The General Committee adopted the amendments to paragraph 235.7(a)-1 essentially as proposed. With respect to the proposal, the Final Rule makes minor changes to comment 235.7 (a)-1 in order to align the commentary with terminology used elsewhere in Regulation II. In particular, the Final Rule uses the term “execute” instead of the proposed term “process” or “launch” to refer to the use of a debit card to complete a debit card transaction, which is consistent with terminology used in other parts of Rule II.  While a merchant may incur adjustment costs to take advantage of the ability to choose between competing networks when routing debit card transactions, a merchant`s decision to incur these costs is at the discretion of the merchant.  In particular, the final regime imposes no obligation on merchants, allowing them to continue to use their existing debit card processing agreements without incurring adjustment costs. Some dealers who choose not to incur adaptation costs may nevertheless benefit from a wider choice of routes through their existing agreements due to the final arrangements. However, the Commission expects that some merchants will voluntarily adjust their debit card processing agreements to take advantage of the final regime, but only if these benefits outweigh the costs. These potential costs include changing their e-commerce platforms, deciding to incur costs to switch processors or acquirers, or improving their fraud prevention capabilities. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, Appendix A.1), the Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information and a respondent is not required to respond unless the Commission provides a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The Commission reviewed the final rule within the OMB`s powers and concluded that it did not include information collections under the PAR. Therefore, there is no paperwork associated with the final rule. 8. Application of the rule in any form. The network exclusivity provisions of § 235.7(a) apply to electronic debit transactions made using a debit card as defined in § 235.2, regardless of the form of that debit card. For example, the requirement applies to pre-authorized debit transactions made using a plastic card, an auxiliary device such as a money flash, information stored in an e-wallet on a mobile phone or other device, or any other form of debit card as defined in section 235.2 that may be developed in the future. (2) Permitted Arrangements. An issuer shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this Section only if it authorizes two or more unconnected payment card networks to process an electronic debit transaction. As described in the summary of public comments, section II, above, the Commission received numerous comments that supported proposed section 235.7(a)(2) as a clarification of the requirements that already apply to transmitters and that issuers should already meet. The Commission also received numerous comments, primarily from issuers, related trade associations and dual-message networks, indicating that the proposal would extend the prohibition of network exclusivity to transactions involving non-existent cards that commentators believe were not previously subject to this prohibition.
In addition, commentators argued that the proposal would transform the current requirement for an issuer to allow the processing of a debit card transaction on at least two unconnected networks into a new, comprehensive mandate requiring issuers to explicitly ensure that two unconnected networks are always available to all merchants in every transaction context imaginable.  These commentators expressed a wide range of concerns about this broad interpretation of the proposal. Or implement a system for senders who do not currently perform fraud detection for WEB Direct debits Some commentators, including merchants, single-message networks and federal agencies, expressed the view that the proposal would encourage greater competition between networks by ensuring that at least two unconnected networks are available for cardless debit card transactions. These commenters noted that such a competitive landscape may be necessary for some of the networks currently on the market to remain competitive as more debit card transactions move into the cardless environment. At the same time, some commentators argued that the proposal was not necessary because the competitive forces within the debit card industry were strong enough to provide merchants with routing choice for cardless transactions. Second, several commentators have argued that issuers cannot control network coverage for all transactions and may not even know, for example, whether a network is operating in a particular geographical area. Accordingly, these commenters submitted that it may not be possible for a transmitter to know whether the networks activated by the transmitter are sufficient for the transmitter to meet the requirements of the proposal. To address these concerns, one commenter suggested that the Agency publish lists of networks that can be used to comply with the prohibition of network exclusivity for a geographic area or type of transaction. Other commenters argued that the Agency should presume that, for example, a network is operating for a geographic area (or is willing to expand its operating capabilities in a geographic area) if the network does not limit its operation or expansion to that geographic area by rules or guidelines.
These impacts could increase the cost of production WEB Direct debit for some parts Emissions of biomass used for energy purposes are recorded and accounted for in each Member State`s climate commitments for 2030. This takes into account widespread criticism that emissions from biomass in energy production are currently not taken into account in EU law. As forest management is the main source of biomass for energy and wood production, stronger accounting and management rules for forest management provide a solid basis for future EU renewable energy policy after 2020. Article 235.7(a) of Regulation II implements the prohibition set out in Article 920(b)(1)(A) of EFTA. In particular, the provision prohibits an issuer or network from starting directly or indirectly with printed page 61218, limiting the number of networks on which a debit card transaction may be processed to fewer than two unconnected networks (the “Network Exclusivity Prohibition”). Current paragraph 235.7(a) provides that, in order to comply with the prohibition of network exclusivity, the issuer must permit the processing of a debit card transaction on at least two unconnected networks, each of which does not restrict the operation of the network by rules or guidelines to a geographic area, merchant or type of merchant or limited transaction. and (ii) each of them has taken steps reasonably designed to enable the Network to process debit card transactions that the Network would reasonably expect to be routed to the Network based on the anticipated volume of transactions. Therefore, when setting up its debit cards, an issuer must activate at least two unconnected networks, neither of which has rules or policies that prevent it from processing transactions in, for example, a specific geographical area. While the Committee does not have the legal authority to exempt small businesses from the final regime, it has taken further steps, in part in response to comments received on the proposal, to minimize the economic impact of the final regime on issuers of all sizes, including small businesses. First, as described in the Final Rule and the discussion in Section (Section III, see Section III), the Final Rule allows transmitters to use more combinations of networks to comply with the prohibition of network exclusivity than is permitted under current section 235.7(a)(2). The Commission considers that allowing transmitters to use more network combinations to comply with the final rule will help issuers minimize the compliance costs associated with the final rule, as issuers can choose the most cost-effective network mix to comply with the final rule. Second, as described in the final rule and section-by-section analysis, section III above, the Commission adopts a final rule that preserves a transmitter`s ability to rely on network rules or policies to determine whether a network can be used to comply with the prohibition of network exclusivity.
The Commission is of the view that it will be much easier for transmitters to know when they have complied with the final rule and to comply with it if transmitters are permitted to continue to rely on network rules or policies to determine whether a network can be used to comply with the prohibition of network exclusivity (as permitted by current section 235.7(a)(2) compared to the proposal.