Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
Featured Stories
EPA Releases Public Communication From Formosa Plastics Corp. USA
By Merly T. Lapig
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released the following public communication dated March 24, 2025, from Formosa Plastics Corp. USA, Livingston, New Jersey:
* * *
To: Marcy Card, Ph.D.
Existing Chemicals Risk Assessment Division (7403M)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001
Re: Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Comments on the Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Vinyl Chloride (CAS RN 75-01-4); EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0448
* * *
Dear Dr. Card:
Formosa Plastics Corporation,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released the following public communication dated March 24, 2025, from Formosa Plastics Corp. USA, Livingston, New Jersey:
* * *
To: Marcy Card, Ph.D.
Existing Chemicals Risk Assessment Division (7403M)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001
Re: Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Comments on the Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Vinyl Chloride (CAS RN 75-01-4); EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0448
* * *
Dear Dr. Card:
Formosa Plastics Corporation,U.S.A. manufactures polyvinyl chloride resins that are used worldwide in various applications including construction materials, agricultural, residential and commercial piping, automotive applications, medical products, and food packaging. The company has over 3,000 full-time employees at facilities in Texas, Louisiana and New Jersey. In 2024 alone, FPC USA generated over $4.8 billion in revenue. In addition to economic benefit from our products, FPC USA facilities support the livelihoods of countless contractors and local businesses around our facilities.
We wish to express support for the positions developed by the Vinyl Institute (VI) on the draft scope of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride is an essential commodity chemical that is a vital part of the value chain for many products, including the critical infrastructure applications mentioned above. As currently drafted, the articles produced by our industry may be considered a Condition of Use of vinyl chloride to be assessed in the risk evaluation.
However, we believe that this could be erroneous, since PVC products may contain at most a trace amount of vinyl chloride, and are safe to manufacture and use. PVC Products have been widely manufactured and safely used since the 1950's. Since that time, manufacturing processes have advanced significantly further enhancing the durability and quality of the products available today. A visual representation of where our products are in the vinyl chloride value chain is below for your reference.
As currently drafted, many articles produced by the value chain, which relies on PVC resins and compounds, may be considered a Condition of Use of vinyl chloride to be assessed in the risk evaluation. However, since PVC products may contain at most a trace amount of vinyl chloride in accordance with other federal regulations and are demonstrated to be safe to manufacture and use, EPA should narrow the draft scope of the VC risk evaluation to exclude articles that are produced downstream of PVC resin production.
We strongly agree with VI that EPA must refine and narrow the scope of its planned risk evaluation for vinyl chloride to only focus on the manufacture of vinyl chloride and processing of vinyl chloride into other materials and substances.
EPA should limit its evaluation to conditions of use related to production and processing of vinyl chloride, and should not include any conditions of use related to transportation, emergency situations, or releases that are already regulated under other statutes and authoritative bodies. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for issuing regulations to protect against the risks that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous material in commerce. Furthermore, considering the tragic events that occurred in East Palestine, Ohio in February 2023, the official report on the rail incident by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly indicates that the cars carrying vinyl chloride had functioned properly, and that the vent-and-burn decision made at the scene was not necessary. TSCA is a gap-filling statute, intended to regulate only exposures and conditions of use that are not adequately addressed under other laws.
With respect to occupational exposures, EPA incorrectly assumes that vinyl chloride is present at 0.1% (1000 ppm) in a PVC product when vinyl chloride is not specifically listed on a product Safety Data Sheet (SDS). This assumption ignores the existing regulatory framework governed by the Clean Air Act, where residual vinyl chloride is required to be stripped out of all PVC resin types at sufficiently low levels to ensure worker and user safety1. A paper presented at the Society of Plastics Engineers VinylTec conference in 2017 illustrated how the average typical amount of residual vinyl chloride is less than 1.0 ppm across all resin types, and in the most commonly used PVC resin type it is below 0.3 ppm. The same paper indicates that these average typical residual vinyl chloride monomer levels have improved since 2000 across all resin types, by between 35% and 77% lower presence.
For all applications, we characterize the safety of our products using internationally accepted hazard communication protocols and share that information with customers on Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and container labels required by the U.S. Hazard Communication Standard. As part of our ISO 9001 registered processes, we test every lot of resin and provide a Certificate of Analysis to demonstrate the low levels of vinyl chloride that are present, if vinyl chloride is detected at all. Since many of the...
1 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts DDDDDD and HHHHHHH
* * *
...products made from PVC are exempt from the U. S. Hazard Communication Standard, there is no need to indicate the level of vinyl chloride on an SDS for these products.
Therefore, based on the information above, we feel strongly that EPA should correct its faulty assumption in the draft scoping document that articles have a presence of vinyl chloride of 0.1% (1000 ppm). Furthermore, EPA should ensure that PVC articles not required to have a SDS are excluded from the scope of the risk evaluation.
We look forward to engaging with the Agency during its years long TSCA section 6 assessment of vinyl chloride.
Sincerely,
Dick Heinle
Vice President, Vinyl Division
Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.
4897-3805-2371, v. 1
* * *
Original text here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0448-0670/attachment_1.pdf
DEA Releases Public Communication From Children's Hospital Association
By Gerard Allen M. Bautista
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration has released the following public communication dated March 18, 2025, from the Children's Hospital Association:
* * *
To: The Honorable Derek S. Maltz
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
800 K Street NW Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001
Recipient address
Re: Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations
* * *
Administrator Maltz:
The Children's Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)'s proposed
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration has released the following public communication dated March 18, 2025, from the Children's Hospital Association:
* * *
To: The Honorable Derek S. Maltz
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
800 K Street NW Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001
Recipient address
Re: Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations
* * *
Administrator Maltz:
The Children's Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)'s proposedrule, Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations. We appreciate the DEA's effort to balance expanded patient access with necessary safeguards against the diversion of controlled substances, as well as the continued opportunity for public input. While we are generally supportive of the proposed rule, we are concerned that some of the restrictions on prescribing controlled substances through telehealth could curtail access to care for children with behavioral health needs and/or complex medical conditions and disproportionately impact access for children living in rural or underserved areas. We urge you to work with the pediatric health care community to revise the proposed rule to ensure ongoing access to virtual prescribing for pediatric patients and providers of certain controlled substances.
In particular, we recommend the following changes to the rule to reflect children's unique needs, especially those with mental health challenges and/or complex medical conditions.
* We ask the DEA to increase the maximum percentage of Schedule II controlled substances prescribed via telehealth or forgo a maximum threshold altogether. The proposed requirement that the average number of Schedule II prescriptions via telemedicine is less than 50% of the total number of these prescriptions within a month could disrupt children's access to necessary medications for mental health care.
* We urge the DEA to allow providers to prescribe Schedule II controlled substances even if the provider and patient are located in different states. The proposed requirement that the clinician and patient must be in the same state in order for the clinician to prescribe a Schedule II controlled substance could impede access to available health care as many children's hospitals utilize out-of-state providers to address workforce shortages.
* We urge the DEA to allow special registrations for practices rather than providers. The proposed requirement that special registrations are issued to one health care provider rather than a practice could lead to delayed access to care for children when a provider is on leave or otherwise unavailable when the child needs care.
* We ask the DEA to allow the current Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) reporting requirements to stay in place. The proposed requirement that a special registrant would be required to review a patient's controlled substance prescription history in every state through the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) could place administration burdens on the provider that could lead to delays in children's access to care.
The more than 200 children's hospitals across the country are dedicated to the health and well-being of our nation's children and advance child health through innovations in the quality, cost, and delivery of pediatric care. We serve as a vital safety net for uninsured, underinsured, and publicly insured children and are regional centers for children's health, providing highly specialized pediatric care across large geographic areas. Although they account for less than 5% of hospitals in the United...
* * *
...States, children's hospitals care for one-half of children admitted to hospitals and serve many children with serious illnesses and complex and/or chronic conditions.
The regionalization of pediatric specialty care means that it is not uncommon for children to live long distances from a children's hospital. As a result, telehealth is a vital tool to maintain access to quality and timely health care. In particular, the current telehealth flexibilities have facilitated access to care and improved continuity of ongoing care, especially for children with chronic or complex conditions and those in families with transportation challenges. Furthermore, the telehealth flexibilities have been particularly beneficial to the practice of mental health care for children and youth, which lends itself well to virtual appointments.
We urge the DEA to work with children's hospitals and patient families to refine the rule to better address the unique implications for children, particularly children who face mental health challenges and/or serious, complex, or chronic medical conditions. Our detailed comments are below.
Proposed Additional Requirements: Schedule II Controlled Substances
* Managing the Percentage of Schedule II Controlled Substances Prescribed Via Telehealth
We ask the DEA to consider increasing the maximum percentage threshold for prescribing Schedule II-controlled substances for children with behavioral health needs or forgo the threshold altogether. Imposing a low maximum percentage threshold on the number of Schedule II-controlled substances that can be prescribed via telehealth could potentially limit children's access to needed medications.
There are currently seven million children in the United States who have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder./1 Pediatric providers often utilize telehealth to prescribe these patients Schedule II-controlled substances like Adderall and have found that telemental health services are complementary and synergistic to in-person care and enhance care delivery. For example, the use of telehealth in their patient care allows them to do more frequent mental health care check-ins and can provide insights into their patient's home that they would not have otherwise seen. Importantly, telehealth prescribing has been a critical tool in preventing disruptions in care given ongoing severe shortages of mental health providers. Placing arbitrary restrictions on this practice could lead to significant care interruptions.
* Location Requirements for Schedule II Controlled Substances Prescriptions
We urge the DEA to allow the prescription of Schedule II substances even if the patient and provider are located in different states. Telehealth enables children to access needed behavioral health services without having to travel far distances when there is not an appropriate available behavioral health provider within the child's community.
There are too few pediatric mental health providers with the pediatric training and expertise to ensure kids have access to the full continuum of care, from prevention and early intervention to inpatient services and outpatient community-based services and supports. Nationally, there are only 15 clinical child and adolescent psychiatrists per 100,000 children 18 years of age and younger, far fewer than needed to meet the existing, and increasing, demand./2 As a result of these ongoing shortages, it is not uncommon for children's hospitals to utilize pediatric psychiatrists and other mental health providers who are located outside of the state via telehealth. The proposed additional requirement that providers and patients must...
1 "Data and Statistics on ADHD," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024.
2 "Workforce Maps by State: Practicing Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists," American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2022.
* * *
...be in the same state may leave some patients without access to a regular provider and Schedule II substances to address their behavioral health needs.
Special Registration for a Practice Rather than Providers
We urge the DEA to allow special registrations for a whole provider practice instead of a specific provider. Registration of the entire practice would prevent unnecessary delays in care for children who need timely access to a Schedule II-V controlled substance to treat their behavioral health or serious, complex, or chronic medical condition when their provider is not available. Under the proposed rule, pediatric patients who need a refill or an adjustment in a Schedule II-V controlled substance while their provider is out on leave or otherwise unavailable, would not be able to get their problem addressed by a different provider at the same practice unless that provider saw the patient in-person first. This may cause delays in care, as there can be long waiting times for appointments given ongoing provider shortages.
It is common for pediatric subspecialty care to be concentrated in large referral center group practices. Practitioners in the same group practice have access to patients' complete medical records in the electronic medical record system and can safely determine whether to prescribe controlled substances or to conduct a telehealth/in-person visit for further evaluation. Allowing special registration for an entire practice to prescribe controlled substances via telehealth would improve access for patients who are treated via team-based care.
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Requirement
We ask the DEA to allow current PDMP reporting requirements to stay in place instead of establishing a new nationwide PDMP check requirement. The requirement to check a patient's controlled substance prescription history in all 50 states, D.C., and the U.S. territories that maintain a PDMP will be time-consuming for providers and could increase the wait time for children to access these medications, ultimately negatively impacting children's health. Pediatric providers already utilize PDMP systems in their state for prescribing in-person and via telehealth. Furthermore, there is currently no system in place that connects all 50 states for a nationwide PDMP check. A new PDMP system that connects all states would need to be developed for this requirement to be effectively implemented, which would be costly and time-consuming.
We also urge the DEA to change the record-keeping requirements to an electronic system to allow for accessible documents while using modern recording-keeping systems. The proposed requirement that PDMP records be kept at a physical address does not reflect common physician practice of using electronic systems for record-keeping.
In conclusion, telehealth has been a crucial tool to connect children to vital medications, especially for those living in rural or underserved areas. We urge the DEA to work with children's hospitals, pediatric health care professionals, and patient families to ensure that children, especially those with behavioral health or complex, chronic, or serious medical conditions, have continued access to these services in a timely manner. We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure this policy works for children. Please contact Gabby Ahearn at gabby.ahearn@childrenshospitals.org should you need more information.
Sincerely,
Aimee Ossman
Vice President, Policy
Children's Hospital Association
* * *
Original text here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/DEA-2023-0029-41019/attachment_1.pdf
CFPB Releases Public Communication From Accountable Tech, 34 Collaborators
By Gerard Allen M. Bautista
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released the following public communication dated April 2, 2025, from Accountable Tech and 34 collaborators:
* * *
To: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20552
RE: Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices (Regulation V), Docket No. CFPB-2024-0044 or RIN 3170-AB27
* * *
Dear CFPB Officials:
We write to express our strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent rulemaking proposal to modernize implementation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) through
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released the following public communication dated April 2, 2025, from Accountable Tech and 34 collaborators:
* * *
To: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20552
RE: Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices (Regulation V), Docket No. CFPB-2024-0044 or RIN 3170-AB27
* * *
Dear CFPB Officials:
We write to express our strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent rulemaking proposal to modernize implementation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) throughRegulation V, including provisions to clarify that data brokers are subject to FCRA when they deal in Americans' consumer data.
This Proposed Rule comes at a time when the modern credit reporting and data broker industry is out-of-control and rife with harmful business practices, which are proliferating unchecked and fueling scams, discrimination, violence, cybercrime, and serious threats to national security. As such, we call on the CFPB to use the full force of its legal authority under FCRA to move the proposal forward to a final rule to rein in these corporate abuses.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the leading federal agency devoted to protecting consumers from predatory financial practices and to ensuring that markets for consumer financial products are transparent, fair, and competitive. Since its creation in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion in relief back to 200 million people and collected $5 billion in civil money penalties for misconduct and wrongdoing. The CFPB has been exceptionally effective in protecting everyday Americans and honest businesses from crooked companies that rip off people and violate their rights.
Among the federal laws enforced by the CFPB is the landmark Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, which ensures the privacy and accuracy of consumer information communicated by consumer reporting agencies. Given dramatic changes in technology and the current state of data markets--including the systemic threats that data brokers pose--the Proposed Rule's updates to FCRA implementation are long overdue.
Today, data brokers are a juggernaut industry that collects, aggregates, analyzes, and monetizes hundreds of billions of data points on billions of people, often without their consent or even their awareness. The unprecedented amounts and types of data amassed by data brokers include the most intimate details about people's lives, including the digital trails we generate with every moment we use the internet or cell phone--such as our whereabouts, demographics, family composition, romantic relationships, finances, political views, shopping habits, and medical conditions. These data points and inferences based on them are also often riddled with junk, mistakes, and systemic biases.
The ways consumer data is wielded in this exploding market are opaque and unfair, subjecting people to devastating harms such as denied jobs, loans, housing, or government benefits-- including life-altering decisions made unjustly on the basis of protected characteristics like race and gender. Because data brokers make it alarmingly easy to obtain detailed personal information about Americans, they also enable malicious actors to target specific constituencies and individuals for extortion, spying, fraud, or even violence. Americans facing these heightened risks include domestic violence victims, economically distressed families, military servicemembers, law enforcement agents, judges, and lawmakers.
Data brokers have nonetheless argued that they are not consumer reporting agencies offering consumer reports and thus not subject to federal oversight and accountability under the FCRA. They insist on those flawed, self-serving arguments even though data brokers deal in the same information in the same ways as other consumer reporting agencies and perpetuate the same kinds of consumer harms and risks that the FCRA was enacted to prevent.
The Proposed Rule sensibly affirms that a wide range of data brokers and data broker activities are indeed subject to FCRA standards, thereby reining in the reckless free-for-all with Americans' personal data that data brokers currently engage in with impunity. Through clarifications such as what counts as a "consumer report" and which entities count as a "consumer reporting agency," the Proposed Rule would subject many data brokers to the same accuracy, confidentiality, and dispute resolution legal requirements as other companies like credit rating agencies that handle consumers' sensitive financial information. We especially appreciate the Proposed Rule's provisions to better protect "credit header data"--i.e., an individual's name, aliases, age or birth date, Social Security number, current and prior addresses, telephone number, email addresses, and similar identifiers. Although industry's purported concerns about impacts on fraud prevention and law enforcement are deeply flawed, the Proposed Rule would also continue to allow fraud prevention and law enforcement uses under the FCRA--including the option to obtain more information beyond what statutory and regulatory exemptions already allow via a court order, a subpoena, or a consumer's written instructions.
For the American people, the takeaway is simple: the CFPB's Proposed Rule will protect people's personal data and crack down on predatory business practices that invade our privacy, violate our rights, and expose us to cybercrimes like identity theft and blackmail. The personal privacy, civil liberties, and data security of hundreds of millions of Americans should not depend on profit-obsessed corporations' goodwill or discredited vows to self-regulate.
For all these reasons, we ask the CFPB to move this FCRA rulemaking forward to a final rule, with improvements as appropriate to strengthen the protections for regular consumers and to more robustly oversee predatory corporate actors. The CFPB's clear mission is to protect everyday Americans against powerful, predatory corporate interests--and that is exactly what the Proposed Rule aims to do.
Sincerely,
Accountable Tech
Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund (AFREF)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC
Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network, Inc. (AWN)
Blue Future
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Economic Justice
Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR)
Common Sense Media
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Reports
Consumer Watchdog
Demand Progress Education Fund
Economic Action Maryland Fund
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Fight for the Future
JustLeadershipUSA
JustUS Coordinating Council
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Consumers League
National Disability Institute
National Partnership for Women & Families
New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center
Oregon Consumer Justice
Oregon Consumer League
Public Citizen
Public Justice Center
Tech Justice Law Project
Texas Appleseed
UltraViolet Action
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
William E. Morris Institute for Justice
X-Lab
* * *
Original text here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/CFPB-2024-0044-0703/attachment_1.pdf
CFPB Releases Public Communication From ACA International
By Jaymar B. Talang
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released the following 24-page public communication on April 2, 2025, from ACA International:
Here are excerpts:
* * *
Comment - Protecting Americans From Harmful Data Broker Practices Proposal
To: The Honorable Russell Vought
Acting Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20552
c/o Comment Intake Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Re: ACA International ("ACA") Comment regarding the Protecting Americans From Harmful Data Broker Practices Proposal (the "Proposal")
* * *
Dear
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 18 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released the following 24-page public communication on April 2, 2025, from ACA International:
Here are excerpts:
* * *
Comment - Protecting Americans From Harmful Data Broker Practices Proposal
To: The Honorable Russell Vought
Acting Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20552
c/o Comment Intake Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Re: ACA International ("ACA") Comment regarding the Protecting Americans From Harmful Data Broker Practices Proposal (the "Proposal")
* * *
DearActing Director Vought and Bureau Staff:
I. Background About ACA International
ACA International is the leading trade association for credit and collection professionals. Founded in 1939, and with offices in Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis, Minnesota, ACA represents approximately 1,500 members, including credit grantors, third-party collection agencies, asset buyers, attorneys, and vendor affiliates in an industry that employs more than 150,000 employees worldwide. ACA members include the smallest of businesses that operate within a limited geographic range of a single state, and the largest of publicly held, multinational corporations that operate in every state. The majority of ACA-member debt collection companies, however, are small businesses. According to recent ACA member data, 35% of ACA members are 10 employees or fewer, 56% of ACA members are 25 employees or fewer, and 70% of ACA members are 100 employees or fewer.
As part of the process of attempting to recover outstanding payments, ACA members are an extension of every community's businesses. ACA members work with these businesses, large and small, to obtain payment for the goods and services already received by consumers. In years past, the combined effort of ACA members has resulted in the annual recovery of billions of dollars- dollars that are returned to and reinvested by businesses and dollars that would otherwise constitute losses on the financial statements of those businesses. Without an effective collection process, the economic viability of these businesses and the American economy in general, is threatened. Recovering rightfully-owed consumer debt enables businesses to survive, helps prevent job losses, maintains the credit system, and reduces the need for tax increases to cover governmental budget shortfalls.
An academic study about the impact of debt collection confirms the basic economic reality that losses from uncollected debts are paid for by the consumers who meet their credit obligations:
In a competitive market, losses from uncollected debts are passed on to other consumers in the form of higher prices and restricted access to credit; thus, excessive forbearance from collecting debts is economically inefficient. Again, as noted, collection activity influences on both the supply and the demand of consumer credit. Although lax collection efforts will increase the demand for credit by consumers, the higher losses associated with lax collection efforts will increase the costs of lending and thus raise the price and reduce the supply of lending to all consumers, especially higher-risk borrowers./1
In short, consumer harm can result in several ways when unpaid debt is not addressed, and ACA members work to help consumers understand their financial situation and what can be done to address it and improve it.
ACA members play a critical role in protecting both consumers and lenders. ACA members work with consumers to resolve consumers' debts, which in turn saves every American household, on average, more than $700, year after year./2 The accounts receivable management ("ARM") industry is instrumental in keeping America's credit-based economy functioning with access to credit at the lowest possible cost. For example, in 2018 the ARM industry returned over $90 billion to creditors for goods and services they had provided to their customers./3 And in turn, the ARM industry's collections benefit all consumers by lowering the costs of goods and services.
ACA members also follow comprehensive compliance policies and maintain high ethical standards to ensure consumers are treated fairly. ACA contributes to this goal by providing timely industry-sponsored education as well as compliance certifications. ACA members are committed to assisting consumers as they work together to resolve financial obligations, all in accord with the ACA Collector's Pledge that all consumers are treated with dignity and respect.
The previous administration's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB" or "the Bureau") Proposal is part of the misguided campaign to target the ARM industry's compliant, legal, and beneficial collection activities. The Proposal, which, among other things, would transform the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") from a credit reporting statute into a data privacy one, would result in negative, unintended consequences for the economy as a whole. Policies that harm America's collection industry also hurt businesses. Those harms are eventually passed onto consumers.
Beyond being bad policy, the Proposal is also unlawful. The Proposal dramatically exceeds the bounds of FCRA's authority. ACA has no quarrel with the Bureau's broad policy goal of protecting consumer information. Indeed, ACA members take the protection of consumer and client information very seriously. However, in its Proposal the CFPB goes far beyond any narrow attempt to protect privacy and instead jeopardizes the use of public data for a number of beneficial purposes. The Bureau's must follow laws and respect statutory limits, and this Proposal does not. Like many similar midnight rulemakings and proposals, the CFPB throws the baby out with the bath water to achieve certain political objectives.
1 Todd Zywicki, The Law of Economics of Consumer Debt Collection and its Regulation, 28 Loy. L. Rev. 187 (2016).
2 https://kaulkin.com/survey-says-arm-industry-returns-90-1-billion-to-the-economy/
3 Id.
[Text omitted]
* * *
IV. THE CFPB SHOULD RESCIND THIS RULEMAKING AND REEXAMINE THE ISSUE WITH A FRESH PERSPECTIVE
Given the Proposal's legal deficiencies, un-reasoned conclusions, and policy missteps, the Bureau should rescind the Proposal and approach the issue with a fresh perspective. ACA understands and appreciates the concerns that gave rise to the Proposal. ACA shares the Bureau's concern for privacy. But FCRA is not an appropriate vehicle by which to transform America's privacy framework. FCRA is a statute about fair credit reporting. The Proposal's attempts to expand FCRA's reach far beyond the statute's textual limits are unlawful.
The government's arguably good intentions do not make government actions lawful nor wise.
This Proposal is neither. The Proposal contravenes FCRA's clear text, facially violates FCRA's express purposes, and usurps legislative authority from the legislative branch. Moreover, the Proposal is the product of a rushed process where the ultimate outcome was per-determined from the start. And these legal deficiencies are only the beginning. The Proposal will depress lawful collection of legally owed debts. Small businesses will lose income and the costs will be passed onto consumers. The consumers who need credit the most will lose access as the cost of credit skyrockets when creditors can no longer rely on collection.
The previous administration failed to appreciate the Proposal's lawlessness and negative implications. The Bureau now has the opportunity to correct that mistake. Putting America first means empowering businesses, protecting consumers, and driving down the prices of goods that remain too high. This Proposal does exactly the opposite. The Bureau must use its authority to rescind this Proposal.
ACA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Bureau's Proposal. As set forth above, the Proposal is both unlawful and un-reasoned. For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Bureau not to adopt the Proposal.
* * *
Original text here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/CFPB-2024-0044-0671/attachment_1.pdf
