CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST – SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER ACT (REGULATION E) 12 CFR 1005

(OMB CONTROL NUMBER: 3170-0014 / RIN 3170-AA22 – PROPOSED RULE)

OMB TERMS OF CLEARANCE: Once the rulemaking for other portions of Regulation E is 

complete, the burden numbers in the next renewal for this collection should be based on CFPB analysis, 

not on those inherited from other agencies.

Since OMB imposed the terms of clearance, the Bureau has engaged in research on the costs of 

regulatory compliance and continues to study these costs. The Bureau has also conducted industry 

outreach and analysis regarding the costs of compliance with the below proposed requirements under 

Regulation E. The burden numbers for the below proposed requirements reflect the Bureau’s research, 

outreach and analysis to date.

ABSTRACT: The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., requires accurate 

disclosure of the costs, terms, and rights relating to electronic fund transfer (EFT) services and remittance 

transfer services to consumers. Entities offering EFT services must provide consumers with full and 

accurate information regarding consumers' rights and responsibilities in connection with EFT services. 

These disclosures are intended to protect the rights of consumers using EFT services, such as automated 

teller machine (ATM) transfers, telephone bill-payment services, point-of-sale transfers at retail 

establishments, electronic check conversion, payroll cards, and preauthorized transfers from or to a 

consumer's account. EFTA also establishes error resolution procedures and limits consumer liability for 

unauthorized transfers in connection with EFT services. EFTA and Regulation E impose disclosure and 

other requirements on issuers and sellers of gift cards, gift certificates, and general-use prepaid cards. 

Further, EFTA and Regulation E were recently amended to provide protections for consumers in the 

United States who send remittance transfers to persons in a foreign country. Federal agencies and private 

litigants use the records to ascertain whether accurate and complete disclosures of EFT services and other 

services covered under Regulation E have been provided and other required actions (for example, error 

resolution and limitation of consumer liability for unauthorized transfers) have been taken. This 

information will provide the primary evidence of law violations in EFTA enforcement actions brought by 

the CFPB and other Federal agencies. Without recordkeeping requirements of Regulation E, the Federal 

agencies' ability to enforce the EFTA would be significantly impaired. Consumers rely on the disclosures 

required by EFTA and Regulation E to facilitate informed EFT, gift card, and remittance transfer 

decision making. Without this information, consumers would be severely hindered in their ability to 

assess the true costs and terms of the transactions offered. Also, without the special error resolution and 

limitation of consumer liability provisions, consumers would be unable to detect and correct 

unauthorized transfers and errors in their EFT and remittance transfer transactions. These disclosures and 

provisions are also necessary for the agencies to enforce EFTA and Regulation E. 

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances Necessitating the Data Collection
2

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., requires accurate disclosure 

of the costs, terms, and rights relating to electronic fund transfer (EFT) services and remittance transfer 

services to consumers. Entities offering EFT services must provide consumers with full and accurate 

information regarding consumers’ rights and responsibilities in connection with EFT services. These 

disclosures are intended to protect the rights of consumers using EFT services, such as automated teller 

machine (ATM) transfers, telephone bill-payment services, point-of-sale transfers at retail 

establishments, electronic check conversion, and preauthorized transfers from or to a consumer’s 

account. The EFTA also establishes error resolution procedures and limits consumer liability for 

unauthorized transfers in connection with EFT services. The EFTA and Regulation E impose 

disclosure and other requirements on issuers and sellers of gift cards, gift certificates, and general-use 

prepaid cards. Further, the EFTA and Regulation E were recently amended to provide protections for 

consumers in the United States who send remittance transfers to persons in a foreign country. The 

Bureau has further proposed to extend these protections to prepaid accounts. 

Historically, the EFTA was implemented in Regulation E by the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (Board), 12 CFR Part 205. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Pub. L. 111-203,124 Stat. 1376 (2010) transferred rulemaking 

authority for the EFTA to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or the Bureau), effective 

July 21, 2011. On December 27, 2011, the CFPB republished Regulation E in 12 CFR part 1005, 

making technical and conforming changes to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes 

made by the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB a statutory deadline

to issue a final rule implementing the amendments to EFTA concerning remittance transfers. This final 

rule was published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2012 (February Final Rule). On August 20, 

2012, the Bureau published a supplemental final rule adopting a safe harbor for determining which 

companies do not send remittance transfers in the normal course of business and addressing remittance 

transfers scheduled before the date of transfer (August Final Rule, and collectively with the February 

Final Rule, the 2012 Final Rule). The CFPB has amended subpart B of Regulation E on several 

occasions. 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, in addition to the transfer of rulemaking authority, the CFPB 

received certain enforcement authorities with respect to the EFTA. The EFTA also contains a private 

right of action with a one-year statute of limitations for aggrieved consumers. 

Recordkeeping 

Section 1005.13(b) of Regulation E requires entities subject to the EFTA to retain evidence of 

their compliance with the regulation for not less than two years. Regulation E also provides that any 

entity subject to the EFTA that is notified by the CFPB (or other administrative agency) that it is being 

investigated or is the subject of an enforcement proceeding, or that has been notified of a private or 

criminal action being filed, shall retain the records that pertain to the investigation, action, or proceeding 

until final disposition of the matter, or such earlier time as allowed by a court or agency order. The 

recordkeeping requirement insures that records that might contain evidence of violations of the EFTA 

remain available to Federal agencies, as well as to private litigants. 
3

In addition, section 1005.33(g)(2) of Regulation E requires that the policies and procedures 

concerning error resolution of remittance transfer providers include provisions regarding the retention of 

documentation related to error investigations. Remittance transfer providers must retain evidence of this 

compliance for two years.

Disclosure 

The vast majority of Regulation E’s disclosure requirements are statutorily mandated by the 

EFTA. See, e.g., initial disclosures, 12 CFR 1005.7, 15 U.S.C. 1693c(a), 1005.18(c)(1); change in terms, 

12 CFR 1005.8, 15 U.S.C. 1693c(b); receipts at electronic terminals, 12 CFR 1005.9(a), 15 U.S.C. 

1693d(a); periodic statements, 12 CFR 1005.9(b), 15 U.S.C. 1693c; certain preauthorized transfer

requirements 12 CFR 1005.10, 15 U.S.C. 1693e; certain error resolution requirements, 12 CFR 1005.11, 

15 U.S.C. 1693f; and disclosures for remittance transfers, 12 CFR 1005.31, 15 U.S.C. 1693o-1. The 

CFPB has issued model forms and clauses that can be used to comply with some of the written disclosure 

requirements of the EFTA and Regulation E. See Appendix A to Regulation E. Correct use of these 

model forms and clauses protects entities from liability for the respective requirements under the EFTA 

and Regulation E. Id. The Bureau proposes additional requirements for prepaid accounts pursuant to its 

authority under the EFTA and the Dodd-Frank Act. See 12 CFR 1005.15(c) and 12 CFR 1005.18(b).

In November 2014, the Bureau proposed changes to apply Regulation E to prepaid accounts in 

general and to require providers to make available to consumers disclosures before a consumer agrees to 

acquire a prepaid account in particular. The proposal would also adopt12 CFR 1005.19(b) requiring 

prepaid issuers to post agreements for prepaid accounts on their websites and to submit the agreements to 

the Bureau. The proposal would also expand the account opening requirements in 12 CFR 1005.7(b)(5) 

as applied to prepaid accounts to require the disclosure of all fees related to the prepaid account, not just 

fees for EFTs. 

2. Use of the Information

Federal agencies and private litigants use the records to ascertain whether accurate and complete 

disclosures of EFT services and other services covered under Regulation E have been provided and other 

required actions (for example, error resolution and limitation of consumer liability for unauthorized 

transfers) have been taken. This information will provide the primary evidence of law violations in 

EFTA enforcement actions brought by the CFPB and other Federal agencies. Without recordkeeping 

requirements of Regulation E, the Federal agencies’ abilities to enforce the EFTA would be significantly 

impaired. Consumers rely on the disclosures required by the EFTA and Regulation E to facilitate 

informed EFT decision making. Without this information, consumers would be severely hindered in 

their ability to assess the true costs and terms of the products offered. Also, without the special error 

resolution and limitation of consumer liability provisions, consumers would be unable to detect and 

correct unauthorized transfers and errors in their EFT and remittance transfer transactions. These 

disclosures and provisions are also necessary for the enforcement agencies to enforce the EFTA and 

Regulation E. 
4

3. Use of Information Technology

Regulation E provides rules to establish uniform standards for using electronic communication to 

deliver disclosures required under Regulation E, within the context of the Electronic Signatures in Global 

and National Commerce Act (ESIGN), 15 U.S.C. 7001(c), et seq. 72 FR 63452 (Nov. 9, 2007). These 

rules enable businesses to use electronic disclosures, consistent with the requirements of ESIGN, which 

became effective on Oct. 1, 2000. Use of such electronic communications is also consistent with the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Title XVII of Pub. L. 105-277, codified at 44 U.S.C. 

3504 note. ESIGN and GPEA serve to reduce businesses’ compliance burden related to federal 

requirements, including Regulation E, by enabling businesses to utilize more efficient electronic media 

for disclosures and compliance. In certain circumstances and pursuant to the Bureau’s prepaid account 

proposal, Regulation E would permit electronic disclosure in situations that may not be compliant with 

ESIGN.

Regulation E also permits entities to retain records on any method capable of accurately retaining 

and reproducing information. Business entities need only retain evidence demonstrating that their 

procedures reasonably ensure the consumer’s receipt of required disclosures and documentation; the 

entity need not retain records that disclosures and documentation were given to each consumer. 

Comment 1005.13(b)-1. 

In addition, due to the nature of electronic fund transfers, most entities that use such transfers 

and are covered by the EFTA also use computer support and various electronic means to facilitate 

generation of the mandated disclosures, thereby limiting burden. 

4. Efforts to Identify Duplication

The recordkeeping requirement of Regulation E preserves the information an affected entity uses 

in making disclosures and taking other required actions regarding EFT and other services covered under 

Regulation E. The entity is the only source of this information. No other federal law mandates its 

retention, although some states may have similar requirements. 

Similarly, covered entities are the only source of the information contained in the disclosures 

required by the EFTA and Regulation E. No other federal law mandates these disclosures. State laws do 

not duplicate these requirements, although some states may have other rules applicable to EFT and other 

services covered under Regulation E. There may, however, be financial institutions that are also issuers 

under Regulation Z that would be required to submit account agreements to the Bureau twice, once 

pursuant to 12 CFR 1005.19(b) and also pursuant to 12 CFR 1026.58(c). The Bureau has not yet 

developed submission methods for prepaid account agreements. The Bureau will make efforts to 

streamline and harmonize submission requirements to avoid duplication, if possible. The Bureau 

solicited comment on duplicate submission in the proposal and expects to revisit this issue in its final 

rule. 

5. Efforts to Minimize Burdens on Small Entities

As discussed above, the Bureau’s proposal would impose the Regulation E recordkeeping and 
5

disclosure requirements that are mandated by EFTA, the Dodd-Frank Act, and Regulation E on financial 

institutions and entities offering EFT and other services in connection with prepaid accounts, which, 

pursuant to the proposal, would be covered under Regulation E. The recordkeeping requirement is 

mandated by Regulation E. The existing disclosure requirements are mandated by the EFTA and/or 

Regulation E. 

Most entities offering EFT and other services in connection with prepaid accounts today utilize

some degree of computerization in their businesses, which further assists in facilitating compliance with 

Regulation E. Additionally, as noted above, Regulation E provides, and the proposal would also include,

model and sample forms that may be used to aid compliance with many of its requirements. Correct use 

of these forms insulates a financial entity from liability from the respective requirements.

6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection and Obstacles to Burden Reduction

Information collection pursuant to Regulation E is triggered by specific events, and disclosures 

must be provided to consumers within the time periods established by the law and regulation. The 

current record retention period of two years supports the one-year statute of limitations for private 

actions, and the CFPB’s need for sufficient time to bring enforcement actions regarding EFT 

transactions. If the retention period were shortened, consumers who sue under the EFTA, and the 

administrative agencies that enforce the EFTA, might find that the records needed to prove EFTA 

violations no longer exist.

As noted, the current and proposed disclosure requirements are needed to foster informed EFT

decision-making for prepaid accounts and to identify errors and unauthorized transfers. Without these 

requirements, consumers would not have access to this critical information, their right to sue under the 

EFTA would be undermined, and the CFPB and other administrative agencies charged with enforcing the 

EFTA could not fulfill their mandates. 

7. Circumstances Requiring Special Information Collection

The collections of information in Regulation E are consistent with the applicable guidelines 

contained in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). 

8. Consultation Outside the Agency

In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11, the Bureau has published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 

the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the information collection requirements contained 

in the proposed rule. Comments received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking will be 

addressed in the preamble to the final rule.

9. Payments or Gifts to Respondents

Not applicable.
6

10. Assurances of Confidentiality

Some of the required recordkeeping and disclosures contain private financial information about 

consumers who use EFT services. Such information is protected by the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 

12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. Such records may also constitute confidential customer lists. Any of these 

records that contain private financial information that are provided to the CFPB would be covered by the 

protections of 12 CFR 1070.40 et seq., section 1022(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and by the exemptions of 

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b), as applicable. The account agreements that would be

collected pursuant to proposed § 1005.19(b) would not contain any confidential information.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

This information collection contains no questions of a sensitive nature, as defined by OMB 

guidelines.

12. Estimated Burden of Information Collection for Bureau Respondents

Total Hours: 4,035,3321

Total Associated Labor Costs: $119,598,708

CFPB’s burden, By Information Collection

Number 

of respondents

Estimated 

annual 

frequency

Average time

per response

Estimated 

annual 

burden 

hours

Transaction Receipts

100,000 40 1.2 minutes 80,000

Change in Terms 

100,000 10 16.5 minutes 275,000

Payroll Disclosures

600,000 1 90 minutes 900,000

Recordkeeping

600,000 1 58.3 minutes 583,000

Error Resolution

100,000 10 3.96 minutes 66,000

 

1 This number includes (1) the 1,904,000 hours that the Bureau obtained from other Federal agencies as part of its 

“restatement of Regulation E”; (2) the 631,000 hours of one-time burden and 1,468,000 hours of ongoing burden estimated for 

the Final Rule; (3) the 2,122 hours of one-time burden estimated for the August Final Rule; (4) the 19,695 hours of one time 

burden and the reduction of 10,494 hours in on-going burden from the 2013 Final Rule; and (5) the 16,538 hours of one-time 

burden and 4,494 hours of ongoing burden estimated for the Proposed Rule for Prepaid Accounts.
7

Maintenance and Error 

Resolution, depository 

institutions (ongoing)

153 1 350.75 hours 53,664

Maintenance and Error 

Resolution, non-depository 

institutions (ongoing)

33,500 1 41.905 hours 1,403,818

Proposed Short Form Disclosure, 

depository institutions (ongoing)

18 2 552 minutes 331

Proposed Short Form Disclosure, 

non-depository institutions 

(ongoing)

142 2 276 minutes 1,306

Proposed Error Resolution, 

depository institutions (ongoing)

2 281 30 minutes 281

Proposed Error Resolution, nondepository institutions (ongoing)

18 281 15 minutes 1,265

Proposed Quarterly Submission 

of Agreements, depository 

institutions (ongoing)

36 4 480 minutes 1,152

Proposed Quarterly Submission 

of Agreements, non-depository 

institutions (ongoing)

10 4 240 minutes 160

System and Policy Updates, 

February Final Rule, depository 

institutions (one time)

155 1 206.5 hours 31,809

System and Policy Updates, 

February Final Rule, nondepository institutions (one 

time)

3,000 1 200 hours 600,000

System and Policy Updates, 

August Final Rule (one time) 

500 1 2.6 hours 1,313

System and Policy Updates, 

2013 Final Rule depository 

institutions (one time)

153 1 65 hours 9,945
8

System and Policy Updates, 

2013 Final Rule, non- depository 

institutions (one time)

300 1 32.5 hours 9,750

Proposed Short Form Disclosure, 

depository institutions (one time)

18 1 92 hours 1,656

Proposed Short Form Disclosure, 

non-depository institutions (one 

time)

142 1 46 hours 6,532

Proposed Long Form Disclosure, 

depository institutions (one time)

18 1 18.4 hours 331

Proposed Long Form Disclosure, 

non-depository institutions (one 

time)

142 1 9.2 hours 1,306

Proposed Access to Prepaid 

Account Information, depository 

institutions (one time)

18 1 55.2 hours 994

Proposed Access to Prepaid 

Account Information, nondepository institutions (one time)

142 1 27.6 hours 3,919

Proposed Error Resolution, 

depository institutions (one time)

2 1 14.9 hours 30

Proposed Error Resolution, nondepository institutions (one time)

18 1 7.45 hours 134

Proposed Quarterly Submission 

of Account Information, 

depository institutions (one time)

36 1 40 hours 1440

Proposed Quarterly Submission 

of Account Information, nondepository institutions (one time)

10 1 20 hours 200

Total

4,035,3322

 

2

Individual entries may not sum to total due to rounding.
9

The CFPB calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours 

described above. The hourly rates used are those associated with the burden hours assumed from the 

other regulatory agencies, which differ by agency.

Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the ongoing recordkeeping and disclosure burdens for 

Regulation E allocated to the prudential regulators and the FTC were approximately 5,596,000 hours.3 In 

light of the changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau assumed roughly 1,904,000 hours of that 

burden. Specifically, CPPB assumed burden for depository institutions with total assets of more than 

$10 billion and their depository institution affiliates for which the CFPB now has primary enforcement 

authority with respect to Regulation E. Because the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

generally both have enforcement authority over non-depository institutions subject to Regulation E, the 

CFPB also assumed half of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) burden for non-depository institutions

after subtracting the burden which the FTC has attributed to itself for motor vehicle dealers, where 

applicable.

4

 

February Final Rule (Remittance Transfers)

In the February Final Rule, the Bureau estimated that the 155 large depository institutions and 

credit unions (including their depository and credit union affiliates) supervised by the Bureau would take, 

on average, 120 hours (three business weeks) to update their systems to comply with the disclosure 

requirements addressed in § 1005.31. This one-time revision increased the burden by 18,600 hours. 

These respondents take, on average, 40 hours (one business week) to develop written policies and 

procedures designed to ensure compliance with respect to the error resolution requirements applicable to 

remittance transfers under § 1005.33. This one-time revision increased the burden by 6,200 hours. 

These respondents take, on average, 40 hours (one business week) to establish policies and procedures 

for agent compliance as addressed under § 1005.35. This one-time revision increased the burden by 

6,200 hours. In summary, the Bureau estimated the rule imposed a one-time increase in the estimated 

annual burden on the 155 large depository institutions and credit unions supervised by the Bureau of 

31,000 hours. The Bureau estimated that the rule imposed a one-time annual burden on 6,000 nondepository money transmitters (500 networks and 5,500 agents) of 200 hours. This one-time revision 

increased the burden by 1,200,000 hours total for all agencies. The Bureau allocated itself 600,000 hours 

 

3

In applying for its initial approval from OMB for this control number under an emergency clearance, the CFPB relied on the 

estimates previously developed by the Board, OCC, OTS, FDIC, NCUA, and FTC concerning the number of entities subject 

to Regulation E and the hours of paperwork burden under the statute (for a detailed breakdown of the burden estimates of the 

prudential regulators and the FTC, please reference the other agencies’ supporting statements for Regulation E, which can be 

found at www.reginfo.gov). The CFPB’s enforcement authority is not necessarily limited to the entities covered by these 

agencies’ estimates. In some instances, information regarding actual burden hours or dollar costs, or breakdowns of these 

hours or costs was not available from the other agencies. In those cases, CFPB estimated the relevant figures based on data 

provided by the OCC and in some cases by the Board. 

4The Dodd-Frank Act exempts certain motor vehicle dealers from CFPB’s enforcement authority. However, due to the 

difficulty of making a reliable estimate of those dealers, the FTC has attributed to itself the PRA burden for all motor vehicle 

dealers. This attribution does not change actual enforcement authority.
10

from this total. The total one-time burden allocated to the Bureau was therefore 631,000 hours.5

On a continuing basis, the Bureau estimated that the 155 large depository institutions and credit 

unions (including their depository and credit union affiliates) supervised by the Bureau take, on average, 

approximately 8 hours (one business day) monthly to maintain their systems to comply with the 

disclosure requirements under § 1005.31. This increased the ongoing annual burden by 14,880 hours. 

The Bureau estimates on average 262,500 consumers would spend 5 minutes in order to provide a notice 

of error as required under section 1005.33(b). The Bureau estimated that 155 respondents supervised by 

the Bureau would take, on average, approximately 12 hours (monthly) to address a sender’s notice of 

error as required by § 1005.33(c)(1). This increased the ongoing burden by 21,875 hours as well. The 

Bureau estimated that the 155 respondents would take, on average, 8 hours (one business day) annually 

to maintain written policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with respect to the error 

resolution requirements applicable to remittance transfers under § 1005.33. This increased the ongoing 

burden by 1,240 hours. These respondents take, on average, 8 hours (one business day) annually to 

maintain policies and procedures for agent compliance under § 1005.35. This increased the ongoing 

burden by 1,240 hours. In summary, the February Final Rule increased the estimated ongoing annual 

burden on the 155 respondents supervised by the Bureau by approximately 61,000 hours. 

The Bureau estimated that the February Final Rule would impose an ongoing annual burden on 

67,000 non-depository money transmitters of 42 hours. This increased the ongoing annual burden by 

2,814,000 hours. The Bureau allocated itself 1,407,000 hours from this total. The total ongoing annual 

burden allocated to the Bureau was therefore 1,468,000 hours.6

August Final Rule (Remittance Transfers)

The August Final Rule provided a safe harbor and additional flexibility with respect to certain

provisions of the February Final Rule that respondents may use at their option in order to reduce their 

overall compliance burden. In addition, there is an additional requirement to disclose the date of the 

transfer in disclosures provided for certain types of remittance transfers, as well as additional information 

relating to cancellation for a smaller subset of these transfers. 

The Bureau expects that the amount of time required to implement the information collection 

requirements for a given institution may vary based on the size and complexity of the respondent as well 

as whether the respondent qualifies for and elects to use the safe harbors or additional flexibility provided 

by certain provisions. 

The August Final Rule included a safe harbor clarifying when a respondent does not provide 

remittance transfers in the normal course of business for purposes of determining whether a person is a 

“remittance transfer provider” and therefore must comply with (and assume the burdens associated with) 

subpart B of Regulation E. For the purpose of its PRA analysis, the Bureau assumes that none of its 

respondents qualify for the safe harbor, and therefore the safe harbor has no effect on the burden incurred 

by Bureau respondents.

 

5

31,000+600,000 hours.

6

61,000+1,407,000 hours.
11

The August Final Rule included two provisions that potentially affect the number of disclosures 

made in connection with certain transfers. In both cases, the provisions permit additional flexibility that 

respondents may use at their option. One provision potentially increases the number of disclosures made. 

In the August Final Rule, § 1005.32(b)(2) permits disclosures required to be provided prior to or when 

payment is made to contain estimates in certain cases for remittance transfers scheduled five or more 

days before the date of the transfer, including preauthorized remittance transfers. If a remittance transfer 

provider gives disclosures that include estimates under this provision, the August Final Rule requires that 

the provider later give senders receipts with accurate figures (unless providers are permitted to provide 

estimates under a statutory exception, in which case the receipt may include estimates consistent with the 

applicable exception). A second provision potentially decreases the number of disclosures made. The

August Final Rule eliminates the requirement that remittance transfer providers mail or deliver a prepayment disclosure a reasonable time prior to each subsequent preauthorized remittance transfer.7

 The 

Bureau does not know how many respondents will elect to use the additional flexibility provided by these 

provisions. Therefore, the Bureau assumes that these two provisions, taken together, do not affect 

respondent burden for the purpose of this PRA analysis. 

Some information requirements involve the modification of existing disclosures (or permit 

providers to comply by modifying existing disclosures) with respect to the cancellation period.8 The 

Bureau assumes that no ongoing burden is incurred by respondents from the modification of a disclosure 

otherwise required by the February Final Rule. The Bureau assumes that the alteration of existing 

disclosures is generally included in the one-time burden and does not affect ongoing burden. The burden 

associated with updating systems to comply with disclosure requirements is generally included in the 

burden attributed to the February Final Rule but may involve a modest, incremental one-time cost. 

Given that these provisions involve the modification of disclosures, the Bureau assumes these 

modifications are performed by money transmitters and not their agents. 

The August Final Rule requires that the date of the transfer be disclosed in receipts given in 

association with any transfer scheduled at least three business days before the date of the transfer, as well 

as the first transfer in a series of preauthorized remittance transfers and any subsequent preauthorized 

transfer in that series for which the date of transfer is four or less business days after the date on which 

payment is made for that transfer. 

The Bureau estimates that this provision will increase one-time burden by 616 hours for the 154 

large depository institutions and credit unions (including their depository and credit union affiliates). In 

addition, the Bureau estimates that, for money transmitters, this provision will increase one-time burden 

by 1,000 hours.9

 

7 However, if certain disclosed information on the receipt provided prior to the first transfer in a series of preauthorized 

transfers changes before the date of the transfer, the provider must provide a receipt to the consumer within a reasonable time 

prior to the scheduled date of the next preauthorized remittance transfer.

8

For the purpose of computing PRA burden, the Bureau assumes that respondents needing to disclose the date of the transfer 

and other information in connection with subsequent preauthorized remittance transfers scheduled at least five business days 

from the date of the transfer will elect to modify an existing disclosure with this information. However, these respondents 

maintain the flexibility to disclose this information in a separate disclosure if they choose to do so. 

9 This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 500 money transmitter respondents.
12

The August Final Rule also requires that, for preauthorized remittance transfers scheduled five or 

more business days from the date of the transfer, the remittance transfer provider disclose the date or 

dates on which the remittance transfer provider will execute such subsequent transfers in the series of 

preauthorized remittance transfers as well as additional cancellation information. The August Final Rule 

permits providers some flexibility in determining how these disclosures may be provided, although there 

are specific timing requirements. 

The Bureau estimates that this provision will increase one-time burden by 616 hours for the 154 

large depository institutions and credit unions (including their depository and credit union affiliates). In 

addition, the Bureau estimates that, for money transmitters, this provision will increase one-time burden 

by 1,000 hours.10

Additionally, the August Final Rule permits providers to describe on the same receipt both the 

three-business-day and 30-minute cancellation periods (the latter applying to remittance transfers 

scheduled fewer than three business days before the date of the transfer) and either describe the transfers 

to which each period applies or, alternatively, use a check box or other method to designate which 

cancellation period is applicable to the transfer. To the extent that programming has not yet occurred, 

this flexibility could result in a slightly lower cost for providers opting to use this flexibility since one 

receipt form must be designed. 

The Bureau estimates this provision will decrease one-time burden by 616 hours for the 154 large 

depository institutions and credit unions (including depository and credit union affiliates). In addition, 

the Bureau estimates that, for money transmitters, this provision would decrease one-time burden by 

1,000 hours.11 

Finally, the Bureau estimates that respondents will incur some burden in reviewing these changes 

to subpart B of Regulation E. The Bureau estimates that this will result in 193 hours of one-time burden 

for the 154 large depository institutions and credit unions (including their depository and credit union 

affiliates). In addition, the Bureau estimates that, for money transmitters, this will result in 313 hours of 

one-time burden. 12 As a result of the August Final Rule, the Bureau estimates that one-time burden 

increases by 809 hours for the 154 large depository institutions and credit unions (including depository 

and credit union affiliates). In addition, the Bureau estimates that one-time burden for money 

transmitters will increase by 1,313 hours.13

2013 Final Rule (Remittance Transfers)

The 2013 Final Rule refines the February Final Rule and the August Final Rule in three respects. 

First, the 2013 Final Rule modifies the 2012 Final Rule to make optional, in certain circumstances, the 

requirement to disclose fees imposed by a designated recipient’s institution. Second and relatedly, the 

 

10 This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 500 money transmitter respondents.

11 This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 500 money transmitter respondents. 

12 This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 500 money transmitter respondents.

13 This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 500 money transmitter respondents.
13

2013 Final Rule also makes optional the requirement to disclose taxes collected by a person other than 

the remittance transfer provider. In place of these disclosures, the 2013 Final Rule requires disclaimers 

to be added to the rule’s disclosures indicating that the recipient may receive less than the disclosed total 

due to such fees and taxes. Finally, the 2013 Final Rule revises the error resolution provisions that apply 

when a remittance transfer is not delivered to a designated recipient because the sender provided 

incorrect or insufficient information, and, in particular, when a sender provides an incorrect account 

number or recipient institution identifier which results in the transferred funds being deposited in the 

wrong account. 

The Bureau expects that the amount of time required to implement the information collection 

requirements for a given institution may vary based on the size and complexity of the respondent as well 

as whether the respondent elects to use additional flexibility provided by certain provisions. 

The Bureau assumes that all 153 insured depository institutions and credit unions that are 

supervised by the Bureau are remittance transfer providers and thus would potentially be affected by the 

2013 Final Rule.

14

 The Bureau estimates that there are approximately 300 non-depository money 

transmitters that offer remittance services and that may be affected by the 2013 Final Rule.

15

 The Bureau 

estimates that insured depository institutions supervised by the Bureau would incur a one-time burden of 

9,945 hours and a reduction in on-going burden of 7,344 hours per year. The Bureau estimates that nondepository money transmitters that offer remittance services would incur a one-time burden of 9,750 and 

a reduction in on-going burden of 3,150 per year.

16

As noted, the 2013 Final Rule requires remittance transfer providers to add an additional 

disclaimer to disclosure forms in instances where non-covered third-party fees and taxes collected by a 

person other than the provider may apply. The Bureau believes that the cost of adding these disclaimers 

will be small. Affected providers will also have to reprogram systems to conform to the new 

 

14 The number of insured depository institutions and credit unions supervised by the Bureau declined from 155 to 153 between 

the time of the August Final Rule and the 2013 Final Rule.

15 The decrease in respondents relative to the PRA analysis for the August Final Rule reflects a change in the number of 

insured depository institutions and credit unions supervised by the Bureau, and a revision by the Bureau of the estimated 

number of state-licensed money transmitters that offer remittance services. The revised estimate is based on subsequent 

analysis of publicly available state registration lists and other information about the business practices of licensed entities. 

The decrease in burden relative to what was previously reported for the August Final Rule from the revised entity counts is not 

included in the change in burden reported here. However, the revised entity counts are used for the purpose of calculating 

other changes in burden that would arise from the 2013 Final Rule. The Bureau notes that there may be other entities that are 

not insured depository institutions or credit unions and that serve as remittance transfer providers, such as broker-dealers or 

money transmission companies that are not state-licensed. The Bureau estimates that there are 162 broker-dealers that may be 

remittance transfer providers. The Bureau does not have an estimate of the number of other money transmission companies 

that may be any such entities. Furthermore, the Bureau notes that while its analysis in the February Final Rule attributed 

burden to the agents of state-licensed money transmitters, in this case, the Bureau expects that the changes in burden 

associated with this final rule would generally be borne only by money transmitters themselves, not their agents. In particular, 

the Bureau believes that money transmitters will generally gather and prepare recipient institution fee information centrally, 

rather than requiring their agents to do so. Similarly, the Bureau expects that money transmitters will generally investigate 

and respond to errors centrally, rather than asking their agents to take responsibility for such functions. Comment 30(f)-1 

states that a person is not deemed to be acting as a remittance transfer provider when it performs activities as an agent on 

behalf of a remittance transfer provider.

16 This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 300 money-transmitter respondents.
14

requirements for calculating “Other Fees” (pursuant to § 1005.31(b)(1)(vi)) and the total to recipient 

(pursuant to § 1005.31(b)(1)(vii)). All providers will have to remove references to “Other Taxes” from 

their forms. The modification to existing forms and systems changes would be particularly minimal for 

many providers, and the Bureau expects that some providers may not have finished any systems 

modifications necessary to comply with the 2012 Final Rule, and thus may be able to incorporate any 

changes into previously planned work. The Bureau estimates that making revisions to the systems to 

calculate the revised “Other Fees” disclosure would take 40 hours per provider. Because the forms to be 

modified are existing forms, the Bureau estimates that it would require eight hours per form per provider. 

The Bureau notes that it did receive one comment on this determination in the December Proposal (as it 

pertained to revising forms to reflect changes to “Other Taxes”). The commenter indicated that it 

believed it would take closer to forty days, rather than eight hours, to adjust disclosures and to ensure that 

appropriate calculations are made and new exclusions are incorporated properly. Insofar as the 

disclaimers will now apply to virtually all transactions (for taxes) and all transfers to non-agent accounts, 

the Bureau believes that providers generally would not face a complex process of determining which 

disclosures must contain disclaimers. Furthermore, the Bureau believes that the commenter was not 

necessarily disputing the actual amount of labor required to complete the task but instead was indicating 

that the time to complete the task would be spread across forty days due to other considerations that 

would prevent the changes to the disclosure forms from being implemented within 8 hours. Thus, the 

Bureau stands by its initial determination of eight hours. 

Due to the elimination of the requirements to disclose non-covered third-party fees and taxes 

collected by a person other than the provider, remittance transfer providers no longer will have to 

undertake to research and calculate these fees. As a result, the Bureau estimates that depository 

institutions would save, on average, 48 hours per year and non-depository institutions would save, on 

average, 21 hours per year. The Bureau cannot estimate the number of providers that will choose to 

provide optional disclosures of foreign taxes and non-covered third-party fees. The Bureau believes even 

for such providers there will be significant time savings as providers may choose to focus on heavily 

trafficked corridors where information may be more easily obtainable.

The Bureau expects that remittance transfer providers that send money to accounts, in order to 

benefit from the changes to the definition of the term error, may choose to provide senders with notice 

that if they provide incorrect account numbers or recipient institution identifiers, they could lose the 

transfer amount. Providers may also choose to maintain sufficient records to satisfy, wherever possible, 

the conditions enumerated in § 1005.33(h) (though no such recordkeeping is required). These 

enumerated conditions regard being able to demonstrate facts regarding senders’ responsibility for any 

account number or recipient institution identifier mistake; the above-referenced notice; the results of an 

incorrect account number or recipient institution identifier; and the provider’s effort to recover funds.

Because this will likely involve modifications to existing communications, the Bureau estimates 

that providing senders with the notice described above would require a one-time burden of eight hours 

per provider and would not generate any ongoing burden. With regard to demonstrating facts related to 

the conditions enumerated in § 1005.33(h), the Bureau believes that any related record retention is a 

usual and customary practice by providers under the 2012 Final Rule, and therefore there will be no 

additional burden associated with this provision. The Bureau believes that this record retention is usual 

and customary for several reasons. First, to the extent § 1005.33(h)(1) requires providers to document 
15

that a mistake was made by the sender (as opposed to the provider or a third-party), the Bureau believes 

that most, if not all, depository institutions already retain written documentation of requests to send 

remittance transfers that include information provided by the sender about the transfer. Similarly, the 

Bureau believes that non-depository institutions similarly retain documentation that adequately 

documents the details of their customers’ requests. As for the notice required by § 1005.33(h)(3), 

commenters indicated that most providers already maintain such a notice in their written materials 

provided to senders of remittance transfers and that institutions already retain these forms. 

The Bureau also estimates that to reflect the changes regarding the scope of certain errors, 

remittance transfer providers would spend, on average, one hour, to update written policies and 

procedures designed to ensure compliance with respect to the error resolution requirements applicable to 

remittance transfer providers under § 1005.33(g).

2014 Proposed Rule for Prepaid Accounts

The Bureau’s PRA estimation methodology assumes that one-time burden increases with the 

number of programs operated by a program manager.17 Ongoing burden may increase with the number 

of programs, the number of customers, or both. However, both one-time and ongoing PRA burden from 

the proposed rule is minimal. Most prepaid account programs already comply with the current 

requirements of Regulation E, as they apply to payroll card accounts. The additional proposed 

requirements would generally require small extensions or revisions to existing practices. Finally, there 

may be several participants in the prepaid account supply chain and the activities of the participants may 

vary across prepaid programs. The Bureau understands that, in general, the respondents for purposes of 

PRA are program managers, except for the collection required by § 1005.19 (internet posting of prepaid 

account agreements and submission to the Bureau), where the respondents will likely be prepaid account 

issuers.

The Bureau believes that providers of prepaid accounts generally provide account opening 

disclosures, change in terms notices, and annual error resolution notices that meet the current 

requirements of Regulation E. However, the Bureau is proposing to expand the account opening 

requirements of § 1005.7(b)(5) as applied to prepaid accounts to require the disclosure of all fees, not just 

fees for electronic fund transfers. The one-time and ongoing burden from this requirement should be 

minimal. Regulation DD already requires banks to disclose all fees for accounts covered by that 

regulation. (Credit unions are subject to a similar requirement.) Program managers for prepaid accounts 

that may not constitute accounts under Regulation DD may need to adjust their account opening 

disclosures. The Bureau believes the one-time and ongoing cost of implementing this change would be 

minimal.18

 

17 The Bureau recognizes some uncertainty regarding the rate at which the one-time burden on a program manager increases 

with the number of programs as well as uncertainty regarding the average number of programs per program manager. The 

Bureau welcomes comments on its PRA burden methodology as well as data and other factual information that could improve 

the Bureau’s estimates of PRA burden. 

18 The Bureau notes that Regulation DD requires that a periodic statement disclose all fees debited to accounts covered by that 

regulation. § 1030.6(a)(3). Regulation DD defines “account” to mean “a deposit account at a depository institution that is 

held by or offered to a consumer. It includes time, demand, savings, and negotiable order of withdrawal accounts.” 
16

Providers offering certain electronic fund transfer services for prepaid accounts would also need 

to provide transaction disclosures. For example, a disclosure would be required for transactions 

conducted at an automated teller machine. These disclosures impose minimal burden as they are 

machine-generated and do not involve an employee of the institution. For preauthorized transfers to the 

consumer’s account occurring at least once every 60 days, such as direct deposit, the institution would be 

required to provide notice as to whether the transfer occurred unless positive notice was provided by the 

payor. In lieu of sending a notice of deposit, the institution may provide a readily available telephone 

number that the consumer can call to verify receipt of the deposit. Thus, the burden of this requirement 

is also minimal. For preauthorized transfers from the account, either the institution or the payee would 

need to notify the consumer of payment variations. Because in the vast majority of instances the payee, 

rather than the account provider, would satisfy this obligation, the burden on providers is minimal. 

The Bureau is proposing that, subject to certain exceptions provided in proposed 

§ 1005.18(b)(1)(ii), a provider would be required to make available a short form and a long form 

disclosure required by § 1005.18(b)(2)(i) and (ii) before the consumer acquires the prepaid account. The 

Bureau estimates that providers, including Bureau respondents, would take 40 hours per prepaid account 

program, on average, to develop the short form disclosure and to update systems. The Bureau

understands that each provider has 2.3 programs on average, so this activity would take about 92 hours 

total per provider, of which the Bureau allocates to itself half (46 hours) when the provider is a nondepository institution. Providers would take 8 hours annually per prepaid account program (1,104 

minutes total per provider) to evaluate and if necessary update incidence-based fees on the short form 

disclosure. The Bureau recognizes this activity as requiring 552 minutes for each of 2 responses, of 

which the Bureau allocates to itself half (276 minutes) when the provider is a non-depository institution. 

Providers would incur no other ongoing costs for the short form disclosure since they already offer 

consumers a pre-acquisition disclosure. The Bureau estimates that providers, including Bureau 

respondents, would take on average 8 hours per prepaid account program to develop the long form 

disclosure and update systems. The long form disclosure is substantially the same as disclosures already 

provided in prepaid account agreements.19

Proposed § 1005.18(b)(7) would require that certain disclosures be made on the actual prepaid 

account access device. These include the name of the financial institution and the URL of a website and 

 

§ 1030.2(a). Because some prepaid accounts, as proposed herein to be defined under Regulation E, may not also constitute 

accounts as defined under Regulation DD, the Bureau is proposing new § 1005.18(c)(3) to ensure that periodic statements and 

histories of account transactions for prepaid accounts include all fees, not just those related to electronic fund transfers and 

account maintenance. As noted above, this proposed revision is authorized under EFTA section 904(c) and section 1032(a) of 

the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau solicits comment on this portion of the proposal.

19 Proposed § 1005.18(b)(2)(ii)(B) would require that the long form disclosure include the disclosures described in § 1026.60, 

regarding credit card applications and solicitations, if at any point a credit plan may be offered in connection with the prepaid 

account. This burden would be minimal give the Bureau’s burden estimation methodology for Regulation Z, as explained 

below. Under proposed § 1005.18(b)(6), if a person principally uses a foreign language on a package in a retail store, on the 

telephone or on the website the consumer utilizes to acquire a prepaid account, then both the short form and long form 

disclosures would need to be provided in that foreign language. Discussions with industry indicate that providers generally 

adopt this practice. The long form disclosure would also need to be provided in English, but this would be a minimal onetime and ongoing expense.
17

a telephone number that the consumer can use to contact the financial institution about the prepaid 

account. The Bureau believes that currently all prepaid account access devices provide these disclosures.

The Bureau’s proposal would require providers offering prepaid accounts to provide periodic 

statements unless they use the alternative method of compliance in proposed § 1005.18(c)(1). The 

Bureau expects that most providers would use the alternative method of compliance. The Bureau’s 

Study of Prepaid Account Agreements and its industry research found that most programs provide 

electronic access to account information. However, few provide at least 18 months of prepaid account 

transaction history. Further, the Bureau currently understands that prepaid programs generally do not 

provide a summary total of all fees posted to the consumer’s prepaid account, the total amount of all 

deposits to the account, and the total amount of all debits to the account for the prior calendar month and 

for the calendar year to date. The Bureau estimates that providers would take on average 24 hours per 

prepaid account program to implement these changes.

The Bureau is proposing to extend to all prepaid accounts the limited liability and error resolution 

provisions of Regulation E, as they apply to payroll card accounts.20 As discussed above, the Bureau’s 

Study of Prepaid Account Agreements and its industry research found that most providers of prepaid 

accounts provide limited liability and error resolution protections (including provisional credit) generally 

consistent with the Regulation E requirements for payroll card accounts. The Bureau estimates that 

providers (including Bureau respondents) that do not fully comply with the payroll card rule’s limited 

liability and error resolution provisions would require 8 hours per non-compliant program to develop 

fully compliant limited liability and error resolution procedures. Regarding ongoing costs, Bureau 

outreach indicates that providers receive perhaps one call per month per customer who actively uses a 

card and that 95 percent of those calls are resolved without requiring time from a customer service agent. 

Of the remaining five percent, very few calls involve assertions of error, but escalated calls can be time 

consuming and respondents incur an ongoing burden.

Finally, the Bureau is proposing in § 1005.19(b) to require certain issuers to send the Bureau 

copies of the account agreements for their prepaid account programs. The Bureau estimates each issuer 

would take on average 40 hours one-time to upload agreements and then 8 hours each quarter on an 

ongoing basis.

13. Estimated Total Annual Non-Labor / Capital Cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers

For a period of 12 months after the final rule is published in the Federal Register, financial 

institutions would be permitted to continue selling prepaid accounts that do not comply with the final 

rule’s pre-acquisition disclosure requirements, if the account and its packaging material were printed 

prior to the proposed effective date. Based on discussions with industry, the Bureau understands that 

after 12 months approximately 40 percent of stock would remain in stores and would have to be located, 

shipped, and destroyed. The Bureau recognizes a one-time cost of locating, shipping, destroying and 

 

20 The Bureau is proposing an exception from these requirements for prepaid accounts (other than payroll card accounts and 

government benefit accounts) for which the financial institution has not completed its collection of consumer identifying 

information and identity verification, provided the financial institution has disclosed to the consumer the risks of not 

registering the prepaid account. 
18

replacing these cards of approximately $17 million. 

14. Estimated Cost to the Federal Government

The Bureau is proposing that providers of prepaid accounts would be required to send the Bureau 

copies of the account agreements for their prepaid account programs. The Bureau would incur costs in 

processing and reviewing prepaid account program agreements that providers would send in compliance 

with the proposal.

15. Program Changes or Adjustments

Summary of Burden Changes

Annual 

Responses Burden Hours Cost Burden (O & M)

Total Burden Hours

Requested 7,244,430 4,035,332 $17,000,000

Current OMB Inventory 7,237,760 4,014,300 0

Difference (+/-) +6,670 +21,032 +17,000,000

 Program Change 6,670 21,032 17,000,0000

 Discretionary 6,670 21,032 17,000,0000

 Due to New Statute 0 0 0

 Violation 0 0 0

 Adjustment 0 0 0

The Bureau is requesting a program change of 21,032 hours (from 4,014,300 to 4,035,332). This 

change in burden results from the proposed amendments to 12 CFR Part 1005 (“Regulation E”).

16. Plans for Tabulation, Statistical Analysis, and Publication

Not applicable.

17. Display of Expiration Date

The OMB number will be displayed in the PRA section of the notice of final rulemaking and in the 

codified version of the Code of Federal Regulations. Further, the OMB control number and expiration 

date will be displayed on OMB’s public PRA docket at www.reginfo.gov.

18. Exceptions to the Certification Requirement

The Bureau certifies that this collection of information is consistent with the requirements of 5 CFR 

1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) and is not seeking an exemption to these 

certification requirements.
19

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

Not applicable.