From "ATM Fee Backlash," 30 March 00 , The State PIRGs
STATUS OF ATM SURCHARGE BANS -- REGULATIONS/LAWS/ORDINANCES |
|||
STATE REGULATIONS |
|||
IOWA banned
ATM surcharges by Banking Commissioner order of October 23, 1997. |
Although a
District Court upheld Iowas EFTA regulation on July 24, 1998, that decision was
overturned by the 8th Circuit on September 2, 1999. The ruling was silent on the
EFTAs surcharge provisions, and only discussed other provisions. On appeal, the Iowa
Bankers Association, the Iowa Community Bankers Association, and the Iowa Credit Union
League filed friend of the court briefs on the side of the state. |
On February 2,
2000, the Iowa Attorney General filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking review of
its case. |
|
CONNECTICUT
Banned ATM surcharges by Banking Commissioner order of November 9, 1998. |
The State Supreme
Court ruled in December 1999 that the Banking Commissioner did not have authority to ban
surcharges. Since no preemption determination was made, the matter is proceeding in the
legislature, not the federal courts. |
Proposed House
bill 5014 in the legislature would impose a surcharge ban by law. See below. |
|
ENACTED CITY ORDINANCES BANNING ATM SURCHARGES |
|||
Santa Monica
(Ordinance proposed by Council members McKeown and Feinstein) |
On October 5, 1999
the City Council voted to ban surcharges. A temporary injunction blocking implementation
was granted by US District Court judge Vaughn Walker on 15 Nov 99. |
On December 10,
1999 , the cities filed notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, supported by friend of the
court briefs filed by 9 state Attorneys General (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota,
Nevada, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia and also by CALPIRG and other
consumer groups. |
|
San Francisco |
On November 2,
1999 city voters, by referendum (66%-34%), voted to ban surcharges. A temporary injunction
blocking implementation was granted by US District Court judge Vaughn Walker on 15 Nov 99. |
||
Woodbridge, NJ |
Enacted February
15, 2000 by 9-0 City Council vote, temporary injunction blocking implementation granted on
February 17, 2000. |
City is drafting
appeal |
|
PENTAGON BAN ON MILITARY BASES |
|||
Proposed Rule, FR 11
Aug 1999 (Volume 64, Number 154) Page 43855-43858 |
Would ban ATM
surcharges on military bases. |
Following comment
period, is under consideration by Pentagon. Decision possible in April. |
|
CITIES CONSIDERING ORDINANCES |
|||
New York City
(Intro 680, Vallone) |
City Council
Speaker Peter Vallone has drafted bill, has more than half of council as co-sponsors, and
has released a detailed staff report, Guilty As Surcharged
<http://www.council.nyc.ny.us/loi/atm.pdf> |
Hearings expected,
April 2000 |
|
Newark, NJ |
Bill introduced by
Council member Carrino February 17, 2000. |
|
|
Chicago |
Introduced by
Alderman Joe Moore, February 2000. |
Hearing held 13
Mar 00 |
|
Los Angeles |
Voted unanimously
in October to instruct City Attorney to examine City's authority to ban fees. Motion made
by Council members Alex Padilla and Mike Hernandez. Heard in committee on February 16,
2000 |
At City Attorney's
advice, waiting until the Santa Monica/San Francisco court case is decided before taking
action. |
|
San Diego County |
San Diego County -
Chairwoman Pam Slater first proposed the ban October 19, 1999. |
No action expected
until the Santa Monica/San Francisco court case is decided |
|
San Diego |
San Diego City -
Deputy Mayor Byron Wear proposed an ordinance October 18, 1999. |
Mayor refuses to
docket issue for vote. |
|
West Hollywood |
To ban surcharges |
Voted December 20,
1999 to file an amicus brief on behalf of Santa Monica Sponsor was Council member Paul
Koretz |
|
Eugene (OR) |
To ban surcharges |
Campaign underway,
bill may be drafted soon. |
|
Salem, (OR) |
To ban surcharges |
Council voted 5-4
not to draft bill at this time. |
|
Portland (OR) |
To ban surcharges |
Campaign underway,
bill may be drafted soon. |
|
STATE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS-2000 Session |
|||
Connecticut (HB
5014-Landino) |
Would ban ATM
surcharges. The State Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that the banking
commissioners administrative ban had overstated his authority. Since no preemption
determination was made, the matter can be resolved in the legislature. |
Hearings held
February 17, 2000. Bill passed by Joint House-Senate Committee by vote of 11-6 on March 7,
2000 despite opposition of State Senator McDermott, Co-chair of Banking Committee (Similar
to bill that passed House in 1999 by 125-20 but Senate floor action blocked by McDermott) |
|
Illinois |
To ban surcharges. |
Committee defeated
proposed ban 4-3 in February |
|
Massachusetts (SB
19) Senator Andrea Nuciforo (Senate Chair of
Banking Committee) and Representative Carol Donovan. |
To ban surcharges |
Pending in the
Ways and Means Committee in the Senate. The bill has a majority of lawmakers signed on in
support of the bill. |
|
Minnesota HF 1849
(Entenza) |
To ban surcharges. |
March 11,2000,
First Reading, referred to Commerce |
|
W. Virginia (SB
188) (Majority Leader Chafin and Senator Bowman) Introduced January 25, 2000. |
Would limit total
cost to consumer of combined foreign fee and surcharge to a total of fifty cents for
any single ATM transaction |
Pending in Banking
and Insurance Committee |
|
Wisconsin (SB 325)
Sen. Robson/Rep. Lehman. |
To ban surcharges |
Passed Senate
Financial Institutions Comm. 3-2, killed on Senate floor 16-17 on February 8, 2000. |
|
CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSALS
|
|||
|
Introduced
November 14 1999, would ban ATM surcharges. |
No action by
committee. |
|
H.R. 3494
(Sanders-I-VT) |
Introduced
November 18, 1999, would clarify that no federal law supercedes Electronic Funds Transfer
Act (EFTA) provision clearly granting states and localities authority to ban ATM
surcharges. |
No action by
committee |
|
H.R. 3503
(Waters-D-CA) |
Introduced
November 18, 1999, would ban ATM surcharges, would enact low-cost lifeline banking
requirements and would reinstate Federal Reserve Board Annual Report to Congress on bank
fees that was allowed to sunset in 1999. |
No action by
committee |
|