21218 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8 DOE notes that if a test procedure amendment 

would account for less energy use, thus raising the 

standard by some amount that DOE determined was 

not de minimis, 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(3) would 

‘‘grandfather’’ existing models in use on or before 

the date on which the amended energy conversation 

standard becomes effective (or revisions of such 

models that have the same energy efficiency, energy 

use or water use characteristics) that complied with 

the standard prior to the test procedure 

amendments that raised the standard. 

adjustment required by 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2) would be based on the 

average change in measured efficiency, 

which would be less than the high end 

of the range estimated by DOE. In fact, 

based on the data AHAM collected, fanonly mode energy use would represent 

an estimated 0.29 kWh per year for a 

shipment-weighted average, which is 

less than the lower end of the range 

calculated by DOE and represents 

roughly only 0.1 percent of the energy 

use for standard dishwashers allowed 

under the standards established in the 

direct final rule. DOE assumes that the 

2 percent increase in energy use cited by 

AHAM in its petition refers to units that 

used more than the shipment-weighted 

average energy use in fan-only mode. As 

noted, if any adjustment to an energy 

conservation standard were determined 

necessary under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2), 

the adjustment would be based on the 

average change in measured efficiency, 

or the 0.1 percent figure. The data 

submitted by AHAM are therefore 

insufficient to change DOE’s conclusion 

that the energy use in fan-only mode is 

de minimis. 

DOE estimates standby and off mode 

energy use at 2 percent of total energy 

use of a standard dishwasher. As noted 

in the test procedure rulemaking and in 

Section II of this notice, DOE further 

estimated that the test procedure 

amendments made for appendix C1 

would not materially alter that 

measured energy use. AHAM collected 

data showing that the updated test 

procedure for measuring standby and off 

mode energy use in Appendix C1 would 

add a shipment-weighted average of 

1.10 kWh per year. BSH submitted data 

indicating that standby and off mode 

energy use could add up to 21 kWh per 

year for the BSH models tested. 

AHAM’s figure of 1.10 kWh/year is only 

0.4 percent of the May 2013 standard 

level for standard dishwashers. DOE 

notes that the BSH estimate of an 

additional 21 kWh per year of standby 

and off mode energy use would 

represent an increase in low-power 

mode consumption of 2 to 3 Watts 

compared to the standby power 

measured according to Appendix C, 

which is at least three times the 

maximum inactive or off mode power 

consumption that DOE measured in its 

sample of 14 dishwashers tested for the 

December 2010 proposed test procedure 

amendments. DOE also notes that its 

statement about a measurable difference 

in EAEU at the public meeting, noted in 

Section II of this notice, was meant to 

convey that integration of the standby 

and off mode energy use into the overall 

efficiency metric pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3) would still allow for 

calculation of this energy use, even 

though the energy use measurement was 

very small. After considering the data 

submitted by commenters, DOE 

maintains its conclusion that the 

amendments to measure standby and off 

mode energy use would not measurably 

alter the energy use of dishwashers. 

AHAM also argues in its petition that 

DOE must adjust the standard levels 

established in the direct final rule or 

delay compliance with the test 

procedure provisions for measuring 

energy use in fan-only mode and 

standby and off mode because it has not 

provided a definition of de minimis. 

DOE does not believe that it is necessary 

or appropriate to, for example, specify 

an amount or percentage of energy use 

that would be de minimis. Such a 

concept necessarily depends on factors 

such as the product at issue, the total 

amount of energy used by the product, 

and the test procedure change at issue. 

DOE has determined in at least one 

instance that adjustment of the standard 

levels based on test procedure 

amendments was warranted. As AHAM 

noted, in the direct final rule 

establishing energy conservation 

standards for clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners, DOE adjusted the 

standard for clothes dryers based on its 

estimate of the increase in average 

energy factor that would result from use 

of the amended test procedure, which 

ranged from 10.3–22.5 percent (77 FR 

22454, 22477, Apr. 21, 2011). This range 

is significantly larger than the 

percentage increase DOE estimated for 

the dishwasher rule and the average 

percentage increase that AHAM 

estimated—0.29 kWh/year for fan-only 

mode and 1.10 kWh/year for standby 

and off mode, which represent in total 

approximately 0.45 percent of the May 

2013 standards for dishwashers. 

Regarding DOE’s statement that 65 

percent of standard dishwashers on the 

market would meet the standards 

established in the direct final rule, DOE 

intended to convey that the standard 

adopted in the direct final rule, which 

represented the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that was 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, was not so 

stringent that only a very small 

percentage of dishwashers would 

comply. In such a case, DOE might 

consider whether a smaller change in 

measured energy use could trigger the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). 

Even if DOE had determined that the 

change in measured energy use as a 

result of test procedure provisions for 

the measurement of standby and off 

mode energy use were not de minimis, 

DOE could not adjust the standard to 

account for the increase in measured 

energy use, which would result in 

lowering the current standard by a 

corresponding amount. Such an 

adjustment would be prohibited by 

EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision, set 

forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). DOE’s 

authority to amend energy conservation 

standards in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) 

specifically does not affect DOE’s 

obligation to issue any final rules as 

described in 42 U.S.C. 6295, including 

adherence to the anti-backsliding 

provision in 6295(o)(1). 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(4).8

As a result of the above analysis, and 

in consideration of AHAM’s petition 

and the comments received thereon, 

DOE declines to grant the petition. 

Issued in Washington, DC on April 4, 2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08350 Filed 4–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Chapter X 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0023] 

Disclosure of Consumer Complaint 

Data 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final Policy Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

a final policy statement (Policy 

Statement) to provide guidance on how 

the Bureau plans to exercise its 

discretion to publicly disclose certain 

consumer complaint data that do not 

include personally identifiable 

information. The Bureau receives 

complaints from consumers under the 

terms of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Policy 

Statement also identifies additional 

ways that the Bureau may disclose 

consumer complaint data but as to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21219 

1The Bureau has issued several policy statements 

and requests for comment regarding its disclosure 

of consumer complaint data. These are: Disclosure 

of Certain Credit Card Complaint Data (Notice of 

proposed policy statement with request for 

comment), 76 FR 76628 (Dec. 8, 2011) (Proposed 

Credit Card Complaint Data Disclosure Policy 

Statement); Disclosure of Certain Credit Card 

Complaint Data (Notice of final policy statement), 

77 FR 37558 (June 22, 2012) (Final Credit Card 

Complaint Data Disclosure Policy Statement); and 

Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Data (Notice of 

proposed policy statement), 77 FR 37616 (June 22, 

2012) (Proposed Complaint Data Disclosure Policy 

Statement). 

2The existing practices are described in the Final 

Credit Card Complaint Data Disclosure Policy 

Statement. To the extent there is any conflict 

between this Policy Statement and the Final Credit 

Card Complaint Data Disclosure Policy Statement, 

this Policy Statement controls. 

3The database will not include duplicative 

complaints submitted by the same consumer. 

4The Policy Statement concerns the Bureau’s 

authority to make public certain consumer 

complaint data that it has decided to include in the 

public database in its discretion. The Policy 

Statement does not address the Bureau’s authority 

or obligation to disclose additional complaint data 

pursuant to a request made under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522. 

5These are: Annual Report of the CFPB Student 

Loan Ombudsman (October 16, 2012) at http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201210_cfpb_StudentLoan-Ombudsman-Annual-Report.pdf; Consumer 

Response: A Snapshot of Complaints Received 

(October 10, 2012) at http://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/201210_cfpb_consumer_response_

september-30-snapshot.pdf; Annual Report of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Pursuant to 

Section 1017(e)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act (July 

2012) at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_

cfpb_report_annual-to-house-appropriationscommittee.pdf; Semi-Annual Report of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: January 1– 

June 30, 2012 (July, 2012) at http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_SemiAnnual_Report.pdf; Consumer Response: A 

Snapshot of Complaints Received (June 19, 2012) at 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201206_cfpb_

shapshot_complaints-received.pdf; Consumer 

Response Annual Report: July 21–December 31, 

2011 (March 31, 2012) at http://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/201204_cfpb_ConsumerResponse

AnnualReport.pdf; Semi-Annual Report of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: July 21– 

December 31, 2011 (January 30, 2012) at http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2012/01/Congressional

_Report_Jan2012.pdf; and Consumer Response 

Interim report on CFPB’s credit card complaint data 

(November 30, 2011) at http://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/reports/CFPB%20Consumer%20

Response%20Interim%20Report%20on%20

Credit%20Card%20Complaint%20Data.pdf. 

6Credit card complaint data will be included 

from December 1, 2011. Mortgage complaint data 

likewise will be included from December 1, 2011, 

the date the Bureau began accepting such 

complaints. Complaint data on bank accounts and 

services, private student loans, and other consumer 

loans will be included from March 1, 2012, the date 

the Bureau began accepting these types of 

complaints. The database will not include 

complaints received by the Bureau prior to the 

dates it began accepting those types of complaints. 

7 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1) & (5). 

8 Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Data (Notice 

of proposed policy statement), 77 FR 37616, 37617 

(June 22, 2012). 

9Complaints may also be subject to further 

investigation by Consumer Response or follow-up 

by other parts of the Bureau. The Complaint System 

is described in more detail in a number of Bureau 

reports, including the Consumer Response Annual 

Report for 2011 (March 31, 2012) at: http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201204_cfpb_

ConsumerResponseAnnualReport.pdf. 

which it will conduct further study 

before finalizing its position. 

DATES: This Policy Statement is effective 

on March 25, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Pluta, Office of Consumer 

Response, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, at (202) 435–7306. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

A. Final Policy Statement 

Under the final Policy Statement,1 the 

Bureau extends its existing practices of 

disclosing data associated with 

consumer complaints about credit 

cards.2 The Bureau plans to add to its 

consumer complaint public database— 

which contains certain fields for each 

unique 3 complaint 4—complaints about 

other types of consumer financial 

products and services. The Bureau plans 

to continue the issuance of its own 

periodic reports about complaint data. 

To date, the Bureau has issued eight 

such reports.5 The public database will 

include data from certain consumer 

complaints submitted on or after 

December 1, 2011.6 These disclosures 

are intended to help provide consumers 

with ‘‘timely and understandable 

information to make responsible 

decisions about financial transactions’’ 

and to ensure that markets for consumer 

financial products and services ‘‘operate 

transparently and efficiently.’’ 7

II. Background 

A. Complaint System 

In its Proposed Complaint Data 

Disclosure Policy Statement, the Bureau 

generally described how the Office of 

Consumer Response (‘‘Consumer 

Response’’) accepts and processes 

consumer complaints (collectively the 

‘‘Complaint System’’).8 That system has 

been refined over time, but its core 

processes remain the same.9

B. Overview of Public Comments 

In its Proposed Complaint Data 

Disclosure Policy Statement, the Bureau 

proposed to extend its existing 

disclosure practices described in the 

Final Credit Card Data Disclosure Policy 

Statement to apply to other complaint 

data. The Bureau noted that the basic 

structure of the credit card data 

disclosure policy, including the public 

database, could be duplicated for other 

consumer products and services in 

addition to credit cards. The Bureau 

also observed that the purposes 

underlying the Final Credit Card Data 

Disclosure Policy Statement would 

apply to this extension, and the legal 

authority to disclose the data in the 

public database and in the Bureau’s own 

reporting is likewise the same. 

The Bureau received 26 unique sets of 

comments in response to its Notice of 

Proposed Complaint Data Disclosure 

Policy Statement. Fifteen industry 

groups submitted letters. One financial 

reform coalition submitted a single set 

of comments on behalf of 22 consumer, 

civil rights, privacy, and government 

groups. One mortgage provider, a 

financial services provider, and an 

online social network submitted 

comments. Finally, five consumers 

submitted comments. 

Almost all comments concerned 

expansion of the public database 

component of the Proposed Complaint 

Data Disclosure Policy Statement. Many 

of these comments generally reiterated 

comments submitted in response to the 

Proposed Credit Card Complaint 

Disclosure Policy Statement. Industry 

commenters generally opposed the 

inclusion of additional complaint data 

in the public database, and reiterated 

opposition to the database itself. 

Although they endorsed the intended 

goals of the public database, many 

industry commenters asserted that the 

database would confuse consumers and 

unfairly damage the reputation of 

companies. Several trade associations 

commented that the database is contrary 

to the Bureau’s mission to help 

consumers and to promote the 

transparency and efficiency of markets 

for consumer financial products and 

services. Some commenters specifically 

noted their support for the Bureau’s 

work to help educate consumers 

through supplying timely and 

comprehensive information to make 

informed decisions about their financial 

transactions and the companies they 

choose to work with, but stated that 

complaints are best handled by the 

parties themselves. 

The disclosure of company names in 

the public database was a particular 

focus of these comments, as was 

normalization or the use of some metric 

to provide context for data—by, for 

example, including information on the 

number of accounts a company has for 

each particular product or service. Some 

industry commenters reiterated 

comments that the Bureau lacks legal 

authority to disclose individual-level 

complaint data. One commenter 

reiterated opposition to the database 

and disclosure of any complaint data, 

asserting that Congress intended the 

complaint function to ensure that the 

Bureau has knowledge of the consumer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

21220 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

10Consumer Response already maintains several 

feedback mechanisms for participants in the 

Complaint System and has plans to expand its 

feedback and customer satisfaction channels. 

11See note 6, supra. 

12The Project On Government Oversight 

highlighted the Bureau’s collaborative work to 

engage the public in policymaking in its recent 

report entitled Highlighted Best Practices for 

Openness and Accountability, featuring the Bureau 

as a noteworthy model that could be replicated 

government-wide. 

13 Disclosure of Certain Credit Card Complaint 

Data (Notice of final policy statement), 77 FR 

37558, supra at 37560–37561 (June 22, 2012). 

14 It is worth noting that the Bureau was recently 

recognized by the Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS) for agency best practices. 

Specifically, the Bureau received honorable 

mention for the ACUS Walter Gellhorn Innovation 

Award for the Consumer Complaint Database for 

the innovative and transparent use of an online 

searchable database to empower consumers. The 

award honors the degree of innovation, cost savings 

to the government or the public, the ease of 

duplicating the best practices at other agencies, and 

the degree to which the best practices enhance 

transparency and efficiency in government. 

financial markets, not the public 

generally. 

Consumer groups and consumers 

endorsed the goals underlying the 

public database proposal. The 

submission from the financial reform 

coalition on behalf of 22 consumer, civil 

rights, privacy, and government groups 

supported the existence and expansion 

of the public database, citing the data 

publication as a public service and a 

way to fulfill the Bureau’s affirmative 

disclosure requirements under FOIA. 

Those groups also urged the Bureau to 

publicly disclose consumers’ narratives 

and companies’ response narratives. 

Other groups commented that the 

Bureau should carefully weigh privacy 

concerns associated with expanding the 

fields disclosed. 

Many submissions included 

comments directed to the Bureau’s 

method of processing consumer 

complaints, i.e., the Complaint System. 

To the extent that these comments also 

relate to the final Policy Statement, the 

Bureau addresses them below. To the 

extent that they relate only to the 

Complaint System and not to any 

associated impact on disclosure, the 

Bureau does not address them in this 

final Policy Statement. In response to 

such feedback, however, Consumer 

Response has and will continue to 

refine and improve its Complaint 

System over time.10

III. Summary of Comments Received, 

Bureau Response, and Resulting Policy 

Statement Changes 

This section provides a summary of 

the comments received by subject 

matter. It also summarizes the Bureau’s 

assessment of the comments by subject 

matter and, where applicable, describes 

the resulting changes that the Bureau is 

making in the final Policy Statement. 

All such changes concern the public 

database. There are no changes to the 

policy regarding the Bureau’s issuance 

of its own complaint data reports. 

A. The Policy Statement Process 

Several trade associations commented 

that, each time the Bureau intends to 

add complaints to the public database 

about a certain type of consumer 

financial product or service, it should 

provide the opportunity to comment 

prior to doing so. 

Consumer Response already 

maintains several feedback mechanisms 

for stakeholders, and has conducted 

specific outreach to companies, 

consumer groups, and trade associations 

to obtain feedback prior to beginning to 

accept new types of complaints (and 

therefore before inclusion in the public 

database). One trade association noted 

its support of the Bureau’s feedback 

process and engagement with regulated 

entities. The Bureau will also delay 

publication of complaints about 

categories of products or services other 

than those immediately subject to this 

policy 11 until a reasonable period of 

time has lapsed in order to evaluate the 

data and consider whether any productor service-specific policy changes are 

warranted. 

The Bureau is committed to 

transparency and robust engagement 

with the public regarding its actions. 

Although not required by law to do so, 

the Bureau solicited and received public 

comment on the Proposed Complaint 

Data Disclosure Policy Statement. The 

Bureau received substantial public 

feedback expressing a range of 

viewpoints, and it has carefully 

considered the comments received, as 

described in detail below including 

comments specific to the expansion of 

the database to particular consumer 

financial markets. As stated in the final 

Policy Statement, the Bureau plans to 

study the effectiveness of its policy on 

an ongoing basis, and plans to continue 

to engage with the public, including 

regulated entities, as it assesses the 

efficacy of its complaint disclosure 

policy.12

B. Legal Authority for Public Database 

In its Final Credit Card Data 

Disclosure Policy Statement, the Bureau 

addressed in detail several arguments 

related to the Bureau’s authority to 

establish a public database. Several 

comments in response to the Proposed 

Complaint Data Disclosure Policy 

Statement implicate the same arguments 

concerning the Bureau’s legal authority. 

For example, several trade associations 

reiterated claims that the public 

database and individual-level complaint 

data disclosure are inconsistent with the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and 

the Trade Secrets Act. A financial 

reform organization and 22 consumer 

groups, civil rights, privacy, and 

government groups specifically noted 

their disagreement with those comments 

and asserted that the Bureau not only 

has the authority but also may have an 

obligation to create the public database 

in order to meet its affirmative 

disclosure requirements under FOIA 

and the Bureau’s own regulations. The 

Bureau stands by its previous 

statements and analysis on this issue.13

C. The Impact of the Public Database on 

Consumers 

Comments from consumer groups, 

privacy groups, and consumers 

contended that the public database 

empowers consumers to better 

understand and detect instances of 

unfair or deceptive practices, and 

identifies companies that prioritize 

customer service and alleviate problems 

up front by helping consumers avoid 

‘‘bad actors.’’ They further asserted that 

the addition of data on other products 

and services will extend and enhance 

these benefits of the database. Several 

contended that disclosure is one of the 

best tools government agencies can use 

to improve the operation of consumer 

financial markets and the consumer 

experience. They argued that consumers 

can draw their own conclusions from 

the public database, and endorsed its 

accessibility and adaptable architecture. 

Several stated that the data do not need 

to be fully verified nor randomly 

generated to be of potential use to 

outside parties, and they contended that 

the data can serve to help consumers 

and advocates detect trends of unfair, 

deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. 

Industry commenters, by contrast, 

mainly asserted that the publication of 

additional complaint data in the public 

database would mislead consumers 

because the data would be unverified, 

unrepresentative, lacking in context, 

and open to manipulation.14 In 

addition, several industry commenters 

did not appear to be aware that the 

Complaint System affords companies 

the opportunity to alert the Bureau if 

they are unable to verify the commercial 

relationship with the consumer who 

filed the complaint or believe the 

complaint was from an unauthorized 

third party, and that, in such 

circumstances, the Bureau will 

withhold such complaints from 

publication. Each of these general 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21221 

15Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Consumer Complaint Database, available at http:// 

www.consumerfinance.gov/complaintdatabase/. 

16 Disclosure of Certain Credit Card Complaint 

Data (Notice of Final Policy Statement), 77 FR 

37558, supra at 37561–37652 (June 22, 2012). 

17Beyond the Arc Analyzes CFPB Complaint Data 

to Enhance Customer Experience: Analytics firm 

leverages complaint data to guide financial 

institutions in best practices for customer 

experience efforts, Business Wire Jan. 31, 2013, 

available at http://www.businesswire.com/news/ 

home/20130131006068/en/Arc-Analyzes-CFPB— 

(noting that the analysis of the CFPB database can 

help companies to detect regulatory risks and 

address them before potential for enforcement 

action, identify customer pain points to improve the 

customer experience and improve retention, and 

view competitors’ strengths and weaknesses to help 

drive acquisition). 

18B. Hayes, The Reliability and Validity of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 

Complaint Database, Business Over Broadway 

(Sept. 19, 2012). (‘‘The frequency of different types 

of complaints are fairly stable over time. 

Additionally, the normative CFPB complaint scores 

are related to credit card customer satisfaction 

ratings (from an independent source); banks with 

better complaint scores (lower number of 

complaints) receive higher satisfaction ratings 

compared to banks with poor complaint scores 

(higher number of complaints).’’) (available at 

http://businessoverbroadway.com/the-reliabilityand-validity-of-the-consumer-financial-protectionbureau-cfpb-complaint-database). 

19See 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3)(D). 

20http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

complaintdatabase/. 

assertions is addressed below. Section D 

addresses industry comments that 

disclosure of particular data fields— 

company name, zip code, complaint 

type, and discrimination fields—would 

be especially inappropriate or 

misleading. 

1. Verification 

Several trade associations commented 

that the Bureau should not disclose 

unverified data. Some argued that the 

Bureau should only include complaints 

found to have contained regulatory 

violations. Others stated that the 

consumer complaints are likely to 

contain only unsubstantiated, 

inaccurate, and frivolous allegations 

that could mislead consumers. One 

industry group pointed to the existence 

of conflicting accounts between the 

company and the consumer as a reason 

to withhold complaints from 

publication. Privacy and consumer 

groups, on the other hand, commented 

that the lack of verification presented 

only minimal risks to companies 

because of controls in place to ensure 

that complaints must come from actual 

customers of that company, and 

furthermore that companies are given 

adequate time to challenge the 

customer/company relationship. They 

further contended that the benefit of 

making the data public is not 

outweighed by the ‘‘speculative harm of 

unverified complaints.’’ 

The Bureau acknowledges that the 

Complaint System does not provide for 

across the board verification of claims 

made in complaints. On its Web site, the 

Bureau makes clear that it does ‘‘not 

verify the accuracy of all facts alleged in 

[the] complaints’’ contained in the 

public database.15 However, while the 

Bureau does not validate the factual 

allegations of complaints, it does 

maintain significant controls to 

authenticate complaints.16 Finally, as 

noted elsewhere in this Notice, the 

Bureau believes that the information has 

value to the public and that the 

marketplace of ideas will determine 

what the data show. 

2. Representativeness 

Several trade associations reiterated 

previously submitted comments that it 

is inappropriate for the Bureau to 

publish data that is not randomly 

sourced. Non-random complaints, they 

contended again, cannot provide 

consumers with useful information. In 

contrast, one consumer group noted that 

the data need not be random to be of use 

in identifying trends and providing 

consumers with a valuable educational 

tool. 

The latter view finds support in 

analyses of the database conducted by 

independent researchers. For example, 

one report notes the database’s potential 

for assisting companies in decreasing 

risk and cost, increasing customer 

service, and identifying best practices 

that allow companies to address 

problems before they become 

complaints by comparing the Bureau’s 

complaint data, social media data, and 

companies’ own internal records.17

Another independent researcher who 

examined the public database in 

September 2012 concluded that, ‘‘the 

CFPB credit card complaint database 

provides clear, reliable and valid 

information for banks about their credit 

card practices.’’ 18

Industry comments on 

representativeness also recognized that 

the Bureau is expressly authorized to 

use complaint data to set priorities in its 

supervision process. Some industry 

comments also recognized that the data 

could play a role with respect to other 

statutory obligations, such as fair 

lending enforcement or market 

monitoring. If complaint data can 

provide the Bureau with meaningful 

information, then logically they may 

also prove useful to consumers and 

other reviewers. If the data lacked such 

potential, Congress would not have 

pointed to complaints as a basis to 

inform important Bureau priorities.19

Furthermore, companies have told 

Consumer Response on numerous 

occasions that they learn valuable 

information from consumer complaints. 

If the data inform companies, they have 

the potential to inform consumers as 

well. 

3. Context 

Several trade associations commented 

that Bureau disclaimers about the lack 

of verification or representativeness will 

not effectively warn consumers about 

the limitations of the public database. 

The associations expressed concern that 

consumers and the media will 

inevitably see or portray the information 

as being endorsed by the Bureau, 

notwithstanding the Bureau’s 

disclaimers. In addition, one trade 

group commented that the marketplace 

of ideas cannot prevent consumers from 

being misled by the public database. 

Another commented that the database 

fails to distinguish complaints of major 

and minor significance or those based 

on confusion about a regulatory 

requirement from those asserting a 

regulatory violation, and that, without 

that context, the data are open to 

misinterpretation. 

One trade association suggested 

language for a new disclaimer, 

including statements that there are no 

attempts to verify the accuracy of any 

aspect of the complaint and that one 

should not draw any conclusion about 

any financial product or service, or any 

company mentioned. Given the various 

authentication measures used by the 

Bureau and the clear indication from— 

among others—Congress, companies 

themselves, and outside researchers that 

the data are informative, the Bureau has 

decided not to adopt this suggested 

language. 

Some trade associations did not seem 

to be familiar with the additional 

context that the Bureau already provides 

to consumers and reviewers, asserting 

that the Bureau does not encourage 

consumers to view the Bureau’s 

aggregate data reports and that the 

database does not provide the public 

with the date that it was last updated. 

On the consumer complaint database 

Web page, in addition to tutorials on 

how to use the data tool and a 

description of how the Bureau processes 

complaints, the Bureau maintains a 

section on its affirmative reports of data 

findings and provides links to copies of 

each of the documents.20 Each time the 

data is displayed in the database, the 

‘‘about’’ section provides those viewing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

21222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

21https://data.consumerfinance.gov/dataset/ 

Credit-Card-Complaints/25ei-6bcr#About. 

the data with the date the Bureau last 

updated the contents.21

The Bureau acknowledges the 

possibility that some consumers may 

draw (or be led to) erroneous 

conclusions from the data. That is true, 

however, for any market data. In 

addition, the Bureau’s two-part 

disclosure policy—first, its own 

affirmative reports of data findings that 

it believes may inform consumers, and 

second, a public database that 

researchers and others can mine for 

possible data trends—is intended to 

minimize any consumer confusion 

about the scope of the Bureau’s own 

conclusions with respect to the 

complaint data. The Bureau is open, 

however, to further suggestions from 

trade associations, companies, and other 

concerned stakeholders on how best to 

provide additional context for the 

public database. 

4. Normalization 

The Bureau notes the general 

acceptance by consumer and industry 

groups that normalization can improve 

data utility. Thus, although trade 

associations uniformly reiterated their 

opposition to the release of company 

names in the public database, many 

recognized the importance of 

normalizing the data that the Bureau 

decides to release. 

One trade association suggested that 

normalization be addressed by the 

provision of independently verified data 

on the number of customer contacts on 

an annual basis, with the inclusion of an 

extra data field providing a proportion 

of complaints to contacts. Other 

commenters suggested including 

indications of scale, number of 

transactions or accounts, portfolio size, 

and information on closed or unopened 

accounts. Several groups and 

associations also noted that the database 

should provide the functionality to 

break down the data by types of 

products and services. The database 

does provide the ability to filter by 

product or service, and will continue to 

feature this function. 

The Bureau agrees with commenters 

that, if possible, normalization should 

account, for example, for closed 

accounts with a balance and declined 

loan applications because these are 

additional contacts with the consumer 

and may be the subject of complaints. 

One trade association noted that 

additional time to prepare a proposal on 

normalization would be helpful. The 

Bureau intends to work further with 

commenters and other interested 

stakeholders on specific normalization 

approaches, and welcomes further 

operational suggestions on the point. 

5. Manipulation 

Several trade associations reiterated 

comments that third parties like debt 

negotiation companies could use 

complaint filing as a strategic tool to aid 

their clients. One trade association again 

commented that outside parties may 

artificially inflate complaint counts for 

litigation purposes. Several trade 

associations also repeated claims that 

one outside party has submitted 

numerous fraud complaints about a 

single merchant, allegedly for improper 

purposes. 

The Complaint System has a number 

of protections against manipulation. For 

example, the burden of submitting a 

complaint is not negligible. Consumers 

must affirm that the information is true 

to the best of their knowledge and 

belief. The consumer is asked for a 

verifiable account number for accountbased services. If none is provided (or 

available) and the consumer is unable to 

produce verifiable documentation of the 

relationship with the provider (such as 

a statement or receipt), the complaint is 

not pursued further. As described 

further below, when a company offers a 

reasonable basis to challenge its 

identification in a complaint, the 

Bureau does not post the relevant 

complaint to the public database unless 

and until the correct company is 

identified. Furthermore, the Bureau 

takes steps to consolidate duplicate 

complaints from the same consumer 

into a single complaint. 

The Bureau maintains additional 

controls after complaints are submitted 

and companies are able to alert the 

Bureau to any suspected manipulation. 

Companies have the ability to provide 

feedback to the Bureau if they believe 

they are not the correct entity about 

which the consumer is complaining. In 

addition, companies can provide 

feedback to the Bureau about 

complaints they believe were not 

submitted by an authorized consumer or 

his or her representative. The Bureau 

may also intervene to clarify ambiguities 

if it observes anomalies in mass 

complaint submissions. As detailed in 

the final Policy Statement, where the 

company provides feedback that they 

are unable to verify the commercial 

relationship with the consumer who 

filed the complaint, the complaint will 

not be published in the database. If 

companies find this combined package 

of controls insufficient in practice, the 

Bureau is open to suggestions for 

addressing identifiable problems. 

D. The Impact of Specific Public 

Database Fields on Consumers and 

Companies 

1. Company Names 

Consumer groups commented that the 

disclosure of company names represents 

a significant aspect of the Bureau’s 

policy. They noted that other complaint 

databases that disclose the identity of 

specific companies in other industries 

have created pressure on companies to 

improve whatever metrics are measured 

by the public database. As a result, these 

groups expect the Bureau’s public 

database to cause companies to compete 

more effectively on customer service 

and product quality. Together with 

privacy and open government groups, 

consumer groups contended that 

outside groups can use the company 

data to help consumers make more 

informed decisions. 

Industry groups disagreed that 

disclosing company names serves these 

or any policy purposes. They reiterated 

previous comments that this form of 

disclosure would unfairly damage 

companies’ reputation and competitive 

position. One trade association 

indicated that the inclusion of company 

names could implicate safety and 

soundness concerns, particularly in 

light of viral media. Several noted that 

the public database would not take 

account of the size and nature of the 

portfolio of different companies, which 

would cause consumer confusion. 

Others commented that company names 

should be reported as the parent 

company in order to avoid consumer 

confusion about the various ways 

companies with decentralized systems 

would show up in the database. Several 

industry groups also noted concerns 

over how a company acquired by 

another company would be displayed in 

the database. One trade association 

expressed a concern that disclosure of 

complaint data related to debt collection 

could be noncompliant with the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act, and 

suggested de-identification of company 

and consumer information related to 

such complaints. 

Trade groups asserted that if company 

names are to be included, they should 

be verified. Several noted that 

consumers would be particularly likely 

to name the merchant or other partner 

in connection with pre-paid cards, and 

not the actual issuer. Some noted that 

account numbers would not be 

sufficient for verification because the 

system will accept complaints without 

an account number and some 

complaints—like declined application 

complaints—will arise even when there 

is no account number. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21223 

22Several commenters seemed to misunderstand 

the 15- and 60- day company response windows. 

The CFPB requests that companies respond to 

complaints within 15 calendar days. If a complaint 

cannot be closed within 15 calendar days, a 

company may indicate that its work on the 

complaint is ‘‘In progress’’ and provide a final 

response within 60 calendar days. Company 

responses include descriptions of steps taken or 

that will be taken, communications received from 

the consumer, any follow-up actions or planned 

follow-up actions, and categorization of the 

response. 23See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3)(D). 

The Bureau believes that industry 

comments fail to acknowledge the 

system controls that are in place to 

verify that a complaint is from an actual 

customer of the company and that the 

company is properly identified. If a 

consumer contacts the Bureau solely 

with an inquiry, it will not be recorded 

as a complaint and therefore not 

published in the database. Companies 

have the ability to notify the Bureau if 

they cannot take action because the 

complaint is not related to the company. 

No company will be associated with a 

complaint if it demonstrates a 

reasonable basis to challenge a 

commercial relationship with the 

consumer. Currently, the Complaint 

System provides companies 15 days to 

challenge company identification, a 

time period which experience has 

shown to be sufficient.22 As noted 

earlier, there are also system controls, 

including controls available to 

companies, designed to (i) identify and 

prevent publication of duplicate 

complaints from the same consumer, 

and (ii) to prevent other efforts to 

manipulate the Complaint System. 

For many complaints, account 

numbers provide a reliable method to 

verify the identity of the company. The 

Bureau acknowledges that some 

complaints may identify the company as 

the merchant or, for example, another 

partner. In such cases, the account 

number provided will not match the 

name provided. To prevent this, the 

Bureau can confirm the account number 

and other descriptive information with 

the consumer, and then substitute the 

name of the correct company. The 

merchant or other partners are not 

named. The Bureau also recognizes that 

there are cases in which no account 

number is available to the consumer, 

such as when credit applications are 

declined, or when the complaints 

involve services that are not tied to 

accounts. In these cases, the Bureau 

works directly with the consumer to 

identify the correct company from 

correspondence or other 

communications provided by or 

received from the company. If the 

correct company cannot be identified in 

this manner, the complaint will be 

closed and no data will be added to the 

public database. 

The Bureau acknowledges, as it did in 

the Proposed Complaint Data Disclosure 

Policy Statement, that there are 

significantly varying views among 

stakeholders about whether consumer 

and company provided data is useful to 

consumers. However, the Bureau 

continues to believe that this disclosure 

may allow researchers to inform 

consumers about potentially significant 

trends and patterns in the data. In 

addition, given that companies have 

made competitive use of this and other 

public databases, the Bureau anticipates 

these disclosures have the potential to 

sharpen competition over product 

quality and customer service. 

Furthermore, as several trade 

associations conceded and as previously 

noted above, Congress itself recognized 

that the Bureau may properly use 

consumer complaint data to set 

supervision, enforcement, and market 

monitoring priorities.23 If the Bureau is 

able to use complaint data in this way, 

there is good reason to allow consumers 

and outside researchers to weigh the 

importance of complaint data in their 

own research, analysis, and decisionmaking. Outside review of this kind will 

also help ensure that the Bureau 

remains accountable for addressing the 

complaints that it receives. 

Finally, any privacy issues related to 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

will be considered and addressed when 

the Bureau begins accepting complaints 

about debt collection companies and 

considers disclosing related complaint 

data. Any issues raised with respect to 

processing of pre-paid cards, or other 

products and services about which the 

Bureau does not yet accept complaints, 

will be considered and addressed when 

the Bureau begins accepting such 

complaints and considers disclosing 

related complaint data. As stated in the 

final Policy Statement, the Bureau plans 

to study the effectiveness of its policy 

on an ongoing basis, and plans to 

continue to engage with the public, 

including regulated entities, as it 

assesses the efficacy of its complaint 

disclosure policy and retains the ability 

to make adjustments as needed when 

addressing the concerns of particular 

financial markets. 

2. Zip Codes 

Consumer groups commented that the 

Bureau should add additional location 

fields, such as city and census tract 

level data. Several trade associations, 

however, commented that zip code 

disclosure creates risks to privacy 

because zip codes can be combined with 

other data to identify consumers, 

particularly in sparsely populated rural 

zip codes and with respect to particular 

types of products, and suggested 

disclosing only the state. Trade 

associations also commented that zip 

code data may be misunderstood to 

imply discriminatory conduct, leading 

to unfounded allegations of 

discrimination. 

The Bureau is mindful of the potential 

privacy implications of zip code 

disclosure. For the time being, and 

pending additional study, it will limit 

zip code disclosures to five digits, even 

if a consumer provides the full ninedigit zip code. Furthermore, as it 

analyzes the potential for narrative 

disclosure, the Bureau will consider the 

impact of zip code disclosures in 

assessing privacy risks. The Bureau will 

also analyze whether there are ways to 

disclose more granular location fields 

without creating privacy risks, as 

suggested by some commenters. 

4. Discrimination 

Consumer groups and trade 

associations mainly reiterated 

comments made in response to the 

Credit Card Data Proposed Policy 

Statement. Consumer groups generally 

favored the inclusion of the data, and 

industry groups commented that it 

should remain excluded. One trade 

association suggested eliminating the 

field from the complaint intake forms 

altogether, citing a lack of meaningful 

data and evidence of value in its 

collection. Some consumer groups, 

however, suggested that the Bureau 

request protected class information to 

assist in the detection of patterns and 

practices of lending and credit 

discrimination, and provide an 

explanation to consumers as to the 

value in collecting such information. 

The Bureau is continuing to refine its 

methods for identifying discrimination 

allegations in complaints submitted by 

consumers. Accordingly, the Bureau 

does not plan to disclose discrimination 

field data in the public database at this 

time. In the interim, the Bureau will 

continue to study the conditions, if any, 

necessary for the appropriate disclosure 

of such information at the individual 

complaint level. The Bureau may also 

report discrimination allegation data at 

aggregated levels in its own periodic 

complaint data reports. 

5. Type of Issue 

Trade and consumer groups reiterated 

comments that the Bureau could 

improve this data field in several 

respects, including allowing a consumer 

to be able to select several issues for a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

21224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

24 Disclosure of Certain Credit Card Complaint 

Data (Notice of final policy statement), 77 FR 

37558, supra at 37565 (June 22, 2012). 

25Specific comments on disclosure of company 

narratives are addressed in section E.2, and 

comments on date fields are addressed in section 

D.6 below. 

26Consumer Response has provided detailed 

guidance to institutions participating in the 

Complaint System regarding these changes. 

Institutions can rely on the summary description 

provided herein in addition to more specific 

operational instructions. 

27 Disclosure of Certain Credit Card Complaint 

Data (Notice of final policy statement), 77 FR 

37558, supra at 37565 (June 22, 2012). 28There may be a lag between the two dates in 

part because, as noted above, consumers do not 

always submit complaints with sufficient 

information. In addition, some complaints are 

received via channels that trigger additional 

processing and data entry steps by the Bureau. For 

example, a complaint submitted via the web 

complaint form will move to the appropriate 

company faster than a hard-copy complaint referred 

by another agency that must be input into the 

Bureau’s system. 

given complaint. Several trade 

associations also repeated previous 

comments that the Bureau should not 

rely on consumers for this data point, 

and should allow companies to 

categorize the complaint data. The 

Bureau has worked to improve these 

categories, expanding the fields to 

include both a product and sub-product 

and, in some cases, an issue and subissue that the consumer can select. The 

Bureau stands by its previous 

statements and analysis on this issue.24

The Bureau is working to develop the 

required functionality for a consumer to 

be able to ‘‘tag’’ a complaint as 

implicating more than one issue. In 

addition, the Bureau is weighing 

possible improvements to the issue 

categories and is considering the extent 

to which Bureau staff should ‘‘tag’’ 

complaints as raising certain issues. The 

Bureau welcomes further input from 

stakeholders on how to further improve 

the issue categories. 

6. Company Disposition 

Consumer groups reiterated 

comments on the need to include 

additional data about the company’s 

response, including narratives 

accompanying the disposition code and 

the date of the company response.25

Trade associations noted that response 

categories such as ‘‘Closed’’ and ‘‘Closed 

with explanation’’ could have negative 

connotations, and one suggested adding 

an additional category of ‘‘closed with 

no relief required.’’ Another industry 

group suggesting distinguishing 

company response categories according 

to the type of company and product 

involved in the complaint. 

The Bureau believes the changes 

previously made in response to industry 

concerns regarding the Complaint 

Systems’ company response categories 

address the negative connotation 

concerns.26 In addition, creating 

additional company response categories 

for each product or service would 

deprive reviewers of the ability to 

compare responses across products and 

services. The Bureau stands by its 

previous statements and analysis on this 

issue.27

7. Date Fields 

Finally, the Bureau agrees with the 

commenters who argued for the 

inclusion of additional dates in the 

public database such as the date of the 

company’s response and the consumer’s 

assessment of that response, so that a 

user of the public database would know 

how fast complaints are processed. The 

Bureau includes the date that a 

complaint is sent to the Bureau and the 

date that the Bureau forwards it to the 

relevant company.28 The Bureau is 

currently developing the technical 

ability to publish other date fields, 

including the date that a company 

responds. When this is feasible, the 

Bureau plans to include additional date 

fields in the public database. 

E. Potential Impacts of Undisclosed 

Fields 

The Bureau received a number of 

comments about data fields that the 

Proposed Complaint Data Disclosure 

Policy Statement did not list for 

disclosure in the public database, 

including consumer and company 

response narratives. The Bureau is not 

shifting any of these fields into the 

disclosed category in the final Policy 

Statement, although several fields 

remain under assessment for potential 

inclusion at a later date. 

1. Consumer Narratives 

The issue of disclosing consumer 

narratives generated the most 

comments. Consumer, civil rights, open 

government, and privacy groups 

uniformly supported disclosure on the 

grounds that it would provide 

consumers with more useful 

information on which to base financial 

decisions and would allow reviewers to 

assess the validity of the complaint. 

These groups also noted the potential 

for the narrative data to reduce 

perceived risk of reputational harm by 

providing context to the complaints, 

and submitted a proposal that would 

allow the consumer to submit a 

complaint without the collection of 

confidential personal information in the 

complaint description. Their proposal 

would also provide a consumer the 

chance to opt out of narrative disclosure 

in the public database, in whole or in 

part. 

Trade groups and industry 

commenters nearly uniformly opposed 

disclosure of consumer narratives, 

reiterating comments made in response 

to the Bureau’s Proposed Credit Card 

Data Disclosure Policy Statement. 

Several suggested that if the Bureau 

resolved to disclose narratives, it might 

inadvertently disclose personally 

identifiable information, with 

potentially significant consequences to 

the affected individuals. These 

commenters also argued that narrative 

disclosure might undermine the 

Bureau’s mission to the extent that 

consumers, fearing potential disclosure 

of their personal financial information, 

would become reluctant to submit 

complaints. One trade association 

commented that the Bureau should 

consider the potential benefit of 

including both the consumer’s narrative 

description and the company’s narrative 

response. 

While acknowledging the general lack 

of consensus in this area, the Bureau 

notes that almost all commenters—in 

response to both the Proposed Credit 

Card Complaint Data Disclosure Policy 

Statement and the recently Proposed 

Consumer Complaint Data Disclosure 

Policy Statement—agreed that the 

privacy risks of narrative disclosure 

must be carefully addressed if narrative 

disclosure is to take place. Accordingly, 

the Bureau will not publish narrative 

data until such time as the privacy risks 

of doing so have been carefully and 

fully addressed. In addition to assessing 

the feasibility of redacting personally 

identifiable information (‘‘PII’’) and 

narrative information that could be used 

for re-identification, by algorithmic and/ 

or manual methods, the Bureau will 

carefully consider whether there are 

ways to give submitting consumers a 

meaningful choice of narrative 

disclosure options. 

2. Responsive Company Narratives 

Consumer groups argued that 

companies should have the same ability 

as consumers to offer their responsive 

narratives for either public disclosure or 

private communication to the consumer. 

According to these commenters, this 

mechanism would protect consumer 

privacy, allow for effective 

communication between consumers and 

companies, and permit companies to 

respond publicly to public complaint 

narratives. Most trade associations 

disagreed, reiterating arguments that the 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act prohibits them 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 21225 

29Along the same lines, one trade group objected 

to the disclosure of company names in part because 

the Bureau’s database would only include 

complaints against larger financial institutions. 

30Credit card complaint data will be included 

from December 1, 2011. Mortgage complaint data 

likewise will be included from December 1, 2011, 

the date the Bureau began accepting such 

complaints. Complaint data on bank accounts and 

services, private student loans, and other consumer 

loans will be included from March 1, 2012, the date 

the Bureau began accepting these types of 

complaints. 

31Additional fields remain under consideration 

for potential inclusion. For example, the Bureau 

may add a sub-issue field. 

32The consumer’s account number generally will 

enable authentication of the correct company for 

account-based services. If an account number is not 

applicable or available, the Bureau works directly 

with the consumer to identify the correct company 

from company correspondence such as statements 

or letters. If the correct company cannot be 

identified in this manner, no data is posted to the 

database. Account numbers will never become part 

of the public database. 

from publicly disclosing any PII about 

their customers. Trade associations and 

a financial services provider suggested 

that the Bureau should consider the 

potential benefit of including the 

company’s response. Company 

responses, they noted, could provide 

balance by incorporating important 

details regarding the nature and 

resolution of the complaints. In light of 

the Bureau’s current disclosure position 

on consumer narratives, however, the 

Bureau is not resolving this issue at this 

point. 

F. Addition of New Data Fields 

Several consumer groups asked the 

Bureau to add new data fields for 

collection and disclosure via the public 

database, including the ability to further 

define issue categories, noting that 

additional detail would make the 

database even more valuable as a prepurchase educational tool. One group 

suggested that the database identify the 

commercial name of the individual 

financial product or service, not the 

company or product category alone. As 

noted, several groups urged that 

location data be provided at the city or 

census tract level to help identify 

discriminatory practices. To that same 

end, several groups urged the collection 

of demographic data on a voluntary 

basis. The Bureau discloses the product 

category (e.g., mortgage), and will now 

include additional information about 

the sub-product (e.g., reverse mortgage) 

that the consumer identifies. The 

Bureau will continue to evaluate the 

usefulness and benefit that additional 

fields may provide as it begins to accept 

complaints for additional types of 

consumer financial products or services. 

The Bureau is open to the inclusion of 

additional data fields and will continue 

to work with external stakeholders to 

address the value of adding such fields. 

G. Posting Data for Complaints 

Submitted to Other Regulators 

One consumer group commented that 

the public database should include data 

on complaints that the Bureau forwards 

to other agencies. This group also 

commented that the Bureau should 

encourage other agencies to submit 

complaints to the Bureau’s public 

database.29 Several trade associations 

expressed concerns about the 

publication of complaint data from 

other regulators, noting that complaints 

should simply be forwarded to the 

appropriate prudential regulator if not 

within the purview of the Bureau and 

not included in the database. 

The Bureau agrees that the utility of 

the public database would be improved 

by the inclusion of as many complaint 

records as possible. As a result, it is 

open to other regulators providing 

parallel complaint data for inclusion in 

the public database. Until that can be 

achieved, however, the Bureau does not 

believe it would be that useful to 

include referred complaints in the 

public database. The Bureau would not 

be able to verify a commercial 

relationship, nor describe how and 

when a company responded to a 

referred complaint, or whether the 

consumer accepted or disputed the 

outcome. 

IV. Final Policy Statement 

The text of the final Policy Statement 

is as follows: 

1. Purposes of Consumer Complaint 

Data Disclosure 

The Bureau receives complaints from 

consumers about consumer financial 

products and services. The Bureau 

intends to disclose certain information 

about such consumer complaints in a 

public database and in the Bureau’s own 

periodic reports. The purpose of this 

disclosure is to provide consumers with 

timely and understandable information 

about consumer financial products and 

services and to improve the functioning 

of the consumer financial markets for 

such products and services. By enabling 

more informed decisions about the use 

of consumer financial products and 

services, the Bureau intends for its 

complaint data disclosures to improve 

the transparency and efficiency of such 

consumer financial markets. 

2. Public Access to Data Fields 

Data from complaints that consumers 

submit will be uploaded to a publicly 

accessible database, as described below. 

a. Complaints Included in the Public 

Database 

To be included in the public database, 

complaints must: (a) Not be duplicative 

of another complaint at the Bureau from 

the same consumer; (b) not be a 

whistleblower complaint; (c) involve a 

consumer financial product or service 

within the scope of the Bureau’s 

jurisdiction; and (d) be submitted by a 

consumer (or his or her authorized 

representative) with an authenticated 

commercial relationship with the 

identified company. The public 

database will include data from certain 

consumer complaints submitted on or 

after December 1, 2011.30 In addition, 

when the Bureau begins to accept 

complaints for a type of consumer 

financial product or service other than 

those immediately subject to this policy, 

the Bureau will delay publication of 

such complaints until a reasonable 

period of time has lapsed in order to 

evaluate the data and consider whether 

any product- or service-specific policy 

changes are warranted. 

b. Fields Included in the Public 

Database 

For included complaints, the Bureau 

will upload to the public database 

certain non-narrative fields that do not 

call for PII. The Bureau plans to include 

the following fields: 

(i) Bureau-assigned unique ID 

number; 

(ii) Channel of submission to Bureau; 

(iii) Date of submission to Bureau; 

(iv) Consumer’s 5-digit zip code; 

(v) Product or service; 

(vi) Sub-product; 

(vii) Issue; 

(viii) Date of submission to company; 

(ix) Company name; 

(x) Company response category; 

(xi) Whether the company response 

was timely; and 

(xii) Whether the consumer disputed 

the response.31

The consumer generates data for 

fields (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (xii). The 

Bureau will authenticate the consumer’s 

identification of the relevant company 

in field (ix), and finalize the entry in 

that field as appropriate.32 If a company 

demonstrates by the 15-day deadline 

that it has been wrongly identified, no 

data for that complaint will be posted 

unless and until the correct company is 

identified. At the 15-day mark, however, 

the Bureau will post the complaint data 

with the originally identified company 

in field (ix) so long as the Bureau has 

account number or documentary data to 

support the identification. If the Bureau 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

21226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

33 If a response is untimely, at either the 15- or 

60-day mark, field (xi) will show that the company 

did not respond on a timely basis. The company’s 

substantive response, if it eventually makes one, 

will still be shown in field (x), but the untimeliness 

entry will remain. 

34The Bureau is not planning to disclose the 

consumer’s claimed amount of monetary loss and, 

as a result, believes it would be inappropriate to 

disclose, in the individual case, the amount of relief 

provided by the company. The Bureau, however, 

may include non- individual data on monetary 

relief in its own periodic reports. The Bureau has 

determined not to include the consumer’s claimed 

amount of monetary relief because a review of 

complaints shows that consumers have had 

difficulty stating the amount and prefer to provide 

a narrative description of the relief that they believe 

to be appropriate. 35See note 5, supra. 

cannot reasonably identify the 

company, however, the complaint will 

be closed without posting to the public 

database. 

The complaint system automatically 

populates the two date fields, (iii) and 

(viii). The Bureau completes fields (i), 

(ii), and (xi).33 The company completes 

field (x). If it selects ‘‘Closed with 

monetary relief’’ for field (x), the 

company will also enter the amount of 

monetary relief provided, although 

information as to amounts will not be 

included in the public database.34 Field 

(x) will show as ‘‘In progress’’ if the 

company responds within 15 days 

indicating additional time is needed (up 

to 60 calendar days). The company’s 

later response will then overwrite the 

‘‘In progress’’ data entry. If no response 

is provided within 60 days, the field 

will be updated accordingly and 

updated as untimely. 

c. When Data Is Included in the Public 

Database 

The Bureau will generally add field 

data to the public database for a given 

complaint within 15 days of forwarding 

the complaint to the company in 

question. If the company responds 

‘‘Closed with monetary relief,’’ ‘‘Closed 

with non-monetary relief,’’ ‘‘Closed with 

explanation,’’ ‘‘Closed,’’ or ‘‘In 

progress’’ before the 15-day deadline for 

response, the Bureau will then post 

applicable data for that complaint to the 

public database. If the company fails to 

respond at all by the 15-day deadline, 

the Bureau will also post data for that 

complaint at that point. In such case, 

the company response category field 

will be blank and the ‘‘Untimely 

Response’’ field will be marked. As 

noted above, if a company demonstrates 

by the 15-day deadline that it has been 

wrongly identified, no data for that 

complaint will be posted unless and 

until the correct company is identified. 

Once the Bureau discloses some data for 

a given complaint, it will add to the 

public database any new complaint data 

that are subject to disclosure as they 

become available. Subject to these 

various restrictions, data will be posted 

to the public database on a daily basis. 

d. Public Access 

A public platform for the public 

database will enable user-defined 

searches of the posted field data. Each 

complaint will be linked with a unique 

identifier, enabling reviewers to 

aggregate the data as they choose, 

including by complaint type, company, 

location, date, or any combination of 

variables. The data platform will also 

enable users to save and disseminate 

their data aggregations. These 

aggregations can be automatically 

updated as the public database expands 

to include more complaints. Finally, 

users will be able to download the data 

or analyze it via an Application 

Programming Interface. 

e. Excluded Fields 

The public database will not include 

PII fields such as a consumer’s name, 

account number, or address information 

other than a 5-digit zip code. At least 

until it can conduct sufficient further 

study and install satisfactory controls, 

the Bureau will not post to the public 

database the consumer’s narrative 

description of ‘‘what happened,’’ his or 

her description of a ‘‘fair resolution,’’ or 

his or her reason for disputing the 

company’s response, if applicable. The 

Bureau also will not post a company’s 

narrative response. The Bureau intends 

to study the potential inclusion of 

narrative fields as described further in 

section 4 of this Policy Statement. 

3. Regular Bureau Reporting on 

Complaints 

At periodic intervals, the Bureau 

intends to publish reports about 

complaint data, which may contain its 

own analysis of patterns or trends that 

it identifies in the complaint data. To 

date, the Bureau has published eight 

reports containing aggregate complaint 

data.35 The Bureau 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 its own handling of 

complaints, the Bureau will study the 

volume and content of 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 Bureau intends for 

its reports to include certain 

standardized metrics that would 

provide comparisons across reporting 

periods. The reports will also describe 

the Bureau’s use of complaint data 

across the range of its statutory 

authorities during a reporting period. 

Because monetary relief data will not be 

included in the individual-level public 

database, the Bureau anticipates such 

data will be included at non-individual 

levels in its own periodic reporting. 

4. Matters for Further Study 

Going forward, the Bureau intends to 

study the effectiveness of its consumer 

complaint disclosure policy in realizing 

its stated purposes, and plans to 

continue to engage with the public, 

including regulated entities, as it makes 

these assessments. The Bureau will also 

analyze options for normalization, and 

welcomes further input from 

stakeholders on how to implement such 

metrics. In addition, the Bureau will 

assess whether there are practical ways 

to disclose narrative data submitted by 

consumers and companies in a manner 

that will improve consumer 

understanding without undermining 

privacy interests or the effectiveness of 

the consumer complaint process, and 

without creating unwarranted 

reputational injury to companies. 

5. Effect of Policy Statement 

This Policy Statement is intended to 

provide guidance regarding the Bureau’s 

exercise of discretion to publicly 

disclose certain data derived from 

consumer complaints. The Policy 

Statement does not create or confer any 

substantive or procedural rights on third 

parties that could be enforceable in any 

administrative or civil proceeding. 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5492(a), 5493(b)(3), 

5496(c)(4), 5511(b)(1), (5), and (c)(3), 

5512(c)(3)(B). 

Dated: March 25, 2013. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07569 Filed 4–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES