76628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

compliance with the reporting 

requirements of 10 CFR 32.52 and 

equivalent Agreement State provisions. 

The NRC initiated this contact with the 

goal of assisting distributors in their 

efforts to consistently provide the NRC 

with information that satisfies the 

reporting requirements in 10 CFR 32.52. 

This information reported under 10 CFR 

32.52 pertains to the general licensees to 

whom distributors have transferred 

signs. 

The petitioner asserted that ‘‘the 

majority’’ of unaccounted for tritium 

exit signs are disposed of in solid waste 

landfills where they may become 

potential sources of groundwater and 

surface water contamination. The NRC 

concludes that the petitioner did not 

demonstrate that the excess tritium 

being found in landfill leachate, even if 

resulting from improper disposal of 

tritium exit signs, could result in 

hazardous levels of tritium in drinking 

water. Published reports such as 

‘‘Radiological Investigation Results for 

Pennsylvania Landfill Leachate: 2009 

Tritium Update,’’ Safety and Ecology 

Corporation, Knoxville, TN, March 31, 

2010, support this conclusion. The 

study incorporated the use of sitespecific dilution factors based on factors 

such as discharge rates and known 

distances between leachate effluent 

release points and downstream water 

supply intakes to convert observed 

leachate tritium concentrations into 

diluted tritium concentrations assumed 

to be available for human consumption. 

The report concluded not only that the 

resulting concentrations of tritium were 

well below the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) of 20,000 pCi/ 

L for tritium in drinking water, but that 

‘‘average drinking water intake tritium 

concentrations * * * were more than 

200 times less than the EPA 20,000 pCi/ 

L MCL, ranging from 0–99 pCi/L.’’ 

The petitioner also expressed concern 

that samples collected from leachate 

collection systems exceeded 20,000 pCi/ 

L. It should be noted that 20,000 pCi/ 

L is the EPA’s MCL for tritium in 

drinking water and not leachate. 

Landfill monitoring reports show that 

despite high tritium concentrations in 

leachate, drinking water samples 

collected downstream of landfills 

maintain tritium concentrations well 

below the EPA’s MCL. For example, the 

‘‘Radiological Investigation Results for 

Pennsylvania Landfill Leachate: 2009 

Tritium Update’’ report, referenced 

above, shows that ‘‘maximum drinking 

water [tritium] intake concentrations 

were over 100 times less than the EPA 

20,000 pCi/L MCL ranging from 0 to 146 

pCi/L.’’ 

While the NRC does not regulate solid 

waste landfills, the NRC staff also 

concluded that current landfill practices 

would mitigate the impacts from tritium 

released from any exit signs that may be 

disposed in landfills. These include: 

Cover systems that minimize rainfall 

penetration and limit the migration of 

tritium due to erosion or interaction 

with animals; cell liners that prevent 

leachate from leaking into the 

groundwater; gaseous extraction wells 

that remove gases building up within 

the landfill; and leachate collection 

systems that collect, process, and treat 

leachate. 

In addition to reviewing these 

previously published reports and 

comparing tritium concentrations 

measured in leachate and drinking 

water to regulatory standards, the NRC 

reviewed the possible risks to landfill 

workers and the general public from 

exposure to tritium associated with 

landfill disposals. The NRC determined 

that tritium contamination involves 

such low levels of tritium that it would 

not pose a health and safety threat to the 

landfill worker or the general public. 

Conclusion 

The NRC is denying the petition for 

rulemaking because the NRC’s current 

regulations in this area are adequate to 

protect public health and safety. In 

conclusion, the petitioner has not 

submitted any new information that 

indicates a health and safety issue that 

warrants rulemaking or calls into 

question the existing regulatory 

requirements. Existing NRC regulations 

provide reasonable assurance that 

public health and safety are adequately 

protected. For the reasons cited in this 

document, the NRC denies the petition. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day 

of December, 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31523 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Chapter X 

[Docket No. CFPB–2011–0040] 

Disclosure of Certain Credit Card 

Complaint Data 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy 

statement with request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (the ‘‘CFPB’’) is 

requesting comment on a proposed 

policy statement (the ‘‘Policy 

Statement’’) that addresses the CFPB’s 

proactive disclosure of credit card 

complaint data. The CFPB receives 

credit card complaints from consumers 

under the terms of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Act of 2010. The 

proposed Policy Statement sets forth the 

CFPB’s proposed initial disclosure of 

credit card complaint data. It also 

identifies additional ways that the CFPB 

may disclose credit card complaint data 

but as to which the CFPB will conduct 

further study before finalizing its 

position. The proposed Policy 

Statement does not address complaint 

data about any other consumer financial 

product or service. The CFPB invites 

comment on all aspects of the proposed 

Policy Statement. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before January 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2011– 

0040, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1500 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (Attn: 1801 

L Street), Washington, DC 20220. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. 

All submissions must include the 

agency name and docket number of this 

proposed Policy Statement. In general, 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20006, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

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

make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the public record and 

subject to public disclosure. Sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or social security numbers, 

should not be included. Comments will 

not be edited to remove any identifying 

or contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, at (202) 435–7275; 

Scott Pluta, Office of Consumer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76629 

1 ‘‘Whistleblower’’ complaints are not within the 

scope of the present Policy Statement. See 12 U.S.C. 

5567(a)(1). 

2The consumer must affirm that the submitted 

information is true to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. The system will accept 

complaints submitted on behalf of a consumer. 

These complaints may be subject to proof of signed, 

written permission from the consumer. 

3The CFPB forwards to the relevant prudential 

regulator any credit card complaint involving an 

issuer that is not subject to supervision and primary 

enforcement by the CFPB under section 1025. 

4 Initially, Consumer Response requested an 

issuer to categorize its response as ‘‘full resolution,’’ 

‘‘partial resolution’’ or ‘‘no resolution,’’ but 

experience showed that issuers were not using 

these terms consistently. Under the current 

approach, in addition to any narrative material that 

the issuer provides the consumer, the issuer is 

asked to categorize its response as closing the 

complaint with relief or without relief. 

5Section 1016 also requires that the CFPB submit 

semi-annual reports to congressional oversight 

committees covering a range of topics, including 

‘‘an analysis of complaints about consumer 

financial products or services that the Bureau has 

received and collected in its central database on 

complaints during the preceding year.’’ 12 U.S.C. 

5496(c)(4). 

6 12 CFR 1070.2(f). 

7See 12 CFR 1070.41 (general prohibition on 

disclosure of confidential information except as 

required by law or pursuant to the CFPB’s rules); 

12 CFR 1070.43 (permitting the CFPB to disclose 

confidential consumer complaint information to 

certain Federal and state agencies, provided the 

agencies protect the confidentiality of the 

information); 12 CFR 1070.44 (permitting the CFPB 

to ‘‘disclose confidential consumer complaint 

information as it deems necessary to investigate, 

resolve, or otherwise respond to consumer 

complaints or inquiries concerning financial 

institutions or consumer financial products and 

services’’); 12 CFR 1070.45 (permitting the CFPB to 

disclose confidential consumer complaint 

information in certain circumstances in the course 

of law enforcement investigations and proceedings); 

12 CFR 1070.46 (permitting the Director to 

personally authorize the disclosure of confidential 

consumer complaint information, provided such 

disclosure is consistent with applicable law, 

including the Privacy Act of 1974). 

Response, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, at (202) 435–7306; or 

Will Wade-Gery, Division of Research, 

Markets and Regulations, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, at (202) 

435–7700. 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5492(a), 

5493(b)(3)(C), 5496(c)(4), 5511(b)(1), (5), 

5512(c)(3)(B). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 21, 2011, the CFPB launched 

a system for accepting credit card 

complaints. The CFPB developed this 

system pursuant to several provisions of 

the Consumer Financial Protection Act 

of 2010 (the ‘‘Consumer Financial 

Protection Act’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), including 

sections 1013(b)(3), 1025, 1034(a), and 

1034(b), 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3), 5515 & 

5534(a)–(b). Under this new system, 

consumers submit credit card 

complaints to the CFPB in several ways 

including via the CFPB’s Web site, 

http://www.consumerfinance.gov. The 

system is presently limited to accepting 

credit card complaints from 

consumers.1 The CFPB is developing 

plans to roll out parallel systems for 

other consumer financial products and 

services. 

As the system is presently configured, 

a consumer who submits a credit card 

complaint completes several nonnarrative data fields. These include the 

consumer’s name and address, the name 

of the issuing bank, and fields relating 

to the type of the complaint and claimed 

loss.2 Credit card consumers can also 

populate two narrative fields. These 

cover the consumer’s description of 

‘‘what happened’’ and the consumer’s 

assessment of a ‘‘fair resolution.’’ 

If the resulting complaint concerns a 

credit card issuer subject to the CFPB’s 

supervision and primary enforcement 

under section 1025 of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 

5515, the CFPB’s Office of Consumer 

Response (‘‘Consumer Response’’) 

forwards the complaint to that 

identified issuer.3 If the receiving issuer 

indicates that it did not issue the 

relevant credit card, Consumer 

Response will attempt to forward the 

complaint to the correct issuer. Once the 

correct issuer has the complaint, the 

issuer investigates the complaint, 

communicates with the consumer as the 

issuer deems appropriate, and 

determines what action, if any, to take 

with respect to the complaint. At the 

end of this process, the issuer reports to 

Consumer Response how it has 

addressed the complaint.4 Once 

Consumer Response receives a response 

from the issuer, Consumer Response 

invites the consumer to review the 

response. The CFPB prioritizes for 

further action complaints where the 

consumer expresses dissatisfaction with 

the issuer’s response or where the issuer 

fails to respond. 

II. Disclosure Authority 

The Act requires the CFPB to provide 

certain information to Congress about 

complaints and responses. In particular, 

section 1013(b)(3)(C) requires the CFPB 

to report annually to Congress 

information and analysis about 

complaint numbers, types, and, when 

applicable, resolution.5 See 12 U.S.C. 

5493(b)(3)(C). Additionally, the Act 

permits the CFPB to exercise its 

authority for purposes of ensuring that 

‘‘consumers are provided with timely 

and understandable information to 

make responsible decisions about 

financial transactions’’ and that 

‘‘markets for consumer financial 

products operate transparently and 

efficiently.’’ 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1), (5). 

The CFPB has broad authority to 

make public information that is not 

required to be given confidential 

treatment. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5492(a); 

12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(3)(B), (c)(8). On July 

22, 2011, the CFPB issued an interim 

final rule governing disclosure of 

records and information, including 

treatment of confidential information. 

See 76 FR 45372 (July 28, 2011) (to be 

codified at 12 CFR Part 1070). The rule 

defines ‘‘confidential consumer 

complaint information’’ as ‘‘information 

received or generated by the CFPB, 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5493 and 5534, 

that comprises or documents consumer 

complaints or inquiries concerning 

financial institutions or consumer 

financial products and services and 

responses thereto, to the extent that 

such information is exempt from 

disclosure pursuant to [the Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’),] 5 U.S.C. 

552(b).’’ 6 The rule generally prohibits 

the disclosure of confidential consumer 

complaint information, except in certain 

limited circumstances.7 However, the 

rule does not limit the CFPB’s discretion 

to disclose materials that it derives from 

confidential information, including 

confidential consumer complaint 

information, to the extent that such 

materials do not identify, either directly 

or indirectly, any particular individual 

to whom the confidential information 

pertains. See 12 CFR 1070.41(c). 

The proposed Policy Statement does 

not contemplate the disclosure of 

confidential consumer complaint 

information. Under the proposed Policy 

Statement, the CFPB would not disclose 

information contained in consumer 

credit card complaints (and responses to 

such complaints) that is exempt from 

disclosure under the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 

552(b). The CFPB will not publish the 

name, full address, or credit card 

account number associated with any 

given credit card complaint. In addition, 

as discussed further below, our policy 

will be not to publish credit card 

complaint information that could enable 

the consumer to be identified by any 

party other than the issuer of the credit 

card in question. Further, the CFPB will 

not disclose confidential and 

proprietary business information that 

issuers provide in response to 

complaints. Because of these 

limitations, the CFPB’s proposed 

publication of consumer complaint 

information pursuant to the Policy 

Statement does not rely upon any of the 

exceptions to the general prohibition on 

disclosure of confidential consumer 

complaint information. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8See 12 CFR 1070.11(c). United States 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) guidance provides 

that three requests for the same records are 

generally enough to trigger an agency’s disclosure 

obligation under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(D). Department 

of Justice, Office of Information Policy, Guide to the 

Freedom of Information Act, pp. 17–18 (2009 ed.); 

FOIA Post, ‘‘FOIA Counselor Q&A: ‘Frequently 

Requested’ Records’’ (7/25/03) available at http:// 

www.justice.gov/oip/foiapost/2003foiapost28.htm. 

9 In addition, issuers would likely mine the data 

and might publicize to consumers how their 

complaint performance measures up against 

competitors. 

10The data is available at http:// 

www.edmunds.com/car-news/nhtsa-complaintsreport.html. 

11The reports are available at http:// 

airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/index.htm. 

FOIA requires general public 

disclosure of records that have been 

disclosed in response to a FOIA request 

and which the CFPB ‘‘determines have 

become or are likely to become the 

subject of subsequent requests for 

substantially the same records.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(D). The CFPB’s interim 

final rule regarding this provision of 

FOIA states that: 

Subject to the application of the FOIA 

exemptions and exclusions * * * the CFPB 

shall make publicly available * * * all 

records * * * which have been released 

previously to any person under [FOIA and 12 

CFR part 1070], and which the CFPB 

determines have become or are likely to 

become the subject of subsequent requests for 

substantially the same records because they 

are clearly of interest to the public at large. 

When the CFPB receives three (3) or more 

requests for substantially the same records, 

then the CFPB shall also make the released 

records publicly available.8

The CFPB has received and is reviewing 

comments on its interim FOIA rules, 

including the provision concerning 

section 552(a)(2)(D) of FOIA. 

The CFPB’s credit card complaint 

process has been widely publicized, and 

there is a high level of public interest in 

information regarding these complaints. 

As a result, the CFPB believes that its 

credit card complaint records may 

become subject to multiple, overlapping 

FOIA requests. The CFPB seeks 

comment on the interplay between the 

proposed Policy Statement and the 

possible application of the requirements 

of section 552(a)(2)(D) of FOIA. 

III. Rationale for Disclosing Certain 

Credit Card Complaint Data 

The CFPB has developed the 

proposed Policy Statement in light of its 

statutory purposes of helping to provide 

consumers with ‘‘timely and 

understandable information to make 

responsible decisions about financial 

transactions’’ and helping the credit 

card market to ‘‘operate transparently 

and efficiently.’’ 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1) & 

(5). We have separated the issue of 

disclosure of the narrative fields of 

complaint data from disclosure of the 

non-narrative fields. These issues 

implicate discrete considerations. 

We have reviewed disclosure 

practices at other Federal and state 

agencies, the complaint-handling 

experience of other financial regulators, 

and the positions of different 

stakeholders as they have been voiced to 

the CFPB to date. As noted, the 

proposed Policy Statement only covers 

the disclosure of certain credit card 

complaint data. Disclosing data on other 

types of complaints may raise different 

considerations that are not addressed by 

the proposed Policy Statement. 

Furthermore, the proposed Policy 

Statement does not concern the CFPB’s 

internal uses of complaint data nor is it 

intended to limit the CFPB’s discretion 

to share complaint data as otherwise 

permitted by law. 

The CFPB will carefully consider 

comments it receives in response to this 

notice and its continued experience 

with the operation of the CFPB’s credit 

card complaint system before finalizing 

the Policy Statement. Once the CFPB 

finalizes this Policy Statement, we will 

study its effectiveness on an ongoing 

basis. In addition to seeking comments 

on the proposed Policy Statement, the 

CFPB also invites comment on the 

appropriate ways to study the 

effectiveness of credit card complaint 

data disclosure. Although the present 

Policy Statement is limited to credit 

card complaints, what the CFPB learns 

about disclosure in this context may 

serve to inform disclosure of complaint 

data about other financial products and 

services. 

A. Disclosing Non-Narrative Field Data 

Will Let Outside Parties Identify Trends 

and Patterns That They Believe May 

Help Inform Consumer Decisions About 

Credit Card 

There is considerable controversy 

over the extent to which credit card 

consumer complaint data can provide 

consumers with useful or reliable 

information for making decisions about 

credit card use. Credit card complaints, 

of course, are not necessarily 

representative of the experience of all 

consumers with a particular credit card 

product or issuer. Rather, the credit card 

complaints submitted to the CFPB 

represent the experience of a nonrandom subset of credit card consumers: 

Those who view themselves as 

aggrieved by an action or inaction of an 

issuer, who were unable to obtain 

satisfactory relief from the issuer (or 

who elected not to seek such relief), and 

who have chosen to appeal to the CFPB 

for assistance. Some argue, therefore, 

that making information about these 

complaints publicly available has the 

potential to provide information to 

consumers that is not reliable or 

probative. 

Others argue that by examining trends 

and patterns in consumer credit card 

complaints over time, or by examining 

differences in credit card complaint 

patterns across issuers, careful 

researchers may be able to discern 

information that would be useful and 

relevant to consumers in making betterinformed decisions among payment 

devices or between credit card issuers. 

In this view, even though the experience 

of complainants is not necessarily 

representative of the experience of all 

consumers, changes in the volume or 

mix of complaints, or differences across 

issuers and complaint types, can 

illuminate important patterns or trends 

in the marketplace. 

The CFPB anticipates that if it 

disclosed credit card complaint data, 

those who would be most likely to mine 

the data for trends and patterns and to 

publish their conclusions would be 

academics and groups dedicated to 

empowering consumers in making wellinformed decisions.9 Of course, there 

may be differences of opinion as to the 

inferences or conclusions reached by 

these individuals and groups based 

upon their review of complaint data. To 

the extent that there are differences in 

opinion, the CFPB expects that those 

differences will be publicly aired in a 

way that will enable consumers who are 

interested in this data to evaluate the 

alternative interpretations and reach 

their own conclusions. 

Our expectation gains support from 

the experience of other agencies that 

have made consumer complaint data 

publicly available. Outside groups have 

already used complaint field data 

published by another Federal agency— 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Commission (‘‘NHTSA’’)—to assemble 

trend and pattern data for consumers. 

Beginning with 2005 data, one private 

provider of automotive information has 

recompiled all the individual consumer 

complaints lodged with safercar.gov, the 

vehicle safety complaint database that 

NHTSA maintains.10

Outside groups also make regular use 

of airline passenger complaint data that 

the Department of Transportation’s 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (‘‘OAEP’’) discloses every 

month in its Air Travel Consumer 

Report.11 Unlike NHTSA, OAEP does 

not make field data available at the 

individual complaint level, but instead 

publishes its own aggregations of field 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76631 

12The OAEP reports complaints by complaint 

type and by airline, expressed as incidence rates per 

100,000 enplanements. See, e.g., Air Travel 

Consumer Report (Sept. 2011) at pp. 39 & 43, 

available at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/ 

2011/September/2011SeptATCR.PDF. 

13See http://www.southwest.com/html/aboutsouthwest/history/fact-sheet.html. 

14See, e.g., H. Shami, America’s Meanest 

Airlines: 2011, U.S. News, available at http:// 

www.travel.usnews.com/features. 

15 Dr. Brent Bowen and Dr. Dean E. Hadley 

prepare these reports. The latest report is available 

at http://www.airlineinfo.com/public/2011aqr.pdf. 

16One consumer group has analyzed the first four 

months of data and identified certain trends, 

including the percentage of reports about products 

subject to a pre-report recall. See http:// 

www.kidsindanger.org/docs/reports/ 

Straight_From_The_Source_Report.pdf. 

17 General Accounting Office, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission: Action Needed to Strengthen 

Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products (Oct. 

2011) at pp. 9, 13. 

18A zip code may be seen as PII because it can 

function with other data elements to enable reidentification. In light of the other non-narrative 

fields that we propose to disclose, however, the 

CFPB does not anticipate that consumer zip codes 

will lead to such disclosure here. 

19For example, how CFPB categorizes credit card 

complaint types will impact the potential uses of 

the data. To minimize any distortive impact from 

this categorization, the CFPB will work to ensure 

that the categories reflect complaints as accurately 

as possible. As a result, complaint categories may 

change over time. 

data.12 The use to which outside groups 

have put this data show how 

organizations might use the nonnarrative field data that CFPB proposes 

to disclose. Providers that have scored 

well in the OAEP data have publicized 

that fact to consumers. One airline notes 

that it has ‘‘consistently received the 

lowest ratio of complaints per 

passengers boarded of all major U.S. 

carriers’’ since the OEAP began 

publishing the Air Travel Consumer 

Report.13 Outside reviewers have also 

publicized poor or worsening airline 

performance.14 The annual Airline 

Quality Rating reports rate U.S. and 

other airlines using numerous data 

sources including the OAEP’s complaint 

data. These findings reportedly reach 

millions of consumers every year.15 In 

all these respects, OAEP provides the 

critical field data. The marketplace of 

ideas then does the rest. 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’) began making 

consumer reports of harm publicly 

available in March, 2011. It is too early 

to assess how researchers will use the 

data in the CPSC’s public database, 

saferproducts.gov.16 As described in a 

recent report prepared by the General 

Accounting Office, product 

manufacturers or their representatives 

have expressed concern that reports in 

the database may misidentify products 

or manufacturers and that reports can be 

submitted by individuals who did not 

experience the reported incident of 

harm.17 Neither concern applies to the 

CFPB’s credit card complaint data. 

Credit card complaints are filed by 

cardholders (or by an authorized 

representative). The issuer of the 

applicable credit card can be reliably 

identified from the submitted credit 

card number. 

In light of the potential for credit card 

complaint data to be analyzed for 

information that would be useful to 

consumers, and the experience of other 

agencies, the proposed Policy Statement 

calls for two forms of public disclosure 

with respect to the non-narrative fields 

of consumer credit card complaint data. 

These two forms of public disclosure are 

discussed below. 

1. Data Made Publicly Available by the 

CFPB 

The CFPB proposes to make certain 

fields of the non-narrative complaint 

data available to the public in fully 

searchable and downloadable format. To 

protect consumers’ privacy, the database 

will not include non-narrative fields 

that expressly call for personally 

identifying information (‘‘PII’’) (i.e., the 

name and address fields). The database 

will include data fields that cover the 

type of complaint, the issuer involved, 

the date of the complaint, and the zip 

code of the consumer.18 The disclosed 

field data for each complete complaint 

will be linked by a unique identifier, 

enabling outside reviewers to aggregate 

and correlate the data as they wish. The 

CFPB intends to provide, with each data 

release, information about the 

limitations of the data disclosed, 

including appropriate disclaimers as to 

accuracy and representativeness.19

2. Reports Published by the CFPB 

In addition to making certain credit 

card complaint data available for 

research and analysis, the CFPB 

proposes to publish periodic reports 

about trends and patterns in complaint 

data that will give consumers 

meaningful information about credit 

card use. These reports also will explain 

how we use credit card complaint data 

to work towards other goals that 

Congress has set for us. On November 

30, 2011 the CFPB published an interim 

report that addressed Consumer 

Response’s handling of credit card 

complaints received during the first 

three months of the complaint system’s 

operation. Going forward, our reports 

may contain additional data 

aggregations, as explained further 

below. 

The precise data aggregations that 

CFPB publishes will depend on our 

assessment of what conclusions can 

fairly be drawn from the data for a given 

reporting period. It is possible, for 

example, that we will not receive 

enough credit card complaints in any 

given time period to generate useful 

information with respect to some 

potential aggregations. If sample sizes 

are too small, variations across issuer, 

time, and subject matter may not reflect 

statistically significant patterns and 

trends. We will be mindful of these 

statistical significance issues in 

determining what types of trend and 

pattern data to report and on what 

schedule. 

We have also identified a number of 

questions that will need to be answered 

in deciding whether to publish certain 

specific data aggregations. We invite 

comment on how these questions may 

be answered. 

First, some trend and pattern data 

may need context to make the data 

informative to consumers. Complaint 

counts by issuer are one apparent 

example. Unless weighted appropriately 

against the relative size of an issuer’s 

credit card business—a process 

commonly referred to as 

‘‘normalization’’—their disclosure may 

not offer consumers any meaningful 

information. The CFPB invites comment 

on how best to address this issue, 

including whether there is an available 

and appropriate normalization metric 

for these purposes. 

Second, some products may, by their 

very nature, have higher complaint rates 

than others, even across all issuers that 

offer them. As a result, these products 

could cause issuers’ complaint 

incidence to vary more by product mix 

than by performance. The CFPB invites 

comment on how best to address this 

issue, including whether there is an 

available and appropriate normalization 

metric for these purposes. 

Third, data on the rate at which the 

CFPB procures relief for consumers in 

response to credit card complaints may 

not be meaningful if broken out by 

issuer. If an issuer has a relatively low 

rate of offering responses that 

consumers accept, that may reflect its 

failure to respond to legitimate 

grievances. However, it may instead 

reflect that the issuer has effective 

internal complaint processes and/or 

low-complaint products, causing the 

complaints that reach the CFPB to lack 

merit. The CFPB invites comment on 

how best to address this issue. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

20Publication of issuer narratives could have 

similar effects. To explain its practices adequately 

to a consumer, an issuer may have to disclose 

elements of the consumer’s private financial 

information, including details that might enable reidentification. Again, there is a risk that some 

consumers will opt against submitting a complaint 

in the event that the issuer’s response will be 

published. 

21The complaint system currently has no 

disclosure opt-in (or opt-out) provisions. 

22The consumer’s card number generally will 

enable verification of the correct issuer. 

B. Until Further Study Can Be 

Conducted, the CFPB Will Not Disclose 

Narrative Data Fields Because of the 

Privacy Risk to Individual Consumers 

The CFPB’s consumer credit card 

complaint form includes narrative fields 

in which the consumer is asked to 

describe ‘‘what happened’’ and a ‘‘fair 

resolution.’’ The issuer is also invited to 

submit a narrative response to the 

complaint. Some Federal agencies— 

most notably the CPSC, pursuant to the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008—maintain consumer 

databases that include consumer and 

industry narratives. Disclosure of 

narrative fields, however, would be 

unlikely to facilitate statistical analyses 

of trends or patterns in the credit card 

complaint data. In addition, although 

disclosure of the narrative fields would 

allow those who review the complaint 

data to gain more insight into the 

substance of complaints than can be 

gleaned from the field that categorizes 

complaints by issue type, it might also 

expose issuers to reputational harm 

from potentially inaccurate, misleading, 

or incomplete narratives. 

For the time being, the CFPB need not 

resolve the tension between these 

competing interests, because disclosing 

these narrative fields would pose clear 

risks to privacy interests and to the 

functioning of the consumer complaint 

system. The narrative fields are 

populated entirely at the discretion of 

the consumer and the issuer. The 

resulting narratives may include core PII 

such as the name of the complainant. 

Moreover, there is a risk that the 

information contained in the narratives 

may contain detailed and idiosyncratic 

information of a type that, if made 

public, would enable some reviewers of 

that information to identify the 

consumer who submitted the complaint. 

Publishing narratives could also 

discourage consumers from providing 

information in the narrative fields that 

might carry some risk of identification. 

Because such information might be 

useful to the resolution of some 

complaints, that result could disserve 

the CFPB’s primary goal with respect to 

complaints, which is to address each 

consumer’s complaint efficiently and 

effectively. It could also discourage 

consumers from submitting complaints, 

hindering the complaint resolution 

process and also restricting the supply 

of credit card complaint data.20

Publishing narratives only if a consumer 

affirmatively opts in to—or fails to opt 

out of—publication might alleviate this 

problem.21 The CFPB invites comment 

on the impact of a consumer opt-in (or, 

in the alternative, a consumer opt-out) 

on the merits of disclosing narrative 

data. The CFPB also seeks comment on 

whether issuers should have a parallel 

ability to opt into or out of publication 

of narrative responses, or the ability to 

provide a public and non-public 

response to a complaint. 

Ultimately, however, the privacy risks 

cannot be systematically assessed other 

than by reviewing the complaints and 

issuer responses that we receive. The 

CFPB will conduct the necessary 

comprehensive study and will continue 

to gather data from submitted 

complaints as the complaint process 

further develops. As part of that study, 

the CFPB also will evaluate the CFPB 

resources that would be required to 

redact such information so as to 

eliminate PII and minimize the risk of 

identification. In the interim, the CFPB 

will not disclose narratives because of 

the potentially significant risk to 

consumers’ privacy interests. 

IV. Proposed Policy Statement 

The text of the proposed Policy 

Statement is as follows: 

1. Purposes of Credit Card Complaint 

Data Disclosure 

The CFPB receives credit card 

complaints from consumers. The CFPB 

intends to disclose certain information 

about credit card complaints in a public 

database and in the CFPB’s own 

periodic reports. 

The purpose of this disclosure is to 

provide consumers with timely and 

understandable information about credit 

cards and to improve the functioning of 

the credit card market. By enabling 

more informed decisions about credit 

card use, the CFPB intends for its 

complaint data disclosures to improve 

the transparency and efficiency of the 

credit card market. 

2. Public Access to Data Fields 

After the effective date of this Policy 

Statement, the CFPB will provide public 

access to a database containing nonnarrative fields for each complete 

consumer credit card complaint and 

response within the scope of the CFPB’s 

authority under section 1025 of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Act. The 

consumer defines the inputs to some of 

the fields when he or she (or an 

authorized representative) inputs a 

credit card complaint into the CFPB’s 

system. These fields, therefore, 

represent the consumer’s own 

characterization of his or her credit card 

complaint. The issuer’s response will 

define other non-narrative fields. 

The database will cover non-narrative 

fields that do not contain confidential 

personal information, including but not 

limited to: The subject area or areas 

covered by the credit card complaint; 

the name of the card issuer; the zip code 

in which the consumer lives; the date of 

the complaint; and whether and how an 

issuer responded. 

In cases where an issuer represents to 

the CFPB that it has been wrongly 

identified as the issuer of a card, that 

issuer’s name will not be disclosed 

pending a determination of the correct 

issuer. Once the CFPB identifies the 

correct issuer, the name of that issuer 

will be included.22

The public will have online access to 

the database. The database will enable 

user-defined searches. The fields for 

each complaint will be linked with a 

unique identifier, enabling reviewers to 

aggregate the data as they choose, 

including by complaint type, issuer, 

location, date, or any combination of 

these variables. Users also will be able 

to download the data so that they can 

carry out additional review. 

The CFPB will update the database on 

a regular basis. To provide an issuer 

sufficient time to establish that it did 

not issue the credit card listed in a 

particular complaint, the update will 

not take place until at least one month 

after submission. 

The public database will not include 

a consumer’s name, credit card number, 

or address details. At least until the 

CFPB can conduct further study, it will 

exclude the consumer’s narrative 

description of ‘‘what happened’’ and of 

‘‘fair resolution.’’ It also will exclude an 

issuer’s narrative response. These 

narrative fields may contain personally 

identifiable information or other 

information that could enable 

identification. The threat of such 

disclosure might also suppress 

complaints or reduce the specificity of 

complaint narratives, thereby 

undermining the effectiveness of the 

complaint process. 

3. Regular CFPB Reporting on 

Complaints 

At periodic intervals, the CFPB will 

publish reports about the consumer 

credit card complaints that it handles. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76633 

The reports may contain our analysis of 

patterns or trends that we identify in the 

complaint data. The CFPB intends for 

its reporting to provide information that 

will be valuable to consumers and other 

market participants. Before determining 

what reports to issue beyond those 

relating to the CFPB’s handling of the 

complaints, the CFPB will study the 

volume and content of credit card 

complaints that it has received in a 

given reporting period for patterns or 

trends that it is able to discern from the 

data. If the data will support it, the 

CFPB intends for its reports to include 

some standardized metrics that would 

provide comparisons across reporting 

periods. The reports will also describe 

our use of credit card complaint data 

across the range of our statutory 

authorities during a reporting period. 

4. Matters for Further Study 

Going forward, the CFPB intends to 

study the effectiveness of its credit card 

complaint disclosure policy in realizing 

its stated purposes. In addition, the 

CFPB will carry out a study of the 

narrative fields submitted by consumers 

and issuers. The study will assess 

whether there are practical ways to 

disclose narrative data in a manner that 

will improve consumer understanding 

without undermining privacy interests 

or the effectiveness of the credit card 

complaint process and without creating 

unwarranted reputational injury to 

issuers. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Meredith Fuchs, 

Chief of Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31153 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–157714–06] 

RIN 1545–BG43 

Determination of Governmental Plan 

Status; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (REG–157714–06) 

that describes the rules that the 

Treasury Department and IRS are 

considering proposing relating to the 

determination of whether a plan is a 

governmental planwithin the meaning 

of section 414(d) and contains an 

appendix that includes a draft notice of 

proposed rulemaking on which the 

Treasury Department and IRS invite 

comments from the public. The 

document was published in the Federal 

Register on Tuesday, November 8, 

2011(76 FR 69172). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the ANPRM, Pamela R. 

Kinard at (202) 622–6060 (not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The correction notice that is the 

subject of this document is under 

section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (REG–157714–06) 

contains errors that may prove to be 

misleading and are in need of 

clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–157714–06), which was the 

subject of FR Doc. 2011–28853, is 

corrected as follows: 

1. On page 69173, column 3, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’, second 

paragraph, third line, the language 

‘‘States or an agency of instrumentality 

of’’ is removed and is replaced with the 

new language ‘‘States or an agency or 

instrumentality of’’. 

2. On page 69175, column 1, in the 

Appendix, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘Application of Section 414(d)’’, fifth 

paragraph, the language ‘‘Section 

503(a)(1) (applying the prohibited 

transactions rules in section 503 to 

governmental plans as defined in 

section 4975(g)(2))’’ is removed and is 

replaced with the new language 

‘‘Section 503(a)(1) (applying the 

prohibited transaction rules in section 

503 to governmental plans as defined in 

section 4975(g)(2));’’. 

3. On page 69177, column 2, footnote 

17, fourth line, the language ‘‘401(k) 

plan. See section 401(K)(4)(B)(ii). There 

is an’’ is removed and is replaced with 

the new language ‘‘401(k) plan. See 

section 401(k)(4)(B)(ii). There is an’’. 

4. On page 69179, column 3, footnote 

27, eleventh line, the language ‘‘Louis, 

420 F. Supp.2 at 1024, citing Lee Const. 

Co.,’’ is removed and is replaced with 

the new language ‘‘Louis, 420 F. 

Supp.2d at 1024, citing Lee Const. Co.,’’. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel, Procedure and Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31464 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–133223–08] 

RIN 1545–BI19 

Indian Tribal Governmental Plans; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (REG–133223–08) 

that describes the rules the Treasury 

Department and IRS are considering 

proposing relating to the determination 

of whether a plan of an Indian Tribal 

government is a governmental plan 

within the meaning of section 414(d) 

and contains an appendix that includes 

a draft notice of proposed rulemaking 

on which the Treasury Department and 

IRS invite comments from the public. 

The document was published in the 

Federal Register on Tuesday, November 

8, 2011 (76 FR 69188). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the ANPRM, Pamela R. 

Kinard at (202) 622–6060 (not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The correction notice that is the 

subject of this document is under 

section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (REG–133223–08) 

contains errors that may prove to be 

misleading and are in need of 

clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–133223–08), which was the 

subject of FR Doc. 2011–28858, is 

corrected as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS