In its response to question id 2018_4033, EBA provides its response to the question “May a PSP calculate its fraud rate at the level of individual brand, product or scheme?”; the answer is clearly “No” and EBA further states: “The calculation should be at payment service provider (legal entity) level.” We understand that this principle holds also for other potential dimensions, not men-tioned in the questions, that some PSPs potentially might have wished to discriminate on, e.g. product category (credit cards, debit cards etc) or customer category (consum-er, corporate etc). However, the arguably most important dimension for a potential split of fraud rate is missing from the question: the member state. Due to the special circumstances around this dimension, and the tight connection between the fraud rate calculation in Article 19 in the RTS on SCA and the EBA Guidelines on fraud reporting, we would like EBA to consider this dimension specifically. Furthermore, we understand the EBA principle of legal entity level provides a choice for PSP groups with wholly owned subsidiaries, between these two alternatives: • Either, the wholly owned subsidiary PSP could calculate its own fraud rate separate from its parent PSP, and the subsidiary PSP fraud rate and volumes are then not included in the parent PSPs fraud rate calculation. The wholly owned subsidiary PSP and the parent PSP would then each apply its individual fraud rate accordingly to Annex 1 to identify the possibility and correct level of using the TRA exemption in Article 18. • Or, the Group could decide to calculate an aggregate fraud rate for the whole group and apply this fraud rate to the whole groups potential and correct level of using the TRA exemption in Article 18. In many cases, wholly owned subsidiaries in a group structure are country-based. In relation to a PSP that is one legal entity with branches in several member states, there are two different ways to interpret this: 1.The principle of one legal entity should be strictly applied, also over different Member States. The PSP must calculate one fraud rate aggregated for all the member states it operates in, and apply this fraud rate to find out potential and correct level of using the TRA exemption in Article 18. 2. There is a very close connection with EBA Guidelines for fraud reporting to the RTS on SCA. As Guideline 5.3 of these guidelines states that “an established branch of an EEA’s payment service provider should report to the competent authority of the host Member State where it is established, separately from the reporting data of the payment service provider in the home Member State.” this should also be guiding for the fraud rate calculation in Article 19 and its application to the use of the TRA exemption in Article 18. Of these two interpretations, we think the arguments for the latter out-weighs the former, i.e. the main principle for calculation of fraud rate in Article 19 of the RTS for the application of Article 18, should be the same as for fraud reporting, i.e. that it is performed separately per each host Member State. However, if we have correctly understood the previous EBA statement on legal entity, that it provides the possibility for groups with wholly owned subsidiaries, to choose to calculate the fraud rate on aggregated group level as an alternative to the parent/subsidiary (basic legal entity) level, the same possibility of choosing an aggregated fraud rate should be provided also to legal entities with subsidiaries.