Regulation_E__supporting_statement -- FINAL 5-22-13

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-AA33 – FINAL RULE)

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, payroll cards, 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.
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 is publishing another supplemental final rule adopting
modifications to reduce regulatory burden and facilitate compliance on several discrete issues (2013
Final Rule). The Bureau submitted the 2013 Final Rule to the Office of the Federal Register on April
30, 2013 and it was published on May 22, 2013.
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(c) of Regulation E requires entities subject to the EFTA to retain evidence of
their compliance with the regulation for 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 evidence of compliance 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.
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 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.
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, 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 enforcement agencies to enforce
2

the EFTA and Regulation E.
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, 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.
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 of the actual disclosures and documentation given to each consumer.
Comment 1005.13(b)-1.
In addition, due to the nature of electronic fund transfers and remittance 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.
5. Efforts to Minimize Burdens on Small Entities
The Regulation E recordkeeping and disclosure requirements are imposed on financial
institutions and entities offering EFT and other services covered under Regulation E. The recordkeeping
requirement is mandated by Regulation E. The disclosure requirements are mandated by the EFTA
and/or Regulation E.
Most entities offering EFT and other services covered under Regulation E today utilize some
degree of computerization in their businesses, which further assists in facilitating compliance with
3

Regulation E. Additionally, as noted above, Regulation E provides model forms that may be used in
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 disclosure requirements are needed to foster informed EFT, gift card, and
remittance transfer decision-making 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 the February Final Rule, the Bureau stated that it would continue to monitor implementation of
the new statutory and regulatory requirements. The Bureau has subsequently engaged in dialogue with
both industry and consumer groups regarding implementation efforts and compliance concerns.
The public was given the opportunity to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in the proposed revisions to 12 CFR Part 1005 as part of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2012 which can be found at 77 FR 77187. As noted
in the 2013 Final Rule, the Bureau will continue to monitor implementation of and compliance with the
new statutory and regulatory requirements.
9. Payments or Gifts to Respondents
Not applicable.
10. Assurances of Confidentiality
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,
4

12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. Such records may also constitute confidential customer lists. Any of these
records 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.
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: 4,014,3231
Total Associated Labor Costs: $118,976,046
CFPB’s burden, By Information Collection
Estimated
annual
frequency

100,000

40

1.2minutes

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

153

1

350.75 hours

53,664

Transaction Receipts
Change in Terms
Payroll Disclosures

Estimated
annual
burden
hours

Number
of respondents

Recordkeeping

Error Resolution
Maintenance and Error
Resolution, depository
institutions (ongoing)

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; and (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.

5

Maintenance and Error
Resolution, non-depository
institutions (ongoing)
33,500

1

41,905 hours

1,403,818

155

1

206.5 hours

31,809

3,000

1

200 hours

600,000

500

1

2.6 hours

1,313

153

1

65

9,945

300

1

32.5 hours

9,750

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

Total

4,014,3232

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
2

Individual entries may not sum to total due to rounding.
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.
3

6

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
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
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

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.
5
31,000+600,000 hours.

7

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
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.
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
6

61,000+1,407,000 hours.
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.
7

8

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

9

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
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
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
11

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.
13
This represents the Bureau’s half of the burden incurred by the 500 money transmitter respondents.
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.
12

10

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
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

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.

11

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
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).
13. Estimated Total Annual Non-Labor / Capital Cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers
None.

12

14. Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
As the CFPB does not typically collect any information, the cost to the CFPB is negligible.
15. Program Changes or Adjustments
The Bureau is requesting a program change of 9,201 hours (from 4,005,122 to 4,014,323). This
change in burden results from the amendments 12 CFR Part 1005 (“Regulation E”).
The 2013 Final Rule is estimated to impose a one-time burden of 19,695 hours and reduce
ongoing burden by 10,494 hours on an on-going basis, for a net increase in burden of 9,201 hours.
The increase in one-time burden is due to efforts that respondents will either be required to make
or will be expected to make voluntarily to modify error resolution processes, modify disclosures given to
consumers and make process changes to calculate the information provided on those disclosures, and to
provide notice to consumers about consumers’ potential responsibility for certain mistakes.
The reduction in on-going burden will come from changes to requirements with regard to
respondents’ obligation to provide information about foreign taxes and certain fees imposed by recipient
institutions. These changes will relieve the burden on respondents to gather and update information
about those taxes and fees.
16. Plans for Tabulation, Statistical Analysis, and Publication
Not applicable.
17. Display of Expiration Date
Not applicable.
18. Exceptions to the Certification Requirement
None.
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
Not applicable.

13