8686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 

1Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

authorizes the Director to prescribe rules and issue 

orders and guidance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and 

carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal 

consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions 

thereof. 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). 

Dated: February 16, 2016. 

Wanda Cain, 

Chief of Staff, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03496 Filed 2–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Limits on Application of ESA 

Take Prohibitions. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0399. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular (extension of 

a currently approved information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 301. 

Average Hours per Response: 20 

hours for a road maintenance agreement 

or for a tribal plan; 5 hours for a 

diversion screening limit project or for 

a report of aided, salvaged, or disposedof salmonids. 30 hours for an urban 

development package; 10 hours for an 

urban development report. 

Burden Hours: 935. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

extension of a currently approved 

information collection. 

Section 4(d) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et. seq.) requires the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to 

adopt such regulations as it ‘‘deems 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of’’ threatened species. 

Those regulations may include any or 

all of the prohibitions provided in 

section 9(a)(1) of the ESA, which 

specifically prohibits ‘‘take’’ of any 

endangered species (‘‘take’’ includes 

actions that harass, harm, pursue, kill, 

or capture). The first salmonid species 

listed by NMFS as threatened were 

protected by virtually blanket 

application of the section 9 take 

prohibitions. There are now 22 separate 

Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of 

west coast salmonids listed as 

threatened, covering a large percentage 

of the land base in California, Oregon, 

Washington and Idaho. NMFS is 

obligated to enact necessary and 

advisable protective regulations. NMFS 

makes section 9 prohibitions generally 

applicable to many of those threatened 

DPS, but also seeks to respond to 

requests from states and others to both 

provide more guidance on how to 

protect threatened salmonids and avoid 

take, and to limit the application of take 

prohibitions wherever warranted (see 70 

FR 37160, June 28, 2005, 71 FR 834, 

January 5, 2006, and 73 FR 55451, 

September 25, 2008). The regulations 

describe programs or circumstances that 

contribute to the conservation of, or are 

being conducted in a way that limits 

impacts on, listed salmonids. Because 

we have determined that such 

programs/circumstances adequately 

protect listed salmonids, the regulations 

do not apply the ‘‘take’’ prohibitions to 

them. Some of these limits on the take 

prohibitions entail voluntary 

submission of a plan to NMFS and/or 

annual or occasional reports by entities 

wishing to take advantage of these 

limits, or continue within them. 

The currently approved application 

and reporting requirements apply to 

Pacific marine and anadromous fish 

species, as requirements regarding other 

species are being addressed in a 

separate information collection. 

Affected Public: State, local and tribal 

governments; business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: Annually or on occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: February 17, 2016. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03574 Filed 2–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2014–0025] 

Policy on No-Action Letters; 

Information Collection 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final Policy Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

a final policy statement on No-Action 

Letters (Policy), which is intended to 

further objectives under section 1021 of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (DoddFrank Act). 

DATES: The Bureau released this Policy 

Statement on its Web site on February 

18, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Quan, Senior Advisor to the Director, 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

at (202) 435–7678. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

In specifying the purposes, objectives, 

and functions of the Bureau in section 

1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress 

authorized the Bureau to exercise its 

authorities for the purpose of ensuring 

that markets for consumer financial 

products and services operate 

transparently and efficiently to facilitate 

access and innovation.1 Pursuant to its 

authority, the Bureau is finalizing the 

Policy that is set forth in section VI 

below. Under the Policy, Bureau staff 

would, in its discretion, issue no-action 

letters (NALs) to specific applicants in 

instances involving innovative financial 

products or services that promise 

substantial consumer benefit where 

there is substantial uncertainty whether 

or how specific provisions of statutes 

implemented or regulations issued by 

the Bureau would be applied (for 

example if, because of intervening 

technological developments, the 

application of statutes and regulations 

to a new product is novel and 

complicated). The Policy is also 

designed to enhance compliance with 

applicable federal consumer financial 

laws. A NAL would advise the recipient 

that, subject to its stated limitations, the 

staff has no present intention to 

recommend initiation of an enforcement 

or supervisory action against the 

requester with respect to a specified 

matter. NALs would be subject to 

modification or revocation at any time 

at the discretion of the staff, and may be 

conditioned on particular undertakings 

by the applicant with respect to product 

or service usage and data-sharing with 

the Bureau. Issued NALs generally 

would be publicly disclosed. NALs 

would be non-binding on the Bureau, 

and would not bind courts or other 

actors who might challenge a NALmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 8687 

2 79 FR 62118 (Oct. 16, 2014). 

3For example, the Bureau has provided 

substantial guidance relating to implementation of 

the Know Before You Owe/TILA–RESPA Integrated 

Disclosure rule, including a compliance guide, a 

guide to forms, a closing factsheet, a disclosure 

timeline, integrated loan disclosure forms and 

samples, and webinars. Many of these materials are 

Continued 

recipient’s product or service, such as 

other regulators or parties in litigation. 

The Bureau believes that there may be 

significant opportunities to facilitate 

innovation and access, and otherwise 

substantially enhance consumer 

benefits, through the Policy. 

II. Overview of Public Comments 

On October 16, 2014, the Bureau 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice inviting the general public and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

any aspect of its proposed Policy on NoAction Letters (Proposed Policy).2 The 

Bureau received 28 formal comments on 

the Proposed Policy. Industry trade 

associations and other industry-oriented 

groups submitted 16 comment letters. 

Financial services providers submitted 3 

comment letters. There were 3 comment 

letters from consumer-oriented groups. 

Individuals submitted a further 6 

comments. 

Virtually all commenters supported 

the stated goals of the Proposed Policy, 

to reduce regulatory uncertainty and 

facilitate innovation. No commenter 

disputed the Bureau’s legal authority to 

adopt the Proposed Policy. Most 

comments asked for clarification or 

further detailing around specific parts of 

the Proposed Policy. Some urged 

changes to the Proposed Policy, for 

example, to make NALs more available 

to providers of consumer financial 

products and services with less burden 

or fewer restrictions or, in the case of 

some consumer-oriented commenters, to 

provide for additional consumer 

protections. Many commenters also 

urged the Bureau to make modifications 

to address concerns about the disclosure 

of proprietary business information and 

trade secrets. One industry trade 

association urged the Bureau to abandon 

the Proposed Policy because the 

organization considered that, as 

proposed, it would not facilitate and 

improve compliance in a meaningful 

way. 

III. Summary of Comments, Bureau 

Response, and Resulting Policy 

Changes 

This section provides a summary of 

the principal 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. 

The Bureau has made some changes in 

response to comments received and to 

provide additional clarity, but in 

substantial part follows the Proposal. 

While addressing discrete issues, 

commenters also expressed more 

general concerns that the criteria in the 

Proposed Policy were unworkable or 

that entities were unlikely to receive 

NALs. The Bureau believes the Policy 

will facilitate innovation and otherwise 

substantially enhance consumer 

benefits. However, the Bureau plans to 

monitor the effectiveness of the Policy 

and to assess periodically whether 

changes to the Policy would better 

effectuate these purposes. 

A. Types of Guidance 

Several industry trade groups urged 

the Bureau to adopt a policy for 

providing definitive regulatory 

interpretations to industry participants, 

such as in the form of Bureau 

interpretive rules and letters and 

advisory opinions, in addition to 

adopting a policy for issuing NALs. 

These commenters generally argued that 

guidance of this character would be 

useful to provide needed clarity 

regarding matters of potential regulatory 

uncertainty, and to facilitate 

compliance, and could address broader 

topics than may be presented in the 

context of a particular NAL. Some of 

these commenters anticipated that 

industry members would seek Bureau 

interpretive letters in circumstances in 

which applying for a NAL would be 

especially burdensome, or in 

circumstances that did not involve a 

product that would meet the parameters 

of the proposed NAL policy (such as a 

product already well-established in the 

marketplace). Various commenters 

stated that it is important for industry 

that the Bureau issue types of guidance 

that are legally binding, on the Bureau 

as well as (subject to judicial review) on 

other regulators and on consumer 

challengers, in addition to NALs, which 

provide only non-binding staff 

guidance. 

The Bureau is committed to devoting 

substantial efforts to improving 

regulatory clarity and transparency to 

consumers, industry, and other 

stakeholders. The Bureau provides 

extensive interpretive guidance 

regarding regulations it has issued to 

govern the provision of consumer 

financial products and services, in a 

variety of ways. Many of the Bureau’s 

regulations are accompanied by official 

Bureau interpretations, specifically 

keyed to the regulations by section 

number and published in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, that provide detail 

regarding interpretation and application 

of the regulations. Prior to promulgation 

of rules, Bureau staff has undertaken 

broad industry outreach to identify 

areas of potential uncertainty and to 

ascertain key matters of concern to 

industry regarding implementation and 

compliance. In many cases, such official 

interpretations are promulgated through 

notice and comment, simultaneously 

with issuance of the regulations. The 

Bureau actively monitors these official 

interpretations, and it has issued 

revisions of these official 

interpretations, in light of industry 

needs and other developments, on 

multiple occasions. In other instances, 

apart from official Bureau 

interpretations published in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, the Bureau has 

issued official interpretations or 

regulatory guidance on a stand-alone 

basis. 

The Bureau has taken a number of 

steps to support industry 

implementation of its regulations and 

provide guidance to help financial 

institutions and other stakeholders 

understand, operationalize, and comply 

with new consumer protections. The 

Bureau has engaged directly and 

intensively with financial institutions, 

vendors, and others through a regulatory 

implementation project. As part of this 

effort, the Bureau has published plainlanguage guides and other resources, 

such as compliance guides, sample 

forms, fact sheets, rule summaries, 

charts, and toolkits. The Bureau has also 

published readiness guides that include 

check-lists of things for industry to do 

prior to a rule’s effective date, such as 

updating policies and procedures and 

providing training for staff. In addition, 

the Bureau has conducted free webinars, 

available for public viewing through the 

Bureau’s Web site, that provide 

guidance on how to interpret and apply 

its rules. These resources are available 

on the Bureau’s Web site at 

www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatoryimplementation. 

The Bureau also provides unofficial 

oral staff guidance in response to 

regulatory interpretive questions that 

financial institutions and others subject 

to the Bureau’s regulations can submit 

on an ongoing basis through a dedicated 

email address. The Bureau has provided 

unofficial oral guidance in response to 

thousands of such requests. In addition, 

Bureau regulatory staff has undertaken 

extensive post-issuance outreach to 

identify problem areas and provide 

further oral and written guidance about 

its regulations, on a timely basis.3

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

8688 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 

made available on the Internet at http://www.

consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation/

tila-respa. 

Bureau staff regularly meets with 

industry representatives and other 

stakeholders regarding all areas within 

its regulatory jurisdiction to identify 

areas of regulatory uncertainty or 

compliance challenges, and to formulate 

an appropriate response when 

necessary. For example, the Bureau has 

published additional official 

commentary in response to feedback 

from stakeholders, including industry. 

Bureau staff has also provided remarks 

and addressed questions about Bureau 

rules and related implementation 

matters at numerous formal events and 

informal stakeholder meetings. 

Moreover, the Bureau has published 

an array of bulletins to further clarify 

regulatory obligations and enhance 

compliance where industry has advised 

the Bureau of interpretive or other 

concerns or the Bureau’s market 

awareness has led it to believe there are 

uncertainties requiring attention. 

A substantial portion of the Bureau’s 

personnel and other resources are 

devoted to these efforts. The Bureau 

intends to continue engaging closely 

and working with industry and other 

stakeholders to answer questions, 

provide regulatory support and 

guidance, and evaluate any issues 

industry and consumers experience as 

rules are issued and implemented. The 

Bureau also will continue its 

coordination with other federal 

government regulators to promote a 

consistent regulatory experience for 

industry. The Bureau is aware that 

many regulated entities have access to 

resources, counsel, advice, and 

processes of their own beyond the tools 

provided by the Bureau that they may 

use to assist in the interpretation of 

regulatory requirements and achieve 

regulatory compliance. The Bureau does 

not have the capacity to replace these 

private resources and tools, and does 

not believe that it would be desirable as 

a policy matter for the Bureau to try to 

do so. The Bureau will continue to 

engage in broad efforts to obtain 

industry feedback and attempt to 

employ its resources to provide broad 

industry and consumer support and 

guidance through the most efficient and 

appropriate means. The Bureau believes 

that experience with the NAL process 

will assist the Bureau in evaluating 

other potential steps. 

The Policy being finalized today is 

intended to be one additional tool in the 

Bureau’s kit to facilitate compliance and 

innovation, to supplement the foregoing 

means in instances where no-action 

treatment appears to offer advantages. 

Most of the Bureau’s guidance resources 

will continue to be devoted to efforts 

other than NALs, as discussed above. 

The NAL Policy is intended to make 

efficient use of Bureau resources by 

focusing on matters of significant 

uncertainty, e.g., where technological 

developments have given rise to novel 

products not envisioned at the time 

existing statutes and regulations were 

issued, and substantial regulatory 

uncertainty poses a barrier to 

marketplace innovation. The Policy 

calls on applicants to identify the 

relevant facts, and specific regulatory 

issues needing attention, because 

applicants are well-positioned to do so 

effectively and insightfully. As 

contrasted with amendment of a 

regulation or an official interpretation, 

no-action treatment may often be a more 

useful tool for such cases because, 

among other things, the novel aspects of 

the product in question may be subject 

to evolution, the policy and legal 

implications are likely not yet 

sufficiently well understood to justify a 

definitive regulatory treatment of the 

relevant issues, and the time required to 

mature such a definitive treatment may 

be inconsistent with product-innovation 

needs of industry. 

B. Matters Concerning Other Regulators 

Two commenters requested 

clarification about coordination between 

Bureau staff and federal prudential 

regulators, stating that a NAL may be of 

little benefit to an institution whose 

prudential regulator considers a 

proposed product to violate applicable 

requirements. Other commenters urged 

the Bureau to make NALs binding on 

other regulators, to shield a NALcovered product from the prospect of 

adverse treatment by another regulator. 

The Bureau has not modified the 

Policy in response to these comments. 

Bureau staff regularly consults with 

other governmental agencies, Federal 

and State, with respect to financial 

industry matters, including product 

innovations. Applicants should be 

aware that Bureau staff may consult 

with other governmental agencies that 

may have enforcement, supervisory or 

licensing authority over the applicant, 

or other interest in matters relating to a 

NAL, in appropriate cases. The NAL 

Policy requires that NAL applicants 

provide information regarding relevant 

governmental investigations, licensing 

discipline, supervisory reviews, and 

enforcement actions, and this 

information may be a subject of 

discussions by Bureau staff with other 

governmental agencies. If an applicant 

is a depository institution, it should 

anticipate that Bureau staff may 

communicate with the applicant’s 

primary federal prudential regulator and 

appropriate state regulators in 

evaluating issuance of a NAL. 

While the Bureau may, in some 

circumstances, have the authority to 

issue waivers of otherwise-applicable 

legal requirements, or to establish 

definitive interpretations of legal 

requirements, or take similar actions, 

NALs issued under today’s Policy are 

limited to a statement by Bureau staff 

that it does not intend to recommend 

enforcement or supervisory action by 

the Bureau. As such, they are not 

intended to bind other agencies. Other 

agencies will remain free to make 

independent determinations concerning 

their respective authorities and 

concerns. As discussed above, the 

Bureau will continue to evaluate its 

existing guidance tools and other 

guidance tools available to it, and 

nothing in today’s Policy rules out or 

otherwise addresses other actions that 

the Bureau may take, for example to 

issue waivers, identify exceptions, 

provide interpretations, or undertake 

other regulatory relief, in appropriate 

circumstances. 

C. NALs Concerning UDAAPs 

The Proposed Policy indicated that 

Bureau staff would presumptively not 

issue NALs where the request concerns 

a legal or product environment that the 

staff considers to be inappropriate for 

no-action treatment, and provided the 

example that, at the present time, the 

staff does not anticipate no-action 

treatment of unfair, deceptive, or 

abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) 

matters. The Bureau received two types 

of comments regarding this statement 

about UDAAP matters in the Proposed 

Policy. First, two industry commenters 

made the point that a NAL would have 

little utility if it did not include some 

assurance that the Bureau would not 

pursue a UDAAP claim against the 

requester for offering the same product 

addressed in the letter. Second, several 

industry commenters more generally 

urged that UDAAP matters should not 

be categorically ruled out, and that 

UDAAPs may be particularly important 

areas of NAL treatment. 

The statement in the Proposed Policy 

was not directed at the ‘‘follow on’’ 

UDAAP concern raised by the first type 

of comment. As detailed in Section C of 

the Policy, in deciding whether to 

provide a NAL, staff considerations will 

include, among other things: 

• ‘‘The extent to which the 

requester’s product structure, terms and 

conditions, and disclosures to and 

agreements with consumers enable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 8689 

consumers to meaningfully understand 

and appreciate the terms, 

characteristics, costs, benefits, and risks 

associated with the product, and to act 

effectively to protect themselves from 

unnecessary cost and risk’’; 

• ‘‘The extent to which evidence, 

including the requester’s own testing, 

indicates that the product’s aspects in 

question may provide substantial 

benefits to consumers’’; and 

• ‘‘The extent to which the requester 

controls for and effectively addresses 

and mitigates risks to consumers.’’ 

Given that a NAL will be based, in 

part, on such factors, it is highly 

unlikely that staff would first provide a 

NAL—which would include a statement 

that staff has no present intention to 

recommend initiation of an enforcement 

or supervisory action against the 

requester in respect to the particular 

aspects of its product under the specific 

identified provisions and applications 

of statutes or regulations that are the 

subject of the NAL—and then 

recommend initiation of such action in 

respect to those same particular aspects 

of its product under the Bureau’s 

UDAAP authority in the absence of new 

facts or circumstances. For example, if 

staff provided a NAL in response to a 

request stating that there was substantial 

uncertainty regarding whether 

particular disclosures comply with 

TILA and Regulation Z, the requester 

could expect that staff would not then 

recommend an enforcement or 

supervisory action on the basis that 

those same disclosures were deceptive 

under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031— 

except in the absence of new or 

extraordinary circumstances. At the 

same time, a grant of NAL treatment 

respecting a particular aspect of a 

product should not be understood to 

excuse potential UDAAP violations that 

might arise from other aspects of the 

product, such as marketing or operation 

that were not addressed in the NAL 

letter or stem from subsequent changes 

in the product. 

The Bureau also recognizes the 

perspective behind the second type of 

comment. The Bureau’s statement about 

UDAAP matters in the Proposed Policy 

was based primarily on two 

considerations. First, evaluation of 

whether an act or practice constitutes a 

UDAAP is typically an intensively 

factual question that requires detailed 

consideration of a wide range of 

potentially relevant circumstances. 

Such evaluations can be more 

complicated, and uncertain, than 

evaluation of an act or practice with 

respect to a regulatory or statutory 

provision that is drawn more narrowly 

and precisely than the statutory UDAAP 

prohibitions. This complexity may be 

especially pertinent in the context of 

requests for NAL treatment under the 

Policy, which are limited to instances in 

which there is substantial uncertainty 

regarding whether the particular aspects 

of the product identified in the request 

are unfair, deceptive, or abusive. 

Second, as noted in the Proposed 

Policy, the Bureau has quite limited 

resources to devote to consideration and 

issuance of NALs at this time. The 

Bureau is concerned that devoting 

attention to UDAAP-focused NAL 

requests could misallocate its resources 

away from more narrowly-focused cases 

that are more likely to be workable NAL 

candidates. However, the Bureau need 

not make a categorical determination at 

this time. 

Accordingly, the example in Section 

B of the Proposed Policy regarding 

UDAAP matters has been deleted from 

the Policy. The Bureau cautions, 

however, that this change should not be 

interpreted as portending the issuance 

of a significant volume of such UDAAPfocused NALs. As noted in the Proposed 

Policy and elsewhere in this Final 

Policy Statement, the Bureau anticipates 

that NALs will be provided rarely 

because they require a thorough and 

persuasive demonstration of the 

appropriateness of NAL treatment. The 

considerations referred to above are 

likely to mean that UDAAP-focused 

NALs will be particularly uncommon. 

D. Timetable for Issuance of a NAL 

Several industry commenters 

suggested that the Bureau adopt a 

specific timetable for approval or denial 

of a NAL once an application has been 

submitted. These commenters generally 

expressed a view that prescriptive 

timetables on the order of 45, 60, or 90 

days are necessary in order to 

accommodate the rapid development 

processes of novel products. At the 

same time, a number of industry 

commenters, including some of those 

urging prescribed timetables for action 

on applications, expressed the view that 

it is important that prospective 

applicants have an opportunity to 

confer informally with Bureau staff 

before making an application, in order 

to align expectations and to allow for 

development and adjustments before 

making any formal application. 

Although Bureau staff will make 

reasonable efforts to respond to 

applications in a timely manner, the 

Bureau has not included any strict 

timetable in the Policy. If the NAL 

process does not reach a conclusion that 

is in keeping with an innovator’s timing 

or other needs, an innovator may 

withdraw its application and proceed as 

it considers appropriate with respect to 

its product without a NAL. Because 

NAL applications are expected to be 

individualized events on the part of the 

applicant and Bureau staff involving 

novel products, because product 

changes may continue during the NAL 

process, and because the Bureau does 

not yet have concrete experience in 

processing NAL applications, the 

Bureau is not prepared to prescribe a 

prescriptive timetable by which an 

application must be resolved. As noted 

in footnote 7 of the Policy, innovators 

are encouraged to contact staff for 

informal preliminary discussion in 

advance of filing an application for a 

NAL. Such discussions are expected to 

address the potential applicant’s 

product development plans, 

information-sharing, any anticipated 

complications in the NAL process, and 

anticipated timetables in light of such 

considerations. 

E. Information To Be Included in 

Applications 

Several industry representatives 

criticized the Proposed Policy as 

requiring applicants to provide an 

unduly burdensome volume of 

information. Some commenters 

suggested that information requirements 

be minimized specifically for smaller 

organizations that may have relatively 

fewer resources to devote to the NAL 

process. A number of commenters 

requested changes in the Proposed 

Policy’s requirements that applicants 

identify the particular provisions of 

statutes or regulations about which NAL 

treatment is being requested, state why 

NAL treatment is necessary and 

appropriate to remove substantial 

regulatory uncertainty, and provide a 

candid explanation of potential 

consumer risks. In addition to asserting 

that it would be burdensome to provide 

such information, commenters 

expressed concern that providing 

information along these lines could 

have the effect of requiring applicants to 

target their products for third-party 

challenge if a NAL application is made 

public. 

The Bureau has not changed these 

information requirements in the Policy 

in response to these comments. 

Whenever any conscientious firm, large 

or small, intends to launch a consumer 

financial product that raises substantial 

regulatory questions, the Bureau expects 

that the firm would on its own, as a 

matter of its compliance obligations 

wholly apart from a NAL application, 

undertake carefully to identify and 

evaluate the consumer risks, regulatory 

issues, and other matters the Policy 

requires a NAL application to address. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

8690 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 

In this respect, the Bureau does not 

expect the Policy to involve substantial 

additional information-gathering 

burdens. While the Bureau understands 

that some innovators find it burdensome 

to undertake their own assessment of 

applicable regulatory and other legal 

obligations, consumer impacts that their 

products might create, and other 

relevant matters, the Bureau is not in a 

position, through its NAL policy, to 

perform these compliance obligations 

for industry members. 

The Bureau’s intention is to devote its 

NAL resources at this time to addressing 

instances in which substantial 

uncertainty in the statutes and 

regulations that are within its 

jurisdiction are creating a barrier to 

bringing consumer-beneficial products 

to market. If an applicant cannot 

identify its product as presenting such 

a case, or if the applicant does not 

intend to be candid in its request and 

related communications, the Bureau’s 

resources can more usefully be focused 

elsewhere. To be clear, firms are not 

required to seek NAL treatment before 

launching a product. Moreover, in 

identifying areas of regulatory 

uncertainty an applicant is not required 

to concede that its product contravenes 

any requirement. On the contrary, the 

Policy explicitly calls on the applicant 

to explain why it believes its product 

should not be treated as subject to or 

precluded by pertinent statutes and 

regulations as properly understood and 

applied. If a prospective applicant 

believes that information regarding its 

product requires confidential 

protection, informal advance discussion 

with the staff can explore what 

particular information and detail is 

necessary to be included in an 

application, the timing of NAL issuance, 

and how best to protect proprietary 

matter. In addition, section A.15 of the 

Policy provides that an application may 

include a request for confidential 

treatment of certain information. If a 

NAL is issued, it may be unavoidable 

that its publication will, to some extent, 

publicly identify aspects of regulatory 

uncertainty that are involved, but the 

Bureau believes that such transparency 

to industry and consumers is a critical 

value to be served by the NAL process. 

F. Public Comment on NALs 

Some commenters in the consumer 

advocacy community requested that the 

Bureau modify the Proposed Policy to 

provide that any NAL will be subject to 

a 30-day notice-and-comment period, 

preferably in advance of NAL issuance. 

These commenters asserted that such a 

process is advisable to balance an 

applicant’s self-interested submissions 

by bringing to bear other viewpoints 

through a public process. 

The Bureau declines to adopt the 

comment period suggestion. Comment 

periods are not typical of other agencies’ 

no-action letter procedures. The Bureau 

believes that imposing such a comment 

period requirement in advance of 

issuance would unnecessarily 

discourage NAL applications and delay 

the NAL process, inhibiting the 

intended benefits of the Policy. Staff has 

the ability to conduct outreach to the 

public as needed to obtain input on a 

variety of regulatory matters, which 

includes issues pertaining to NAL 

requests. Staff also intends to monitor 

products that are the subject of NALs on 

an ongoing basis, including comments 

that may be received from the public 

following issuance of a NAL. This 

monitoring will not be confined to a 30- 

day or other prescribed period. 

G. Protection of Proprietary Information 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that publication of NALs, 

which would include publication of a 

version or summary of the application, 

may compromise entities’ proprietary 

business information or trade secrets. 

Some commenters raised a concern that, 

if the Bureau were to deny a NAL 

application for innocuous reasons and 

announce the denial, it might cause 

injury to the applicant if it later 

introduced the subject product into the 

marketplace. Other commenters, 

including industry commenters, 

specifically encouraged routine 

publication so that industry members 

will have insight into the Bureau staff’s 

perspectives. 

The Bureau considers that publication 

of NALs issued by staff is an important 

aspect of the Bureau’s transparency 

principles. The released version or 

summary of the application and the 

terms of the NAL will provide relevant 

and potentially important information 

to consumers and industry concerning 

the new product and Bureau staff’s 

perspective. In general, the consumerfacing characteristics of the product 

involved will become known to the 

market at the time of product launch in 

any event. The Policy does not specify 

the timing for the Bureau’s NAL 

publication. To the extent that a 

potential applicant has concerns 

regarding the public release of particular 

information, Bureau staff plans to confer 

with the applicant, in advance of a 

submission or later, to discuss whether 

the information is necessary to submit 

as part of the application or otherwise, 

redaction from any documents to be 

released publicly, timing of any release, 

application of the Bureau’s rule 

concerning Disclosure of Records and 

Information, 12 CFR part 1070, and 

other relevant matters. 

Denials of a request for a NAL 

generally would not be published. 

However, because a circumstance may 

arise in which publication of a denial 

would be in the public interest, the 

Policy does not categorically rule out 

publication of denials. 

The finalized Policy makes one 

editing change with respect to 

publication of NALs and applications, 

to conform section D of the Policy to the 

wording of section B of the Policy with 

respect to publication of a ‘‘a version or 

summary of’’ the request. 

H. Modification or Revocation of NALs 

Under the Policy, a NAL is subject to 

subsequent revocation or modification 

in the discretion of Bureau staff, and 

may be immediate upon notice. 

Revocation or modification of a NAL 

does not itself constitute a 

determination that a product violates 

any regulatory requirement or that the 

firm must withdraw the product from 

the market. Obviously, however, 

modification or revocation reflects a 

change in facts, circumstances, or 

outlook on the part of Bureau staff. 

Some industry and consumer 

commenters urged the Bureau to adopt 

procedural protections around the 

revocation/modification process, 

including suggesting that the Bureau 

communicate with recipients prior to 

revocation or modification, and that it 

provide a grace period to allow 

recipients to modify or cease relevant 

policies or practices. 

In response, the Bureau has added a 

statement to section D.6 of the Policy 

concerning revocations or modifications 

initiated by staff. Unless there is a 

reason not to do so in a particular case, 

before determining to revoke or modify 

a NAL, Bureau staff plans to 

communicate with the requesting entity 

(or entities) regarding the grounds for 

potential revocation or modification and 

permit an opportunity to respond. If 

staff revokes or modifies a NAL, it 

intends to do so in writing. Staff plans 

to make revocations and modifications 

public. 

I. Limitation to Emerging Products 

Involving Substantial Regulatory 

Uncertainty 

Several commenters suggested that 

the Bureau not limit NALs to instances 

of emerging products, or that it not limit 

NALs to instances of substantial 

regulatory uncertainty. These 

commenters advocated that the Bureau 

provide NALs dealing with products 

that are already established and/or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 8691 

where there is no substantial regulatory 

uncertainty. The Bureau does not 

believe such a change to the Policy is 

desirable at this time. The Bureau’s 

resources available to devote to NALs 

are limited, and the Bureau considers it 

desirable to focus these resources at this 

time on reducing barriers to innovation. 

If a product is already established in the 

marketplace, or if there are no 

substantial regulatory uncertainties 

interfering with its development, then 

Bureau resources for reducing barriers 

to innovation would be better allocated 

to other NAL cases, or to other efforts. 

J. Potential Risks and Benefits to 

Consumers 

Some consumer advocates urged the 

Bureau to revise the Proposed Policy to 

specifically limit NALs to products 

where staff is convinced that the 

product will clearly not involve any risk 

to consumers. Reflecting a different 

perspective, a number of industry 

commenters urged that the Bureau 

eliminate the requirement that a 

proposed NAL product promise 

substantial benefits to consumers. Some 

of these commenters considered that 

application of the ‘‘substantial benefits’’ 

standard would involve the Bureau in 

inappropriately choosing winners and 

losers, and some expressed the view 

that assessment of substantial benefits 

was unknowable for new products or 

unduly subjective. 

The finalized Policy has not 

incorporated the changes advocated by 

either of these two perspectives. The 

Bureau believes that its Policy has 

appropriately articulated requirements 

with respect to both risks and benefits. 

The Policy specifically requires an 

applicant to candidly disclose potential 

consumer risk information, and 

establishes that NAL applications would 

be assessed on the basis of such risks 

and how they may be effectively 

addressed and mitigated. In addition, 

issuance of a NAL may be conditioned 

on the provision of future data to enable 

Bureau staff to monitor ongoing risk and 

respond as necessary. A firm is not 

required to obtain a NAL in order to 

launch a product. But issuance of NALs 

is committed to the discretion of Bureau 

staff, and the Policy appropriately 

requires an applicant to identify 

anticipated consumer benefits so that 

Bureau staff can evaluate whether the 

request merits the diversion of the 

Bureau’s limited resources away from 

other important consumer protection 

work. 

K. Denials of NAL Requests and 

Publication of Denials 

Under the Policy, decisions whether 

to issue a NAL are committed to the 

discretion of Bureau staff. Section B of 

the Policy describes the categories of 

formal responses that the staff expects 

normally to use in response to a request 

(granting, denying, or declining to grant 

or deny, the request). Section C of the 

Policy identifies 10 factors that, among 

others, staff plans to consider in 

deciding whether to issue a NAL. 

Several commenters suggested that the 

Proposed Policy be amended to 

prescribe that staff elaborate specific 

reasons when it determines that a 

particular application for a NAL will not 

be granted. The principal point 

advanced in favor of requiring such a 

statement of reasons is that it would 

provide substantive guidance to 

industry regarding Bureau analysis of 

regulatory issues. Some other 

commenters suggested that all denials 

be made public. Relatedly, some 

commenters interpreted section B of the 

Proposed Policy to mean that, in some 

cases, the Bureau would not 

communicate in any way with the 

requesting entity. 

The Bureau does not agree that it 

would be advisable to require staff to 

provide specific reasons for declining to 

provide NALs, or that denials generally 

should be made public. Publishing such 

statements regarding denials is not 

typical of no-action letter programs of 

other agencies, and the Bureau does not 

believe that providing such statements 

about denials would be a productive 

method of industry or public guidance, 

when weighed against the burden on 

Bureau resources that would be 

involved. The Bureau has limited 

resources to devote to NALs, and it 

believes that those resources are best 

focused on the work required to grant 

NALs when appropriate and to monitor 

those that are granted. As noted 

elsewhere, individual applicants are 

advised to contact staff in advance for 

informal discussion before committing 

significant effort toward a potential NAL 

application. In the unusual case in 

which none of the types of responses 

described in Part B of the Policy is 

provided, the staff plans to notify the 

requester that its response has been 

received and that staff has decided not 

to provide a response that corresponds 

to one of the types described in Part B 

of the Policy. 

L. Anticipated Volume of NALs 

As stated in the Proposed Policy, the 

Bureau anticipates that NALs would be 

provided only on the basis of 

exceptional circumstances and a 

thorough and persuasive demonstration 

of the appropriateness of such 

treatment. Several commenters 

expressed dissatisfaction that NALs are 

likely to be rarely issued, and urged that 

the Bureau should make NALs more 

widely available, recognizing that they 

may later be withdrawn if necessary. 

Bureau staff currently devotes 

considerable effort to maintaining 

ongoing communication with financial 

services product developers and other 

industry members, including concrete 

informal discussions about forthcoming 

innovations and regulatory 

considerations. Based on this 

experience, the Bureau estimates that, 

realistically, it will on average receive 

one to three actionable applications per 

year. If the volume of viable 

applications exceeds this volume, the 

Bureau will work to accommodate the 

need. The Policy anticipates that staff 

would provide no-action treatment only 

on a thorough-and-persuasive 

demonstration that the relevant criteria, 

as specified in the Policy, are met. That 

NALs may be withdrawn at a later stage 

is not, in the Bureau’s view, a 

justification to provide no-action 

treatment based on unrefined product 

concepts, inadequate information, or 

incomplete attention by an applicant to 

regulatory requirements or mitigation of 

consumer protection risks. 

M. Covering Third Parties 

Some commenters urged the Bureau 

to address no-action protection of third 

parties that may be associated with an 

applicant’s product, such as firms that 

provide functions that are integrated 

with the product’s operation or 

distribution, or provide ancillary 

products or services. A product 

developer seeking NAL treatment may 

not intend itself to be the provider of 

that product to consumers, or may 

depend on other firms as service 

providers or in other ways. These other 

firms may be reluctant to participate in 

the commercialization of the product if 

they lack NAL protection, but for a 

variety of legitimate commercial reasons 

they may not be identifiable at the time 

of the NAL application or issuance. 

Some commenters also urged the 

Bureau to allow trade associations to 

submit requests on behalf of their 

members. 

The Bureau is sympathetic to the 

complications described. The Policy 

envisions that a NAL application may 

be submitted jointly by multiple firms, 

which may ease some of these 

complications. The Bureau is not, 

however, willing to grant NAL treatment 

to a firm that is not identified in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

8692 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 

4 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). 

5 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(5). As used in this Policy, the 

term ‘‘product(s)’’ means ‘‘product(s) and services’’ 

or ‘‘products or service(s),’’ as appropriate. 

6The Policy and any No-Action Letter is not 

intended to, nor should it be construed to: (1) 

Restrict or limit in any way the Bureau’s discretion 

in exercising its authorities, including the provision 

of no-action or similar relief other than pursuant to 

the Policy; (2) constitute an interpretation of law; 

or (3) create or confer upon any covered person 

(including one who is the subject of the Bureau 

supervisory, investigation, or enforcement activity) 

or consumer, any substantive or procedural rights 

or defenses that are enforceable in any manner. 

application process and has not agreed 

to the affirmations and undertakings 

specified by the Policy (such as 

affirmations regarding the accuracy of 

information presented about the product 

and the firm, undertakings to provide 

additional information, and descriptions 

of safeguards the applicant will 

employ). The Bureau envisions that, in 

many cases, a firm that comes to be 

involved in the provision of a product, 

though not itself the applicant covered 

by a NAL, will draw sufficient comfort 

from a NAL issued to the identified 

applicant. Where this is not so, Bureau 

staff will be available to confer with the 

applicant, and the other firm(s), 

regarding the reasons why the other 

firm(s) were not co-applicants, whether 

an issued NAL may be modified, and 

other possible approaches to the 

situation. For similar reasons, the 

Bureau is not willing to grant NAL 

treatment to trade associations on behalf 

of their members. 

N. Limitations on Quantity of 

Transactions or Period of Time 

Some commenters sought clarification 

regarding the Proposed Policy’s 

anticipation that a NAL may be subject 

to time limitations or limitations on the 

quantity of transactions. The Policy, 

which is slightly revised on this point 

for clarity, provides that a NAL issued 

by Bureau staff will generally include a 

description of any conditions or 

limitations attending no-action 

treatment, such as the requester’s 

undertaking to provide additional 

safeguards to consumers, or to share 

certain types of data with the Bureau, as 

well as any limitations as to time period 

or quantity of transactions. These NAL 

terms will be informed by commitments 

identified in the application and by 

staff’s evaluation of consumer risks. The 

Bureau expects such considerations to 

be taken into account on a case-by-case 

basis. If a NAL application is based on 

uncertainty regarding a particular 

regulatory safeguard, for example, the 

applicant may find it appropriate to 

introduce a different method to 

safeguard comparable consumer 

protection concerns. If an applicant 

intends to test its product in a particular 

way, and review consumer data arising 

from the test, the applicant may suggest 

limiting the NAL to those terms as a 

factor in demonstrating limitations on 

consumer risks. If an applicant 

envisions the iterative development of a 

product, different limitations or 

safeguards may apply at successive 

stages of the development. 

IV. Regulatory Requirements 

This Policy on No-Action Letters 

constitutes an agency general statement 

of policy and/or a rule of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice 

exempt from the notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of 

proposed rulemaking is required, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act does not 

require an initial or final regulatory 

flexibility analysis.4

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

Federal agencies are generally required 

to seek the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for information 

collection requirements prior to 

implementation. Further, the Bureau 

may not conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information unless OMB approves the 

collection under the PRA and it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to comply 

with, or is subject to penalty for failure 

to comply with, a collection of 

information if the collection instrument 

does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. OMB has approved the 

collections of information contained 

this Policy. The OMB Number is 3170– 

0059 (Expiration Date: 02/28/2019). 

VI. Final Policy 

The text of the final Policy is as 

follows: 

POLICY ON NO-ACTION LETTERS 

Under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau’s 

objectives include ‘‘facilitating 

[consumer] access’’ to and ‘‘innovation’’ 

in markets for consumer financial 

products.5 The Bureau recognizes that, 

in certain circumstances, some may 

perceive that the current regulatory 

framework may hinder the development 

of innovative financial products that 

promise substantial consumer benefit 

because, for example, existing laws and 

rules did not contemplate specific 

products. In such circumstances, it may 

be substantially uncertain whether or 

how specific provisions of certain 

statutes and regulations should be 

applied to such a product—and thus 

whether the federal agency tasked with 

administering those portions of a statute 

or regulation may bring an enforcement 

or supervisory action against the 

developer of the product for failure to 

comply with those laws. Such 

regulatory uncertainty may discourage 

innovators from entering a market, or 

make it difficult for them to develop 

suitable products or attract sufficient 

investment or other support. 

Federal agencies can reduce such 

regulatory uncertainty in a variety of 

ways. For example, an agency may 

clarify the application of its statutes and 

regulations to the type of product in 

question—by rulemaking or by the 

issuance of less formal guidance. 

Alternatively, an agency may provide 

some form of notification that it does 

not intend to recommend initiation of 

an enforcement or supervisory action 

against an entity based on the 

application of specific identified 

provisions of statutes or regulations to 

its offering of a particular product. This 

Policy is concerned with the latter 

means of reducing regulatory 

uncertainty in limited circumstances. 

Pursuant to its authorities under the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is today 

releasing its Policy on No-Action Letters 

(Policy). Under the Policy, an entity 

may submit a request for a No-Action 

Letter from Bureau staff (staff). A NoAction Letter would include a statement 

that the staff has no present intention to 

recommend initiation of an enforcement 

or supervisory action against the 

requester with respect to particular 

aspects of its product, under specific 

identified provisions of statutes or 

regulations. Such a letter may be limited 

as to time, volume of transactions, or 

otherwise, and may be subject to 

potential renewal. Whether and how to 

provide a No-Action Letter or otherwise 

respond to such requests, including any 

limitations or conditions on acceptance, 

will be within the sole discretion of the 

staff. 

The Policy is intended to facilitate 

consumer access to innovative financial 

products that promise substantial 

benefit to consumers, taking into 

account other marketplace offerings, 

and also to enhance compliance with 

applicable federal consumer financial 

laws.6 By furnishing a dedicated 

mechanism through which substantial 

regulatory uncertainty can be reduced, 

the Policy is also intended to discourage 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 8693 

7The email subject line should begin ‘‘Request for 

No-Action Letter.’’ The Policy is one component of 

the Bureau’s Project Catalyst initiative, which 

invites organizations to bring innovation-related 

concerns to the Bureau’s attention at 

ProjectCatalyst@cfpb.gov. Innovators are advised to 

use the same Project Catalyst point of contact to 

initiate a preliminary discussion of a potential NoAction Letter. There are no formal submission 

requirements to request such a preliminary 

discussion. 

the offering of innovative consumerharmful financial products in such 

circumstances. In addition, because NoAction Letters often will be conditioned 

on specified consumer protection 

conditions designed to satisfy—or even 

exceed—applicable disclosure 

requirements and substantive 

protections, the Bureau expects the 

Policy to benefit consumers in further 

ways. The Bureau also expects the 

Policy to help further its consumer 

protection functions and objectives, 

including market monitoring and 

rulemaking, particularly when a NoAction Letter is conditioned on a 

commitment by the requester to share 

data about the product with the Bureau, 

or to engage in other consultation that 

may help inform Bureau decisions 

regarding whether to take further action 

in connection with the financial product 

in question. 

The Policy has five sections: 

• Section A describes information 

that should be included in requests for 

a No-Action Letter. 

• Section B describes types of 

responses the staff may provide to 

requests for a No-Action Letter. 

• Section C lists factors the staff may 

consider in deciding whether to provide 

a No-Action Letter. 

• Section D describes the general 

content and limitations of No-Action 

Letters. 

• Section E describes disclosure of 

data received from entities who have 

requested No-Action Letters. 

A. Submitting Requests for No-Action 

Letters 

Requests for a No-Action Letter 

should be submitted in writing via 

email to ProjectCatalyst@cfpb.gov.7

Submitted requests may be withdrawn 

by the requester at any time. 

Requests should include the 

following: 

1. The name(s) of the entity or entities 

and individual(s) requesting the NoAction Letter. 

2. A description of the consumer 

financial product involved, including: 

a. how the product functions, and the 

terms on which the product will be 

offered; 

b. the roles and relationships of all 

parties to transactions involving the 

product; and 

c. the manner in which it is offered to 

and used by consumers, including any 

consumer disclosures. 

3. The timetable on which the product 

is expected to be offered. No-Action 

Letters are not intended for either wellestablished products or purely 

hypothetical products that are not close 

to being able to be offered. 

4. An explanation of how the product 

is likely to provide substantial benefit to 

consumers differently from the present 

marketplace, and suggested metrics for 

evaluating whether such benefits are 

realized. 

5. A candid explanation of potential 

consumer risks posed by the product— 

particularly as compared to other 

products available in the marketplace— 

and undertakings by the requester to 

address and minimize such risks. 

6. A showing of why the requested 

No-Action Letter is necessary and 

appropriate to remove substantial 

regulatory uncertainty hindering the 

development of the product, including: 

a. Identification of each of the specific 

provisions of the statutes and 

regulations regarding which a NoAction Letter is being requested, and a 

showing how each of these specific 

provisions of the statute(s) and 

regulation(s) should be applied to the 

product is substantially uncertain, 

including analysis of the relevant legal 

authorities and policy considerations. 

b. A showing of why the product’s 

aspects in question should not be 

treated as subject to or precluded by the 

specific identified statute(s) and 

regulation(s), and/or how the proposed 

compliance of the product’s aspects in 

question with the specific identified 

statute(s) and regulation(s) is 

appropriate. 

c. A showing of the product’s 

compliance with other relevant federal 

and state regulatory requirements. 

d. A showing of why the substantial 

regulatory uncertainty that is the subject 

of the request cannot be effectively 

addressed through means other than the 

requested No-Action Letter, such as 

modification of the product. 

7. An affirmation that the facts and 

representations in the request are true 

and accurate. 

8. A commitment by the requester to 

provide information requested by the 

staff in its evaluation of the request. 

9. A description of data that the 

requester possesses, and data it intends 

to develop, pertaining to the factual 

bases cited in support of the request and 

a statement of any undertaking by the 

requester, if the request is granted, to 

share appropriate data regarding the 

product with the Bureau, including data 

regarding the impact of the product on 

consumers. This description should also 

address the requester’s intentions 

regarding consultation with the Bureau 

in its plans for development of 

additional data. 

10. Commitments that, if the request 

is granted, the requester will not 

represent that the Bureau or its staff has: 

(i) Licensed, authorized or endorsed the 

product, or its permissibility or 

appropriateness, in any way; (ii) 

determined, or provided an 

interpretation, that the product is or is 

not in compliance with legal or other 

requirements, or has been granted an 

exception, waiver, safe harbor, or 

comparable treatment; or (iii) granted 

No-Action Letter treatment with respect 

to any aspect of the requester’s offerings 

or any provision of law other than those 

expressly addressed in the No-Action 

Letter. 

11. An affirmation that, to the 

requester’s knowledge (except as 

specifically disclosed in the request), 

neither the requester nor any other party 

with substantial ties to transactions 

involving the product is the subject of 

an ongoing, imminent, or threatened 

governmental investigation, supervisory 

review, enforcement action, or private 

civil action respecting the product, or 

any related or similar product; and an 

undertaking promptly to notify the 

Bureau (unless the request for a NoAction Letter has been withdrawn or 

denied) of any such governmental 

investigation, supervisory review, 

enforcement action, or private civil 

action that is initiated or threatened. 

12. An affirmation that (except as 

specifically disclosed in the request) the 

principals of the requester have not 

been subject to license discipline, 

adverse supervisory action, or 

enforcement action with respect to any 

financial product, license, or transaction 

within the past ten years. 

13. A statement specifying whether 

the request is limited to a particular 

time period, to a particular volume of 

transactions, or to other limitations. 

14. A description of any particular 

consumer safeguards the requester will 

employ, although they may not be 

required by law, if a No-Action Letter is 

issued, including any mitigation of 

potential for or consequences of 

consumer injury. The description 

should specify the requester’s basis for 

asserting and considering that such 

safeguards are effective. The description 

should also address any future study the 

requester will undertake to further 

evaluate the effectiveness of such 

safeguards. 

15. If a request for confidential 

treatment is made, this request and the 

basis therefor should be included in a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

8694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 

8Type (i) responses are further discussed in 

Section D below. 

9The Bureau may publish a denial on its Web site 

if it believes that doing so is in the public interest. 

10 If the staff decides to provide a type (iii) 

response to the entity in such circumstances, the 

response would not be published on the Bureau’s 

Web site. 

11The decision whether to provide a No-Action 

Letter, and the terms on which it may be provided, 

are within the staff’s sole discretion. 

12This factor includes the extent to which the 

requester has plans in place for addressing 

unanticipated consumer harms caused by the 

product and the extent to which the entity 

possesses the resources to compensate injured 

consumers. 13 78 FR 64389 (Oct. 29, 2013). 

separate letter and submitted with the 

request for a No-Action Letter. 

Requesters are advised to specifically 

identify data that the Requester believes 

to be confidential supervisory 

information that should be shielded 

from public disclosure. 

B. Staff Response to Requests for NoAction Letters 

The decision whether to respond to a 

request for a No-Action Letter, and the 

nature of any response, is within the 

staff’s sole discretion. Depending on the 

circumstances, the staff may: (i) Grant 

the request (which grant may be partial, 

or may be subject to limitations or 

conditions); (ii) deny the request; (iii) 

specifically decline to either grant or 

deny the request, with an explanation; 

or (iv) specifically decline to either 

grant or deny the request, without 

explanation. The staff may, but is not 

required to, communicate with the 

requester before making any decision 

regarding whether and how to respond 

to the request to seek clarification or for 

other purposes. The staff may permit 

requests to be modified in the course of 

such communications. 

Type (i) responses, and a version or 

summary of the request, generally 

would be published on the Bureau’s 

Web site.8 Type (ii) responses generally 

would be provided to the requester but 

generally would not be published on the 

Bureau’s Web site.9 Type (iii) and (iv) 

responses generally would be provided 

to the requester and may be published 

on the Bureau’s Web site, particularly if 

the staff believes that the information 

will be in the public interest. 

Non-exclusive examples of 

circumstances under which the staff 

presumptively would provide only 

responses of type (iii) or (iv), or, where 

appropriate, no response at all, include: 

1. The requester or its principals are 

the subject of ongoing governmental law 

enforcement investigation, supervisory 

review, or enforcement action 

respecting the product or a related or 

similar product.10

2. The request concerns an area in 

which the Bureau is engaged in ongoing 

or anticipated rulemaking, supervisory, 

enforcement, or other initiatives. 

3. The request concerns matter that 

the staff considers to be inappropriate 

for no-action treatment. 

4. The staff has decided not to invest 

the Bureau resources that appear likely 

to be necessary to address the request 

adequately. 

No-Action Letters will not be 

routinely available. The Bureau 

anticipates that No-Action Letters will 

be provided rarely and on the basis of 

exceptional circumstances and a 

thorough and persuasive demonstration 

of the appropriateness of such 

treatment. Requesters do not have a 

legal entitlement to no-action treatment 

of regulatory uncertainties, and Bureau 

resources available for consideration of 

No-Action Letter requests are limited in 

light of other Bureau priorities. 

Requesters may wish to include in their 

submissions any particular reasons why 

their request should be considered by 

the Bureau to be a matter of special 

importance. 

C. Staff Assessment of Requests for NoAction Letters 

The staff considerations, in deciding 

whether to provide a No-Action 

Letter,11 include: 

1. The extent to which the requester’s 

product structure, terms and conditions, 

and disclosures to and agreements with 

consumers enable consumers to 

meaningfully understand and appreciate 

the terms, characteristics, costs, 

benefits, and risks associated with the 

product, and to act effectively to protect 

themselves from unnecessary cost and 

risk. 

2. The extent to which evidence, 

including the requester’s own testing, 

indicates that the product’s aspects in 

question may provide substantial 

benefits to consumers. 

3. The extent to which the asserted 

benefits to consumers are available in 

the marketplace from other products. 

4. The extent to which the requester 

controls for and effectively addresses 

and mitigates risks to consumers.12

5. The extent to which granting the 

request is necessary in order to reduce 

substantial regulatory uncertainty for 

the requester with respect to the 

requester’s product. 

6. The extent to which the substantial 

regulatory uncertainty identified by the 

requester may be better addressed 

through other regulatory means, such as 

Bureau rulemaking, other Bureau 

guidance, or provision of a waiver under 

the Bureau’s Policy to Encourage Trial 

Disclosure Programs.13

7. Whether the entity is demonstrably 

in compliance with other relevant 

federal and state regulatory 

requirements. 

8. The extent to which the request is 

sufficiently limited in time, volume of 

transactions, or otherwise, to allow the 

Bureau to learn about the product and 

the aspects in question while 

minimizing any consumer risk. 

9. The extent to which any data that 

the entity has provided and agrees to 

provide to the Bureau regarding the 

operation of the product’s aspects in 

question will be expected to further 

consumer protection. 

10. The extent to which public 

disclosure of relevant data may be 

permitted. 

D. Staff Provision of No-Action Letters 

When the staff decides to provide a 

No-Action Letter, it plans to publish the 

letter, along with a version or summary 

of the request, on the Bureau’s Web site. 

The expected contents of a No-Action 

Letter include the following: 

1. A statement that, subject to the 

conditions and limitations set forth, the 

staff has no present intention to 

recommend initiation of an enforcement 

or supervisory action against the 

requester in respect to the particular 

aspects of its product under the specific 

identified provisions and applications 

of statutes or regulations that are the 

subject of the No-Action Letter. The 

statement that the staff has no present 

intention to recommend initiation of an 

enforcement or supervisory action does 

not mean that the Bureau will not 

conduct supervisory activities or engage 

in enforcement investigation to evaluate 

the requester’s compliance with the 

terms of the No-Action Letter or to 

evaluate other matters. 

2. A statement that the no-action 

treatment is limited to the requester’s 

offering of the product’s aspects in 

question in the manner described, and 

that it does not pertain to (i) the 

requester for offering the product in a 

different manner; (ii) the requester for 

offering different products, or with 

respect to other provisions or 

applications of these or other statutes 

and regulations, or with respect to other 

aspects of the product; or (iii) any other 

person. 

3. A statement that the No-Action 

Letter is based on the facts stated and 

factual representations made in the 

request, and is contingent on the 

correctness of such facts and factual 

representations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2016 / Notices 8695 

14See 12 CFR part 1070. 

4. A statement (a) disclaiming any 

intention that the No-Action Letter 

constitutes a determination by the 

Bureau or its staff about, or is an 

interpretation of, or grants any 

exception, waiver, safe harbor, or 

similar treatment respecting the statutes 

and rules identified in the request, or 

their application to the product’s 

aspects in question, or otherwise 

constitutes an official expression of the 

Bureau’s views, and that any 

explanatory discussion should not be 

interpreted as such an interpretation, 

waiver, safe harbor, or the like, that is 

binding on the Bureau, and (b) that the 

staff is not necessarily in agreement 

with any legal or policy analysis, any 

interpretation of data, or any other 

matter, set forth in the request. 

5. A description of any conditions or 

limitation attending the No-Action 

Letter, such as the requester’s 

commitment to provide additional 

safeguards to consumers, or to share 

certain types of data with the Bureau, as 

well as any limitations as to time period 

or quantity of transactions. 

6. A statement that the No-Action 

Letter is subject to modification or 

revocation at any time at the discretion 

of the staff for any reason, including 

that: the facts and representations in the 

request appear to be materially 

inaccurate or uncertain; the requester 

fails to satisfy conditions or violates 

limitations specified in the No-Action 

Letter; the product or any of its material 

features, terms, or conditions, is altered; 

or the staff determines that such 

modification or revocation is 

appropriate to protect consumers or is 

otherwise in the public interest. Unless 

there is a reason not to do so in a 

particular case, staff plans to 

communicate with the requesting entity 

(or entities) regarding the grounds for 

potential revocation or modification in 

advance of a revocation or modification, 

and permit an opportunity to respond. 

When staff revokes or modifies a NoAction Letter, staff intends to do so in 

writing. Staff plans to make revocations 

and modifications public. 

7. A statement that the No-Action 

Letter is not issued by or on behalf of 

any other government agency or any 

other person, and is not intended to be 

honored or deferred to in any way by 

any court or any other government 

agency or person. 

8. A statement of any expiration date, 

or volume limitation, applicable to the 

No-Action Letter (and whether or not 

the requester may seek to renew the NoAction Letter). 

9. A statement that the No-Action 

Letter becomes inapplicable upon 

failure to adhere to the affirmations or 

undertakings made in the request or 

stated as conditions of the issuance of 

the letter. To the extent that the facts 

and representations in the request are 

materially inaccurate, or the requester 

fails to satisfy conditions or violates 

limitations specified in the No-Action 

Letter, and in other similar 

circumstances, the No-Action Letter is 

by its own terms inapplicable (even 

without modification or revocation) and 

the staff may recommend initiating a 

retrospective enforcement or 

supervisory action if appropriate. 

E. Bureau Disclosure of Entity Data 

The Bureau’s disclosure of a version 

or summary of the request and any data 

received from the requester in 

connection with a request for a NoAction Letter is governed by the 

Bureau’s rules regarding Disclosure of 

Records and Information.14 For 

example, 12 CFR 1070.14 generally 

requires the Bureau to make its records 

available to any person pursuant to a 

request that conforms to the rules and 

procedures of that section, subject to the 

application of the FOIA exemptions and 

exclusions. To the extent the Bureau 

affirmatively wishes to disclose such 

data, the terms of such disclosure will 

be consistent with applicable law and 

the Bureau’s own rules and may be 

specified in a separate agreement with 

the requester. Consistent with 

applicable law and its own rules, the 

Bureau will seek to redact data to 

protect consumers’ privacy interests. 

Dated: February 2, 2016. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02390 Filed 2–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0055] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request— 

Flammability Standards for Children’s 

Sleepwear 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) announces 

that the Commission has submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of 

approval of a collection of information 

associated with the Standard for the 

Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: 

Sizes 0 Through 6X (16 CFR part 1615); 

and the Standard for the Flammability 

of Children’s Sleepwear: Sizes 7 

Through 14 (16 CFR part 1616), 

approved previously under OMB 

Control No. 3041–0027. In the Federal 

Register of November 25, 2015 (80 FR 

73737), the CPSC published a notice to 

announce the agency’s intention to seek 

extension of approval of the collection 

of information. The Commission 

received no comments. Therefore, by 

publication of this notice, the 

Commission announces that CPSC has 

submitted to the OMB a request for 

extension of approval of that collection 

of information, without change. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

request for extension of approval of 

information collection requirements 

should be submitted by March 23, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments about 

this request by email: OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov or fax: 202– 

395–6881. Comments by mail should be 

sent to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for the CPSC, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503. In addition, written comments 

that are sent to OMB also should be 

submitted electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. 

CPSC–2012–0055. 

Title: Standard for the Flammability 

of Children’s Sleepwear: Sizes 0 through 

6X; and the Standard for the 

Flammability of Children’s Sleepwear: 

Sizes 7 through 14. 

OMB Number: 3041–0027. 

Type of Review: Renewal of 

collection. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Manufacturers and 

importers of children’s sleepwear. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

Based on a review of past firm 

inspections, and published industry 

information, approximately 50 large 

domestic companies manufacture most 

of the children’s sleepwear produced in 

the United States. In addition, there may 

be up to 1,000 small domestic producers 

of children’s sleepwear. Accordingly, 

there may be as many as 1,050 firms that 

manufacture children’s sleepwear in the 

United States. There are also 

approximately 4,500 importers (which 

may include some of the domestic 

manufacturers) that supply children’s 

sleepwear to the United States market. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES