[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4298-4305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

12 CFR Part 1041

[Docket No. CFPB-2019-0007]
RIN 3170-AA95


Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans; 
Delay of Compliance Date

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is 
proposing to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the 
mandatory underwriting provisions of the regulation promulgated by the 
Bureau in November 2017 governing Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain 
High-Cost Installment Loans (2017 Final Rule or Rule) by 15 months to 
November 19, 2020. This proposal is related to another proposal, 
published separately in this issue of the Federal Register, seeking 
comment on whether the Bureau should rescind the mandatory underwriting 
provisions of the 2017 Final Rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2019-
0007 or RIN 3170-AA95, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket No. 
CFPB-2019-0007 or RIN 3170-AA95 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake, Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
    Instructions: The Bureau encourages the early submission of 
comments. All submissions should include the agency name and docket 
number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is 
subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments 
electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments 
will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 
NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours 
of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to 
inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275.
    All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, 
will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. 
Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as 
account numbers, Social Security numbers, or names of other 
individuals, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to 
remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliott C. Ponte, Attorney-Advisor; Amy 
Durant, Lawrence Lee, or Adam Mayle, Counsels; or Kristine M. 
Andreassen, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If 
you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please 
contact [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    On October 5, 2017, the Bureau issued the 2017 Final Rule 
establishing consumer protection regulations for payday loans, vehicle 
title loans, and certain high-cost installment loans, relying on 
authorities under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).\1\ The Rule was published in 
the Federal Register on November 17, 2017.\2\ It became effective on 
January 16, 2018, although most provisions[thinsp](12 CFR 1041.2 
through 1041.10, 1041.12, and 1041.13) have a compliance date of August 
19, 2019.\3\ On January 16, 2018, the Bureau issued a statement 
announcing its intention to engage in rulemaking to reconsider the 2017 
Final Rule.\4\ A legal challenge to the Rule was filed on April 9, 2018 
and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Texas.\5\ On October 26, 2018, the Bureau issued a 
subsequent statement announcing it expected to issue notices of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) to reconsider certain provisions of the 
2017 Final Rule and to address the Rule's compliance date.\6\ This is 
the proposal that addresses the compliance date; the other proposal 
addressing reconsideration of certain provisions is published 
separately in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \2\ 82 FR 54472 (Nov. 17, 2017).
    \3\ Id. at 54814.
    \4\ Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Statement on Payday Rule 
(Jan. 16, 2018), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-statement-payday-rule/.
    \5\ Cmty. Fin. Serv. Ass'n of Am. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 
No. 1:18-cv-295 (W.D. Tex.). On November 6, 2018, the Court issued 
an order staying the August 19, 2019 compliance date of the rule 
pending further order of the Court. See id., ECF No. 53. The 
litigation is currently stayed. See id., ECF No. 29.
    \6\ Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Public Statement Regarding 
Payday Rule Reconsideration and Delay of Compliance Date (Oct. 26, 
2018), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/public-statement-regarding-payday-rule-reconsideration-and-delay-compliance-date/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 Final Rule addressed two discrete topics. First, the Rule 
contained a set of provisions with respect to the underwriting of 
covered short-term and longer-term balloon-payment loans, including 
payday and vehicle title loans, and related reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.\7\ These provisions are referred to herein as the 
``Mandatory Underwriting Provisions'' of the 2017 Final Rule. Second, 
the Rule contained a set of provisions, applicable to the same set of 
loans and also to certain high-cost installment loans, establishing 
certain requirements and limitations with respect to attempts to 
withdraw payments from consumers' checking or other accounts.\8\ These 
are referred to herein as the ``Payment Provisions'' of the 2017 Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 12 CFR 1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 1041.11, and portions 
of 1041.12.
    \8\ 12 CFR 1041.7 through 1041.9, and portions of 1041.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau is proposing in this NPRM to delay the August 19, 2019 
compliance date for the 2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions--specifically, Sec. Sec.  1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 
1041.11, and

[[Page 4299]]

1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3)--to November 19, 
2020, for several reasons, each of which is discussed in more detail 
below. First, the Bureau is publishing separately in this issue of the 
Federal Register an NPRM that sets forth strong reasons for seeking 
comment on whether it should rescind the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions of the Rule (Reconsideration NPRM). The Bureau is concerned 
that if the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions is not delayed, industry participants will 
expend significant resources and incur significant costs in order to 
comply with the 2017 Final Rule, and industry participants could 
experience substantial revenue disruptions that could impact their 
ability to stay in business once the compliance date has passed. The 
Bureau is concerned about imposing such costs on industry participants 
by mandating compliance by August 19, 2019 with portions of the Rule 
that may ultimately be rescinded. Second, outreach to affected entities 
since the finalization of the 2017 Final Rule has brought to light 
certain potential obstacles to compliance that were not anticipated 
when the original compliance date was set. For example, several State 
laws applicable to payday or similar loans have been enacted subsequent 
to the 2017 Final Rule that have more immediate compliance dates. Some 
industry participants have indicated that, given time and resource 
constraints, their need to comply with these intervening State laws may 
impede their ability to comply with the 2017 Final Rule's Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions by the August 19, 2019 compliance date. 
Similarly, industry participants have indicated that they need 
additional time to finish building out, or otherwise making investments 
in, technology and critical systems necessary to comply with the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule.
    The Bureau is thus proposing to delay the August 19, 2019 
compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 
Final Rule by 15 months, to November 19, 2020, in order to permit an 
orderly conclusion to its separate rulemaking process to reconsider the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule, and to 
account for potential implementation challenges that had not been 
anticipated at the time of the 2017 Final Rule.

II. Background

    In the 2017 Final Rule, the Bureau established consumer protection 
regulations for payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain high-
cost installment loans. The Rule was published in the Federal Register 
on November 17, 2017. It became effective on January 16, 2018, although 
most provisions[thinsp](Sec. Sec.  1041.2 through 1041.10, 1041.12, and 
1041.13) have a compliance date of August 19, 2019.
    As mentioned above, the 2017 Final Rule addressed two discrete 
topics: The Mandatory Underwriting Provisions and the Payment 
Provisions. The Mandatory Underwriting Provisions identified as an 
unfair and abusive practice the making of certain short-term and 
longer-term balloon-payment loans without reasonably determining that 
consumers will have the ability to repay the loans according to their 
terms. The Mandatory Underwriting Provisions include two methods for 
compliance. Under one method, lenders making covered short-term and 
longer-term balloon-payment loans are required to, among other things, 
make a reasonable determination that the consumer would be able to make 
the payments on the loan and be able to meet the consumer's basic 
living expenses and other major financial obligations without needing 
to re-borrow over the ensuing 30 days; the Rule sets forth a number of 
specific requirements that a lender must satisfy in this regard.\9\ 
Under the other method, lenders are allowed to make certain covered 
short-term loans without meeting all the specific underwriting criteria 
as long as the loan satisfies certain prescribed terms, the lender 
confirms that the consumer meets specified borrowing history 
conditions, and the lender provides required disclosures to the 
consumer.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 12 CFR 1041.5.
    \10\ 12 CFR 1041.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, under either approach, a lender must obtain and 
consider a consumer report from an information system registered with 
the Bureau before making a covered short-term or longer-term balloon-
payment loan.\11\ In addition, other portions of the Rule require 
lenders to furnish to provisionally registered and registered 
information systems \12\ certain information concerning covered short-
term and longer-term balloon-payment loans at loan consummation, during 
the period that the loan is an outstanding loan, and when the loan 
ceases to be an outstanding loan.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 CFR 1041.5(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (d)(1), and 1041.6(a).
    \12\ The 2017 Final Rule bifurcated the process for registering 
information systems: the first phase for entities seeking 
preliminary registration prior to the August 19, 2019 compliance 
date; and the second phase for entities seeking provisional 
registration on or after the August 19, 2019 compliance date. An 
entity seeking preliminary registration under the first phase was 
required to submit to the Bureau an initial application for 
preliminary approval for registration by April 16, 2018. After 
receiving preliminary approval from the Bureau, the entity must 
submit its application for registration within 120 days from the 
date preliminary approval was granted. See 12 CFR 1041.11(c).
    \13\ See 12 CFR 1041.10(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Payment Provisions of the Rule apply to a broader group of 
covered loans, which include covered short-term and longer-term 
balloon-payment loans as well as certain high-cost installment loans, 
establishing certain requirements and limitations with respect to 
attempts to withdraw payments from consumers' checking or other 
accounts. The Rule identifies as an unfair and abusive practice 
lenders' attempts to withdraw payment on these loans from consumers' 
accounts after two consecutive payment attempts have failed, unless the 
consumer provides a new and specific authorization to do so. The Rule 
also prescribes notices lenders must provide to consumers before 
attempting to withdraw payments from their accounts.
    In addition, the Rule includes other generally applicable 
provisions such as definitions, exemptions, and requirements for 
compliance programs and record retention (with portions specific to the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions and to the Payment Provisions).
    As noted above, on January 16, 2018, the Bureau issued a statement 
announcing its intention to engage in rulemaking to reconsider the 2017 
Final Rule. In addition, the statement notified entities seeking to 
become registered information systems that the Bureau would entertain 
requests to waive entities' preliminary approval application 
deadline.\14\ Since that time, the Bureau has issued several waivers 
and published copies of those waivers on its website.\15\ As of January 
30, 2019, there are no information systems registered with the 
Bureau.\16\ On October 26, 2018, the Bureau issued a subsequent 
statement announcing that it expected to issue NPRMs to reconsider 
certain provisions of the 2017 Final Rule and to address the Rule's 
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Statement on Payday Rule 
(Jan. 16, 2018), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-statement-payday-rule/.
    \15\ See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Payday, Vehicle Title, 
and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans Registered Information 
Systems registration program--Waiver requests and Bureau 
determinations, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/payday-loans-registered-information-systems-registration-program/registered-information-systems/#waivers.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 9, 2018, a legal challenge to the 2017 Final Rule was 
filed in the

[[Page 4300]]

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On June 
12, 2018, the court issued an order staying the litigation. On November 
6, 2018, the court stayed the August 19, 2019 compliance date of the 
2017 Final Rule until further order of the court.

III. Proposed Delay of Compliance Date for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions

    The Bureau is proposing in this NPRM to delay the August 19, 2019 
compliance date for the 2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions--specifically, Sec. Sec.  1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 
1041.11, and 1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3)--to 
November 19, 2020. The Bureau is proposing this compliance date delay 
for several reasons, as discussed in turn below.
    First, the Bureau is proposing this compliance date delay because, 
as noted above, the Bureau is publishing separately in this issue of 
the Federal Register an NPRM seeking comment on whether it should 
rescind the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule. 
The Bureau preliminarily believes that a compliance date delay is 
needed because, as described in more detail in the Reconsideration 
NPRM, the Bureau preliminarily believes there are strong reasons for 
rescinding the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the Rule. Delaying 
the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions would give the Bureau the opportunity to review comments on 
the Reconsideration NPRM and to make any changes to those provisions 
before affected entities bear additional costs to comply with and 
implement the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule. 
In addition, the Bureau is aware that some small lenders believe that 
the impacts of the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final 
Rule would significantly reduce the amount of revenue generated from 
their lending operations, and thereby cause some smaller industry 
participants to either temporarily or permanently exit the marketplace 
once compliance with the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 
Final Rule is required. Other lenders have indicated that they will be 
forced to consolidate their operations or to make other fundamental 
changes to their business as a result of the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions. The Bureau preliminarily believes that delaying the August 
19, 2019 compliance date would allow industry participants to avoid 
irreparable injury from the compliance and implementation costs and the 
market effects associated with preparing for and complying with 
portions of the Rule that the Bureau is proposing to rescind. The 
Bureau also believes that temporary industry disruptions may have 
negative impacts on consumers, including restricting consumer access to 
credit, and therefore preliminarily believes that delaying the August 
19, 2019 compliance date would allow consumers to avoid injury from any 
such disruption.
    Second, the Bureau has discussed implementation efforts with a 
number of industry participants since publication of the 2017 Final 
Rule, and through these conversations the Bureau has become aware of 
various unanticipated potential obstacles to compliance with the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions by the August 19, 2019 compliance 
date. The Bureau is seeking to better understand these obstacles and 
how they might bear on whether the Bureau should delay the August 19, 
2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions while it 
considers whether to rescind those portions of the 2017 Final Rule.
    For example, the Bureau is aware that several States have recently 
enacted laws applicable to loans subject to the 2017 Final Rule's 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions. Some industry participants have told 
the Bureau that they are prioritizing developing compliance management 
systems in response to these laws that have, or will, become effective 
\17\ before the August 19, 2019 compliance date. Some smaller industry 
participants have indicated to the Bureau that they do not have the 
resources to update or conform their compliance management systems to 
address both newly enacted State laws and the 2017 Final Rule at the 
same time. These recently enacted State laws were not anticipated in 
the 2017 Final Rule and therefore the effect these laws may have on 
affected entities' ability to comply with the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule was not considered when the Bureau 
set the August 19, 2019 compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In Ohio (a state that permits payday lending), a bill 
signed into law by the governor in 2018 will, among other things, 
prohibit certain lenders from making loans of $5,000 or less secured 
by a vehicle title or any other collateral. Ohio lenders must comply 
with the law as of April 27, 2019. See Ohio Dep't of Commerce, House 
Bill 123 Guidance (2018), https://www.com.ohio.gov/documents/fiin_HB123_Guidance.pdf; see also Ohio House Bill 123, An Act to 
Modify the Short-Term Loan Act, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-123.
    In Colorado, voters approved a ballot initiative on November 6, 
2018 to cap annual percentage rates on payday loans at 36 percent. 
This initiative takes effect February 1, 2019. See Colo. Legislative 
Council Staff, Initiative #126 Initial Fiscal Impact Statement, 
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/126FiscalImpact.pdf; see also Colo. Sec'y of 
State, Official Certified Results--State Offices & Questions, 
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/91808/Web02-state.220747/#/c/C_2 (Proposition 111).
    In Florida, on March 19, 2018, the governor signed the Deferred 
Presentment Transactions Law (SB 920). This legislation will allow 
deferred-presentment (payday) installment loans of up to $1,000 paid 
back in installments of 60 to 90 days. Prior law allowed only 
amounts up to $500 paid off in a lump sum of 31 days. The new law 
will go into effect July 1, 2019. See Ch. 2018-26, Laws of Fla. 
(2018), http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2018_026.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, industry participants have stated that the software 
vendors they use to produce technology and other critical systems 
necessary to comply with the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions 
requiring lenders to verify certain consumer obligations \18\ will not 
be fully operational or available to industry before the August 19, 
2019 compliance date. The Bureau has heard more recently that there are 
additional systems that would facilitate lenders' access to required 
information that have not progressed to the point necessary to permit 
lenders to meet the upcoming compliance date. For example, a storefront 
lender operating in multiple jurisdictions informed the Bureau that the 
process of overhauling its point-of-sale software has been delayed due 
to third-party vendors not being able to produce critical software 
components on schedule. Furthermore, it indicated that these third-
party vendors have not been able to commit to developing and deploying 
this necessary software by the August 19, 2019 compliance date due to 
the complexity of various components required to ensure compliance. 
Even if these third-party vendors were able to develop this necessary 
software by the August 19, 2019 compliance date, the storefront lender 
explained that it would need at least several weeks to ensure the 
software works with its point-of-sale software and that the third-party 
vendor's software is in compliance with the 2017 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, to verify a consumer's required payments under 
debt obligations, the lender must obtain and review (1) a national 
consumer report; (2) its own records and its affiliates' records; 
and (3) a consumer report obtained from an entity that has been 
registered with the Bureau as an information system under the Rule 
for 180 days or more pursuant to Sec.  1041.11(c)(2) or (d)(1), or 
that is registered pursuant to Sec.  1041.11(d)(2), if available. 
See 12 CFR 1041.5(c)(2)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the foregoing, the Bureau is proposing to delay the 
August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule to November 19, 2020. Specifically, 
as discussed further in part

[[Page 4301]]

V below, the Bureau is proposing to delay the compliance date for 
Sec. Sec.  1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 1041.11, and 
1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3) of the 2017 Final 
Rule. The Bureau is concerned that if the August 19, 2019 compliance 
date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions is not delayed, industry 
participants will expend additional resources and incur additional 
costs in order to comply with the 2017 Final Rule, and industry 
participants could experience revenue disruptions that could impact 
their ability to stay in business once the compliance date has passed. 
The Bureau is concerned about imposing such costs on industry 
participants by mandating compliance by August 19, 2019 with portions 
of the Rule that may ultimately be rescinded. The Bureau preliminarily 
believes, based on its experience writing the 2017 Final Rule and with 
other similar rulemakings, that the proposed compliance date of 
November 19, 2020 will allow the Bureau adequate opportunity to review 
comments on its Reconsideration NPRM regarding the Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule and to make any changes 
to those provisions before affected entities bear additional costs 
associated with implementing and complying with the 2017 Final Rule, 
and related market effects.
    The Bureau solicits comment on whether it should delay the August 
19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of 
the 2017 Final Rule, and, if so, whether the proposed November 19, 2020 
compliance date is an appropriate length of time. In particular, the 
Bureau asks commenters to provide specific detail and any available 
data regarding implementation of the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions 
of the 2017 Final Rule and the specific challenges they face in doing 
so by the current compliance date of August 19, 2019, as well as 
relevant knowledge and specific facts about any benefits, costs, or 
other impacts of this proposal on industry, consumers, and other 
stakeholders. The Bureau also requests comment on whether it has 
identified the appropriate provisions of the 2017 Final Rule as 
constituting the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions for purposes of the 
proposed delay, and whether delaying the August 19, 2019 compliance 
date for these provisions would have any crossover effects on 
implementation of the Payment Provisions. In addition, the Bureau 
solicits comment on the potential consequences of not delaying the 
August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions, as well as whether delaying the compliance date for the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions would better facilitate an orderly 
implementation period for the Rule. Finally, the Bureau solicits 
comment about the impact of the proposed delay on consumers who use 
payday loans, vehicle title loans, and high-cost installment loans 
covered by the 2017 Final Rule.
    The purpose of this document is to seek comment on the Bureau's 
proposal to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions. At this time, the Bureau is not proposing to 
delay the compliance date for the other provisions of the 2017 Final 
Rule, including the Payment Provisions. The Bureau notes that, through 
its efforts to monitor and support industry implementation of the 2017 
Final Rule, it has heard concerns from some stakeholders regarding the 
Rule that are outside of the scope of this proposal. For example, the 
Bureau has received a rulemaking petition to exempt debit card payments 
from the Rule's Payment Provisions. The Bureau has also received 
informal requests related to various aspects of the Payment Provisions 
or the Rule as a whole, including requests to exempt certain types of 
lenders or loan products from the Rule's coverage and to delay the 
compliance date for the Payment Provisions. The Bureau intends to 
examine these issues and if the Bureau determines that further action 
is warranted, the Bureau will commence a separate rulemaking initiative 
(such as by issuing a request for information or an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking).

IV. Legal Authority

    The legal authority for the 2017 Final Rule is described in detail 
in part IV of the Supplementary Information accompanying the 2017 Final 
Rule.\19\ Commenters may refer to that discussion for more information 
about the legal authority for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 82 FR 54472, 54519-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau adopted the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 
2017 Final Rule in principal reliance on the Bureau's authority under 
section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act to identify and prohibit unfair 
and abusive practices.\20\ Accordingly, in proposing this rule, the 
Bureau is exercising its authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) 
to prescribe rules under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 12 U.S.C. 5531(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau 
relied on other legal authorities for certain aspects of the Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions in the 2017 Final Rule.\21\ Section 
1022(b)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau, by rule, to 
conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of covered persons, 
service providers, or consumer financial products or services from any 
rule issued under Title X, which includes a rule issued under section 
1031, as the Bureau determines is necessary or appropriate to carry out 
the purposes and objectives of Title X.\22\ The Bureau also relied, in 
adopting certain provisions, on its authority under section 1022(b)(1) 
of the Dodd-Frank Act to prescribe rules as may be necessary or 
appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the 
purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws.\23\ The 
term Federal consumer financial law includes rules prescribed under 
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including those prescribed under section 
1031.\24\ Additionally, in the 2017 Final Rule, the Bureau relied, for 
certain provisions, on other authorities, including those in sections 
1021(c)(3), 1022(c)(7), 1024(b)(7), and 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 82 FR 54472, 54522.
    \22\ 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). The Bureau also interprets section 
1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act as authorizing it to rescind or 
amend a previously issued rule if it determines such rule is not 
necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and 
carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer 
financial laws, including a rule issued to identify and prevent 
unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
    \24\ 12 U.S.C. 5481(14).
    \25\ 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(3), 12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(7), 12 U.S.C. 
5514(b)(7), and 12 U.S.C. 5532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act and each of the other legal 
authorities that the Bureau relied upon in the 2017 Final Rule provide 
the Bureau with discretion to issue rules and therefore discretion in 
setting compliance dates for those rules. In the 2017 Final Rule, the 
Bureau stated that the Rule's compliance date was ``structured to 
facilitate an orderly implementation process.'' \26\ In particular, the 
Bureau sought ``to balance giving enough time for an orderly 
implementation period against the interest of enacting protections for 
consumers as soon as possible.'' \27\ As discussed above and in the 
Reconsideration NPRM, the Bureau preliminarily believes that there are 
strong reasons for rescinding the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of 
the Rule on the grounds, inter alia, that a more robust and reliable 
evidentiary

[[Page 4302]]

record is needed to support a rule that would have such dramatic 
impacts on the market, and that the findings of an unfair and abusive 
practice as set out in Sec.  1041.4 of the 2017 Final Rule rested on 
applications of the relevant standards that the Bureau should no longer 
use. Accordingly, the Bureau preliminarily concludes that it should not 
assign the weight that it did in the 2017 Final Rule to ``the interest 
of enacting protections for consumers as soon as possible.'' As also 
discussed above, the Bureau has requested comment regarding whether 
delaying the August 19, 2019 compliance date would be consistent with 
an ``orderly implementation period,'' given that the Bureau may 
conclude that the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions should not be 
implemented and should instead be rescinded and because of the 
potential implementation issues discussed above. The Bureau is 
proposing to exercise its discretion to revise the August 19, 2019 
compliance date in the manner described in this NPRM, in light of the 
considerations described above. The Bureau requests comment on those 
considerations and how they should be weighed in potentially delaying 
the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 82 FR 54472, 54474.
    \27\ Id. at 54814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Provisions Affected by the Proposal

    As discussed above, the 2017 Final Rule became effective on January 
16, 2018, but has a compliance date of August 19, 2019 for Sec. Sec.  
1041.2 through 1041.10, 1041.12, and 1041.13. The Bureau is proposing 
to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date to November 19, 2020 for 
Sec. Sec.  1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 1041.11, and 
1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3). Sections 1041.4 
through 1041.6 govern underwriting, with Sec.  1041.4 identifying an 
unfair and abusive practice, Sec.  1041.5 governing the ability-to-
repay determination, and Sec.  1041.6 providing a conditional exemption 
from Sec. Sec.  1041.4 and 1041.5 for certain covered short-term loans. 
Section 1041.10 governs information furnishing requirements and Sec.  
1041.11 addresses registered information systems. Section 1041.12 sets 
forth compliance program and record retention requirements, with Sec.  
1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3) detailing record 
retention requirements that are specific to the Rule's Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions.
    To implement the proposed compliance date delay, the Bureau would 
revise the few instances in the regulatory text and commentary where 
the August 19, 2019 compliance date appears. These portions of the 
regulatory text and commentary are generally related to the registered 
information system requirements in Sec.  1041.11; namely, the Bureau 
would revise the regulatory text and headings in Sec.  1041.11(c) 
introductory text, (c)(1) and (2), (d) introductory text, and 
(d)(1),\28\ and related commentary, to replace August 19, 2019, where 
it appears, with the proposed compliance date of November 19, 2020. In 
addition, the Bureau requests comment on whether it should amend the 
Rule's regulatory text or commentary to expressly state the delayed 
compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions and/or the 
unchanged date for the Payment Provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Section 1041.11(c)(1) allows the Bureau to preliminarily 
approve an entity as an information system before the compliance 
date of August 19, 2019. Section 1041.11(c)(2) allows the Bureau to 
approve the application from a preliminarily approved entity to 
become a registered information system prior to the compliance date 
of August 19, 2019.
    The Bureau is not, however, proposing to change the April 16, 
2018 date in Sec.  1041.11(c)(3), which was the deadline to submit 
an application for preliminary approval for registration. As noted 
above, Sec.  1041.11(c)(3)(iii) permits the Bureau to waive the 
application deadline on a case-by-case basis, and therefore the 
Bureau does not need to modify the existing April 16, 2018 
preliminary approval date.
    Section 1041.11(d)(1) sets forth the Bureau's process for 
approving and registering entities as information systems on or 
after the August 19, 2019 compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Compliance and Effective Dates

    The Bureau is proposing to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance 
date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule--
specifically, Sec. Sec.  1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 1041.11, and 
1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3)--to November 19, 
2020. After considering comments received on this proposal, the Bureau 
intends to publish a final rule with respect to the delayed compliance 
date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule, 
if warranted. Any final rule to delay the Rule's compliance date for 
the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions would be published and become 
effective prior to August 19, 2019. The Bureau seeks comment on this 
aspect of the proposal.

VII. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b)(2) Analysis

A. Overview

    As discussed above, this proposal would delay the August 19, 2019 
compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 
Final Rule to November 19, 2020. Published separately in this issue of 
the Federal Register is the Reconsideration NPRM, in which the Bureau 
considers the impacts of rescinding the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule. The analysis of the benefits and 
costs to consumers and covered persons required by section 
1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act (also referred to as the ``section 
1022(b)(2) analysis'') in part VIII of the Reconsideration NPRM 
outlines the one-time and ongoing benefits and costs of rescinding the 
2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting Provisions. As this proposal 
to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date would constitute a 15-
month delay of the 2017 Final Rule's compliance date for the Mandatory 
Underwriting Provisions, its impacts if the Bureau were to issue a 
final rule with such a delay would be effectively 1.25 years of the 
annualized, ongoing impacts described in the Reconsideration NPRM. As 
described in the Reconsideration NPRM's section 1022(b)(2) analysis, 
these impacts are based on the analysis and conclusions reached in the 
2017 Final Rule, and include increased loan volumes and revenues for 
lenders, increased access to credit for consumers, and a negative 
average welfare effect on consumers from exposure to unanticipated long 
sequences, all relative to the baseline if compliance becomes mandatory 
on August 19, 2019. This proposal's impacts on the one-time costs 
described in the 2017 Final Rule primarily include a delay before 
covered entities must bear these costs, until no later than the new 
compliance date. As some covered entities may have already started to 
incur some of these one-time costs and others may incur the costs in 
advance of the delayed compliance date, the Bureau believes the 
monetary impact of a delay of the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions 
would have minimal impacts on the eventual costs incurred by lenders if 
the Bureau decides to retain the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions.
    In developing this proposal, the Bureau has considered the 
potential benefits, costs, and impacts as required by section 
1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act.\29\ Specifically, section 
1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act calls for the Bureau to consider 
the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and 
covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by 
consumers to consumer financial products or services, the impact on 
depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in 
total assets as described in

[[Page 4303]]

section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in 
rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In advance of issuing this proposal, the Bureau has consulted with 
the prudential regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, including 
consultation regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or 
systemic objectives administered by such agencies.
    The Bureau requests comment on the section 1022(b)(2) analysis that 
follows as well as submission of additional information that could 
inform the Bureau's consideration of the potential benefits, costs, and 
impacts of this proposal to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date 
of the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the Rule. Comments on the 
Bureau's section 1022(b)(2) analysis related to this NPRM's proposed 
compliance date delay should be filed on the docket associated with 
this NPRM, while comments on the Reconsideration NPRM's section 
1022(b)(2) analysis should be filed on the Reconsideration NPRM docket.
1. Description of the Baseline
    In considering the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this 
proposed rule the Bureau takes the 2017 Final Rule as the baseline, and 
considers economic attributes of the relevant markets as they are 
projected to exist under the 2017 Final Rule with its current August 
19, 2019 compliance date and the existing legal and regulatory 
structures (i.e., those that have been adopted or enacted, even if 
compliance is not currently required) applicable to providers. This is 
the same baseline used in the Reconsideration NPRM. See part VIII.A.4 
of the Reconsideration NPRM for a more complete description of the 
baseline.
2. Need for Federal Regulation
    The need for regulation here--i.e., for a delay of the compliance 
date--is discussed in more detail above. In summary, first, the 
Bureau's Reconsideration NPRM, published separately in this issue of 
the Federal Register, sets forth the Bureau's reasons for preliminarily 
concluding that the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final 
Rule should be rescinded. The Bureau is concerned that if the August 
19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions is 
not delayed, firms will expend significant resources and incur 
significant costs to comply with portions of the 2017 Final Rule that 
ultimately may be--and which the Bureau preliminarily believes should 
be--rescinded. The Bureau is likewise concerned that once the August 
19, 2019 compliance date has passed, firms could experience substantial 
revenue disruptions that could impact their ability to stay in business 
while the Bureau is deciding whether to issue a final rule rescinding 
the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule. Second, 
as discussed above, outreach to firms since the finalization of the 
2017 Final Rule has brought to light certain potential obstacles to 
compliance that were not anticipated when the original compliance date 
was set. For example, as discussed above, some firms have indicated 
that they need additional time to finish building out, or otherwise 
make investments in, technology and critical systems necessary to 
comply with the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final 
Rule.

B. Potential Benefits and Costs to Covered Persons and Consumers

    The annualized quantifiable benefits and costs of rescinding the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 2017 Final Rule are detailed 
in the section 1022(b)(2) analysis in part VIII.B through D of the 
Reconsideration NPRM. Under this proposal to delay the August 19, 2019 
compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions, these 
annualized benefits and costs would be realized for a period of 15 
months (1.25 years). Additional, unquantified benefits and costs are 
also described in the Reconsideration NPRM's section 1022(b)(2) 
analysis. Under this proposal these costs and benefits would also be 
realized for 15 months (1.25 years).
1. Benefits to Covered Persons and Consumers
    This proposal to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions would delay by 15 months the 
restrictions on consumers' ability to choose to take out covered loans 
(including payday and vehicle title loans) that would be prohibited in 
the baseline. This proposal would also delay the decrease in the 
revenues of payday lenders anticipated in the 2017 Final Rule (62 to 68 
percent) by 15 months, resulting in an estimated increase in revenues 
of between $4.25 billion and $4.5 billion (based on the annual rate of 
$3.4 billion and $3.6 billion) relative to the baseline. A similar 
delay in the reduction in the revenues of vehicle title lenders would 
result in an estimated increase in revenues relative to the baseline of 
between $4.9 billion and $5.1 billion (based on the annual rate of $3.9 
billion to $4.1 billion).\30\ The proposal would also cause a small but 
potentially quantifiable delay in the additional transportation costs 
borrowers would incur to get to lenders after the storefront closures 
expected in response to the 2017 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ These values are not discounted, as they would begin being 
realized immediately, and annualized discounting over such a small 
horizon would have a minimal impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs to Covered Persons and Consumers
    The Reconsideration NPRM's section 1022(b)(2) analysis also 
discusses the ongoing costs facing consumers that result from extended 
payday loan sequences at part VIII.B through D. The available evidence 
suggests that the Reconsideration NPRM would impose potential costs on 
consumers by increasing the risks of: Experiencing costs associated 
with extended sequences of payday loans and single-payment vehicle 
title loans; experiencing the costs (pecuniary and non-pecuniary) of 
delinquency and default on these loans; defaulting on other major 
financial obligations; and/or being unable to cover basic living 
expenses in order to pay off covered short-term and longer-term 
balloon-payment loans.\31\ Relative to the baseline where the 2017 
Final Rule's compliance date is unaltered, these costs would be 
maintained for 15 additional months under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As mentioned in the Reconsideration NPRM's section 
1022(b)(2) analysis, the effects associated with longer-term 
balloon-payment loans are likely to be small relative to the effects 
associated with short-term payday and vehicle title loans. This is 
because longer-term balloon-payment loans are uncommon in the 
baseline against which costs are measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Benefits and Costs
    Other benefits and costs that the Bureau did not quantify are 
discussed in the Reconsideration NPRM's section 1022(b)(2) analysis in 
part VIII.E. These include (but are not limited to): The consumer 
welfare impacts associated with increased access to vehicle title 
loans; intrinsic utility (``warm glow'') from access to loans that are 
not used (and that would not be available under the 2017 Final Rule); 
innovative regulatory approaches by States that would have been 
discouraged by the 2017 Final Rule; public and private health costs 
that may (or may not) result from payday loan use; changes to the 
profitability and industry structure that would have occurred in 
response to the 2017 Final Rule (e.g., industry consolidation that may 
create scale efficiencies, movement to installment product offerings); 
concerns about

[[Page 4304]]

regulatory uncertainty and/or inconsistent regulatory regimes across 
markets; benefits or costs to outside parties associated with the 
change in access to payday loans; indirect costs arising from increased 
repossessions of vehicles in response to non-payment of vehicle title 
loans; non-pecuniary costs associated with financial stress that may be 
alleviated or exacerbated by increased access to/use of payday loans; 
and any impacts of fraud perpetrated on lenders and opacity as to 
borrower behavior and history related to a lack of industry-wide 
registered information systems (e.g., borrowers circumventing lender 
policies against taking multiple concurrent payday loans, lenders 
having more difficulty identifying chronic defaulters, etc.). Each of 
these impacts, discussed in the section 1022(b)(2) analysis for the 
2017 Final Rule and the section 1022(b)(2) analysis of the 
Reconsideration NPRM, are expected to result from this proposal for the 
15-month delay of the compliance date for the 2017 Final Rule's 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions.
    The Bureau does not believe the one-time benefits and costs 
described in the Reconsideration NPRM will be substantially affected by 
this proposal to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the 
Mandatory Underwriting Provisions. In effect, this proposal would 
provide institutions greater flexibility in when and how to deal with 
the burdens of the 2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting Provisions 
if the Bureau retains those provisions in the Reconsideration 
rulemaking. Some firms may have already undertaken some of the 
compliance costs, meaning this proposal would have minimal impact on 
their benefits or costs. If the Bureau ultimately decides to finalize 
this proposed compliance date delay for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions, others may use the additional time to install the necessary 
systems and processes to comply with the 2017 Final Rule in a more 
efficient manner. Quantifying the value of this more flexible timeline 
is impossible, as it depends on, among other things, each firm's 
idiosyncratic capacities and opportunity costs. However, it is likely 
that this flexibility will be of relatively greater benefit to smaller 
entities with more limited resources.
    The Bureau expects, however, that, if the proposed compliance date 
delay for the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions is finalized, most 
firms will simply delay incurring some or all of the costs of coming 
into compliance. This period of time could vary depending on the length 
of the delay eventually finalized, if any. A delay of 15 months, as 
proposed, would effectively reduce the one-time benefits and costs by 
1.25 years of their discount rate.\32\ While these firms would 
experience potentially quantifiable benefits, the Bureau cannot know 
what proportion of the firms would adopt any of the strategies 
described above, let alone the discounting values or strategies unique 
to each firm. For a 15-month delay, the discounting of the one-time 
benefits and costs would be likely to be less than 3 percent of the 
value of those benefits and costs.\33\ As such, the Bureau believes the 
one-time benefits and costs of this proposal are minimal, relative to 
the other benefits and costs described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Over and above this inflationary discounting, it is also 
possible that the proposed delay would result in a decrease in the 
nominal technology costs associated with compliance, as technology 
costs are generally declining. However, given the relatively short 
horizon and relatively mature technology required for compliance 
(e.g., electronic storage, database management software, etc.), this 
decrease in nominal costs is expected to be minimal.
    \33\ The 3 percent value assumes a discounting of 2.40 percent 
(the Effective Federal Funds rate as of January 30, 2019) for 1.25 
years. This implicitly assumes all firms would undertake the 
necessary actions immediately in the absence of this proposal, and 
would delay those actions for the full 15 months if the proposal 
were to be adopted. The true value will likely be substantially less 
than this, as many firms will not delay by the full duration, and/or 
have already undertaken the actions that will result in the benefits 
or costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Potential Impact on Depository Creditors With $10 Billion or Less in 
Total Assets

    The Bureau believes that depository institutions and credit unions 
with less than $10 billion in assets were minimally constrained by the 
2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting Provisions. To the limited 
extent depository institutions and credit unions do make loans in this 
market, many of those loans are conditionally exempt from the 2017 
Final Rule under Sec.  1041.3(e) or (f) as alternative or accommodation 
loans. As such, this proposal would likewise have minimal impact on 
these institutions.
    The Reconsideration NPRM notes that it is possible that a 
revocation of the 2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting Provisions 
would allow depository institutions and credit unions with less than 
$10 billion in assets to develop products that would not be viable 
under the 2017 Final Rule (subject to applicable Federal and State laws 
and under the supervision of their prudential regulators). Given that 
development of these products has been underway, and takes a 
significant amount of time, and that this proposal's delay does not 
affect such products' longer-term viability, this proposal would have 
minimal effect on these products and institutions.

D. Potential Impact on Consumers in Rural Areas

    The Bureau does not believe that the proposed compliance date delay 
would reduce consumer access to consumer financial products and 
services, and it may increase consumer access by delaying the point at 
which covered firms implement changes to comply with the 2017 Final 
Rule's Mandatory Underwriting Provisions. Under the proposal, consumers 
in rural areas would have a greater increase in the availability of 
covered short-term and longer-term balloon-payment loans originated 
through storefronts relative to consumers living in non-rural areas. As 
described in more detail in the Reconsideration NPRM's section 
1022(b)(2) analysis, the Bureau estimates that removing the 
restrictions in the 2017 Final Rule on making these loans would likely 
lead to a substantial increase in the markets for storefront payday 
lenders and storefront single-payment vehicle title loans. By delaying 
the August 19, 2019 compliance date for the Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions, the Bureau similarly anticipates a substantial increase in 
those markets relative to the baseline for the duration of the delay.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act \34\ as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 \35\ (RFA) 
requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its 
regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small 
governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations.\36\ The RFA 
defines a ``small business'' as a business that meets the size standard 
developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to the 
Small Business Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
    \35\ Public Law 104-21, section 241, 110 Stat. 847, 864-65 
(1996).
    \36\ 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612. The term `` `small organization' 
means any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field, unless an agency 
establishes [an alternative definition under notice and comment].'' 
5 U.S.C. 601(4). The term `` `small governmental jurisdiction' means 
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
fifty thousand, unless an agency establishes [an alternative 
definition after notice and comment].'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The Bureau may establish an alternative 
definition after consulting with the SBA and providing an 
opportunity for public comment. Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4305]]

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment 
rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.\38\ The Bureau also is subject to certain additional 
procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult 
with small entity representatives prior to proposing a rule for which 
an IRFA is required.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612.
    \39\ 5 U.S.C. 609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposal would delay the August 19, 2019 
compliance date for Sec. Sec.  1041.4 through 1041.6, 1041.10, 1041.11, 
and 1041.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (b)(2) and (3) of the 2017 Final 
Rule to November 19, 2020. The proposed delay in the compliance date 
would benefit small entities by providing additional flexibility with 
respect to the timing of the 2017 Final Rule's Mandatory Underwriting 
Provisions' implementation. In addition to generally providing 
increased flexibility, the delay in the compliance date would permit 
small entities to delay the commencement of any ongoing costs that 
result from complying with the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the 
2017 Final Rule. Because small entities would retain the option of 
coming into compliance with the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions on 
the original August 19, 2019 compliance date, the proposed delay of the 
compliance date would not increase costs incurred by small entities 
relative to the baseline established by the 2017 Final Rule. Based on 
these considerations, the proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on any small entities.
    Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that this proposed 
rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Thus, neither an IRFA nor a small 
business review panel is required for this proposal. The Bureau 
requests comments on this analysis and any relevant data.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),\40\ Federal 
agencies are generally required to seek Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) approval for information collection requirements prior to 
implementation. Under the PRA, the Bureau may not conduct or sponsor 
and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not 
required to respond to an information collection unless the information 
collection displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The 
collections of information related to the 2017 Final Rule were 
previously submitted to OMB in accordance with the PRA and assigned OMB 
Control Number 3170-0065 for tracking purposes, however, this control 
number is not yet active as OMB has not approved these information 
collection requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau has determined that the proposed rule would not impose 
any new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on members 
of the public that would constitute collections of information 
requiring approval under the PRA.

    Dated: February 6, 2019.
Kathleen L. Kraninger,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2019-01905 Filed 2-11-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P