Regulation_E__supporting_statement 1-2-15 FINAL

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

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.

2

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.

3

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
4

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.
5

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
Estimated
annual
frequency

100,000

40

1.2 minutes

100,000

10

16.5 minutes

275,000

600,000

1

90 minutes

900,000

600,000

1

58.3 minutes

583,000

100,000

10

3.96 minutes

66,000

Transaction Receipts
Change in Terms
Payroll Disclosures

Estimated
annual
burden
hours

Number
of respondents

Recordkeeping

Error Resolution

1

Average time
per response

80,000

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.

6

Maintenance and Error
Resolution, depository
institutions (ongoing)
153

1

350.75 hours

53,664

33,500

1

41.905 hours

1,403,818

18

2

552 minutes

331

142

2

276 minutes

1,306

2

281

30 minutes

281

18

281

15 minutes

1,265

36

4

480 minutes

1,152

10

4

240 minutes

160

155

1

206.5 hours

31,809

3,000

1

200 hours

600,000

500

1

2.6 hours

1,313

153

1

65 hours

9,945

Maintenance and Error
Resolution, non-depository
institutions (ongoing)
Proposed Short Form Disclosure,
depository institutions (ongoing)
Proposed Short Form Disclosure,
non-depository institutions
(ongoing)
Proposed Error Resolution,
depository institutions (ongoing)
Proposed Error Resolution, nondepository institutions (ongoing)
Proposed Quarterly Submission
of Agreements, depository
institutions (ongoing)
Proposed Quarterly Submission
of Agreements, non-depository
institutions (ongoing)
System and Policy Updates,
February Final Rule, depository
institutions (one time)
System and Policy Updates,
February Final Rule, nondepository institutions (one
time)
System and Policy Updates,
August Final Rule (one time)
System and Policy Updates,
2013 Final Rule depository
institutions (one time)

7

System and Policy Updates,
2013 Final Rule, non- depository
institutions (one time)
300

1

32.5 hours

9,750

18

1

92 hours

1,656

142

1

46 hours

6,532

18

1

18.4 hours

331

142

1

9.2 hours

1,306

18

1

55.2 hours

994

142

1

27.6 hours

3,919

2

1

14.9 hours

30

18

1

7.45 hours

134

36

1

40 hours

1440

10

1

20 hours

200

Proposed Short Form Disclosure,
depository institutions (one time)
Proposed Short Form Disclosure,
non-depository institutions (one
time)
Proposed Long Form Disclosure,
depository institutions (one time)
Proposed Long Form Disclosure,
non-depository institutions (one
time)
Proposed Access to Prepaid
Account Information, depository
institutions (one time)
Proposed Access to Prepaid
Account Information, nondepository institutions (one time)
Proposed Error Resolution,
depository institutions (one time)
Proposed Error Resolution, nondepository institutions (one time)
Proposed Quarterly Submission
of Account Information,
depository institutions (one time)
Proposed Quarterly Submission
of Account Information, nondepository institutions (one time)

Total

2

4,035,3322

Individual entries may not sum to total due to rounding.

8

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.
4
The 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.

9

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
6

31,000+600,000 hours.
61,000+1,407,000 hours.

10

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.

11

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.
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.
11

12

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.

13

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
14

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.”

15

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.

16

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.

17

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
Total Burden Hours
Requested
Current OMB Inventory
Difference (+/-)
Program Change
Discretionary
Due to New Statute
Violation
Adjustment

Burden Hours

Cost Burden (O & M)

4,035,332
4,014,300
+21,032
21,032
21,032
0
0
0

$17,000,000
0
+17,000,000
17,000,0000
17,000,0000
0
0
0

7,244,430
7,237,760
+6,670
6,670
6,670
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.
18

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
Not applicable.

19