94-9138. Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Credit Practices  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-9138]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: April 15, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
    16 CFR Part 444
    
     
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of Trade Regulation Rule 
    Concerning Credit Practices
    
    AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
    
    ACTION: Regulatory Review; Request for Comments.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
    601 et seq.) and a published plan for Periodic Review of Commission 
    Rules (46 FR 35,118 (July 7, 1981)), the Federal Trade Commission is 
    soliciting comments and data on whether the Trade Regulation Rule 
    Concerning Credit Practices (16 CFR part 444) (the ``Rule'') has had a 
    significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and if it 
    has, whether the Rule should be amended to minimize any significant 
    impact on small entities. The Commission is also requesting comments 
    about the overall costs and benefits of the Rule and its overall 
    regulatory and economic impact as a part of its systematic review of 
    all current Commission regulations and guides.
    
    DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Comments and data should be sent to: Secretary, Federal 
    Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. Submissions should be marked 
    ``Credit Practices Rule Comments.''
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Sandra M. Wilmore, Attorney, Division of Credit Practices, Bureau of 
    Consumer Protection, room S4429, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and 
    Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Tel: (202) 326-3224.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the 
    Federal Trade Commission to conduct a periodic review of rules issued 
    by the Commission that have or will have a significant economic impact 
    on a substantial number of small entities.
        For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act review, the term 
    ``small entity'' is defined under the Small Business Size Standards, 
    codified at 13 CFR part 121 and revised by the Small Business 
    Administration (49 FR 5024 et seq., Feb. 9, 1984). Because the 
    definition of ``small entity'' differs for the various types of 
    business entities covered by the Rule, persons wishing to comment on 
    the Rule's impact on a particular type of small entity should refer to 
    the Small Business Size Standards.
        In addition, the Commission has determined, as a part of its 
    oversight responsibilities, to review rules and guides periodically. 
    These reviews will seek information about the costs and benefits of the 
    Commission's rules and guides and their regulatory and economic impact. 
    The information obtained will assist the Commission in identifying 
    rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. This periodic 
    review is conducted in accordance with the Commission's plan for 
    periodic review of rules (46 FR 35118 (July 7, 1981)).
        The rule was promulgated by the Commission on March 1, 1984 (49 FR 
    7740) and became effective on March 1, 1985. The Rule applies to 
    lenders and retail installment sellers (creditors) and prohibits them 
    from directly or indirectly taking or receiving from a consumer an 
    obligation that:
        (1) Constitutes or contains a cognovit or confession of judgment 
    (for purposes other than executory process in the State of Louisiana), 
    warrant of attorney, or other waiver of the right to notice and the 
    opportunity to be heard in the event of suit or process thereon.
        (2) Constitutes or contains an executory waiver or a limitation of 
    exemption from attachment, execution, or other process on real or 
    personal property held, owned by, or due to the consumer, unless the 
    waiver applies solely to property subject to a security interest 
    executed in connection with the obligation.
        (3) Constitutes or contains an assignment of wages or other 
    earnings unless:
        (i) The assignment by its terms is revokable at the will of the 
    debtor, or
        (ii) The assignment is a payroll deduction plan or preauthorized 
    payment plan, commencing at the time of the transaction, in which the 
    consumer authorizes a series of wage deductions as a method of making 
    each payment, or
        (iii) The assignment applies only to wages or other earnings 
    already earned at the time of the assignment.
        (4) Constitutes or contains a non-possessory security interest in 
    house-hold goods\1\ other than a purchase money security interest.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\``Household goods'' are defined at Sec. 444.1(i) of the Rule 
    and include possessions of the consumer and his family that are 
    generally regarded as necessities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The rule requires lenders and retail installment sellers to inform 
    cosigners, prior to the time that the agreement creating the cosigner's 
    liability is executed, of the nature of their liability as cosigners.
        The rule prohibits lenders and retail installment sellers, in 
    connection with collecting a debt arising out of an extension of credit 
    to a consumer, from directly or indirectly levying or collecting any 
    delinquency charge on a payment, which payment is otherwise a full 
    payment for the applicable period and is paid on its due date or within 
    an applicable grace period, when the only delinquency is attributable 
    to late fee(s) or delinquency charge(s) assessed on earlier 
    installment(s).
        In promulgating the Rule, the Commission found that:
        (1) Consumers suffered substantial economic and non-economic injury 
    from creditors' use of the remedies that the Rule restricts;
        (2) Consumers cannot reasonably avoid these remedies themselves or 
    avoid the harsh consequences of the remedies by avoiding default; and
        (3) The overall costs to consumers are greater that the 
    countervailing benefits that the use of these remedies provide to 
    consumers or creditors.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\See Credit Practices Rule: Statement of Basis and Purpose and 
    Regulatory Analysis (SBP), 49 FR 7740, 7743-7745 (1984).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The objective of the review initiated by this notice under the 
    Regulatory Flexibility Act is to determine whether any part of the Rule 
    has had a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
    and, if so, whether any such impact can be reduced consistent with the 
    operation of the Rule. In addition, the Commission requests comments on 
    a number of other issues relating to the operation of the Rule.
        For the purposes of this review, the Commission poses the following 
    questions for public comment:
        1. Is there a continuing need for the rule?
        a. What benefits has the rule provided to purchasers of the 
    products or services affected by the rule?
        b. Has the rule imposed costs on purchasers?
        2. What changes, if any, should be made to the rule to increase the 
    benefits of the rule to purchasers?
        a. How would these changes affect the costs the rule imposes on 
    firms subject to its requirements?
        3. What significant burdens or costs, including the cost of 
    compliance, has the rule imposed on firms subject to its requirements?
        a. Has the rule provided benefits to such firms?
        4. What changes, if any, should be made to the rule to reduce the 
    burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements?
        a. How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the 
    rule?
        5. Does the rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or 
    local laws or regulations?
        6. Since the rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes in 
    relevant technology or economic conditions had on the rule?
        7. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of 
    compliance, has the rule imposed on small firms subject to its 
    requirements?
        a. How do these burdens or costs differ from those imposed on 
    larger firms subject to the rule's requirements?
        8. To what extent are the burdens or costs that the rule imposes on 
    small firms similar to those that small firms would incur under 
    standard and prudent business practices?
        9. What changes, if any, should be made to the rule to reduce the 
    burdens or costs imposed on small firms?
        a. How would these changes affect the benefits of the rule?
        b. Would such changes adversely affect the competitive position of 
    larger firms?
        10. Should the ``Notice to Cosigner'' set forth at 16 CFR 444.3(c) 
    be rewritten to make it easier to understand? How?
        11. In considering the effect the rule has had on the availability 
    and cost of credit:
        a. Has the rule caused an increase in the cost of consumer credit 
    or a decline in the availability of consumer credit, in particular 
    credit provided to consumers with low incomes or poor credit histories?
        b. What evidence is there that any changes in the cost or 
    availability of credit to consumers are, in fact, attributable to the 
    rule and not to other changes in the market place?
        12. In considering the continuing need for the existing rule:
        a. Would an alternative rule that required disclosure of contract 
    provisions that might cause injury to consumers, as opposed to 
    restricting the use of such provisions, be effective in protecting 
    consumers?
        b. How would such disclosures be made to ensure that the consumer 
    is aware of and understands them?
        c. How would the costs and benefits of a disclosure approach 
    compare to the costs and benefits of the current approach?
        In responding to these questions, please distinguish to the extent 
    possible between smaller and larger creditors and between new firms and 
    more established firms. In addition, please submit the factual data 
    (e.g., economic and accounting information, statistical analysis, 
    surveys, studies, etc.) upon which comments are based together with the 
    comments.
    
    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 444
    
        Federal Trade Commission, Consumer credit contracts, Cosigner 
    disclosures, Trade practices, Truth in Lending.
    
        Authority: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 
    (1980).
    
        By direction of the Commission.
    Donald S. Clark,
    Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 94-9138 Filed 4-14-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/15/1994
Department:
Federal Trade Commission
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Regulatory Review; Request for Comments.
Document Number:
94-9138
Dates:
Comments must be received on or before June 14, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: April 15, 1994
CFR: (1)
16 CFR 444