Parsing errors require users to exercise caution when using the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's eRegulations. Though once a favored tool because of its simple user interface, I no longer advocate its use due to a number of recently identified parsing errors including erroneous headers, faulty subparagraph delineation, and missing links to official interpretations. Hopefully, errors will be corrected soon, but until then follow these 3 tips for safer use.

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "Bureau") first released its eRegulations I was thrilled with the simple user interface and access to context sensitive official interpretation comments and preamble. As a power user of legal research tools and former mortgage origination software designer I appreciated the elegance of the user interface. Unfortunately, I recently encountered several parsing errors that serve to remind us all why the site includes the following disclaimer:

Trust, but verify

The CFPB’s eRegulations tool is an editorial compilation of material and not an official legal edition of the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register. We have made every effort to ensure the material presented in this tool is accurate, but if you are relying on it for legal research you should consult the official editions of those sources to confirm your findings. Nothing in this tool binds the Bureau or creates any rights, benefits, or defenses, substantive or procedural, that are enforceable by any party in any manner.

Troubling parsing error example.

Section 1026.38(a)(5)(iii), describing the closing disclosure’s “Product” field, is cross-referenced by 1026.19(f)(2)(ii)(B) as being one of three factors in whether a new three day waiting period is required when a closing disclosure is revised. Because of the parsing error that fails to distinguish 1026.38(a)(5)(iv), (v) from 1026.38(a)(5)(iii) a user might mistakenly believe the “Loan Type” and the “Loan ID #” were also triggers for a new waiting period; they are not.

3 Tips for safer eRegulations use:

1. Check the status of “current law”. Before jumping to the section of the regulation you want to read, go to the landing page for the regulation you are reviewing. You can get to the regulations landing page by doing one of two things:

Navigate to http://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/ and then select the regulation you want to review; or

Add the numeric section of the regulation you want to review to the end of the eRegulations main page. For example, for Regulation Z which is section 1026, the URL for the landing page is: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/1026.

Once you get to the regulations landing page, look under the main heading for the following warning in red font “The Bureau is currently updating the tool to reflect recent changes.” If you find it, the eRegulations may not be current even though you may be looking at what the Regulation Timeline calls “Current Law.” In most cases, the update will take effect in the future and the current law will still be valid.

Alternatively, click on the "Regulation Timeline" icon at the top of the left side of the screen (it looks like a clock next to a list). If there are dates after the date labeled "current law" there have been changes that take effect on the listed dates. This is a great tool for looking at historic, current and future law. It even lets you compare two versions. But be sure when you are reading the law that you know which version you are in. Select the date closest to but not later than the effective date you wish to review or simply select Current Law. Always keep in mind that if the red updating warning was displayed, the law may be changing though those changes may take effect in the future.

2. Read the preceding and subsequent subsections. If you look in the present release for Section 1026.38(a)(5)(v) you might not find it. That is because there was a parsing error in § 1026.38(a)(5). There are six subparagraphs (i)-(vi) in that subsection but they are displayed as only four (i)-(iv). Subparagraphs (iv) and (v) are appended to the end of subparagraph (iii). Subparagraph (vi) is improperly labeled as (iv). Reading the prior and subsequent sections carefully for subsection delimiters will help you catch such errors. If you find them be sure to report them to [email protected] and send a note to me as well, I am trying to keep track and may post a list if I get enough feedback.

3. View official interpretations in Supplement I. The interface includes a link after opening the official interpretations for specific sections of the rule. While it is tempting to simply pop this open read and move on, the safer bet is to click the next link and view the comments in the full context of the official interpretations. You never know what you might be missing. For example, the link to Comment 19(e)(4)(i) takes you to comment 19(e)(4)(ii) and there is no link to comment 19(e)(4)(ii) in the interface. You could easily overlook the actual comment to 19(e)(4)(i) and may not realize you are reading the comment to 19(e)(4)(ii) unless you view the comment in Supplement I. Similarly, the link to Comment 38(a)(5)(v) is missing from the interface. If you do not view the comment to 38(a)(5) in Supplement I you might never know the comment existed. So click the link and review the prior and subsequent entries in the context of Supplement I for safety.

Bottom line, in the present release, relying solely on the language posted in eRegulations is ill-advised. Even a few reported instances where the rule is improperly parsed suggests reliance on this interface alone is risky. The increased number of parsing errors in recent versions suggests that the errors are compounding with new releases. The fact that errors reported weeks ago have not been corrected raises concerns about the Bureau's priority for accuracy of the tool and their attention to feedback. The lack of a readily accessible log of known parsing errors and history of corrections is also problematic.

With luck, the Bureau and 18F (an office inside the federal government's General Services Administration that helps other federal agencies build digital services), will get this straightened out and we will all be using eRegulations again with confidence. When properly parsed it is hands down the most effective regulatory research interface I have used. In the meantime, heed the Bureau's own warning, Trust, but Verify.

In my next blog - Where to Verify...