InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC responds to CFPB RFI on CIDs
On March 27, the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) released its comment letter responding to the CFPB’s Request for Information (RFI) on Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) – the first RFI in a series seeking feedback on the CFPB’s operations (previously covered by InfoBytes here). According to the BCP, good government requires an agency to use restraint both when deciding to issue compulsory CIDs and when making specific demands, because courts are deferential to an agency’s request. The BCP emphasizes the need for a balance between the enforcement of laws by an agency and the potential burden on the party whom receives the demand.
The FTC response is notable as it is not common for a federal agency to submit comments to another agency’s RFI. However, as the BCP points out, the CFPB originally used the FTC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure as a model when establishing its CID process, and in July 2017, the BCP implemented several reforms to its consumer protection CID process. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) The comment letter notes the BCP’s belief that the reforms “have been quite successful in lessening burdens on recipients and improving transparency while continuing to allow the agency to obtain the information it needs to enforce the law.” In response to the CFPB’s specific requests, the BCP outlined its internal processes and provided the Bureau with specific recommendations, while recognizing the inherent differences in each agency’s authority, mission and organizational structure. The BCP recommendations include:
- Opening/closing investigations. Increase oversight by senior agency leadership with respect to the opening and closing of investigations by staff in the Office of Enforcement.
- Issuing CIDs. Delegate authority to issue CIDs to more senior officials (as opposed to the Deputy Assistant Directors of the Office of Enforcement) or to officials who are not directly involved in the investigation.
- Explaining purpose of investigation. Ratify the Bureau’s currently informal process of articulating a more specific purpose for the CID and using the CFPB’s “meet-and-confer” requirement under 12 C.F.R. § 1080.6(c) to constructively engage with the recipient to better improve their understanding of the CID’s purpose.
- Scope of requests. Use the meet-and-confer process to resolve or narrow concerns regarding potentially broad CID requests in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on the recipient and delays caused by a petition to limit or quash a CID.
- Incorporating certain Federal Rules by reference. For the taking of testimony of an entity and the handling inadvertent production of privileged information, publicly acknowledge the intent to follow the relevant standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.
- Rights afforded to individuals in investigational hearings. Continue to prevent witnesses from consulting with counsel while a question is pending and counsel from objecting to a question or instructing the witness not to answer (except with regard to privilege). The BCP stated that, in addition to being consistent with its rules, these limitations are “consistent with federal court practice and are appropriate given that the investigational hearing is part of the agency’s non-public investigation to determine whether a violation has occurred and whether an action would be in the public interest.”
- Response requirements. Consider streamlining guidelines for document submission of electronically stored information
As for the process for petitions to modify or set aside CIDs, without providing a specific recommendation to the Bureau, the BCP spent considerable time outlining certain outside criticisms of its own process, including that petitioners do not receive the BCP rely brief given to the assigned Commissioner in response to a petitions and that the Commissioner’s ruling on the petition is placed on the public record, revealing the underlying non-public investigation. The BCP defended these practices, emphasizing that the reply briefs contain protected information regarding the FTC’s internal investigation process and the burden to redact the information outweighs the minimal benefit to the petitioner. Additionally, the BCP stated that publicly disclosing the Comissioner’s ruling is consistent with ensuring the government is subject to the “watchful eye” of the public.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, all comments to the CFPB RFI are now due by April 26.
CFPB releases RFI on inherited rules, extends comment period for first three RFIs
On March 22, the CFPB released its ninth Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the Bureau’s operations. This RFI solicits public comment to assist the Bureau in deciding “whether it should amend the regulations or exercise the rulemaking authorities that it inherited from certain other Federal agencies.” Specifically, the Bureau is seeking feedback regarding its “Inherited Regulations” – the consumer financial laws that were previously vested in other federal agencies but were transferred to the CFPB assumed by the Dodd-Frank Act. The RFI seeks information related to all aspects of the Inherited Regulations, including (i) whether the Inherited Regulations should be tailored to an institution of a particular size or are incompatible with new technologies; (ii) changes the Bureau could make to the Inherited Regulations to more effectively meet the specific law’s statutory purpose; (iii) changes the Bureau could make to the Inherited Regulations to advance the statutory purposes stated in Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act; (iv) whether the Bureau should introduce pilots, field tests, demonstrations or other activities to better analyze the cost/benefits of potential Inherited Regulations; and (v) where the Bureau could exercise more of its rulemaking authority to better align with the objectives of the applicable consumer financial laws. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on March 26. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
On March 19, the CFPB extended the comment period of the first three RFIs released in the series to 90 days (previously covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here). The comment periods were originally set for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register but now the 90-day deadline applies to the following to match those of subsequent issuance:
- Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) – comments are now due by April 26
- Adjudication Proceedings – comments are now due by May 7
- Enforcement Process – comments are now due by May 14
CFPB releases RFI on adopted regulations and new rulemaking authorities
On March 14, the CFPB released its eighth Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the Bureau’s operations. This RFI solicits public comment to assist the Bureau in deciding “whether it should amend any rules it has issued since its creation or issue rules under new rulemaking authority provided for by the Dodd-Frank Act,” which the RFI defines as the Bureau’s “Adopted Regulations.” This RFI does not seek information related to the Bureau’s “Inherited Regulations” that have not yet been amended by the CFPB. Inherited Regulations are those promulgated under the consumer financial laws that were previously vested in other federal agencies but the Bureau assumed responsibility over through the Dodd-Frank Act.
The CFPB is requesting feedback regarding the content of all Adopted Regulations, except for its 2015 HMDA final rule (or its subsequent amendments) and its final rule addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other extensions of credit. Specifically, the RFI seeks information related to all aspects of the Adopted Regulations, including (i) whether the Adopted Regulations should be tailored to an institution of a particular size or are incompatible with new technologies; (ii) changes the Bureau could make to the Adopted Regulations to more effectively meet the specific law’s statutory purpose; (iii) changes the Bureau could make to the Adopted Regulations to advance the statutory purposes stated in Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act; (iv) whether the Bureau should introduce pilots, field tests, demonstrations or other activities to better analyze the cost/benefits of potential Adopted Regulations; and (v) where the Bureau could exercise more of its rulemaking authority to better align with the objectives of the applicable consumer financial laws. The Bureau also requested comment on aspects of the adopted regulations that should not be amended. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on March 19. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
CFPB releases RFI on rulemaking process
On March 7, the CFPB released its seventh Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the Bureau’s operations. This RFI solicits public comment regarding “the overall efficiency and effectiveness of its rulemaking processes.” The RFI emphasizes that the Bureau is not seeking information related to the particular content of any proposed or final rule—existing rules will be addresses in separate RFIs—or information related to elements of the rulemaking process which are required by law. Specifically, the RFI requests feedback regarding the discretionary aspects of the Bureau’s rulemaking processes, including (i) mechanisms (such as RFIs) the Bureau uses to gather information from stakeholders in advance of initiating a rulemaking; (ii) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process; (iii) the content and structure of notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs); (iv) the NPRM comment process, including time periods and feedback mechanisms; and (v) the content and structure of notices of final rules. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on March 9. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
Buckley Special Alert: Mulvaney says the CFPB will depend heavily on state Attorneys General for enforcement of consumer protection laws
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in a February 28 speech, outlined the Bureau’s overall direction and strategic priorities, and described plans to coordinate with state Attorneys General in enforcing federal consumer financial protection law. Mulvaney made the remarks in Washington, D.C., at the winter meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG).
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.If you have questions about the remarks or other related issues, please visit our State Attorneys General and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice pages, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
CFPB releases RFI on complaint reporting
On March 1, the CFPB released its sixth Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the bureau’s operations. This RFI solicits public comment regarding “potential changes that can be implemented to the Bureau’s public reporting practices of consumer complaint information.” Under the Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank), one of the Bureau’s primary functions is “collecting, investigating, and responding to consumer complaints.” Dodd-Frank requires the Bureau to annually report to Congress information and analysis of the consumer complaints it receives, and to include an analysis of complaints in its semi-annual reports to the president and certain congressional committees. In addition to its specific statutory obligations, the Bureau also produces monthly complaint reports, special edition complaint reports, and a variety of reports from the Bureau’s special population offices relating to consumer complaints.
The RFI broadly requests feedback on all aspects of consumer complaint reporting and publication practices but also highlights specific topics on which comment is requested, including suggestions consistent with the Bureau’s statutory obligations on (i) the frequency of complaint reporting; (ii) the data fields provided in the Consumer Complaint Database; (iii) whether the Bureau should supplement consumer complaints with observations of company responses to complaints; (iv) the inclusion of information related to product and service size and company share; and (v) whether companies should be notified of their inclusion in a public report prior to publication. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on March 7. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
CFPB releases RFI on external engagements
On February 21, the CFPB released its fifth Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the bureau’s operations. This RFI solicits public comment on how the Bureau can best “conduct future external engagements while continuing to achieve the Bureau’s statutory objectives.” According to the RFI, the Bureau’s “external engagements” are public and non-public meetings, including: field hearings, town halls, roundtables, and meetings of its advisory board and councils. The Bureau is required by the Dodd-Frank Act to have a Consumer Advisory Board. The Bureau has also chosen to form three advisory councils: the Community Bank Advisory Council, the Credit Union Advisory Council, and the Academic Research Council.
The RFI broadly requests feedback on all aspects of these external engagements but also highlights specific topics on which comment is requested, including (i) strategies for seeing feedback from diverse external stakeholders; (ii) information related to the methods, such as town halls and field hearings, the Bureau uses to receive feedback; (iii) the current process for transparency in the details of the events; (iv) strategies for promoting transparency while protecting confidential business information; and (v) other approaches not currently utilized by the Bureau. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on February 26. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
CFPB Succession: CFPB releases five-year strategic plan; Trump’s budget proposal suggests cuts
On February 12, the CFPB released its five-year strategic plan, which establishes the agency’s long-term strategic goals with corresponding objectives and achievement strategies. The strategic plan also introduces a new stated mission for the CFPB, which is based on Sections 1011(a) and 1013(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act:
“To regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws and to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions.”
The new mission focuses on regulation and education but is silent on enforcement, as compared to the Bureau’s previous mission:
“The CFPB helps consumer financial markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives.”
In addition to the mission, with the exception of the achievement strategies, the plan’s goals and corresponding objectives are all also restatements of various sections of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act. According to the plan, the Bureau will act with “humility and moderation” in achieving the three stated goals, which are:
- “Ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services.”
- “Implement and enforce the law consistently to ensure that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.”
- “Foster operational excellence through efficient and effective processes, governance and security of resources and information.”
Notable, are the strategies the Bureau has outlined to achieve its goals and objectives. Among others, these strategies include, (i) reviewing individual regulations for clarification opportunities and considering alternative approaches to regulation; (ii) enhancing institutional regulatory compliance to protect consumers from discrimination and UDAAP violations; (iii) focusing enforcement resources on institutions and product lines that pose the greatest risk to consumers; (iv) promoting the development of compliance technology solutions. The strategic plan also focuses on internal strategies to achieve the Bureau’s mission, such as, maintaining a responsive cybersecurity program and promoting budget discipline.
The final strategic plan is a significant rewrite of the draft strategic plan published in October 2017 under the Bureau’s previous leadership (covered by InfoBytes here). The final plan represents a “more coherent strategic direction” compared to the draft version, according to a letter written by acting Director Mick Mulvaney, which accompanies the final plan.
On the same day as the strategic plan was released, President Trump issued his 2019 budget proposal which outlines a plan to place the CFPB under the congressional appropriations process, cut the Bureau’s budget by more than $6 billion over 10 years, and restrict the Bureau’s enforcement authority of federal consumer financial laws. More InfoBytes details about the budget proposal are available here.
CFPB releases RFI on supervision process
On February 14, the CFPB released its fourth Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the Bureau’s operations. While prior RFIs have focused on various aspects of the Bureau’s enforcement process, this RFI solicits public comment on “how best to achieve meaningful burden reduction or other improvement to the processes used by the Bureau to supervise for compliance with Federal consumer financial law.” The RFI broadly requests feedback on all aspects of the supervision process but also highlights specific topics on which comment is requested, including (i) timing, frequency, and scope of examinations; (ii) timing and process of the pre-exam information request, including type and volume of information requested; (iii) effectiveness and accessibility of the CFPB exam manual; (iv) usefulness and content of the potential action and request for response (PARR) letter; (v) clarity and timing requirements associated with matters requiring attention (MRA), as well as the use of third parties to conduct assessments specified in MRAs; (vi) the Bureau’s provision of information about supervisory actions in its Supervisory Highlights publication; and (vii) how the Bureau should coordinate its supervisory activity with federal or state agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on February 20. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
CFPB Succession: Senators express concern over CFPB’s investigation into data breach; Otting praises Mulvaney; & more
On February 7, a bipartisan group of 32 senators wrote to the CFPB expressing concerns over reports that the Bureau may have halted an investigation into a large credit reporting agency’s significant data breach. The letter requests specific information related to agency’s oversight over the issue, such as, (i) whether the CFPB has stopped an on-going investigation into the data breach and if so, why; (ii) whether the CFPB intends to conduct on-site exams of the credit reporting agency at issue; and (iii) if an investigation is on-going, details related to the steps taken in that investigation. Additionally, on February 6, during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), Representative David Scott, D-Ga., addressed rumors that the CFPB has scaled back its investigation of a large credit reporting agency’s significant data breach. In response to Scott, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin noted that, while he has not done so yet, he intends to discuss the matter with acting Director Mulvaney and at FSOC. According to reports, a spokesperson for the Bureau noted that Mulvaney takes data security issues “very seriously” but that the Bureau does not comment on open enforcement or supervisory matters. It has also been reported that the CFPB may be deferring to the FTC’s on-going investigation.
Comptroller of the Currency, Joseph Otting, issued a statement on February 6 after meeting with Mulvaney about ways the CFPB and the OCC can work together to pursue each agency’s mission. Otting praised Mulvaney’s leadership of the agency and noted that the recent announcements regarding HMDA compliance and the payday rule reconsideration have “helped to reduce the burden on the banking system.” (Previously covered by InfoBytes here and here).
On the same day, the CFPB announced that Kirsten Sutton Mork was selected as the new chief of staff for the agency. Mork had been serving as staff director of the House Financial Services Committee under Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. Leandra English previously held the role of chief of staff, prior to her appointment as deputy director in late November. English’s litigation against the appointment of Mulvaney as acting director continues with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and oral arguments have been set for April 12.