Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42765 

‘‘Debt Collection Survey from the 

Consumer Credit Panel.’’ 

DATES: Written comments are 

encouraged and must be received on or 

before August 22, 2014 to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection, OMB Control Number (see 

below), and docket number (see above), 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA 

Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20002. 

Please note that comments submitted 

by fax or email and those submitted 

after the comment period will not be 

accepted. In general, all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Sensitive personal information, such as 

account numbers or social security 

numbers, should not be included. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Documentation prepared in support of 

this information collection request is 

available at www.reginfo.gov (this link 

active on the day following publication 

of this notice). Requests for additional 

information should be directed to the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

(Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435– 

9575, or email: PRA@cfpb.gov. Please do 

not submit comments to this email box. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Debt Collection 

Survey from the Consumer Credit Panel. 

OMB Control Number: 3170–XXXX. 

Type of Review: New Collection 

(Request for a new OMB Control 

Number). 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

3000. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,000. 

Abstract: The CFPB plans to conduct 

a mail survey of consumers to learn 

about their experiences interacting with 

the debt collection industry. The survey 

will ask consumers about their 

experiences with debt collectors, such 

as whether they have been contacted by 

debt collectors in the past, whether they 

recognized the debt that was being 

collected, and about their interactions 

with the debt collectors. The survey will 

also ask consumers about their 

preferences for how they would like to 

be contacted by debt collectors, 

opinions about potential regulatory 

interventions in debt collection markets, 

and about their knowledge of their legal 

rights regarding debt collections. The 

information collected through this 

survey will be used to inform a CFPB 

rule making concerning debt collection 

and research purposes. 

Request for Comments: The Bureau 

issued a 60-day Federal Register notice 

on March 7th, 2014, 79 FR 13043. 

Comments were solicited and continue 

to be invited on: (a) Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Bureau, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

Bureau’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methods and the 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will become a 

matter of public record. 

Dated: July 15, 2014. 

Ashwin Vasan, 

Chief Information Officer, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17272 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2014–0016] 

Disclosure of Consumer Complaint 

Narrative Data 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy 

statement with request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (‘‘Bureau’’) 

currently discloses certain complaint 

data it receives regarding consumer 

financial products and services via its 

web-based, public-facing database 

(‘‘Consumer Complaint Database’’). The 

Bureau proposes to expand that 

disclosure to include unstructured 

consumer complaint narrative data 

(‘‘narratives’’). Only those narratives for 

which opt-in consumer consent had 

been obtained and a robust personal 

information scrubbing standard and 

methodology applied would be subject 

to disclosure. The proposed policy 

(‘‘Proposed Policy Statement’’) would 

supplement the Bureau’s existing Policy 

Statements establishing and expanding 

the Consumer Complaint Database. 

DATES: Comments regarding the 

Proposed Policy Statement are due on or 

before August 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

regarding the Proposed Policy 

Statement, identified by Docket No. 

CFPB–2014–0016, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica 

Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20002. 

Instructions: The Bureau encourages 

the early submission of information and 

other comments. Because paper mail in 

the Washington, DC area and at the 

Bureau is subject to delay, commenters 

are encouraged to submit comments 

electronically. In general, all 

submissions received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1275 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on 

official business days between the hours 

of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard 

Time. You can make an appointment to 

inspect the documents by telephoning 

(202) 435–7275. 

All submissions, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and will be subject to public 

disclosure. Do not include sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or Social Security numbers. 

Comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

such as name and address information, 

email addresses, or telephone numbers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Pluta, Assistant Director, Office of 

Consumer Response, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection, at (202) 

435–7306. 

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

5496(c)(4), 5511(b)(1), (5), 5512(c)(3)(B). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42766 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 

1 76 FR 76628, Dec. 8, 2011. 

2 77 FR 37616, June 22, 2012. 

3 77 FR 37616, June 22, 2012. 

4 78 FR 21218, April 10, 2013. 

5Peter Orszag, Director, Office of Management & 

Budget, Open Government Directive, Dec. 8, 2009. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

I. Background 

A. Previous Policy Statements Regarding 

the Consumer Complaint Database 

On December 8, 2011, the Bureau 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed policy statement describing its 

plans to disclose certain data about the 

credit card complaints that consumers 

submit to the Bureau (‘‘December 2011 

Proposed Policy Statement’’).1 After 

receiving and considering a number of 

comments, the Bureau finalized its 

plans for publically disclosing data from 

consumer credit card complaints and 

published the final policy statement on 

June 22, 2012 (‘‘June 2012 Policy 

Statement’’).2

Also on June 22, 2012, the Bureau 

concurrently published in the Federal 

Register a proposed policy statement 

describing its plans to disclose data 

from consumer complaints about 

financial products and services other 

than credit cards (‘‘June 2012 Proposed 

Policy Statement’’).3 After receiving and 

considering a number of comments, the 

Bureau published the final policy 

statement on March 25, 2013 (‘‘March 

2013 Policy Statement’’).4 In the June 

2012 Proposed Policy Statement, the 

Bureau did not propose including 

narratives in the Consumer Complaint 

Database. Notwithstanding this, the 

Bureau received a significant number of 

comments specific to narrative 

disclosure. Consumer, civil rights, and 

open government groups supported 

disclosure on the grounds that 

disclosing narratives would provide 

consumers with more useful 

information on which to base financial 

decisions and would allow reviewers to 

assess the validity of the complaints. 

Two privacy groups, while 

acknowledging privacy risk stemming 

from publication of ‘‘non-identifiable’’ 

data and calling for further study, 

supported disclosure on an opt-in basis. 

Trade groups and industry commenters 

nearly uniformly opposed disclosure of 

consumer complaint narratives. In the 

March 2013 Policy Statement, the 

Bureau noted that it would not post 

narratives to the Consumer Complaint 

Database at least until it could assess 

whether there were practical ways to 

disclose narrative data submitted by 

consumers without undermining 

consumer privacy. 

B. Policy Considerations of Disclosing 

Narratives 

The purpose of the Consumer 

Complaint Database, as stated in the 

Bureau’s two previous policy 

statements, is to provide consumers 

with timely and understandable 

information about consumer financial 

products and services, and improve the 

functioning, transparency, and 

efficiency of markets for such products 

and services. As a general matter, the 

Bureau believes that adding additional 

information to the Consumer Complaint 

Database, such as narratives, is 

consistent with and promotes this 

purpose. 

In specifically examining the 

incremental benefits and risks of 

disclosing narratives, the Bureau 

focused on the direct and indirect 

benefits to consumers, the benefit to the 

Bureau, and the advancement of open 

government principles. 

In terms of the direct benefit provided 

to consumers, for some consumers a 

primary reason for submitting a 

complaint may be to share their 

experience with other consumers. 

Complainants may desire to do so as a 

means of providing information they 

deem useful to others who may be 

considering doing business with a 

particular financial institution or as a 

means of letting others who may be 

experiencing a similar situation know 

that they are not alone. These needs 

cannot be served by the Bureau simply 

by disclosing the non-narrative portions 

of the complaint. Indeed, some 

consumers may choose to submit a 

complaint only if they will have the 

opportunity to share their story and 

other consumers may overcome their 

reticence to submit a complaint by 

reading the experiences of others. By 

increasing the direct benefits to 

consumers of submitting a complaint, 

publishing complaint narratives may 

expand the number of complaints 

submitted to the Bureau and thereby 

enhance the value of the Consumer 

Complaint Database. 

Indirect benefits to consumers and the 

marketplace would include the effect 

narratives can have on consumer 

purchasing decisions. Research has 

shown that consumer word of mouth 

(which includes consumer reviews and 

complaints) is a reliable signal of 

product quality that consumers consult 

and act upon when making purchasing 

decisions. Companies, responsive to the 

effect word of mouth can have on sales, 

adjust prices to match product quality 

and improve customer service in order 

to remain competitive. 

Publishing narratives would also be 

impactful by making the complaint data 

personal (the powerful first person voice 

of the consumer talking about their 

experience), local (the ability for local 

stakeholders to highlight consumer 

experiences in their community), and 

empowering (by encouraging similarly 

situated consumers to speak up and be 

heard). 

The Bureau believes that the utility of 

the overall Consumer Complaint 

Database would greatly increase with 

the inclusion of narratives. This could 

lead to increased use by advocates, 

academics, the press, and entrepreneurs, 

which itself would lead to increased 

consumer contacts with the Bureau. 

The Bureau believes that the 

aforementioned increase in benefits and 

utility would lead to an increase in 

consumer contacts, which would have a 

positive effect on Bureau operations. As 

a critical mass of complaint data is 

achieved and exceeded, the 

representativeness of Bureau complaint 

data increases. Thus, narratives would 

not only enhance the above consumer 

benefits but also the many Bureau 

functions that rely, in part, on 

complaint data to perform their 

respective missions including the 

Offices of Supervision, Enforcement, 

and Fair Lending, Consumer Education 

and Engagement, and Research, 

Markets, and Rulemaking. 

The Bureau also would benefit by 

further establishing itself as a leader in 

the realm of open government and open 

data. On December 8, 2009, the Office 

of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 

issued its Open Government Directive 

requiring agencies to ‘‘take prompt steps 

to expand access to information by 

making it available online.’’ 5 Although 

agencies have historically withheld data 

from the public due to privacy and cost 

controls, with new technology comes 

new opportunities for openness without 

significant increases to privacy risk and 

costs. Moving forward ‘‘the presumption 

shall be in favor of openness.’’ 6 While 

there is no requirement to publish ‘‘all’’ 

information, as a matter of policy and 

‘‘to the extent permitted by law and 

subject to valid privacy, confidentiality, 

security, or other restrictions,’’ agencies 

should ‘‘proactively use modern 

technology to disseminate useful 

information, rather than waiting for 

specific requests under FOIA.’’ 7

Although an independent agency, the 

Bureau shares OMB’s commitment to 

open and transparent government. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42767 

8Paul Ohm, Broken Promises of Privacy: 

Responding To The Surprising Failure Of 

Anonymization, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1701 (2010). 9 12 U.S.C. 5511(c) (2012). 

‘‘presumption of openness’’ is quickly 

becoming a governmental best practice. 

Agencies from the Department of Health 

and Human Services (‘‘HHS’’), to the 

Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) are 

moving quickly to expand open data 

offerings. Projects like HealthData.gov, 

Regulations.gov, and the Green Button 

form a new vanguard of government 

engagement with the public and the 

marketplace through open data. 

OMB Memorandum M–13–13, Open 

Data Policy—Managing Information as 

an Asset, usefully grounds the 

‘‘presumption of openness’’ in 

utilitarian and economic terms. It 

describes information as ‘‘a valuable 

national resource and a strategic asset to 

the Federal Government, its partners, 

and the public,’’ and points out that 

‘‘[m]aking information resources 

accessible, discoverable, and usable by 

the public can help fuel 

entrepreneurship, innovation, and 

scientific discovery—all of which 

improve Americans’ lives and 

contribute significantly to job creation.’’ 

Always subject to legal obligations such 

as those to protect privacy and 

confidentiality, the government can 

treat information as a public asset 

which, when made available to its 

public owners, creates public value. 

Publishing narratives, however, is not 

without risks. A principal risk of 

publishing narratives is the potential 

harm associated with the possible reidentification of actual consumers 

within the Consumer Complaint 

Database. To de-identify data is to 

remove personal information from a 

dataset, thereby obscuring individual 

identities. Re-identification generally 

occurs when separate datasets are 

combined to reestablish some number of 

individual identities. Individuals with 

personal knowledge of events described 

in a narrative may also be able to 

identify consumers using de-identified 

narratives. Some within the research 

community question the sufficiency of 

de-identification and suggest that the 

risks generally outweigh the benefits of 

sharing data.8

On the other hand, many researchers 

espouse the sufficiency of deidentification and highlight the 

extremely low risk of actual reidentification and potential harm— 

suggesting a cost-benefit analysis where 

the benefits outweigh this risk. In 

support of de-identification, supporters 

make a number of arguments, including 

that modern scrubbing standards such 

as the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (‘‘HIPAA’’) Privacy 

Rule (which forms the basis of the 

Bureau’s narrative scrubbing standard) 

decrease re-identification risk to 

acceptable levels and the number of 

known, successful attempts to reidentify publicly available datasets are 

de minimus. 

There is a second major risk 

associated with publishing narratives 

which arises from the fact that the 

narratives may contain factually 

incorrect information as a result of, for 

example, a complainant’s 

misunderstanding or misrecollection of 

what happened. If consumers were to 

rely without question on all narrative 

data, it is possible that subsequent 

purchasing decisions may be based on 

misinformation. To the extent this risk 

may be realized, both consumers and 

the financial institutions that lose 

business due to misinformation would 

be disserved. Indeed, even absent any 

effect on consumer decision-making, 

there is a risk that financial institutions 

could incur intangible reputational 

damage as a result of the dissemination 

of complaint narratives. 

To a large extent, this risk is inherent 

in any release of complaint data. In 

deciding to release the structured 

complaint data, the Bureau addressed 

this concern and concluded that, while 

there is always a risk that market 

participants will draw erroneous 

conclusions from available data, the 

Bureau was persuaded that the 

marketplace of ideas would be able to 

determine what the data shows. The 

Bureau believes that is true, as well, 

with respect to complaint narratives. 

Furthermore, to mitigate this risk, the 

Bureau’s proposed policy provides for 

the public release of the company’s 

response, side-by-side and scrubbed of 

any personal information, to the 

consumer’s complaint. This process will 

assure that, to the extent there are 

factual disputes, both sides of the 

dispute can be made public. 

C. Operational Feasibility of Disclosing 

Narratives 

In deciding to release certain 

structured data, the Bureau stated that it 

would not disclose narratives unless it 

is operationally feasible to do so 

without compromising consumer 

privacy. In November 2013, Consumer 

Response began piloting a 

comprehensive program to scrub all 

personal information from copied 

narratives using a scrubbing standard 

based on government best practices 

(discussed in detail below). This pilot is 

ongoing and the scrubbing standard is 

continually improved as lessons are 

learned and implemented. 

The Bureau is currently conducting a 

study to further verify that the proposed 

scrubbing standard and methodology 

will sufficiently address concerns 

related to the FOIA, the Privacy Act, the 

Dodd-Frank Act, and the Bureau’s 

confidentiality regulations where (1) 

consent for publication is obtained from 

the consumer; (2) narratives are 

scrubbed of consumer personal 

information consistent with a robust 

standard and methodology: (a) that 

substantially meets government best 

practices for re-identification risk; (b) as 

written, results in a low risk of reidentification; (c) as applied, maintains 

a low rate of operational error; and (3) 

an independent, third party privacy 

expert conducts a review and 

operational test of the standard and 

methodology in support of the above 

conditions. 

The Bureau is cognizant that other 

federal agencies have thought about 

these issues and have successfully 

adopted a variety of approaches. For 

example, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’) proactively 

publishes narrative consumer reports of 

harm on its Web site, which include 

consented-to-consumer and industry 

narratives. And the FTC routinely 

releases consumer complaints, 

including the narratives (up to a given 

quantity), when requested through the 

FOIA. 

II. Proposed Policy Statement 

Regarding Disclosure of Unstructured 

Narrative Data From Consumer 

Complaints and Company Responses 

The Bureau hears directly from the 

American public about their 

experiences with the nation’s consumer 

financial marketplace. An important 

element of the Bureau’s mission is the 

handling of individual consumer 

complaints regarding financial products 

and services. Indeed, ‘‘collecting, 

investigating, and responding to 

consumer complaints’’ is one of only six 

statutory ‘‘primary functions’’ of the 

Bureau.9

In June 2012, the Bureau began 

making de-identified individual-level 

complaint data available via its webbased, public facing database (the 

‘‘Consumer Complaint Database’’). Since 

launch, the Consumer Complaint 

Database has been expanded multiple 

times to include additional financial 

products and data fields. Consistent 

with its strategic vision, the Bureau is 

committed to the continued expansion 

of the Consumer Complaint Database in 

both the number of complaints and 

fields of data made publicly available, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42768 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 

10 45 CFR 164.514. 

while still protecting privacy and 

incorporating the appropriate security 

controls. 

A. Consumer Narratives 

The Bureau will provide consumers 

the opportunity to share their individual 

stories with other consumers and the 

marketplace by including consumer 

complaint narratives in the Consumer 

Complaint Database where consent for 

publication is first obtained from the 

consumer. 

B. Consumer Consent To Disclose 

Narratives 

The Bureau will only disclose 

narratives (1) for which informed 

consumer consent has been obtained 

and (2) that have been scrubbed of 

personal information. Consumers who 

submit a complaint will be given the 

opportunity to check a consent box 

giving the Bureau permission to publish 

his or her narrative. The opt-in consent 

will state, among other things, and in 

plain language, that: (1) whether or not 

consent is given will have no impact on 

how the Bureau handles the complaint, 

(2) if given, the consumer may thereafter 

inform the Bureau that she withdraws 

her consent at any time and the 

narrative will be removed from the 

Consumer Complaint Database, and (3) 

the Bureau will take reasonable steps to 

remove personal information from the 

complaint to minimize (but not 

eliminate) the risk of re-identification. 

C. Company Response 

Where the consumer provides consent 

to publish their narrative, the related 

company will be given the opportunity 

to submit a narrative response for 

inclusion in the Consumer Complaint 

Database. The company will be 

instructed not to provide direct 

identifying information in its publicfacing response, and the Bureau will 

take reasonable steps to remove 

personal information from the response 

to minimize (but not eliminate) the risk 

of re-identification. The Company Portal 

will include a data field into which 

companies have the option to provide 

narrative text that would appear next to 

a consumer’s narrative in the Consumer 

Complaint Database. 

D. Personal Information Scrubbing 

Standard and Methodology 

Sharing data containing personal 

information presents a tension between 

data utility and individual privacy. As 

a particular personal informationscrubbing standard becomes more or 

less stringent, the utility of a given deidentified dataset becomes respectively 

less or more useful. The publication of 

narratives involves risks, including the 

potential harm associated with the reidentification of actual consumers 

within the Consumer Complaint 

Database. 

In order to minimize the risk of reidentification, the Bureau will apply to 

all publically-disclosed narratives, a 

robust personal information scrubbing 

standard and methodology. The Bureau 

recognizes that mitigating privacy risks 

in complaint level data disclosed to the 

public may decrease the utility of the 

data to users. The Bureau will, 

exercising discretion, modify data when 

privacy risks clearly and substantially 

outweigh the benefits of disclosure. By 

taking these steps to minimize the 

impact, the Bureau believes that 

publicly releasing redacted narratives, 

subject to consumer consent, will best 

protect all consumers without harming 

the protected privacy interests of any 

individual consumer. 

In designing its proposed scrubbing 

standard, the Bureau relied heavily on 

guidance by the Department of Health 

and Human Services (‘‘HHS’’) for deidentification of health data outlined in 

the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (‘‘HIPAA’’) Privacy 

Rule.10 HIPAA requires covered entities, 

e.g., health plans, providers, and 

clearinghouses, to de-identify patient 

personal information such that it no 

longer provides any reasonable basis to 

ascertain individual identities. Under 

HIPAA, data may be considered deidentified if either of the following 

conditions holds: 

• Safe Harbor Method—All the 

identifying information of 18 different 

types is entirely removed, and what 

remains cannot be used to identify 

any individual, or 

• Expert Determination Method—An 

expert applies statistical methods to 

estimate the probability that an 

individual could be identified and 

determines that the risk of 

identification is very low. 

The HIPAA Safe Harbor Method 

(‘‘HIPAA De-identification Standard’’) 

stipulates the removal of 18 specific 

identifiers from any disclosed datasets, 

including: 

• Names 

• All geographic subdivisions smaller 

than a state, including street address, 

city, county, precinct, ZIP code, and 

their equivalent geocodes, except for 

certain ZIP code prefixes depending 

on the circumstances 

• All elements of dates for dates (except 

year) that are directly related to an 

individual, including birth date, 

admission date, discharge date, death 

date, and all ages over 89 and all 

elements of dates indicative of such 

age, except that such ages and 

elements may be aggregated into a 

single category of age 90 or older 

• Telephone numbers 

• Fax numbers 

• Email addresses 

• Social Security number 

• Medical record numbers 

• Health plan beneficiary numbers 

• Account numbers 

• Certificate/license numbers 

• Vehicle identifiers and serial 

numbers, including license plate 

numbers 

• Device identifiers and serial numbers 

• Web Universal Resource Locators 

• Internet Protocol addresses 

• Biometric identifiers, including finger 

and voice prints 

• Full-face photographs and any 

comparable images 

• Any other unique identifying number, 

characteristic, or code 

HHS specifically notes that the category 

‘‘any other unique identifying number, 

characteristic, or code’’ is very broad. It 

can contain, among other identifiers, 

physical attributes, employer names, 

positions, titles, and other identifying 

information. HHS does not provide a 

comprehensive list of such categories, 

but does state that to meet the deidentification standard, unstructured 

text must be free of content for which 

the de-identifying entity has ‘‘actual 

knowledge that residual information 

could be used to individually identify a 

patient’’. 

The Bureau will follow a scrubbing 

standard with the following elements: 

• The Bureau scrubbing standard 

shall include all of the HIPAA 

identifiers at a minimum; 

• Where HIPAA identifiers are 

specific to the health domain, the 

Bureau’s scrubbing standard shall 

include appropriate analogues in the 

consumer financial domain; and 

• The Bureau’s scrubbing standard 

shall specifically include identifiers 

(e.g., employer name) which the Bureau 

knows (1) appear in complaints and (2) 

could reasonably be used to identify 

individuals. 

Generally, the scrubbing methodology 

will include a computer-based 

automated step and a quality assurance 

step performed by human reviewers. 

III. Scope of the Proposed Policy 

Statement 

In the June 2012 Policy Statement and 

the March 2013 Policy Statement, the 

Bureau addressed comments received in 

response to the December 2011 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Notices 42769 

Proposed Policy Statement and the June 

2012 Proposed Policy Statement, 

respectively. These comments ranged 

from the very general, such as the 

Bureau’s authority to disclose consumer 

complaint data of any kind and the 

impact the database would have on 

consumers and covered persons, to the 

more specific, such as the impact of 

specific proposed data fields (e.g., 

company disposition) and the inclusion 

of other data fields (e.g., narratives). In 

both Policy Statements, the Bureau 

affirmed its openness to the inclusion of 

additional data fields and its 

willingness to work with external 

stakeholders to address the value of 

adding such fields. Consistent with this 

commitment, and in response to 

comments urging the disclosure of 

narratives, the Bureau is today 

proposing the inclusion of narratives in 

the Consumer Complaint Database. 

Broadly, the Bureau seeks comments 

that are related to the proposed 

extension of the policies to include 

complaint narratives. With that scope, 

the Bureau is specifically seeking public 

comment on: 

• Consumer Consent to Disclose 

Narratives—The Bureau is currently in 

the process of conducting research and 

user testing to inform design decisions 

regarding the need for any additional 

information to help inform consumer 

consent, the precise language to most 

effectively communicate with the 

consumer, at what point in the 

complaint process (at complaint 

submission or later in the complaint 

handling process) and where on the 

Bureau Web site the information in 

support of the opt-in consent should be 

displayed. 

• Company Response—The Company 

Portal will include a data field into 

which companies have the option to 

provide narrative text that would appear 

next to a consumer’s narrative in the 

Consumer Complaint Database. The 

Bureau is seeking comment on whether 

this public-facing response should be 

distinct and in addition to the response 

companies send directly to the 

consumer. 

• Personal Information Scrubbing 

Standard and Methodology—In Section 

II.D, above, the Bureau detailed the 

standard and methodology it intends to 

utilize to scrub personal information 

from the narratives. The Bureau is 

seeking comment on both the standard 

and methodology, including suggestions 

of appropriate analogues to the HIPAA 

identifiers in the consumer financial 

domain, and any other identifiers which 

could reasonably be used to identify 

individuals. Specific to ZIP codes, at 

this time the Bureau has not yet 

determined whether to continue 

publishing 5-digit ZIP codes in the 

Consumer Complaint Database 

alongside redacted narratives. The 

Bureau seeks comment on whether ZIP 

codes should be redacted consistent 

with the HIPAA standard and if so, the 

number of digits to provide, e.g., five or 

three, and any relevant population 

thresholds under which to limit ZIP 

code disclosure, e.g., less than 20,000 or 

10,000 individuals in a given ZIP code. 

The Bureau believes that it has 

sufficiently addressed comments 

concerning the Consumer Complaint 

Database generally, as well as comments 

regarding the current data fields, in the 

June 2012 Policy Statement and the 

March 2013 Policy Statement. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

The CFPB concludes that Proposed 

Policy Statement constitutes an agency 

statement of general policy exempt from 

notice and public comment pursuant to 

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

Notwithstanding this conclusion, the 

CFPB invites public comment on this 

proposed Policy Statement. 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. Chapter 6) do not apply. 

Dated: July 14, 2014. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17274 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2013–OS–0128] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service (DFAS) announces a proposed 

public information collection and seeks 

public comment on the provisions 

thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by September 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 

VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on this 

proposed information collection or to 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instruments, 

please write to the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Services—Indianapolis, 

DFAS–ZPR. ATTN: La Zaleus D. Leach, 

8899 E. 56th St., Indianapolis, IN 46249, 

Lazaleus.Leach@DFAS.MIL, 317–212– 

6032. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title, Associated Form, and OMB 

Number: Request for Information 

Regarding Deceased Debtor, DD Form 

2840, OMB Number 0730–0015. 

Needs and Uses: This form is used to 

obtain information on deceased debtors 

from probate courts. Probate courts 

review their records to see if an estate 

was established. They provide the name 

and address of the executor or lawyer 

handling the estate. From the 

information obtained, DFAS submits a 

claim against the estate for the amount 

due the United States. 

Affected Public: Clerks of Probate 

Courts. 

Annual Burden Hours: 167 hours. 

Number of Respondents: 2,000. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Frequency: On occasion when DFAS 

is notified a debtor is deceased. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES