26486 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an Environmental 

Impact Statement is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

chapters 17A and 25, established 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Under section 202 of the UMRA, RHS 

generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with Federal mandates that may result 

in expenditures to State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any 1 year. When such a statement 

is needed for a rule, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires RHS to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. This rule contains no 

Federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, and tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The rule has been reviewed with 

regard to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601–612). Under Section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), the Agency has determined and 

certified by signature of this document 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities since this 

rulemaking action does not involve a 

new or expanded program. Furthermore, 

the program does not treat entities 

differently based solely on their size. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The policies contained in the rule 

does not have any substantial direct 

effect on States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Nor do the 

rules impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, consultation 

with the States is not required. 

Implementation 

It is the policy of this Agency that 

rules relating to public property, loans, 

grants, benefits, or contracts shall 

comply with 5 U.S.C. 553, 

notwithstanding the exemption of that 

section with respect to such rules. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The revisions in this rulemaking for 

part 3575 are subject to the burden 

package assigned OMB control number 

0575–0137. No paperwork changes are 

being proposed. 

Executive Order 12372, 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs 

This final rule is not subject to the 

provisions of EO 12372, which require 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials, because this 

rule provides general guidance on 

something. Applications for Agency 

programs will be reviewed individually 

under EO 12372 as required by program 

procedures. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Agency is committed to 

complying with the E-Government Act, 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3575 

Community facilities, Guaranteed 

loans, Loan programs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, chapter XXXV of subtitle B, 

title 7, Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

CHAPTER XXXV—RURAL HOUSING 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

PART 3575—GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3575 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7 U.S.C. 1989. 

Subpart A—Community Programs 

Guaranteed Loans 

■ 2. Amend § 3575.24 to revise 

paragraph (a)(1)(x) to read as follows: 

§ 3575.24 Eligible loan purposes. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(x) Community parks, community 

activity centers, and similar types of 

facilities that are an integral part of the 

orderly development of a community. 

Recreational components, such as, but 

not limited to, playground equipment of 

an otherwise non-recreational eligible 

community facility such as childcare, 

educational, or health care facilities are 

also eligible. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 3575.25 to add paragraph 

(j) to read as follows: 

§ 3575.25 Ineligible loan purposes. 

* * * * * 

(j) Golf courses, water parks, race 

tracks or other recreational type 

facilities inherently commercial in 

nature. 

Dated: February 22, 2013. 

Tammye Trevin ̃ o, 

Administrator, Rural Housing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10783 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0039] 

RIN 0579–AC61 

Recordkeeping for Approved Livestock 

Facilities and Slaughtering and 

Rendering Establishments 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations regarding the interstate 

movement of livestock to require 

approved livestock facilities and listed 

slaughtering and rendering 

establishments to maintain certain 

records for 5 years. Currently, approved 

livestock facilities are required to retain 

certain records for 2 years, and there are 

no record retention provisions that 

apply to listed slaughtering and 

rendering establishments. Requiring the 

retention of certain records for 5 years 

will allow us to trace the prior 

movements of diseased livestock further 

into the past than is currently possible, 

thus providing the opportunity to locate 

potentially infected or exposed livestock 

that might otherwise remain 

unidentified. We are also requiring the 

operators of slaughtering and rendering 

establishments to sign listing 

agreements to document their agreement 

to comply with the requirements of the 

regulations for listed slaughtering and 

rendering establishments. Such 

agreements are currently required for 

approved livestock facilities, but not for 

slaughtering and rendering facilities. 

This change will eliminate that 

inconsistency. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 26487 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0039. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Debra C. Cox, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

National Surveillance Unit, Centers for 

Epidemiology and Animal Health, VS, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, 

Riverdale, MD 20737; 301–851–3504. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in subchapter C of 

chapter I, title 9, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations contain provisions designed 

to prevent the dissemination of 

livestock or poultry diseases in the 

United States and to facilitate the 

control and eradication of such diseases. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 71 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

include general prohibitions on the 

interstate movement of animals that 

could spread livestock or poultry 

diseases. 

The regulations in § 71.20 contain 

provisions under which livestock 

facilities may acquire and retain status 

as an approved facility. To obtain 

approval, facilities must enter into an 

agreement with the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in 

which they agree to follow certain 

procedures when handling livestock 

entering the facility. Part of this 

agreement states that documents such as 

weight tickets, sales slips, and records 

of origin, identification, and destination 

that relate to livestock that are in, or that 

have been in, the facility shall be 

maintained by the facility for a period 

of 2 years. Such records would be 

critical in the event that APHIS or State 

animal health officials needed to 

conduct a disease traceback 

investigation. 

On July 7, 2008, we published in the 

Federal Register a proposed rule 1 (73 

FR 38343–38346, Docket No. APHIS– 

2007–0039) to amend the regulations to 

require approved livestock facilities and 

listed slaughtering and rendering 

establishments to maintain certain 

records for 5 years. We also proposed to 

require the operators of slaughtering and 

rendering establishments to sign listing 

agreements to document their agreement 

to comply with the requirements of the 

regulations for listed slaughtering and 

rendering establishments. 

We solicited comments for 60 days 

ending September 5, 2008. We received 

four comments by that date. They were 

from two private citizens (one of whom 

submitted two comments) and a 

rendering industry association. Two of 

the commenters expressed concerns 

about farm animal welfare and general 

dissatisfaction with the United States 

Department of Agriculture, but did not 

address the specific provisions of the 

proposed rule. The third commenter 

raised a number of specific concerns 

regarding the proposed rule. They are 

discussed below. 

The commenter stated that we were 

incorrect to say that there are no 

recordkeeping requirements for 

rendering establishments, noting that 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) requires rendering establishments 

to keep records. The commenter 

questioned why rendering 

establishments should be subject to 

more stringent recordkeeping 

requirements by APHIS than by FDA 

and stated that the agencies should 

better coordinate their recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The commenter is correct that the 

FDA has recordkeeping requirements in 

21 CFR part 589 that apply to rendering 

establishments; however, those 

regulations require records to be kept for 

1 year only. In our proposed rule, we 

noted that there are currently no APHIS 

requirements for recordkeeping by 

rendering establishments. APHIS 

attempts to coordinate its recordkeeping 

requirements with other agencies 

whenever possible, and we do not 

expect rendering establishments to keep 

different categories of records from what 

they already keep under FDA 

requirements. However, some animal 

diseases have incubation periods of 

several years, and an animal disease 

investigation may require tracing 

animals that were exposed to an 

infected animal several years before the 

outbreak occurred. If exposed animals 

have been slaughtered or died and been 

sent to a rendering establishment, we 

need to be able to confirm that they 

reached these terminal points. For this 

reason, we need the records to be kept 

for longer than 1 year. We are making 

no changes to the final rule in response 

to this comment. 

The same commenter stated that, 

because of increased costs associated 

with the 2008 FDA ruminant feed ban 

rule, there may be an increased number 

of carcasses disposed of illegally. The 

commenter asked why APHIS has not 

addressed the issue of carcass disposal. 

In its final rule prohibiting the use of 

certain cattle origin materials in the 

food or feed of all animals, published in 

the Federal Register on April 25, 2008 

(73 FR 22720–22758, Docket No. 

2002N–0273), FDA responded to 

comments that expressed the same 

concern regarding the impact the FDA 

rule could have on the availability and 

cost of disposal of cattle material 

prohibited in animal feed and dead 

stock cattle. In its response, FDA 

acknowledged that carcass disposal 

problems exist in certain States or 

regions and that developing and 

implementing adequate solutions to 

these problems is challenging. On April 

24, 2009, FDA published a document 

confirming the effective date of the 

April 2008 final rule (74 FR 18626– 

18628, Docket No. FDA–2002–N–0031) 

and announced that it would delay 

compliance with the provisions of the 

April 2008 final rule until October 26, 

2009, stating that a delay in the 

compliance date would allow the 

significant number of stakeholders 

affected by the April 2008 final rule 

more time to comply with the new 

regulations or adjust to the loss of 

rendering service. In that notice, FDA 

also acknowledged that it might be 

particularly challenging to address such 

disposal problems by the compliance 

date. FDA issued a revision of the Small 

Entities Compliance Guide for 

Renderers on May 6, 2009, and has 

stated its intent to engage in further 

outreach to the rendering industry, 

pertinent State agencies, and others 

affected by the rule. APHIS has been 

working and will continue to work with 

FDA to address any animal disease 

issues associated with implementation 

of the feed ban rule, and will revisit the 

issue of carcass disposal if necessary. 

We are making no changes to the rule 

in response to this comment. 

The commenter stated that APHIS’s 

animal disease traceability program 

does not address animal identification 

beyond death unless the animal is 

slaughtered in a federally inspected 

slaughter facility. The commenter 

expressed concern that without stronger 

identification requirements for animals 

and carcasses, additional recordkeeping 

requirements for renderers will have no 

benefit for animal health. 

The commenter is correct that APHIS’ 

animal disease traceability program 

focuses on the identification of live 

animals rather than of carcasses. We did 

not propose to require renderers to keep 

traceability information for carcasses 

they collect, or to establish new 

categories of records, but only to keep 

the records they do have for a longer 

period of time. We acknowledge that 

there may be an animal disease risk 

from products produced by rendering an 

animal that has died of disease; 

however, primary authority for 

regulating rendered products falls to the 

Food Safety and Inspection Service and 

FDA. APHIS has worked and will 

continue to work with these agencies to 

ensure that any animal disease issues 

associated with these products are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
26488 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

addressed. We are making no changes in 

response to this comment, however. 

It is necessary for us to make a change 

in this rule so that its provisions are 

consistent with those of our final rule 

on animal disease traceability (see 78 FR 

2040–2075, Docket No. APHIS–2009– 

0091). Specifically, in that final rule we 

acknowledge, in responding to 

comments, that the lifespans of poultry 

and swine are relatively short compared 

with those of other species of livestock, 

and that records for those animals do 

not, therefore, need to be kept as longs 

as records for other animals. Hence, in 

that final rule, we provided for the 

retention of records for poultry and 

swine to 2 years rather than 5. To be 

consistent, this final rule keeps the 

recordkeeping period for poultry and 

swine at 2 years. Records for cattle, 

bison, sheep, goats, cervids, and equines 

will still be required to be kept for 5 

years. 

In addition, we are making a change 

to § 71.20(a)(8) to add a reference to 9 

CFR part 86 to the list of regulations 

under which livestock must be 

identified at the time of, or prior to, 

entry into a livestock facility. This 

change should have been included in 

the animal disease traceability final rule 

but was inadvertently omitted. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563, which direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and equity). Executive Order 

13563 emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

economic analysis also examines the 

potential economic effects of this rule 

on small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 1 in this document for 

a link to Regulations.gov) or by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

This rule amends the regulations 

regarding the interstate movement of 

livestock to require approved livestock 

facilities and listed slaughtering and 

rendering establishments to maintain 

certain records for 5 years. Currently, 

approved livestock facilities are 

required to retain certain records for 2 

years. No record retention provisions 

currently apply to listed slaughtering 

and rendering establishments. 

For some livestock diseases, the 

incubation period (the time from when 

an animal becomes infected until the 

disease is evident) can last for years 

before clinical or behavioral signs 

become apparent. A prime example is 

bovine tuberculosis, a contagious 

disease of both animals and humans 

caused by specific types of bacteria that 

are part of the Mycobacterium group. 

The incubation period for bovine 

tuberculosis can range from months to 

years. By requiring record retention for 

5 years, the rule will benefit APHIS and 

State animal health authorities, the 

operators of livestock, slaughtering, and 

rendering facilities, and livestock 

producers, generally, in the event that a 

traceback is required to locate the 

source herd of an animal discovered to 

have a disease such as bovine 

tuberculosis. 

The rule is not expected to result in 

significant costs for the affected entities. 

An analysis of similar recordkeeping 

costs expected to be incurred in 

connection with a May 2012 Food 

Safety and Inspection Service 

rulemaking (75 FR 14361–14368, Docket 

No. FSIS–2008–0025) found the costs to 

be minimal. For approved livestock 

facilities that are already required to 

retain records for 2 years, and rendering 

facilities that are currently maintaining 

relevant records per FDA’s 

requirements, the costs will be smaller 

still. 

The alternative to the rule would be 

to leave the regulations unchanged. In 

doing so, possible reductions in losses 

associated with animal diseases that 

have long incubation periods would not 

be realized. The rule is preferred to the 

current regulations, given the relatively 

minor recordkeeping costs that would 

be incurred to achieve improved 

traceback capabilities. 

The benefits of the rule will justify its 

costs. There were no comments received 

on the economic analysis prepared for 

the proposed rule, nor were other 

significant economic issues raised. 

While the majority of approved 

livestock facilities, slaughtering 

establishments, and rendering 

establishments are small entities, costs 

incurred because of the rule are also 

expected to be small. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has 

no retroactive effect; and (3) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Executive Order 13175 

This rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. The review reveals that 

this regulation will not have substantial 

and direct effects on Tribal governments 

and will not have significant Tribal 

implications. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0342, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 26489 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 71 

Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry 

and poultry products, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 2. Section 71.20 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(7) to read 

set forth below. 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(8), by removing the 

words ‘‘and 85’’ and adding the words 

‘‘85, and 86’’ in their place. 

■ c. In the OMB citation at the end of 

the section, by removing the words 

‘‘number 0579–0258’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘numbers 0579–0258 and 0579– 

0342’’ in their place. 

§ 71.20 Approval of livestock facilities. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Documents such as weight tickets, 

sales slips, and records of origin, 

identification, and destination that 

related to livestock that are in, or that 

have been in, the facility shall be 

maintained by the facility. For poultry 

and swine, such documents must be 

kept for at least 2 years, and for cattle 

and bison, sheep and goats, cervids, and 

equines, for at least 5 years. APHIS 

representatives and State 

representatives shall be permitted to 

review and copy those documents 

during normal business hours. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 71.21 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(l), 

(a)(2), and (a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4), respectively, and by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(l) to read as 

set forth below. 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to 

read as set forth below. 

■ c. In the OMB citation at the end of 

the section, by removing the words 

‘‘number 0579–0212’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘numbers 0579–0212 and 0579– 

0342’’ in their place. 

§ 71.21 Tissue and blood testing at 

slaughter. 

(a) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator of the 

establishment must agree, in writing, to 

meet the requirements for a listed 

facility under this section by signing a 

listing agreement. 

* * * * * 

(5) The management of the 

slaughtering or rendering establishment 

agrees that weight tickets, sales slips, 

and records of origin, identification, and 

destination that relate to livestock that 

are in, or have been in, the 

establishment will be maintained by the 

establishment. For poultry and swine, 

such documents must be kept for at 

least 2 years, and for cattle and bison, 

sheep and goats, cervids, and equines, 

for at least 5 years. APHIS, APHIS 

contractors, and State animal health 

representatives will be permitted to 

review and copy or scan these 

documents during normal business 

hours. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

May 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10825 Filed 5–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1075 

[Docket No. CFPB–2013–0011] 

RIN 3170–AA38 

Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(Dodd-Frank Act or Act) establishes a 

‘‘Consumer Financial Civil Penalty 

Fund’’ (Civil Penalty Fund) into which 

the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau (Bureau) must deposit any civil 

penalty it obtains against any person in 

any judicial or administrative action 

under Federal consumer financial laws. 

Under the Act, funds in the Civil 

Penalty Fund may be used for payments 

to the victims of activities for which 

civil penalties have been imposed under 

Federal consumer financial laws. In 

addition, to the extent that such victims 

cannot be located or such payments are 

otherwise not practicable, the Bureau 

may use funds in the Civil Penalty Fund 

for the purpose of consumer education 

and financial literacy programs. This 

rule implements the relevant statutory 

provisions by articulating the Bureau’s 

interpretation of what kinds of 

payments to victims are appropriate and 

by establishing procedures for allocating 

funds for such payments to victims and 

for consumer education and financial 

literacy programs. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 7, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Bateman, Attorney-Advisor, 

Legal Division, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435– 

7821. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act 

established the Bureau with a mandate 

to regulate the offering and provision of 

consumer financial products and 

services under the Federal consumer 

financial laws. Public Law 111–203, 

§ 1011(a) (2010), codified at 12 U.S.C. 

5491(a). The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes 

the Bureau, among other things, to 

enforce Federal consumer financial law 

through judicial actions and 

administrative adjudication 

proceedings. 12 U.S.C. 5563, 5564. In 

those actions and proceedings, a court 

or the Bureau may require a party that 

has violated the law to pay a civil 

penalty. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5565. 

Section 1017(d)(1) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act establishes a separate fund in the 

Federal Reserve, the ‘‘Consumer 

Financial Civil Penalty Fund’’ (Civil 

Penalty Fund), into which the Bureau 

must deposit civil penalties it collects 

from any person in any judicial or 

administrative action under Federal 

consumer financial laws. 12 U.S.C. 

5497(d)(1). Under the Act, amounts in 

the Fund may be used ‘‘for payments to 

the victims of activities for which civil 

penalties have been imposed under the 

Federal consumer financial laws.’’ 12 

U.S.C. 5497(d)(2). In addition, ‘‘[t]o the 

extent that such victims cannot be 

located or such payments are otherwise 

not practicable,’’ the Bureau may use 

amounts in the Fund for consumer 

education and financial literacy 

programs. Id. 

II. Summary of the Rule 

This rule implements section 

1017(d)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 

U.S.C. 5497(d)(2), by specifying the 

conditions under which victims will be 

eligible for payment from the Civil 

Penalty Fund and the amounts of the 

payments that the Bureau may make to 

them. In addition, the rule sets forth 

procedures the Bureau will follow for 

allocating and distributing funds from 

the Civil Penalty Fund. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES