CFPB Issues Request For Information About Guidance Materials

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced the latest in its Requests For Information seeking comments about different aspects of its operation. This time, the agency is looking for insight into its guidance materials and activities. This is the tenth of 12 such reviews that the CFPB plans to issue.

The other requests were on its civil investigative demand letter process, its administrative adjudication process, its enforcement process, its supervision program, how it conducts external engagements, how it manages its consumer complaint database, its rulemaking process, its adopted rules and rulemaking authority, and its inherited rules.

The remaining reviews will be on consumer education and consumer inquiries.

Among the areas the CFPB is seeking comment on are:

1. The preferred vehicle(s) for submitting inquiries (i.e., phone message, email, web form, or other specific vehicle).
2. Preferences regarding the responses to regulatory inquiries; the format and delivery method for the responses provided (i.e., oral response, email, or other format or delivery method); and the desired timing of the responses provided.
3. The relative value of responses to regulatory inquiries. In particular, the Bureau is interested in the tradeoffs between providing quick guidance orally to individuals through the Regulatory Inquiries Function and providing written guidance, which is generic and takes more time, but generally is more broadly accessible.
4. Whether the Bureau should, as a matter of practice, publish written responses to regulatory inquiries and, if so, consistent with law, the appropriate vehicle or platform for such publications, the desired frequency for publishing such responses, and the appropriate disclaimers to accompany such publications.
5. Additional ways that the Bureau can improve the Regulatory Inquiries Function, including improvements to the process for submitting inquiries, the process for receiving responses, the substance of responses, or the timing of responses.
6. The utility of the Bureau’s compliance guides and quick reference materials as well as potential areas for improvement, including:
   1. The scope of topics addressed and the format in which they are presented;
   2. The ease of navigation to materials on the Bureau’s website and to sections within the compliance guides or quick reference materials;
   3. The effectiveness of the Bureau’s use of the plain language writing style in the Small Entity Compliance Guides and quick reference materials to help make the rules more easily understandable; and
   4. The usefulness of the Bureau providing Small Entity Compliance Guides and quick reference materials when not legally required to do so (particularly for entities that do not meet the Small Business Administration’s definition of “small business.”).
7. The utility of the Bureau’s webinars as well as potential areas for improvement, including issues related to the website utilized for viewing; the format of the webinar guidance (i.e., question and answer format, explanatory format, or other formats); the supplemental materials (e.g., hyperlinked navigation tools, presentation slides, or other materials); and the ease with which topics of interest may be located within webinar materials.
8. For the identified types of regulatory implementation and compliance aids in questions six and seven, feedback on the delivery methods (e.g., provision on the Bureau’s website and email notifications to the appropriate email listserv), and the delivery method and timing for notifying stakeholders of the availability of new or amended materials.
9. The efficiency and effectiveness of providing guidance through the Bureau’s Official Interpretations.
10. Which types of standalone interpretive rules are most efficient and effective and, if any, with what frequency and through what processes the Bureau should amend the Official Interpretations to incorporate standalone interpretive guidance into the CFR.
11. Whether there are circumstances in which the Bureau should use the notice-and-comment process (even though not legally required) for standalone interpretive rules.
12. The timing, frequency, scope, and delivery method of SEFL guidance materials.
13. The benefits or drawbacks associated with the Bureau’s use of each particular type of SEFL guidance vehicle.
14. Other feedback or suggestions related to SEFL guidance materials.
15. The utility of FAQs. Specifically, comment is sought on the types of questions that are appropriately dealt with through FAQs rather than another instrument, and the mechanisms that the Bureau should use to identify and prioritize issues and topics that should be addressed using FAQs.
16. The potential utility of establishing an advisory opinion program that would provide interpretations, in addition to or instead of an FAQ program, including the particular scope and benefits of advisory opinions that would be distinct from generalized FAQs and the types of questions or issues that could or could not be appropriately dealt with by advisory opinions.
17. The potential benefits and costs of memorializing over time any interpretations reflected in advisory opinions or other standalone guidance documents in the Official Interpretations to the underlying regulations, after notice and comment.
18. The tradeoffs between issuing FAQs or advisory opinions quickly and issuing written guidance after notice and comment. With respect to FAQs or advisory opinions, commenters should include, where possible, suggestions on how best to mitigate risks to stakeholders (e.g., industry confusion, increased compliance costs, potential legal concerns) where there is a heightened risk that the Bureau may change its approach at a later date.
19. Other approaches, methods, or practices not currently employed by the Bureau that would enhance external stakeholders’ ability to comprehend, implement, or comply with statutes and regulations subject to the Bureau’s purview.The potential benefits and costs of memorializing over time any interpretations reflected in advisory opinions or other standalone guidance documents in the Official Interpretations to the underlying regulations, after notice and comment.
20. Taking into consideration the Bureau’s purposes for providing guidance as well as APA requirements discussed above, whether disclaimers are transparent, understandable, and appropriate to the type of guidance being provided.
21. Desired changes to the Bureau’s disclaimer language or approach to disclaimers generally, and whether other Federal agencies have adopted disclaimer language or approaches to disclaimers that would be useful to the Bureau.
22. The variety of Bureau disclaimers currently provided, and whether the Bureau should adopt a single, more generic disclaimer to be used in most instances.
23. Other feedback or suggestions related to the Bureau’s disclaimers.