[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8686-8695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02390]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
[Docket No. CFPB-2014-0025]
Policy on No-Action Letters; Information Collection
AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
ACTION: Final Policy Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is
issuing a final policy statement on No-Action Letters (Policy), which
is intended to further objectives under section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank
Act).
DATES: The Bureau released this Policy Statement on its Web site on
February 18, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Quan, Senior Advisor to the
Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at (202) 435-7678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
In specifying the purposes, objectives, and functions of the Bureau
in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress authorized the Bureau
to exercise its authorities for the purpose of ensuring that markets
for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and
efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.\1\ Pursuant to its
authority, the Bureau is finalizing the Policy that is set forth in
section VI below. Under the Policy, Bureau staff would, in its
discretion, issue no-action letters (NALs) to specific applicants in
instances involving innovative financial products or services that
promise substantial consumer benefit where there is substantial
uncertainty whether or how specific provisions of statutes implemented
or regulations issued by the Bureau would be applied (for example if,
because of intervening technological developments, the application of
statutes and regulations to a new product is novel and complicated).
The Policy is also designed to enhance compliance with applicable
federal consumer financial laws. A NAL would advise the recipient that,
subject to its stated limitations, the staff has no present intention
to recommend initiation of an enforcement or supervisory action against
the requester with respect to a specified matter. NALs would be subject
to modification or revocation at any time at the discretion of the
staff, and may be conditioned on particular undertakings by the
applicant with respect to product or service usage and data-sharing
with the Bureau. Issued NALs generally would be publicly disclosed.
NALs would be non-binding on the Bureau, and would not bind courts or
other actors who might challenge a NAL-
[[Page 8687]]
recipient's product or service, such as other regulators or parties in
litigation. The Bureau believes that there may be significant
opportunities to facilitate innovation and access, and otherwise
substantially enhance consumer benefits, through the Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the
Director to prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance, as may be
necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and
carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer
financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof. 12 U.S.C.
5512(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Overview of Public Comments
On October 16, 2014, the Bureau published in the Federal Register a
notice inviting the general public and other Federal agencies to
comment on any aspect of its proposed Policy on No-Action Letters
(Proposed Policy).\2\ The Bureau received 28 formal comments on the
Proposed Policy. Industry trade associations and other industry-
oriented groups submitted 16 comment letters. Financial services
providers submitted 3 comment letters. There were 3 comment letters
from consumer-oriented groups. Individuals submitted a further 6
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 79 FR 62118 (Oct. 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtually all commenters supported the stated goals of the Proposed
Policy, to reduce regulatory uncertainty and facilitate innovation. No
commenter disputed the Bureau's legal authority to adopt the Proposed
Policy. Most comments asked for clarification or further detailing
around specific parts of the Proposed Policy. Some urged changes to the
Proposed Policy, for example, to make NALs more available to providers
of consumer financial products and services with less burden or fewer
restrictions or, in the case of some consumer-oriented commenters, to
provide for additional consumer protections. Many commenters also urged
the Bureau to make modifications to address concerns about the
disclosure of proprietary business information and trade secrets. One
industry trade association urged the Bureau to abandon the Proposed
Policy because the organization considered that, as proposed, it would
not facilitate and improve compliance in a meaningful way.
III. Summary of Comments, Bureau Response, and Resulting Policy Changes
This section provides a summary of the principal comments received
by subject matter. It also summarizes the Bureau's assessment of the
comments by subject matter and, where applicable, describes the
resulting changes that the Bureau is making in the final Policy. The
Bureau has made some changes in response to comments received and to
provide additional clarity, but in substantial part follows the
Proposal.
While addressing discrete issues, commenters also expressed more
general concerns that the criteria in the Proposed Policy were
unworkable or that entities were unlikely to receive NALs. The Bureau
believes the Policy will facilitate innovation and otherwise
substantially enhance consumer benefits. However, the Bureau plans to
monitor the effectiveness of the Policy and to assess periodically
whether changes to the Policy would better effectuate these purposes.
A. Types of Guidance
Several industry trade groups urged the Bureau to adopt a policy
for providing definitive regulatory interpretations to industry
participants, such as in the form of Bureau interpretive rules and
letters and advisory opinions, in addition to adopting a policy for
issuing NALs. These commenters generally argued that guidance of this
character would be useful to provide needed clarity regarding matters
of potential regulatory uncertainty, and to facilitate compliance, and
could address broader topics than may be presented in the context of a
particular NAL. Some of these commenters anticipated that industry
members would seek Bureau interpretive letters in circumstances in
which applying for a NAL would be especially burdensome, or in
circumstances that did not involve a product that would meet the
parameters of the proposed NAL policy (such as a product already well-
established in the marketplace). Various commenters stated that it is
important for industry that the Bureau issue types of guidance that are
legally binding, on the Bureau as well as (subject to judicial review)
on other regulators and on consumer challengers, in addition to NALs,
which provide only non-binding staff guidance.
The Bureau is committed to devoting substantial efforts to
improving regulatory clarity and transparency to consumers, industry,
and other stakeholders. The Bureau provides extensive interpretive
guidance regarding regulations it has issued to govern the provision of
consumer financial products and services, in a variety of ways. Many of
the Bureau's regulations are accompanied by official Bureau
interpretations, specifically keyed to the regulations by section
number and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, that provide
detail regarding interpretation and application of the regulations.
Prior to promulgation of rules, Bureau staff has undertaken broad
industry outreach to identify areas of potential uncertainty and to
ascertain key matters of concern to industry regarding implementation
and compliance. In many cases, such official interpretations are
promulgated through notice and comment, simultaneously with issuance of
the regulations. The Bureau actively monitors these official
interpretations, and it has issued revisions of these official
interpretations, in light of industry needs and other developments, on
multiple occasions. In other instances, apart from official Bureau
interpretations published in the Code of Federal Regulations, the
Bureau has issued official interpretations or regulatory guidance on a
stand-alone basis.
The Bureau has taken a number of steps to support industry
implementation of its regulations and provide guidance to help
financial institutions and other stakeholders understand,
operationalize, and comply with new consumer protections. The Bureau
has engaged directly and intensively with financial institutions,
vendors, and others through a regulatory implementation project. As
part of this effort, the Bureau has published plain-language guides and
other resources, such as compliance guides, sample forms, fact sheets,
rule summaries, charts, and toolkits. The Bureau has also published
readiness guides that include check-lists of things for industry to do
prior to a rule's effective date, such as updating policies and
procedures and providing training for staff. In addition, the Bureau
has conducted free webinars, available for public viewing through the
Bureau's Web site, that provide guidance on how to interpret and apply
its rules. These resources are available on the Bureau's Web site at
www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation.
The Bureau also provides unofficial oral staff guidance in response
to regulatory interpretive questions that financial institutions and
others subject to the Bureau's regulations can submit on an ongoing
basis through a dedicated email address. The Bureau has provided
unofficial oral guidance in response to thousands of such requests. In
addition, Bureau regulatory staff has undertaken extensive post-
issuance outreach to identify problem areas and provide further oral
and written guidance about its regulations, on a timely basis.\3\
[[Page 8688]]
Bureau staff regularly meets with industry representatives and other
stakeholders regarding all areas within its regulatory jurisdiction to
identify areas of regulatory uncertainty or compliance challenges, and
to formulate an appropriate response when necessary. For example, the
Bureau has published additional official commentary in response to
feedback from stakeholders, including industry. Bureau staff has also
provided remarks and addressed questions about Bureau rules and related
implementation matters at numerous formal events and informal
stakeholder meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, the Bureau has provided substantial guidance
relating to implementation of the Know Before You Owe/TILA-RESPA
Integrated Disclosure rule, including a compliance guide, a guide to
forms, a closing factsheet, a disclosure timeline, integrated loan
disclosure forms and samples, and webinars. Many of these materials
are made available on the Internet at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation/tila-respa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Bureau has published an array of bulletins to further
clarify regulatory obligations and enhance compliance where industry
has advised the Bureau of interpretive or other concerns or the
Bureau's market awareness has led it to believe there are uncertainties
requiring attention.
A substantial portion of the Bureau's personnel and other resources
are devoted to these efforts. The Bureau intends to continue engaging
closely and working with industry and other stakeholders to answer
questions, provide regulatory support and guidance, and evaluate any
issues industry and consumers experience as rules are issued and
implemented. The Bureau also will continue its coordination with other
federal government regulators to promote a consistent regulatory
experience for industry. The Bureau is aware that many regulated
entities have access to resources, counsel, advice, and processes of
their own beyond the tools provided by the Bureau that they may use to
assist in the interpretation of regulatory requirements and achieve
regulatory compliance. The Bureau does not have the capacity to replace
these private resources and tools, and does not believe that it would
be desirable as a policy matter for the Bureau to try to do so. The
Bureau will continue to engage in broad efforts to obtain industry
feedback and attempt to employ its resources to provide broad industry
and consumer support and guidance through the most efficient and
appropriate means. The Bureau believes that experience with the NAL
process will assist the Bureau in evaluating other potential steps.
The Policy being finalized today is intended to be one additional
tool in the Bureau's kit to facilitate compliance and innovation, to
supplement the foregoing means in instances where no-action treatment
appears to offer advantages. Most of the Bureau's guidance resources
will continue to be devoted to efforts other than NALs, as discussed
above. The NAL Policy is intended to make efficient use of Bureau
resources by focusing on matters of significant uncertainty, e.g.,
where technological developments have given rise to novel products not
envisioned at the time existing statutes and regulations were issued,
and substantial regulatory uncertainty poses a barrier to marketplace
innovation. The Policy calls on applicants to identify the relevant
facts, and specific regulatory issues needing attention, because
applicants are well-positioned to do so effectively and insightfully.
As contrasted with amendment of a regulation or an official
interpretation, no-action treatment may often be a more useful tool for
such cases because, among other things, the novel aspects of the
product in question may be subject to evolution, the policy and legal
implications are likely not yet sufficiently well understood to justify
a definitive regulatory treatment of the relevant issues, and the time
required to mature such a definitive treatment may be inconsistent with
product-innovation needs of industry.
B. Matters Concerning Other Regulators
Two commenters requested clarification about coordination between
Bureau staff and federal prudential regulators, stating that a NAL may
be of little benefit to an institution whose prudential regulator
considers a proposed product to violate applicable requirements. Other
commenters urged the Bureau to make NALs binding on other regulators,
to shield a NAL-covered product from the prospect of adverse treatment
by another regulator.
The Bureau has not modified the Policy in response to these
comments. Bureau staff regularly consults with other governmental
agencies, Federal and State, with respect to financial industry
matters, including product innovations. Applicants should be aware that
Bureau staff may consult with other governmental agencies that may have
enforcement, supervisory or licensing authority over the applicant, or
other interest in matters relating to a NAL, in appropriate cases. The
NAL Policy requires that NAL applicants provide information regarding
relevant governmental investigations, licensing discipline, supervisory
reviews, and enforcement actions, and this information may be a subject
of discussions by Bureau staff with other governmental agencies. If an
applicant is a depository institution, it should anticipate that Bureau
staff may communicate with the applicant's primary federal prudential
regulator and appropriate state regulators in evaluating issuance of a
NAL.
While the Bureau may, in some circumstances, have the authority to
issue waivers of otherwise-applicable legal requirements, or to
establish definitive interpretations of legal requirements, or take
similar actions, NALs issued under today's Policy are limited to a
statement by Bureau staff that it does not intend to recommend
enforcement or supervisory action by the Bureau. As such, they are not
intended to bind other agencies. Other agencies will remain free to
make independent determinations concerning their respective authorities
and concerns. As discussed above, the Bureau will continue to evaluate
its existing guidance tools and other guidance tools available to it,
and nothing in today's Policy rules out or otherwise addresses other
actions that the Bureau may take, for example to issue waivers,
identify exceptions, provide interpretations, or undertake other
regulatory relief, in appropriate circumstances.
C. NALs Concerning UDAAPs
The Proposed Policy indicated that Bureau staff would presumptively
not issue NALs where the request concerns a legal or product
environment that the staff considers to be inappropriate for no-action
treatment, and provided the example that, at the present time, the
staff does not anticipate no-action treatment of unfair, deceptive, or
abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) matters. The Bureau received two
types of comments regarding this statement about UDAAP matters in the
Proposed Policy. First, two industry commenters made the point that a
NAL would have little utility if it did not include some assurance that
the Bureau would not pursue a UDAAP claim against the requester for
offering the same product addressed in the letter. Second, several
industry commenters more generally urged that UDAAP matters should not
be categorically ruled out, and that UDAAPs may be particularly
important areas of NAL treatment.
The statement in the Proposed Policy was not directed at the
``follow on'' UDAAP concern raised by the first type of comment. As
detailed in Section C of the Policy, in deciding whether to provide a
NAL, staff considerations will include, among other things:
``The extent to which the requester's product structure,
terms and conditions, and disclosures to and agreements with consumers
enable
[[Page 8689]]
consumers to meaningfully understand and appreciate the terms,
characteristics, costs, benefits, and risks associated with the
product, and to act effectively to protect themselves from unnecessary
cost and risk'';
``The extent to which evidence, including the requester's
own testing, indicates that the product's aspects in question may
provide substantial benefits to consumers''; and
``The extent to which the requester controls for and
effectively addresses and mitigates risks to consumers.''
Given that a NAL will be based, in part, on such factors, it is
highly unlikely that staff would first provide a NAL--which would
include a statement that staff has no present intention to recommend
initiation of an enforcement or supervisory action against the
requester in respect to the particular aspects of its product under the
specific identified provisions and applications of statutes or
regulations that are the subject of the NAL--and then recommend
initiation of such action in respect to those same particular aspects
of its product under the Bureau's UDAAP authority in the absence of new
facts or circumstances. For example, if staff provided a NAL in
response to a request stating that there was substantial uncertainty
regarding whether particular disclosures comply with TILA and
Regulation Z, the requester could expect that staff would not then
recommend an enforcement or supervisory action on the basis that those
same disclosures were deceptive under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031--
except in the absence of new or extraordinary circumstances. At the
same time, a grant of NAL treatment respecting a particular aspect of a
product should not be understood to excuse potential UDAAP violations
that might arise from other aspects of the product, such as marketing
or operation that were not addressed in the NAL letter or stem from
subsequent changes in the product.
The Bureau also recognizes the perspective behind the second type
of comment. The Bureau's statement about UDAAP matters in the Proposed
Policy was based primarily on two considerations. First, evaluation of
whether an act or practice constitutes a UDAAP is typically an
intensively factual question that requires detailed consideration of a
wide range of potentially relevant circumstances. Such evaluations can
be more complicated, and uncertain, than evaluation of an act or
practice with respect to a regulatory or statutory provision that is
drawn more narrowly and precisely than the statutory UDAAP
prohibitions. This complexity may be especially pertinent in the
context of requests for NAL treatment under the Policy, which are
limited to instances in which there is substantial uncertainty
regarding whether the particular aspects of the product identified in
the request are unfair, deceptive, or abusive. Second, as noted in the
Proposed Policy, the Bureau has quite limited resources to devote to
consideration and issuance of NALs at this time. The Bureau is
concerned that devoting attention to UDAAP-focused NAL requests could
misallocate its resources away from more narrowly-focused cases that
are more likely to be workable NAL candidates. However, the Bureau need
not make a categorical determination at this time.
Accordingly, the example in Section B of the Proposed Policy
regarding UDAAP matters has been deleted from the Policy. The Bureau
cautions, however, that this change should not be interpreted as
portending the issuance of a significant volume of such UDAAP-focused
NALs. As noted in the Proposed Policy and elsewhere in this Final
Policy Statement, the Bureau anticipates that NALs will be provided
rarely because they require a thorough and persuasive demonstration of
the appropriateness of NAL treatment. The considerations referred to
above are likely to mean that UDAAP-focused NALs will be particularly
uncommon.
D. Timetable for Issuance of a NAL
Several industry commenters suggested that the Bureau adopt a
specific timetable for approval or denial of a NAL once an application
has been submitted. These commenters generally expressed a view that
prescriptive timetables on the order of 45, 60, or 90 days are
necessary in order to accommodate the rapid development processes of
novel products. At the same time, a number of industry commenters,
including some of those urging prescribed timetables for action on
applications, expressed the view that it is important that prospective
applicants have an opportunity to confer informally with Bureau staff
before making an application, in order to align expectations and to
allow for development and adjustments before making any formal
application.
Although Bureau staff will make reasonable efforts to respond to
applications in a timely manner, the Bureau has not included any strict
timetable in the Policy. If the NAL process does not reach a conclusion
that is in keeping with an innovator's timing or other needs, an
innovator may withdraw its application and proceed as it considers
appropriate with respect to its product without a NAL. Because NAL
applications are expected to be individualized events on the part of
the applicant and Bureau staff involving novel products, because
product changes may continue during the NAL process, and because the
Bureau does not yet have concrete experience in processing NAL
applications, the Bureau is not prepared to prescribe a prescriptive
timetable by which an application must be resolved. As noted in
footnote 7 of the Policy, innovators are encouraged to contact staff
for informal preliminary discussion in advance of filing an application
for a NAL. Such discussions are expected to address the potential
applicant's product development plans, information-sharing, any
anticipated complications in the NAL process, and anticipated
timetables in light of such considerations.
E. Information To Be Included in Applications
Several industry representatives criticized the Proposed Policy as
requiring applicants to provide an unduly burdensome volume of
information. Some commenters suggested that information requirements be
minimized specifically for smaller organizations that may have
relatively fewer resources to devote to the NAL process. A number of
commenters requested changes in the Proposed Policy's requirements that
applicants identify the particular provisions of statutes or
regulations about which NAL treatment is being requested, state why NAL
treatment is necessary and appropriate to remove substantial regulatory
uncertainty, and provide a candid explanation of potential consumer
risks. In addition to asserting that it would be burdensome to provide
such information, commenters expressed concern that providing
information along these lines could have the effect of requiring
applicants to target their products for third-party challenge if a NAL
application is made public.
The Bureau has not changed these information requirements in the
Policy in response to these comments. Whenever any conscientious firm,
large or small, intends to launch a consumer financial product that
raises substantial regulatory questions, the Bureau expects that the
firm would on its own, as a matter of its compliance obligations wholly
apart from a NAL application, undertake carefully to identify and
evaluate the consumer risks, regulatory issues, and other matters the
Policy requires a NAL application to address.
[[Page 8690]]
In this respect, the Bureau does not expect the Policy to involve
substantial additional information-gathering burdens. While the Bureau
understands that some innovators find it burdensome to undertake their
own assessment of applicable regulatory and other legal obligations,
consumer impacts that their products might create, and other relevant
matters, the Bureau is not in a position, through its NAL policy, to
perform these compliance obligations for industry members.
The Bureau's intention is to devote its NAL resources at this time
to addressing instances in which substantial uncertainty in the
statutes and regulations that are within its jurisdiction are creating
a barrier to bringing consumer-beneficial products to market. If an
applicant cannot identify its product as presenting such a case, or if
the applicant does not intend to be candid in its request and related
communications, the Bureau's resources can more usefully be focused
elsewhere. To be clear, firms are not required to seek NAL treatment
before launching a product. Moreover, in identifying areas of
regulatory uncertainty an applicant is not required to concede that its
product contravenes any requirement. On the contrary, the Policy
explicitly calls on the applicant to explain why it believes its
product should not be treated as subject to or precluded by pertinent
statutes and regulations as properly understood and applied. If a
prospective applicant believes that information regarding its product
requires confidential protection, informal advance discussion with the
staff can explore what particular information and detail is necessary
to be included in an application, the timing of NAL issuance, and how
best to protect proprietary matter. In addition, section A.15 of the
Policy provides that an application may include a request for
confidential treatment of certain information. If a NAL is issued, it
may be unavoidable that its publication will, to some extent, publicly
identify aspects of regulatory uncertainty that are involved, but the
Bureau believes that such transparency to industry and consumers is a
critical value to be served by the NAL process.
F. Public Comment on NALs
Some commenters in the consumer advocacy community requested that
the Bureau modify the Proposed Policy to provide that any NAL will be
subject to a 30-day notice-and-comment period, preferably in advance of
NAL issuance. These commenters asserted that such a process is
advisable to balance an applicant's self-interested submissions by
bringing to bear other viewpoints through a public process.
The Bureau declines to adopt the comment period suggestion. Comment
periods are not typical of other agencies' no-action letter procedures.
The Bureau believes that imposing such a comment period requirement in
advance of issuance would unnecessarily discourage NAL applications and
delay the NAL process, inhibiting the intended benefits of the Policy.
Staff has the ability to conduct outreach to the public as needed to
obtain input on a variety of regulatory matters, which includes issues
pertaining to NAL requests. Staff also intends to monitor products that
are the subject of NALs on an ongoing basis, including comments that
may be received from the public following issuance of a NAL. This
monitoring will not be confined to a 30-day or other prescribed period.
G. Protection of Proprietary Information
Several commenters expressed concern that publication of NALs,
which would include publication of a version or summary of the
application, may compromise entities' proprietary business information
or trade secrets. Some commenters raised a concern that, if the Bureau
were to deny a NAL application for innocuous reasons and announce the
denial, it might cause injury to the applicant if it later introduced
the subject product into the marketplace. Other commenters, including
industry commenters, specifically encouraged routine publication so
that industry members will have insight into the Bureau staff's
perspectives.
The Bureau considers that publication of NALs issued by staff is an
important aspect of the Bureau's transparency principles. The released
version or summary of the application and the terms of the NAL will
provide relevant and potentially important information to consumers and
industry concerning the new product and Bureau staff's perspective. In
general, the consumer-facing characteristics of the product involved
will become known to the market at the time of product launch in any
event. The Policy does not specify the timing for the Bureau's NAL
publication. To the extent that a potential applicant has concerns
regarding the public release of particular information, Bureau staff
plans to confer with the applicant, in advance of a submission or
later, to discuss whether the information is necessary to submit as
part of the application or otherwise, redaction from any documents to
be released publicly, timing of any release, application of the
Bureau's rule concerning Disclosure of Records and Information, 12 CFR
part 1070, and other relevant matters.
Denials of a request for a NAL generally would not be published.
However, because a circumstance may arise in which publication of a
denial would be in the public interest, the Policy does not
categorically rule out publication of denials.
The finalized Policy makes one editing change with respect to
publication of NALs and applications, to conform section D of the
Policy to the wording of section B of the Policy with respect to
publication of a ``a version or summary of'' the request.
H. Modification or Revocation of NALs
Under the Policy, a NAL is subject to subsequent revocation or
modification in the discretion of Bureau staff, and may be immediate
upon notice. Revocation or modification of a NAL does not itself
constitute a determination that a product violates any regulatory
requirement or that the firm must withdraw the product from the market.
Obviously, however, modification or revocation reflects a change in
facts, circumstances, or outlook on the part of Bureau staff. Some
industry and consumer commenters urged the Bureau to adopt procedural
protections around the revocation/modification process, including
suggesting that the Bureau communicate with recipients prior to
revocation or modification, and that it provide a grace period to allow
recipients to modify or cease relevant policies or practices.
In response, the Bureau has added a statement to section D.6 of the
Policy concerning revocations or modifications initiated by staff.
Unless there is a reason not to do so in a particular case, before
determining to revoke or modify a NAL, Bureau staff plans to
communicate with the requesting entity (or entities) regarding the
grounds for potential revocation or modification and permit an
opportunity to respond. If staff revokes or modifies a NAL, it intends
to do so in writing. Staff plans to make revocations and modifications
public.
I. Limitation to Emerging Products Involving Substantial Regulatory
Uncertainty
Several commenters suggested that the Bureau not limit NALs to
instances of emerging products, or that it not limit NALs to instances
of substantial regulatory uncertainty. These commenters advocated that
the Bureau provide NALs dealing with products that are already
established and/or
[[Page 8691]]
where there is no substantial regulatory uncertainty. The Bureau does
not believe such a change to the Policy is desirable at this time. The
Bureau's resources available to devote to NALs are limited, and the
Bureau considers it desirable to focus these resources at this time on
reducing barriers to innovation. If a product is already established in
the marketplace, or if there are no substantial regulatory
uncertainties interfering with its development, then Bureau resources
for reducing barriers to innovation would be better allocated to other
NAL cases, or to other efforts.
J. Potential Risks and Benefits to Consumers
Some consumer advocates urged the Bureau to revise the Proposed
Policy to specifically limit NALs to products where staff is convinced
that the product will clearly not involve any risk to consumers.
Reflecting a different perspective, a number of industry commenters
urged that the Bureau eliminate the requirement that a proposed NAL
product promise substantial benefits to consumers. Some of these
commenters considered that application of the ``substantial benefits''
standard would involve the Bureau in inappropriately choosing winners
and losers, and some expressed the view that assessment of substantial
benefits was unknowable for new products or unduly subjective.
The finalized Policy has not incorporated the changes advocated by
either of these two perspectives. The Bureau believes that its Policy
has appropriately articulated requirements with respect to both risks
and benefits. The Policy specifically requires an applicant to candidly
disclose potential consumer risk information, and establishes that NAL
applications would be assessed on the basis of such risks and how they
may be effectively addressed and mitigated. In addition, issuance of a
NAL may be conditioned on the provision of future data to enable Bureau
staff to monitor ongoing risk and respond as necessary. A firm is not
required to obtain a NAL in order to launch a product. But issuance of
NALs is committed to the discretion of Bureau staff, and the Policy
appropriately requires an applicant to identify anticipated consumer
benefits so that Bureau staff can evaluate whether the request merits
the diversion of the Bureau's limited resources away from other
important consumer protection work.
K. Denials of NAL Requests and Publication of Denials
Under the Policy, decisions whether to issue a NAL are committed to
the discretion of Bureau staff. Section B of the Policy describes the
categories of formal responses that the staff expects normally to use
in response to a request (granting, denying, or declining to grant or
deny, the request). Section C of the Policy identifies 10 factors that,
among others, staff plans to consider in deciding whether to issue a
NAL. Several commenters suggested that the Proposed Policy be amended
to prescribe that staff elaborate specific reasons when it determines
that a particular application for a NAL will not be granted. The
principal point advanced in favor of requiring such a statement of
reasons is that it would provide substantive guidance to industry
regarding Bureau analysis of regulatory issues. Some other commenters
suggested that all denials be made public. Relatedly, some commenters
interpreted section B of the Proposed Policy to mean that, in some
cases, the Bureau would not communicate in any way with the requesting
entity.
The Bureau does not agree that it would be advisable to require
staff to provide specific reasons for declining to provide NALs, or
that denials generally should be made public. Publishing such
statements regarding denials is not typical of no-action letter
programs of other agencies, and the Bureau does not believe that
providing such statements about denials would be a productive method of
industry or public guidance, when weighed against the burden on Bureau
resources that would be involved. The Bureau has limited resources to
devote to NALs, and it believes that those resources are best focused
on the work required to grant NALs when appropriate and to monitor
those that are granted. As noted elsewhere, individual applicants are
advised to contact staff in advance for informal discussion before
committing significant effort toward a potential NAL application. In
the unusual case in which none of the types of responses described in
Part B of the Policy is provided, the staff plans to notify the
requester that its response has been received and that staff has
decided not to provide a response that corresponds to one of the types
described in Part B of the Policy.
L. Anticipated Volume of NALs
As stated in the Proposed Policy, the Bureau anticipates that NALs
would be provided only on the basis of exceptional circumstances and a
thorough and persuasive demonstration of the appropriateness of such
treatment. Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction that NALs are
likely to be rarely issued, and urged that the Bureau should make NALs
more widely available, recognizing that they may later be withdrawn if
necessary.
Bureau staff currently devotes considerable effort to maintaining
ongoing communication with financial services product developers and
other industry members, including concrete informal discussions about
forthcoming innovations and regulatory considerations. Based on this
experience, the Bureau estimates that, realistically, it will on
average receive one to three actionable applications per year. If the
volume of viable applications exceeds this volume, the Bureau will work
to accommodate the need. The Policy anticipates that staff would
provide no-action treatment only on a thorough-and-persuasive
demonstration that the relevant criteria, as specified in the Policy,
are met. That NALs may be withdrawn at a later stage is not, in the
Bureau's view, a justification to provide no-action treatment based on
unrefined product concepts, inadequate information, or incomplete
attention by an applicant to regulatory requirements or mitigation of
consumer protection risks.
M. Covering Third Parties
Some commenters urged the Bureau to address no-action protection of
third parties that may be associated with an applicant's product, such
as firms that provide functions that are integrated with the product's
operation or distribution, or provide ancillary products or services. A
product developer seeking NAL treatment may not intend itself to be the
provider of that product to consumers, or may depend on other firms as
service providers or in other ways. These other firms may be reluctant
to participate in the commercialization of the product if they lack NAL
protection, but for a variety of legitimate commercial reasons they may
not be identifiable at the time of the NAL application or issuance.
Some commenters also urged the Bureau to allow trade associations to
submit requests on behalf of their members.
The Bureau is sympathetic to the complications described. The
Policy envisions that a NAL application may be submitted jointly by
multiple firms, which may ease some of these complications. The Bureau
is not, however, willing to grant NAL treatment to a firm that is not
identified in the
[[Page 8692]]
application process and has not agreed to the affirmations and
undertakings specified by the Policy (such as affirmations regarding
the accuracy of information presented about the product and the firm,
undertakings to provide additional information, and descriptions of
safeguards the applicant will employ). The Bureau envisions that, in
many cases, a firm that comes to be involved in the provision of a
product, though not itself the applicant covered by a NAL, will draw
sufficient comfort from a NAL issued to the identified applicant. Where
this is not so, Bureau staff will be available to confer with the
applicant, and the other firm(s), regarding the reasons why the other
firm(s) were not co-applicants, whether an issued NAL may be modified,
and other possible approaches to the situation. For similar reasons,
the Bureau is not willing to grant NAL treatment to trade associations
on behalf of their members.
N. Limitations on Quantity of Transactions or Period of Time
Some commenters sought clarification regarding the Proposed
Policy's anticipation that a NAL may be subject to time limitations or
limitations on the quantity of transactions. The Policy, which is
slightly revised on this point for clarity, provides that a NAL issued
by Bureau staff will generally include a description of any conditions
or limitations attending no-action treatment, such as the requester's
undertaking to provide additional safeguards to consumers, or to share
certain types of data with the Bureau, as well as any limitations as to
time period or quantity of transactions. These NAL terms will be
informed by commitments identified in the application and by staff's
evaluation of consumer risks. The Bureau expects such considerations to
be taken into account on a case-by-case basis. If a NAL application is
based on uncertainty regarding a particular regulatory safeguard, for
example, the applicant may find it appropriate to introduce a different
method to safeguard comparable consumer protection concerns. If an
applicant intends to test its product in a particular way, and review
consumer data arising from the test, the applicant may suggest limiting
the NAL to those terms as a factor in demonstrating limitations on
consumer risks. If an applicant envisions the iterative development of
a product, different limitations or safeguards may apply at successive
stages of the development.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
This Policy on No-Action Letters constitutes an agency general
statement of policy and/or a rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies are generally required to seek the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for information collection
requirements prior to implementation. Further, the Bureau may not
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the
collection under the PRA and it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not
display a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the
collections of information contained this Policy. The OMB Number is
3170-0059 (Expiration Date: 02/28/2019).
VI. Final Policy
The text of the final Policy is as follows:
POLICY ON NO-ACTION LETTERS
Under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau's objectives include
``facilitating [consumer] access'' to and ``innovation'' in markets for
consumer financial products.\5\ The Bureau recognizes that, in certain
circumstances, some may perceive that the current regulatory framework
may hinder the development of innovative financial products that
promise substantial consumer benefit because, for example, existing
laws and rules did not contemplate specific products. In such
circumstances, it may be substantially uncertain whether or how
specific provisions of certain statutes and regulations should be
applied to such a product--and thus whether the federal agency tasked
with administering those portions of a statute or regulation may bring
an enforcement or supervisory action against the developer of the
product for failure to comply with those laws. Such regulatory
uncertainty may discourage innovators from entering a market, or make
it difficult for them to develop suitable products or attract
sufficient investment or other support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(5). As used in this Policy, the term
``product(s)'' means ``product(s) and services'' or ``products or
service(s),'' as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies can reduce such regulatory uncertainty in a
variety of ways. For example, an agency may clarify the application of
its statutes and regulations to the type of product in question--by
rulemaking or by the issuance of less formal guidance. Alternatively,
an agency may provide some form of notification that it does not intend
to recommend initiation of an enforcement or supervisory action against
an entity based on the application of specific identified provisions of
statutes or regulations to its offering of a particular product. This
Policy is concerned with the latter means of reducing regulatory
uncertainty in limited circumstances.
Pursuant to its authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is
today releasing its Policy on No-Action Letters (Policy). Under the
Policy, an entity may submit a request for a No-Action Letter from
Bureau staff (staff). A No-Action Letter would include a statement that
the staff has no present intention to recommend initiation of an
enforcement or supervisory action against the requester with respect to
particular aspects of its product, under specific identified provisions
of statutes or regulations. Such a letter may be limited as to time,
volume of transactions, or otherwise, and may be subject to potential
renewal. Whether and how to provide a No-Action Letter or otherwise
respond to such requests, including any limitations or conditions on
acceptance, will be within the sole discretion of the staff.
The Policy is intended to facilitate consumer access to innovative
financial products that promise substantial benefit to consumers,
taking into account other marketplace offerings, and also to enhance
compliance with applicable federal consumer financial laws.\6\ By
furnishing a dedicated mechanism through which substantial regulatory
uncertainty can be reduced, the Policy is also intended to discourage
[[Page 8693]]
the offering of innovative consumer-harmful financial products in such
circumstances. In addition, because No-Action Letters often will be
conditioned on specified consumer protection conditions designed to
satisfy--or even exceed--applicable disclosure requirements and
substantive protections, the Bureau expects the Policy to benefit
consumers in further ways. The Bureau also expects the Policy to help
further its consumer protection functions and objectives, including
market monitoring and rulemaking, particularly when a No-Action Letter
is conditioned on a commitment by the requester to share data about the
product with the Bureau, or to engage in other consultation that may
help inform Bureau decisions regarding whether to take further action
in connection with the financial product in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Policy and any No-Action Letter is not intended to, nor
should it be construed to: (1) Restrict or limit in any way the
Bureau's discretion in exercising its authorities, including the
provision of no-action or similar relief other than pursuant to the
Policy; (2) constitute an interpretation of law; or (3) create or
confer upon any covered person (including one who is the subject of
the Bureau supervisory, investigation, or enforcement activity) or
consumer, any substantive or procedural rights or defenses that are
enforceable in any manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy has five sections:
Section A describes information that should be included in
requests for a No-Action Letter.
Section B describes types of responses the staff may
provide to requests for a No-Action Letter.
Section C lists factors the staff may consider in deciding
whether to provide a No-Action Letter.
Section D describes the general content and limitations of
No-Action Letters.
Section E describes disclosure of data received from
entities who have requested No-Action Letters.
A. Submitting Requests for No-Action Letters
Requests for a No-Action Letter should be submitted in writing via
email to [email protected].\7\ Submitted requests may be
withdrawn by the requester at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The email subject line should begin ``Request for No-Action
Letter.'' The Policy is one component of the Bureau's Project
Catalyst initiative, which invites organizations to bring
innovation-related concerns to the Bureau's attention at
[email protected]. Innovators are advised to use the same
Project Catalyst point of contact to initiate a preliminary
discussion of a potential No-Action Letter. There are no formal
submission requirements to request such a preliminary discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests should include the following:
1. The name(s) of the entity or entities and individual(s)
requesting the No-Action Letter.
2. A description of the consumer financial product involved,
including:
a. how the product functions, and the terms on which the product
will be offered;
b. the roles and relationships of all parties to transactions
involving the product; and
c. the manner in which it is offered to and used by consumers,
including any consumer disclosures.
3. The timetable on which the product is expected to be offered.
No-Action Letters are not intended for either well-established products
or purely hypothetical products that are not close to being able to be
offered.
4. An explanation of how the product is likely to provide
substantial benefit to consumers differently from the present
marketplace, and suggested metrics for evaluating whether such benefits
are realized.
5. A candid explanation of potential consumer risks posed by the
product--particularly as compared to other products available in the
marketplace--and undertakings by the requester to address and minimize
such risks.
6. A showing of why the requested No-Action Letter is necessary and
appropriate to remove substantial regulatory uncertainty hindering the
development of the product, including:
a. Identification of each of the specific provisions of the
statutes and regulations regarding which a No-Action Letter is being
requested, and a showing how each of these specific provisions of the
statute(s) and regulation(s) should be applied to the product is
substantially uncertain, including analysis of the relevant legal
authorities and policy considerations.
b. A showing of why the product's aspects in question should not be
treated as subject to or precluded by the specific identified
statute(s) and regulation(s), and/or how the proposed compliance of the
product's aspects in question with the specific identified statute(s)
and regulation(s) is appropriate.
c. A showing of the product's compliance with other relevant
federal and state regulatory requirements.
d. A showing of why the substantial regulatory uncertainty that is
the subject of the request cannot be effectively addressed through
means other than the requested No-Action Letter, such as modification
of the product.
7. An affirmation that the facts and representations in the request
are true and accurate.
8. A commitment by the requester to provide information requested
by the staff in its evaluation of the request.
9. A description of data that the requester possesses, and data it
intends to develop, pertaining to the factual bases cited in support of
the request and a statement of any undertaking by the requester, if the
request is granted, to share appropriate data regarding the product
with the Bureau, including data regarding the impact of the product on
consumers. This description should also address the requester's
intentions regarding consultation with the Bureau in its plans for
development of additional data.
10. Commitments that, if the request is granted, the requester will
not represent that the Bureau or its staff has: (i) Licensed,
authorized or endorsed the product, or its permissibility or
appropriateness, in any way; (ii) determined, or provided an
interpretation, that the product is or is not in compliance with legal
or other requirements, or has been granted an exception, waiver, safe
harbor, or comparable treatment; or (iii) granted No-Action Letter
treatment with respect to any aspect of the requester's offerings or
any provision of law other than those expressly addressed in the No-
Action Letter.
11. An affirmation that, to the requester's knowledge (except as
specifically disclosed in the request), neither the requester nor any
other party with substantial ties to transactions involving the product
is the subject of an ongoing, imminent, or threatened governmental
investigation, supervisory review, enforcement action, or private civil
action respecting the product, or any related or similar product; and
an undertaking promptly to notify the Bureau (unless the request for a
No-Action Letter has been withdrawn or denied) of any such governmental
investigation, supervisory review, enforcement action, or private civil
action that is initiated or threatened.
12. An affirmation that (except as specifically disclosed in the
request) the principals of the requester have not been subject to
license discipline, adverse supervisory action, or enforcement action
with respect to any financial product, license, or transaction within
the past ten years.
13. A statement specifying whether the request is limited to a
particular time period, to a particular volume of transactions, or to
other limitations.
14. A description of any particular consumer safeguards the
requester will employ, although they may not be required by law, if a
No-Action Letter is issued, including any mitigation of potential for
or consequences of consumer injury. The description should specify the
requester's basis for asserting and considering that such safeguards
are effective. The description should also address any future study the
requester will undertake to further evaluate the effectiveness of such
safeguards.
15. If a request for confidential treatment is made, this request
and the basis therefor should be included in a
[[Page 8694]]
separate letter and submitted with the request for a No-Action Letter.
Requesters are advised to specifically identify data that the Requester
believes to be confidential supervisory information that should be
shielded from public disclosure.
B. Staff Response to Requests for No-Action Letters
The decision whether to respond to a request for a No-Action
Letter, and the nature of any response, is within the staff's sole
discretion. Depending on the circumstances, the staff may: (i) Grant
the request (which grant may be partial, or may be subject to
limitations or conditions); (ii) deny the request; (iii) specifically
decline to either grant or deny the request, with an explanation; or
(iv) specifically decline to either grant or deny the request, without
explanation. The staff may, but is not required to, communicate with
the requester before making any decision regarding whether and how to
respond to the request to seek clarification or for other purposes. The
staff may permit requests to be modified in the course of such
communications.
Type (i) responses, and a version or summary of the request,
generally would be published on the Bureau's Web site.\8\ Type (ii)
responses generally would be provided to the requester but generally
would not be published on the Bureau's Web site.\9\ Type (iii) and (iv)
responses generally would be provided to the requester and may be
published on the Bureau's Web site, particularly if the staff believes
that the information will be in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Type (i) responses are further discussed in Section D below.
\9\ The Bureau may publish a denial on its Web site if it
believes that doing so is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-exclusive examples of circumstances under which the staff
presumptively would provide only responses of type (iii) or (iv), or,
where appropriate, no response at all, include:
1. The requester or its principals are the subject of ongoing
governmental law enforcement investigation, supervisory review, or
enforcement action respecting the product or a related or similar
product.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ If the staff decides to provide a type (iii) response to
the entity in such circumstances, the response would not be
published on the Bureau's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The request concerns an area in which the Bureau is engaged in
ongoing or anticipated rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, or other
initiatives.
3. The request concerns matter that the staff considers to be
inappropriate for no-action treatment.
4. The staff has decided not to invest the Bureau resources that
appear likely to be necessary to address the request adequately.
No-Action Letters will not be routinely available. The Bureau
anticipates that No-Action Letters will be provided rarely and on the
basis of exceptional circumstances and a thorough and persuasive
demonstration of the appropriateness of such treatment. Requesters do
not have a legal entitlement to no-action treatment of regulatory
uncertainties, and Bureau resources available for consideration of No-
Action Letter requests are limited in light of other Bureau priorities.
Requesters may wish to include in their submissions any particular
reasons why their request should be considered by the Bureau to be a
matter of special importance.
C. Staff Assessment of Requests for No-Action Letters
The staff considerations, in deciding whether to provide a No-
Action Letter,\11\ include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The decision whether to provide a No-Action Letter, and the
terms on which it may be provided, are within the staff's sole
discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The extent to which the requester's product structure, terms and
conditions, and disclosures to and agreements with consumers enable
consumers to meaningfully understand and appreciate the terms,
characteristics, costs, benefits, and risks associated with the
product, and to act effectively to protect themselves from unnecessary
cost and risk.
2. The extent to which evidence, including the requester's own
testing, indicates that the product's aspects in question may provide
substantial benefits to consumers.
3. The extent to which the asserted benefits to consumers are
available in the marketplace from other products.
4. The extent to which the requester controls for and effectively
addresses and mitigates risks to consumers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This factor includes the extent to which the requester has
plans in place for addressing unanticipated consumer harms caused by
the product and the extent to which the entity possesses the
resources to compensate injured consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The extent to which granting the request is necessary in order
to reduce substantial regulatory uncertainty for the requester with
respect to the requester's product.
6. The extent to which the substantial regulatory uncertainty
identified by the requester may be better addressed through other
regulatory means, such as Bureau rulemaking, other Bureau guidance, or
provision of a waiver under the Bureau's Policy to Encourage Trial
Disclosure Programs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 78 FR 64389 (Oct. 29, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Whether the entity is demonstrably in compliance with other
relevant federal and state regulatory requirements.
8. The extent to which the request is sufficiently limited in time,
volume of transactions, or otherwise, to allow the Bureau to learn
about the product and the aspects in question while minimizing any
consumer risk.
9. The extent to which any data that the entity has provided and
agrees to provide to the Bureau regarding the operation of the
product's aspects in question will be expected to further consumer
protection.
10. The extent to which public disclosure of relevant data may be
permitted.
D. Staff Provision of No-Action Letters
When the staff decides to provide a No-Action Letter, it plans to
publish the letter, along with a version or summary of the request, on
the Bureau's Web site. The expected contents of a No-Action Letter
include the following:
1. A statement that, subject to the conditions and limitations set
forth, the staff has no present intention to recommend initiation of an
enforcement or supervisory action against the requester in respect to
the particular aspects of its product under the specific identified
provisions and applications of statutes or regulations that are the
subject of the No-Action Letter. The statement that the staff has no
present intention to recommend initiation of an enforcement or
supervisory action does not mean that the Bureau will not conduct
supervisory activities or engage in enforcement investigation to
evaluate the requester's compliance with the terms of the No-Action
Letter or to evaluate other matters.
2. A statement that the no-action treatment is limited to the
requester's offering of the product's aspects in question in the manner
described, and that it does not pertain to (i) the requester for
offering the product in a different manner; (ii) the requester for
offering different products, or with respect to other provisions or
applications of these or other statutes and regulations, or with
respect to other aspects of the product; or (iii) any other person.
3. A statement that the No-Action Letter is based on the facts
stated and factual representations made in the request, and is
contingent on the correctness of such facts and factual
representations.
[[Page 8695]]
4. A statement (a) disclaiming any intention that the No-Action
Letter constitutes a determination by the Bureau or its staff about, or
is an interpretation of, or grants any exception, waiver, safe harbor,
or similar treatment respecting the statutes and rules identified in
the request, or their application to the product's aspects in question,
or otherwise constitutes an official expression of the Bureau's views,
and that any explanatory discussion should not be interpreted as such
an interpretation, waiver, safe harbor, or the like, that is binding on
the Bureau, and (b) that the staff is not necessarily in agreement with
any legal or policy analysis, any interpretation of data, or any other
matter, set forth in the request.
5. A description of any conditions or limitation attending the No-
Action Letter, such as the requester's commitment to provide additional
safeguards to consumers, or to share certain types of data with the
Bureau, as well as any limitations as to time period or quantity of
transactions.
6. A statement that the No-Action Letter is subject to modification
or revocation at any time at the discretion of the staff for any
reason, including that: the facts and representations in the request
appear to be materially inaccurate or uncertain; the requester fails to
satisfy conditions or violates limitations specified in the No-Action
Letter; the product or any of its material features, terms, or
conditions, is altered; or the staff determines that such modification
or revocation is appropriate to protect consumers or is otherwise in
the public interest. Unless there is a reason not to do so in a
particular case, staff plans to communicate with the requesting entity
(or entities) regarding the grounds for potential revocation or
modification in advance of a revocation or modification, and permit an
opportunity to respond. When staff revokes or modifies a No-Action
Letter, staff intends to do so in writing. Staff plans to make
revocations and modifications public.
7. A statement that the No-Action Letter is not issued by or on
behalf of any other government agency or any other person, and is not
intended to be honored or deferred to in any way by any court or any
other government agency or person.
8. A statement of any expiration date, or volume limitation,
applicable to the No-Action Letter (and whether or not the requester
may seek to renew the No-Action Letter).
9. A statement that the No-Action Letter becomes inapplicable upon
failure to adhere to the affirmations or undertakings made in the
request or stated as conditions of the issuance of the letter. To the
extent that the facts and representations in the request are materially
inaccurate, or the requester fails to satisfy conditions or violates
limitations specified in the No-Action Letter, and in other similar
circumstances, the No-Action Letter is by its own terms inapplicable
(even without modification or revocation) and the staff may recommend
initiating a retrospective enforcement or supervisory action if
appropriate.
E. Bureau Disclosure of Entity Data
The Bureau's disclosure of a version or summary of the request and
any data received from the requester in connection with a request for a
No-Action Letter is governed by the Bureau's rules regarding Disclosure
of Records and Information.\14\ For example, 12 CFR 1070.14 generally
requires the Bureau to make its records available to any person
pursuant to a request that conforms to the rules and procedures of that
section, subject to the application of the FOIA exemptions and
exclusions. To the extent the Bureau affirmatively wishes to disclose
such data, the terms of such disclosure will be consistent with
applicable law and the Bureau's own rules and may be specified in a
separate agreement with the requester. Consistent with applicable law
and its own rules, the Bureau will seek to redact data to protect
consumers' privacy interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 12 CFR part 1070.
Dated: February 2, 2016.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2016-02390 Filed 2-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P