This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

3720 

Vol. 90, No. 9 

Wednesday, January 15, 2025 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 906 

[Doc. No. AMS–SC–24–0046] 

Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in 

Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; 

Increased Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement a recommendation from the 

Texas Valley Citrus Committee 

(Committee) to increase the assessment 

rate established for the 2024–2025 and 

subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to 

$0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or 

equivalent of oranges and grapefruit 

grown in Texas. The proposed 

assessment rate would remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 14, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposed rule. 

Comments can be sent to the Docket 

Clerk, Market Development Division, 

Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237. 

Comments can also be sent to the 

Docket Clerk electronically by Email: 

MarketingOrderComment@usda.gov or 

via the internet at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Comments should 

reference the document number and the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register. Comments 

submitted in response to this proposed 

rule will be included in the record, will 

be made available to the public and can 

be viewed at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Please be advised 

that the identity of the individuals or 

entities submitting the comments will 

be made public on the internet at the 

address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Delaney Fuhrmeister, Marketing 

Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Chief, 

Southeast Region Branch, Market 

Development Division, Specialty Crops 

Program, AMS, USDA; telephone: (863) 

324–3375 or email: 

Delaney.Fuhrmeister@usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Antoinette 

Carter, Market Development Division, 

Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

telephone: (202) 720–8085, or email: 

Antoinette.Carter@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, 

proposes to amend regulations issued to 

carry out a marketing order as defined 

in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is 

issued under Marketing Order No. 906 

as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating 

the handling of oranges and grapefruit 

grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley 

in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as ‘‘the 

Order’’) is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ The 

Committee locally administers the 

Order and is comprised of producers 

and handlers of oranges and grapefruit 

operating within the area of production. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) is issuing this proposed rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 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, distributive impacts, 

and equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

14094 reaffirms, supplements and 

updates Executive Order 12866 and 

further directs agencies to solicit and 

consider input from a wide range of 

affected and interested parties through a 

variety of means. This proposed action 

falls within a category of regulatory 

actions that the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) exempted from 

Executive Order 12866 review. 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13175— 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, which 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

whether their rulemaking actions would 

have Tribal implications. AMS has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

unlikely to have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988—Civil 

Justice Reform. Under the Order now in 

effect, Texas orange and grapefruit 

handlers are subject to assessments. 

Funds to administer the Order are 

derived from such assessments. It is 

intended that the proposed assessment 

rate would be applicable to all 

assessable Texas citrus for the 2024– 

2025 fiscal period, and continue until 

amended, suspended, or terminated. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) a petition stating that the order, 

any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing, USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States in any 

district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 

review USDA’s ruling on the petition, 

provided an action is filed not later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

This proposed rule would increase 

the assessment rate for Texas oranges 

and grapefruit handled under the Order 

from $0.03 to $0.04 per 7/10-bushel 

carton or equivalent for the 2024–2025 

fiscal period and subsequent fiscal 

periods. 

Sections 906.33 and 906.34 of the 

Order authorize the Committee, with the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3721 

approval of AMS, to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses and collect 

assessments from handlers to administer 

the program. The members of the 

Committee are familiar with the 

Committee’s needs and with the costs of 

goods and services in their local area 

and can formulate an appropriate 

budget and assessment rate. The 

assessment rate is formulated and 

discussed in a public meeting, and all 

directly affected persons have an 

opportunity to participate and provide 

input. 

For the 2022–23 and subsequent fiscal 

periods, the Committee recommended, 

and AMS approved, an assessment rate 

of $0.03 per 7/10-bushel carton or 

equivalent of Texas citrus within the 

production area. That rate continues in 

effect from fiscal period to fiscal period 

until modified, suspended, or 

terminated by AMS upon 

recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

information available to AMS. 

The Committee met on June 18, 2024, 

and unanimously recommended 2024– 

2025 fiscal period expenditures of 

$134,970 and an increased assessment 

rate of $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or 

equivalent of Texas oranges and 

grapefruit handled for 2024–2025 fiscal 

periods. The budgeted expenditures 

remain unchanged compared to last 

year’s recommended expenditures. The 

proposed assessment rate of $0.04 is 

$0.01 higher than the rate currently in 

effect. The Committee recommended 

increasing the assessment rate to cover 

expenses for the current fiscal year and 

replenish reserves. The Committee 

estimates shipments for the 2024–2025 

fiscal period to be around 4,000,000 7/ 

10-bushel cartons or equivalents, similar 

to the 3,976,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents handled in the 2023–2024 

fiscal period. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2024–2025 fiscal period include $66,220 

for management expenses, $50,000 for 

compliance, and $18,750 for general 

administrative expenses, the same as 

budgeted for these items during the 

2023–2024 fiscal period. 

At the current assessment rate of 

$0.03, the expected 4,000,000 7/10- 

bushel cartons or equivalents would 

generate $120,000 in assessment 

revenue (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons 

or equivalents multiplied by $0.03 

assessment rate), which would not cover 

budgeted expenses. Further, shipments 

from the 2023–2024 fiscal period were 

approximately 4,000,000 7/10-bushel 

cartons or equivalents of citrus, which 

was well below the estimated crop of 

5,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents. The smaller crop forced the 

Committee to use the remainder of their 

reserves to help cover 2023–2024 fiscal 

period expenses. Consequently, the 

Committee recommended increasing the 

assessment rate to meet necessary 

expenses and restore reserves. By 

increasing the assessment rate from 

$0.03 to $0.04, assessment income 

would generate $160,000 in assessment 

revenue (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons 

or equivalents multiplied by $0.04 

assessment rate). This amount should be 

appropriate to ensure the Committee has 

sufficient revenue to fully fund its 

recommended 2024–2025 budgeted 

expenditures and replenish the 

Committee’s reserve funds. 

The Committee derived the 

recommended assessment rate by 

reviewing anticipated expenses, the 

estimated volume of assessable Texas 

citrus, and the level of funds available 

in the financial reserve. Income 

generated from handler assessments 

should be sufficient to meet the 

Committee’s estimated program 

expenditures of $134,970. Funds 

available in the financial reserve 

(currently about $0) would be kept 

within the maximum permitted by the 

Order (approximately one fiscal period’s 

expenses as authorized in § 906.35). 

The proposed assessment rate would 

continue in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated by 

AMS upon recommendation and 

information submitted by the 

Committee or other available 

information. Although this assessment 

rate would be in effect for an indefinite 

period, the Committee will continue to 

meet prior to or during each fiscal 

period to recommend a budget of 

expenses and consider 

recommendations for modification of 

the assessment rate. The dates and times 

of Committee meetings are available 

from the Committee or AMS. Committee 

meetings are open to the public and 

interested persons may express their 

views at these meetings. AMS would 

evaluate Committee recommendations 

and other available information to 

determine whether modification of the 

assessment rate is needed. Further 

rulemaking would be undertaken as 

necessary. The Committee’s 2024–2025 

fiscal period budget, and those for 

subsequent fiscal periods, will be 

reviewed and, as appropriate, approved 

by AMS. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), AMS has considered 

the economic impact of this proposed 

rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to such actions in 

order that small businesses will not be 

unduly or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 17 handlers 

of Texas oranges and grapefruit subject 

to regulation under the Order and 

approximately 75 orange and grapefruit 

producers in the regulated area. At the 

time this analysis was prepared, the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

defined small agricultural producers as 

those having annual receipts equal to or 

less than $4 million for orange 

producers (North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 

111310), and $4.25 million for other 

citrus producers (including grapefruit) 

(NAICS code 111320). Small 

agricultural service firms, including 

handlers, are defined as those whose 

annual receipts are equal to or less than 

$34 million (NAICS code 115114) (13 

CFR 121.201). 

According to data from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 

the producer prices for U.S. fresh 

oranges and grapefruit were $11.63 and 

$15.63 per carton, respectively. The 

prices for U.S. fresh oranges and 

grapefruit are used for this RFA because 

NASS does not publish fresh citrus 

prices for Texas. Based on data provided 

by the Committee, the number of orange 

and grapefruit 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents shipped in the 2023–2024 

season were 1,462,800 and 2,513,258, 

respectively. 

Using the producer prices, shipment 

data, and the total number of Texas 

orange and grapefruit producers, and 

assuming a normal distribution, the 

majority of producers have estimated 

average annual receipts of significantly 

less than the SBA threshold of $4 

million ($11.63 multiplied by 1,462,800 

cartons plus $15.63 multiplied by 

2,513,258 cartons equals $112,564,041, 

divided by 75 producers equals 

$750,594 per producer). 

In addition, based on the NASS data, 

the average prices of fresh U.S. oranges 

and grapefruit handled for 2023–2024 

were $18.40 and $23.05, respectively. 

Using the same shipment data from the 

Committee, the number of orange and 

grapefruit cartons shipped in the 2023– 

2024 season, and assuming a normal 

distribution, the majority of Texas 

orange and grapefruit handlers have 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3722 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

average annual receipts of less than $34 

million ($18.40 multiplied by 1,462,800 

cartons plus $23.05 multiplied by 

2,513,258 cartons equals $84,846,117, 

divided by 17 handlers equals 

$4,990,948 per handler). Thus, the 

majority of Texas orange and grapefruit 

producers and handlers may be 

classified as small entities. 

This proposal would increase the 

assessment rate collected from handlers 

for the 2024–2025 fiscal period and 

subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to 

$0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or 

equivalent of Texas oranges and 

grapefruit. The Committee unanimously 

recommended 2024–2025 expenditures 

of $134,970 and an assessment rate of 

$0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or 

equivalent. The recommended 

assessment rate of $0.04 is $0.01 higher 

than the current assessment rate. The 

2024–2025 crop year is estimated to be 

4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents. The $0.04 per 7/10-bushel 

carton or equivalent assessment rate 

should provide $160,000 in assessment 

income (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons 

or equivalents multiplied by $0.04 

assessment rate). Income derived from 

handler assessments should be 

sufficient to cover budgeted expenses. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2024–25 fiscal period include $66,220 

for management expenses, $50,000 for 

compliance, and $18,750 for general 

administrative expenses. This is the 

same as budgeted for these items during 

the 2023–2024 fiscal period. 

The Committee recommended 

increasing the assessment rate to meet 

necessary expenses and restore reserves. 

The reserves were depleted when 

shipments from the 2023–2024 fiscal 

period were approximately 4,000,000 7/ 

10-bushel cartons or equivalents, which 

was well below the estimated crop of 

5,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents. The Committee estimates 

shipments for the 2024–2025 season to 

be around 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons 

or equivalents. Given the estimated 

number of shipments, the current 

assessment rate of $0.03 would generate 

$120,000 in assessment income 

(4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents multiplied by $0.03 

assessment rate), which would not cover 

budgeted expenses. By increasing the 

assessment rate from $0.03 to $0.04, 

assessment income would be $160,000 

(4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalents multiplied by $0.04 

assessment rate). This amount should 

provide sufficient funds to meet 

anticipated 2024–2025 expenses, while 

adding money to the financial reserve. 

Prior to arriving at this budget and 

assessment rate recommendation, the 

Committee considered alternatives from 

the Committee staff during a discussion 

at the June 18, 2024, meeting. Staff 

prepared fifteen different proposed 

budgets with different combinations of 

assessment rates, estimated shipments, 

and alternate expenditure levels. The 

Committee determined maintaining 

expenses and estimated shipments of 

4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or 

equivalent of oranges and grapefruit 

were representative of the 2024–2025 

fiscal period, and an assessment rate of 

$0.04 would cover expenditures and 

add funds to the financial reserve. 

Consequently, the other alternatives 

were rejected. 

A review of historical and preliminary 

information pertaining to the 2024–2025 

fiscal period indicates the average 

producer price for Texas oranges and 

grapefruit for the 2024–2025 season 

should be approximately $14.15 per 7/ 

10-bushel carton or equivalent. 

Therefore, utilizing the recommended 

assessment rate of $0.04 per 7/10-bushel 

carton or equivalent, assessment 

revenue for the 2024 fiscal period as a 

percentage of total producer revenue 

would be approximately 0.2 percent 

($0.04 divided by $14.15 times 100). 

This proposed rule would increase 

the assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. Assessments are applied 

uniformly on all handlers, and some of 

the costs may be passed on to 

producers. However, these costs are 

expected be offset by the benefits 

derived by the operation of the Order. 

The Committee’s meetings are widely 

publicized throughout the Texas citrus 

industry and all interested persons are 

invited to attend the meetings and 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all Committee 

meetings, the June 18, 2024, meeting 

was a public meeting and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express views on this issue. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

information collection impacts of this 

action on small businesses. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the Order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Fruit 

Crops. No changes in those 

requirements would be necessary 

because of this proposed rule. Should 

any changes become necessary, they 

would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large Texas citrus handlers. As 

with all Federal marketing order 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS 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. 

AMS has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this proposed rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: https://

www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/ 

moa/small-businesses. Any questions 

about the compliance guide should be 

sent to Antoinette Carter at the 

previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendations 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, AMS has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

consistent with, and would effectuate 

the purposes of, the Act. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. All written 

comments timely received will be 

considered before a final determination 

is made on this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906 

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, 

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 

906 as follows: 

PART 906—ORANGES AND 

GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO 

GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 906 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 906.235 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 906.235 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2024, an 

assessment rate of $0.04 per 7/10-bushel 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3723 

1See Electronic Fund Transfers, Public Law 95– 

630, tit. XX, section 2001, 92 Stat. 3728 (1978); see 

also S. Rept. 95–1273 at 10 (1978) (‘‘EFT payment 

systems, which now involve billions of dollars 

annually and are growing in size, must have clearly 

defined rules to operate fairly, efficiently, and with 

public confidence.’’). 

2See 15 U.S.C. 1693m, 1693o. 

3Clemmer v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n, 539 F.3d 349, 

353 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Curtis 

v. Propel Prop. Tax Funding, LLC, 915 F.3d 234, 

239 (4th Cir. 2019). 

4Electronic Fund Transfer Act, H. Rept. 95–1315, 

at 5 (1978) (discussing definition of ‘‘financial 

institution’’); see also, e.g., S. Rept. 95–1273 at 25 

(1978) (‘‘The definition of ‘electronic fund transfer’ 

is intended to give the Federal Reserve Board 

flexibility in determining whether new or 

developing electronic services should be covered by 

the act and, if so, to what extent.’’); id. at 26 (noting 

that ‘‘[t]he definitions of ‘financial institution’ and 

‘account’ are deliberately broad so as to assure that 

all persons who offer equivalent EFT services 

involving any type of asset account are subject to 

the same standards and consumers owning such 

accounts are assured of uniform protection’’). 

5See 15 U.S.C. 1693b, 1693m(d). 

6See 44 FR 18468 (Mar. 28, 1979); 44 FR 59464 

(Oct. 15, 1979). 

7See, e.g., 61 FR 19662, 19662 (May 2, 1996) 

(amending Regulation E as part of periodic review 

to ‘‘reflect technological and other developments’’); 

62 FR 43467 (Aug. 14, 1997) (amending Regulation 

E with respect to government-administered EBT 

programs); 71 FR 51437 (Aug. 30, 2006) (amending 

Regulation E with respect to payroll cards). The 

CFPB also issued new requirements in subpart B of 

Regulation E relating to remittance transfers in final 

rules issued in 2012 and 2013. See 78 FR 30662, 

Continued 

carton or equivalent is established for 

oranges and grapefruit grown in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00193 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

12 CFR Part 1005 

[CFPB–2025–0003] 

Electronic Fund Transfers Through 

Accounts Established Primarily for 

Personal, Family, or Household 

Purposes Using Emerging Payment 

Mechanisms 

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed interpretive 

rule; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In light of interest by 

electronic fund transfer system market 

participants to offer new types of 

products to transfer funds and make 

purchases through accounts established 

primarily for personal, family, or 

household purposes, the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is 

proposing this interpretive rule to assist 

companies, investors, and other market 

participants evaluating existing 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

governing electronic fund transfers 

(EFTs). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 31, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2025– 

0003, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. A 

brief summary of this document will be 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB2025-0003. 

• Email: 2025-Emerging-PaymentsInterpretive-Rule@cfpb.gov. Include 

Docket No. CFPB–2025–0003 in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Comment Intake—2025 Emerging 

Payments Interpretive Rule, c/o Legal 

Division Docket Manager, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20552. 

Instructions: The CFPB encourages 

the early submission of comments. All 

submissions should include the agency 

name and docket number. Because 

paper mail is subject to delay, 

commenters are encouraged to submit 

comments electronically. In general, all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov. 

All submissions, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

Proprietary information or sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or Social Security numbers, or 

names of other individuals, should not 

be included. Submissions will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Karithanom, Program Analyst, 

Office of Regulations at (202) 435–7700 

or https://reginquiries.consumer

finance.gov. If you require this 

document in an alternative electronic 

format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. The Passage and Evolution of the 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act 

Advances in automation brought 

about enormous innovation in the 

middle of the twentieth century with 

respect to the movement of funds. In 

1969, Chemical Bank installed the first 

automated teller machine in Rockville 

Center, New York. New payment 

networks also launched, forming the 

foundation of mechanisms facilitating 

EFTs. However, adoption of these new 

technologies raised questions about the 

rights and liabilities of consumers who 

use EFT services, and the 

responsibilities of financial institutions 

that offer them. In particular, while 

financial firms would reap benefits from 

automation, consumer adoption might 

be stymied by concerns about and risks 

of errors and fraud. 

To provide fairness, efficiency, and 

confidence in burgeoning technologies 

to make payments outside of paper 

currency, coins, and paper checks, 

Congress enacted the Electronic Fund 

Transfer Act (EFTA) in 1978.1 To ensure 

that industry participants in electronic 

fund transfers (EFTs) had appropriate 

incentives to guard against errors and 

fraud, EFTA provides a considerable set 

of rights to consumers to dispute errors 

and limit their liability for unauthorized 

EFTs, among other things. To help 

vindicate the rights established in 

EFTA, Congress provided mechanisms 

for both public and private 

enforcement.2 In addition, courts have 

held that EFTA is a ‘‘remedial statute 

accorded a broad, liberal construction in 

favor of the consumer.’’ 3

The United States was among the first 

to adopt a framework like EFTA, 

providing greater certainty and 

protection for consumers, financial 

firms, and other participants in 

electronic fund transfer systems. In 

enacting that legislation, Congress 

recognized that electronic fund transfer 

services would continue to develop in 

the future. In particular, EFTA’s 

legislative history demonstrates that 

Congress drafted the definitions used in 

the statute in a broad manner to ensure 

that EFTA was ‘‘sufficiently flexible to 

accommodate the continued evolution 

of electronic fund transfer services.’’ 4

Congress also granted the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (the Board) and later the CFPB 

the authority to issue regulations and 

guidance to implement the broad 

provisions of EFTA.5

The Board implemented EFTA 

through Regulation E shortly after the 

statute’s passage in 1978.6 Over time, 

the Board and then the CFPB have 

amended and interpreted Regulation E 

in response to the emergence of new 

electronic payment instruments and 

systems, broader developments in the 

market, and new congressional 

legislation.7 Most recently, in 2016, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1