Notice2026-00391
Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 12, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Reserve System
Abstract
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Interchange Transaction Fees Survey (FR 3064; OMB No. 7100-0344).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 7 (Monday, January 12, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1180-1184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00391]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board
Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board)
is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the
Interchange Transaction Fees Survey (FR 3064; OMB No. 7100-0344).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Reserve Board Clearance
Officer--Nuha Elmaghrabi--Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b756e737a357e77767a7c73697a79725b7d6979357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c5249545d125950515d5b544e5d5e557c5a4e5e125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>, (202)
452-3884.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal
Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725
17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board
authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign
OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or
sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are
incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved
collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the
PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed
information about the information collections and burden estimates than
this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are
available at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. These documents
are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at
<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/review">https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/review</a> or may be
requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above.
On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting
information by referencing the collection identifier, FR 3064.
Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of the Extension for Three
Years, Without Revision, of the Following Information Collection
Collection title: Interchange Transaction Fees Survey.
Collection identifier: FR 3064.
OMB control number: 7100-0344.
General description of collection: The Debit Card Issuer Survey (FR
3064a) collects data from issuers of debit cards (including general-use
prepaid cards) that, together with their affiliates, have assets of $10
billion or more, including information regarding the volume and value
of debit card transactions; chargebacks and returns; costs of
authorization, clearance, and settlement of debit card transactions;
other costs incurred in connection with particular debit card
transactions; fraud prevention costs and fraud losses; and interchange
fee revenue. The Payment Card Network Survey (FR 3064b) collects data
from payment card networks, including the volume and value of debit
card transactions; interchange fees; network fees; and payments and
incentives paid by networks to acquirers, merchants, and issuers.
The data from the FR 3064a and FR 3064b are used to fulfill a
statutory requirement that the Board disclose certain information
regarding debit card transactions on a biennial basis. In addition, the
Board uses data from the Payment Card Network Survey (FR 3064b) to
publicly report on an annual basis the extent to which networks have
established separate interchange fees for exempt and covered issuers.
Frequency: Annual.
Respondents: Debit card issuers and payment card networks.
Total estimated number of respondents: FR 3064a, 531; FR 3064b, 15.
Estimated average hours per response: FR 3064a, 160; FR 3064b, 75.
Total estimated annual burden hours: FR 3064a, 84,960; FR 3064b,
1,125.
Current actions: On May 29, 2025, the Board published a notice in
the Federal Register (90 FR 22726) requesting public comment for 60
days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 3064. The comment
period for this notice expired on July 28, 2025. The Board received
four comments--two from banking industry trade associations, one from a
bank holding company, and one from a payment card network.\1\ All
commenters
[[Page 1181]]
recommended changes to the Debit Card Issuer Survey (FR 3064a) (the
``DCI survey''), and two recommended changes to the Payment Card
Network Survey (FR 3064b) (the ``PCN survey'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comment letter from the bank holding company endorsed
one of the trade association letters. They are treated as two
separate comment letters herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Discussion of Public Comments
I. DCI Survey
Comments on the DCI survey broadly addressed the following: (A)
collecting information on new categories of costs, as well as a
detailed list of line items relating to both existing and new cost
categories; (B) making certain structural changes to the DCI survey,
including with respect to routing methods and fraud; and (C) certain
other matters that pertain to the substance of Regulation II or
otherwise pertain to the DCI survey only indirectly.
A. Costs Included in the DCI Survey
1. Summary of Comments
Three commenters asserted that the information collected through
the DCI survey is too limited and thus provides an incomplete picture
of costs incurred by debit card issuers. Commenters proposed that the
Board collect data on certain new categories of costs not currently
included in the DCI survey, such as: international fraud losses; card
maintenance costs; program setup, infrastructure, and account
maintenance costs; research, development, and technology costs;
compliance and regulatory costs; periodic statement and account
information costs; consumer impact metrics; and an open-ended category
of ``other'' costs.
Two commenters suggested a list of about 40 specific line items
that relate to both existing and new cost categories. With respect to
existing cost categories, commenters suggested line items related to
fraud losses and fraud-prevention costs; transaction processing and
network costs; cardholder inquiry costs; cardholder rewards costs;
capital and fixed costs; and third-party service provider costs.\2\
With respect to new cost categories, commenters suggested line items
related to card maintenance costs; program setup, infrastructure, and
account maintenance costs; research, development, and technology costs;
compliance and regulatory costs; periodic statement and account
information costs; and ``other'' costs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, with respect to fraud losses and fraud
prevention costs, commenters proposed line items for fraud-
prevention costs, fraud detection and monitoring, fraud losses,
costs of developing and implementing anti-fraud technologies, data
breach-related losses, and costs of fraud monitoring required to
facilitate debit card issuing activities. With respect to
transaction processing and network costs, commenters proposed line
items for authorization costs, costs of transaction monitoring
during authorization, clearing and settlement costs, network fees,
costs of posting transactions to customer accounts, costs of storage
and recordkeeping of transaction information, and transaction
security costs.
\3\ For example, with respect to program setup, infrastructure,
and account maintenance costs, commenters proposed line items for
costs of agreements with debit card networks, costs of development
and distribution of account terms and required disclosures, costs of
system setup for transaction processing, account setup costs
specific to debit card functionality, account maintenance costs
related to debit card programs, and funds loading costs. With
respect to compliance and regulatory costs, commenters proposed line
items for compliance costs related to debit transactions and costs
of legal, audit, and regulatory reporting functions specific to
debit cards. With respect to periodic statement and account
information costs, commenters proposed line items for costs of
providing transaction details on paper or electronic statements and
costs of online access to account and transaction information for
cardholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four commenters raised issues related to technology-specific costs.
Three commenters recommended including a new cost category for costs
related to tokenization and digital wallets, noting the increased
popularity of digital wallets. One commenter suggested edits to the
definition of ``third-party processing fees'' to expressly include fees
related to third-party service providers that are digital wallet
operators; the same commenter also suggested edits to the definition of
``transaction monitoring costs'' to expressly include, in addition to
neural networks and fraud-scoring systems, a catchall reference to
other technologies. The commenter also suggested including an
additional list of examples to the definition of ``total fraud-
prevention and data-security costs,'' including EMV and contactless
card technology, tokenization technology, machine learning and
artificial intelligence, technology to allow customers to enable or
disable their debit cards, technologies for cardholder authentication,
and others.
Two commenters expressed the view that the DCI survey is narrowly
focused on costs incurred by issuers and suggested that the Board
should also capture the costs incurred by other parties to debit card
transactions. With respect to consumers, commenters noted that the DCI
survey is not an accurate reflection of consumer costs and suggested
that the Board collect data on changes in the availability and terms of
free checking accounts and debit card rewards, and changes in consumer
fees related to debit card use. With respect to merchants, commenters
stated that payment processing fees have emerged as a leading cost to
merchants, encompassing a significant portion of fees paid by merchants
to accept debit card transactions, and suggested that the DCI survey
capture the third-party processor costs incurred by merchants.
2. Response
The Board has determined to retain the costs included in the DCI
survey without change.\4\ The categories of costs collected through the
DCI survey generally comprise those costs the Board considered in
connection with the adoption of the interchange fee cap in the Board's
Regulation II (12 CFR part 235), but also include certain additional
costs that provide broader context for costs incurred by issuers in the
course of effecting debit card transactions.\5\ The Board believes that
the costs currently included in the DCI survey remain sufficient to
allow the Board to administer Regulation II, as adopted, and release
summary and aggregate information as appropriate in the public
interest.\6\ Further, the Board does not believe that the increased
burden on respondents of responding to a large number of additional
items is necessary for the proper performance of these statutory
functions. Some new cost categories suggested by commenters (such as
account maintenance costs, regulatory compliance costs, and periodic
statement and account information costs), as well as specific line
items (such as development and distribution of account terms and
required disclosures, costs of legal, audit, and regulatory reporting,
providing transaction details on paper or electronic statements, and
online access to account and transaction
[[Page 1182]]
information for cardholders), include costs that are not incurred by
issuers in the course of effecting debit card transactions, as
discussed in the Adopting Release issued by the Board in 2011.\7\ Other
new cost categories suggested by commenters (such as consumer and
merchant costs), as well as specific line items (such as the
availability and terms of free checking accounts), are not incurred by
debit card issuers at all or are not incurred by banks in their
capacity as debit card issuers.\8\ In addition, some costs may or may
not be subcategories of existing costs, and it is not clear whether all
costs are mutually exclusive or how they would be defined.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Board discussed costs included and not included in
establishing the interchange fee cap when the Board adopted
Regulation II in 2011. See 76 FR 43394, 43427-31 (July 20, 2011)
(the ``Adopting Release''). The Board does not express any
additional views on which costs must, may, or may not be considered
by the Board in establishing interchange fee standards.
\5\ Since the Board's initial 2010 voluntary survey of large
debit card issuers (collecting information regarding transactions
performed in 2009), the Board has collected data on cardholder
rewards, NSF funds handling, and cardholder inquiries, none of which
costs the Board considered when establishing the interchange fee
cap. Starting with the 2011 DCI survey, the Board included the
subset of customer service costs associated with cardholder
inquiries regarding particular debit card transactions. 76 FR 79184
(Dec. 21, 2011).
\6\ The Board is required by statute to (i) prescribe
interchange fee standards and (ii) on at least a bi-annual basis,
disclose such aggregate or summary information concerning the costs
incurred, and interchange transaction fees charged or received, by
debit card issuers in connection with the authorization, clearance,
or settlement (``ACS'') of debit card transactions as the Board
considers appropriate and in the public interest. See 15 U.S.C.
1693o-2(a)(3).
\7\ See Adopting release at 43428.
\8\ The Board has statutory authority to collect information
from debit card issuers and payment card networks. With respect to
debit card issuers and payment card networks, the Board's statutory
authority relates to costs incurred, and interchange fees charged or
received, by issuers or payment card networks in connection with the
ACS of electronic debit transactions. See 15 U.S.C. 1693o-
2(a)(3)(B).
\9\ Two commenters noted that banking industry trade
associations collect data on costs not included in the DCI survey,
but they do not indicate how the trade associations define those
costs or the entities from whom they collect those data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to technology-specific comments, the Board also does
not believe it is necessary to add a new line item for tokenization and
digital wallet costs. However, the Board believes that it is
appropriate to clarify that the DCI survey is intended to be technology
neutral. So long as the costs incurred by a debit card issuer
associated with a particular technology fall within the scope of a
question on the DCI survey, those technology costs are already
reportable, regardless of the technology involved. For example,
although the definition of ``transactions monitoring costs'' refers
specifically to the costs of neural networks and fraud-risk scoring
systems as examples, those examples are not intended to be limiting so
long as the cost otherwise falls within the definition of transactions
monitoring costs. Similarly, costs associated with tokenization and
digital wallets are already reportable so long as they fall within the
scope of a question in the DCI survey. To avoid any confusion with
respect to the definition of transactions monitoring costs, the Board
has clarified in the instructions to the DCI survey that transactions
monitoring costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of neural
networks and fraud-risk scoring.
B. Structural Changes to the DCI Survey
1. Summary of Comments
Three commenters addressed ways in which the Board could
restructure aspects of the DCI survey. One commenter asked the Board to
remove Sections III and IV of the DCI survey, which require issuers to
distinguish between single-message (``SM'') and dual-message (``DM'')
debit card transactions, respectively. The commenter asserted that
Sections III and IV impose burden on debit card issuers but do not
provide actionable insights aligned with the survey's goals. The
commenter suggested that the Board instead distinguish between ``legacy
four-party systems'' and ``alternative networks'' and collect only
volume and transaction data specific to routing over alternative
networks (regardless of message format).
One commenter suggested that the Board eliminate the separate
collection of volume and value data for card-present (``CP'') and card-
not-present (``CNP'') transactions. The commenter stated that the
distinction between CP and CNP transactions no longer reliably reflects
ACS costs nor serves as an accurate proxy for routing options. The
commenter explained that CP transactions were traditionally associated
with magnetic stripe and chip card use, whereas CNP transactions were
typically key-entered and associated with catalog and phone purchases,
but that transactions today defy CP and CNP categories. The commenter
further explained that, today, card entry can include magnetic stripe,
chip, manual key entry, card-on-file, and tokenization. It also notes
that the expansion of PINless debit has made it possible to route CNP
transactions through payment card networks that traditionally required
a PIN. Given the change in the payments landscape and the fact that a
single interchange fee cap applies to all transaction types, the
commenter argued that it is unnecessary to split debit card data by CP
and CNP.
One commenter addressed the DCI survey's reporting requirements for
fraudulent debit card transactions. The commenter asserted that
requiring issuers to separately report information for different fraud
types does not provide practical utility in relation to routing.\10\ In
addition, the commenter stated that many community banks do not have
sufficient access to granular data to report the specified
subcategories. The commenter also noted that the term CNP is now
increasingly obsolete, that some categories may not be mutually
exclusive, and that the subcategory for counterfeit fraud is no longer
necessary in light of the widespread adoption of EMV chip technology.
As an alternative, the commenter encouraged the Board to align the
categories of fraud on the DCI survey with the Federal Reserve's
FraudClassifier\SM\ model.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Currently the DCI survey requires debit card issuers to
report fraud data according to the following categories: (1) all
fraudulent transactions; (2) CNP fraud; (3) counterfeit fraud; (4)
lost and stolen card fraud; and (5) other.
\11\ The FraudClassifier model includes categories for fraud
authorized by the defrauded party (which is not collected through
the DCI survey) and unauthorized fraud (which is collected through
the DCI survey). Within the category of unauthorized fraud, the
FraudClassifier model distinguishes between fraud involving
compromised credentials, impersonation of an authorized party,
physical alteration, digital payment, and physical forgery/
counterfeit. See About the FraudClassifier Model <radical>
FedPayments Improvement, available at <a href="https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/strategic-initiatives/payments-security/fraudclassifier-model/">https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/strategic-initiatives/payments-security/fraudclassifier-model/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter requested that the Board eliminate a requirement to
report in-house costs as a subset of a debit card issuer's ACS
costs.\12\ The commenter stated that community banks overwhelmingly
rely on core processors for data storage and reporting and that, as a
result, it is difficult for community banks to identify in-house
processing costs. The commenter also stated that the instructions to
the DCI survey for calculating in-house costs do not align with how
community banks record or account for operational expenses and that
they unable to isolate in-house costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The DCI survey requires debit card issuers to separate
authorization, clearance, and settlement costs into (1) in-house
costs, (2) third-party processing fees, and (3) network processing
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Response
The Board has determined that it will retain Sections III and IV of
the DCI survey (requiring issuers to separately report information for
SM and DM transactions) and continue to require separate reporting of
volume and value for CP and CNP transactions. With respect to the
specific suggestion that the Board replace SM and DM with alternative
and legacy networks, the Board believes it is appropriate to use
neutral terms to distinguish between transaction types and that many
networks are capable of processing both SM and DM transactions. With
respect to the suggestion that certain transactions defy CP and CNP
categories, the Board understands that networks continue to distinguish
between CP and CNP transactions and believes that the definitions of
``card-present transaction'' and ``card-not-present transaction'' in
the DCI survey remain clear for the vast majority of transactions.
More broadly, the Board believes that there continues to be value
to the Board, Congress, and the broader public in collecting and
reporting on data specific
[[Page 1183]]
to SM and DM transactions and CP and CNP transactions. As shown in the
Board's reports, the data show significant differences between SM and
DM transactions across a variety of metrics, such as volumes and
values, interchange fees, incentives, network fees, and fraud. The
reports also show meaningful differences between CP and CNP
transactions. The Board believes that not reporting these distinctions
would deprive the public of information regarding a significant feature
of the debit card market. At a minimum, the Board believes that, in the
event the Board were to consider future streamlining of the survey to
eliminate the distinction between SM and DM transactions and CP and CNP
transactions or different ways to categorize transactions altogether,
it would be important to solicit feedback from a broader range of
stakeholders on those specific changes.
In addition, data regarding SM and DM transactions and CP and CNP
transactions provided the Board with insight into gaps in merchant
routing choice for CNP transactions. This information prompted the
Board to amend Regulation II in 2022 to specify that the requirement
that each debit card transaction must be able to be processed on at
least two unaffiliated payment card networks applies to CNP
transactions, and clarify the requirement that debit card issuers
ensure that at least two unaffiliated networks have been enabled to
process a debit card transaction.\13\ Continued collection of this data
will permit the Board to monitor changes made by debit card issuers in
response to these routing amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See generally 87 FR 61217 (Oct. 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to fraud, the current subcategories continue to assist
the Board in monitoring and reporting on trends in debit card fraud.
Although one commenter stated that certain fraud categories are of
diminished value, data from the most recent bi-annual report show that
each of counterfeit, CNP, and lost and stolen card fraud continues to
be a significant source of fraud and that the distribution of fraud
across those account types differs between SM and DM transactions.\14\
The Board believes that not reporting on different types of fraud would
deprive the public of information regarding an important aspect of the
debit card market. In addition, while the Board recognizes that some
issuers may have difficulty obtaining the data necessary to accurately
report data on different subcategories of fraud, the typical issuer
does not appear to consistently experience these issues. The Board also
recognizes that there are instances in which fraud may be difficult to
classify under a single category. As noted in the instructions to the
DCI survey, a debit card issuer may report in a manner consistent with
the way that the issuer categorizes fraud losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 2021 Interchange Fee Revenue, Covered Issuer Cost, and
Covered Issuer and Merchant Fraud Loss Related to Debit Card
Transactions (Oct. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board appreciates comments that the Board should update the DCI
survey to align with the FraudClassifier model, but believes it is
premature to revisit the subcategories included in the DCI survey. On
June 20, 2025, the Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published a request for
information (``RFI'') on potential actions to address payments
fraud.\15\ The RFI, which focused on check, automated clearing house,
wire, and instant payments fraud, includes a section on payments fraud
data collection and information sharing, in which the agencies note
that standardizing payments fraud data collection, along with further
information sharing, could provide a more comprehensive understanding
of the prevalence and impact of payments fraud. In the RFI, the
agencies also asked a number of questions regarding payments fraud
data, including on how data collection could be improved and whether
the Federal Reserve System could better leverage or improve the
FraudClassifier and ScamClassifier<SUP>TM</SUP> models.\16\ The Board
is carefully reviewing comments received on the RFI, and, although the
RFI did not focus on debit card fraud, responses to the RFI may inform
potential future changes to how debit card fraud data is collected
through the DCI survey. In addition, to the extent that the Board does,
in the future, consider new subcategorization for fraud for purposes of
the DCI survey, the Board believes that such a proposal would benefit
from public comment on potential changes in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 90 FR 26293 (June 20, 2025). The comment period ended on
September 18, 2025.
\16\ Id. at 26297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to in-house costs, the Board has determined to retain
the breakdown of ACS costs by in-house costs, third-party processing
fees, and network processing fees. As with subcategories of fraud
costs, the Board recognizes that some issuers may have difficulty
obtaining the data necessary to accurately report data on in-house
costs, but the typical issuer does not appear to experience these
issues. Further, the Board uses this data to report information on in-
house costs, third-party processing fees, and network fees across low-,
mid-, and high-volume issuers (including as a percentage of total ACS
costs and on a per-transaction basis). The Board notes that there are
different ways in which debit card issuers process transactions and
that not reporting these distinctions would deprive the public of
information regarding a significant feature of the debit card market.
In addition, eliminating a cost breakdown for in-house costs would not
eliminate the need for debit card issuers to identify and report those
costs as part of their overall ACS costs.
C. Other Matters
The Board received a number of comments on matters that either do
not pertain to the DCI survey or that involve the DCI survey only
insofar they involve the substance of Regulation II itself. Comments in
this category include comments on the merits of Regulation II and the
statute pursuant to which the Board adopted Regulation II; comments
regarding the costs that the Board must or should consider when
establishing interchange fee standards; comments regarding the
publication date of the 2023 data previously collected by the Board;
\17\ and comments recommending publication of information regarding the
number and completeness of responses to the DCI survey. The Board is
not addressing these out-of-scope comments at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Board intends to publish the report on the 2023 data by
the end of 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter asked the Board to update the instructions to the DCI
survey to clarify what it means for a merchant to be located in the
United States (for example, in the context of online transactions). The
Board does not believe it would be appropriate to use the instructions
to the DCI survey to address this issue because whether a merchant is
located in the United States relates not only to the survey but also to
whether Regulation II applies to a particular transaction.
II. PCN Survey
1. Summary of Comments
Two commenters provided comments with respect to the PCN survey.
One commenter expressed support for the collection of data from small
issuers through payment card networks.\18\ The
[[Page 1184]]
commenter also generally stated that many of its comments to the DCI
survey also applied to the PCN survey, likely including the commenter's
suggestion that the Board eliminate the distinction between CP and CNP
transactions and SM and DM networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ When the Board adopted the interchange fee cap in 2011, the
Board stated that the Board was taking steps to allow the Board to
monitor and report to Congress on the effectiveness of the small
issuer exemption, including by surveying payment card networks
annually and publishing annually a list of the average interchange
fees each network provides to covered issuers and exempt issuers.
Adopting Release at 43436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter recommended reducing the frequency of the PCN survey,
from every year to every two years. The commenter noted that annual
reporting is no longer needed to achieve the Board's original purpose
for requiring the PCN survey annually and that the commenter estimated
that it takes at least 270 hours to complete the survey.
One commenter asked the Board to expand the reporting panel for the
PCN survey to include ``payment facilitators.'' \19\ The commenter
argued that payment facilitators fall within the definition of payment
card network in Regulation II and stated that payment facilitators play
a critical role in the payment ecosystem but are not part of the
reporting panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The commenter defined ``payment facilitator'' as an entity
that offers proprietary services and technological infrastructure to
route transactions and settle funds and charge merchants for these
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Response
With respect to the distinction between CP and CNP transactions and
SM and DM networks, the Board believes that there continues to be value
in collecting data specific to CP and CNP transactions and SM and DM
networks, as discussed above.
With respect to the burden on respondents of responding to the PCN
survey, the Board appreciates feedback on the number of hours it takes
to complete the PCN survey each year. The Board's burden calculations
reflect an estimate of the average burden on respondents, and the Board
may consider updating its current estimate of average burden if
additional respondents comment on its accuracy in the future.
In addition, with respect to the frequency of the PCN survey, the
Board continues to believe that annual reporting is useful in
connection with monitoring the effectiveness of Regulation II's small
issuer exception at this time. Notably, in recent years, the average
interchange fee received for exempt transactions has increased
materially relative to the average interchange fee received for covered
transactions, and the PCN survey is the Board's only source of this
data.\20\ However, the Board acknowledges the effort spent by payment
card networks to complete the PCN survey annually. The Board may
revisit the frequency of the survey in the future; if the Board does
revisit the issue, the Board would intend to seek public comment from
various stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Federal Reserve Board, Regulation II (Debit Card
Interchange Fees and Routing): Average Debit Card Interchange Fee by
Payment Card Network (2024), <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regii-average-interchange-fee.htm">https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regii-average-interchange-fee.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Board has determined not to expressly state in the
survey instrument that payment facilitators are required to complete
the PCN survey. Whether or not an entity is required to complete the
PCN survey is determined by whether the entity is a ``payment card
network'' as defined in Regulation II (which definition largely
reflects the statutory definition and has been in place since 2011) and
clarified in the Official Board Commentary on Regulation II.\21\ Any
entity that fits within this definition is a ``payment card network''
for the purposes of Regulation II and is responsible for fulfilling the
requirements applicable to payment card networks set forth in
Regulation II, including the mandatory reporting through the PCN
survey. The Board does not believe that the PCN survey is the
appropriate context for identifying particular entities or types of
entities that meet the definition of ``payment card network'' for
purposes of Regulation II, and the Board expresses no view as to
whether the particular payment facilitators referred to by the
commenter are in fact payment card networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 12 CFR 235.2(m); 12 CFR part 235 Appendix A, Sec.
235.2(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board will adopt the extension, without revision of the FR 3064
as originally proposed.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 8,
2026.
Erin M. Cayce,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2026-00391 Filed 1-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 12, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.