Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 77987 

1See Advisory Opinions Pilot, 85 FR 37394 (June 

22, 2020). 2Public Law 111–203, 124 stat. 2081 (2010). 

3See 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(5). 4See Policy Statement on Compliance Aids, 85 

FR 4579 (Jan. 27, 2020). 

5See Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

Request for Information Regarding Bureau Guidance 

and Implementation Support (Guidance RFI), 83 FR 

13959, 13961–62 (Apr. 2, 2018). 

6E.g., Treatment of Pandemic Relief Payments 

Under Regulation E and Application of the 

Compulsory Use Prohibition, 85 FR 23217 (Apr. 27, 

2020); Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Screening 

and Training Requirements for Mortgage Loan 

Originators with Temporary Authority, 84 FR 63791 

(Nov. 19, 2019). 

7Because the Advisory Opinions Policy replaces 

the pilot, no further requests may be submitted for 

the pilot as of November 30, 2020. Requests 

submitted under the pilot that are pending as of that 

date will continue to be considered by the Bureau. 

8See 12 U.S.C. 5511(a). 

9For convenience, this document uses the term 

‘‘regulatory uncertainty’’ to encompass uncertainty 

with respect to regulatory or, where applicable, 

statutory provisions. 

published in a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

(a) Initial guarantee fee. The Agency 

will establish and charge an initial 

guarantee fee of up to one percent of the 

guarantee amount. For purposes of 

calculating this fee, the guarantee 

amount is the product of the percentage 

of the guarantee times the initial 

principal amount of the guaranteed 

loan. 

(b) Annual guarantee fee. An annual 

guarantee fee will be charged, as 

established by the Agency, each year or 

portion of a year that the guarantee is in 

effect. This fee is due no later than 

February 28, of each calendar year. 

* * * * * 

Elizabeth Green, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–25822 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Chapter X 

[Docket No. CFPB–2020–0019] 

Advisory Opinions Policy 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Procedural rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

its final Advisory Opinions Policy 

(Advisory Opinions Policy), which sets 

forth procedures to facilitate the 

submission by interested parties of 

requests that the Bureau issue advisory 

opinions, in the form of interpretive 

rules, to resolve regulatory uncertainty, 

and the manner in which the Bureau 

will evaluate and respond to such 

requests. 

DATES: The Advisory Opinions Policy 

was applicable beginning November 30, 

2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

Advisory Opinions Policy contact 

Jaydee DiGiovanni and Shelley 

Thompson, Counsels; and Adetola 

Adenuga, Regulatory Implementation 

and Guidance Specialist, at 202–435– 

7158. If you require this document in an 

alternative electronic format, please 

contact CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

22, 2020, the Bureau published and 

sought public comment on a proposal 

(Advisory Opinions Proposal) for a new 

Bureau policy on advisory opinions and 

simultaneously launched a pilot 

advisory opinion program (Pilot 

Advisory Opinions program).1 This 

notice finalizes the Advisory Opinions 

Proposal as the Advisory Opinions 

Policy (Advisory Opinions Policy). Part 

I provides some background on the 

Bureau’s guidance functions and related 

statutory authorities. Part II sets out the 

final text of the Advisory Opinions 

Policy. Part III reviews the comments 

received on the Advisory Opinions 

Proposal and describes the changes the 

Bureau has made in the final Advisory 

Opinions Policy. Parts IV through VI 

address additional regulatory matters. 

I. Background 

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(Dodd-Frank Act),2 3 the Bureau’s 

‘‘primary functions’’ include issuing 

guidance implementing Federal 

consumer financial law. Providing clear 

and useful guidance to regulated entities 

is an important aspect of facilitating 

markets that serve consumers. 

The Bureau currently issues several 

types of guidance regarding the statutes 

that it administers, as well as 

implementing regulations and Official 

Interpretations. For example, the Bureau 

issues ‘‘Compliance Aids’’ that present 

legal requirements in a manner that is 

useful for compliance professionals, 

other industry stakeholders, and the 

public, or that include practical 

suggestions for how entities might 

choose to comply with those 

requirements.4 The Bureau also 

provides individualized 

‘‘implementation support’’ to regulated 

entities through its Regulatory Inquiries 

Function (RIF).5 Neither Compliance 

Aids nor the RIF are intended to 

interpret ambiguities in legal 

requirements. The Bureau also may 

issue interpretive rules, which provide 

guidance on the Bureau’s regulations or 

governing statutes, and which in some 

situations may provide a safe harbor to 

regulated entities that are in compliance 

with the Bureau’s interpretive rule.6

The Bureau initiated its policy for 

issuing advisory opinions in response to 

feedback received from external 

stakeholders in the 2018 Guidance RFI, 

encouraging the Bureau to provide 

written guidance in cases of regulatory 

uncertainty. The final Advisory 

Opinions Policy supersedes the pilot 

Advisory Opinions Program.7 Similar to 

the advisory opinion programs of many 

other federal agencies, the Advisory 

Opinions Policy is intended to facilitate 

timely guidance by the Bureau that 

enables compliance by resolving 

outstanding regulatory uncertainty. The 

Advisory Opinions Policy supports the 

Bureau’s statutory purpose of ensuring 

consumers have access to markets for 

consumer financial products and 

services, and that markets for consumer 

financial products and services are fair, 

transparent, and competitive.8

II. Final Text of the Advisory Opinions 

Policy 

A. Overview 

The primary purpose of this Advisory 

Opinions Policy is to establish 

procedures to facilitate the submission 

by interested parties of requests that the 

Bureau issue advisory opinions and the 

manner in which the Bureau will 

evaluate and respond to such requests. 

Advisory opinions will be interpretive 

rules issued to resolve regulatory 

uncertainty.9

B. Submission and Content of Requests 

Requests for advisory opinions should 

be submitted via email to 

advisoryopinion@cfpb.gov or through 

other means designated by the Bureau. 

The Bureau will not consider a request 

for an advisory opinion to be complete 

unless the request includes all of the 

information specified in the following 

paragraphs. 

1. Confidential information: The 

request must identify information the 

requestor believes should be treated as 

confidential. If the requestor would not 

normally make the information public, 

the Bureau intends to withhold that 

information from public disclosure to 

the extent permitted by the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b), and 

treat the information as confidential in 

accordance with the Bureau’s 

regulations on Disclosure of Records 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77988 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

10 12 CFR part 1070. 

11Under title X of the Dodd-Frank Act (the 

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010), the 

Bureau was created to regulate the offering and 

provision of consumer financial products and 

services under federal consumer financial laws. 12 

U.S.C. 5881. The Act enumerates several consumer 

laws under the Bureau’s jurisdiction (in part or 

whole). 12 U.S.C. 5841(12). Note that the Bureau’s 

Regulation J provides a separate procedure for 

advisory opinions regarding certain issues under 

the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. See 

12 CFR 1010.17. 

12The responsive advisory opinion will not 

necessarily adopt the requestor’s proposed 

interpretation. The Bureau retains the discretion to 

answer requests with its own interpretation 

regardless of the requestor’s proposed 

interpretation. 

13Requestors should describe relevant legal 

provisions and arguments with as much specificity 

as practicable. The Bureau recognizes that in some 

cases, the requestor may lack the legal resources to 

provide a detailed and complete showing. In such 

circumstances, the requestor should provide the 

maximum specification practicable under the 

circumstances and explain the limits on further 

specification. 

14 In that situation, references in this Advisory 

Opinions Policy to the requestor or request are 

inapplicable. Note that the Bureau may also issue 

interpretive rules outside the framework of the 

Advisory Opinions Policy, including deciding to 

issue advisory opinions on its own initiative. 

15 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

16Thus, the initial request drafted by the 

requestor is not necessarily a reliable guide to the 

scope and terms of the advisory opinion. 

17See 15 U.S.C. 1640(f) (TILA); 15 U.S.C. 

1691e(e) (ECOA); 15 U.S.C. 1693m(d) (EFTA); 12 

U.S.C. 2617, 12 CFR 1024.4 (RESPA). 

18See 15 U.S.C. 1692(k)(e). 

19The following are factors that the Bureau 

intends to weigh when deciding which topics to 

prioritize in the Advisory Opinions Policy, based 

on all of the information available to the Bureau. 

Advisory opinion requests need not address these 

factors in order to be fully considered by the 

Bureau. 

and Information.10 Requests should not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as account numbers or Social 

Security numbers, or names of 

individuals. 

2. Identity of person or entity seeking 

the advisory opinion. The request must 

identify the person or entity seeking the 

advisory opinion, as well as the identity 

of any person or entity submitting the 

request on behalf of a third party (i.e., 

one or more clients or members). 

Outside counsel, a trade association, or 

a consumer advocacy group, for 

example, may submit requests for 

advisory opinions on behalf of one or 

more clients or members, and those 

entities do not need to be identified. 

3. Statement about the absence of 

investigation or litigation. The request 

must include a statement that the issue 

on which the advisory opinion is being 

requested is—or is not—the subject of 

any known or reasonably knowable 

active litigation or Federal or State 

agency investigation. Additionally, if 

the requestor is submitting a request on 

behalf of an unidentified third party, the 

requestor must provide a statement that 

the unidentified third party is—or is 

not—the subject of an ongoing public 

Bureau enforcement action or an 

ongoing Bureau enforcement 

investigation. 

4. Specifics about the issue on which 

the advisory opinion is sought. The 

issue raised in the request must be 

within the Bureau’s purview,11 and the 

request must concern actual facts or a 

course of action that the requestor (or 

third party) is engaged in, or 

considering engaging in. The request 

must set forth as completely as possible, 

all material facts and circumstances, 

including detailed specification of the 

legal question(s) and supporting facts 

with respect to which the requestor 

seeks an advisory opinion. The request 

must also identify the regulatory or 

statutory provision at issue and the 

potential uncertainty or ambiguity that 

the proposed interpretation would 

address, provide a proposed 

interpretation of law or regulation, and 

explain why the proposed interpretation 

is an appropriate resolution of that 

uncertainty or ambiguity.12 Requestors 

may also choose to offer additional 

information, including, as applicable, an 

explanation of the potential consumer 

benefits and risks associated with 

resolution of the interpretive question 

and the proposed interpretation; and an 

explanation of how the proposed 

interpretation relates to the Bureau’s 

statutory objectives.13

Alternatively, in some cases the 

Bureau may decide to issue an advisory 

opinion based on questions the Bureau 

receives from the public, through other 

channels, that are not requests for 

advisory opinions.14

C. Characteristics of Advisory Opinions 

Advisory Opinions issued by the 

Bureau under the Advisory Opinions 

Policy will be interpretive rules under 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) 15 that respond to a specific need 

for clarity on a statutory or regulatory 

interpretive question. The Bureau will 

publish advisory opinions in the 

Federal Register and on 

consumerfinance.gov, including a 

summary of the material facts or 

covered products and the Bureau’s legal 

analysis of the issue. 

Unless otherwise stated, each 

advisory opinion will be applicable to 

the requestor and to similarly situated 

parties to the extent that their situations 

conform to the summary of material 

facts or coverage in the advisory 

opinion. The scope and terms of an 

advisory opinion will be set out in the 

advisory opinion itself, and may deviate 

from the interpretation proposed by the 

requestor in its submission.16 Moreover, 

the Bureau will not normally investigate 

the underlying facts of the requestor’s 

situation and, as a result, an advisory 

opinion may not be applicable to the 

requestor if the underlying facts of the 

requestor’s situation do not conform to 

the summary of material facts. 

If a statutory safe harbor is applicable 

to an advisory opinion, the advisory 

opinion will explain that fact. The Truth 

in Lending Act (TILA), Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act (ECOA), Electronic 

Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

(RESPA) provide certain protections 

from liability for acts or omissions done 

in good faith in conformity with an 

interpretation by the Bureau.17 The Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 

contains similar protections, specifically 

using the term ‘‘advisory opinion.’’ 18

D. Factors in Bureau Selection of Topics 

for Advisory Opinions 

The Bureau intends to consider the 

following factors as part of its 

consideration of whether to address 

requests for advisory opinions.19 The 

Bureau will prioritize open questions if 

they are within the Bureau’s purview 

that can legally be addressed through an 

interpretive rule and if an advisory 

opinion is an appropriate tool relative to 

other Bureau tools for answering the 

question. Initial factors weighing for the 

appropriateness of an advisory opinion 

include: (1) The interpretive issue has 

been noted during prior Bureau 

examinations as one that might benefit 

from additional regulatory clarity; (2) 

the issue is one of significant 

importance or one whose clarification 

would provide significant benefit; and/ 

or (3) the issue concerns an ambiguity 

that the Bureau has not previously 

addressed through an interpretive rule 

or other authoritative source. Factors 

weighing strongly for presumption that 

an advisory opinion is not an 

appropriate tool include: (1) The 

interpretive issue is the subject of an 

ongoing Bureau investigation or 

enforcement action; (2) the interpretive 

issue is the subject of an ongoing or 

planned rulemaking; (3) the issue is 

better suited for notice-and-comment 

rulemaking; (4) the issue could be 

addressed more effectively through a 

Compliance Aid or the RIF function; or 

(5) there is clear existing Bureau or 

court precedent that is available to the 

public on the issue. 

The Bureau intends to further 

evaluate requests for advisory opinions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 77989 

20See 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1), (3)–(5). The Bureau 

has a further statutory objective, that consumers are 

protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts 

and practices and from discrimination. 12 U.S.C. 

5511(b)(2). The Bureau considers this objective to 

be at least as important as its other objectives, and 

it does not plan to issue an advisory opinion that 

is in conflict with this objective. But because other 

regulatory tools are often more suitable for 

addressing UDAAPs and discrimination, the Bureau 

has chosen not to highlight this objective as a 

primary focus when selecting issues for the 

Advisory Opinions Policy. 

21 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

22See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). 

23E.g., 16 CFR 1.2–1.6 (Federal Trade 

Commission). 

based on secondary factors, including: 

Alignment with the Bureau’s statutory 

objectives; size of the benefit offered to 

consumers by resolution of the 

interpretive issue; known impact on the 

actions of other regulators; and impact 

on available Bureau resources. The 

Bureau will primarily focus on the 

following statutory objectives: (1) 

Consumers are provided with timely 

and understandable information to 

make responsible decisions about 

financial transactions; (2) outdated, 

unnecessary, or unduly burdensome 

regulations are regularly identified and 

addressed in order to reduce 

unwarranted regulatory burdens; (3) 

Federal consumer financial law is 

enforced consistently, without regard to 

the status of a person as a depository 

institution, in order to promote fair 

competition; and (4) markets for 

consumer financial products and 

services operate transparently and 

efficiently to facilitate access and 

innovation.20

The Bureau will focus primarily on 

clarifying ambiguities in its regulations, 

although Advisory Opinions may clarify 

statutory ambiguities. The Bureau will 

not issue advisory opinions on issues 

that require, or are better addressed 

through, a legislative rulemaking under 

the APA.21 For example, the Bureau 

does not intend to issue an advisory 

opinion that would change regulation 

text or commentary. Similarly, if a 

regulation or statute establishes a 

general standard that can only be 

applied through highly fact-intensive 

analysis, the Bureau does not intend to 

replace that analysis with a bright-line 

standard that eliminates all of the 

required analysis. Highly fact-intensive 

applications of general standards, such 

as the statutory prohibition on unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, 

pose particular challenges for issuing 

advisory opinions, although there may 

be times when the Bureau is able to 

offer advisory opinions that provide 

additional clarity on the meaning of 

such standards. 

E. Public Input 

Advisory opinions will be issued and 

final upon publication in the Federal 

Register. However, interested persons 

may provide input on published 

advisory opinions at any time by 

sending an email to advisoryopinion@

cfpb.gov or through other means 

designated by the Bureau. The Bureau is 

particularly interested in input that 

addresses whether an advisory opinion 

would benefit from clarification or 

reconsideration, with information about 

the factual or legal basis for clarification 

or reconsideration. 

III. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes in the Final Advisory Opinions 

Policy 

A. Overview 

The Bureau solicited comments on 

the Advisory Opinions Proposal. The 

Bureau received 16 unique comments, 

13 of which were submitted by industry 

trade associations. A consortium of 7 

consumer advocacy groups submitted a 

joint comment letter. The remaining 

comments were provided by staff of the 

Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS) and one 

anonymous submitter. The Bureau has 

made certain changes to the Advisory 

Opinions Policy based on the 

comments, as discussed below, as well 

as other changes to the Advisory 

Opinions Policy for clarity. 

B. General Comments 

Industry commenters uniformly 

supported the Advisory Opinions 

Proposal, as did the anonymous 

commenter. These commenters 

generally stated that the issuance by the 

Bureau of advisory opinions could aid 

in compliance in situations where there 

are statutory and regulatory 

uncertainties. Conversely, the joint 

comment letter by certain consumer 

advocacy groups generally opposed the 

Advisory Opinions Proposal and argued 

that the Bureau should abandon it. The 

Bureau has carefully considered this 

comment letter, but contrary to the 

group’s assertions, and as discussed 

below the Bureau concludes that issuing 

interpretive rules in the form of 

advisory opinions is consistent with the 

APA or with the Bureau’s statutory 

authorities. The Bureau also does not 

agree that advisory opinions are not an 

appropriate use of Bureau resources. 

Advisory opinions represent a 

commitment of resources by the Bureau 

that will help entities better understand 

their obligations under Federal 

consumer financial law. If an advisory 

opinion makes clear the law applies, it 

will promote compliance with the law 

that will prevent consumer harm. If an 

advisory opinion makes clear the law 

does not apply, it will avoid regulated 

entities incurring unnecessary 

compliance costs. 

C. Legality of Advisory Opinions Policy 

The consumer advocacy group 

comments stated that issuing 

interpretive rules in the form of 

advisory opinions are inconsistent with 

the APA and with the Bureau’s statutory 

authorities. The Bureau disagrees with 

this assertion. As proposed, the advisory 

opinions are interpretive rules under the 

APA.22 Nevertheless, the Bureau revised 

the phrase in the proposed Advisory 

Opinions Policy that states that 

‘‘substantive importance or impact’’ is 

one of a list of factors that the Bureau 

intends to consider in part II.D so that 

it reads ‘‘significant importance.’’ This 

change is intended to address the 

commenter’s concern that the phrase 

might be read to suggest that the Bureau 

intends to issue advisory opinions that 

are substantive rules rather than 

interpretive rules under the APA. 

D. Role of Public Input 

The Bureau received a number of 

comments from stakeholders expressing 

interest in a mechanism for soliciting 

public input on advisory opinions, 

either before or after issuance. Some 

commenters advocated that the Bureau 

obtain such input from the public before 

issuing advisory opinions. The Bureau 

notes that there is nothing in the 

Advisory Opinions Policy that would 

prevent the Bureau from soliciting input 

on a draft advisory opinion before 

finalizing, if the Bureau believes it 

would be appropriate for a given 

advisory opinion. However, the Bureau 

declines to adopt this as a uniform 

requirement for advisory opinions. Such 

a process is not typical of peer financial 

regulators’ advisory opinion policies.23

It could unnecessarily delay the process 

of issuing advisory opinions, and thus 

inhibit the ability of the Bureau to 

promptly provide clarity about its own 

regulations and the statutes that it 

administers. 

However, the Bureau does agree that 

providing a mechanism for the public to 

provide feedback after an advisory 

opinion is issued could be useful. 

Accordingly, the Bureau has added new 

part II.E to the Advisory Opinions 

Policy to provide that any person may 

comment on an advisory opinion via 

email to advisoryopinion@cfpb.gov or 

through other means designated by the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
77990 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

24 85 FR 37394 (June 22, 2020). 

25One commenter suggested that the Bureau 

provide sample language that requestors can use 

when making these required statements. The 

Bureau has instead made non-substantive edits to 

how the required statements are set out in part II.B 

of the Advisory Opinions Policy, so that requestors 

can choose to comply by using the applicable 

language in the Advisory Opinions Policy verbatim. 26 12 CFR 1070. 

Bureau. The Bureau encourages any 

stakeholders including, but not limited 

to, industry representatives and 

consumer advocates, to submit such 

feedback in an instance where 

stakeholders believe the Bureau should 

clarify or reconsider an advisory 

opinion. 

E. Accuracy of Requests 

Certain consumer advocacy group 

commenters expressed concern that the 

requestor’s presentation of the issue 

might be inaccurate or misleading. 

However, the Bureau emphasizes that it 

expects requestors to provide truthful 

submissions to the Bureau. While it is 

possible that the submitting party may 

provide inaccurate or misleading facts, 

doing so would put at great risk the 

benefit the requester might obtain from 

an advisory opinion. The Advisory 

Opinions Policy specifically explains 

that ‘‘an advisory opinion may not be 

applicable to the requestor if the 

underlying facts of the requestor’s 

situation do not conform to the Bureau’s 

summary of material facts’’ in the 

advisory opinion. The Bureau concludes 

that this disincentive is sufficient to 

address the concern commenters have 

raised. For the same reason, the Bureau 

does not believe it is necessary to 

require requestors to include an 

affirmation that the information 

provided is accurate, as some 

commenters suggested. 

F. Follow-Up by Requestors 

Some commenters asked the Bureau 

to provide a mechanism for requestors 

to modify or rescind pending advisory 

opinion requests. The Bureau notes that 

it would be consistent with the 

Advisory Opinions Policy for a 

requestor to amend or withdraw a 

pending request. 

If the Bureau informs a requestor that 

it has not chosen to issue an advisory 

opinion, some commenters advocated 

that the Bureau create a specific 

procedure for the requestor to appeal or 

request reconsideration of that decision. 

The Bureau does not believe adding a 

specific procedure to address that 

possibility is necessary, because the 

Advisory Opinions Policy would allow 

a requestor to renew its request a 

subsequent time if it wants to bring new 

facts, law, or other considerations to the 

Bureau’s attention. 

G. Third-Party Requests 

Part II.B of the Advisory Opinions 

Proposal stated that the Bureau would 

accept advisory opinion requests from 

trade associations, service providers, 

and other third parties; however, the 

Advisory Opinions Proposal noted that 

if the requestor is submitting a request 

on behalf of an unidentified third party, 

the requestor must provide a statement 

on whether the unidentified third party 

is the subject of an ongoing public 

Bureau enforcement action or an 

ongoing Bureau enforcement 

investigation conducted by the Bureau’s 

Office of Enforcement.24 This statement 

was in addition to the general 

requirement that any requestor provide 

a statement of whether the issue on 

which the advisory opinion is being 

requested is the subject of any known or 

reasonably knowable active litigation or 

Federal or State agency investigations. 

Trade association commenters generally 

supported the Bureau’s proposal to 

allow third parties to request advisory 

opinions. These commenters stated that 

allowing third parties to facilitate 

requests would increase access to 

advisory opinions, in particular for 

smaller entities that might otherwise 

lack the resources to request an advisory 

opinion. 

Certain consumer advocacy groups 

opposed the proposal to allow requests 

on behalf of third parties. These 

commenters argued that the Bureau 

would have insufficient details about 

the underlying facts of the third party’s 

situation. The Bureau agrees that it is 

possible for requests on behalf of a third 

party, like any type of request, to 

include insufficient facts for the Bureau 

to reach a legal conclusion. However, 

that would be a potential reason for 

denying an individual request, not 

entirely closing off this potential source 

of requests for advisory opinions. 

These commenters also asserted that 

the Bureau must know the identity of 

the third party in order to avoid 

interference with litigation or 

enforcement-related proceedings. 

However, the Bureau concludes that the 

categorical, express representations that 

the requestor would need to make under 

the Advisory Opinions Policy are 

sufficient to alert the Bureau to those 

proceedings of which the Bureau would 

not otherwise be aware that are likely to 

be relevant to a potential advisory 

opinion and about which further Bureau 

inquiry may be warranted. The Bureau 

is finalizing the required statements, 

with non-substantive wording changes 

in part II.B of the Advisory Opinions 

Policy.25

H. Rescission of Advisory Opinions 

It is, of course, possible that the 

Bureau may decide it is appropriate to 

rescind an advisory opinion. One 

commenter emphasized that, if an 

advisory opinion is rescinded, no action 

should be taken against those 

institutions who acted in good faith in 

accordance with the advisory opinion. 

The Bureau notes that several statutes 

provide protections from liability for 

acts or omissions done in good faith in 

conformity with an interpretation by the 

Bureau, as detailed in the text of the 

Advisory Opinions Policy. And of 

course, in addition to any applicable 

safe harbors, the Bureau would not 

expect to retroactively impose 

punishments on persons who 

conformed their conduct in good faith to 

an advisory opinion before the advisory 

opinion was rescinded. Doing so would 

raise serious concerns under the Due 

Process Clause, which restricts such 

retroactive relief. 

I. Confidentiality of Material in Advisory 

Opinion Requests 

Part II.B of the Advisory Opinions 

Proposal explained that where 

information submitted to the Bureau is 

information the requestor would not 

normally make public, the Bureau 

intends to treat it as confidential 

pursuant to its rule, Disclosure of 

Records and Information, to the extent 

applicable.26

Industry commenters were broadly 

supportive of this approach. However, 

certain consumer advocacy groups 

asserted that this statement is in tension 

with the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA). To be clear, the Bureau will 

treat information that it receives in 

accordance with FOIA, including the 

FOIA exemption at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) 

that applies to confidential business 

information. Information that is subject 

to a FOIA exemption also will be treated 

as confidential in accordance with the 

Bureau’s rule on Disclosure of Records 

and Information, 12 CFR part 1070. The 

confidentiality assurance in the 

proposed policy reflects the standard for 

determining applicability of the 

exemption at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), 

established by the United States 

Supreme Court in Food Marketing 

Institute v. Argus Leader Media dba 

Argus Leader, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019). To 

make this clearer, the Bureau revises the 

policy to state explicitly that the 

information will be treated in 

accordance with FOIA. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 77991 

27 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

28 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

29 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). 

30See https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB2020-0019. 

J. Other Comments on Specific 

Implementation Issues 

The Bureau received comments on a 

number of other subjects. These include 

comments on the structure of the 

Bureau’s internal deliberative process 

for considering advisory opinion 

requests; timelines for deciding advisory 

opinion requests; details of how the 

Bureau should communicate with 

requestors after the Bureau receives 

their requests, such as what the Bureau 

should say in the letters that it sends 

denying requests; general outreach that 

commenters recommend that the Bureau 

conduct with outside bodies or groups; 

recommendations regarding the types of 

requests the Bureau should prioritize; 

and details of how the Bureau should 

post advisory opinions on its website. 

The Bureau appreciates receiving 

commenters’ views on all aspects of the 

program. However, the Bureau has 

decided not to expand the scope of the 

Advisory Opinions Policy, which is 

intended to establish the general 

procedures of the program, to cover 

these specific implementation issue. 

Instead, the Bureau will consider these 

comments as it proceeds with 

implementation of the Advisory 

Opinions Policy. 

IV. Regulatory Requirements 

This Advisory Opinions Policy is a 

rule of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice, and it is therefore exempt 

from the notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements of the APA.27

For the same reason, it is not subject to 

the 30-day delayed effective date for 

substantive rules under the APA.28

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act does not require an 

initial or final regulatory flexibility 

analysis.29

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires 

that Federal agencies may not conduct 

or sponsor, and notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. The 

information collection requirements as 

contained in this final Policy and 

identified below have been approved by 

OMB and assigned the OMB control 

number 3170–0072. OMB’s approval 

will expire on November 30, 2023. 

The Bureau’s Advisory Opinions 

Proposal, published June 22, 2020, 

sought comment on these information 

collection requirements. While the 

Bureau received numerous comments 

on the Advisory Opinions Proposal, 

which are addressed above, the Bureau 

received no comments specifically 

regarding the burden estimates or the 

utility or appropriateness of these 

information collections. Additional 

details on comments received can be 

found in the Supporting Statement for 

the related 30-day notice published as 

required under the PRA.30

A complete description of the 

information collection requirements, 

including the burden estimate methods, 

is provided in the information 

collection request (ICR) that the Bureau 

submitted to OMB under the 

requirements of the PRA. The ICR 

submitted to OMB requesting approval 

under the PRA for the information 

collection requirements contained 

herein is available at OMB’s publicfacing docket at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/. 

VI. Signing Authority 

The Director of the Bureau, Kathleen 

L. Kraninger, having reviewed and 

approved this document, is delegating 

the authority to electronically sign this 

document to Grace Feola, a Bureau 

Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Dated: November 30, 2020. 

Grace Feola, 

Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26661 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2020–1031; Project 

Identifier AD–2020–00846–T; Amendment 

39–21334; AD 2020–24–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 787–8, 787–9, 

and 787–10 airplanes. This AD requires 

revising the existing airplane flight 

manual (AFM) to incorporate 

procedures for conducting an approach 

with a localizer-based navigation aid, 

monitoring localizer raw data, calling 

out any significant deviations, and 

performing an immediate go around if 

the airplane has not intercepted the 

final approach course as shown by the 

localizer deviation. This AD was 

prompted by reports that the autopilot 

flight director system (AFDS) failed to 

transition to the instrument landing 

system localizer (LOC) beam after the 

consistent localizer capture function in 

the flight control modules initiated a 

transition to capture LOC during 

approach. The FAA is issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective December 

18, 2020. 

The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD by January 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this final rule, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: 

Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 

2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, 

Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 

562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

It is also available on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2020–1031. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 

1031; or in person at Docket Operations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES