6306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 

1 In this document, a consumer with ‘‘limited 

English proficiency’’ or a ‘‘limited English 

proficient’’ (LEP) consumer means a person who 

has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or 

understand English. 2See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Spotlight on serving limited English proficient 

consumers: Language access in the consumer 

financial marketplace, 6–7 (Nov. 2017), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

spotlight-serving-lep-consumers_112017.pdf. 3 Id. at 12. 

4See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203 

(2010), sec. 1021 (Dodd-Frank Act); see also CFPB 

Director Kathleen Kraninger, Kraninger Marks 

Second Year as Director of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (Dec. 11, 2020), https://

www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/ 

kraninger-marks-second-year-director-consumerfinancial-protection-bureau/. 

5Supra note 2. 

6Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Spotlight on serving limited English proficient 

consumers: Language access in the consumer 

financial marketplace, 6–7 (Nov. 2017), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

spotlight-serving-lep-consumers_112017.pdf. 

7 Dodd-Frank Act, sec. 1013(c)(2)(A), 124 Stat. 

1376 (2010) (codified as 12 U.S.C. 5493(c)(2)(A)). 

8 Id. at sec. 1036 (codified as 12 U.S.C. 5536). 

9 15 U.S.C 1691 et seq. 

10U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American 

Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1601: 

TABLE 2—SCHEDULE OF FEES—Continued 

3-Year 

average 

actual costs 

3-Year 

total 

volume % 

Adjusted 

volume costs 

2020 

Assessed fee 

National Futures Association ........................................................................... 569,735 ........................ ........................ 569,735 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,567,276 100.00 997,541 1,361,161 

III. Payment Method 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act 

(DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to 

the government by electronic transfer of 

funds. See 31 U.S.C. 3720. For 

information about electronic payments, 

please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202) 

418–5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see 

the CFTC website at https://

www.cftc.gov, specifically, https://

www.cftc.gov/cftc/ 

cftcelectronicpayments.htm. 

Fees collected from each selfregulatory organization shall be 

deposited in the Treasury of the United 

States as miscellaneous receipts. See 7 

U.S.C 16a. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 13th day 

of January, 2021, by the Commission. 

Robert Sidman, 

Deputy Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01145 Filed 1–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

Statement Regarding the Provision of 

Financial Products and Services to 

Consumers With Limited English 

Proficiency 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

this Statement Regarding the Provision 

of Financial Products and Services to 

Consumers with Limited English 

Proficiency (Statement) to encourage 

financial institutions to better serve 

consumers with limited English 

proficiency (LEP) and to provide 

principles and guidelines to assist 

financial institutions in complying with 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank 

Act), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

(ECOA), and other applicable laws. 

DATES: The Bureau released this 

Statement on its website on January 13, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ena 

P. Koukourinis, Senior Counsel, Office 

of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, 

at CFPB_FairLending@cfpb.gov or 202– 

435–7000. If you require this document 

in an alternative electronic format, 

please contact CFPB_Accessibility@

cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statement Regarding the Provision of 

Financial Products and Services to 

Consumers With Limited English 

Proficiency 

A. Background 

The Bureau works to ensure a fair, 

transparent, and competitive consumer 

financial marketplace. To that end, the 

Bureau seeks to promote access to 

financial products and services for all 

consumers, including LEP consumers.1

Despite having considerable credit 

needs and representing a large segment 

of the U.S. population, LEP consumers 

often encounter significant barriers to 

participating in the consumer financial 

marketplace.2 Many of these challenges 

stem from language access issues— 

financial disclosures and written 

documents are generally not available in 

languages other than English and some 

financial institutions do not have 

bilingual employees or access to 

interpretation services.3

Recognizing the compliance risks and 

uncertainty that many financial 

institutions raise as challenges to better 

serving LEP consumers in non-English 

languages, the Bureau is issuing this 

Statement to outline compliance 

principles and guidelines that 

encourage financial institutions to 

expand access to products and services 

for LEP consumers. In doing so, the 

Bureau seeks to: (1) Promote access to 

financial products for all consumers; (2) 

facilitate compliance by providing clear 

rules of the road; and (3) educate and 

empower consumers to make better 

informed financial decisions.4 Financial 

institutions play an important role in 

building a more inclusive financial 

system and presenting opportunities for 

LEP consumers to build their financial 

capabilities.5 The effective and 

responsible integration of LEP 

consumers into the financial 

marketplace has the potential to create 

positive benefits for consumers and the 

financial services industry alike.6

The Dodd-Frank Act emphasizes the 

Bureau’s role in ensuring ‘‘fair, 

equitable, and nondiscriminatory access 

to credit.’’ 7 Consistent with that 

purpose, the Bureau encourages 

financial institutions to promote access 

to financial products and services for all 

consumers by better serving LEP 

consumers. In providing such assistance 

and serving LEP consumers, financial 

institutions must also comply with 

Dodd-Frank Act prohibitions against 

engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or 

abusive act or practice (UDAAP) 8 and 

the ECOA.9 This Statement provides 

guidance on how financial institutions 

can provide access to credit in 

languages other than English in a 

manner that is beneficial to consumers, 

while taking steps to ensure financial 

institutions’ actions are compliant with 

the ECOA, the prohibitions against 

UDAAPs, and other applicable laws. 

Approximately 22 percent of the U.S. 

population over the age of 5 (in all, 67.8 

million people) speak a language other 

than English at home and, of these, 37.6 

percent are LEP.10 LEP consumers face 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 6307 

Language Spoken at Home (2019), https://

data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=speak%20language

%20other%20than%20english&tid=ACSST1

Y2019.S1601&hidePreview=false. 

11Supra note 6; see also New York City Dept. of 

Consumer Aff., Lost in Translation (2019), https:// 

www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/ 

LEPDebtCollection_Report.pdf (documenting greater 

challenges faced by LEP consumers in navigating 

the consumer debt collection system); Americans 

for Financial Reform, Barriers to Language Access 

in the Housing Market: Stories from the Field (May 

2016), https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2016/05/AFR_LEP_Narratives_

05.26.2016.pdf; Edward Golding, Laurie Goodman, 

and Sarah Strochak, Urban Institute, Is Limited 

English Proficiency a Barrier to Homeownership? 

(2018), https://www.urban.org/research/ 

publication/limited-english-proficiency-barrierhomeownership. 

12CFPB, Spotlight on serving limited English 

proficient consumers: Language access in the 

consumer financial marketplace (Nov. 2017), 

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/ 

research-reports/spotlight-serving-limited-englishproficient-consumers/; see also FDIC, 2013 FDIC 

National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households, 16–17 (Oct. 2014), https://

www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013report.pdf 

(finding that 34.9 percent of households where 

Spanish is the only language spoken are 

‘‘unbanked,’’ compared to just 7.1 percent of 

households where Spanish is not the only language 

spoken); U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

Factors Affecting the Financial Literacy of 

Individuals with Limited English Proficiency at 

Highlights, GAO–10–518 (May 2010), http://

www.gao.gov/assets/310/304561.pdf. 

13See, e.g., 12 CFR 1005.31(g)(1)(i) (requiring 

disclosures in languages other than English in 

certain circumstances involving remittance 

transfers); 12 CFR 1026.24(i)(7) (addressing 

obligations relating to advertising and disclosures 

in languages other than English for closed-end 

credit); 12 CFR 1002.4(e) (providing that disclosures 

made in languages other than English must be 

available in English upon request); 12 CFR 

1005.18(b)(9) (requiring financial institutions to 

provide pre-acquisition disclosures in a foreign 

language if the financial institution uses that same 

foreign language in connection with the acquisition 

of a prepaid account in certain circumstances); Cal. 

Civ. Code sec. 1632(b) (as amended Sept. 25, 2020) 

(requiring that certain agreements ‘‘primarily’’ 

negotiated in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, 

Vietnamese, or Korean must be translated to the 

language of the negotiation under certain 

circumstances); Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 86A.198 

(requiring a mortgage banker, broker, or originator 

to provide translations of certain notices related to 

the mortgage transaction if the banker, broker, or 

originator advertises and negotiates in a language 

other than English under certain circumstances); 

Tex. Fin. Code Ann. sec. 341.502(a–1) (providing 

that for certain loan contracts negotiated in 

Spanish, a summary of the loan terms must be made 

available to the debtor in Spanish in a form 

identical to required TILA disclosures for closedend credit); 6 RCNY sections 5–77 (imposing 

certain language-related requirements on debt 

collection entities). 14CFPB, Spotlight on serving limited English 

proficient consumers: Language access in the 

consumer financial marketplace (Nov. 2017), 

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/ 

research-reports/spotlight-serving-limited-englishproficient-consumers/. 15See CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 

21–26 (Oct. 2016), https://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/documents/Supervisory_Highlights_

Issue_13__Final_10.31.16.pdf; see also CFPB, ECOA 

Baseline Review Module 4, 13–14, 21–22 (Apr. 

2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_supervision-and-examinationmanual_ecoa-baseline-exam-procedures_2019- 

04.pdf (These modules are used by CFPB 

examination teams to conduct ECOA Baseline 

Reviews to evaluate how an institution’s CMS 

identifies and manages fair lending risk under 

ECOA. The observations described in the referenced 

LEP section of Supervisory Highlights resulted from, 

at least in part, Bureau examiners’ review of 

financial institutions’ fair lending risks and controls 

related to servicing options for LEP consumers). 

16CFPB, Fair Lending Report of the Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection (April 2020), 1, 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_2019-fair-lending_report.pdf. 

17See, e.g., CFPB, Request for Information on the 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, 85 

FR 46600–46603 (Aug. 3, 2020); CFPB, Request for 

Information to Assist the Taskforce on Federal 

Consumer Financial Law, 85 FR 18214–18217 (Apr. 

1, 2020); CFPB, Request for Information Regarding 

the Bureau’s Adopted Regulations and New 

Rulemaking Authorities, 83 FR 12286–12289 (Mar. 

21, 2018). 

18See, e.g., U.S. Chamber of Com. Center for 

Capital Markets Competitiveness, Comment Letter 

on Request for Information Regarding the Bureau’s 

Inherited Regulations and Inherited Rulemaking 

Authorities, Docket No. CFPB–2018–0012, 5–6 

(June 25, 2018); Mortgage Bankers Association, 

Comment Letter on Request for Information 

Regarding the Bureau’s Adopted Regulations and 

New Rulemaking Authorities, Docket No. CFPB– 

2018–0011, 27–28 (June 19, 2018); Americans for 

Financial Reform et al., Comment to CFPB’s 

Proposed Debt Collection Rule (Sept. 18, 2019), 

https://www.consumeradvocates.org/sites/default/ 

files/2019.9.18%20Debt%20Collection%20- 

%20Language%20Access%20Comment%20Letter_

0.pdf (comment of 43 consumer, civil and human 

rights, labor, community, housing, and legal 

services organizations recommending certain 

protections for LEP consumers in the Bureau’s 

proposed debt collection rule). 

19CFPB, Request for Information on the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, 85 FR 

46600–46603 (Aug. 3, 2020), https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/25/ 

2020-18557/request-for-information-on-the-equalcredit-opportunity-act-and-regulation-b-extensionof-comment; CFPB, Request for Information on the 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B; 

Extension of Comment Period, 85 FR 165 (Aug. 25, 

2020), https://beta.regulations.gov/document/CFPB2020-0026-0032. 

unique challenges in learning about and 

accessing financial products and 

services.11 For instance, limited English 

proficiency can hinder consumers’ 

financial literacy and make it difficult to 

conduct everyday financial affairs, 

including understanding and 

completing key financial documents, 

managing bank accounts, resolving 

problems with financial products and 

institutions, and accessing financial 

education and money management 

tools.12 Attempts to address these 

challenges have led to myriad Federal 

and State statutes and regulations.13

Over the past several years, to gain 

insights to inform policy decisions, the 

Bureau has engaged with stakeholders 

on fair lending compliance topics and 

access to credit issues. The Bureau 

participated in robust informationgathering activities, including meetings 

with consumer and civil rights advocacy 

organizations, other Federal agencies, 

policymakers, representatives from 

financial institutions of various sizes, 

and trade associations to obtain 

feedback on the provision of financial 

products and services to LEP 

consumers. Bureau leadership and staff 

presented on LEP-related topics and 

gathered feedback from stakeholders at 

conferences and other external and 

internal events. In addition, the Bureau 

conducted research on complaints 

submitted to the Bureau reflecting LEP 

consumers’ experience with financial 

institutions. These efforts resulted in the 

Bureau’s November 2017 publication, 

Spotlight on serving limited English 

proficient consumers.14 In addition, the 

Bureau’s 2016 Fall edition of 

Supervisory Highlights provides 

supervisory observations regarding 

financial institutions’ provision of nonEnglish language services to LEP 

consumers.15

Since that time, the Bureau has 

continued its work on LEP-related 

issues. In the Bureau’s 2019 Fair 

Lending Report to Congress, the Director 

identified that ‘‘[o]ne particular fair 

lending issue ripe for innovative 

solutions is making financial products 

and services more accessible to 

consumers who are unbanked and 

underbanked, including those who are 

Limited English Proficient.’’ 16

In July 2020, the Director held an LEP 

Consumer and Industry Roundtable that 

convened representatives from 

consumer and civil rights advocacy 

organizations, policymakers, industry, 

and trade associations. The Bureau has 

also received input through numerous 

stakeholder meetings, comments to 

rulemakings, and various Requests for 

Information (RFIs) regarding access to 

credit for LEP consumers.17 Many of 

these responsive comments and 

submissions urged the Bureau to 

provide additional guidance to 

institutions seeking to expand their 

offering of products and services to LEP 

consumers while maintaining 

compliance with applicable laws.18

Most recently, on August 3, 2020, the 

Bureau issued an RFI ‘‘to identify 

opportunities to prevent credit 

discrimination, encourage responsible 

innovation, promote fair, equitable, and 

nondiscriminatory access to credit, 

address potential regulatory uncertainty, 

and develop viable solutions to 

regulatory compliance challenges under 

the ECOA and Regulation B.’’ 19 Among 

the requests, the Bureau sought 

information that would enable it ‘‘to 

understand the challenges specific to 

serving LEP consumers and to find ways 

to encourage creditors to increase 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 

20 Id. at 46601. 

21 Id. at 46601–02. 

22See, e.g., Americans for Financial Reform 

Education Fund Language Access Task Force, 

Comment Letter on Request for Information: Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, 

Document No. CFPB–2020–0026–0145; National 

Community Reinvestment Coalition, Comment 

Letter on Request for Information: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act and Regulation B, Document No. 

CFPB–2020–0026–0128; East Bay Community Law 

Center, Comment Letter on Request for Information: 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, 

Document No. CFPB–2020–0026–0131; Housing 

Policy Council, Comment Letter on Request for 

Information: Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 

Regulation B, Document No. CFPB–2020–0026– 

0103; Consumer Bankers Association, Comment 

Letter on Request for Information: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act and Regulation B, Document No. 

CFPB–2020–0026–0147; National Association of 

Federal Credit Unions, Comment Letter on Request 

for Information: Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 

Regulation B, Document No. CFPB–2020–0026– 

0135; Anonymous, Comment Letter on Request for 

Information: Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 

Regulation B, Document No. CFPB–2020–0026– 

0067; National Fair Housing Alliance, Comment 

Letter on Request for Information: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act and Regulation B, Document No. 

CFPB–2020–0026–133; American Financial 

Services Association, Comment Letter on Request 

for Information: Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 

Regulation B, Document No. CFPB–2020–0026– 

0140; American Bankers Association, Comment 

Letter on Request for Information: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act and Regulation B, Document No. 

CFPB–2020–0026–0143; Center for Capital Markets, 

Comment Letter on Request for Information: Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, 

Document No. CFPB–2020–0026–0136; City of 

Houston City Controller, Comment Letter on 

Request for Information: Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act and Regulation B, Document No. CFPB–2020– 

0026–0120. 

23See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Language Access 

Plan (2012), https://www.justice.gov/civil/file/ 

997661/download (noting that its LEP Access Plan 

is ‘‘not intended to create new services or 

obligations, but to eliminate or reduce limited 

English proficiency as a barrier or impediment to 

accessing the core programs and activities of the 

Civil Division’’). 

24See, e.g., Housing Policy Council, Comment 

Letter on Request for Information: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act and Regulation B, Document No. 

CFPB–2020–0026–0094, 2 (Dec. 1, 2020). 

25See, e.g., Mortgage Bankers Association, 

Comment Letter on Request for Information: Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, 

Document No. CFPB–2020–0026–0115, 4 (Dec. 1, 

2020) (noting that some institutions forego 

providing marketing in non-English languages as a 

result of the regulatory uncertainty). 

26See, e.g., Housing Policy Council, Comment 

Letter on Request for Information: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act and Regulation B, Document No. 

CFPB–2020–0026–0094, 2 (Dec. 1, 2020). 

27See e.g., id. at 3. 

28See, e.g., U.S. Bank, Comment Letter on 

Request for Information: Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act and Regulation B, Document No. CFPB–2020– 

0026–0110, 3 (Dec. 1, 2020). 

29The Bureau has a variety of tools that financial 

institutions can use to reduce legal uncertainty, 

including the No-Action Letter Policy, Compliance 

Assistance Sandbox Policy, and Policy to Encourage 

Trial Disclosure Programs. See CFPB, Innovation at 

the Bureau, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

rules-policy/innovation/ (last accessed 12/14/20). 

Similarly, the Bureau’s Advisory Opinion program 

provides written guidance to assist financial 

institutions in understanding their legal and 

regulatory obligations through advisory opinions; 

see also CFPB, Advisory Opinion program, https:// 

www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/advisoryopinion-program/ (last accessed 12/14/20) 

assistance to LEP consumers.’’ 20

Specifically, the RFI asked: 

Should the Bureau provide additional 

clarity under ECOA and/or Regulation B to 

further encourage creditors to provide 

assistance, products, and services in 

languages other than English to consumers 

with limited English proficiency? If so, in 

what way(s)? 21

The Bureau received a wide variety of 

responses to this question from several 

stakeholder groups, including consumer 

and civil rights advocacy organizations, 

financial institutions, industry trade 

associations, other financial regulators, 

and individuals.22 Almost all 

commenters recognize the importance of 

providing products and services to LEP 

consumers. Some consumer advocacy 

organizations request that changes to 

LEP-related legal requirements take 

place via notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. They also suggest that the 

Bureau require institutions to develop a 

Language Access Plan, similar to 

guidance by other Federal agencies.23

Consumer advocacy organizations, 

financial institutions, and industry trade 

associations alike encourage the Bureau 

to provide more translated documents 

and notices. 

Financial institutions and industry 

trade association commenters advocate 

for flexibility in serving LEP consumers, 

including allowing risk-based 

approaches to decision making related 

to the scope and support for nonEnglish languages. These commenters 

explained that, because there are over 

350 languages spoken in the United 

States, it would be unrealistic and costprohibitive for any financial institution 

to fulfill all the credit needs of all 

customers in all languages. In addition, 

industry representatives express 

uncertainty regarding how to prioritize 

one language over others and what 

factors may be considered when 

institutions seek to provide services in 

one or more languages.24 Some industry 

groups also request clarity regarding 

marketing in non-English languages, 

including whether a disclosure 

describing the extent of services in that 

language is sufficient on its own to 

dispel risks that the practice would be 

considered an unfair, deceptive, or 

abusive practice.25

A few trade associations also 

underscore the technical, operational, 

and compliance challenges specific to 

providing translated documents to LEP 

consumers. For example, the 

commenters point to the operational 

complexity of translating and 

disseminating documents and data 

through technology platforms designed 

to rely on standard English characters.26

Moreover, if financial institutions do 

opt to translate documents, they cite 

uncertainty regarding which documents 

to translate, how to determine the 

accuracy of those translations, and how 

to defend the rationale for selecting 

particular forms or disclosures for 

translation.27 As a result, some of these 

industry groups assert that providing 

verbal interpretation via telephone is a 

more effective short-term solution to 

improving services for LEP consumers. 

In considering whether and how to 

offer services to LEP consumers in 

languages other than English, industry 

stakeholders express a willingness and 

desire to serve LEP consumers, but cite 

challenges related to balancing legal 

requirements and practical 

considerations, including resource and 

operational constraints. Specifically, 

these challenges arise in making: 

(1) Language selection(s): Determining 

in which non-English language(s) to 

provide products and services; and 

(2) Product and lifecycle selections: 

Deciding (a) which products and 

services to offer in non-English 

language(s), and (b) where in the 

product lifecycle to provide services in 

non-English language(s). 

Industry and trade association 

stakeholders are particularly concerned 

about potential fair lending risks under 

ECOA regarding making and 

implementing decisions about language 

selection for non-English language 

services. These stakeholders are also 

concerned about potential UDAAP risks 

in determining how and in which 

languages to offer products and services, 

particularly where not all products and 

services are provided in languages other 

than English. Some of these groups 

request Bureau clarification that: (1) An 

inability to offer support in languages 

other than English, unless specifically 

required by law, does not violate ECOA 

or Regulation B, and/or (2) offering 

support in a specific non-English 

language and not in other non-English 

languages is not considered an unfair, 

deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory 

practice. These groups also encourage 

the Bureau to clarify that collecting 

consumers’ language preference 

information does not violate the ECOA 

or Regulation B.28

These legal issues create some 

uncertainty and can impose costs, 

which may inhibit some financial 

institutions from serving LEP 

consumers.29 As a result, LEP 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 6309 

(published in the Federal Register at 85 FR 77987 

(Dec. 3, 2020)). 30See, e.g., supra note 13. 31See, e.g., CFPB, Spotlight on serving limited 

English proficient consumers: Language access in 

the consumer financial marketplace, 8–10 (Nov. 

2017), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/dataresearch/research-reports/spotlight-serving-limitedenglish-proficient-consumers/ (providing insights 

from financial institutions about serving LEP 

consumers, including assessment of language 

needs, centralized point of contact for technical 

assistance, translation and interpretation systems, 

training and support for staff and contractors, and 

interactions with consumers). 

32CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 25 

(Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf; see also CFPB, ECOA Baseline 

Review Module 2, 6 (Apr. 2019), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

supervision-and-examination-manual_ecoabaseline-exam-procedures_2019-04.pdf (providing 

instructions to Bureau examiners on evaluating a 

financial institution’s fair lending CMS, including 

its approach to managing the fair lending risks 

posed by its service providers). 

33See CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 

23 (Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf (referencing supervisory 

observations of fair lending risks related to 

marketing only some available credit card products 

to Spanish-speaking consumers, while marketing 

several additional credit card products to Englishspeaking consumers. To mitigate any compliance 

risks related to these practices, one or more 

financial institutions revised their marketing 

materials to notify consumers in Spanish of the 

availability of other credit card products and 

included clear and timely disclosures to 

prospective consumers describing the extent and 

limits of any language services provided throughout 

the product lifecycle). 

34 12 CFR 1002.8. 

35CFPB, Advisory Opinion: Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act (Regulation B) Special Purpose 

Credit Programs (Dec. 2020), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

advisory-opinion_special-purpose-credit-program_

2020-12.pdf. 

36Although in a different context, other agencies 

have provided similar guidance in an attempt to 

increase access to services for LEP individuals. See, 

e.g., U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev., Office 

of General Counsel Guidance on Fair Housing Act 

Protections for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency (2016), https://www.hud.gov/sites/ 

documents/LEPMEMO091516.PDF (‘‘This guidance 

discusses how the Fair Housing Act applies to a 

housing provider’s consideration of a person’s 

limited ability to read, write, speak or understand 

English. Specifically, this guidance addresses how 

the disparate treatment and discriminatory effects 

methods of proof apply in Fair Housing Act cases 

in which a housing provider bases an adverse 

housing action–such as a refusal to rent or renew 

a lease—on an individual’s limited ability to read, 

write, speak or understand English.’’); U.S. Dept. of 

Justice, Language Access Plan (2012), https://

www.justice.gov/civil/file/997661/download (‘‘This 

policy and the LEP Access Plan are not intended 

to create new services or obligations, but to 

eliminate or reduce limited English proficiency as 

a barrier or impediment to accessing the core 

programs and activities of the Civil Division.’’); U.S. 

Dept. of Justice, Common Language Access 

Questions, Technical Assistance, and Guidance for 

Federally Conducted and Federally Assisted 

Programs (Aug. 2011), https://www.lep.gov/sites/ 

lep/files/resources/081511_Language_Access_CAQ_

TA_Guidance.pdf. 

37See infra section B.2.a.iii for additional 

information on language preference collection and 

tracking. 

consumers may not be able to easily 

access generally available credit, lowerpriced credit, or creditor assistance 

(whether before or after credit is 

extended). The Bureau is issuing this 

Statement to assist financial institutions 

seeking to increase access to fair and 

nondiscriminatory credit for LEP 

consumers. 

B. Statement 

This Statement provides principles 

and guidelines to inform and assist 

financial institutions in their decision 

making related to serving LEP 

consumers. Section B.1 provides general 

principles for financial institutions to 

consider in serving LEP consumers in 

languages other than English. Section 

B.2 provides guidelines institutions can 

use to help implement those principles 

and develop compliance solutions, 

including key considerations to inform 

those decisions and specific information 

about common components of a 

compliance management system (CMS). 

1. Guiding Principles for Serving LEP 

Consumers 

The Bureau encourages financial 

institutions to better serve LEP 

consumers while ensuring compliance 

with relevant Federal, State, and other 

legal requirements.30 Industry 

stakeholders note that potential legal 

uncertainty discourages some financial 

institutions from serving LEP consumers 

in languages other than English. The 

Bureau has also spoken to many 

financial institutions that nevertheless 

choose to serve LEP consumers in 

myriad ways and to varying degrees.31

The Bureau encourages institutions to 

better serve LEP consumers by applying 

the principles and guidelines in this 

Statement. The Bureau anticipates that 

if financial institutions do so, there will 

continue to be variations among 

financial institutions in the manner, and 

the extent to which, they provide 

products and services to LEP 

consumers. 

Financial institutions that wish to 

implement pilot programs or other 

phased approaches for rolling out LEPconsumer-focused products and services 

may consider doing so in a manner 

consistent with the guidelines in section 

B.2 of this Statement. Phased 

approaches may allow financial 

institutions to serve LEP consumers 

incrementally while managing risks and 

taking steps to ensure compliance with 

appliable laws. 

Financial institutions may consider 

developing a variety of compliance 

approaches related to the provision of 

products and services to LEP consumers 

consistent with the guidelines in section 

B.2 of this Statement. Factors relevant 

in the compliance context may vary 

depending on the size, complexity, and 

risk profile of an institution.32

Therefore, differences in financial 

institutions and the ways they choose to 

serve LEP consumers will likely require 

different compliance solutions. 

Financial institutions may mitigate 

certain compliance risks by providing 

LEP consumers with clear and timely 

disclosures in non-English languages 

describing the extent and limits of any 

language services provided throughout 

the product lifecycle.33 In those 

disclosures, financial institutions may 

provide information about the level of 

non-English language support as well as 

communication channels through which 

LEP consumers can obtain additional 

information and ask questions. 

Financial institutions may wish to 

consider extending credit pursuant to a 

legally compliant special purpose credit 

program (SPCP) to increase access to 

credit for certain underserved LEP 

consumers. Regulation B, which 

implements the ECOA, sets forth 

standards and general rules for 

SPCPs.34 By permitting the 

consideration of a prohibited basis such 

as race or national origin in connection 

with an SPCP, ECOA and Regulation B 

provide creditors with a tool to help 

meet the credit needs of underserved 

communities. The Bureau recently 

issued an advisory opinion to provide 

stakeholders with guidance concerning 

how to develop and implement an 

SPCP.35 While SPCPs are a useful tool 

to further that goal, financial 

institutions may responsibly serve LEP 

consumers without the use of SPCPs. 

2. Guidelines for Developing 

Compliance Solutions When Serving 

LEP Consumers 

Financial institutions may use the 

following key considerations and CMS 

guidelines to mitigate ECOA, UDAAP, 

and other legal risks when making 

threshold determinations and other 

decisions related to serving LEP 

consumers in languages other than 

English.36

a. Key Considerations 

i. Language Selection 

In determining whether to provide 

non-English language services to LEP 

consumers and in which language(s), 

financial institutions may consider 

documented and verifiable information 

(e.g., the stated language preferences of 

its current customers 37 or U.S. Census 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
6310 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 

38See Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 21–22 

(Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf. 

39CFPB, Spotlight on serving limited English 

proficient consumers: Language access in the 

consumer financial marketplace, 8 (Nov. 2017), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_spotlight-serving-lep-consumers_112017.pdf. 

40See infra section B.2.a.iii for additional 

information on language preference collection and 

tracking. 

41 Id. 

42See 12 CFR 1002.4(a); see also CFPB, ECOA 

Baseline Review Module 2, 8 (Apr. 2019), https:// 

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

supervision-and-examination-manual_ecoabaseline-exam-procedures_2019-04.pdf (instructing 

examiners to review aspects of institutions’ policies 

and procedures that may pose heightened fair 

lending risk); In re American Express Centurion 

Bank, No. 2017–CFPB–0016 (Aug. 23, 2017), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

201708_cfpb_american-express_content-order.pdf 

(taking action against two American Express 

banking subsidiaries for discriminating against 

certain consumers with Spanish-language 

preferences, and consumers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories by charging 

them higher interest rates, imposing stricter credit 

cutoffs, and providing less debt forgiveness 

compared to consumers without Spanish-language 

preferences or addresses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

territories). 

43CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 21 

(Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf. 

44The URLA question stated: 

Language Preference—Your loan transaction is 

likely to be conducted in English. This question 

requests information to see if communications are 

available to assist you in your preferred language. 

Please be aware that communications may NOT be 

available in your preferred language. 

Optional—Mark the language you would prefer, 

if available: 

O English O Chinese O Korean O Spanish O 

Tagalog O Vietnamese O Other: ll O I do not 

wish to respond 

Your answer will NOT negatively affect your 

mortgage application. Your answer does not mean 

the Lender or Other Loan Participants agree to 

communicate or provide documents in your 

preferred language. However, it may let them assist 

you or direct you to persons who can assist you. 

Language assistance and resources may be 

available through housing counseling agencies 

approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. To find a housing counseling 

agency, contact one of the following Federal 

government agencies: 

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) at (800) 569–4287 or 

www.hud.gov/counseling. 

• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 

at (855) 411–2372 or www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

find-a-housing-counselor. 

45 82 FR 55810 (Nov. 20, 2017). 

46See, e.g., In re Synchrony Bank, No. 2014– 

CFPB–0007 (June 19, 2014), http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consentorder_synchrony-bank.pdf (citing violations of 

ECOA resulting from the exclusion of consumers 

from offers that would otherwise have been 

provided but for the Bank’s language preference flag 

and/or the fact that the consumers had addresses in 

Puerto Rico or the U.S. territories); In re American 

Express Centurion Bank, No. 2017–CFPB–0016 

(Aug. 23, 2017), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/ 

f/documents/201708_cfpb_american-express_

content-order.pdf (taking action against two 

American Express banking subsidiaries for 

discriminating against certain consumers with 

Spanish-language preferences, and consumers in 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. 

territories by charging them higher interest rates, 

imposing stricter credit cutoffs, and providing less 

debt forgiveness compared to consumers without 

Spanish-language preferences or addresses in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories). 

47See infra section B.2.b.ii on CMS-related 

monitoring. 

48See, e.g., supra note 13. 

Bureau demographic or language 

data 38). For example, the Bureau has 

previously noted that some nationwide 

institutions largely focus on serving 

Spanish-speaking consumers, while 

regional institutions typically align any 

language services with local 

demographics.39

ii. Product and Service Selection 

In determining which products and 

services to offer in languages other than 

English, financial institutions may 

consider a variety of factors, including 

the extent to which LEP consumers use 

particular products and the availability 

of non-English language services.40

In determining when during the 

product lifecycle financial institutions 

can offer services in non-English 

languages and the extent of those 

services, financial institutions may 

consider activities and 

communications—whether verbal or 

written—that most significantly impact 

consumers. To determine whether a 

verbal or written communication is one 

that significantly impacts consumers, 

financial institutions may consider 

whether the communication conveys 

essential information about credit terms 

and conditions (e.g., loan pricing), or 

about borrower obligations and rights, 

including those related to delinquency 

and default servicing, loss mitigation, 

and debt collection. Financial 

institutions may also consider existing 

customer data on what services LEP 

consumers use most frequently.41

In making product and service 

selections, financial institutions should 

review relevant policies, procedures, 

and practices for features that may pose 

heightened risk of unlawful 

discrimination, including distinctions 

in product offerings or terms related to 

prohibited bases (e.g., national origin, 

age) or proxies for prohibited bases (e.g., 

geography).42

iii. Language Preference Collection and 

Tracking 

Financial institutions may collect and 

track customer language information in 

a variety of ways to facilitate 

communication with LEP consumers in 

non-English languages.43 For example, 

in 2017, the Bureau issued an official 

approval of the final redesigned 

Uniform Residential Loan Application 

(URLA) that was to include a question 

to collect mortgage applicants’ language 

preference.44 Although the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later 

opted to remove the language preference 

question from the URLA, the Bureau has 

not rescinded the approval, which 

confirms that financial institutions’ use 

of the URLA containing the question 

identifying a mortgage applicant’s 

language preference does not violate 

Regulation B sections 1002.5(b)—(d) or 

the ECOA.45 The Bureau specifically 

reviewed the language preference 

question with respect to Regulation B, 

section 1002.5(b) concerning requests 

for information about national origin 

and determined it to be compliant. 

Financial institutions can use similar 

questions to collect customer language 

preference information outside of the 

mortgage context. Financial institutions 

do not violate the ECOA or Regulation 

B when they collect the language 

preference of an applicant or borrower 

in a credit transaction. 

However, financial institutions 

should ensure that information 

collected about a consumer’s language 

preference is not used in a way that 

violates applicable laws. For example, 

the Bureau has brought enforcement 

actions against institutions for 

violations that resulted, at least in part, 

from the exclusion of consumers with 

non-English language preferences from 

offers provided to similarly situated 

consumers without those language 

preferences.46 Financial institutions 

choosing to collect and track customer 

language preferences should consider 

closely monitoring how that information 

is used within the institution to ensure 

compliance with applicable laws.47

iv. Translated Documents 

Financial institutions must adhere to 

Federal and State laws requiring that 

they provide consumers with translated 

documents under certain 

circumstances.48 Nothing in this 

Statement alters the applicability of 

those requirements. 

If the translation of documents is not 

legally mandated, financial institutions 

may assess whether and to what extent 

to provide translated documents to 

consumers. Financial institutions may 

conduct these assessments and 

document the related decisions 

consistent with the guidelines provided 

in section B.2.b.i. Financial institutions 

that choose to provide translated 

documents to LEP consumers, must 

ensure the accuracy of those 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 6311 

49Several Federal financial regulatory agencies 

have published translated forms, disclosures, and 

glossaries for use by financial institutions in 

ensuring the accuracy and consistency in translated 

terms. See, e.g., CFPB, Glossary of English-Spanish 

Financial Terms (Oct. 2018), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_adultfin-ed_spanish-style-guide-glossary.pdf; CFPB, 

Glossary of English-Chinese Financial Terms (Feb. 

2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_adult-fin-ed_chinese-style-guideglossary.pdf; FHFA, Mortgage Translations Home, 

https://www.fhfa.gov/MortgageTranslations 

(includes Mortgage Translations clearinghouse, an 

easy-to-use collection of translated documents and 

tools to assist lenders, servicers, housing 

counselors, and others in helping LEP mortgage 

borrowers). 

50See supra section B.2.a.ii on product and 

service selection, providing considerations for 

assessing whether written or verbal 

communications significantly impact consumers; 

see, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban 

Development, Final Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 2736 

(Jan. 2007), https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2007/01/22/07-217/final-guidance-tofederal-financial-assistance-recipients-regardingtitle-vi-prohibition-against (highlighting that ‘‘[t]he 

decision as to what program-related documents 

should be translated into languages other than 

English is a complex one’’ and describing factors 

that recipients of Federal financial assistance can 

consider in ‘‘deciding: (1) [w]hat documents should 

be translated; (2) what target languages other than 

English are appropriate; and (3) whether more 

effective alternatives exist’’). 

51See, e.g., CFPB, Loan estimate and closing 

disclosure forms and samples, https://

www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/ 

guidance/mortgage-resources/tila-respa-integrateddisclosures/forms-samples/ (linking to various 

Spanish versions of TRID model and sample forms); 

FHFA, Mortgage Translations Home, https://

www.fhfa.gov/MortgageTranslations. 

52CFPB, Helping newcomers and multilingual 

communities, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

language/. 

53Supra, note 32. 

54See CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Summer 

2013, (Aug. 2013), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201308_cfpb_

supervisory-highlights_august.pdf (discussing the 

pillars of a well-functioning CMS); see also CFPB, 

ECOA Baseline Review Module 2, 6 (Apr. 2019), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_supervision-and-examination-manual_ecoabaseline-exam-procedures_2019-04.pdf (providing 

instructions to Bureau examiners on evaluating a 

financial institution’s fair lending CMS, including 

its approach to managing the fair lending risks 

posed by its service providers). 

55See 12 CFR 1002.4(a); see also CFPB, ECOA 

Baseline Review Module 2, 8 (Apr. 2019), https:// 

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

supervision-and-examination-manual_ecoabaseline-exam-procedures_2019-04.pdf (instructing 

examiners to review aspects of institutions’ policies 

and procedures that may pose heightened fair 

lending risk, including (1) particular incentives 

created by employee compensation or performance 

goal structures (both compensation and noncompensation based); (2) discretion over 

underwriting, pricing, or product selection (e.g., 

steering risk); or (3) distinctions related to 

geography or prohibited bases). 

56Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 24 (Oct. 

2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf. 

57See id. at 23 (underscoring that the lack of 

documentation describing how one or more 

institutions decided to exclude certain products 

from Spanish language marketing raised questions 

about the adequacy of the institution’s fair lendingrelated CMS). 

58See supra section B.2.a.iii for additional 

information on language preference collection and 

tracking. 

59See Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 21–22 

(Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf. 

60 Id. at 24. 

61See id. at 24–25; see also In re Synchrony Bank, 

No. 2014–CFPB–0007 (June 19, 2014), http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consentorder_synchrony-bank.pdf (citing violations of 

ECOA resulting from the exclusion of consumers 

from offers that would otherwise have been 

provided but for the Bank’s language preference flag 

and/or the fact that the consumers had addresses in 

Puerto Rico or the U.S. territories); In re American 

Express Centurion Bank, No. 2013–CFPB–0011 

(Dec. 24, 2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

201312_cfpb_consent_amex_centurion_011.pdf 

(citing the institution for, among other things, 

deceptive acts or practices in telemarketing of a 

Continued 

translations 49 and should seek to 

prioritize communications and activities 

that most significantly impact 

consumers.50

In addition, financial institutions may 

wish to use translated documents 

provided by the Bureau and other 

government agencies.51 Links to the 

Bureau’s LEP-related resources, 

including glossaries of financial terms, 

can be found on its website.52 The 

Bureau is committed to continuing to 

provide more translated documents in 

the future. 

b. Generally Applicable CMS Guidelines 

Financial institutions can mitigate fair 

lending and other risks associated with 

providing services in languages other 

than English by implementing a strong 

compliance management system that 

affirmatively considers how to serve 

LEP consumers in a compliant manner. 

Financial institutions serving LEP 

consumers may: (1) Develop an LEPspecific CMS, or (2) integrate an LEP 

focus into the financial institution’s 

broader fair lending, UDAAP, and/or 

consumer compliance CMS. To be most 

effective, the CMS coverage should be 

comprehensive and commensurate with 

the financial institution’s size, 

complexity, and risk profile.53

Common features of a well-developed 

CMS include: A compliance program 

(i.e., policies and procedures, training, 

monitoring and/or audit, and consumer 

complaint response) and third-party 

service provider oversight.54 In the fair 

lending context, financial institutions 

should consider an in-depth review of 

policies and procedures for products 

containing features that may pose 

heightened risk of unlawful 

discrimination.55 The following 

subsections provide specific detail 

about components that can be included 

(or refined if existing) in a financial 

institution’s CMS to mitigate fair 

lending and other risks associated with 

providing products and services in nonEnglish languages. 

i. Documentation of Decisions 

A well-developed CMS will 

sufficiently document applicable 

policies, procedures, and decision 

making.56 The Bureau strongly 

encourages financial institutions 

providing products and services in nonEnglish languages to document 

decisions related to the selection of: (1) 

Language(s), (2) product(s), and (3) 

service(s).57 Documentation may 

include anything that a financial 

institution considers in making the 

language(s), product(s), or service(s) 

decision, including infrastructure, 

systems, or other operational 

limitations; cost estimates; or any other 

information that allows a regulator to 

understand the decision-making 

process. 

For example, that documentation may 

include any information that the 

financial institution considered in 

selecting a particular language or 

languages in which to serve LEP 

consumers (e.g., the stated language 

preferences of its current customers 58 or 

U.S. Census Bureau demographic or 

language data 59). In addition, the 

documentation may include the reasons 

for selecting particular products and 

services, including the extent of nonEnglish language communications and 

other customer support resources. The 

documentation may also include the 

financial institution’s plan to phase-in 

additional languages, products, or 

services over time. 

Financial institutions seeking to 

expand language, product, and/or 

service offerings, may document the 

existing offerings and decisions related 

to expanded offerings. In determining 

whether to expand or discontinue 

particular products or services, financial 

institutions may consider documenting 

the extent of consumer use (or lack 

thereof) of those product and service 

offerings. 

ii. Monitoring 

Common features of a well-developed 

CMS include quality assurance testing 

and monitoring of business transactions 

and processes.60 The Bureau encourages 

financial institutions providing services 

in languages other than English to 

regularly monitor those services, 

including changes in those services, for 

fair lending and UDAAP risks.61 For 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
6312 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 

credit card add-on product to Spanish-speaking 

customers in Puerto Rico because the institution 

did not adequately alert consumers enrolling via 

Spanish-language telemarketing calls about the 

steps necessary to receive and access the full 

product benefits). 

62CFPB, ECOA Baseline Review Module 4, 13– 

14, 21–22 (Apr. 2019), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

supervision-and-examination-manual_ecoabaseline-exam-procedures_2019-04.pdf (instructing 

examiners to evaluate institutions’ fair lending risk 

related to servicing options for LEP consumers). 

63See CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 

25 (Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf; see also CFPB, Unfair, 

Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices 

Examination Procedures, Management and PolicyRelated Examination Procedures, 13–16 (Oct. 2012), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

102012_cfpb_unfair-deceptive-abusive-actspractices-udaaps_procedures.pdf (The Bureau’s 

examiners use UDAAP Examination Procedures to 

assess the quality of the financial institution’s CMS, 

including internal controls and policies and 

procedures, for avoiding unfair, deceptive, or 

abusive acts or practices. The Management and 

Policy-Related Examination Procedures, 

specifically, describe UDAAP-related transaction 

testing of (1) Marketing and disclosures, (2) 

availability of terms and services as advertised, and 

(3) availability of actual credit to the consumer.). 

64See In re Synchrony Bank, No. 2014–CFPB– 

0007 (June 19, 2014), http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consentorder_synchrony-bank.pdf (citing violations of 

ECOA resulting from the exclusion of consumers 

from offers that would otherwise have been 

provided but for the Bank’s language preference flag 

and/or the fact that the consumers had addresses in 

Puerto Rico or the U.S. territories). 

65See In re American Express Centurion Bank, 

No. 2013–CFPB–0011 (Dec. 24, 2013), http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_

amex_centurion_011.pdf (citing the institution for, 

among other things, deceptive acts or practices in 

telemarketing of a credit card add-on product to 

Spanish-speaking customers in Puerto Rico because 

the institution did not adequately alert consumers 

enrolling via Spanish-language telemarketing calls 

about the steps necessary to receive and access the 

full product benefits); see also Federal Trade 

Commission v. Mortgages para Hispanos.com, (Case 

No. 4:06–cv–00019 (E.D.Tex. 2006) (bringing an 

action against a company targeting Hispanic 

homeowners for a home refinance which was 

negotiated in Spanish but presented Englishlanguage closing documents with different, less 

favorable terms). Several Federal and State financial 

regulatory agencies have published translated 

forms, disclosures, and glossaries for use by 

financial institutions in ensuring the accuracy and 

consistency in translated terms. See, e.g., CFPB, 

Glossary of English-Spanish Financial Terms (Oct. 

2018), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_adult-fin-ed_spanish-style-guideglossary.pdf; CFPB, Glossary of English-Chinese 

Financial Terms (Feb. 2019), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_adultfin-ed_chinese-style-guide-glossary.pdf; FHFA, 

Mortgage Translations Home, https://www.fhfa.gov/ 

MortgageTranslations (includes FHFA’s Mortgage 

Translations Clearinghouse, an easy-to-use 

collection of translated documents and tools to 

assist lenders, servicers, housing counselors, and 

others in helping LEP mortgage borrowers). 

66See In re American Express Centurion Bank, 

No. 2013–CFPB–0011 (Dec. 24, 2013), http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_

amex_centurion_011.pdf. 

67 Id. 

68CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2016, 24–25 

(Oct. 2016), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/Supervisory_Highlights_Issue_13__

Final_10.31.16.pdf. 

69See, e.g., In re American Express Centurion 

Bank, No. 2013–CFPB–0011 (Dec. 24, 2013), http:// 

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_

amex_centurion_011.pdf (referring to marketing 

practices that involved three of the institution’s 

subsidiaries and their vendors and telemarketers, 

who engaged in misleading and deceptive tactics to 

sell some of the company’s credit card add-on 

products. Pursuant to the Consent Order, American 

Express was required to continue to strengthen its 

management of third-party vendors who provided 

the subject add-on products). 

70See CFPB, Supervisory Highlights: Summer 

2013 (Aug. 2013), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201308_cfpb_

supervisory-highlights_august.pdf (providing 

findings related to service provider oversight 

reviews); see also CFPB Bulletin 2012–03 (April 12, 

2012) http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201204_

cfpb_bulletin_service-providers.pdf (providing the 

Bureau’s expectations of service provider 

relationships). 

71For example, the Bureau is aware that some of 

the National Credit Reporting Agencies provide 

Interactive Voice Response (IVR) phone support in 

Spanish. 

72See CFPB, ECOA Baseline Review Module 2, 9 

(Apr. 2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/ 

documents/cfpb_supervision-and-examinationmanual_ecoa-baseline-exam-procedures_2019- 

04.pdf (instructing examiners to evaluate 

institutions’ compliance program policies and 

procedures related to its third-party monitoring and 

audit functions). 

example, financial institutions should 

consider assessing the quality of 

customer assistance provided in nonEnglish languages, including by 

assessing whether personnel receive the 

same training, convey the same 

information, and have the same 

authority as other customer service 

personnel.62

In addition, financial institutions 

should consider monitoring or 

conducting regular fair lending and 

UDAAP-related assessments of their 

advertising, including promotional 

materials and marketing scripts for new 

products.63 If institutions market 

products to particular populations, 

including LEP consumers, they should 

consider the nature and extent of that 

marketing and whether any particular 

populations are missing or excluded.64

Furthermore, institutions should 

consider reviewing new products, as 

well as changes in the terms and 

conditions of existing products, for 

potential UDAAP concerns to determine 

whether their internal controls are 

adequate. 

Financial institutions should also 

ensure that marketing, disclosures, and 

other materials are appropriately 

designed to ensure accurate 

understanding by LEP consumers.65 In 

2013, the Bureau brought an 

enforcement action against a financial 

institution for illegal credit card 

practices, including deceptive 

marketing with respect to credit card 

‘‘add-on products’’ (i.e., payment 

protection and credit monitoring).66

While sales calls to enroll the vast 

majority of Puerto Rico consumers in 

this product were conducted in 

Spanish, the institution did not provide 

uniform Spanish-language scripts for 

these enrollment calls, and all written 

materials provided to consumers were 

in English.67

iii. Fair Lending Testing 

Common features of a well-developed 

CMS include regular statistical analysis 

of loan-level data for potential 

disparities on a prohibited basis (e.g., 

national origin) in underwriting, 

pricing, or other aspects of the credit 

transaction, including in mortgage and 

non-mortgage products (e.g., credit 

cards, auto lending, small business 

lending, and student lending).68

iv. Third-Party Vendor Oversight 

If a financial institution contracts 

with service providers to offer any 

products or services to LEP consumers 

on behalf of the financial institution, it 

should ensure that the products and 

services provided to LEP consumers do 

not violate applicable laws or pose fair 

lending or UDAAP risks to LEP 

consumers.69 Those financial 

institutions should implement a service 

provider oversight program that 

incorporates a review of fair lending, 

UDAAP, and other applicable laws.70

While third-parties may offer a host of 

essential products and services to LEP 

consumers, some of which are provided 

in languages other than English,71

financial institutions’ service provider 

oversight programs should consider 

focusing particular attention on third 

parties who participate in underwriting 

or pricing decisions.72

3. Conclusion 

Recognizing the compliance risks and 

uncertainty that many financial 

institutions raise as challenges to better 

serving LEP consumers in non-English 

languages, the Bureau is issuing this 

Statement to outline compliance 

principles and guidelines that 

encourage financial institutions to 

expand access to products and services 

for LEP consumers. 

Nothing in this Statement should be 

interpreted to relieve institutions from 

their obligation to comply with laws 

applicable to providing financial 

products and services to LEP 

consumers. Nor does this Statement 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 12 / Thursday, January 21, 2021 / Notices 6313 

73This Statement does not impose any legal 

requirements on external parties, nor does it create 

or confer any substantive rights on external parties 

that could be enforceable in any administrative or 

civil proceeding. 

mandate any particular approach to 

serving LEP consumers.73

II. 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. 

January 13, 2021. 

Grace Feola, 

Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01116 Filed 1–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

National Advisory Committee on 

Institutional Quality and Integrity 

AGENCY: National Advisory Committee 

on Institutional Quality and Integrity 

(NACIQI), Office of Postsecondary 

Education, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Announcement of the Senior 

Department Official’s (SDO) decisions. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides a link to 

the SDO’s decision letters associated 

with recommendations from NACIQI’s 

July 29 & 30, 2020 meeting. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

NACIQI’s Statutory Authority and 

Function: NACIQI is established under 

section 114 of the HEA. NACIQI advises 

the Secretary of Education with respect 

to: 

• The establishment and enforcement 

of the standards of accrediting agencies 

or associations under subpart 2, part H, 

Title IV of the HEA, as amended. 

• The recognition of specific 

accrediting agencies or associations. 

• The preparation and publication of 

the list of nationally recognized 

accrediting agencies and associations. 

• The eligibility and certification 

process for institutions of higher 

education under Title IV of the HEA and 

part C, subchapter I, chapter 34, Title 

42, together with recommendations for 

improvement in such process. 

• The relationship between (1) 

accreditation of institutions of higher 

education and the certification and 

eligibility of such institutions, and (2) 

State licensing responsibilities with 

respect to such institutions. 

• Any other advisory function 

relating to accreditation and 

institutional eligibility that the 

Secretary of Education may prescribe by 

regulation. 

Link to the Senior Department 

Official’s Decision Letters: After NACIQI 

made its recognition recommendations 

to the SDO, pursuant to 34 Code of 

Federal Regulations CFR 602.34(g), each 

agency and the Department staff had the 

opportunity to submit comments on 

NACIQI’s recommendations to the SDO 

pursuant to 34 CFR 602.35. There was 

a separate SDO for the Higher Learning 

Commission (HLC). The SDO for HLC 

issued his decision on October 26, 2020. 

The SDO for all other agencies issued 

her decisions on October 28, 2020. A 

link to all the SDO decision letters, as 

well as a list of all the agencies 

reviewed at the July 29–30, 2020 

NACIQI meeting, are provided below. 

None of the agencies reviewed chose to 

appeal the SDO Decisions to the 

Secretary pursuant to 34 CFR 602.37(a). 

https://surveys.ope.ed.gov/erecognition/ 

PublicDocuments. 

Application for Renewal of Recognition 

(State Agency for the Approval of 

Vocational Education) 

Puerto Rico State Agency for the 

Approval of Public Postsecondary 

Vocational, Technical Institutions and 

Programs. 

Applications for Renewal of 

Recognition (State Agency for the 

Approval of Nurse Education) 

1. New York State Board of Regents, 

State Education Department, Office of 

the Professions (Nursing Education). 

2. Missouri State Board of Nursing. 

Application for Granting of Academic 

(Masters and Doctoral) Degrees by 

Federal Agencies and Institutions 

1. National Intelligence University: 

Undergoing Substantive Change 

(Reorganization/Command Change). 

2. U.S. Army Command and General 

Staff College: Undergoing Substantive 

Change (Curriculum Change). 

Agency Under Review and Evaluation 

during its period of recognition by the 

Department’s Office of Postsecondary 

Education Accreditation Group, in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in 34 CFR 602.33. 

Higher Learning Commission (HLC). 

Access to Records of the Meeting: The 

official report of the July 29 & 30, 2020 

meeting is posted on the NACIQI 

website. In addition, pursuant to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), at 5 U.S.C. App. 10(b), the 

public may request to inspect records of 

the meeting at 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC, by emailing 

aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov or by calling 

(202) 453–7415 to schedule an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Alan Smith, Executive Director/ 

Designated Federal Official, NACIQI, 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW, Room 271–03, 

Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 

453–7757, or email: 

George.Alan.Smith@ed.gov. 

Electronic Access to this Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. You also may 

access documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register by 

using the article search feature at: 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1011c. 

Christopher McCaghren, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Postsecondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01222 Filed 1–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket No.: ED–2020–SCC–0012] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Comment Request; Example 

Application for the Emergency 

Assistance to Non-Public Schools 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE), 

Department of Education (ED). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is 

requesting the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to conduct an 

emergency review of a new information 

collection. 

DATES: The Department has requested 

emergency processing from OMB for 

this information collection request by 

January 14, 2021; and therefore, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES