BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

DIVISION OF CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 

DATE: May 14, 2007 

TO: Board of Governors 

FROM: Governor Kroszner 

Committee on Consumer and Community Affairs 

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) 

The attached item has been reviewed by members of the Consumer and 

Community Affairs Committee and is now ready for Board consideration. 
2

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

DIVISION OF CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 

DATE: May 14, 2007 

TO: Board of Governors 

FROM: Division of Consumer and Community Affairs∗

∗

S. Braunstein, L. Chanin, J. Michaels, J. Ahrens, K. Ayoub, A. Burke, K. Tran-Trong, D. Sokolov, 

V. Wong, J. Wood

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) 

ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to publish proposed amendments to Regulation Z 

(Truth in Lending) for public comment. The amendments would revise the disclosure 

requirements for open-end (revolving) plans that are not home-secured, including credit 

card accounts. 

Summary 

The goal of the proposed amendments to Regulation Z is to improve the 

effectiveness of the disclosures that creditors provide to consumers at application and 

throughout the life of an open-end account. The proposed changes are the result of the 

staff’s review of the provisions that apply to open-end (not home-secured) credit. The 

Board’s last comprehensive review of Regulation Z was in 1981. The staff recommends 

changes to format, timing, and content requirements for the five main types of open-end 

credit disclosures governed by Regulation Z: (1) application and solicitation disclosures; 

(2) account-opening disclosures; (3) periodic statement disclosures; (4) change-in-terms 

notices; and (5) advertising provisions. 

Applications and Solicitations. The proposal contains changes to the format and 

content to make the application and solicitation disclosures more meaningful and easier 
3 

for consumers to use. The proposed changes (which are discussed in detail on 

pages 13 to 18 of this memorandum) include: 

• Adopting new format requirements for the summary table1, including rules 

regarding: type size and use of boldface type for certain key terms, placement of 

information, and the use of cross-references. 

• Revising content, including: a requirement that creditors disclose the duration 

that penalty rates may be in effect, a shorter disclosure about variable rates, new 

disclosures highlighting the effect of creditors’ payment allocation practices, and 

a reference to consumer education materials on the Board’s web site. 

 Account-opening Disclosures. The proposal also contains revisions to the cost 

disclosures provided at account opening to make the information more conspicuous and 

easier to read. The proposed changes (which are discussed in detail on pages 18 to 23) 

include: 

• Disclosing certain key terms in a summary table at account opening, which would 

be substantially similar to the table required for applications and solicitations, in 

order to summarize for consumers key information that is most important to 

informed decision-making. 

• Adopting a different approach to disclosing fees, to provide greater clarity for 

identifying fees that must be disclosed. In addition, creditors would have 

flexibility to disclose charges (other than those in the summary table) in writing or 

orally. 

Periodic Statement Disclosures. The proposal also contains revisions to make 

disclosures on periodic statements more understandable, primarily by making changes to 

the format requirements, such as by grouping fees, interest charges, and transactions 

together. The proposed changes (which are discussed in detail on pages 23 to 32) 

include: 

• Itemizing interest charges for different types of transactions, such as purchases 

and cash advances, and providing separate totals of fees and interest for the month 

and year-to-date. 

• Modifying the provisions for disclosing the “effective APR,” including format 

and terminology requirements to make it more understandable.2 Because of 

1

 This table is commonly referred to as the “Schumer box.” 2

 The “effective” APR reflects interest and other finance charges such as cash advance fees or balance 

transfer fees imposed for the billing cycle.
4 

concerns about the disclosure’s effectiveness, however, staff also recommends 

soliciting comment on whether this rate should be required to be disclosed. 

• Requiring disclosure of the effect of making only the minimum required payment 

on repayment of balances (changes required by the Bankruptcy Act). 

Changes in Consumer’s Interest Rate and Other Account Terms. The proposal 

would expand the circumstances under which consumers receive written notice of 

changes in the terms (e.g., an increase in the interest rate) applicable to their accounts, 

and increase the amount of time these notices must be sent before the change becomes 

effective. The proposed changes (which are discussed in detail on pages 32 to 35) 

include: 

• Generally increasing advance notice before a changed term can be imposed from 

15 to 45 days, to better allow consumers to obtain alternative financing or change 

their account usage. 

• Requiring creditors to provide 45 days’ prior notice before the creditor increases a 

rate due to the consumer’s delinquency or default. 

• When a change-in-terms notice accompanies a periodic statement, requiring a 

tabular disclosure on the front of the periodic statement of the key terms being 

changed. 

 Advertising Provisions. The proposal would revise the rules governing 

advertising of open-end credit to help ensure consumers better understand the credit 

terms offered. These proposed revisions (which are discussed in detail on pages 35 and 

36) include: 

• Requiring advertisements that state a minimum monthly payment on a plan 

offered to finance the purchase of goods or services to state, in equal prominence 

to the minimum payment, the time period required to pay the balance and the total 

of payments if only minimum payments are made. 

• Permitting advertisements to refer to a rate as “fixed” only if the advertisement 

specifies a time period for which the rate is fixed and the rate will not increase for 

any reason during that time, or if a time period is not specified, if the rate will not 

increase for any reason while the plan is open. 
5

Model forms. Model forms that illustrate proposed disclosures to be provided 

(1) with applications and solicitations, (2) at account opening, and (3) on periodic 

statements are attached to this memorandum. 

Background 

The Truth in Lending Act 

Congress enacted the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) based on findings that 

economic stability would be enhanced and competition among consumer credit providers 

would be strengthened by the informed use of credit resulting from consumers’ 

awareness of the cost of credit. The purposes of TILA are (1) to provide a meaningful 

disclosure of credit terms to enable consumers to compare credit terms available in the 

marketplace more readily and avoid the uninformed use of credit; and (2) to protect 

consumers against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices. 

TILA’s disclosures differ depending on whether consumer credit is an open-end 

(revolving) plan or a closed-end (installment) loan. TILA also contains procedural and 

substantive protections for consumers. TILA is implemented by the Board’s Regulation 

Z. An Official Staff Commentary interprets the requirements of Regulation Z. By 

statute, creditors that follow in good faith Board or official staff interpretations are 

insulated from civil liability, criminal penalties, or administrative sanction. 

The Board’s Rulemaking Authority 

TILA mandates that the Board prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of 

the act. TILA specifically authorizes the Board, among other things, to do the following: 

• Issue regulations that contain such classifications, differentiations, or other 

provisions, or that provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of 

transactions, that in the Board’s judgment are necessary or proper to effectuate the 
6

purposes of TILA, facilitate compliance with the act, or prevent circumvention or 

evasion. 

• Exempt from all or part of TILA any class of transactions if the Board determines 

that TILA coverage does not provide a meaningful benefit to consumers in the 

form of useful information or protection. The Board must consider factors 

identified in the act and publish its rationale at the time it proposes an exemption 

for comment. 

• Add or modify information required to be disclosed with credit and charge card 

applications or solicitations if the Board determines the action is necessary to 

carry out the purposes of, or prevent evasions of, the application and solicitation 

disclosure rules. 

• Require disclosures in advertisements of open-end plans. 

Board’s Review of Open-end Credit Rules 

The Board began a review of Regulation Z in December 2004.3 (The Board’s 

previous comprehensive review of Regulation Z was completed in 1981.) The Board 

initiated its review of Regulation Z by issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(December 2004 ANPR).4 At that time, the Board announced its intent to conduct its 

review of Regulation Z in stages, focusing first on the rules for open-end (revolving) 

credit accounts that are not home-secured, chiefly general-purpose credit cards and 

retailer credit card plans. The December 2004 ANPR sought public comment on a 

variety of specific issues relating to three broad categories: the format of open-end credit 

disclosures, the content of those disclosures, and the substantive protections provided for 

open-end credit under the regulation. The December 2004 ANPR solicited comment on 

the scope of the Board’s review, and also requested commenters to identify other issues 

3

 The review was initiated pursuant to requirements of section 303 of the Riegle Community Development 

and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, and 

section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996. 4

 ANPRs are published to obtain preliminary information prior to issuing a proposed rule or, in some 

cases, deciding whether to issue a proposed rule.
7

that the Board should address in the review. The comment period closed on March 28, 

2005. 

The Board received over 200 comment letters in response to the December 2004 

ANPR. More than half of the comments were from individual consumers. 

About 60 comments were received from the industry or industry representatives, and 

about 20 comments were received from consumer advocates and community 

development groups. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one state agency, 

and one member of Congress also submitted comments. A summary of the comments is 

attached as Appendix A to this memorandum, beginning at page 42. 

The Bankruptcy Act’s Amendments to TILA 

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the 

“Bankruptcy Act”) primarily amended the federal bankruptcy code, but also contained 

several provisions amending TILA. The Bankruptcy Act’s TILA amendments 

principally deal with open-end credit accounts and require new disclosures on periodic 

statements, on credit card applications and solicitations, and in advertisements. 

In October 2005, the Board published a second ANPR to solicit comment on 

implementing the Bankruptcy Act amendments (October 2005 ANPR). In the 

October 2005 ANPR, the Board stated its intent to implement the Bankruptcy Act 

amendments as part of the Board’s ongoing review of Regulation Z’s open-end credit 

rules. The comment period for the October 2005 ANPR closed on December 16, 2005. 

The Board received approximately 50 comment letters in response to the 

October 2005 ANPR. Forty-five letters were submitted by financial institutions and their 

trade groups. Five letters were submitted by consumer groups. A summary of the 
8

Bankruptcy Act amendments and the comments received in response to the October 2005 

ANPR is provided in Appendix A to this memorandum, at page 47. 

Consumer Testing 

A principal goal for the Regulation Z review is to produce revised and improved 

credit card disclosures that consumers will be more likely to pay attention to, understand, 

and use in their decisions, while at the same time not creating undue burdens for 

creditors. In April 2006, the Board retained a research and consulting firm (Macro 

International) that specializes in designing and testing documents to conduct consumer 

testing to help the Board review Regulation Z’s credit card rules. Specifically, Board 

staff used consumer testing to develop proposed model forms for the following credit 

card disclosures required by Regulation Z: 

• Summary table disclosures provided in direct-mail solicitations and applications; 

• Disclosures provided at account opening; 

• Periodic statement disclosures (typically provided monthly); and 

• Subsequent disclosures, such as notices provided when key account terms are 

changed, and notices on checks provided to access credit card accounts. 

Working closely with Board staff, Macro International conducted several tests. 

Each round of testing was conducted in a different city, throughout the United States. In 

addition, the consumer testing groups contained participants with a range of ethnicities, 

ages, educational levels, credit card behavior, and whether a consumer likely has a prime 

or subprime credit card. 

 Exploratory focus groups. In May and June 2006, Board staff worked with Macro 

International to conduct two sets of focus groups with credit card consumers, in part, to 

learn more about what information consumers currently use in making decisions about 
9

their credit card accounts. Each focus group consisted of between eight and thirteen 

people that discussed issues identified by Board staff and raised by a moderator from 

Macro International. Through these focus groups, Board staff gathered information on 

what credit terms consumers usually consider when shopping for a credit card, what 

information they find useful when they receive a new credit card in the mail, and what 

information they find useful on periodic statements. 

Cognitive interviews on existing disclosures. In August 2006, Board staff worked 

with Macro International to conduct nine cognitive interviews with credit card customers. 

These cognitive interviews consisted of one-on-one discussions with consumers, during 

which consumers were asked to view existing sample credit card disclosures. The goals 

of these interviews were: (1) to learn more about what information consumers read when 

they receive current credit card disclosures; (2) to research how easily consumers can 

find various pieces of information in these disclosures; and (3) to test consumers’ 

understanding of certain credit card-related words and phrases. 

Initial design of disclosures for testing. In the fall of 2006, Board staff worked 

with Macro International to develop sample credit card disclosures to be used in the later 

rounds of testing, taking into account information learned through the focus groups and 

the cognitive interviews. 

Additional cognitive interviews and revisions to disclosures. In late 2006 and 

early 2007, Board staff worked with Macro International to conduct four rounds of 

cognitive interviews (between seven and nine participants per round), where consumers 

were asked to view new sample credit card disclosures developed by Board staff and 

Macro International. The rounds of interviews were conducted sequentially to allow for 
10

revisions to the testing materials based on what was learned from the testing during each 

previous round. 

Results of testing. Several of the model forms were developed through the 

testing. Some of the key findings are summarized below, in the Discussion section of 

this Board memorandum beginning at page 12, and in the draft Federal Register notice 

containing the proposal. Macro International will also issue a report summarizing the 

results of the testing, and this report will be available on the Board’s public web site 

along with the Regulation Z proposal. 

Testing participants generally read the summary table provided in direct-mail 

solicitations and applications and ignored information presented outside of the table. 

Thus, the proposal requires that information about events that trigger penalty rates and 

about important fees (late-payment fees, over-the-credit-limit fees, balance transfer fees, 

and cash advance fees) be placed in the table. Currently, this information may be placed 

outside the table. 

With respect to the account-opening disclosures, consumer testing indicates that 

consumers commonly do not review their account agreements, which are often in small 

print and dense prose. The proposal would require creditors to include a table 

summarizing the key terms applicable to the account, similar to the table required for 

applications and solicitations. Setting apart the most important terms in this way will 

better ensure that consumers are apprised of those terms. 

With respect to periodic statement disclosures, testing participants found it 

beneficial to have the different types of transactions grouped together by type. Thus, the 

proposal requires creditors to group transactions together by type, such as purchases, cash 
11

advances, and balance transfers. In addition, many consumers more easily noticed the 

number and amount of fees when the fees were itemized and grouped together with 

interest charges. Consumers also noticed fees and interest charges more readily when 

they were located near the disclosure of the transactions on the account. Thus, under the 

proposal, creditors would be required to group all fees together and describe them in a 

manner consistent with consumers’ general understanding of costs (“interest charge” or 

“fee”), without regard to whether the fees would be considered “finance charges,” “other 

charges” or neither under the regulation. 

With respect to change-in-terms notices, consumer testing indicates that much 

like the account-opening disclosures, consumers may not typically read such notices, 

because they are often in small print and dense prose. To enhance the effectiveness of 

change-in-terms notices, when a creditor is changing terms which were required to be 

disclosed in the summary table provided at account opening, the proposed rules would 

require the creditor to include a table summarizing any such changed terms. Creditors 

commonly provide notices about changes to terms or rates in the same envelope with 

periodic statements. Consumer testing indicates that consumers may not typically look at 

the notices if they are provided as separate inserts given with periodic statements. Thus, 

in such cases, a table summarizing the change would have to appear on the periodic 

statement directly above the transaction list, where consumers are more likely to notice 

the changes. 

Additional testing after comment period. After receiving comments from the 

public on the proposal and the revised disclosure forms, Board staff will work with 

Macro International to revise the model disclosures. Macro International then will 
12

conduct additional rounds of cognitive interviews to test the revised disclosures. After 

the cognitive interviews, quantitative testing will be conducted. The goal of the 

quantitative testing is to measure consumers’ comprehension and the usability of the 

newly-developed disclosures relative to existing disclosures and formats. 

Other Outreach and Research Efforts 

Board staff also solicited input from members of the Board’s Consumer Advisory 

Council on various issues presented by the review of Regulation Z’s open-end credit 

rules. During 2005 and 2006, for example, the Council discussed the feasibility and 

advisability of reviewing Regulation Z in stages, ways to improve the summary table 

provided on or with credit card applications and solicitations, issues related to TILA’s 

substantive protections (including dispute resolution procedures), and issues related to the 

Bankruptcy Act amendments. In addition, Board staff met or conducted conference calls 

with various industry and consumer group representatives throughout the review process 

leading to this proposal. Board staff also reviewed disclosures currently provided by 

creditors, consumer complaints received by the federal banking agencies, and surveys on 

credit card usage to help inform the proposal.5 

Discussion 

The goal of the proposed revisions is to improve the effectiveness of the 

Regulation Z disclosures that must be provided to consumers for open-end accounts. A 

summary of the key account terms must accompany applications and solicitations for 

credit card accounts. For all open-end credit plans, creditors must disclose costs and 

terms at account opening, generally before the first transaction. Consumers must receive 

 Surveys reviewed include: Thomas A. Durkin, Credit Cards: Use and Consumer Attitudes, 1970-2000, 

FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN, (September 2000); Thomas A. Durkin, Consumers and Credit Disclosures: 

Credit Cards and Credit Insurance, FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN (April 2002).

5
13

periodic statements of account activity, and creditors must provide notice before certain 

changes in the account terms may become effective. 

To shop for and understand the cost of credit, consumers must be able to identify 

and understand the key terms of open-end accounts. But the terms and conditions 

affecting credit card account pricing can be complex. The proposed revisions to 

Regulation Z are intended to provide the most essential information to consumers when 

the information would be most useful to them, with content and formats that are clear and 

conspicuous. The proposed revisions are expected to improve consumers’ ability to 

make informed credit decisions and enhance competition among credit card issuers. 

Many of the changes are based on the consumer testing that was conducted in connection 

with the review of Regulation Z. 

In considering the proposed revisions, staff has also sought to balance the 

potential benefits for consumers with the compliance burdens imposed on creditors. For 

example, the proposed revisions seek to provide greater certainty to creditors in 

identifying what costs must be disclosed for open-end plans, and when those costs must 

be disclosed. More effective disclosures may also reduce customer confusion and 

misunderstanding, which may also ease creditors’ costs relating to consumer complaints 

and inquiries. 

A. Credit Card Applications and Solicitations 

Under Regulation Z, credit and charge card issuers are required to provide 

information about key costs and terms with their applications and solicitations.6 This 

information is abbreviated, to help consumers focus on only the most important terms and 

 Charge cards are a type of credit card for which full payment is typically expected upon receipt of the 

billing statement. To ease discussion, this memorandum will refer simply to “credit cards.”

6
14

decide whether to apply for the credit card account. If consumers respond to the offer 

and are issued a credit card, creditors must provide more detailed disclosures at account 

opening, before the first transaction occurs. 

The application and solicitation disclosures are considered among the most 

effective TILA disclosures principally because they must be presented in a standardized 

table with headings, content, and format substantially similar to the model forms 

published by the Board. In 2001, the Board revised Regulation Z to enhance the 

application and solicitation disclosures by adding rules and guidance concerning the 

minimum type size and requiring additional fee disclosures. 

Summary of Proposed Revisions 

The draft proposal contains a number of revisions to the format and content of 

application and solicitation disclosures, to make the disclosures more meaningful and 

easier to understand. Format changes would affect type size, placement of information 

within the table, use of cross-references to related information, and use of boldface type 

for certain key terms. Information concerning penalty APRs and the reasons they may be 

triggered would be more noticeable, and information would be added about how long 

penalty APRs may apply. The existing disclosures about how variable rates are 

determined would be shortened and simplified. Creditors that allocate payments first to 

transferred balances that carry low rates would be required to disclose to consumers that 

they will pay interest on their (higher rate) purchases until (lower rate) transferred 

balances are paid in full. Creditors also would be required to include a reference to the 

Board’s web site where additional information about shopping for credit cards is 

available. 
15 

To address concerns about subprime credit cards programs that have high fees 

with low credit limits, additional disclosures would be required if the fees or security 

deposits required to receive the card are 25 percent or more of the minimum credit limit 

that the consumer may receive. For example, the initial fees on an account with a $250 

credit limit may reduce the available credit to less than $100. 

Under the proposal, the disclosure of the balance computation method, which now 

appears in the table, would be required to be outside the table so that the table emphasizes 

other information that is more useful to consumers when they are shopping for a card. 

Penalty pricing. The proposal would make several revisions that seek to improve 

consumers’ understanding of default or penalty pricing. Currently, credit card issuers 

must disclose inside the table the APR that will apply in the event of the consumer’s 

“default.” Some creditors define a “default” as making one late payment or exceeding 

the credit limit once. The actions that may trigger the penalty APR are currently required 

to be disclosed outside the table. 

Consumer testing indicated that many consumers did not notice the information 

about penalty pricing when it was disclosed outside the table. Under the proposal, card 

issuers would be required to include in the table the specific actions that trigger penalty 

APRs (such as a late payment), the rate that will apply, the balances to which the penalty 

rate will apply, and the circumstances under which the penalty rate will expire or, if true, 

the fact that the penalty rate could apply indefinitely. The regulation would require card 

issuers to use the term “penalty APR” because the testing demonstrated that some 

consumers are confused by the term “default rate.” 
16 

Similarly, the proposal requires card issuers to disclose inside (rather than 

outside) the table the fees for paying late, exceeding a credit limit, or making a payment 

that is returned, along with a cross-reference to the penalty rate if, for example, paying 

late could also trigger the penalty rate. Cash advance fees and balance transfer fees 

would also be disclosed inside the table. This proposed change is also based on 

consumer testing results; fees disclosed outside the table were often not noticed. 

Requiring card issuers to disclose returned-payment fees would be a new disclosure. 

Variable-rate information. Currently, applications and solicitations offering 

variable APRs must disclose inside the table the index or formula used to make 

adjustments and the amount of any margin that is added. Additional details, such as how 

often the rate may change, must be disclosed outside the table. Under the proposal, 

information about variable APRs would be reduced to a single phrase indicating the APR 

varies “with the market,” along with a reference to the type of index, such as “Prime.” 

Consumer testing indicated that few consumers use the variable-rate information when 

shopping for a card. Moreover, participants were distracted or confused by details about 

margin values, how often the rate may change, and where an index can be found. 

Payment allocation. The proposal would add a new disclosure to the table about 

the effect on credit costs of creditors’ payment allocation methods when payments are 

applied entirely to transferred balances at low introductory APRs. If, as is common, a 

creditor allocates payments to low-rate balances first, consumers who make purchases on 

the account will not be able to take advantage of any “grace period” on purchases, unless 

they pay off the entire low-rate balance. Consumer testing indicated that consumers are 

often confused about this aspect of balance transfer offers. The new disclosure would 
17

alert consumers that they will pay interest on their purchases until the transferred balance 

is paid in full. 

Web site reference. The proposal would also require card issuers to include a 

reference to the Board’s web site, where additional information is available about how to 

compare credit cards and what factors to consider. This responds to commenters who 

suggested that the Board consider nonregulatory approaches to provide opportunities for 

consumers to learn about credit products. 

Subprime accounts. The proposal also addresses a concern that has been raised 

about subprime credit cards, which are generally offered to consumers with low credit 

scores or credit problems. Subprime credit cards often have substantial fees associated 

with opening the account. Typically, fees for the issuance or availability of credit are 

billed to consumers on the first periodic statement, and can substantially reduce the 

amount of credit available to the consumer. For example, the initial fees on an account 

with a $250 credit limit may reduce the available credit to less than $100. Consumer 

complaints received by the federal banking agencies state that consumers were unaware 

when they applied for cards of how little credit would be available after all the fees were 

assessed at account opening. 

To address this concern, the proposal would require additional disclosures if the 

card issuer requires fees or a security deposit to issue the card that are 25 percent or more 

of the minimum credit limit offered for the account. In such cases, the card issuer would 

be required to include an example in the table of the amount of available credit the 

consumer would have after paying the fees or security deposit, assuming the consumer 

receives the minimum credit limit. 
18

Balance computation methods. TILA requires creditors to identify their balance 

computation method by name, and Regulation Z requires that the disclosure be inside the 

table. However, consumer testing suggests that these names, such as the “two-cycle 

average daily balance method,” hold little meaning for consumers, and that consumers do 

not consider such information when shopping for accounts. Accordingly, the proposed 

rule requires creditors to place the name of the balance computation method outside the 

table, so that the disclosure does not detract from information that is more important to 

consumers. 

B. Account-Opening Disclosures 

Regulation Z requires creditors to disclose costs and terms before the first 

transaction is made on the account. The disclosures must specify the circumstances 

under which a “finance charge” may be imposed and how it will be determined. A 

“finance charge” is any charge that may be imposed as a condition of or an incident to the 

extension of credit, and includes, for example, interest, transaction charges, and minimum 

charges. The finance charge disclosures include a disclosure of each periodic rate of 

interest that may be applied to an outstanding balance (e.g., purchases, cash advances) as 

well as the corresponding annual percentage rate (APR). Creditors must also explain any 

grace period for making a payment without incurring a finance charge. They must also 

disclose the amount of any charge other than a finance charge that may be imposed as 

part of the credit plan (“other charges”), such as a late-payment charge. Consumers’ 

rights and responsibilities in the case of unauthorized use or billing disputes must also be 

explained. Currently, there are few format requirements for these account-opening 
19

disclosures, which are typically interspersed among other contractual terms in the 

creditor’s account agreement. 

Summary of Proposed Revisions 

The proposal seeks to make the cost disclosures provided at account opening 

more conspicuous and easier to read. Accordingly, the revised rules identify specific 

costs and terms that creditors would be required to summarize in a table that would be 

substantially similar to the summary table that would be provided with credit card 

applications and solicitations. Consumers could use the new table provided at account 

opening to compare the terms of their account to the creditor’s original offer or to other 

solicitations. They would no longer be required to search for the information in the credit 

agreement. 

Revisions are also being proposed to reduce compliance burdens for creditors and 

provide consumers with fee information at times when it is most useful. Currently, the 

account-opening disclosures must specify any “finance charges” and any “other charges” 

that may be imposed under the credit plan. The current rules provide broad definitions 

for how to determine if a fee is a “finance charge” or an “other charge.” Except with 

respect to specific fees identified in the regulation or commentary, whether a fee is a 

finance charge or an “other” charge is often unclear. In addition, the regulation identifies 

fees that are not considered to be either “finance charges” or “other charges” and, 

therefore, do not need to be included in the account-opening disclosures (for example, 

returned-check fees, document copying fees, or attorneys fees for collection of an 

account). The proposed revisions seek to address two problems with the current rules. 

First, creditors are sometimes uncertain about how to characterize and disclose fees that 
20

the regulation does not specifically address. Second, listing some fees in the accountopening disclosures may not be helpful to consumers if the fees are infrequently charged. 

This may be the case with fees that are associated with optional services that consumers 

might use months or years after opening an account, such as a fee for documentary 

evidence related to a billing error. 

To address these concerns, the proposed revisions to Regulation Z would 

specifically identify all of the charges creditors must disclose in writing and in a form the 

consumer may keep at account opening (without regard to their broad characterization as 

“finance charge” or “other charge.”). These would include interest, annual fees, 

transaction fees, and penalty fees. For any charges not specifically identified, creditors 

would have the option of disclosing the charges in writing or orally, at any time before 

the consumer agrees to or becomes obligated to pay the charge. Thus, consumers who 

request a service by telephone, such as a request to send a replacement credit card by 

expedited mail service, may be informed orally at the time of the request of the charge 

that will apply. Allowing consumers to receive cost disclosures orally departs from the 

general rule under Regulation Z that disclosures must be provided in a written retainable 

form. 

Account-opening summary table. Account-opening disclosures have often been 

criticized because the key terms TILA requires to be disclosed are often interspersed 

within the credit agreements, and such agreements are long and complex. The proposal 

to require creditors to include a table summarizing the key terms addresses that concern 

by making the information more conspicuous. Creditors may continue, however, to 
21

provide other account-opening disclosures, aside from the fees and terms specified in the 

table, with other terms in their account agreements. 

The new table provided at account opening would be substantially similar to the 

table provided with direct-mail applications and solicitations. Consumer testing and 

surveys indicate that consumers generally are aware of the table on applications and 

solicitations. Consumer testing also indicates that consumers may not typically read their 

account agreements, which are often in small print and dense prose. Thus, setting apart 

the most important terms in a summary table will better ensure that consumers are aware 

of those terms. 

The table required at account opening would include more information than the 

table required at application. For example, it would include a disclosure of any fee for 

transactions in a foreign currency or that take place in a foreign country. For various 

reasons, some creditors may provide account-opening disclosures with the application or 

solicitation. To reduce compliance burden for creditors that do so, the proposal would 

allow creditors to provide the more specific and inclusive account-opening table at 

application in lieu of the table otherwise required at application. 

How charges are disclosed. Under the current rules, a creditor must disclose any 

“finance charge” or “other charge” in the written account-opening disclosures. 

A subsequent written notice is required if one of the fees disclosed at account opening 

increases or if certain fees are newly introduced during the life of the plan. The terms 

“finance charge” and “other charge” are given broad and flexible meanings in the 

regulation and commentary. This ensures that TILA adapts to changing conditions, but it 

also creates uncertainty. The distinctions among finance charges, other charges, and 
22

charges that do not fall into either category are not always clear. As creditors develop 

new kinds of services, some find it difficult to determine if associated charges for the new 

services meet the standard for a “finance charge” or “other charge” or are not covered by 

TILA at all. This uncertainty can pose legal risks for creditors that act in good faith to 

comply with the law. Examples of included or excluded charges are in the regulation and 

commentary, but these examples cannot provide definitive guidance in all cases. 

Creditors are subject to civil liability and administrative enforcement for underdisclosing 

the finance charge or otherwise making erroneous disclosures, so the consequences of an 

error can be significant. Furthermore, overdisclosure of rates and finance charges is not 

permitted by Regulation Z for open-end credit. 

The fee disclosure rules also have been criticized as being outdated. These rules 

require creditors to provide fee disclosures at account opening, which may be months, 

and possibly years, before a particular disclosure is relevant to the consumer, such as 

when the consumer calls the creditor to request a service for which a fee is imposed. In 

addition, an account-related transaction may occur by telephone, when a written 

disclosure is not feasible. 

The proposed rule is intended to respond to these criticisms while still giving full 

effect to TILA’s requirement to disclose credit charges before they are imposed. 

Accordingly, under the proposal, the rules would be revised to (1) specify precisely the 

charges that creditors must disclose in writing at account opening (interest, minimum 

charges, transaction fees, annual fees, and penalty fees such as for paying late), which 

would be listed in the summary table, and; (2) permit creditors to disclose other less 

critical charges orally or in writing before the consumer agrees to or becomes obligated to 
23

pay the charge. Although the proposal would permit creditors to disclose certain costs 

orally for purposes of TILA, the staff anticipates that creditors will continue to identify 

fees in the account agreement for contract and other reasons. 

Under the proposal, some charges would be covered by TILA that the current 

regulation, as interpreted by the staff commentary, excludes from TILA coverage, such as 

fees for expedited payment and expedited delivery. It may not have been useful to 

consumers to cover such charges under TILA when such coverage would have meant 

only that the charges were disclosed long before they became relevant to the consumer. 

The staff believes it would be useful to consumers to cover such charges under TILA as 

part of a rule that permits their disclosure at a relevant time. Further, as new services 

(and associated charges) are developed, the proposal minimizes risk of civil liability 

associated with the determination as to whether a fee is a finance charge or an other 

charge, or is not covered by TILA at all. 

C. Periodic Statements 

Creditors are required to provide periodic statements reflecting the account 

activity for the billing cycle (typically, about one month). In addition to identifying each 

transaction on the account, creditors must identify each “finance charge” using that term, 

and each “other charge” assessed against the account during the statement period. When 

a periodic interest rate is applied to an outstanding balance to compute the finance 

charge, creditors must disclose the periodic rate and its corresponding APR. Creditors 

must also disclose an “effective” or “historical” APR for the billing cycle, which, unlike 

the corresponding APR, includes not just interest but also finance charges imposed in the 

form of fees (such as cash advance fees or balance transfer fees). Periodic statements 
24

must also state the time period a consumer has to pay an outstanding balance to avoid 

additional finance charges (the “grace period”), if applicable. 

Summary of Proposed Revisions 

Under the proposed revisions, creditors would no longer be required to 

characterize particular costs on the periodic statement as “finance charges.”7 Costs 

would be described either as “interest” or as a “fee.” Fees would still have to be itemized 

by type as they currently are (such as a late-payment fee or cash advance fee). To 

enhance consumers’ awareness of the overall cost for the billing period, creditors would 

be required to group all fees together and state the total amount of fees rather than 

interspersing the fees with purchase transactions. 

The proposal also offers for comment two alternative approaches to address 

concerns about the effective APR. The first approach would make several revisions 

intended to simplify the disclosure of the “effective APR” to make it easier for consumers 

to understand and to ease creditors’ compliance burden. The second approach would 

eliminate the requirement to disclose the effective APR. 

With regard to revisions to improve the effective APR, the revised rules would 

contain an exclusive list of transaction charges and fixed fees that creditors must include 

in calculating the effective APR (such as interest, cash advance fees, balance transfer 

fees, and any minimum or fixed finance charge). These costs would be identified by type 

and grouped together to show they are included in the effective APR. Creditors would be 

required to label the effective APR as the “fee-inclusive APR” to distinguish it from the 

7

 Creditors would still make the distinction to calculate the effective APR, which reflects the cost of certain 

“finance charges” imposed during the billing cycle.
25

advertised APR, which is based solely on the periodic interest rate. Staff plans to 

conduct additional consumer testing to determine the efficacy of this approach. 

The proposal also would require creditors to provide additional information to 

consumers about payment due dates and the penalties for making late payments. 

Disclosures related to late payments implement provisions in the Bankruptcy Act, with 

some revisions. On each periodic statement, creditors generally would be required to 

disclose, closely proximate to the payment due date, the amount of the late-payment fee 

that may be imposed and the penalty APR that could be triggered by a late payment. 

Creditors that use a cut-off time before 5:00 p.m. on the payment due date would be 

required to specify the cut-off time on the front of the statement. 

The proposed revisions also implement Bankruptcy Act amendments that require 

creditors to warn consumers about the effects of making only minimum payments on the 

account. As required by the statute, creditors must include a generic example stating the 

repayment period for a hypothetical balance if only minimum payments are made. 

Creditors must also provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers can use to obtain 

an estimated repayment period for their own account balance. 

Fees and interest costs. The proposal contains a number of revisions to the 

periodic statement to improve consumers’ understanding of fees and interest costs. 

Currently, creditors must identify on periodic statements any “finance charges” that have 

been added to the account during the billing cycle, and creditors typically list these 

charges with other transactions, such as purchases, chronologically on the statement. The 

finance charges must be itemized by type. Thus, interest charges might be described as 

“finance charges due to periodic rates.” Charges such as late payment fees, which are not 
26

“finance charges,” are typically disclosed individually and are interspersed among other 

transactions. 

Consumer testing indicated that consumers generally understand that “interest” is 

the cost that results from applying a rate to a balance over time and distinguish “interest” 

from other fees, such as a cash advance fee or a late payment fee. Consumer testing also 

indicated that many consumers more easily determine the number and amount of fees 

when the fees are itemized and grouped together. 

Thus, under the proposal, creditors would be required to group all charges 

together and describe them in a manner consistent with consumers’ general 

understanding of costs (“interest charge” or “fee”), without regard to whether the charges 

would be considered “finance charges,” “other charges,” or neither. Interest charges 

would be identified by type (for example, interest on purchases or interest on balance 

transfers) as would fees (for example, cash advance fee or late-payment fee). 

Consumer testing also indicated that many consumers more quickly and 

accurately determined the total dollar cost of credit for the billing cycle when a total 

dollar amount of fees for the cycle was disclosed. Thus, the proposal would require 

creditors to disclose the (1) total fees and (2) total interest imposed for the cycle. The 

proposal would also require disclosure of year-to-date totals for interest charges and fees. 

For many consumers, costs disclosed in dollars are more readily understood than costs 

disclosed as percentage rates. The year-to-date figures are intended to assist consumers 

in better understanding the overall cost of their credit account and would be an important 

disclosure and an effective aid in understanding annualized costs, especially if the Board 
27

were to eliminate the requirement to disclose the effective APR on periodic statements, as 

discussed below. 

The effective APR. The “effective” APR disclosed on periodic statements 

reflects the cost of interest and certain other finance charges imposed during the 

statement period. For example, for a cash advance, the effective APR reflects both 

interest and any flat or proportional fee assessed for the advance. 

For the reasons discussed below, the staff recommends two alternative approaches 

to address the effective APR. The first approach would try to improve consumer 

understanding of this rate and reduce creditor uncertainty about its calculation. The 

second approach would eliminate the requirement to disclose the effective APR. 

Creditors believe the effective APR should be eliminated. They believe 

consumers do not understand the effective APR, including how it differs from the 

corresponding (interest rate) APR, why it is often “high,” and which fees the effective 

APR reflects. Creditors say they find it difficult, if not impossible, to explain the 

effective APR to consumers who call them with questions or concerns. They note that 

callers sometimes believe, erroneously, that the effective APR signals a prospective 

increase in their interest rate, and they may make uninformed decisions as a result. And, 

creditors say, even if the consumer does understand the effective APR, the disclosure 

does not provide any more information than a disclosure of the total dollar costs for the 

billing cycle. Moreover, creditors say the effective APR is arbitrary and inherently 

inaccurate, principally because it amortizes the cost for credit over only one month 

(billing cycle) even though the consumer may take several months (or longer) to repay 

the debt. 
28

Consumer groups acknowledge that the effective APR is not well understood, but 

argue that it nonetheless serves a useful purpose by showing the higher cost of some 

credit transactions. They contend the effective APR helps consumers decide each month 

whether to continue using the account, to shop for another credit product, or to use an 

alternative means of payment such as a debit card. Consumer groups also contend that 

reflecting costs, such as cash advance fees and balance transfer fees, in the effective APR 

creates a “sticker shock” and alerts consumers that the overall cost of a transaction for the 

cycle is high and exceeds the advertised corresponding APR. This shock, they say, may 

persuade some consumers not to use certain features on the account, such as cash 

advances, in the future. In their view, the utility of the effective APR would be 

maximized if it reflected all costs imposed during the cycle (rather than only some costs 

as is currently the case). 

As part of the consumer testing, mock periodic statements were developed in an 

attempt to improve consumers’ understanding of the effective APR. A written 

explanation and varying terminology were tested. In most rounds participants showed 

little understanding of the effective APR, but the form was adjusted between rounds as to 

terminology and format, and in the last round a number of participants showed more 

understanding of the effective APR. 

Thus, the draft proposal includes a number of revisions to the presentation of the 

effective APR intended to help consumers understand the figure. In addition, the 

proposal seeks to improve consumer understanding and reduce creditor uncertainty by 
29

specifying more clearly which fees are to be included in the effective APR.8 As 

mentioned, however, staff also recommends seeking comment on an alternative proposal 

to eliminate the disclosure on the basis that it may not provide consumers a meaningful 

benefit. 

Transactions. Currently, there are no format requirements for disclosing different 

types of transactions, such as purchases, cash advances, and balance transfers on periodic 

statements. Often, transactions are presented together in chronological order. Consumer 

testing indicated that participants found it helpful to have similar types of transactions 

grouped together on the statement. Consumers noticed fees and interest charges more 

readily when they were located near the purchase transactions. Consumers also found it 

helpful, within the broad grouping of fees and transactions, when transactions were 

segregated by type (e.g., listing all purchases together, separate from cash advances or 

balance transfers). For these reasons, the proposal requires creditors to: (1) group similar 

transactions together by type, such as purchases, cash advances, and balance transfers, 

and (2) group fees and interest charges together, itemized by type, with the list of 

transactions. The periodic statement model form illustrates the proposed requirement. 

Late payments. Currently, creditors must disclose the date by which consumers 

must pay a balance to avoid finance charges. Creditors must also disclose any cut-off 

time for receiving payments on the payment due date; this is usually disclosed on the 

reverse side of periodic statements. The Bankruptcy Act amendments expressly require 

creditors to disclose the payment due date (or if different, the date after which a latepayment fee may be imposed) along with the amount of the late-payment fee. 

 The proposal also would reverse a staff commentary provision that excludes ATM fees from the finance 

charge and effective APR; and it would address for the first time foreign transaction fees, which it would 

clarify are to be treated as a finance charge and included in the effective APR.

8
30

Under the proposal, creditors would be required to disclose the payment due date 

on the front side of the periodic statement and, closely proximate to the date, any cut-off 

time if it is before 5 p.m. Consumer testing indicates that many consumers believe cutoff times are the close of the business day and more readily notice the cut-off time when 

it is located near the due date. 

Creditors would also be required to disclose, in close proximity to the due date, 

the amount of the late-payment fee and the penalty APR that could be triggered by a late 

payment. Applying the penalty APR to outstanding balances can significantly increase 

costs. Thus it is important for consumers to be alerted to the consequence of paying late. 

Minimum payments. The Bankruptcy Act requires creditors offering open-end 

plans to provide a warning about the effects of making minimum payments. The 

proposal would implement this requirement solely for credit card issuers. Under the 

proposal, card issuers must provide (1) a “warning” statement indicating that making 

only the minimum payment will increase the interest the consumer pays and the time it 

takes to repay the consumer’s balance; (2) a hypothetical example of how long it would 

take to pay a specified balance in full if only minimum payments are made; and (3) a tollfree telephone number that consumers may call to obtain an estimate of the time it would 

take to repay their actual account balance using minimum payments. Most card issuers 

must establish and maintain their own toll-free telephone numbers to provide the 

repayment estimates. However, the Board is required to establish and maintain, for two 

years, a toll-free telephone number for creditors that are depository institutions having 

assets of $250 million or less. This number is for the customers of those institutions to 

call to get answers to questions about how long it will take to pay their account in full 
31

making only the minimum payment. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) must 

maintain a similar toll-free telephone number for use by customers of creditors that are 

not depository institutions. In order to standardize the information provided to 

consumers through the toll-free telephone numbers, the Bankruptcy Act amendments 

direct the Board to prepare a “table” illustrating the approximate number of months it 

would take to repay an outstanding balance if the consumer pays only the required 

minimum monthly payments and if no other advances are made (“generic repayment 

estimate”). 

Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act amendments, the proposal also allows a card 

issuer to establish a toll-free telephone number to provide customers with the actual 

number of months that it will take consumers to repay their outstanding balance (“actual 

repayment disclosure”) instead of providing an estimate based on the Board-created table. 

A card issuer that does so need not include a hypothetical example on its periodic 

statements, but must disclose the warning statement and the toll-free telephone number. 

The proposal also allows card issuers to provide the actual repayment disclosure 

on their periodic statements. Card issuers would be encouraged to use this approach. 

Participants in consumer testing who typically carry credit card balances (revolvers) 

found an estimated repayment period based on terms that apply to their own account 

more useful than a hypothetical example. To encourage card issuers to provide the actual 

repayment disclosure on their periodic statements, the proposal provides that if card 

issuers do so, they need not disclose the warning, the hypothetical example and a toll-free 

telephone number on the periodic statement, nor need they maintain a toll-free telephone 

number to provide the actual repayment disclosure. 
32 

As described above, the Bankruptcy Act also requires the Board to develop a 

“table” that card issuers, the Board and the FTC must use to create generic repayment 

estimates. Instead of creating a table, the proposal contains guidance for how to calculate 

generic repayment estimates. Consumers that call the toll-free number could be 

prompted to input information about their outstanding balance and the APR applicable to 

their account. Although issuers have the ability to program their systems to obtain 

consumers’ account information from their account management systems, the proposal 

does not require issuers to do so. The statute contemplates allowing issuers to use a 

“consumer input” system. 

D. Changes in Consumer’s Interest Rate and Other Account Terms 

Regulation Z requires creditors to provide advance written notice of some 

changes to the terms of an open-end plan. The proposal includes several revisions to 

Regulation Z’s requirements for notifying consumers about such changes. 

Currently, Regulation Z requires creditors to send, in most cases, notices 15 days 

before the effective date of certain changes in the account terms. However, creditors 

need not inform consumers in advance if the rate applicable to their account increases due 

to default or delinquency. Thus, consumers may not realize until they receive their 

monthly statement for a billing cycle that their late payment triggered application of the 

higher penalty rate, effective the first day of the month’s statement. 

Summary of Proposed Revisions 

The proposed revisions seek to address concerns that consumers do not have 

enough time to evaluate the effect of a change in terms and consider their choices to 

avoid the change or limit its impact. Under the proposal, creditors would be required to 
33

send a change-in-terms notice at least 45 days, rather than 15 days, before the effective 

date of the change; after receiving the notice consumers would have about a month to 

consider whether to shop for and obtain a different credit product with better terms. The 

proposed revisions would also require creditors to notify consumers 45 days before 

applying a rate increase that is triggered by a late payment or default, even if the reason 

for the increase was provided in the account agreement. Comment would be solicited on 

whether a shorter time period would be adequate. 

Currently, there are few format requirements for change-in-terms notices. 

Creditors often disclose amendments to the account agreement in pamphlets using small 

print and dense prose. Under the proposal, when a creditor is proposing to change a term 

required to be disclosed at account opening in the summary table, the creditor would also 

summarize the new term in a table provided with the change-in-terms notice. If a creditor 

provides the notice in the same envelope with the periodic statement, the table must 

appear on the periodic statement directly above the transaction list, where consumers are 

more likely to notice the changes. 

Timing. Currently Regulation Z generally requires creditors to mail a 

change-in-terms notice 15 days before a change takes effect. Consumer groups and 

others have criticized the 15-day period as providing too little time after the notice is sent 

for the consumer to receive the notice, shop for alternative credit and possibly pay off the 

existing credit card account. Under the proposal, notice must be sent at least 45 days 

before the effective date of the change, which would give consumers about a month to 

pursue their options. 
34

Penalty rates. Currently, creditors must inform consumers about rates that are 

increased due to default or delinquency, but not in advance of implementation of the 

increase. Contractual thresholds for default are sometimes very low, and penalty pricing 

commonly applies to all existing balances, including low-rate promotional balances. An 

event triggering the default may occur a year or more after the account is opened. For 

example, a consumer may open an account, and a year or more later may take advantage 

of a low promotional rate to transfer balances from another account. That consumer 

reasonably may not recall reading in the account-opening disclosure that a single 

transaction exceeding the credit limit could cause the interest rates on existing balances, 

including on the promotional transfer, to increase. Thus, the proposal would expand the 

events triggering advance notice to include increases triggered by default or delinquency. 

Advance notice of a potentially significant increase in the cost of credit is intended to 

allow consumers to consider alternatives before the increase is imposed, such as making 

other financial arrangements or choosing not to engage in additional transactions that will 

increase the balances on their account. Actions creditors may engage in to mitigate risk, 

such as by lowering credit limits or suspending credit privileges, are not affected by the 

proposal. 

Format. Currently, there are few format requirements for change-in-terms 

disclosures. As with account-opening disclosures, creditors commonly intersperse 

change-in-terms notices with other amendments to the account agreement, and both are 

provided in pamphlets in small print and dense prose. Consumer testing indicates many 

consumers set aside and do not read densely-worded pamphlets. 
35

Under the proposal, creditors may continue to notify consumers about changes to 

terms required to be disclosed by Regulation Z, along with other changes to the account 

agreement. However, if a changed term is one that must be provided in the 

account-opening summary table, creditors must also provide that change in a summary 

table to enhance the effectiveness of the change-in-terms notice. 

Creditors commonly enclose notices about changes to terms or rates with periodic 

statements. Under the proposal, if a notice enclosed with a periodic statement discusses a 

change to a term that must be disclosed in the account-opening summary table, or 

announces that a penalty rate will be imposed on the account, a table summarizing the 

impending change must appear on the periodic statement. The table would have to 

appear directly above the transaction list, in light of testing that shows many consumers 

tend to focus on the list of transactions. Consumers who participated in testing set aside 

change-in-terms pamphlets that accompanied periodic statements. Participants uniformly 

looked at the front side of periodic statements and reviewed at least the transactions. 

E. Advertisements 

Advertising minimum payments. Consumers commonly are offered the option to 

finance the purchase of goods or services (such as appliances or furniture) by establishing 

an open-end credit plan. The monthly minimum payments associated with the purchase 

are often advertised as part of the offer. Under current rules, advertisements for open-end 

credit plans are not required to include information about the time it will take to pay for a 

purchase or the total cost if only minimum payments are made; if the transaction were a 

closed-end installment loan, the number of payments and the total cost would be 

disclosed. Under the proposal, advertisements stating a minimum monthly payment for 
36

an open-end credit plan that would be established to finance the purchase of goods or 

services must state, in equal prominence to the minimum payment, the time period 

required to pay the balance and the total of payments if only minimum payments are 

made. 

Advertising “fixed” rates. Creditors sometimes advertise the APR for open-end 

accounts as a “fixed” rate even though the creditor reserves the right to change the rate at 

any time for any reason. Consumer testing indicated that many consumers believe that a 

“fixed” rate will not change, and do not understand that creditors may use the term 

“fixed” as a shorthand reference for rates that do not vary based on changes in an index 

or formula. Under the proposal, an advertisement may refer to a rate as “fixed” if the 

advertisement specifies a time period the rate will be fixed and the rate will not increase 

during that period. If a time period is not specified, the advertisement may refer to a rate 

as “fixed” only if the rate will not increase while the plan is open. 

F. Other Disclosures and Protections 

“Open-end” plans comprised of closed-end features. Some creditors give openend credit disclosures on credit plans that include closed-end features, that is, separate 

loans with fixed repayment periods. These creditors treat these loans as advances on a 

revolving credit line for purposes of Regulation Z even though the consumer’s credit 

information is separately evaluated and he or she may have to complete a separate 

application for each “advance,” and the consumer’s payments on the “advance” do not 

replenish the “line.” Provisions in the commentary lend support to this approach. The 

proposal would revise these provisions to indicate closed-end disclosures rather than 
37

open-end disclosures are appropriate when the credit being extended is individual loans 

that are individually approved and underwritten. 

Checks that access a credit card account. Many credit card issuers provide 

accountholders with checks that can be used to obtain cash, pay the outstanding balance 

on another account, or purchase goods and services directly from merchants. The 

solicitation letter accompanying the checks may offer a low introductory APR for 

transactions that use the checks. The proposed revisions would require the checks mailed 

by card issuers to be accompanied by cost disclosures. 

Currently, creditors need not disclose costs associated with using the checks if the 

finance charges that would apply (that is, the interest rate and transaction fees) have been 

previously disclosed, such as in the account agreement. If the check is sent 30 days or 

more after the account is opened, creditors must refer consumers to their account 

agreements for more information about how the rate and fees are determined. 

Consumers may receive these checks throughout the life of the credit card 

account. Thus, significant time may elapse between the time account-opening 

disclosures are provided and the time a consumer considers using the check. In addition, 

consumer testing indicates that consumers may not notice references to other documents 

such as the account-opening disclosures or periodic statements for rate information 

because they tend to look for percentages and dollar figures when looking for the costs of 

using the checks. Under the proposed revisions, checks that can access credit card 

accounts must be accompanied by information about the rates and fees that will apply if 

the checks are used, and about whether a grace period exists. To ensure the disclosures 
38

are conspicuous, creditors would be required to provide the information in a table, on the 

front side of the page containing the checks. 

Credit insurance, debt cancellation, and debt suspension coverage. Under 

Regulation Z, premiums for credit life, accident, health, or loss-of-income insurance are 

considered finance charges if the insurance is written in connection with a credit 

transaction. However, these costs may be excluded from the finance charge and APR 

(for both open-end and closed-end credit transactions), if creditors disclose the cost and 

the fact that the coverage is not required to obtain credit, and the consumer signs or 

initials an affirmative written request for the insurance. Since 1996, the same rules have 

applied to creditors’ “debt cancellation” agreements, in which a creditor agrees to cancel 

the debt, or part of it, on the occurrence of specified events. 

Under the proposal, the existing rules for debt cancellation coverage would also 

be applied to “debt suspension” coverage (for both open-end credit and closed-end 

transactions). “Debt suspension” products are related to, but different from, debt 

cancellation. Debt suspension products merely defer consumers’ obligation to make the 

minimum payment for some period after the occurrence of a specified event. During the 

suspension period, interest may continue to accrue, or it may be suspended as well. 

Under the proposal, to exclude the cost of debt suspension coverage from the finance 

charge and APR, creditors must inform consumers that the coverage suspends, but does 

not cancel, the debt. 

Under the current rules, charges for credit insurance and debt cancellation 

coverage are deemed not to be finance charges if a consumer requests coverage after an 

open-end credit account is opened or after a closed-end credit transaction is consummated 
39

(the coverage is deemed not to be “written in connection” with the credit transaction). 

Because in such cases the charges are defined as non-finance charges, Regulation Z does 

not require a disclosure or written evidence of consent to exclude them from the finance 

charge. The proposed revisions to Regulation Z would implement a broader 

interpretation of “written in connection” with a credit transaction and require creditors to 

provide disclosures, and obtain evidence of consent, on sales of credit insurance or debt 

cancellation or suspension coverage during the life of an open-end account. If a 

consumer requests the coverage by telephone, creditors may provide the disclosures 

orally, but in that case they must mail written disclosures within three days of the call to 

confirm the consumer’s affirmative request.9 

Issuing additional cards to existing cardholders. TILA generally prohibits 

creditors from issuing credit cards except in response to a request or application, unless a 

card is issued to renew or substitute for a card the consumer has previously accepted. 

This rule has been interpreted in the staff commentary to mean that when issuing a 

renewal or substitute card, card issuers may issue one, and not more than one, new card 

for each accepted card. 

In 2003, Board staff revised the commentary to allow card issuers to replace an 

accepted credit card with more than one card, subject to certain conditions, including the 

limitation that a consumer’s total liability for unauthorized use for the account could not 

increase due to the additional cards. This allows card issuers to issue, for example, credit 

cards using a new format or technology to existing accountholders, even if the new card 

 The proposed revisions to Regulation Z requiring disclosures to be mailed within three days of a 

telephone request for these products are consistent with the rules of the federal banking agencies governing 

insured depository institutions’ sales of insurance and with guidance published by the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency concerning national banks’ sales of debt cancellation and debt suspension 

products.

9
40

supplements rather than replaces the traditional card. When the commentary was 

published, Board staff noted the forthcoming review of open-end rules, and indicated 

staff would ask the Board to consider whether the rule should be expanded so that 

creditors could send additional cards on existing accounts outside of renewal or 

substitution. The Board also invited public comment on the issue in the December 2004 

ANPR. 

Consumers and consumer groups believe additional credit cards should only be 

sent if the consumer specifically requests an additional card. They are concerned about 

identity theft if cards could be sent without any advance notice. Industry commenters 

support a rule allowing card issuers to issue additional cards on existing accounts even 

when a previously accepted card is not being replaced. They believe the current 

restriction impedes industry innovation to provide more convenient methods for 

consumers to access their accounts. They also dispute concerns about identity theft 

associated with unsolicited additional cards as opposed to renewal or substitute cards, 

because consumers who receive a renewal or substitute card do not know with precision 

when the card will actually arrive. Moreover, industry commenters say, consumers 

should not be concerned about risk of loss if liability for unauthorized use on an account 

does not increase with additional cards, as the rule currently provides. 

After analyzing the issue, the staff recommends that the Board retain the current 

rule, and not propose to expand card issuers’ ability to issue multiple cards at any time to 

existing cardholders. Currently, when one or more cards are sent to renew or to 

substitute for an accepted card, card issuers commonly require that the new cards must be 

activated before they can be used. Based on current card issuer practices, Board staff 
41

understands that some issuers are unable to require separate activation procedures for 

additional cards on a single credit card account. As a result, additional cards sent on an 

unsolicited basis outside the context of a renewal or substitution might be sent in 

activated form which could present considerable risks to consumers. For example, even 

if the card issuer were not permitted to impose any additional liability on the consumer 

for unauthorized use, consumers could nevertheless have to deal with potential identity 

theft loss and suffer the inconvenience of refuting unwarranted claims of liability. 

Conclusion

 Staff recommends that the Board publish for public comment the draft proposed 

amendments to Regulation Z’s rules for open-end credit accounts that are not homesecured. 
42

Appendix A 

Summary of Public Comments 

A. December 2004 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

In December 2004, the Board issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(the December 2004 ANPR), announcing its intent to conduct its review of Regulation Z 

in stages, focusing first on the rules for open-end (revolving) credit accounts that are not 

home-secured, chiefly general-purpose credit cards and retailer credit plans. The Board 

also indicated its future plans for reviewing other areas of Regulation Z, in particular, 

predatory mortgage lending, closed-end mortgage credit (including adjustable-rate 

mortgage loans), and home-equity lines of credit. 

The December 2004 ANPR sought public comment on a variety of specific issues 

relating to three broad categories: the format of open-end credit disclosures, the content 

of those disclosures, and the substantive protections provided for open-end credit under 

the regulation. The ANPR solicited comment on the scope of the Board’s review, and 

also requested that commenters identify other issues that the Board should address in the 

review. The comment period closed on March 28, 2005. 

The Board received over 200 comment letters in response to the December 2004 

ANPR. More than half of the comments were from individual consumers. About 

60 comments were received from the industry or industry representatives, and about 

20 comments were received from consumer advocates and community development 

groups. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one state agency, and one 

member of Congress also submitted comments. 
43

Scope 

Commenters’ views on a staged review of Regulation Z were divided. Some 

believe reviewing the regulation in stages makes the process manageable and focuses 

discussion and analysis. Others supported an independent focus on open-end credit rules 

because they believe open-end credit by its nature is distinct from other credit products 

covered by TILA and Regulation Z. 

Some commenters supported the Board’s approach generally, but voiced concern 

that looking at the regulation in a piecemeal fashion may lead to decisions in the early 

stages of the review that may need to be revisited later. If the review is staged, these 

commenters want all changes implemented at the same time, to ensure consistency 

between the open-end and closed-end rules. 

Some commenters urged the Board to include open-end rules affecting homeequity lines of credit (HELOCs) in the initial stage of the review. If the Board chooses 

not to expand its review of open-end credit rules to cover home-secured credit, these 

commenters urged the Board to avoid making any revisions that would be inconsistent 

with existing HELOC requirements. 

A few commenters concurred with the Board’s approach of reviewing 

Regulation Z in stages, but they preferred that the Board start with rules of general 

applicability, such as definitions. These commenters generally urged the Board to 

provide additional clarity on the definition of “finance charge,” TILA’s dollar cost of 

credit. 

Finally, a few commenters stated the Board needs to review the entire regulation 

at the same time. They suggested a staged approach is not workable, and cited concerns 
44

about duplicating efforts, creating inconsistencies, and re-visiting changes made in earlier 

stages of a lengthy review. 

Format 

In general, commenters representing both consumers and industry stated that the 

tabular format requirements for TILA’s direct-mail credit card application and 

solicitation disclosures have proven useful to consumers, although a variety of 

suggestions were made to add or delete specific disclosures. Many, however, noted that 

typical account-opening disclosures are lengthy and complex, and suggested that the 

effectiveness of account-opening disclosures could be improved if key terms were 

summarized in a standardized format, perhaps in the same format as TILA’s direct-mail 

application and solicitation disclosures. These suggestions were consistent with the 

views of some members of the Board’s Consumer Advisory Council. Industry 

commenters supported the Board’s plan to use focus groups or other consumer research 

tools to test the effectiveness of any proposed revisions. 

To combat “information overload,” many commenters asked the Board to 

emphasize only the most important information that consumers need at the time the 

disclosure is given. They asked the Board to avoid rules that require the repetitive 

delivery of complex information, not all of which is essential to comparison shopping, 

such as a lengthy explanation of the creditor’s method of calculating balances now 

required at account opening and on periodic statements. Commenters suggested that the 

Board would most effectively promote comparison shopping by focusing on essential 

terms in a simplified way. They believe some information could also be provided to 

consumers through nonregulatory, educational methods. Taken together, these 
45

approaches could lead to simpler disclosures that consumers might be more inclined to 

read and understand. 

Content 

In general, commenters provided a variety of views on how to simplify TILA’s 

cost disclosures. For example, some suggested that creditors should disclose only interest 

as the “finance charge” and simply identify all other fees and charges. Others suggested 

all fees associated with an open-end plan should be disclosed as the “finance charge.” 

Creditors sought, above all, clear rules. 

Comments were divided on the usefulness of open-end APRs. TILA requires 

creditors to disclose an “interest rate” APR for shopping disclosures (such as in 

advertisements and solicitations) and at account opening, and an “effective” APR on 

periodic statements that reflects interest and fees, such as transaction charges assessed 

during the billing period. In general, consumer groups suggested that the Board mandate 

for shopping disclosures an “average” or “typical” APR based on an historical average 

cost to consumers with similar accounts. An average APR, consumer representatives 

stated, would give consumers a more accurate picture of what consumers’ actual cost 

might be. Regarding the effective APR on periodic statements, consumer advocates 

stated that it is a key disclosure that is helpful, and can provide “shock value” to 

consumers when fees cause the APR to spike for the billing cycle. Commenters 

representing industry argued that an effective APR is not meaningful, confuses 

consumers, and is difficult to explain. Some commenters suggested that a disclosure on 

the periodic statement that provides context by explaining what costs are included in the 

effective APR might improve its usefulness. 
46 

Regarding advance notice of changes to rates and fees, comments were sharply 

divided. Creditors generally believe the current notice requirements are adequate, 

although for rate (and other) changes not involving a consumer’s default, a number of 

creditors supported increasing the advance notice requirement from 15 to 30 days. 

Consumers and consumer representatives generally believe that when terms change, 

consumers should have the right under TILA to opt out of the new terms, or be allowed a 

much longer time period to find alternative credit products. They suggested a two-billing 

cycle advance notice or as long as 90 days. More fundamentally, these commenters 

believe card issuers should be held to the initial terms of the credit contract, at least until 

the credit card expires. 

Where triggering events are set forth in the account agreement such as events that 

might trigger penalty pricing, creditors believe there is no need to provide additional 

notice when the event occurs; they are not changing a term, they stated, but merely 

implementing the agreement. Some suggest that instead of providing a notice when 

penalty pricing is triggered, penalty pricing and the triggers should be better emphasized 

in the application and account-opening disclosures. Consumers and consumer 

representatives agree that creditors’ policies about when terms may change should be 

more prominently displayed, including in the credit card application disclosures. They 

further believe the Board should provide new substantive protections to consumers, such 

as prohibiting the practice of increasing rates merely because the consumer paid late on 

another credit account. 
47 

B. October 2005 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the 

“Bankruptcy Act”) contained amendments to TILA, principally dealing with open-end 

(revolving) credit accounts. The Bankruptcy Act amendments require new disclosures on 

periodic statements, on credit card applications and solicitations, and in advertisements. 

The Board published a second ANPR in October 2005 to solicit comment on 

issues the Board should consider when implementing the Bankruptcy Act amendments 

(October 2005 ANPR). The Board stated its intent to implement the Bankruptcy Act 

amendments as part of the Board’s ongoing review of Regulation Z’s open-end credit 

rules, in part to minimize compliance burden. The comment period for the second ANPR 

closed on December 16, 2005. 

The Board received approximately 50 comment letters in response to the 

October 2005 ANPR. Forty-five letters were submitted by financial institutions and their 

trade groups. Five letters were submitted by consumer groups. The following is a 

summary of these comments. 

Minimum Payment Warnings 

Creditors that offer open-end accounts must provide standardized disclosures on 

each periodic statement about the effects of making only minimum payments, including 

an example of how long it would take to pay off a specified balance, along with a 

toll-free number that consumers can use to obtain an estimate of how long it will take to 

pay off their own balance if only minimum payments are made. The Board must develop 

a table that creditors can use in responding to consumers requesting such estimates. 
48

Industry commenters generally favored limiting the minimum payment disclosure 

to credit card accounts (thus, excluding home-equity lines of credit and overdraft lines of 

credit) and to those consumers who regularly make only minimum payments. Consumer 

groups generally favored broadly applying the rule to all types of open-end credit and to 

all open-end account holders. 

Industry commenters supported having an option to provide customized 

information (reflecting a consumer’s actual account status) on the periodic statement or in 

response to a consumer’s telephone call, but also wanted the option to use a standardized 

formula developed by the Board. Consumer group commenters asked the Board to 

require creditors to provide more customized estimates of payoff periods through the 

toll-free telephone number and to not allow creditors to use a standardized formula, and 

supported disclosure of an “actual” repayment time on the periodic statement. 

Late-payment Fees 

Creditors offering open-end accounts must disclose on each periodic statement the 

earliest date on which a late payment fee may be charged, as well as the amount of the 

fee. 

Industry commenters urged the Board to base its disclosure requirement on the 

contractual payment due date and to disregard any “courtesy” period that creditors 

informally recognize following the contractual payment due date. Although the industry 

provided mixed comments on any format requirements, most opposed a proximity 

requirement for disclosing the amount of the fee and the date. Comments were mixed on 

adding information about penalty APRs and “cut-off times” to the late payment 

disclosures. While supporters (a mix of industry and consumer commenters) believe the 
49

additional information is useful, others were concerned about the complexity of such a 

disclosure, and opposed the approach for that reason. Consumer commenters suggested 

substantive protections to ensure consumers’ payments are timely credited, such as 

considering the postmark date to be the date of receipt. 

Internet Solicitations 

Credit card issuers offering cards on the Internet must include the same tabular 

summary of key terms that is currently required for applications or solicitations sent by 

direct mail. 

Although the Bankruptcy Act refers only to solicitations (where no application is 

required), most commenters (both industry and consumer groups) agreed that Internet 

applications should be treated the same as solicitations. Many industry commenters 

stated that the Board’s interim final rule on electronic disclosures, issued in 2001, would 

be appropriate to implement the Bankruptcy Act. Regarding accuracy standards, the 

majority of industry commenters addressing this issue indicated that issuers should be 

required to update Internet disclosures every 30 days, while consumer groups suggested 

that the disclosures should be updated in a “timely fashion,” with 30 days being too long 

in some instances. 

Introductory Rate Offers 

Credit card issuers offering discounted introductory rates must clearly and 

conspicuously disclose in marketing materials the expiration date of the offer, the rate 

that will apply after that date, and an explanation of how the introductory rate may be 

revoked (for example, if the consumer makes a late payment). 
50 

In general, industry commenters asked for flexibility in complying with the new 

requirements. Consumer groups supported stricter standards, such as requiring an 

equivalent typeface for the word “introductory” in immediate proximity to the temporary 

rate and requiring the expiration date and subsequent rate to appear either side-by-side 

with, or immediately under or above, the most prominent statement of the temporary rate. 

Account Termination 

Creditors are prohibited from terminating an open-end account before its 

expiration date solely because the consumer has not incurred finance charges on the 

account. Creditors are permitted, however, to terminate an account for inactivity. 

Regarding guidance on what should be considered an “expiration date,” several 

industry commenters suggested using card expiration dates as the account expiration date. 

Others cautioned against using such an approach, because accounts do not terminate upon 

a card expiration date. Regarding what constitutes “inactivity,” many industry 

commenters stated no further guidance is necessary. Among those suggesting additional 

guidance, most suggested “activity” should be measured only by consumers’ actions 

(charges and payments) as opposed to card issuer activity (for example, refunding fees, 

billing inactivity fees, or waiving unpaid balances). 

High Loan-to-value Mortgage Credit 

For home-secured credit that may exceed the dwelling’s fair-market value, the 

Bankruptcy Act amendments require creditors to provide additional disclosures at the 

time of application and in advertisements (for both open-end and closed-end credit). The 

disclosures would warn consumers that interest on the portion of the loan that exceeds the 
51

home’s fair-market value is not tax deductible and encourage consumers to consult a tax 

advisor. 

In general, creditors asked for flexibility in providing the disclosure, either by 

permitting the notice to be provided to all mortgage applicants, or to be provided later in 

the approval process after creditors have determined the disclosure is triggered. 

Similarly, a number of industry commenters advocated limiting the advertising rule to 

creditors that specifically market high loan-to-value mortgage loans. Creditor 

commenters asked for guidance on loan-to-value calculations and safe harbors for how 

creditors determine property values. Consumer advocates favored triggering the 

disclosure when the possibility of negative amortization could occur. 

Because these amendments deal with home-secured credit, staff is not proposing 

revisions to Regulation Z to implement these provisions at this time. Staff proposes to 

implement these provisions in connection with the upcoming review of Regulation Z’s 

rules for mortgage transactions.