Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and 77987

published in a notice in the Federal advisory opinion program (Pilot feedback received from external Register. Advisory Opinions program).1 This stakeholders in the 2018 Guidance RFI, (a) Initial guarantee fee. The Agency notice finalizes the Advisory Opinions encouraging the Bureau to provide will establish and charge an initial Proposal as the Advisory Opinions written guidance in cases of regulatory guarantee fee of up to one percent of the Policy (Advisory Opinions Policy). Part uncertainty. The final Advisory guarantee amount. For purposes of I provides some background on the Opinions Policy supersedes the pilot calculating this fee, the guarantee Bureau’s guidance functions and related Advisory Opinions Program.7 Similar to amount is the product of the percentage statutory authorities. Part II sets out the the advisory opinion programs of many of the guarantee times the initial final text of the Advisory Opinions other federal agencies, the Advisory principal amount of the guaranteed Policy. Part III reviews the comments Opinions Policy is intended to facilitate loan. received on the Advisory Opinions timely guidance by the Bureau that (b) Annual guarantee fee. An annual Proposal and describes the changes the enables compliance by resolving guarantee fee will be charged, as Bureau has made in the final Advisory outstanding regulatory uncertainty. The established by the Agency, each year or Opinions Policy. Parts IV through VI Advisory Opinions Policy supports the portion of a year that the guarantee is in address additional regulatory matters. Bureau’s statutory purpose of ensuring effect. This fee is due no later than I. Background consumers have access to markets for February 28, of each calendar year. consumer financial products and Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street * * * * * services, and that markets for consumer Reform and Act financial products and services are fair, Elizabeth Green, (Dodd-Frank Act),23 the Bureau’s transparent, and competitive.8 Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. ‘‘primary functions’’ include issuing [FR Doc. 2020–25822 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] guidance implementing Federal II. Final Text of the Advisory Opinions BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P consumer financial . Providing clear Policy and useful guidance to regulated entities is an important aspect of facilitating A. Overview BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL markets that serve consumers. The Bureau currently issues several The primary purpose of this Advisory PROTECTION types of guidance regarding the Opinions Policy is to establish procedures to facilitate the submission 12 CFR Chapter X that it administers, as well as implementing regulations and Official by interested parties of requests that the [Docket No. CFPB–2020–0019] Interpretations. For example, the Bureau Bureau issue advisory opinions and the issues ‘‘Compliance Aids’’ that present manner in which the Bureau will Advisory Opinions Policy legal requirements in a manner that is evaluate and respond to such requests. Advisory opinions will be interpretive AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial useful for compliance professionals, rules issued to resolve regulatory Protection. other industry stakeholders, and the uncertainty.9 ACTION: Procedural rule. public, or that include practical suggestions for how entities might B. Submission and Content of Requests SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer choose to comply with those Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing requirements.4 The Bureau also Requests for advisory opinions should its final Advisory Opinions Policy provides individualized be submitted via email to (Advisory Opinions Policy), which sets ‘‘implementation support’’ to regulated [email protected] or through forth procedures to facilitate the entities through its Regulatory Inquiries other means designated by the Bureau. submission by interested parties of Function (RIF).5 Neither Compliance The Bureau will not consider a request requests that the Bureau issue advisory Aids nor the RIF are intended to for an advisory opinion to be complete opinions, in the form of interpretive interpret ambiguities in legal unless the request includes all of the rules, to resolve regulatory uncertainty, requirements. The Bureau also may information specified in the following and the manner in which the Bureau issue interpretive rules, which provide paragraphs. will evaluate and respond to such guidance on the Bureau’s regulations or 1. Confidential information: The requests. governing statutes, and which in some request must identify information the situations may provide a safe harbor to requestor believes should be treated as DATES: The Advisory Opinions Policy regulated entities that are in compliance was applicable beginning November 30, 6 confidential. If the requestor would not with the Bureau’s interpretive rule. normally make the information public, 2020. The Bureau initiated its policy for the Bureau intends to withhold that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For issuing advisory opinions in response to additional information about the information from public disclosure to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Advisory Opinions Policy contact 1 See Advisory Opinions Pilot, 85 FR 37394 (June Jaydee DiGiovanni and Shelley 22, 2020). Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b), and Thompson, ; and Adetola 2 111–203, 124 stat. 2081 (2010). treat the information as confidential in 3 Adenuga, Regulatory Implementation See 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(5). accordance with the Bureau’s 4 See Policy Statement on Compliance Aids, 85 regulations on Disclosure of Records and Guidance Specialist, at 202–435– FR 4579 (Jan. 27, 2020). 7158. If you require this document in an 5 See Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 7 Because the Advisory Opinions Policy replaces alternative electronic format, please Request for Information Regarding Bureau Guidance the pilot, no further requests may be submitted for and Implementation Support (Guidance RFI), 83 FR contact [email protected]. the pilot as of November 30, 2020. Requests 13959, 13961–62 (Apr. 2, 2018). submitted under the pilot that are pending as of that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6 E.g., Treatment of Pandemic Relief Payments date will continue to be considered by the Bureau. 22, 2020, the Bureau published and Under E and Application of the 8 sought public comment on a proposal Compulsory Use Prohibition, 85 FR 23217 (Apr. 27, See 12 U.S.C. 5511(a). 9 For convenience, this document uses the term (Advisory Opinions Proposal) for a new 2020); Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Screening and Training Requirements for Mortgage Loan ‘‘regulatory uncertainty’’ to encompass uncertainty Bureau policy on advisory opinions and Originators with Temporary Authority, 84 FR 63791 with respect to regulatory or, where applicable, simultaneously launched a pilot (Nov. 19, 2019). statutory provisions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Dec 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 77988 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and Information.10 Requests should not uncertainty or ambiguity.12 Requestors requestor’s situation do not conform to include sensitive personal information, may also choose to offer additional the summary of material facts. such as account numbers or Social information, including, as applicable, an If a statutory safe harbor is applicable Security numbers, or names of explanation of the potential consumer to an advisory opinion, the advisory individuals. benefits and risks associated with opinion will explain that fact. The Truth 2. Identity of person or entity seeking resolution of the interpretive question in Lending Act (TILA), Equal Credit the advisory opinion. The request must and the proposed interpretation; and an Opportunity Act (ECOA), Electronic identify the person or entity seeking the explanation of how the proposed Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Real advisory opinion, as well as the identity interpretation relates to the Bureau’s Settlement Procedures Act of any person or entity submitting the statutory objectives.13 (RESPA) provide certain protections request on behalf of a third party (i.e., Alternatively, in some cases the from liability for acts or omissions done one or more clients or members). Bureau may decide to issue an advisory in good faith in conformity with an 17 Outside , a trade association, or opinion based on questions the Bureau interpretation by the Bureau. The Fair a consumer advocacy group, for receives from the public, through other Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) example, may submit requests for channels, that are not requests for contains similar protections, specifically 18 advisory opinions on behalf of one or advisory opinions.14 using the term ‘‘advisory opinion.’’ more clients or members, and those C. Characteristics of Advisory Opinions D. Factors in Bureau Selection of Topics entities do not need to be identified. for Advisory Opinions Advisory Opinions issued by the 3. Statement about the absence of Bureau under the Advisory Opinions The Bureau intends to consider the investigation or litigation. The request Policy will be interpretive rules under following factors as part of its must include a statement that the issue the Administrative Procedure Act consideration of whether to address on which the advisory opinion is being 19 (APA) 15 that respond to a specific need requests for advisory opinions. The requested is—or is not—the subject of for clarity on a statutory or regulatory Bureau will prioritize open questions if any known or reasonably knowable interpretive question. The Bureau will they are within the Bureau’s purview active litigation or Federal or State publish advisory opinions in the that can legally be addressed through an agency investigation. Additionally, if Federal Register and on interpretive rule and if an advisory the requestor is submitting a request on consumerfinance.gov, including a opinion is an appropriate tool relative to behalf of an unidentified third party, the summary of the material facts or other Bureau tools for answering the requestor must provide a statement that covered products and the Bureau’s legal question. Initial factors weighing for the the unidentified third party is—or is analysis of the issue. appropriateness of an advisory opinion not—the subject of an ongoing public Unless otherwise stated, each include: (1) The interpretive issue has Bureau enforcement action or an advisory opinion will be applicable to been noted during prior Bureau ongoing Bureau enforcement the requestor and to similarly situated examinations as one that might benefit investigation. parties to the extent that their situations from additional regulatory clarity; (2) 4. Specifics about the issue on which conform to the summary of material the issue is one of significant the advisory opinion is sought. The facts or coverage in the advisory importance or one whose clarification issue raised in the request must be opinion. The scope and terms of an would provide significant benefit; and/ within the Bureau’s purview,11 and the advisory opinion will be set out in the or (3) the issue concerns an ambiguity request must concern actual facts or a advisory opinion itself, and may deviate that the Bureau has not previously course of action that the requestor (or from the interpretation proposed by the addressed through an interpretive rule third party) is engaged in, or requestor in its submission.16 Moreover, or other authoritative source. Factors considering engaging in. The request the Bureau will not normally investigate weighing strongly for presumption that must set forth as completely as possible, the underlying facts of the requestor’s an advisory opinion is not an all material facts and circumstances, situation and, as a result, an advisory appropriate tool include: (1) The including detailed specification of the opinion may not be applicable to the interpretive issue is the subject of an legal question(s) and supporting facts requestor if the underlying facts of the ongoing Bureau investigation or with respect to which the requestor enforcement action; (2) the interpretive seeks an advisory opinion. The request 12 The responsive advisory opinion will not issue is the subject of an ongoing or must also identify the regulatory or necessarily adopt the requestor’s proposed planned ; (3) the issue is statutory provision at issue and the interpretation. The Bureau retains the discretion to better suited for notice-and-comment answer requests with its own interpretation rulemaking; (4) the issue could be potential uncertainty or ambiguity that regardless of the requestor’s proposed the proposed interpretation would interpretation. addressed more effectively through a address, provide a proposed 13 Requestors should describe relevant legal Compliance Aid or the RIF function; or interpretation of law or regulation, and provisions and arguments with as much specificity (5) there is clear existing Bureau or explain why the proposed interpretation as practicable. The Bureau recognizes that in some that is available to the cases, the requestor may lack the legal resources to public on the issue. is an appropriate resolution of that provide a detailed and complete showing. In such circumstances, the requestor should provide the The Bureau intends to further 10 12 CFR part 1070. maximum specification practicable under the evaluate requests for advisory opinions 11 Under title X of the Dodd-Frank Act (the circumstances and explain the limits on further Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010), the specification. 17 See 15 U.S.C. 1640(f) (TILA); 15 U.S.C. Bureau was created to regulate the offering and 14 In that situation, references in this Advisory 1691e(e) (ECOA); 15 U.S.C. 1693m(d) (EFTA); 12 provision of consumer financial products and Opinions Policy to the requestor or request are U.S.C. 2617, 12 CFR 1024.4 (RESPA). services under federal consumer financial . 12 inapplicable. Note that the Bureau may also issue 18 See 15 U.S.C. 1692(k)(e). U.S.C. 5881. The Act enumerates several consumer interpretive rules outside the framework of the 19 The following are factors that the Bureau laws under the Bureau’s (in part or Advisory Opinions Policy, including deciding to intends to weigh when deciding which topics to whole). 12 U.S.C. 5841(12). Note that the Bureau’s issue advisory opinions on its own initiative. prioritize in the Advisory Opinions Policy, based Regulation J provides a separate procedure for 15 5 U.S.C. 553(b). on all of the information available to the Bureau. advisory opinions regarding certain issues under 16 Thus, the initial request drafted by the Advisory opinion requests need not address these the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. See requestor is not necessarily a reliable guide to the factors in order to be fully considered by the 12 CFR 1010.17. scope and terms of the advisory opinion. Bureau.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Dec 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 77989

based on secondary factors, including: E. Public Input that will prevent consumer harm. If an Alignment with the Bureau’s statutory Advisory opinions will be issued and advisory opinion makes clear the law objectives; size of the benefit offered to final upon publication in the Federal does not apply, it will avoid regulated consumers by resolution of the Register. However, interested persons entities incurring unnecessary interpretive issue; known impact on the may provide input on published compliance costs. actions of other regulators; and impact advisory opinions at any time by C. of Advisory Opinions Policy on available Bureau resources. The sending an email to advisoryopinion@ The consumer advocacy group Bureau will primarily focus on the cfpb.gov or through other means comments stated that issuing following statutory objectives: (1) designated by the Bureau. The Bureau is interpretive rules in the form of Consumers are provided with timely particularly interested in input that addresses whether an advisory opinion advisory opinions are inconsistent with and understandable information to the APA and with the Bureau’s statutory make responsible decisions about would benefit from clarification or reconsideration, with information about authorities. The Bureau disagrees with financial transactions; (2) outdated, this assertion. As proposed, the advisory unnecessary, or unduly burdensome the factual or legal basis for clarification or reconsideration. opinions are interpretive rules under the regulations are regularly identified and APA.22 Nevertheless, the Bureau revised addressed in order to reduce III. Discussion of Comments and the phrase in the proposed Advisory unwarranted regulatory burdens; (3) Changes in the Final Advisory Opinions Opinions Policy that states that Federal consumer is Policy ‘‘substantive importance or impact’’ is enforced consistently, without regard to A. Overview one of a list of factors that the Bureau the status of a person as a depository intends to consider in part II.D so that institution, in order to promote fair The Bureau solicited comments on it reads ‘‘significant importance.’’ This competition; and (4) markets for the Advisory Opinions Proposal. The change is intended to address the Bureau received 16 unique comments, consumer financial products and commenter’s concern that the phrase 13 of which were submitted by industry services operate transparently and might be read to suggest that the Bureau trade associations. A consortium of 7 intends to issue advisory opinions that efficiently to facilitate access and consumer advocacy groups submitted a innovation.20 are substantive rules rather than joint comment letter. The remaining interpretive rules under the APA. The Bureau will focus primarily on comments were provided by staff of the clarifying ambiguities in its regulations, Administrative Conference of the D. Role of Public Input although Advisory Opinions may clarify United States (ACUS) and one The Bureau received a number of statutory ambiguities. The Bureau will anonymous submitter. The Bureau has comments from stakeholders expressing not issue advisory opinions on issues made certain changes to the Advisory interest in a mechanism for soliciting that require, or are better addressed Opinions Policy based on the public input on advisory opinions, through, a legislative rulemaking under comments, as discussed below, as well either before or after issuance. Some the APA.21 For example, the Bureau as other changes to the Advisory commenters advocated that the Bureau does not intend to issue an advisory Opinions Policy for clarity. obtain such input from the public before opinion that would change regulation B. General Comments issuing advisory opinions. The Bureau text or commentary. Similarly, if a notes that there is nothing in the Industry commenters uniformly Advisory Opinions Policy that would regulation or establishes a supported the Advisory Opinions general standard that can only be prevent the Bureau from soliciting input Proposal, as did the anonymous on a draft advisory opinion before applied through highly fact-intensive commenter. These commenters analysis, the Bureau does not intend to finalizing, if the Bureau believes it generally stated that the issuance by the would be appropriate for a given replace that analysis with a bright-line Bureau of advisory opinions could aid standard that eliminates all of the advisory opinion. However, the Bureau in compliance in situations where there declines to adopt this as a uniform required analysis. Highly fact-intensive are statutory and regulatory applications of general standards, such requirement for advisory opinions. Such uncertainties. Conversely, the joint a process is not typical of peer financial as the statutory prohibition on unfair, comment letter by certain consumer regulators’ advisory opinion policies.23 deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, advocacy groups generally opposed the It could unnecessarily delay the process pose particular challenges for issuing Advisory Opinions Proposal and argued of issuing advisory opinions, and thus advisory opinions, although there may that the Bureau should abandon it. The inhibit the ability of the Bureau to be times when the Bureau is able to Bureau has carefully considered this promptly provide clarity about its own offer advisory opinions that provide comment letter, but contrary to the regulations and the statutes that it additional clarity on the meaning of group’s assertions, and as discussed administers. such standards. below the Bureau concludes that issuing However, the Bureau does agree that interpretive rules in the form of providing a mechanism for the public to 20 See 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1), (3)–(5). The Bureau advisory opinions is consistent with the provide feedback after an advisory has a further statutory objective, that consumers are APA or with the Bureau’s statutory opinion is issued could be useful. protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts authorities. The Bureau also does not Accordingly, the Bureau has added new and practices and from discrimination. 12 U.S.C. agree that advisory opinions are not an 5511(b)(2). The Bureau considers this objective to part II.E to the Advisory Opinions be at least as important as its other objectives, and appropriate use of Bureau resources. Policy to provide that any person may it does not plan to issue an advisory opinion that Advisory opinions represent a comment on an advisory opinion via is in conflict with this objective. But because other commitment of resources by the Bureau email to [email protected] or regulatory tools are often more suitable for that will help entities better understand through other means designated by the addressing UDAAPs and discrimination, the Bureau their obligations under Federal has chosen not to highlight this objective as a primary focus when selecting issues for the consumer financial law. If an advisory 22 See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). Advisory Opinions Policy. opinion makes clear the law applies, it 23 E.g., 16 CFR 1.2–1.6 (Federal Trade 21 5 U.S.C. 553(b). will promote compliance with the law Commission).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Dec 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 77990 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Bureau. The Bureau encourages any if the requestor is submitting a request H. Rescission of Advisory Opinions stakeholders including, but not limited on behalf of an unidentified third party, to, industry representatives and the requestor must provide a statement It is, of course, possible that the consumer advocates, to submit such on whether the unidentified third party Bureau may decide it is appropriate to feedback in an instance where is the subject of an ongoing public rescind an advisory opinion. One stakeholders believe the Bureau should Bureau enforcement action or an commenter emphasized that, if an clarify or reconsider an advisory ongoing Bureau enforcement advisory opinion is rescinded, no action opinion. investigation conducted by the Bureau’s should be taken against those Office of Enforcement.24 This statement institutions who acted in good faith in E. Accuracy of Requests was in addition to the general accordance with the advisory opinion. Certain consumer advocacy group requirement that any requestor provide The Bureau notes that several statutes commenters expressed concern that the a statement of whether the issue on provide protections from liability for requestor’s presentation of the issue which the advisory opinion is being acts or omissions done in good faith in might be inaccurate or misleading. requested is the subject of any known or conformity with an interpretation by the However, the Bureau emphasizes that it reasonably knowable active litigation or Bureau, as detailed in the text of the expects requestors to provide truthful Federal or State agency investigations. Advisory Opinions Policy. And of submissions to the Bureau. While it is Trade association commenters generally course, in addition to any applicable possible that the submitting party may supported the Bureau’s proposal to safe harbors, the Bureau would not provide inaccurate or misleading facts, allow third parties to request advisory expect to retroactively impose doing so would put at great risk the opinions. These commenters stated that punishments on persons who benefit the requester might obtain from allowing third parties to facilitate conformed their conduct in good faith to an advisory opinion. The Advisory requests would increase access to an advisory opinion before the advisory Opinions Policy specifically explains advisory opinions, in particular for opinion was rescinded. Doing so would that ‘‘an advisory opinion may not be smaller entities that might otherwise raise serious concerns under the Due applicable to the requestor if the lack the resources to request an advisory Process Clause, which restricts such underlying facts of the requestor’s opinion. retroactive relief. situation do not conform to the Bureau’s Certain consumer advocacy groups summary of material facts’’ in the opposed the proposal to allow requests I. Confidentiality of Material in Advisory advisory opinion. The Bureau concludes on behalf of third parties. These Opinion Requests that this disincentive is sufficient to commenters argued that the Bureau address the concern commenters have would have insufficient details about Part II.B of the Advisory Opinions raised. For the same reason, the Bureau the underlying facts of the third party’s Proposal explained that where does not believe it is necessary to situation. The Bureau agrees that it is information submitted to the Bureau is require requestors to include an possible for requests on behalf of a third information the requestor would not affirmation that the information party, like any type of request, to normally make public, the Bureau provided is accurate, as some include insufficient facts for the Bureau intends to treat it as confidential commenters suggested. to reach a legal conclusion. However, pursuant to its rule, Disclosure of that would be a potential reason for Records and Information, to the extent F. Follow-Up by Requestors 26 denying an individual request, not applicable. Some commenters asked the Bureau entirely closing off this potential source Industry commenters were broadly to provide a mechanism for requestors of requests for advisory opinions. supportive of this approach. However, to modify or rescind pending advisory These commenters also asserted that certain consumer advocacy groups opinion requests. The Bureau notes that the Bureau must know the identity of asserted that this statement is in tension it would be consistent with the the third party in order to avoid with the Freedom of Information Act Advisory Opinions Policy for a interference with litigation or (FOIA). To be clear, the Bureau will requestor to amend or withdraw a enforcement-related proceedings. treat information that it receives in pending request. However, the Bureau concludes that the accordance with FOIA, including the If the Bureau informs a requestor that categorical, express representations that FOIA exemption at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) it has not chosen to issue an advisory the requestor would need to make under that applies to confidential business opinion, some commenters advocated the Advisory Opinions Policy are information. Information that is subject that the Bureau create a specific sufficient to alert the Bureau to those to a FOIA exemption also will be treated procedure for the requestor to appeal or proceedings of which the Bureau would request reconsideration of that decision. as confidential in accordance with the not otherwise be aware that are likely to Bureau’s rule on Disclosure of Records The Bureau does not believe adding a be relevant to a potential advisory specific procedure to address that and Information, 12 CFR part 1070. The opinion and about which further Bureau confidentiality assurance in the possibility is necessary, because the inquiry may be warranted. The Bureau Advisory Opinions Policy would allow proposed policy reflects the standard for is finalizing the required statements, determining applicability of the a requestor to renew its request a with non-substantive wording changes subsequent time if it wants to bring new exemption at 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), in part II.B of the Advisory Opinions established by the United States facts, law, or other considerations to the Policy.25 Bureau’s attention. Supreme Court in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media dba G. Third-Party Requests 24 85 FR 37394 (June 22, 2020). Argus Leader, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019). To 25 One commenter suggested that the Bureau Part II.B of the Advisory Opinions provide sample language that requestors can use make this clearer, the Bureau revises the Proposal stated that the Bureau would when making these required statements. The policy to state explicitly that the accept advisory opinion requests from Bureau has instead made non-substantive edits to information will be treated in how the required statements are set out in part II.B accordance with FOIA. trade associations, service providers, of the Advisory Opinions Policy, so that requestors and other third parties; however, the can choose to comply by using the applicable Advisory Opinions Proposal noted that language in the Advisory Opinions Policy verbatim. 26 12 CFR 1070.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Dec 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 233 / Thursday, December 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 77991

J. Other Comments on Specific The Bureau’s Advisory Opinions Boeing Company Model 787–8, 787–9, Implementation Issues Proposal, published June 22, 2020, and 787–10 airplanes. This AD requires The Bureau received comments on a sought comment on these information revising the existing airplane flight number of other subjects. These include collection requirements. While the manual (AFM) to incorporate comments on the structure of the Bureau received numerous comments procedures for conducting an approach Bureau’s internal deliberative process on the Advisory Opinions Proposal, with a localizer-based navigation aid, for considering advisory opinion which are addressed above, the Bureau monitoring localizer raw data, calling requests; timelines for deciding advisory received no comments specifically out any significant deviations, and opinion requests; details of how the regarding the burden estimates or the performing an immediate go around if Bureau should communicate with utility or appropriateness of these the airplane has not intercepted the requestors after the Bureau receives information collections. Additional final approach course as shown by the their requests, such as what the Bureau details on comments received can be localizer deviation. This AD was should say in the letters that it sends found in the Supporting Statement for prompted by reports that the autopilot the related 30-day notice published as flight director system (AFDS) failed to denying requests; general outreach that 30 commenters recommend that the Bureau required under the PRA. transition to the instrument landing A complete description of the conduct with outside bodies or groups; system localizer (LOC) beam after the information collection requirements, recommendations regarding the types of consistent localizer capture function in including the burden estimate methods, requests the Bureau should prioritize; the flight control modules initiated a is provided in the information and details of how the Bureau should transition to capture LOC during collection request (ICR) that the Bureau post advisory opinions on its website. approach. The FAA is issuing this AD submitted to OMB under the to address the unsafe condition on these The Bureau appreciates receiving requirements of the PRA. The ICR products. commenters’ views on all aspects of the submitted to OMB requesting approval program. However, the Bureau has DATES: This AD is effective December under the PRA for the information decided not to expand the scope of the 18, 2020. collection requirements contained Advisory Opinions Policy, which is The FAA must receive comments on herein is available at OMB’s public- intended to establish the general this AD by January 19, 2021. facing docket at https:// procedures of the program, to cover ADDRESSES: You may send comments, www.reginfo.gov/public/. these specific implementation issue. using the procedures found in 14 CFR Instead, the Bureau will consider these VI. Signing Authority 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following comments as it proceeds with methods: The Director of the Bureau, Kathleen • implementation of the Advisory L. Kraninger, having reviewed and Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Opinions Policy. approved this document, is delegating https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the the authority to electronically sign this instructions for submitting comments. IV. Regulatory Requirements • Fax: 202–493–2251. document to Grace Feola, a Bureau • Mail: U.S. Department of This Advisory Opinions Policy is a Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– rule of agency organization, procedure, publication in the Federal Register. or practice, and it is therefore exempt 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room from the notice-and-comment Dated: November 30, 2020. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, rulemaking requirements of the APA.27 Grace Feola, Washington, DC 20590. For the same reason, it is not subject to Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail the 30-day delayed effective date for Financial Protection. address above between 9 a.m. and 5 28 substantive rules under the APA. [FR Doc. 2020–26661 Filed 12–2–20; 8:45 am] p.m., Monday through Friday, except Because no notice of proposed BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P Federal holidays. rulemaking is required, the Regulatory For service information identified in Flexibility Act does not require an this final rule, contact Boeing initial or final regulatory flexibility DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Commercial Airplanes, Attention: analysis.29 Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), Federal Aviation Administration 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, V. Paperwork Reduction Act Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 14 CFR Part 39 562–797–1717; internet https:// (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view that Federal agencies may not conduct [Docket No. FAA–2020–1031; Project this service information at the FAA, or sponsor, and notwithstanding any Identifier AD–2020–00846–T; Amendment Airworthiness Products Section, 39–21334; AD 2020–24–04] other provision of law, a person is not Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South required to respond to a collection of RIN 2120–AA64 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information unless it displays a information on the availability of this currently valid Office of Management Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. and Budget (OMB) control number. The Company Airplanes It is also available on the internet at information collection requirements as AGENCY: Federal Aviation https://www.regulations.gov by contained in this final Policy and Administration (FAA), DOT. searching for and locating Docket No. identified below have been approved by FAA–2020–1031. ACTION: Final rule; request for OMB and assigned the OMB control comments. Examining the AD Docket number 3170–0072. OMB’s approval will expire on November 30, 2023. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new You may examine the AD docket on airworthiness directive (AD) for all The the internet at https:// 27 5 U.S.C. 553(b). www.regulations.gov by searching for 28 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 30 See https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB- and locating Docket No. FAA–2020– 29 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). 2020-0019. 1031; or in person at Docket Operations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Dec 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES