Compliance and Operations Topics – September 2014
Request for Comment/Request for Information
ACH Participant Survey
September 16, 2014
COMMENTS DUE BY FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2014
NACHA requests comments on several proposals to amend the NACHA Operating Rules regarding
Compliance and Operations Topics:
 Recrediting Receiver – Removal of the Fifteen-Calendar-Day Notification Timeframe;
 TEL Entries – Field Inclusion Requirement/Data Content for Payment Type Code Field;
 Clarification of RDFI Warranties for Notifications of Change;
 Valid Characters for ACH Records; and
 Disclosure Requirements for POS Entries.
Additionally, NACHA requests information on the topic of:
 ODFI Request for Return for Fraudulently-Originated Entries.
The survey should be completed online at https://www.nacha.org/rules/proposed by October 24, 2014.
For convenience, the survey questions are also provided within this document to assist respondents in
gathering information from within their organizations.
NACHA STAFF CONTACTS
Administrative questions:
Questions:
Maribel Bondoc, Manager, Network Rules
Fax (703) 787-0996
E-mail: mbondoc@nacha.org
Phyllis Schneider, AAP, Director, Network Rules
E-mail: pschneider@nacha.org
Cari Conahan, AAP, Senior Director, Network Rules
E-mail: cconahan@nacha.org
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 2
SECTION I - RESPONDENT INFORMATION
All Respondents
Name
Title
Organization
Phone
Email
Please indicate your organization’s role(s) in the ACH Network:
ODFI
Regional Payments Association
RDFI
Direct FI Member
ACH Operator
Government
Originator
Third Party Service Provider
Receiver
Software Vendor
Other:
What areas of your organization provided input for the responses to this survey?
Operations
Wholesale/corporate banking/treasury mgt
Product managements
Customer service
Legal
Compliance
Information
Retail/online banking
Technology/software
Other:
Financial Institution Respondents
Asset Size
less than $250 million
$250 million - $999 million
$1 billion - $100 billion
Greater than $100 billion
SECTION II: REQUEST FOR COMMENT PROPOSALS
Topic #1 – Recrediting Receiver – Removal of the Fifteen-Calendar-Day Notification Timeframe
1. Does your organization support the removal of the fifteencalendar-day notification timeframe from the RDFI’s
obligations to recredit a consumer Receiver for an
unauthorized entry?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 3
2. If yes, does your organization support aligning the RDFI’s
requirement for “prompt” recredit for an unauthorized
consumer debit to the receipt of a Written Statement,
provided that the Written Statement is received by the RDFI
in time to transmit an extended return entry?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
RDFIs only:
3. As an RDFI, when a Written Statement of Unauthorized
Yes
Debit is provided to you by the Receiver, does the fifteenNo
day notification timeframe (referenced in Article Three,
Don’t know
Subsection 3.11.1) affect how promptly you recredit the
No opinion
Receiver?
If yes, please specify how the recrediting process differs if the WSUD is received within 15
days from the date the information was available to the Receiver versus if the WSUD is
received after 15 days.
4. As an RDFI, how quickly do you recredit a consumer for
an unauthorized debit entry?
Immediately upon
receipt
of
the
Written Statement
At the time a return
is transmitted
Upon settlement of
the return entry
Other
If “Other,” please specify:
5. As an RDFI, would removing the fifteen-calendar-day
notification timeframe from the general obligations to
recredit a Receiver for an unauthorized entry have any
negative impact on your current process?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
All Respondents:
6. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on this proposal not already covered?
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 4
Topic #2 – TEL Entries – Field Inclusion Requirement/Data Content for Payment Type Code Field
7. As an Originator or ODFI, does your organization originate
single-entry TEL entries?
If yes, do you currently “space fill” the Payment Type Code
field to indicate a Single Entry payment?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
Yes
No
Don’t know
8. Does your organization support requiring the Payment Type
Code Field for TEL entries to contain “S” for a single entry
and “R” for a recurring entry (aligning with usage for WEB
entries)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
9. Is the identification of an entry as a single entry versus a
recurring entry of value to your organization?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
10. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on this proposal not already covered?
Topic #3 – Clarification of RDFI Warranties for Notifications of Change
11. As an RDFI, do you ever contact the Receiver for
authorization to send a Notification of Change (NOC) if the
change is to correct an account number?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
12. Do you agree that the RDFI’s obligation to obtain any
necessary authorizations from the Receiver regarding
account number changes is already covered under 3.9.3(a)
(i.e., the RDFI’s warranty that the information in an NOC is
correct)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 5
13. Does your organization support removing the RDFI warranty
that “it has obtained the Receiver’s authorization to change
an account number for an NOC if authorization is required?”
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
14. Does your organization support a corresponding
modification to the general ODFI warranties to clarify that
the ODFI makes no warranty with respect to the accuracy of
the specific information it obtained from the corrected data
field of an NOC when that information is used on
subsequent entries?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
15. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on this proposal not already covered?
Topic #4 – Valid Characters for ACH Records
16. Any ASCII character with a value greater than hexadecimal
1F is currently permissible within an ACH record. Does your
organization support adding language to the technical
specifications to make clear that these values include
characters from the Extended ASCII character set?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
17. Would clarifying this fact within the technical specifications
of the Rules cause your organization to make a system
change?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
If yes, what factors prevent your current systems from supporting these existing technical
standards?
18. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on this proposal not already covered?
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 6
Topic #5 – Disclosure Requirements for POS Entries
19. Does your organization support requiring Originators and
third-party issuers of ACH cards to provide the proposed
disclosures to consumers at card issuance?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
20. As an RDFI, do you experience customer service contacts
regarding ACH POS Entries (i.e., ACH entries initiated with
ACH cards)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No Opinion
If yes, please describe the frequency and nature of these contacts.
21. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on this proposal not already covered?
SECTION III – IMPACT AND PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATES
All Respondents
Impacts
22. On a scale of 1-5 (with “1” representing no systems/software impact, and “5” indicating extensive
systems/software impact), please estimate the impact to your organization related to the following
proposals:
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
No
Minimal Moderate Large Extensive Don’t
No
impact
impact
impact
impact
impact
know opinion
Re-crediting
Receiver
TEL Entries –
Payment Type
Code Field
RDFI Warranty for
NOC
Valid Characters
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 7
for ACH Records
Disclosure
Requirements for
POS Entries
23. Please identify which of your systems would be impacted (check all that apply).
Core/
DDA
&
TDA
ACH
Exceptions
/returns
Procedures
/staff
training
Database/
tables
Other
systems
Don’t
know
Re-crediting
Receiver
TEL Entries –
Payment Type
Code Field
RDFI Warranty
for NOC
Valid Characters
for ACH Records
Disclosure
Requirements for
POS Entries
24. Please estimate the anticipated cost of the impact by proposal.
Less than
$10,000
Re-crediting Receiver
TEL Entries – Payment
Type Code Field
RDFI Warranty for NOC
Valid Characters for
ACH Records
Disclosure Requirements
for POS Entries
$10,000 $49,999
$50,000 $99,999
Greater
than
$100,000
Don’t
know
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 8
Proposed Effective Dates
25. Does your organization support the proposed effective date
of September 18, 2015 for Re-crediting Receiver Removal of the Fifteen-Calendar-Day Notification
Timeframe?
If “no”, what effective date would you support?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
June 19, 2015
March 18, 2016
Other
Other? Please specify:
26. Does your organization support the proposed effective date
of September 18, 2015 for Clarification of RDFI
Warranties For Notifications of Change?
If “no”, what effective date would you support?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
June 19, 2015
March 18, 2016
Other
Other? Please specify:
27. Does your organization support the proposed effective date
of March 18, 2016 for TEL Entries – Modifications to
Specifications For Payment Type Code Field?
If “no”, what effective date would you support?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
September 18, 2015
September 16, 2016
Other
Other? Please specify:
28. Does your organization support the proposed effective date
of March 18, 2016 for Valid Characters for ACH
Records?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 9
If “no”, what effective date would you support?
September 18, 2015
September 16, 2016
Other
Other? Please specify:
29. Does your organization support the proposed effective date
of September 18, 2015 for Disclosure Requirements for
POS Entries?
If “no”, what effective date would you support?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
March 18, 2016
September 16, 2016
Other
Other? Please specify:
SECTION IV – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
ODFI Request for Return for Fraudulently-Originated Entries
30. Would your organization support expanding the allowable
reasons for an Originator/ODFI to use ODFI request for
return to include credit entries identified as fraud or
initiated without the Originator account holder’s
authorization?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
31. What are the circumstances in which such an ODFI request for return would be utilized?
32. Should an ODFI of such a request for return be required to
provide proof or documentation to the RDFI if requested?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 10
If so, what constitutes evidence of actual fraud rather than a case of “buyer’s remorse” (i.e.,
the Originator sent a payment, and then wished it hadn’t)?
33. Are other RDFI protections necessary or appropriate to limit
risks and costs to RDFIs?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
34. Should the Rules be broadened to permit ODFIs to request
the return of an Entry for any reason, given that the ODFI
indemnifies the RDFI against any loss and the RDFI has the
right to refuse the request?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
35. Taking into consideration the need for finality of ACH
credits, are there potential benefits in expanding the
permissible use of Reversals for recovery of funds?
Yes
No
Don’t know
No opinion
Please identify any benefits or risks your organization believes would be derived from this
concept.
36. Are there other ways the ACH Network could be utilized to attempt recovery of funds from
fraudulent ACH credit transactions without adversely affecting RDFIs.
37. Please identify any concerns about or negative effects / risks related to this concept:
38. Are there any other changes to the ODFI request for return process that should be considered
in conjunction with this RFI?
Request For Comment/Request for Information - Compliance and Operations Topics
ACH Participant Survey, 9/16/14; Page 11
39. Please provide any other comments on aspects of this RFI not covered elsewhere.