[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80335-80340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 210
RIN 1510-AB24
Federal Government Participation in the Automated Clearing House
AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service
(FMS) is amending its regulation governing the use of the Automated
Clearing House (ACH) system by Federal agencies to permit the delivery
of Federal payments to prepaid debit cards that meet certain criteria.
To be eligible to receive Federal payments, a card must provide the
cardholder with pass-through deposit or share insurance and the card
account must not have an attached line of credit or loan feature that
triggers automatic repayment from the card account. In addition, the
issuer of the card account must provide the cardholder with all of the
consumer protections that apply to a payroll card under the Federal
Reserve Board's Regulation E.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective January 21, 2011. Comments
must be received on or before February 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You can download this interim final rule at the following
Web site: http://www.fms.treas.gov/ach. You may also inspect and copy
this interim final rule at: Treasury Department Library, Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Collection, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Before visiting,
you must call (202) 622-0990 for an appointment.
In accordance with the U.S. government's eRulemaking Initiative,
FMS publishes rulemaking information on http://www.regulations.gov.
Regulations.gov offers the public the ability to comment on, search,
and view publicly available rulemaking materials, including comments
received on rules.
Comments on this rule, identified by docket FISCAL-FMS-2010-0003,
should only be submitted using the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments.
Mail: Walt Henderson, Financial Management Service, 401
14th Street, SW., Room 337, Washington, DC 20227.
The fax and e-mail methods of submitting comments on rules to FMS
have been decommissioned.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
(``Financial Management Service'') and docket number FISCAL-FMS-2010-
0003 for this rulemaking. In general, comments received will be
published on Regulations.gov without change, including any business or
personal information provided. Comments received, including attachments
and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. Do not disclose any information in your
comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walt Henderson, Director of the EFT
Strategy Division, at (202) 874-6619 or [email protected];
or Natalie H. Diana, Senior Counsel, at (202) 874-6680 or
[email protected].
[[Page 80336]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 14, 2010, we published in the Federal
Register, at 75 FR 27239, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
requesting comment on a number of proposed amendments to 31 CFR part
210 (part 210). One of the proposed amendments was to allow Federal
payments to be delivered to prepaid debit card or similar card accounts
meeting certain consumer protection requirements. The NPRM also
proposed to allow Federal payments to be delivered to certain kinds of
accounts established by nursing facilities or religious orders. In
addition, the NPRM addressed a number of other issues, including
requirements adopted by NACHA--The Electronic Payments Association in
2009 to identify international payment transactions using a new
Standard Entry Class and proposed changes to the process for reclaiming
post-death benefit payments from financial institutions.
In this Interim Final Rule, we are finalizing the proposal in the
NPRM to allow Federal payments to be delivered to prepaid card accounts
meeting certain consumer protection requirements, with a number of
changes reflecting the comments that we received. Although we
previously requested and received comment on the prepaid card proposal,
we are issuing this rule as an interim final rule in order to provide
the public with an additional opportunity to comment. This interim
final rule does not address any of the other proposed amendments to
part 210 that were published in the NPRM. The final rule relating to
those proposed amendments will be issued separately.
I. Background and Summary of Prepaid Card Proposal
Title 31 CFR 210.5(a) generally requires that a Federal direct
deposit payment be delivered to a deposit account at a financial
institution. For all payments other than vendor payments, the account
at the financial institution must be in the name of the recipient,
unless one of the exceptions listed in the regulation applies. As
explained in the NPRM, our long-standing interpretation of the words
``in the name of the recipient'' has been that the payment recipient's
name must appear in the account title. See, e.g., 64 FR 17480,
referring to discussion at 63 FR 51490, 51499. The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that the payment reaches the intended
recipient through delivery to a deposit account that the recipient owns
and to which he or she has unfettered access, so that the payment is
not diverted to a creditor or another third party before it reaches the
recipient and comes under the recipient's control.
The ``in the name of the recipient'' requirement has the effect of
prohibiting payments to pooled accounts in which the recipient's
ownership interest is reflected in subacccount records. Because prepaid
card programs are generally set up using this kind of structure, the
delivery of non-vendor Federal payments to these types of cards
currently is prohibited. We indicated in the NPRM that we believed that
the ``in the name of the recipient'' requirement may be impeding the
use of prepaid card programs that may be beneficial to the unbanked and
underbanked populations. We therefore requested comment on a proposal
to create an exception to the ``in the name of the recipient''
requirement in order to allow the delivery of Federal payments to
accounts accessed by prepaid and stored value cards, provided that the
card bears the cardholder's name and meets the following requirements:
The account accessed by the card is held at an insured
depository institution and meets the requirements for pass-through
insurance under 12 CFR part 330 such that the cardholder's balance is
FDIC insured to the extent permitted by law; and
The card account constitutes an ``account'' as defined in
12 CFR 205.2(b) such that the consumer protections of Regulation E (12
CFR part 205), the rule prescribed by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Board) to implement the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, apply to the cardholder.
We requested comment on the implications of allowing delivery of
Federal benefit and other non-vendor payments to accounts that meet the
requirements listed above. We further noted that we are mindful of
concerns that account arrangements may be structured to facilitate
automatic third party debits to a direct deposit account (known in some
States as payday lending) and similar arrangements that are
inappropriate for Federal benefit recipients, and we particularly
solicited comment on whether the consumer protections required in the
proposed exception are adequate to prevent potential abuses.
II. Summary of Comments
We received 12 comments in response to the NPRM. The commenters
represented a variety of perspectives. Comments were submitted by
financial institutions, consumer advocacy groups, industry
associations, the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee
on Ways and Means. Most commenters commented on our proposal to allow
Federal payments to be deposited to prepaid card accounts.
Several commenters, including financial institutions and a
nonprofit organization focusing on financial services for underserved
consumers, supported the proposed prepaid card exception to the ``in
the name of the recipient'' requirement. Those supporting the exception
noted that prepaid products can benefit Federal payment recipients by
expanding their options to receive Federal payments. They pointed out
that underbanked Federal benefit recipients currently may use a variety
of high cost financial service providers to cash their benefit checks
and pay their bills. These commenters also noted that underbanked
individuals may tend to hold significant amounts of cash, which may
pose a security risk. According to these commenters, expanding Federal
benefit recipients' ability to use prepaid cards could alleviate many
of these concerns.
Most commenters supported our proposed requirement that the prepaid
cardholder's balance be FDIC-insured via the FDIC's requirements for
pass-through insurance. Comments regarding the proposed requirement
that card accounts constitute ``accounts'' subject to Regulation E were
mixed. Several commenters urged us to clarify the proposed requirement
that the consumer protections of Regulation E apply to the cardholder.
Some commenters noted that currently the only type of prepaid cards to
which Regulation E applies are payroll cards. Since Regulation E does
not currently apply to general use prepaid cards, some commenters were
uncertain as to whether only payroll cards would be eligible for the
proposed exception. Therefore, commenters requested that the final rule
clarify whether a prepaid card that would fit within the exception
proposed by Treasury must: (a) Actually be subject to Regulation E
(which, under current law, would eliminate many or all general use
prepaid products from eligibility under the proposed exception); or (b)
provide protections similar or identical to those contained in
Regulation E.
Other commenters suggested that Regulation E should be extended to
cover all prepaid cards. We note that FMS does not have the authority
to amend Regulation E to cover prepaid cards. That authority is
assigned to the Board.\1\ One commenter, referring to
[[Page 80337]]
Regulation E, recommended that ``Treasury ensure that these protections
are in place prior to allowing benefits to be deposited onto any
cards.'' It is unclear whether the commenter intended to suggest that
we delay finalizing the prepaid card proposal until the Board amends
Regulation E to address general use prepaid cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 15 U.S.C. 1693b(a). This authority will be transferred
to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) pursuant to
Public Law 111-203, Sec. 1084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some financial institutions commented that requiring issuers to
voluntarily provide cardholders with the protections of Regulation E
would increase costs to cardholders and adversely impact innovation in
the prepaid card industry. Several financial institutions suggested
that FMS should require compliance with only some of Regulation E's
protections, such as those providing protections for unauthorized
transactions and those governing error resolution processes. These
commenters recommended that certain Regulation E requirements, such as
the periodic statement requirement, not be imposed.
In contrast, some other commenters expressed the view that FDIC
insurance and Regulation E protections are not sufficient to adequately
protect cardholders. These commenters expressed concern that Federal
benefits might be deposited onto prepaid and stored value products that
carry high fees or other features, such as lines of credit, that may
affect the amount of the Federal benefit ultimately available to the
Federal benefit recipient. One consumer advocacy organization requested
that FMS impose a number of additional requirements on prepaid cards in
order for them to be eligible for the exception to the ``in the name of
the recipient'' rule. Additional requirements that commenters proposed
include: Prohibiting the deposit of Federal benefits onto prepaid cards
or stored value cards that contain credit features; regulating the fees
associated with a prepaid card or stored value card; imposing fee
disclosure requirements; requiring prepaid card providers to inform
benefit recipients of the Direct Express[supreg] prepaid card \2\ or of
any other lower-cost options; and ensuring that card providers cannot
collect fees or repayment of any advances by exercising any right of
set-off against Federal benefit payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Direct Express[supreg] prepaid card is a card
established pursuant to terms and conditions approved by FMS. Direct
Express[supreg] is a registered service mark of the Financial
Management Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Direct
Express[supreg] Debit MasterCard[supreg] card is issued by Comerica
Bank, pursuant to a license by MasterCard International
Incorporated. MasterCard[supreg] and the MasterCard[supreg] Brand
Mark are registered trademarks of MasterCard International
Incorporated. See, 75 FR 34394, 34397-34398 (Jun. 17, 2010) for a
description of the Direct Express[supreg] card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, another consumer advocacy organization supported
the prepaid card proposal without any changes, except that they urged
us to craft language that ensures that cardholders' access to
responsibly-designed credit is not restricted. This organization
recognized the concern that the accounts may be structured to
facilitate payday lending or other similar arrangements that can result
in unaffordable debt levels for Federal beneficiaries. However, they
expressed concern that a vaguely worded restriction on credit features
associated with card accounts could prevent Federal benefit recipients
from accessing forms of credit that are responsibly structured.
Finally, some commenters expressed concern that we have not pursued
enforcement action against entities that may be currently violating the
``in the name of the recipient'' requirements by allowing payments onto
prepaid cards or other accounts. One commenter urged that, in order to
allow for enforcement, the rule expressly provide that no institution
(bank or nonbank) may accept direct deposit of Federal payments to
accounts that do not meet the rule's requirements.
III. Interim Final Rule
We are revising the proposed prepaid card exception to address the
comments we received. We are requiring that the funds accessible
through the card be insured for the benefit of the cardholder in light
of the fact that commenters uniformly supported such an insurance
requirement, but we are broadening that provision to allow for
eligibility of insurance by National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund
(NCUSIF). We are aware that NCUSIF pass-through insurance is available
to beneficial owners of share accounts in certain circumstances, and we
request comment on whether credit unions have established, or might
establish in the future, prepaid card accounts that provide pass-
through insurance for members or non-members.
Because Regulation E currently does not cover any prepaid cards
other than payroll cards, we are making the prepaid card exception
available for prepaid cards if the issuer voluntarily provides all of
the protections that apply to payroll cards under Regulation E, as may
be amended from time to time. In addition, we are adding a requirement
that the prepaid card not have an attached line of credit or loan
feature that triggers automatic repayment from the card account. While
we are not determining a fee structure or a range of acceptable fees,
it is our expectation that the fees for such cards be transparent to
the recipient, adequately disclosed, and reasonable by industry
standards. We note in this regard that Regulation E requires that fees
be disclosed in a clear and readily understandable manner.
In developing the interim final rule, we have attempted to balance
the need to maintain appropriate consumer protections--consistent with
the general requirement of section 210.5(a)--with concerns expressed by
different commenters. As originally proposed, the exception would not
have allowed the delivery of Federal payments to any general use
prepaid card accounts, because prepaid card accounts (other than
payroll card accounts) are not subject to Regulation E. Moreover,
several commenters indicated that the industry is unlikely to develop
prepaid cards that provide cardholders with all of the protections
applicable to bank deposit accounts. Finalizing the requirement that
eligible cards be covered by all of the protections that apply to an
account under Regulation E would therefore have rendered the exception
pointless. Instead, we are requiring that the protections that apply to
payroll card accounts under Regulation E be provided by the card
issuer. For cards that do not constitute payroll cards as defined in
Regulation E, this means that the issuer must voluntarily provide the
protections that apply to payroll cards. This requirement ensures that
cardholders will receive important consumer protections, while allowing
prepaid card issuers to provide account history and balance information
in lieu of sending periodic statements.
Several commenters pointed specifically to Regulation E's statement
requirements as a barrier to the provision of prepaid cards at a
reasonable cost. Regulation E provides an alternative means of
compliance for the statement requirements for payroll cards. Generally,
statements need not be sent if the issuer makes the consumer's account
balance available by phone and also makes available an electronic
history of the consumer's account transaction activity covering 60
days, as well as a written transaction history covering 60 days upon
the consumer's request. See 12 CFR 205.18(b). Consequently, the
unauthorized transaction and error resolution reporting deadlines for
payroll cards are triggered by the earlier of the sending of a written
history reflecting the transaction to the cardholder or the date the
cardholder accesses the electronic
[[Page 80338]]
account history reflecting the transaction. See 12 CFR 205.18(c)(3),
(4).
We considered developing a separate framework of requirements based
on Regulation E to apply to prepaid cards to which Federal payments are
directly deposited, but believe it would be detrimental to introduce a
separate and unique framework of consumer protections for a relatively
limited class of transactions involving prepaid cards. The payroll card
requirements of Regulation E are well established and Treasury believes
that, in general, the card industry already is familiar with
appropriate measures necessary to meet those requirements. In this
regard, Treasury believes that a number of prepaid cards already
provide most, though not necessarily all, of the payroll card
protections to cardholders. It is our expectation that some issuers of
existing prepaid cards will choose to modify the terms and conditions
of the card accounts to include all of the payroll card protections to
cardholders, so that their cards will be eligible to receive Federal
payments. We also anticipate that as new prepaid card programs are
developed, issuers seeking to make the cards available to Federal
payment recipients will structure their cards to incorporate Regulation
E's payroll card protections. We request comment on the extent to which
prepaid card issuers will choose to do so. We also request comment on
the kinds of changes that card issuers will undertake to provide the
consumer protection specified in this interim final rule and the costs
associated with adopting these changes.
We have also attempted to balance the competing comments made by
consumer organizations relating to credit features associated with
prepaid cards. In order to prevent Federal payments from being
delivered to prepaid cards that have payday lending or ``account
advance'' features, we are prohibiting prepaid cards from having an
attached line of credit if the credit agreement allows for automatic
repayment of a loan from a card account triggered by the delivery of
the Federal payment into the account. Our intention is that this
restriction will prevent arrangements in which a bank or creditor
``advances'' funds to a cardholder's account, and then repays itself
for the advance and any related fees by taking some or all of the
cardholder's next deposit. Accounts covered by Regulation E, including
payroll cards, are subject to restrictions on these types of
arrangements through Regulation E's ``compulsory use'' provision, which
provides: ``No financial institution or other person may condition an
extension of credit to a consumer on the consumer's repayment by
preauthorized electronic fund transfers, except for credit extended
under an overdraft credit plan or specified to maintain a specified
minimum balance in the consumer's account.'' 12 CFR 205.10(e). Because
prepaid cards other than payroll cards are not currently covered by
this provision, we are restricting credit features associated with
cards as a condition for the receipt of Federal payments onto a card.
This restriction does not, however, bar the provision of credit to
consumers who receive Federal payments via an eligible prepaid card
product. Nor does this restriction absolutely bar a recipient-
cardholder from repaying a loan with an eligible prepaid card product
to which Federal payments have been made. We request comment on whether
we have struck the appropriate balance, and on whether the wording of
the prohibition is sufficiently clear.
To address comments made concerning the need to enforce the ``in
the name of the recipient'' requirement, we have added a provision to
the exception to make it clear that no person or entity may issue a
prepaid card that accepts Federal payments in violation of the rule's
requirements, and that any financial institution that holds an account
for or on behalf of a prepaid card issuer to which Federal payments are
received is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the
exception are met. Treasury believes that, under this provision, a
violation of a requirement of the exception currently would be
enforceable by the appropriate Federal or State regulator (or both) to
the extent that the regulator has jurisdiction over the person or
entity, and in accordance with applicable law. If we become aware that
Federal payments are being deposited to prepaid cards that do not meet
these requirements, we will review the situation and take appropriate
action. We may, for example, contact both the issuer and the financial
institution holding the issuer's account, review the terms and
conditions of the card account, and refer any violations of our
requirements to the appropriate regulatory bodies, including the
primary regulator of the financial institution maintaining the card
account for an issuer. Treasury requests comment on whether the wording
of this provision is sufficiently clear.
Treasury also seeks comment on whether the consumer protections
provided by this interim final rule allow for more novel uses of these
cards by consumers including, but not limited to, those (1) who
currently own bank accounts but prefer receiving payments by check due
to privacy reasons; and (2) consumers who are unbanked or underbanked
who receive Federal payments by check.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 210.5(b)(5)(i) permits a Federal payment to be deposited to
an account accessed by a prepaid card that does not meet the ``in the
name of the recipient'' requirement if certain conditions are met. To
be eligible to receive Federal payments, a prepaid card must meet four
conditions. The first condition, at Sec. 210.5(b)(5)(i)(A), is that
the account be held at an insured financial institution. The second
condition, at Sec. 210.5(b)(5)(i)(B), requires that the account be set
up to meet the requirements for pass through deposit or share insurance
under 12 CFR part 330 or 12 CFR part 745 such that the funds accessible
through the card are insured for the benefit of the Federal payment
recipient. The third condition, at Sec. 210.5(b)(5)(i)(C), is that the
account is not attached to a line of credit or loan agreement under
which repayment from the card account is triggered by delivery of the
Federal payment. The fourth condition, at Sec. 210.5(b)(5)(i)(D),
requires the issuer of the card to comply with all of the requirements,
and to provide the Federal payment recipient with the same consumer
protections, that apply to a payroll card under regulations
implementing the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C.
1693a(1). The payroll card provisions of those regulations currently
are located at 12 CFR 205.18 and are administered by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This authority is scheduled to
be transferred to the CFPB on the ``designated transfer date,'' which
is set as July 21, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 75 FR 57,252 (Sept. 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the fourth condition, Sec. 210.5(b)(5)(i)(D)
provides that the issuer must comply with the rules implementing the
EFTA ``as amended.'' Treasury notes that, as of the designated transfer
date, the CFPB will be authorized to prescribe rules, as well as issue
interpretations and guidance, implementing the provisions of the EFTA
(other than section 920 of the EFTA).\4\ In addition, the requirements
under the EFTA are enforceable by the Federal banking agencies, the
Federal Trade Commission, and other Federal agencies, including the
CFPB, subject to several provisions of the Consumer
[[Page 80339]]
Financial Protection Act of 2010.\5\ Treasury expects that, as the
requirements under the EFTA that apply to a payroll card account may be
amended or interpreted from time to time, the CFPB and the agencies
charged with enforcing the EFTA--not Treasury--also will be in the
position to administer the requirements under this Sec.
210.5(b)(5)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Public Law 111-203, Sec. 1075 (amending the EFTA to
allow the Board to prescribe rules relating to interchange
transaction fees for electronic debit transactions).
\5\ See, e.g., Public Law 111-203, Sec. Sec. 1025-1026
(governing the enforcement authorities of the CFPB and a prudential
regulator with respect to a depository institution and, depending on
the size of that institution, its affiliates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 210.5(b)(5)(ii) prohibits a person or entity from issuing a
card that receives Federal payments in violation of these requirements.
Moreover, any financial institution violates this regulation if the
institution maintains an account for or on behalf of an issuer of a
prepaid card that receives Federal payments if that issuer violates
this subsection. As discussed above, we will refer violations of the
regulation to the appropriate regulatory bodies.
Section 210.5(b)(5)(iii) provides that the term ``payroll card
account'' has the same meaning as that term is defined for purposes of
the rules implementing the EFTA. The term ``prepaid card'' means a
card, code, or other means of access to funds of a recipient. The term
``issuer'' means a person or entity that issues a prepaid card.
V. Procedural Requirements
Request for Comment on Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency in the Executive branch
to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We invite
comment on how to make the interim final rule clearer. For example, you
may wish to discuss: (1) Whether we have organized the material to suit
your needs; (2) whether the requirements of the rule are clear; or (3)
whether there is something else we could do to make this rule easier to
understand.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) designates the interim final rule as a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order 12866.
While Treasury has not conducted a regulatory impact analysis that
comports with the requirements of OMB Circular A-4, Treasury is
providing some preliminary information about the current industry
practices, and potential costs and benefits of this rule. Treasury
believes that many issuers of the prepaid cards are already providing
some consumer protection. We seek comment on the degree to which
consumer protection is already provided by prepaid debit card issuers;
the changes the issuers would undertake to provide the level of
consumer protection specified in this rulemaking; and the costs
associated with providing these additional protections.
In addition, Treasury believes that once prepaid cards provide the
specified consumer protections, these cards will be used in novel ways.
An example of this is receiving tax refunds on these prepaid cards.
Given that there were approximately 45 million tax refund checks issued
in FY 2010, assuming $1 per check processing fee on the part of the
Federal government, and assuming that all Federal tax refunds are
processed through prepaid cards, the reduction in costs to the Federal
government for processing these checks could be approximately $45
million. Therefore, Treasury seeks information from the public
regarding other ways in which these prepaid cards will be used to
receive Federal payments across different types of consumers.
Depending upon the comments received on the interim final rule,
Treasury may produce a Regulatory Impact Analysis that comports with
the requirements of Circular A-4 in its final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. Even if the RFA did apply, we have considered the
potential impact of this rule on small entities and hereby certify that
the interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We believe the rule will affect
only a limited number of small entities and that any economic impact
will be minimal. Currently, Federal non-vendor payments are not
permitted to be delivered to general use prepaid cards. The interim
final rule will allow prepaid card issuers to develop and offer to
Federal benefit recipients prepaid cards that meet the rule's
requirements. Some prepaid card issuers, regardless of size, may choose
to meet the rule's requirements, in which case they may be able to
expand their customer base to include Federal benefit recipients. Any
economic impact for these issuers is not expected to be significant.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA is not
required. We invite comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives
to this rule.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1532 (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that the agency prepare a
budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to
result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary
impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act
also requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number
of regulatory alternatives before promulgating the rule. We have
determined that the interim final rule will not result in expenditures
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly,
we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically
addressed any regulatory alternatives.
Authority To Issue Interim Final Rule
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) (APA)
generally requires public notice before promulgation of regulations or
a showing of good cause that prior notice and opportunity to comment
are unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest. See
5 U.S.C. 553(b). In accordance with section 553(b), FMS published a
notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comment on the prepaid card
exception on May 14, 2010 (75 FR 27239) and FMS has considered the
comments received in developing this interim final rule. FMS is issuing
this rule for effect, but also wishes to provide the public another
opportunity to comment on it.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 210
Automated clearing house, Electronic funds transfer, Financial
institutions, Fraud.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 31 CFR part 210 is amended
as follows:
PART 210--FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN THE AUTOMATED
CLEARING HOUSE
0
1. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5525; 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 321, 3301,
3302, 3321, 3332, 3335, and 3720.
0
2. In Sec. 210.5, redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(6) and add a new
paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
[[Page 80340]]
Sec. 210.5 Account requirements for Federal payments.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5)(i) Where a Federal payment is to be deposited to an account
accessed by the recipient through a prepaid card that meets the
following requirements:
(A) The account is held at an insured financial institution;
(B) The account is set up to meet the requirements for pass-through
deposit or share insurance such that the funds accessible through the
card are insured for the benefit of the recipient by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Share
Insurance Fund in accordance with applicable law (12 CFR part 330 or 12
CFR part 745);
(C) The account is not attached to a line of credit or loan
agreement under which repayment from the account is triggered upon
delivery of the Federal payments; and
(D) The issuer of the card complies with all of the requirements,
and provides the holder of the card with all of the consumer
protections, that apply to a payroll card account under the rules
implementing the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, as amended.
(ii) No person or entity may issue a prepaid card that receives
Federal payments in violation of this subsection, and no financial
institution may maintain an account for or on behalf of an issuer of a
prepaid card that receives Federal payments if the issuer violates this
paragraph.
(iii) For the purposes of this paragraph (b)(5), the term--
(A) ``Payroll card account'' shall have the same meaning as that
term is defined in the rules implementing the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act;
(B) ``Prepaid card'' means a card, code, or other means of access
to funds of a recipient; and
(C) ``Issuer'' means a person or entity that issues a prepaid card.
* * * * *
Dated: December 16, 2010.
Richard L. Gregg,
Fiscal Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32114 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P