Am I thinking this through correctly?

The new international funds transfer rule under Dodd-Frank (i.e. the new "remittance transfer rule") is being added as Subpart B in Regulation E.

Reg E 1005.3(c)(3) says that the term “electronic fund transfer” does not include: "Wire or other similar transfers. Any transfer of funds through Fedwire or through a similar wire transfer system that is used primarily for transfers between financial institutions or between businesses."

Does this mean that Fedwire transactions are therefore exempt from Reg E Subpart B's remittance transfer rule?

I believe so, after also looking at the commentary to Reg J 210.25(b)(4): "(4) Under section 4A-108, article 4A does not apply to a funds transfer, any part of which is governed by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.). In general, Fedwire funds transfers to or from consumer accounts are exempt from the EFTA and Regulation E (12 CFR part 205). A funds transfer from a consumer originator or a funds transfer to a consumer beneficiary could be carried out in part through Fedwire and in part through an automated clearinghouse or other means that is subject to the EFTA or Regulation E. In these cases, subpart B would not govern the portion of the funds transfer that is governed by the EFTA or Regulation E."

If so, would this even include ACH transactions processed through Fedline ACH?

Regulation J has been updated by the Fed to reflect the existence of Section 919 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), added by DFA. See section 210.25(b), as amended effective 7/12/12. Also see new Comment (5) to section 210.25(b). The revisions have been included since 4/12/12 in RED in our copy of Reg J in our Alphabet Soup pages. The reference to subpart B in your quotation from the Reg J Commentary is, of course, to subpart B of Regulation J, not to subpart B of Regulation E.

I am updating our Reg J copy today to remove the old verbiage and leave the new provisions.

In essence, the Fed continues to say that 4A controls, except where EFTA section 919 (and therefore subpart B of Reg E] provides for disclosures, error resolution, etc., with respect to consumer wire transfers.

Thank you John, your expertise is always appreciated.

Our FRB Account Rep is telling us that these services are exempt from the new remittance transfer rule, and I'm trying to figure out how that is.

I've read that page over and I'd like to know how the account rep arrives at that opinion. If your bank is using the FedGlobal® ACH service or thinking about offering it, I'd want to see a written official opinion that the remittance transfers rule would not cover a consumer's use of the service. I don't think you'll get it.

Just had a conference call, and got clarification that their foreign ACHs are still subject to the rules, but FedGlobal has "preference" in Dodd-Frank. They've promised to get me the citation on that.

Not sure what "preference" means in that context, and I don't see FedGlobal mentioned specifically in the amendments to the EFTA in DFA. Right after section 1073(a), which made those amendments to EFTA, is 1073(b), which directs the Fed and Treasury to expand the use of the ACH system and other payment mechanisms for remittance transfers to foreign countries.

They haven't sent me any citations yet, but I wonder if they are applying the "temporary exception" that lasts until 7/21/15. Page 6273 of the Federal Register here (far right column, under "First Exception") mentions FedGlobal. I bet they are leveraging this snippet to drum up sales!

Bringing this up again but for a different reason. The CFPB now opines in its Blog that if a wire is from a consumer account (I'm paraphrasing) it is subject to Reg E. I believe they may argue that the international wires are and it's in the DFA already and they're just extending it from remittance to other sections of Reg E, but in 2013 when the BSA travel rule was coming out the FedReg stated, "Wire or other similar transfers conducted through Fedwire® or similar wire transfer systems primarily used for transfers between financial institutions or between businesses are also specifically excluded from the definition of “electronic fund transfer.”

So I'm after the now SCOTUS approved CFPB setting aside years and years of common practice opining that the consumer connection affords Reg E protections. This refers also to the Citi v NYAG case. I don't see how the CFPB can connect the dots it is, but they were empowered in the P2P FAQs to blow my mind as well. I think that case and the Blog will allow a new opinion.

I was looking for why the FRB initially excluded wires. 15 USC 1693a originally provided in the exceptions, "any transfer of funds, other than those processed by automated clearinghouse, made by a financial institution on behalf of a consumer by means of a service that transfers funds held at either Federal Reserve banks or other depository institutions and which is not designed primarily to transfer funds on behalf of a consumer;" but I'm not sure the the "behalf of the consumer" affords much protection to banks. Thoughts?

Andy, the CFPB isn't saying that all wires are subject to Reg. E. They are only saying that wires originated through online banking are subject to Reg. E. The blog doesn't say it, but they arrive at this conclusion in their amicus brief by saying there are really two transfers involved: 1) the consumer-initiated OLB transfer from the consumer's account to a "pooled" account; and 2) the wire transfer through Fed, Chips, etc. from the consumer's bank to the other institution. CFPB's view is that because the first transfer is initiated through OLB, it's an EFT.

Whether the CFPB is accurately characterizing the transaction, and whether the court buys the CFPB's argument, I will leave to others to decide.

I would not look to a blog post, even one penned by the CFPB's General Counsel, to interpret the law. Not would I look to the amicus curiae brief filed with the court in this case. The court hasn't accepted or denied the argument in the CFPB's brief yet.