau 

believes that it would be very unlikely 

that any supervisory activities with 

respect to the service providers to the 

approximately 25 larger participants of 

the proposed nonbank market for 

international money transfers would 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities.98

Accordingly, the undersigned certifies 

that the Proposed Rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Bureau has determined that this 

Proposed Rule would not impose any 

new recordkeeping, reporting, or 

disclosure requirements on covered 

entities or members of the public that 

would constitute collections of 

information requiring approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1090 

Consumer protection, Credit. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Bureau proposes to 

amend 12 CFR Part 1090, subpart B, to 

read as follows: 

PART 1090—DEFINING LARGER 

PARTICIPANTS OF CERTAIN 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PRODUCT 

AND SERVICE MARKETS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1090 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B); 12 

U.S.C. 5514(a)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(7)(A); 

and 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). 

■ 2. Add a new § 1090.107 to subpart B 

to read as follows: 

§ 1090.107 International Money Transfer 

Market. 

(a) Market-related definitions. As used 

in this subpart: 

Aggregate annual international 

money transfers means the sum of the 

annual international money transfers of 

a nonbank covered person and the 

annual international money transfers of 

each of the nonbank covered person’s 

affiliated companies. 

(i) Annual international money 

transfers. Annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

are calculated as follows: 

(A) Annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

that has been in business for three or 

more completed calendar years means 

the international money transfers 

provided by the nonbank covered 

person over its three most recently 

completed calendar years divided by 

three. 

(B) Annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

that has been in business for less than 

three completed calendar years means 

the international money transfers 

provided by the nonbank covered 

person for the period the nonbank 

covered person has been in business 

divided by the number of weeks the 

nonbank covered person has been in 

business, multiplied by 52. 

(ii) Agents. 

(A) Annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

include international money transfers in 

which another person acts as an agent 

on behalf of the nonbank covered 

person. 

(B) Annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

do not include international money 

transfers in which another person 

provided the international money 

transfers and the nonbank covered 

person performed activities as an agent 

on behalf of that other person. 

(C) For purposes of this paragraph (ii), 

agent means an agent or authorized 

delegate, as defined under State or other 

applicable law, or affiliated company of 

a person that provides international 

money transfers when such agent, 

authorized delegate, or affiliated 

company acts for that person. 

(iii) Aggregating the annual 

international money transfers of 

affiliated companies. 

(A) The annual international money 

transfers of each affiliated company of a 

nonbank covered person are calculated 

separately in accordance with 

paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition, 

treating the affiliated company as if it 

were an independent nonbank covered 

person for purposes of the calculation. 

This may result in using a different 

period of measurement to calculate an 

affiliated company’s annual 

international money transfers. Thus, for 

example, if an affiliated company has 

been in business for a period of less 

than three years, the affiliated 

company’s international money 

transfers are to be annualized in 

accordance with paragraph (i)(B) of this 

definition even if the nonbank covered 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
5318 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

person with which it is affiliated has 

been in business for three or more 

completed calendar years. 

(B) The annual international money 

transfers of a nonbank covered person 

and the annual international money 

transfers of its affiliated companies are 

aggregated as follows: 

(1) If a nonbank covered person has 

acquired an affiliated company or been 

acquired by an affiliated company 

during the applicable period of 

measurement, the annual international 

money transfers of the nonbank covered 

person and the affiliated company are 

aggregated for the entire period of 

measurement (not just the period after 

the affiliation arose). 

(2) The annual international money 

transfers of a formerly affiliated 

company are not included if affiliation 

ceased before the applicable period of 

measurement as set forth in paragraph 

(i) of this definition. The annual 

international money transfers of a 

formerly affiliated company are 

aggregated for the entire period of 

measurement if affiliation ceased during 

the applicable period of measurement as 

set forth in paragraph (i) of this 

definition. 

Designated recipient means any 

person specified by the sender as the 

authorized recipient of an international 

money transfer to be received at a 

location in a foreign country. 

International money transfer means 

the electronic transfer of funds 

requested by a sender to a designated 

recipient that is sent by an international 

money transfer provider. The term 

applies regardless of whether the sender 

holds an account with the international 

money transfer provider, and regardless 

of whether the transaction is also an 

electronic fund transfer, as defined in 

§ 1005.3(b) of this Title. The term does 

not include any transfer that is excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘electronic fund 

transfer’’ under § 1005.3(c)(4) of this 

Title. 

International money transfer provider 

means any nonbank covered person that 

provides international money transfers 

for a consumer, regardless of whether 

the consumer holds an account with 

such person. 

Sender means a consumer in a State 

who primarily for personal, family, or 

household purposes requests an 

international money transfer provider to 

send an international money transfer to 

a designated recipient. 

State means any State, territory, or 

possession of the United States; the 

District of Columbia; the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or any 

political subdivision thereof. 

(b) Test to define larger participants. 

A nonbank covered person is a larger 

participant of the international money 

transfer market if the nonbank covered 

person has at least one million aggregate 

annual international money transfers. 

Dated: January 23, 2014. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01606 Filed 1–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Chapter 1 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0988] 

Policy and Procedures Concerning the 

Use of Airport Revenue; Proceeds 

From Taxes on Aviation Fuel 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed clarification 

of policy; Extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: In order to provide the public 

additional time to submit comments on 

the proposed Policy, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (‘‘FAA’’) is 

extending the public comment period 

for thirty days. This action proposes to 

amend the FAA Policy and Procedures 

Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue 

published in the Federal Register at 64 

FR 7696 on February 16, 1999 

(‘‘Revenue Use Policy’’) to clarify FAA’s 

policy on Federal requirements for the 

use of proceeds from taxes on aviation 

fuel. Under Federal law, airport 

operators that have accepted Federal 

assistance generally may use airport 

revenues only for airport-related 

purposes. The revenue use requirements 

apply to certain state and local 

government taxes on aviation fuel as 

well as to revenues received directly by 

an airport operator. This notice 

publishes a proposed clarification of 

FAA’s understanding of the Federal 

requirements for use of revenues 

derived from taxes on aviation fuel. 

Briefly, an airport operator or state 

government submitting an application 

under the Airport Improvement Program 

must provide assurance that revenues 

from state and local government taxes 

on aviation fuel are used for certain 

aviation-related purposes. These 

purposes include airport capital and 

operating costs, and state aviation 

programs. In view of the interests of 

sellers and consumers of aviation fuel, 

and of state and local government taxing 

authorities in limits on use of proceeds 

from taxes touching aviation fuel, this 

notice solicits public comment on the 

proposed policy clarification. This 

notice also solicits comments about 

whether there are other reasonable 

interpretations regarding local taxes that 

are not enumerated here and should be 

considered by the FAA. Finally, this 

proposed policy clarification, if 

finalized, would apply prospectively to 

use of proceeds from both new taxes 

and to existing taxes that do not qualify 

for grandfathering from revenue use 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments period for the Notice 

published on November 21, 2013, at 78 

FR 69789 and closed on January 21, 

2014 is extended to March 3, 2014. 

Comments that are received after that 

date will be considered only to the 

extent possible. 

ADDRESSES: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or to Room W12–140 on the ground 

floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also send written comments 

by any of the following methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. Docket 

Number: FAA 2013–0988. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail 

address above between 9:00 a.m. and 5 

p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251 

Identify all transmission with ‘‘Docket 

Number FAA 2013–0988’’ at the 

beginning of the document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall S. Fiertz, Director, Office of 

Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–3085; facsimile 

(202) 267–5257. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for the Proposed Policy 

Clarification 

This notice is published under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, part 

B, chapter 471, section 47122, and the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Authorization Act of 1994, § 112(a), 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1