This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

18221 

Vol. 78, No. 58 

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 

1The new statutory amendment in Public Law 

Number 112–216 uses the term ‘‘automatic teller 

machine’’ in the title of the legislation, though the 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E use 

the term ‘‘automated teller machine.’’ The Bureau 

considers the two terms to be synonymous. 

2Claes Bell, ATM fees march upward in 2011, 

Bankrate.com (Sept. 26, 2011). http:// 

www.bankrate.com/finance/checking/atm-feesmarch-upward-in-2011.aspx. Fee information 

updated in 2012 is also available from 

Bankrate.com, but it is presented by metropolitan 

area, not as a nationwide average. See http:// 

www.bankrate.com/finance/checking/checkingaccount-fees.aspx. 

3 15 U.S.C. 1693m(a); EFTA section 916. 

4 15 U.S.C. 1693h(d), as adopted by section 705 

of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, Public Law 106– 

102 (1999). 

5The Conference Report reiterates this provision: 

‘‘ATM operators are exempt from liability if 

properly placed notices on the machines are 

subsequently removed, damaged, or altered by 

anyone other than the ATM operator.’’ H.R. Rep. 

No. 106–434, at 178 (1999) (Conf. Rep.). 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1005 

[Docket No. CFPB–2013–0006] 

RIN 3170–AA36 

Disclosures at Automated Teller 

Machines (Regulation E) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection is amending 

Regulation E (Electronic Fund 

Transfers), which implements the 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 

and the official interpretation to the 

regulation. In December 2012, Congress 

passed and the President signed 

legislation amending the EFTA to 

eliminate a requirement that a fee notice 

be posted on or at automated teller 

machines, leaving in place the 

requirement for a specific fee disclosure 

to appear on the screen of that machine 

or on paper issued from the machine. 

This final rule amends Regulation E to 

conform to the EFTA amendment. 

DATE: This rule is effective on March 26, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Devlin, Counsel, Office of 

Regulations, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435– 

7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

ATM Fees 

Consumers using automated teller 

machines 1 (ATMs) not provided by 

their financial institution (foreign 

ATMs) to withdraw money or check 

balances will typically pay two fees for 

a single transaction. First, the operator 

of the foreign ATM (which may or may 

not be a financial institution) will 

usually impose a charge. A recent 

survey indicates that the average ATM 

charge imposed by foreign ATMs is 

$2.40.2 Second, the consumer’s own 

financial institution also may impose a 

charge for using a foreign ATM. That 

charge averages $1.40, according to the 

same survey. Thus, the average total 

charge for using a foreign ATM, 

combining the foreign ATM fee and the 

fee charged by the consumer’s own 

financial institution, is $3.80. The 

average foreign ATM charge has risen 

steadily since 2004, when the charge 

was less than $1.50. 

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act 

Congress amended the Electronic 

Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) in 1999 to 

require ATM fee disclosures to be both 

(1) posted ‘‘in a prominent and 

conspicuous location on or at the 

[ATM],’’ and (2) provided on the screen 

or on a paper notice issued from the 

ATM. As amended, section 904(d)(3) of 

the EFTA stated that the on-screen 

notice had to include the specific 

amount of the fee the consumer would 

be charged by the foreign ATM operator, 

but the notice posted ‘‘on or at’’ the 

machine only had to disclose ‘‘the fact 

that a fee is imposed by such operator 

for providing the service.’’ Section 

904(d)(3)(C) of the EFTA barred ATM 

operators from charging a fee if the 

disclosures did not occur. The ‘‘on or 

at’’ notice usually involved a sticker 

placed on the machine by the ATM 

operator. The on-screen or paper notice 

was required to be given ‘‘after the 

transaction is initiated and before the 

consumer is irrevocably committed to 

completing the transaction.’’ The statute 

allowed operators five years to 

implement the technology needed to 

disclose on the screen. The statute did 

not, however, provide that once the five 

years elapsed operators could cease 

providing the separate notice ‘‘on or at’’ 

the machine. 

In a private cause of action brought by 

a consumer for failure to provide the 

required notices, an ATM operator 

could be liable for actual damages, 

statutory damages for individual or class 

actions, and costs and attorney’s fees.3

However, in EFTA section 910(d), 

Congress also established a broad 

liability protection for the ATM operator 

if the ATM notice ‘‘on or at’’ the 

machine were damaged or removed 

from the machine by someone else.4

Thus, the statute provides that an 

operator is not liable if it posted the ‘‘on 

or at’’ notice and someone else removed 

or damaged it.5

Implementation of the 1999 

Amendment 

The Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System (Board) issued 

regulations to implement the ATM 

disclosure requirements in 2001 as part 

of Regulation E, which implements 

EFTA. Those regulations, which the 

CFPB republished in 2011 after 

authority to implement Regulation E 

transferred to the Bureau, provide at 12 

CFR 1005.16(c) that an ATM operator 

must ‘‘[p]ost in a prominent and 

conspicuous location on or at the 

automated teller machine a notice that’’ 

a fee will or may be imposed ‘‘for 

providing electronic fund transfer 

services or for a balance inquiry.’’ The 

regulation further implemented the 

statute by requiring an on-screen or 

paper notice that includes the amount of 

the fee and is provided before the 

consumer is committed to paying a fee. 

Consistent with the statute prior to 

the December 2012 amendment 

necessitating this rule change, the 

regulation does not require that the ‘‘on 

or at’’ notice disclose the amount of the 

fee. Also, operators are allowed to 

disclose on or at the machine that a fee 

‘‘may’’ be imposed—rather than ‘‘will’’ 

be imposed—if there are circumstances 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6 76 FR 75825 (Dec. 5, 2011). This was one of 

many issues on which the RFI solicited comment. 

7Public Law 111–203, sec. 1061(a)(1) (2010). 

Effective on the designated transfer date, the Bureau 

was also granted ‘‘all powers and duties’’ vested in 

each of the Federal agencies, relating to the 

consumer financial protection functions, on the day 

before the designated transfer date. Id. sec. 1061(b). 

8Public Law 111–203, sec. 1002(14) (defining 

‘‘Federal consumer financial law’’ to include the 

‘‘enumerated consumer laws’’); id. Sec. 1002(12) 

(defining ‘‘enumerated consumer laws’’ to include 

EFTA). 

9 15 U.S.C. 1693(d)(3). 

in which an ATM fee may not be 

charged. The Bureau believes that ‘‘on 

or at’’ notices generally use the word 

‘‘may.’’ 

The Official Interpretation to 

Regulation E, in supplement I to part 

1005, includes Comment 16(b)–1, which 

explains the permissibility of the use of 

the word ‘‘may’’ in the ‘‘on or at’’ the 

machine disclosure, and makes clear 

that an ATM operator may specify the 

type of service for which a fee will or 

may apply. 

In the Board’s initial rulemaking 

implementing the 1999 amendments to 

the EFTA, some commenters requested 

that the Board eliminate the ‘‘on or at’’ 

notice requirement. The Board, 

however, responded that it lacked the 

authority to do so: ‘‘Several commenters 

requested action outside the scope of 

the Board’s authority, such as deleting 

the statutory requirement to post a sign 

about fees at the ATM as unnecessary 

and burdensome or prohibiting ATM 

surcharges.’’ 66 FR 13409, 13410 (March 

6, 2001). 

The Bureau’s Streamlining Request for 

Information 

In 2011, rule-writing authority over 

the EFTA was transferred to the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection 

(Bureau) by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(Dodd-Frank Act). Public Law 111–203, 

sec. 1061(b)(1), 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

Shortly after the transfer, the Bureau 

was made aware of long-standing 

concerns that the ‘‘on or at’’ notice 

requirement provides little or no benefit 

to consumers and is the subject of costly 

litigation alleging that the ‘‘on or at’’ 

notice was not properly posted. 

Pursuant to those concerns, the Bureau 

sought public comment on the 

advisability of removing this 

requirement in its Streamlining 

Inherited Regulations Request for 

Information (Streamlining RFI).6

Industry trade associations asked the 

Bureau to remove the requirement if it 

was within its authority to do so or, if 

not, to clarify publicly that it lacked 

such authority. Many individual banks 

and credit unions also asked the Bureau 

to remove the requirement. Many of the 

strongly negative comments about the 

requirement were from small entities, 

including many small ATM operators. 

An association of state bank regulators 

and an individual state banking division 

also favored removing the requirement. 

Industry commenters argued that: (1) 

The requirement does not benefit 

consumers because almost all 

consumers know that a fee will be 

charged, and the on-screen disclosure 

provides sufficient notice of the fee and 

amount before the transaction takes 

place; (2) vigilant compliance with the 

provision adds to costs; (3) the litigation 

over the provision is costly and 

threatens the existence of some small 

operators, potentially reducing ATM 

availability for consumers; and (4) some 

of the ‘‘on or at’’ notices are removed in 

order to support litigation, and the 

provision providing liability protection 

is not sufficient because of evidentiary 

problems. 

In contrast, a joint letter of several 

leading consumer and community 

groups opposed removing the 

requirement. In addition, four national 

consumer groups wrote to Congress 

opposing legislation to remove the 

requirement. The consumer groups 

proposed instead that the Bureau clarify 

the statutory provision that gives ATM 

operators immunity from liability in 

certain cases. An attorney who has 

brought cases against banks wrote two 

comment letters to the Bureau in 

support of the requirement. 

The consumer advocates argued that: 

(1) The Bureau has no authority to 

remove the requirement without 

Congressional action; (2) some 

consumers are unaware that a foreign 

ATM will charge a fee, and they will be 

less likely to forgo a transaction they 

have almost completed; (3) the ‘‘on or 

at’’ notice may be the only indication a 

consumer gets of the potential fee 

charged by the consumer’s own 

financial institution; and (4) ATM 

operators who are the subject of 

litigation have violated the law. 

The December 2012 Statutory 

Amendment 

While the Bureau was considering 

this issue, legislation amending the 

relevant provision of the EFTA passed 

Congress and was signed into law on 

December 20, 2012 (December 2012 

Legislation). Public Law 112–216. The 

legislation amends only the specific 

provision, at EFTA section 904(d)(3)(B), 

addressing the ATM fee disclosures, 

deleting the ‘‘on or at’’ requirement and 

some obsolete transitional language. The 

on-screen or paper disclosure 

requirement remains unchanged. 

II. Legal Authority 

The Bureau is issuing this final rule 

pursuant to its authority under EFTA 

and the Dodd-Frank Act. Effective July 

21, 2011, section 1061 of the DoddFrank Act transferred to the Bureau the 

‘‘consumer financial protection 

functions’’ previously vested in certain 

other Federal agencies. The term 

‘‘consumer financial protection 

functions’’ is defined to include ‘‘all 

authority to prescribe rules or issue 

orders or guidelines pursuant to any 

Federal consumer financial law, 

including performing appropriate 

functions to promulgate and review 

such rules, orders, and guidelines.’’ 7

EFTA is a Federal consumer financial 

law.8 Accordingly, effective July 21, 

2011, except with respect to persons 

excluded from the Bureau’s rulemaking 

authority by section 1029 of the DoddFrank Act, the authority of the Board to 

issue regulations pursuant to EFTA 

transferred to the Bureau. 

EFTA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank 

Act, authorizes the Bureau to ‘‘prescribe 

rules to carry out the purposes of 

[EFTA].’’ Public Law 111–203, sec. 

1084(3); 15 U.S.C. 1693b(a). Section 

904(d)(3) 9 of EFTA, as amended by 

Dodd-Frank Act section 1084(1), 

requires those rules to mandate specific 

fee disclosures at ATMs. 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

The December 2012 Legislation 

deletes from the EFTA the requirement 

that a fee notice be posted ‘‘on or at’’ an 

ATM. The Bureau, therefore, is issuing 

a final rule conforming Regulation E to 

the statutory amendment eliminating 

this requirement. Section 1005.16 of 

Regulation E is now amended by 

deleting the language requiring that 

disclosure. ATM operators will now 

only have to provide the on-screen or 

paper disclosure, which includes the 

amount of the fee to be charged and is 

provided before the consumer is 

committed to the transaction. 

In addition to the deletion of the rule 

language requiring the ‘‘on or at’’ the 

machine disclosure, the Bureau is 

deleting Official Comment 16(b)(1)–1, 

which interpreted that requirement in 

regard to the permissible use of the 

word ‘‘may’’ in the disclosure, as well 

as the use of more specific language in 

making the ‘‘on or at’’ the machine 

disclosure. Because the requirement to 

which the comment pertains has been 

eliminated, there is no longer a need for 

this interpretation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18223 

10Specifically, section 1022(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 section 1026 of the Act; and the 

impact on consumers in rural areas. The manner 

and extent to which the provisions of section 

1022(b)(2) apply to a rule of this kind are unclear. 

Nevertheless, to inform this rulemaking more fully, 

the Bureau performed the described analyses and 

consultations. 

11The Bureau found only one study of awareness, 

which is over a decade old. A 2000 consumer 

survey commissioned by an ATM network (PULSE) 

found that 86 percent of consumers surveyed said 

they were adequately informed of charges they 

sometimes pay to withdraw cash from ATMs. The 

PULSE network, Pulsations (May 2000). Moreover, 

96 percent of consumers who said they paid a 

surcharge in the last 14 days reported feeling that 

ATM fee disclosures were sufficient. The Bureau 

believes this survey has limited value since 

respondents may have felt disclosures were 

adequate but have been ignorant of the fees. 

Moreover, it is possible that consumers claimed 

awareness in part because they had read the notice 

‘‘on or at’’ the ATM. However, the Bureau believes 

that whatever the level of awareness of foreign 

institution fees, the level will not drop significantly 

when the notice on or at the ATM is removed. The 

on-screen disclosure is clear and pointed and 

requires the consumer affirmatively to accept the 

fee before proceeding. 

12 12 CFR 1005.7(b)(5), 12 CFR 1005.9(b)(3). 

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

In developing the final rule, the 

Bureau has considered potential 

benefits, costs, and impacts,10 and has 

consulted or offered to consult with the 

prudential regulators and the Federal 

Trade Commission, including regarding 

consistency with any prudential, 

market, or systemic objectives 

administered by such agencies. 

The final rule deletes a requirement 

that an ATM operator post a notice on 

or at an ATM machine informing 

consumers that a fee will or may be 

charged for use of the machine. Because 

this final rule merely conforms a 

regulation to a mandatory statutory 

amendment, and does not involve any 

exercise of agency discretion, the 

Bureau does not believe that the rule 

itself will have any benefits, costs, or 

impacts beyond those caused by the 

statute. In addition, the Bureau does not 

expect the final rule to cause a 

reduction in consumer access to credit. 

However, for informational purposes, 

the following discussion considers the 

benefits, costs, and impacts of the 

statutory amendment being 

implemented. 

The Bureau believes that the benefits 

of the ‘‘on or at’’ notice requirement for 

consumers were likely more significant 

when it was adopted than they are 

today. The Bureau understands that 

when the requirement was enacted in 

1999, ATMs did not always disclose 

fees on-screen. That is presumably why 

the statute allowed the industry five 

years to come into compliance with the 

on-screen requirement. Thus, for several 

years, the ‘‘on or at’’ notice might be the 

only fee disclosure a consumer would 

receive at the ATM. 

Now, however, the Bureau believes 

that awareness that foreign ATMs 

charge a fee is already widespread, and 

thus the ‘‘on or at’’ notice provides little 

benefit to consumers with respect to 

foreign ATM fees.11 Moreover, the ‘‘on 

or at’’ notice contains much less useful 

information about the foreign ATM fee 

than the on-screen disclosure. The ‘‘on 

or at’’ notice does not tell the consumer 

the amount of the fee or whether or not 

a fee will be charged—it usually only 

states that a fee ‘‘may’’ be charged. For 

these reasons, the Bureau considers the 

consumer benefit from the requirement 

being eliminated to be minimal. 

In contrast, the Bureau considers the 

on-screen disclosure of the foreign fee 

amount and the screen’s prompt 

requiring the consumer to agree to the 

fee to be a more effective means of 

disclosure. Although the consumer must 

begin the transaction before receiving 

this disclosure, the disclosure must 

occur before the transaction is 

completed, and the consumer then has 

the necessary price information before 

purchasing the service. The Bureau 

understands that fees at foreign ATMs 

have been increasing, so a disclosure of 

the specific price before purchase 

appears to be the most effective way to 

empower consumers in regard to this 

type of transaction. This consumer 

benefit will continue undisturbed when 

the ‘‘on or at’’ the machine disclosure is 

eliminated. 

In regard to a consumer’s own 

financial institution charging a fee for 

using a foreign ATM, neither the 

regulation nor the statute currently 

requires the ATM operator to disclose 

the potential existence or amount of that 

fee, of which the foreign ATM operator 

has no knowledge. Rather, the 

consumer’s financial institution is 

required to disclose the fee when the 

account is opened and on a monthly 

statement when the fee is charged.12

Also, the ongoing nature of consumers’ 

relationships with their own financial 

institutions should help to discipline 

fee pricing better than a disclosure given 

as part of the one-off transactions that 

often occur with foreign ATMs. 

Accordingly, the ATM fee charged by 

consumers’ own financial institutions 

for use of foreign ATMs appears to be 

less potentially harmful for consumers 

in the first place, and the disclosure that 

is being eliminated provided minimal 

consumer benefit in regard to it. 

The compliance burden of the 

disclosure being eliminated appears not 

to have been very large. Costs included 

purchase of stickers or other disclosure 

means, personnel costs for placing and 

replacing stickers or other disclosure 

means, and monitoring whether or not 

the disclosures remained present and 

undamaged. Because the machines 

would need to be serviced and stocked 

regularly, it is likely that little extra 

travel or work time was needed. 

However, there was some burden, 

which is now being eliminated. 

The statutory amendment and this 

conforming final rule have no unique 

impact on insured depository 

institutions or insured credit unions 

with $10 billion or less in assets as 

described in section 1026 of the DoddFrank Act, nor does the amendment or 

this rule have a unique impact on rural 

consumers. 

V. Administrative Procedure Act 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA), notice and opportunity for 

public comment are not required if the 

Bureau finds that notice and public 

comment are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to 

this final rule, 12 CFR 1005.16 is 

amended to conform to a statutory 

change. The Bureau finds there is good 

cause under APA section 553 to issue 

this amendment to Regulation E as a 

final rule without advance notice and 

public comment because ‘‘notice and 

public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ 

Because the December 2012 

Legislation mandates the elimination of 

the ‘‘on or at’’ the machine disclosure 

requirement, notice-and-comment 

procedures on this rule are unnecessary. 

Any delay in conforming the regulation 

to Congress’s mandate as a result of 

such procedures would perpetuate 

inconsistency and confusion contrary to 

the public interest. Moreover, the 

Bureau is already informed as to the 

major concerns of stakeholders in this 

issue through the public comments 

received in response to the Streamlining 

RFI. For these reasons, the Bureau has 

determined that publishing a notice of 

proposed rulemaking and providing 

opportunity for public comment are 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. The Bureau adopts the 

amendment in final form. 

Further, under section 553(d) of the 

APA, the required publication or service 

of a substantive rule must be made not 

less than 30 days before its effective 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

date except for certain instances, 

including when a substantive rule 

grants or recognizes an exemption or 

relieves a restriction. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). As 

this rule relieves a disclosure 

requirement and restriction on charging 

ATM fees, and is therefore a substantive 

rule that relieves requirements and 

restrictions, the Bureau is publishing 

this final rule less than 30 days before 

its effective date. As it is in the public 

interest to make the regulation conform 

to the statute as soon as possible, the 

Bureau is making the final rule effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

does not apply to a rulemaking where 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

is not required. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

As noted previously, the Bureau has 

determined that it is unnecessary to 

publish a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking for this final rule. 

Accordingly the RFA’s requirements 

relating to an initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis do not apply. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., and notwithstanding any 

other provisions of law, the Bureau may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection unless it 

displays a valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. The 

collection of information related to this 

final rule has been previously reviewed 

and approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in 

accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d), and assigned OMB Control 

Number 3170–0014 (Expiration Date 03/ 

31/15). The Bureau determined that this 

final 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 PRA. This 

final rule revises a third-party 

disclosure requirement currently 

approved under the aforementioned 

OMB control number by eliminating the 

requirement that ATMs have an ‘‘on or 

at’’ notice posted disclosing that a 

consumer will or may be charged a fee. 

The Bureau has filed a no material nonsubstantive change request with OMB 

requesting that this third-party 

disclosure requirement be moved from 

OMB control number 3170–0014. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1005 

Consumer protection, Electronic 

funds transfers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Automated 

teller machines. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Bureau is amending Regulation E, 12 

CFR part 1005, as set forth below: 

PART 1005—ELECTRONIC FUND 

TRANSFERS (REGULATION E) 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 1005 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1693b. 

■ 2. Amend § 1005.16 by revising 

paragraphs (b) through (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1005.16 Disclosures at automated teller 

machines. 

* * * * * 

(b) General. An automated teller 

machine operator that imposes a fee on 

a consumer for initiating an electronic 

fund transfer or a balance inquiry must 

provide a notice that a fee will be 

imposed for providing electronic fund 

transfer services or a balance inquiry 

that discloses the amount of the fee. 

(c) Notice requirement. An automated 

teller machine operator must provide 

the notice required by paragraph (b) of 

this section either by showing it on the 

screen of the automated teller machine 

or by providing it on paper, before the 

consumer is committed to paying a fee. 

(d) Imposition of fee. An automated 

teller machine operator may impose a 

fee on a consumer for initiating an 

electronic fund transfer or a balance 

inquiry only if: 

(1) The consumer is provided the 

notice required under paragraph (c) of 

this section, and 

(2) The consumer elects to continue 

the transaction or inquiry after receiving 

such notice. 

Supplement I to Part 1005 [Amended] 

■ 3. In Supplement I to Part 1005, 

remove Section 1005.16. 

Dated: March 20, 2013. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06861 Filed 3–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1088; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–SW–005–AD; Amendment 

39–17387; AD 2013–05–15] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson 

Helicopter Company Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Robinson Helicopter Company 

(Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II 

helicopters equipped with emergency 

floats. This AD requires replacing the 

inflation valve assembly. This AD was 

prompted by the failure of the 

emergency floats to deploy during a 

factory test because a needle was 

binding within the inflation valve 

assembly. The actions are intended to 

prevent the failure of the floats to inflate 

during an emergency landing. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 30, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Robinson 

Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport 

Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone 

(310) 539–0508; fax (310) 539–5198; or 

at http://www.robinsonheli.com. You 

may review a copy of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, any 

incorporated-by-reference service 

information, the economic evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (phone: 800– 

647–5527) is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations 

Office, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Venessa Stiger, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety/Mechanical & 

Environmental Systems, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, Transport 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES