1026.52—Limitations on Fees.*

Official Interpretation

52(b) Limitations on Penalty Fees

1. Fees for violating the account terms or other requirements. For purposes of § 1026.52(b), a fee includes any charge imposed by a card issuer based on an act or omission that violates the terms of the account or any other requirements imposed by the card issuer with respect to the account, other than charges attributable to periodic interest rates. Accordingly, for purposes of § 1026.52(b), a fee does not include charges attributable to an increase in an annual percentage rate based on an act or omission that violates the terms or other requirements of an account.

i. The following are examples of fees that are subject to the limitations in § 1026.52(b) or are prohibited by § 1026.52(b):

A. Late payment fees and any other fees imposed by a card issuer if an account becomes delinquent or if a payment is not received by a particular date.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph A. above is amended, to read:

A. Late payment fees and any other fees imposed by a card issuer if an account becomes delinquent or if a payment is not received by a particular date. A late payment fee or late fee is any fee imposed for a late payment. See § 1026.60(b)(9) and accompanying commentary.

B. Returned payment fees and any other fees imposed by a card issuer if a payment received via check, automated clearing house, or other payment method is returned.

C. Any fee or charge for an over-the-limit transaction as defined in § 1026.56(a), to the extent the imposition of such a fee or charge is permitted by § 1026.56.

D. Any fee imposed by a card issuer if payment on a check that accesses a credit card account is declined.

E. Any fee or charge for a transaction that the card issuer declines to authorize. See § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B).

F. Any fee imposed by a card issuer based on account inactivity (including the consumer's failure to use the account for a particular number or dollar amount of transactions or a particular type of transaction). See § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B).

G. Any fee imposed by a card issuer based on the closure or termination of an account. See § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B).

ii. The following are examples of fees to which § 1026.52(b) does not apply:

A. Balance transfer fees.

B. Cash advance fees.

C. Foreign transaction fees.

D. Annual fees and other fees for the issuance or availability of credit described in § 1026.60(b)(2), except to the extent that such fees are based on account inactivity. See § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B).

E. Fees for insurance described in § 1026.4(b)(7) or debt cancellation or debt suspension coverage described in § 1026.4(b)(10) written in connection with a credit transaction, provided that such fees are not imposed as a result of a violation of the account terms or other requirements of an account.

F. Fees for making an expedited payment (to the extent permitted by § 1026.10(e)).

G. Fees for optional services (such as travel insurance).

H. Fees for reissuing a lost or stolen card.

2. Rounding to nearest whole dollar. A card issuer may round any fee that complies with § 1026.52(b) to the nearest whole dollar. For example, if § 1026.52(b) permits a card issuer to impose a late payment fee of $21.50, the card issuer may round that amount up to the nearest whole dollar and impose a late payment fee of $22. However, if the late payment fee permitted by § 1026.52(b) were $21.49, the card issuer would not be permitted to round that amount up to $22, although the card issuer could round that amount down and impose a late payment fee of $21.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph 2. above is amended, to read:

2. Rounding to nearest whole dollar. A card issuer may round any fee that complies with § 1026.52(b) to the nearest whole dollar. For example, if § 1026.52(b) permits a card issuer to impose a late payment fee of $5.50, the card issuer may round that amount up to the nearest whole dollar and impose a late payment fee of $6. However, if the late payment fee permitted by § 1026.52(b) were $5.49, the card issuer would not be permitted to round that amount up to $6, although the card issuer could round that amount down and impose a late payment fee of $5.

3. Fees in connection with covered separate credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards. With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature on a prepaid account that are both accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in § 1026.61 where the credit feature is a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan, § 1026.52(b) applies to any fee for violating the terms or other requirements of the credit feature, regardless of whether those fees are imposed on the credit feature or on the asset feature of the prepaid account. For example, assume that a late fee will be imposed by the card issuer if the covered separate credit feature becomes delinquent or if a payment is not received by a particular date. This fee is subject to § 1026.52(b) regardless of whether the fee is imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account or on the separate credit feature.

4. Fees imposed on the asset feature of a prepaid account that are not charges imposed as part of the plan. Section 1026.52(b) does not apply to any fee or charge imposed on the asset feature of the prepaid account that is not a charge imposed as part of the plan under § 1026.6(b)(3). See § 1026.6(b)(3)(iii)(D) and (E) and related commentary regarding fees imposed on the asset feature prepaid account that are not charges imposed as part of the plan under § 1026.6(b)(3) with respect to covered separate credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards and non-covered separate credit features as those terms are defined in § 1026.61.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph 5. is added, to read:

5. Examples. Any dollar amount examples in the commentary to § 1026.52(b) relating to the safe harbors in § 1026.52(b)(1) are based on the original historical safe-harbor thresholds of $25 and $35 for penalty fees other than late fees, and on the threshold of $8 for late fees applicable to card issuers other than smaller card issuers as defined in § 1026.52(b)(3).

52(b)(1) General Rule

1. Relationship between § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2).

i. Relationship between § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii). A card issuer may impose a fee for violating the terms or other requirements of an account pursuant to either § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii).

A. A card issuer that complies with the safe harbors in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) is not required to determine that its fees represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of a type of violation under § 1026.52(b)(1)(i).

B. A card issuer may impose a fee for one type of violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) and may impose a fee for a different type of violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). For example, a card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $30 based on a cost determination pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) but impose returned payment and over-the-limit fees of $25 or $35 pursuant to the safe harbors in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii).

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph B. is revised, to read:

B. A card issuer may impose a fee for one type of violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) and may impose a fee for a different type of violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). For example, a card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 based on a cost determination pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) but impose returned payment and over-the-limit fees of $25 or $35 pursuant to the safe harbors in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii).

C. A card issuer that previously based the amount of a penalty fee for a particular type of violation on a cost determination pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) may begin to impose a penalty fee for that type of violation that is consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) at any time (subject to the notice requirements in § 1026.9), provided that the first fee imposed pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) is consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). For example, assume that a late payment occurs on January 15 and that, based on a cost determination pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), the card issuer imposes a $30 late payment fee. Another late payment occurs on July 15. The card issuer may impose another $30 late payment fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) or may impose a $25 late payment fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). However, the card issuer may not impose a $35 late payment fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). If the card issuer imposes a $25 fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) for the July 15 late payment and another late payment occurs on September 15, the card issuer may impose a $35 fee for the September 15 late payment pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B).

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph C. is revised, to read:

C. A card issuer that previously based the amount of a penalty fee for a particular type of violation on a cost determination pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) may begin to impose a penalty fee for that type of violation that is consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) at any time (subject to the notice requirements in § 1026.9), provided that the first fee imposed pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) is consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). For example, assume that consistent with § 1026.56, a consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. A transaction occurs on January 15 that causes the account balance to exceed the credit limit and, based on a cost determination pursuant to § 1026.52(b(1)(i), the card issuer imposed a $30 over-the-limit fee. The consumer's next monthly payment brings the account balance below the credit limit. On July 15, another transaction causes the account balance to exceed the credit limit. The card issuer may impose another $30 over-the-limit fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) or may impose a $25 over-the-limit fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). If the card issuer imposes a $25 fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) for the July 15 over-the-limit transaction and on September 15 another transaction causes the account balance to exceed the credit limit, the card issuer may impose a $35 fee for the September 15 over-the-limit transaction pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B).

ii. Relationship between § 1026.52(b)(1) and (b)(2). Section 1026.52(b)(1) does not permit a card issuer to impose a fee that is inconsistent with the prohibitions in § 1026.52(b)(2). For example, if § 1026.52(b)(2)(i) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a late payment fee that exceeds $15, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) does not permit the card issuer to impose a higher late payment fee.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph ii. above is revised to read:

ii. Relationship between § 1026.52(b)(1) and (b)(2). Section 1026.52(b)(1) does not permit a card issuer to impose a fee that is inconsistent with the prohibitions in § 1026.52(b)(2). For example, if § 1026.52(b)(2)(i) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a late payment fee that exceeds $7, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) does not permit the card issuer to impose a higher late payment fee.

52(b)(1)(i) Fees Based on Costs

1. Costs incurred as a result of violations. Section 1026.52(b)(1)(i) does not require a card issuer to base a fee on the costs incurred as a result of a specific violation of the terms or other requirements of an account. Instead, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a card issuer must have determined that a fee for violating the terms or other requirements of an account represents a reasonable proportion of the costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of that type of violation. A card issuer may make a single determination for all of its credit card portfolios or may make separate determinations for each portfolio. The factors relevant to this determination include:

i. The number of violations of a particular type experienced by the card issuer during a prior period of reasonable length (for example, a period of twelve months).

ii. The costs incurred by the card issuer during that period as a result of those violations.

iii. At the card issuer's option, the number of fees imposed by the card issuer as a result of those violations during that period that the card issuer reasonably estimates it will be unable to collect. See comment 52(b)(1)(i)-5.

iv. At the card issuer's option, reasonable estimates for an upcoming period of changes in the number of violations of that type, the resulting costs, and the number of fees that the card issuer will be unable to collect. See illustrative examples in comments 52(b)(1)(i)-6 through -9.

2. Amounts excluded from cost analysis. The following amounts are not costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of violations of the terms or other requirements of an account for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i):

i. Losses and associated costs (including the cost of holding reserves against potential losses and the cost of funding delinquent accounts).

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph i. above is revised to read:

i. Losses and associated costs (including the cost of holding reserves against potential losses and the cost of funding delinquent accounts, and any collection costs that are incurred after an account is charged off in accordance with loan-loss provisions).

ii. Costs associated with evaluating whether consumers who have not violated the terms or other requirements of an account are likely to do so in the future (such as the costs associated with underwriting new accounts). However, once a violation of the terms or other requirements of an account has occurred, the costs associated with preventing additional violations for a reasonable period of time are costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of violations of the terms or other requirements of an account for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i).

3. Third-party charges. As a general matter, amounts charged to the card issuer by a third party as a result of a violation of the terms or other requirements of an account are costs incurred by the card issuer for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i). For example, if a card issuer is charged a specific amount by a third party for each returned payment, that amount is a cost incurred by the card issuer as a result of returned payments. However, if the amount is charged to the card issuer by an affiliate or subsidiary of the card issuer, the card issuer must have determined that the charge represents a reasonable proportion of the costs incurred by the affiliate or subsidiary as a result of the type of violation. For example, if an affiliate of a card issuer provides collection services to the card issuer on delinquent accounts, the card issuer must have determined that the amounts charged to the card issuer by the affiliate for such services represent a reasonable proportion of the costs incurred by the affiliate as a result of late payments.

4. Amounts charged by other card issuers. The fact that a card issuer's fees for violating the terms or other requirements of an account are comparable to fees assessed by other card issuers does not satisfy the requirements of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i).

5. Uncollected fees. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a card issuer may consider fees that it is unable to collect when determining the appropriate fee amount. Fees that the card issuer is unable to collect include fees imposed on accounts that have been charged off by the card issuer, fees that have been discharged in bankruptcy, and fees that the card issuer is required to waive in order to comply with a legal requirement (such as a requirement imposed by 12 CFR part 1026 or 50 U.S.C. app. 527). However, fees that the card issuer chooses not to impose or chooses not to collect (such as fees the card issuer chooses to waive at the request of the consumer or under a workout or temporary hardship arrangement) are not relevant for purposes of this determination. See illustrative examples in comments 52(b)(2)(i)-6 through -9.

Editor's Note: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) was recodified effective 12/1/2015. The citation "50 U.S.C. app. 527" in the paragraph above (and elsewhere in the regulation and official interpretations) should be "50 U.S.C. § 3937."

6. Late payment fees.

i. Costs incurred as a result of late payments. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), the costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of late payments include the costs associated with the collection of late payments, such as the costs associated with notifying consumers of delinquencies and resolving delinquencies (including the establishment of workout and temporary hardship arrangements).

ii. Examples. A. Late payment fee based on past delinquencies and costs. Assume that, during year one, a card issuer experienced 1 million delinquencies and incurred $26 million in costs as a result of those delinquencies. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $26 late payment fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of late payments during year two.

B. Adjustment based on fees card issuer is unable to collect. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(1)(i)-6.ii.A except that the card issuer imposed a late payment fee for each of the 1 million delinquencies experienced during year one but was unable to collect 25% of those fees (in other words, the card issuer was unable to collect 250,000 fees, leaving a total of 750,000 late payments for which the card issuer did collect or could have collected a fee). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), a late payment fee of $35 would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of late payments during year two.

C. Adjustment based on reasonable estimate of future changes. Same facts as in comments 52(b)(1)(i-6.ii.A and B except the card issuer reasonably estimates that—based on past delinquency rates and other factors relevant to potential delinquency rates for year two—it will experience a 2% decrease in delinquencies during year two (in other words, 20,000 fewer delinquencies for a total of 980,000). The card issuer also reasonably estimates that it will be unable to collect the same percentage of fees (25%) during year two as during year one (in other words, the card issuer will be unable to collect 245,000 fees, leaving a total of 735,000 late payments for which the card issuer will be able to collect a fee). The card issuer also reasonably estimates that—based on past changes in costs incurred as a result of delinquencies and other factors relevant to potential costs for year two—it will experience a 5% increase in costs during year two (in other words, $1.3 million in additional costs for a total of $27.3 million). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $37 late payment fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of late payments during year two.

7. Returned payment fees.

i. Costs incurred as a result of returned payments. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), the costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of returned payments include:

A. Costs associated with processing returned payments and reconciling the card issuer's systems and accounts to reflect returned payments;

B. Costs associated with investigating potential fraud with respect to returned payments; and

C. Costs associated with notifying the consumer of the returned payment and arranging for a new payment.

ii. Examples. A. Returned payment fee based on past returns and costs. Assume that, during year one, a card issuer experienced 150,000 returned payments and incurred $3.1 million in costs as a result of those returned payments. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $21 returned payment fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of returned payments during year two.

B. Adjustment based on fees card issuer is unable to collect. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(1)(i)-7.ii except that the card issuer imposed a returned payment fee for each of the 150,000 returned payments experienced during year one but was unable to collect 15% of those fees (in other words, the card issuer was unable to collect 22,500 fees, leaving a total of 127,500 returned payments for which the card issuer did collect or could have collected a fee). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), a returned payment fee of $24 would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of returned payments during year two.

C. Adjustment based on reasonable estimate of future changes. Same facts as in comments 52(b)(1)(i)-7.ii.A and B except the card issuer reasonably estimates that—based on past returned payment rates and other factors relevant to potential returned payment rates for year two—it will experience a 2% increase in returned payments during year two (in other words, 3,000 additional returned payments for a total of 153,000). The card issuer also reasonably estimates that it will be unable to collect 25% of returned payment fees during year two (in other words, the card issuer will be unable to collect 38,250 fees, leaving a total of 114,750 returned payments for which the card issuer will be able to collect a fee). The card issuer also reasonably estimates that—based on past changes in costs incurred as a result of returned payments and other factors relevant to potential costs for year two—it will experience a 1% decrease in costs during year two (in other words, a $31,000 reduction in costs for a total of $3.069 million). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $27 returned payment fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of returned payments during year two.

8. Over-the-limit fees.

i. Costs incurred as a result of over-the-limit transactions. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), the costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of over-the-limit transactions include:

A. Costs associated with determining whether to authorize over-the-limit transactions; and

B. Costs associated with notifying the consumer that the credit limit has been exceeded and arranging for payments to reduce the balance below the credit limit.

ii. Costs not incurred as a result of over-the-limit transactions. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), costs associated with obtaining the affirmative consent of consumers to the card issuer's payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit consistent with § 1026.56 are not costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of over-the-limit transactions.

iii. Examples. A. Over-the-limit fee based on past fees and costs. Assume that, during year one, a card issuer authorized 600,000 over-the-limit transactions and incurred $4.5 million in costs as a result of those over-the-limit transactions. However, because of the affirmative consent requirements in § 1026.56, the card issuer was only permitted to impose 200,000 over-the-limit fees during year one. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $23 over-the-limit fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of over-the-limit transactions during year two.

B. Adjustment based on fees card issuer is unable to collect. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(1)(i)-8.iii.A except that the card issuer was unable to collect 30% of the 200,000 over-the-limit fees imposed during year one (in other words, the card issuer was unable to collect 60,000 fees, leaving a total of 140,000 over-the-limit transactions for which the card issuer did collect or could have collected a fee). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), an over-the-limit fee of $32 would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of over-the-limit transactions during year two.

C. Adjustment based on reasonable estimate of future changes. Same facts as in comments 52(b)((1)(i)-8.iii.A and B except the card issuer reasonably estimates that—based on past over-the-limit transaction rates, the percentages of over-the-limit transactions that resulted in an over-the-limit fee in the past (consistent with § 1026.56), and factors relevant to potential changes in those rates and percentages for year two—it will authorize approximately the same number of over-the-limit transactions during year two (600,000) and impose approximately the same number of over-the-limit fees (200,000). The card issuer also reasonably estimates that it will be unable to collect the same percentage of fees (30%) during year two as during year one (in other words, the card issuer was unable to collect 60,000 fees, leaving a total of 140,000 over-the-limit transactions for which the card issuer will be able to collect a fee). The card issuer also reasonably estimates that—based on past changes in costs incurred as a result of over-the-limit transactions and other factors relevant to potential costs for year two—it will experience a 6% decrease in costs during year two (in other words, a $270,000 reduction in costs for a total of $4.23 million). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $30 over-the-limit fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of over-the-limit transactions during year two.

9. Declined access check fees.

i. Costs incurred as a result of declined access checks. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), the costs incurred by a card issuer as a result of declining payment on a check that accesses a credit card account include:

A. Costs associated with determining whether to decline payment on access checks;

B. Costs associated with processing declined access checks and reconciling the card issuer's systems and accounts to reflect declined access checks;

C. Costs associated with investigating potential fraud with respect to declined access checks; and

D. Costs associated with notifying the consumer and the merchant or other party that accepted the access check that payment on the check has been declined.

ii. Example. Assume that, during year one, a card issuer declined 100,000 access checks and incurred $2 million in costs as a result of those declined checks. The card issuer imposed a fee for each declined access check but was unable to collect 10% of those fees (in other words, the card issuer was unable to collect 10,000 fees, leaving a total of 90,000 declined access checks for which the card issuer did collect or could have collected a fee). For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i), a $22 declined access check fee would represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of declined access checks during year two.

52(b)(1)(ii) Safe Harbors

1. Multiple violations of same type.

i. Same billing cycle or next six billing cycles. A card issuer cannot impose a fee for a violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) unless a fee has previously been imposed for the same type of violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). Once a fee has been imposed for a violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), the card issuer may impose a fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) for any subsequent violation of the same type until that type of violation has not occurred for a period of six consecutive complete billing cycles. A fee has been imposed for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) even if the card issuer waives or rebates all or part of the fee.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph 1. above is revised, to read:

i. Same billing cycle or next six billing cycles. A card issuer other than a smaller card issuer as defined in § 1026.52(b)(3) cannot impose a late fee in excess of $8 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) regardless of whether the card issuer has imposed a late fee within the six previous billing cycles. For all other penalty fees, a card issue cannot impose a fee for a violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) unless a fee has previously been imposed for the same type of violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). Once a fee has been imposed for a violation pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), the card issuer may impose a fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) for any subsequent violation of the same type until that type of violation has not occurred for a period of six consecutive complete billing cycles. A fee has been imposed for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) even if the card issuer waives or rebates all or part of the fee.

A. Late payments. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), a late payment occurs during the billing cycle in which the payment may first be treated as late consistent with the requirements of this part and the terms or other requirements of the account.

B. Returned payments. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), a returned payment occurs during the billing cycle in which the payment is returned to the card issuer.

C. Transactions that exceed the credit limit. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), a transaction that exceeds the credit limit for an account occurs during the billing cycle in which the transaction occurs or is authorized by the card issuer.

D. Declined access checks. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), a check that accesses a credit card account is declined during the billing cycle in which the card issuer declines payment on the check.

ii. Relationship to §§ 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) and 1026.56(j)(1). If multiple violations are based on the same event or transaction such that § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing more than one fee, the event or transaction constitutes a single violation for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). Furthermore, consistent with § 1026.56(j)(1)(i), no more than one violation for exceeding an account's credit limit can occur during a single billing cycle for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit a card issuer from imposing fees for exceeding the credit limit in consecutive billing cycles based on the same over-the-limit transaction to the extent permitted by § 1026.56(j)(1). In these circumstances, the second and third over-the-limit fees permitted by § 1026.56(j)(1) may be imposed pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). See comment 52(b)(2)(ii)-1.

iii. Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(B) with respect to credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan that are not charge card accounts. For purposes of these examples, assume that the billing cycles for the account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date for the account is the twenty-fifth day of the month.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph iii. above is revised, to read:

iii. Examples. The following examples illustrate the application of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii)(A), and (b)(1)(ii)(B) with respect to credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan that are not charge card accounts. For purposes of these examples, assume that the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer as defined in § 1026.52(b)(3). Also assume that the billing cycles for the account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date for the account is the twenty-fifth day of the month.

A. Violations of same type (late payments). A required minimum periodic payment of $50 is due on March 25. On March 26, a late payment has occurred because no payment has been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), the card issuer imposes a $25 late payment fee on March 26. In order for the card issuer to impose a $35 late payment fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), a second late payment must occur during the April, May, June, July, August, or September billing cycles.

1. The card issuer does not receive any payment during the March billing cycle. A required minimum periodic payment of $100 is due on April 25. On April 20, the card issuer receives a $50 payment. No further payment is received during the April billing cycle. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), the card issuer may impose a $35 late payment fee on April 26. Furthermore, the card issuer may impose a $35 late payment fee for any late payment that occurs during the May, June, July, August, September, or October billing cycles.

2. Same facts as in paragraph A above. On March 30, the card issuer receives a $50 payment and the required minimum periodic payments for the April, May, June, July, August, and September billing cycles are received on or before the payment due date. A required minimum periodic payment of $60 is due on October 25. On October 26, a late payment has occurred because the required minimum periodic payment due on October 25 has not been received. However, because this late payment did not occur during the six billing cycles following the March billing cycle, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) only permits the card issuer to impose a late payment fee of $25.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs A, A-1, and A-2 above are revised, to read:

A. Violations of same type (over the credit limit). Consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. On March 20, a transaction causes the account balance wot increase to $1,150, which exceeds the account's $1,000 credit limit. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), the card issuer imposes a $25 over-the-limit fee for the March billing cycle. The card issuer receives a $300 payment on March 25, brining the account below the credit limit. In order for the card issuer to impose a $35 over-the-limit fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), a second over-the-limit transaction must occur during the April, May, June, July, August, or September billing cycles.

1. Same facts as in the lead-in paragraph to comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-1.iii.A. On April 20, a transaction casudes the account balance to increase to $1,200, which exceeds the account's $1,000 credit limit. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), the card issuer may impose a $35 over-the-limit fee for the April billing cycle. Furthermore, the card issuer may impose a $35 over-the-limit fee for any over-the-limit transaction that occurs during the May, June, July, August, September, or October billing cycles subject to the limitations in § 1026.56(j)(1).

2. Same facts as in the lead-in paragraph to comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-1.iii.A. The account remains below the limit from March 25 until October 20, when a transaction causes the account balance to exceed the credit limit. However, because this over-the-limit transaction did not occur during the six billing cycles following the March billing cycle, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) only permits the card issuer to impose an over-the-limit fee of $25.

B. Violations of different types (late payment and over the credit limit). The credit limit for an account is $1,000. Consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. A required minimum periodic payment of $30 is due on August 25. On August 26, a late payment has occurred because no payment has been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), the card issuer imposes a $25 late payment fee on August 26. On August 30, the card issuer receives a $30 payment. On September 10, a transaction causes the account balance to increase to $1,150, which exceeds the account's $1,000 credit limit. On September 11, a second transaction increases the account balance to $1,350. On September 23, the card issuer receives the $50 required minimum periodic payment due on September 25, which reduces the account balance to $1,300. On September 30, the card issuer imposes a $25 over-the-limit fee, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). On October 26, a late payment has occurred because the $60 required minimum periodic payment due on October 25 has not been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), the card issuer imposes a $35 late payment fee on October 26.

C. Violations of different types (late payment and returned payment). A required minimum periodic payment of $50 is due on July 25. On July 26, a late payment has occurred because no payment has been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), the card issuer imposes a $25 late payment fee on July 26. On July 30, the card issuer receives a $50 payment. A required minimum periodic payment of $50 is due on August 25. On August 24, a $50 payment is received. On August 27, the $50 payment is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds. In these circumstances, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) permits the card issuer to impose either a late payment fee or a returned payment fee but not both because the late payment and the returned payment result from the same event or transaction. Accordingly, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), the event or transaction constitutes a single violation. However, if the card issuer imposes a late payment fee, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) permits the issuer to impose a fee of $35 because the late payment occurred during the six billing cycles following the July billing cycle. In contrast, if the card issuer imposes a returned payment fee, the amount of the fee may be no more than $25 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A).

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs B and C above are revised, to read:

B. Violations of different types (late payment and over the credit limit). The credit limit for an account is $1,000. Consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. A required minimum periodic payment of $35 is due on August 25. On August 26, a late payment has occurred because no payment has been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), the card issuer imposes an $8 late payment fee on August 26. On August 30, the card issuer receives a $30 payment. On September 10, a transaction causes the account balance to increase to $1,150, which exceeds the account's $1,000 credit limit. On September 11, a second transaction increases the account balance to $1,350. On September 23, the card issuer receives the $50 required minimum periodic payment due on September 25, which reduces the account balance to $1,300. On September 30, the card issuer imposes a $25 over-the-limit fee, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). On October 26, a late payment has occurred because the $60 required minimum periodic payment due on October 25 has not been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), the card issuer imposes an $8 late payment fee on October 26.

C. Violations of different types (late payment and returned payment). A required minimum periodic payment of $40 is due on July 25. On July 26, a late payment has occurred because no payment has been received. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), the card issuer imposes an $8 late payment fee on July 26. On July 30, the card issuer receives a $60 payment. A required minimum periodic payment of $40 is due on August 25. On August 24, a $40 payment is received. On August 27, the $40 payment is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds. In these circumstances, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) permits the card issuer to impose either a late payment fee or a returned payment fee but not both, because the late payment and the returned payment result from the same event or transaction. Accordingly, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), the event or transaction constitutes a single violation. If the card issuer imposes a late payment fee, § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) permits the issuer to impose a fee of $8. If the card issuer imposes a returned payment fee, the amount of the fee may be no more than $25 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A).

2. Adjustments based on Consumer Price Index. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(B), the Bureau shall calculate each year price level adjusted amounts using the Consumer Price Index in effect on June 1 of that year. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual Consumer Price level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(B) has risen by a whole dollar, those amounts will be increased by $1.00. Similarly, when the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual Consumer Price level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(B) has decreased by a whole dollar, those amounts will be decreased by $1.00. The Bureau will publish adjustments to the amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(B).

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph 2. is revised, to read:

2. Adjustments based on Consumer Price Index for penalty fees imposed pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)IA) and (B) For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), the Bureau shall calculate each year price level adjusted amounts using the Consumer Price Index in effect on June 1 of that year. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual Consumer Price level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has risen by a whole dollar, those amounts will be increased by $1.00. Similarly, when the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual Consumer Price level to the current amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) has decreased by a whole dollar, those amounts will be decreased by $1.00. The Bureau will publish adjustments to the amounts in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B).

i. Historical thresholds.

A. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $25 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $35 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2013.

B. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $26 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $37 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2014.

C. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2015.

D. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), through December 31, 2016. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $37 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through June 26, 2016, and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) from June 27, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

E. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2017.

F. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2018.

G. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $28 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $39 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2019.

H. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $29 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $40 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2020.

I. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $29 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $40 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2021.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph J is added, to read:

J. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $30 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $41 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through May 13, 2024.

3. Delinquent balance for charge card accounts. Section 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C) provides that, when a charge card issuer that requires payment of outstanding balances in full at the end of each billing cycle has not received the required payment for two or more consecutive billing cycles, the card issuer may impose a late payment fee that does not exceed three percent of the delinquent balance. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the delinquent balance is any previously billed amount that remains unpaid at the time the late payment fee is imposed pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C). Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii), a charge card issuer that imposes a fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C) with respect to a late payment may not impose a fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) with respect to the same late payment. The following examples illustrate the application of § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C):

i. Assume that a charge card issuer requires payment of outstanding balances in full at the end of each billing cycle and that the billing cycles for the account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month. At the end of the June billing cycle, the account has a balance of $1,000. On July 5, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing the $1,000 balance consistent with § 1026.7. During the July billing cycle, the account is used for $300 in transactions, increasing the balance to $1,300. At the end of the July billing cycle, no payment has been received and the card issuer imposes a $25 late payment fee consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A). On August 5, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing the $1,325 balance consistent with § 1026.7. During the August billing cycle, the account is used for $200 in transactions, increasing the balance to $1,525. At the end of the August billing cycle, no payment has been received. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $40, which is 3% of the $1,325 balance that was due at the end of the August billing cycle. Section 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C) does not permit the card issuer to include the $200 in transactions that occurred during the August billing cycle.

ii. Same facts as above except that, on August 25, a $100 payment is received. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $37, which is 3% of the unpaid portion of the $1,325 balance that was due at the end of the August billing cycle ($1,225).

iii. Same facts as in paragraph A above except that, on August 25, a $200 payment is received. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $34, which is 3% of the unpaid portion of the $1,325 balance that was due at the end of the August billing cycle ($1,125). In the alternative, the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $35 consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B). However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs i - iii are revised, and paragraph 4 is added, to read:

i. Assume that a charge card issuer requires payment of outstanding balances in full at the end of each billing cycle and that the billing cycles for the account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month. Also assume that the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer as defined in § 1026.52(b)(3). At the end of the June billing cycle, the account has a balance of $1,000. On July 5, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing the $1,000 balance consistent with § 1026.7. During the July billing cycle, the account is used for $292 in transactions, increasing the balance to $1,292. At the end of the July billing cycle, no payment has been received and the card issuer imposes an $8 late payment fee consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). On August 5, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing the $1,300 balance consistent with § 1026.7. During the August billing cycle, the account is used for $200 in transactions, increasing the balance to $1,500. At the end of the August billing cycle, no payment has been received. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $39, which is 3% of the $1,300 balance that was due at the end of the August billing cycle. Section 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C) does not permit the card issuer to include the $200 in transactions that occurred during the August billing cycle.

ii. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-3.i except that, on August 25, a $100 payment is received. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $36, which is 3% of the unpaid portion of the $1,300 balance that was due at the end of the August billing cycle ($1,200).

iii. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-3.i except that, on August 25, a $200 payment is received. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(C), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $33, which is 3% of the unpaid portion of the $1,300 balance that was due at the end of the August billing cycle ($1,100). In the alternative, the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees.

4. Smaller card issuers. Section 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(E) provides that a card issuer meeting the definition of smaller card issuer in § 1026.52(b)(3) may impose a fee for a late payment on an account if the dollar amount of the fee does not exceed the amount in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) or (b)(1)(ii)(B), as applicable, notwithstanding the $8 limit on the amount of a late fee in § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii). Thus, assuming that the original historical safe harbor threshold amounts apply , a smaller card issuer may impose a late fee of $25 for a first late payment violation and a late fee of $35 for a late payment violation that occurs during the same billing cycle or one of the next six billing cycles, provided that those amounts are consistent with § 1026.52(b)(2).

52(b)(2) Prohibited fees

1. Relationship to § 1026.52(b)(1). A card issuer does not comply with § 1026.52(b) if it imposes a fee that is inconsistent with the prohibitions in § 1026.52(b)(2). Thus, the prohibitions in § 1026.52(b)(2) apply even if a fee is consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii). For example, even if a card issuer has determined for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) that a $27 fee represents a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred by the card issuer as a result of a particular type of violation, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i) prohibits the card issuer from imposing that fee if the dollar amount associated with the violation is less than $27. Similarly, even if § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) permits a card issuer to impose a $25 fee, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i) prohibits the card issuer from imposing that fee if the dollar amount associated with the violation is less than $25.

52(b)(2)(i) Fees That Exceed Dollar Amount Associated With Violation

1. Late payment fees. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with a late payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due immediately prior to assessment of the late payment fee. Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a late payment fee that exceeds the amount of that required minimum periodic payment. For example:

i. Assume that a $15 required minimum periodic payment is due on September 25. The card issuer does not receive any payment on or before September 25. On September 26, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on September 25 ($15). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of that fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).

ii. Same facts as above except that, on September 25, the card issuer receives a $10 payment. No further payments are received. On September 26, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the full amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on September 25 ($15), rather than the unpaid portion of that payment ($5). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of the late payment fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph ii is revised, to read:

ii. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(2)(i)-1.i except that, on September 25, the card issuer receives a $10 payment. No further payments are received. On September 26, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the full amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on September 25 ($15), rather than the unpaid portion of that payment ($5). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of the late payment fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).

iii. Assume that a $15 required minimum periodic payment is due on October 28 and the billing cycle for the account closes on October 31. The card issuer does not receive any payment on or before November 3. On November 3, the card issuer determines that the required minimum periodic payment due on November 28 is $50. On November 5, the card issuer imposes a late payment fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the late payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on October 28 ($15), rather than the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on November 28 ($50). Thus, under § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the amount of that fee cannot exceed $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).

2. Returned payment fees. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with a returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due immediately prior to the date on which the payment is returned to the card issuer. Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds the amount of that required minimum periodic payment. However, if a payment has been returned and is submitted again for payment by the card issuer, there is no additional dollar amount associated with a subsequent return of that payment and § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B) prohibits the card issuer from imposing an additional returned payment fee. For example:

i. Assume that the billing cycles for an account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date is the twenty-fifth day of the month. A minimum payment of $15 is due on March 25. The card issuer receives a check for $100 on March 23, which is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds on March 26. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 ($15). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)). Furthermore, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from assessing both a late payment fee and a returned payment fee in these circumstances. See comment 52(b)(2)(ii)-1.

ii. Same facts as above except that the card issuer receives the $100 check on March 31 and the check is returned for insufficient funds on April 2. The minimum payment due on April 25 is $30. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 ($15), rather than the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on April 25 ($30). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)). Furthermore, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from assessing both a late payment fee and a returned payment fee in these circumstances. See comment 52(b)(2)(ii)-1.

iii. Same facts as paragraph i above except that, on March 28, the card issuer presents the $100 check for payment a second time. On April 1, the check is again returned for insufficient funds. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee based on the return of the payment on April 1.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs ii and iii are revised, to read:

ii. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(2)(i)-2 except that the card issuer receives the $100 check on March 31 and the check is returned for insufficient funds on April 2. The minimum payment due on April 25 is $30. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 ($15), rather than the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on April 25 ($30). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)). Furthermore, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from assessing both a late payment fee and a returned payment fee in these circumstances. See comment 52(b)(2)(ii)-1.

iii. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(2)(i)-2.8 except that, on March 28, the card issuer presents the $100 check for payment a second time. On April 1, the check is again returned for insufficient funds. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee based on the return of the payment on April 1.

iv. Assume that the billing cycles for an account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date is the twenty-fifth day of the month. A minimum payment of $15 is due on August 25. The card issuer receives a check for $15 on August 23, which is not returned. The card issuer receives a check for $50 on September 5, which is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds on September 7. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B) does not prohibit the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee in these circumstances. Instead, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the returned payment is the amount of the required minimum periodic payment due on August 25 ($15). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a returned payment fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).

3. Over-the-limit fees. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with extensions of credit in excess of the credit limit for an account is the total amount of credit extended by the card issuer in excess of the credit limit during the billing cycle in which the over-the-limit fee is imposed. Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits a card issuer from imposing an over-the-limit fee that exceeds that amount. Nothing in § 1026.52(b) permits a card issuer to impose an over-the-limit fee if imposition of the fee is inconsistent with § 1026.56. The following examples illustrate the application of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) to over-the-limit fees:

i. Assume that the billing cycles for a credit card account with a credit limit of $5,000 begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month. Assume also that, consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. On March 1, the account has a $4,950 balance. On March 6, a $60 transaction is charged to the account, increasing the balance to $5,010. On March 25, a $5 transaction is charged to the account, increasing the balance to $5,015. On the last day of the billing cycle (March 31), the card issuer imposes an over-the-limit fee. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the extensions of credit in excess of the credit limit is the total amount of credit extended by the card issuer in excess of the credit limit during the March billing cycle ($15). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing an over-the-limit fee that exceeds $15 (even if a higher fee would be permitted under § 1026.52(b)(1)).

ii. Same facts as above except that, on March 26, the card issuer receives a payment of $20, reducing the balance below the credit limit to $4,995. Nevertheless, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the extensions of credit in excess of the credit limit is the total amount of credit extended by the card issuer in excess of the credit limit during the March billing cycle ($15). Thus, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $15.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraph ii is revised, to read:

ii. Same facts as in comment 52(b)(2)(i)-3.i except that, on March 26, the card issuer receives a payment of $20, reducing the balance below the credit limit to $4,995. Nevertheless, for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the extensions of credit in excess of the credit limit is the total amount of credit extended by the card issuer in excess of the credit limit during the March billing cycle ($15). Thus, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $15.

4. Declined access check fees. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with declining payment on a check that accesses a credit card account is the amount of the check. Thus, when a check that accesses a credit card account is declined, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a fee that exceeds the amount of that check. For example, assume that a check that accesses a credit card account is used as payment for a $50 transaction, but payment on the check is declined by the card issuer because the transaction would have exceeded the credit limit for the account. For purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(i), the dollar amount associated with the declined check is the amount of the check ($50). Thus, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(A) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a fee that exceeds $50. However, the amount of this fee must also comply with § 1026.52(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii).

5. Inactivity fees. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(2) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a fee with respect to a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan based on inactivity on that account (including the consumer's failure to use the account for a particular number or dollar amount of transactions or a particular type of transaction). For example, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(2) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a $50 fee when a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan is not used for at least $2,000 in purchases over the course of a year. Similarly, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(2) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a $50 annual fee on all accounts of a particular type but waiving the fee on any account that is used for at least $2,000 in purchases over the course of a year if the card issuer promotes the waiver or rebate of the annual fee for purposes of § 1026.55(e). However, if the card issuer does not promote the waiver or rebate of the annual fee for purposes of § 1026.55(e), § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(2) does not prohibit a card issuer from considering account activity along with other factors when deciding whether to waive or rebate annual fees on individual accounts (such as in response to a consumer's request).

6. Closed account fees. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(3) prohibits a card issuer from imposing a fee based on the closure or termination of an account. For example, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(3) prohibits a card issuer from:

i. Imposing a one-time fee to consumers who close their accounts.

ii. Imposing a periodic fee (such as an annual fee, a monthly maintenance fee, or a closed account fee) after an account is closed or terminated if that fee was not imposed prior to closure or termination. This prohibition applies even if the fee was disclosed prior to closure or termination. See also comment 55(d)-1.

iii. Increasing a periodic fee (such as an annual fee or a monthly maintenance fee) after an account is closed or terminated. However, a card issuer is not prohibited from continuing to impose a periodic fee that was imposed before the account was closed or terminated.

7. Declined transaction fees. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(1) states that card issuers must not impose a fee when there is no dollar amount associated with the violation, such as for transactions that the card issuer declines to authorize. With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature on a prepaid account that are both accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in § 1026.61 where the credit feature is a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(1) prohibits a card issuer from imposing declined transaction fees in connection with the credit feature, regardless of whether the declined transaction fee is imposed on the credit feature or on the asset feature of the prepaid account. For example, if the prepaid card attempts to access credit from the covered separate credit feature accessible by the hybrid prepaid-credit card and the transaction is declined, § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(1) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a declined transaction fee, regardless of whether the fee is imposed on the credit feature or on the asset feature of the prepaid account. Fees imposed for declining a transaction that would have only accessed the asset feature of the prepaid account and would not have accessed the covered separate credit feature accessible by the hybrid prepaid-credit are not covered by § 1026.52(b)(2)(i)(B)(1).

52(b)(2)(ii) Multiple Fees Based on a Single Event or Transaction

1. Single event or transaction. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits a card issuer from imposing more than one fee for violating the terms or other requirements of an account based on a single event or transaction. If § 1026.56(j)(1) permits a card issuer to impose fees for exceeding the credit limit in consecutive billing cycles based on the same over-the-limit transaction, those fees are not based on a single event or transaction for purposes of § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii). The following examples illustrate the application of § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii). Assume for purposes of these examples that the billing cycles for a credit card account begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month and that the payment due date for the account is the twenty-fifth day of the month.

i. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 is $20. On March 26, the card issuer has not received any payment and imposes a late payment fee. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i), the card issuer may impose a $20 late payment fee on March 26. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing an additional late payment fee if the $20 minimum payment has not been received by a subsequent date (such as March 31).

A. On April 3, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing that a $70 required minimum periodic payment is due on April 25. This minimum payment includes the $20 minimum payment due on March 25 and the $20 late payment fee imposed on March 26. On April 20, the card issuer receives a $20 payment. No additional payments are received during the April billing cycle. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit the card issuer from imposing a late payment fee based on the consumer's failure to make the $70 required minimum periodic payment on or before April 25. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (b)(2)(i), the card issuer may impose a $35 late payment fee on April 26.

B. On April 3, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing that a $20 required minimum periodic payment is due on April 25. This minimum payment does not include the $20 minimum payment due on March 25 or the $20 late payment fee imposed on March 26. On April 20, the card issuer receives a $20 payment. No additional payments are received during the April billing cycle. Because the card issuer has received the required minimum periodic payment due on April 25 and because § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a second late payment fee based on the consumer's failure to make the $20 minimum payment due on March 25, the card issuer cannot impose a late payment fee in these circumstances.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs i, i.A, and i.B are revised, to read:

i. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 is $20 and the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer pursuante to § 1026.52(b)(3). On March 26, the card issuer has not received any payment and imposes a late payment fee. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i), the card issuer may impose an $8 late payment fee on March 26. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing an additional late payment fee if the $20 minimum payment has not been received by a subsequent date (such as March 31).

A. On April 3, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing that a $70 required minimum periodic payment is due on April 25. This minimum payment includes the $20 minimum payment due on March 25 and the $8 late payment fee imposed on March 26. On April 20, the card issuer receives a $20 payment. No additional payments are received during the April billing cycle. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit the card issuer from imposing a late payment fee based on the consumer's failure to make the $70 required minimum periodic payment on or before April 25. Accordingly, consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i), the card issuer may impose an $8 late payment fee on April 26.

B. On April 3, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing that a $20 required minimum periodic payment is due on April 25. This minimum payment does not include the $20 minimum payment due on March 25 or the $8 late payment fee imposed on March 26. On April 20, the card issuer receives a $20 payment. No additional payments are received during the April billing cycle. Because the card issuer has received the required minimum periodic payment due on April 25 and because § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a second late payment fee based on the consumer's failure to make the $20 minimum payment due on March 25, the card issuer cannot impose a late payment fee in these circumstances.

ii. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 is $30.

A. On March 25, the card issuer receives a check for $50, but the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 27. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $25 or a returned payment fee of $25. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction.

B. Same facts as paragraph ii.A above except that that card issuer receives the $50 check on March 27 and the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 29. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $25 or a returned payment fee of $25. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction. If no payment is received on or before the next payment due date (April 25), § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit the card issuer from imposing a late payment fee.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs ii, ii.A, and ii.B are revised, to read:

ii. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 is $30 and the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(3).

A. On March 25, the card issuer receives a check for $50, but the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 27. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 or a returned payment fee of $25. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction.

B. Same facts as in comment 52(b)((2)(ii)-1/ii.A except that that card issuer receives the $50 check on March 27 and the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 29. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 or a returned payment fee of $25. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction. If no payment is received on or before the next payment due date (April 25), § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit the card issuer from imposing a late payment fee.

iii. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on July 25 is $30. On July 10, the card issuer receives a $50 payment, which is not returned. On July 20, the card issuer receives a $100 payment, which is returned for insufficient funds on July 24. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a returned payment fee of $25. Nothing in § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the imposition of this fee.

iv. Assume that the credit limit for an account is $1,000 and that, consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. On March 31, the balance on the account is $970 and the card issuer has not received the $35 required minimum periodic payment due on March 25. On that same date (March 31), a $70 transaction is charged to the account, which increases the balance to $1,040. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $25 and an over-the-limit fee of $25. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit the imposition of both fees because those fees are based on different events or transactions. No additional transactions are charged to the account during the March, April, or May billing cycles. If the account balance remains more than $35 above the credit limit on April 26, the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $35 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), to the extent consistent with § 1026.56(j)(1). Furthermore, if the account balance remains more than $35 above the credit limit on May 26, the card issuer may again impose an over-the-limit fee of $35 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), to the extent consistent with § 1026.56(j)(1). Thereafter, § 1026.56(j)(1) does not permit the card issuer to impose additional over-the-limit fees unless another over-the-limit transaction occurs. However, if an over-the-limit transaction occurs during the six billing cycles following the May billing cycle, the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $35 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B).

v. Assume that the credit limit for an account is $5,000 and that, consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. On July 23, the balance on the account is $4,950. On July 24, the card issuer receives the $100 required minimum periodic payment due on July 25, reducing the balance to $4,850. On July 26, a $75 transaction is charged to the account, which increases the balance to $4,925. On July 27, the $100 payment is returned for insufficient funds, increasing the balance to $5,025. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a returned payment fee of $25 or an over-the-limit fee of $25. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction.

vi. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 is $50. On March 20, the card issuer receives a check for $50, but the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 22. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a returned payment fee of $25. On March 25, the card issuer receives a second check for $50, but the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 27. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $25 or a returned payment fee of $35. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction.

vii. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on February 25 is $100. On February 25, the card issuer receives a check for $100. On March 3, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing that a $120 required minimum periodic payment is due on March 25. On March 4, the $100 check is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds. Consistent with §§ 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $25 or a returned payment fee of $25 with respect to the $100 payment. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction. On March 20, the card issuer receives a $120 check, which is not returned. No additional payments are received during the March billing cycle. Because the card issuer has received the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 and because § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a second fee based on the $100 payment that was returned for insufficient funds, the card issuer cannot impose a late payment fee in these circumstances.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, paragraphs iii, iv, v, vi, and vii are revised, to read:

iii. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on July 25 is $30 and the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(3). On July 10, the card issuer receives a $50 payment, which is not returned. On July 20, the card issuer receives a $100 payment, which is returned for insufficient funds on July 24. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a returned payment fee of $25. Nothing in § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the imposition of this fee.

iv. Assume that the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(3) and the credit limit for an account is $1,000 and that, consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. On March 31, the balance on the account is $970 and the card issuer has not received the $35 required minimum periodic payment due on March 25. On that same date (March 31), a $70 transaction is charged to the account, which increases the balance to $1,040. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 and an over-the-limit fee of $25. Section 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) does not prohibit the imposition of both fees because those fees are based on different events or transactions. No additional transactions are charged to the account during the March, April, or May billing cycles. If the account balance remains more than $35 above the credit limit on April 26, the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $35 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), to the extent consistent with § 1026.56(j)(1). Furthermore, if the account balance remains more than $35 above the credit limit on May 26, the card issuer may again impose an over-the-limit fee of $35 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), to the extent consistent with § 1026.56(j)(1). Thereafter, § 1026.56(j)(1) does not permit the card issuer to impose additional over-the-limit fees unless another over-the-limit transaction occurs. However, if an over-the-limit transaction occurs during the six billing cycles following the May billing cycle, the card issuer may impose an over-the-limit fee of $35 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B).

v. Assume that the credit limit for an account is $5,000 and that, consistent with § 1026.56, the consumer has affirmatively consented to the payment of transactions that exceed the credit limit. On July 23, the balance on the account is $4,950. On July 24, the card issuer receives the $100 required minimum periodic payment due on July 25, reducing the balance to $4,850. On July 26, a $75 transaction is charged to the account, which increases the balance to $4,925. On July 27, the $100 payment is returned for insufficient funds, increasing the balance to $5,025. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a returned payment fee of $25 or an over-the-limit fee of $25. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction.

vi. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 is $50 and the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(3). On March 20, the card issuer receives a check for $50, but the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 22. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a returned payment fee of $25. On March 25, the card issuer receives a second check for $50, but the check is returned for insufficient funds on March 27. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 or a returned payment fee of $35. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction.

vii. Assume that the required minimum periodic payment due on February 25 is $100 and the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(3). On February 25, the card issuer receives a check for $100. On March 3, the card issuer provides a periodic statement disclosing that a $120 required minimum periodic payment is due on March 25. On March 4, the $100 check is returned to the card issuer for insufficient funds. Consistent with § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(A), the card issuer may impose a late payment fee of $8 or a returned payment fee of $25 with respect to the $100 payment. However, § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing both fees because those fees would be based on a single event or transaction. On March 20, the card issuer receives a $120 check, which is not returned. No additional payments are received during the March billing cycle. Because the card issuer has received the required minimum periodic payment due on March 25 and because § 1026.52(b)(2)(ii) prohibits the card issuer from imposing a second fee based on the $100 payment that was returned for insufficient funds, the card issuer cannot impose a late payment fee in these circumstances.

Editor's Note: Effective May 14, 2024, comment 52(b)(3) is added, to read:

52(b)(3) Smaller card issuer

52(b)(3)(i)

1. Entire calendar year. To meet the definition of smaller card issuer, a card issuer together with its affiliates must have fewer than one million open credit accounts for the entire preceding calendar year. Thus, for example, if a card issuer together with its affiliates had more than one million open credit card accounts from January through October of the preceding calendar year but had fewer than that threshold number in November and December, the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer in the next calendar year. Further, the card issuer is not a smaller card issuer until such time that the card issuer’s number of open credit card accounts, together with those of its affiliates, remains below one million for an entire preceding calendar year.

52(b)(3)(ii)

1. Meeting or exceeding threshold in current calendar year. If a card issuer together with its affiliates had fewer than one million open credit card accounts for the entire preceding calendar year but meets or exceeds that number of open credit card accounts in the current calendar year, then the card issuer will no longer meets the definition of smaller card issuer and therefore may not impose a late fee pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(ii)(E) as of 60 days after meeting or exceeding the threshold number of open credit card accounts. For purposes of imposing a late fee pursuant to the safe harbor provisions, the card issuer may impose a late fee of no more than $8 pursuant to § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii) as of the 60th day.