25148 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday May 

25, 2012. 

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, 

DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference 

Room. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance 

and Enforcement Matters. In the event 

that the times or dates of these or any 

future meetings change, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time and place of the meeting 

will be posted on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.cftc.gov. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10317 Filed 4–25–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, May 18, 

2012. 

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, 

DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference 

Room. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Surveillance, Enforcement Matters and a 

Rule Enforcement Review. In the event 

that the times or dates of these or any 

future meetings change, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time and place of the meeting 

will be posted on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.cftc.gov. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10326 Filed 4–25–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, May 

4, 2012. 

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, 

DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference 

Room. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance 

and Enforcement Matters. In the event 

that the times or dates of these or any 

future meetings change, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time and place of the meeting 

will be posted on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.cftc.gov. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10319 Filed 4–25–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, May 11, 

2012. 

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, 

DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference 

Room. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance 

and Enforcement Matters. In the event 

that the times or dates of these or any 

future meetings change, an 

announcement of the change, along with 

the new time and place of the meeting 

will be posted on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.cftc.gov. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10323 Filed 4–25–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0017] 

Request for Information Regarding 

Scope, Methods, and Data Sources for 

Conducting Study of Pre-Dispute 

Arbitration Agreements 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

Information. 

SUMMARY: Section 1028(a) of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Financial Protection Act of 2010 (the 

‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) requires the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection (the 

‘‘Bureau’’) to ‘‘conduct a study of, and 

* * * provide a report to Congress 

concerning, the use of agreements 

providing for arbitration of any future 

dispute between covered persons and 

consumers in connection with the 

offering or providing of consumer 

financial products or services’’ (the 

‘‘Study’’). As a preliminary step in 

undertaking the Study, the Bureau 

requests specific suggestions from the 

public to help identify the appropriate 

scope of the Study, as well as 

appropriate methods and sources of data 

for conducting the Study. Based on the 

information received, the Bureau may 

consider soliciting further feedback. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before June 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit responsive 

information and other comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012– 

0017, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

Instructions: The Bureau encourages 

the early submission of information and 

other comments. All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. Please note the number of the 

question to which you are responding at 

the top of each response. In general, all 

submissions received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can 

make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 25149 

1Subject to certain de minimus exceptions, U.S. 

issuers must file with the Bureau copies of their 

consumer credit card agreements. Thus, the Bureau 

has data to assess the prevalence and features of 

pre-dispute arbitration agreements for credit cards. 

The Bureau makes these credit card agreements 

available online at http:// 

www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/ 

agreements/. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

Federal Reserve Board maintained a similar credit 

card agreement database. 

2 In some consumer arbitrations, the consumer 

files his or her claim in arbitration in the first 

instance, relying on the terms of the pre-dispute 

arbitration agreement to do so. In other cases, 

however, the consumer may first file in court and 

only later file a claim in arbitration after acceding 

to—or opposing and then losing on—a covered 

person’s (or third party’s) demand, under the same 

arbitration clause, that the consumer’s dispute 

proceed, if at all, in arbitration. The Bureau intends 

to cover both types of consumer arbitration within 

the terms of this set of questions, except to the 

extent specifically noted in question 2.v. 

3 In some cases, an entity that is not a party to 

a particular pre-dispute arbitration agreement has 

invoked that agreement to demand that a 

consumer’s claim proceed only in arbitration. 

4 In some cases, an entity that is not a party to 

a particular pre-dispute arbitration agreement has 

Continued 

All submissions, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

Sensitive personal information, such as 

account numbers or social security 

numbers, should not be included. 

Submissions will not be edited to 

remove any identifying or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will 

Wade-Gery, Division of Research, 

Markets and Regulations, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, at (202) 

435–7700, or william.wadegery@cfpb.gov. 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5518(a). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Bureau seeks information in response to 

the questions listed below, which are 

intended to help identify the 

appropriate scope, methods, and 

sources of data for the Study required by 

section 1028(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Please feel free to respond to any or all 

of the questions below, but please be 

sure to identity the specific question or 

questions to which you are responding. 

Comments could include, where 

appropriate, data sources and study 

methods that the Bureau might 

consider. Submissions on scope or 

subject matter are more likely to provide 

useful information to the Bureau if the 

commenter also identifies associated 

data and applicable methods of study. 

The Bureau is not seeking comment 

on how, if at all, it should exercise its 

rulemaking authority under section 

1028(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 

U.S.C. 5518(b)). Thus, the Bureau is not 

seeking comment on either: (a) Whether 

it should, by regulation, prohibit or 

impose conditions or limitations on the 

use of pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements with respect to consumer 

financial products or services; or (b) 

whether any such regulation would 

serve to protect consumers or otherwise 

be in the public interest. Instead, this 

Notice and Request for Information is 

directed to the Bureau’s mandate under 

section 1028(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

(12 U.S.C. 5518(a)) to complete a study 

of, and report to Congress on, the use of 

pre-dispute arbitration agreements in 

connection with the offering or 

providing of consumer financial 

products or services. 

For purposes of this Notice and 

Request for Information, ‘‘consumers’’ 

means ‘‘consumers’’ of ‘‘consumer 

financial products and services’’ as the 

Dodd-Frank Act defines those terms at 

sections 1002(4) and (5) (12 U.S.C. 

5481(4)–(5)); ‘‘covered person’’ has the 

meaning given at section 1002(6) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5481(6)); and 

‘‘pre-dispute arbitration agreements,’’ 

unless otherwise noted, ‘‘provid[e] for 

arbitration of any future dispute 

between covered persons and 

consumers in connection with the 

offering or providing of consumer 

financial products or services’’ (12 

U.S.C. 5518(a)). 

Questions 

1. Prevalence of Use 

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the 

Bureau to study the ‘‘use’’ of pre-dispute 

arbitration agreements. The Bureau 

believes that obligation encompasses, at 

a minimum, a study of the prevalence 

of such agreements. As a result, the 

Bureau seeks information in response to 

the following questions. 

i. Other than with respect to credit 

card agreements,1 how should the 

Bureau determine the prevalence of predispute arbitration agreements in 

different consumer financial services 

markets? 

ii. Should the Bureau focus on 

particular markets for consumer 

financial products and services in 

reviewing prevalence? 

iii. Should the Bureau focus on the 

prevalence of particular terms in predispute arbitration agreements? 

iv. Should the Bureau address how 

the prevalence of pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements and the prevalence of 

particular terms within them have 

changed over time? 

v. To address the questions above, 

what new data, if any, should the 

Bureau seek and from which entities? 

What existing studies or sources of 

empirical data should the Bureau rely 

upon to address any of the above 

questions? 

2. Use and Impact in Particular Arbitral 

Proceedings 

A. Claims That Consumers Bring in 

Arbitration 

Pre-dispute arbitration agreements 

generally provide that the consumer 

may or must bring claims in 

arbitration.2 The Bureau seeks 

information responsive to the following 

questions about claims that consumers 

bring in arbitration. 

i. Should the Bureau determine how 

often consumers bring claims in 

arbitration? 

ii. Should the Bureau analyze the 

types of claims that consumers bring in 

arbitration? 

iii. For claims that consumers bring in 

arbitration, should the Bureau seek to 

analyze: (a) the cost and speed of 

dispute resolution; and/or (b) the 

outcome of disputes? 

iv. For consumers who bring claims in 

arbitration, should the Bureau seek to 

assess their understanding of, and 

satisfaction with, the resulting dispute 

resolution process? Should the Bureau 

seek to determine the factors that impact 

consumer understanding and 

satisfaction? 

v. If the Bureau should address some 

or all of the issues addressed in 2.A.i– 

iv above, should the Bureau distinguish 

between claims that a consumer brings 

in arbitration: (a) in the first instance; 

and (b) after a covered person (or third 

party 3) successfully invokes the terms 

of a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to 

end or limit that consumer’s earlier 

court proceeding? Or should the Bureau 

consider both forms of arbitration as a 

single, combined category of consumer 

use? 

vi. If the Bureau should address some 

or all of the issues identified in 2.A.i– 

v above, what methods of study should 

it use? What new data, if any, should 

the Bureau seek and from which 

entities? What existing studies or 

empirical data, if any, should the 

Bureau use? Should the Bureau focus on 

particular product markets? Should the 

Bureau focus on the impact to arbitral 

proceedings of particular terms in predispute arbitration agreements? 

B. Claims That Covered Persons Bring in 

Arbitration 

Pre-dispute arbitration agreements 

also generally provide that a covered 

person may or must bring claims in 

arbitration. As a result, covered persons 

have brought claims—in particular, 

debt-collection claims—in arbitration.4

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

25150 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 

invoked that agreement to bring claims against a 

consumer in arbitration. The Bureau intends the 

following set of questions to cover such third-party 

claims as well. 

5Prior to July 2009, the National Arbitration 

Forum (‘‘NAF’’) administered each year a 

significant number of debt collection arbitrations 

that various covered persons or third-parties 

brought against consumers. In July 2009, however, 

NAF agreed that it would no longer handle 

consumer arbitrations, including debt collection 

cases brought against consumers. NAF reached this 

agreement to settle claims by the Minnesota 

Attorney General that NAF violated Minnesota’s 

consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and 

false-advertising statutes. Following the NAF 

settlement, the American Arbitration Association 

(‘‘AAA’’) announced that it would not administer 

any consumer finance debt collection arbitrations 

filed by companies. The AAA’s policy is still in 

effect according to a ‘‘Notice on Consumer Debt 

Collection Arbitrations’’ that is available on the 

organization’s Web site, www.adr.org. 

The Bureau seeks information 

responsive to the following questions 

about such covered person or thirdparty claims. 

i. The Bureau is not aware of recent 

practice by covered persons to bring 

claims against consumers in 

arbitration.5 Do such arbitrations, in 

fact, exist at this point? If there are such 

arbitrations, should the Bureau 

determine their frequency? If there are 

no longer such arbitrations, should the 

Bureau analyze whether covered 

persons will, in the future, return to 

bringing claims against consumers in 

arbitration? 

ii. Should the Bureau analyze the 

types of claims that covered persons 

bring in arbitration? If covered persons 

no longer bring claims in arbitration, 

should the Bureau seek to answer this 

question for a period in which they did? 

iii. For claims that covered persons 

have brought in arbitration, should the 

Bureau seek to analyze: (a) the cost and 

speed of dispute resolution; and/or (b) 

the outcome of disputes? If covered 

persons no longer bring claims in 

arbitration, should the Bureau seek to 

answer these questions for a period in 

which they did? 

iv. For consumers involved in any 

such cases, should the Bureau seek to 

assess their understanding of, and 

satisfaction with, the resulting 

arbitration process? If covered persons 

no longer bring claims in arbitration, 

should the Bureau seek to answer this 

question for a period in which they did? 

v. If the Bureau should address some 

or all of the issues identified in 2.B.i– 

iv above, what methods of study should 

it use? What new data, if any, should 

the Bureau seek and from which 

entities? What existing studies or 

empirical data, if any, should the 

Bureau use? Should the Bureau focus on 

particular product markets? Should the 

Bureau focus on the impact to arbitral 

proceedings of particular terms in predispute arbitration agreements? 

3. Impact and Use Outside Particular 

Arbitral Proceedings 

Independent of their role in particular 

arbitral proceedings, pre-dispute 

arbitration agreements may impact 

consumers and/or covered persons in 

other ways. Thus, academics and other 

parties have claimed that the existence 

of pre-dispute arbitration agreements 

may impact: 

• The incidence and nature of 

consumer claims against covered 

persons; 

• The price and availability of 

financial services products to 

consumers; 

• Compliance with consumer 

financial protection laws; 

• Consumer awareness of potential 

legal claims against covered persons; 

• Consumer awareness and 

understanding of how potential legal 

claims against covered persons may be 

resolved; and 

• The development, interpretation, 

and application of the rule of law. 

i. Should the Bureau seek to evaluate 

how the use of pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements impacts consumers and/or 

covered persons in one or more of these 

ways? 

ii. Should the Bureau seek to evaluate 

how the use of pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements impacts consumers and/or 

covered persons in any other ways that 

are independent of their role in 

particular arbitral proceedings? 

iii. If so, and in either case, what 

methods of study should the Bureau 

use? What new data, if any, should the 

Bureau seek and from which entities? 

What existing studies or empirical data, 

if any, should the Bureau use? Should 

the Bureau focus on particular product 

markets? Should the Bureau focus on 

the impact of particular terms in predispute arbitration agreements? 

Dated: April 23, 2012. 

Meredith Fuchs, 

Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10189 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Notification of an Open Meeting of the 

National Defense University Board of 

Visitors (BOV); Correction 

AGENCY: National Defense University, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2012 (77 FR 

19265–19266), the National Defense 

University Board of Visitors gave notice 

of a meeting to be held on May 2 and 

3, 2012, from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 

May 2 and continuing on May 3 from 

8 a.m. to 1 p.m. The Department of 

Defense announces that the meeting 

date and time have been changed. All 

other information in the notice remains 

the same. 

DATES: The new meeting date and time 

is May 2, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The meeting originally scheduled for 

May 3, 2012 has been cancelled. 

ADDRESSES: The Board of Visitors 

meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, 

Building 62, Room 155, the National 

Defense University, 300 5th Avenue 

SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 

20319–5066. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

point of contact for this notice is Ms. 

Dolores Hodge at (202) 685–0082, Fax 

(202) 685–3748 or HodgeD@ndu.edu. 

Dated: April 24, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10226 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

GPS Satellite Simulator Working 

Group; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: The United States Air Force, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Amending GPS Simulator 

Working group Meeting Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are requesting to amend 

the date of the GPS Simulator Working 

group meeting notice published on 

April 20, 2012 under 77 FR 23668. The 

date of the meeting will now be 15 May 

2012 from 0730–1600 (Pacific Standard 

Time). This meeting notice is to inform 

the public that the Global Positioning 

Systems (GPS) Directorate will be 

hosting an open GPS Satellite Simulator 

Working Group (SSWG) meeting for 

manufacturers of GPS constellation 

simulators utilized by the federal 

government on 15 May 2012 from 0730– 

1600 (Pacific Standard Time). The 

purpose of this meeting is to 

disseminate information about GPS 

simulators, discuss current and on-going 

efforts related to simulators and form a 

functioning GPS Satellite Simulator 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES