GovTrack’s Bill Summary
We don’t have a summary available yet.
H.R. 4367 (112th): To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the fee disclosure requirement for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that machine.
- Introduced:
- Apr 17, 2012 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
- Sponsor:
- Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
- Status:
- Signed by the President
- Slip Law:
- This bill became Pub.L. 112-216.
The bill’s title was written by the bill’s sponsor. H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.
- Summary
-
No summaries available.
- Text
-
Last updated Jan 01, 2012.
1 pages
- Primary Source
-
View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)
GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.
- Citation
-
Click a format for a citation suggestion:
Library of Congress Summary
The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.
12/20/2012--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced.
The summary of that version is repeated here.) Amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act with respect to mandatory fee disclosures on automated teller machines (ATMs) operated by a person other than a financial institution holding a consumer's account.
Repeals the requirement that such a fee disclosure appear in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at the ATM. Limits such requirement to appearance of a fee disclosure on the ATM screen.
House Republican Conference Summary
The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.
This summary can be found at http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr4367.
Background
The following is from the Financial Services Committee Report, H. Rept. 112-576:
“The EFTA and its implementing rule, Regulation E, require ATM operators to display notices in two separate places notifying consumers that they might be charged fees for withdrawing cash from the ATM. The EFTA and Regulation E require that one of these notices must be posted in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at the ATM. The second notice must appear on the screen of the ATM, or on a paper notice issued from the machine, after the transaction is initiated and before the consumer is irrevocably committed to completing the transaction.
“When the provision requiring physical ATM fee disclosures was enacted in 1999, consumers were less familiar with ATM technology. Some consumers may not have known that they might have to pay for using certain ATMs. Because ATM screens were smaller and had lower resolutions in 1999, Congress required ATM operators to display fee notices to consumers both on the ATM screen and in a prominent location on the machine itself. Today, ATMs are more prominent and better understood, screens are much larger, and they display sharper images. Also, unlike before, when many ATMs were not capable of providing the notice on the monitor, every ATM can notify consumers of possible fees today.
“But even though the EFTA's physical disclosure requirement has become obsolete, the requirement exposes banks, credit unions and retailers to frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary costs. Under the EFTA, a consumer who uses an ATM that does not have a fee notice physically attached may recover statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 for each transaction. The law also permits class action lawsuits to recover up to half a million dollars.”
Summary
H.R. 4367 would amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act—commonly known as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)—by eliminating the requirement that fee notices be affixed to, or displayed on, automated teller machines (ATMs).
Cost
According to the cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “The bill would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Reserve Board to revise certain disclosure regulations. Changes in the CFPB's workload are reflected as increases or decreases in its mandatory appropriations, while changes in the workload of the Federal Reserve Board are reflected in the budget as changes in revenues. Based on information from those agencies, CBO estimates that revising those regulations would not have a significant effect on their workload and any change in direct spending (for the CFPB) or revenues (for the Federal Reserve Board) would be insignificant. Implementing H.R. 4367 would not affect spending subject to appropriation.”
House Democratic Caucus Summary
The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.
So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.
We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.
The bill contains the following citations to other parts of U.S. law:
United States Code
The United States Code is the compilation of permanent laws enacted by Congress. Temporary and other non-permanent laws do not appear in the United States Code. (About half of the United States Code is the law itself, called positive law. The other half is merely a compilation of the laws but has no legal significance.)
- Title 15: COMMERCE AND TRADE
- Chapter 41: CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION
- Subchapter VI: ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS
- Section 1693b: Regulations