Comment on FR Doc # E8-26550

Public Comment on Docket No EOUST 104 As currently written, definition §58.25(b)(2) regarding an “accrediting organization” does not allow an affiliate of a provider to certify the instructor qualifications of other providers. While the intended purpose of this section is likely to prohibit “self- certification” by providers, the wording prohibits organizations that currently provide excellent instructor certification programs from continuing to provide such certificates to any other provider if they themselves are also a debtor education provider. In conclusion, the wording is not in compliance with the full intent of the law. We respectfully request that the following wording be considered in order to address the concerns: §58.25(b)(2)(i) Not be the provider or affiliate of the provider; and = = = = = = = = = = As currently written, §58.34(b) the standards by which debtor education fees are waived do not allow a debtor to pay the fee to a provider if the debtor is below the standards, even if the debtor have the ability and the willingness to pay the fee. Furthermore, many debtors below the proposed standards are still often able to pay their bankruptcy attorney fees that may total several hundreds of dollars or even a thousand dollars or more. Yet bankruptcy attorneys are not and would not be required to waive their fees based on any set standards while debtor education providers would. In conclusion, the wording is not in compliance with the US Code 111(d)(1)(E). The bankruptcy code does not allow for the establishment of a specific threshold that absolutely determines when a fee will be waived. Furthermore, establishing such a standard for fee waivers applicable only to debtor education course providers when no such requirement exists for bankruptcy attorneys (whose fees are understandably even higher) places an unfair burden upon the providers in their course of business. We respectfully request that the following wording be considered in order to address these concerns: §58.34(b) When requested by the debtor, a provider shall waive the fee whenever a debtor’s attorney has agreed to provide their legal services without charge to the debtor. A provider shall also discount the fee proportionate to any discount provided by the debtor’s attorney. Furthermore, a provider shall waive the fee whenever a debtor who is not using legal representation demonstrates a lack of ability to pay the fee and requests such a waiver, either verbally or in writing. A debtor shall be deemed to have demonstrated a lack of ability to pay the fee if the debtor’s household current income is less than 150% of the income of the official poverty line… [the remainder of this section is acceptable as proposed] The entire section §58.34(c), which merely provides further possible scenarios for waiving fees, would be irrelevant and unnecessary, given the new language proposed for §58.34(b). §58.34(c) as proposed should be eliminated. = = = = = = = = = = As currently written, §58.34(d) specifies that there shall be no “link” between a debtor’s purchase of an instructional course and the purchase of any other service offered by the same provider. Such wording understandably prohibits the purchase of a debtor education course by a debtor at the same time that the debtor pays for a pre-filing credit counseling session. Selling a debtor education course before the debtor actually files a bankruptcy petition with the court is understood to be a form of unauthorized practice of law, since it essentially encourages the debtor to file for bankruptcy without the debtor necessarily having conferred with legal counsel. However, the current wording—specifically the generic term “link”—also prohibits the provision of a debtor education course discount for debtors who return to the same provider for the second certificate. There is no legal prohibition of encouraging a debtor to return to the same company for their second certificate “AFTER” they have filed for bankruptcy. In conclusion, the wording is not in compliance with fair business practices and the intent of the bankruptcy code. We respectfully request that the following wording be considered in order to address these concerns: §58.34(d) A provider shall not combine a debtor’s purchase of an instructional course with the purchase of any other service offered by the provider. = = = = = = = = = = As currently written, §58.35(n)(1) requires the debtor to supply the provider with the federal judicial district in which he or she has filed for bankruptcy. Unfortunately, many debtors do not know where their federal judicial district is actually located and often mistakenly assume it is either in their home town or in the nearest metropolitan center. Neither does the proposed wording allow a provider to verify such information using court records, such as Public Access to Court Electronic Records (commonly known as “PACER”), and to correct inaccurate judicial district information. In conclusion, the wording is not in compliance with legal stipulations regarding the submission to the courts of accurate case information by the provider. We respectfully request that the following wording be considered in order to address these concerns: §58.35(n)(1) The specific federal judicial district requested by the debtor and/or confirmed by the provider through official federal court information or correspondence; = = = = = = = = = = Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns and proposed modifications to the proposed final rule “Docket No. EUOST 104.” Sincerely, Todd Christensen Director of Education National Financial Education Center at Debt Reduction Services Inc Boise, Idaho Todd@NationalFinancialEducationCenter.org