Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
On Tuesday, February 7, 2012, the Bureau published the Final Rule (77 FR 6194), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the official interpretation to the regulation, which interprets the requirements of Regulation E. The Final Rule provides new protections, including disclosures and error resolution and cancellation rights, to consumers who send remittance transfers to other consumers or businesses in a foreign country. The amendments implement statutory requirements set forth in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The Final Rule inadvertently did not reflect certain technical and conforming changes made to § 1005.3(a) in the interim final rule published on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81020). The interim final rule substantially duplicated the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System's Regulation E, and made only certain non-substantive, technical, and stylistic changes necessary to reflect the transfer of authority to the Bureau. This correction will remove the amendment the Final Rule made to § 1005.3(a) of the interim final rule.
The Final Rule also contained a technical error in the formatting of certain model forms. Instead of each form being published on separate pages, certain forms were published in the standard three-column format. To correct this error, this document republishes the model forms as full-page versions.
The Bureau is publishing this technical correction as a final rule that will be effective on the same date as the Final Rule. The Bureau finds that there is good cause to publish this Final Rule without seeking public comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Public comment is unnecessary because the rule corrects inadvertent, technical errors about which there is minimal, if any, basis for substantive disagreement. In addition, the Final Rule restores changes made to § 1005.3(a) in the interim final rule, Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E), published on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81020) for which the Bureau found good cause to conclude that providing notice and opportunity for comment would have been unnecessary and contrary to the public interest but for which the Bureau nevertheless requested public comment.
In FR Doc. 2012-1728 appearing on page 6194 in the