UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


ARMSTRONG, VANESSA

v.

ACCRDTNG CNCL EDUC


97-5316b

D.C. Cir. 1999


*	*	*


O R D E R


On consideration of appellant's petition for rehearing, it is


Ordered by the court that the petition be denied and that  the slip
opinion filed herein on March 23, 1999 (reported at  168 F.3d 1362) be
amended as follows:


On page 4 of the slip opinion (168 F.3d 1364-65), delete the  first two
sentences of the paragraph beginning "To further  encourage ..." and
replace them with the following:


Congress also excluded GSLP loans from the Truth in  Lending Act
("TILA"), see Pub. L. No. 97-320, sec.  701(a), s 1603, 96 Stat. 1469,
1538 (1982), and the FTC  stopped enforcing its so-called "Holder
Rule" against  GSLP lenders. See Federal Appellee's Br. at 25 ("1982 
TILA amendments exempting student loans from TILA  coverage convinced
both courts and FTC staff that the  Holder Rule thereafter no longer
applied to GSLP  loans."). Adopted by the FTC in 1976,....


On page 6 (168 F.3d 1365), in the first full sentence, replace  the
phrase stating "together with the FTC's renewed enforce- ment policy"
with "together with the FTC's decision to en- force the Rule with
respect to guaranteed student loans."


On page 10 (168 F.3d 1368), delete the two sentences  following the
sentence stating "We think appellees have the  better of this
argument" and replace them with the following:


In 1982, Congress expressly exempted student loans  from the Truth in
Lending Act. At that point, because  the Holder Rule incorporated
TILA's definitions and was  therefore considered limited to credit
transactions cov- ered by TILA, see 16 C.F.R. s 433.1(d), (e), the FTC
 stopped enforcing the Holder Rule with respect to GSLP  loans. In a
letter dated April 12, 1990, FTC staff,  reiterating advice given in
an earlier letter, described its  "current enforcement position" as
"[GSLP] loans would  not be covered by the Holder Rule." Letter from
John  F. LeFevre, Program Advisor, Federal Trade Commis- sion, to
Joseph Esposito, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &  Feld (Apr. 12, 1990).
Although this advice was later  "retracted," see Letter from John F.
LeFevre to Joseph  Esposito (June 20, 1990), that retraction related
to future  enforcement, and nothing in either it or elsewhere in the 
record contradicts the government's statement that the  FTC stopped
enforcing the Holder Rule against GSLP 


lenders after the 1982 TILA Amendments. Not until  after Armstrong
obtained her loan....


On page 11 (168 F.3d 1368), replace the words "nonenforce- ment policy"
in the second sentence of the full paragraph with  "nonenforcement of
the Holder Rule."


On page 14 (168 F.3d 1370), amend the last sentence on the  page
beginning "In letter rulings ..." to read: "In letter  rulings
discussing circumstances closely mirroring the facts of  this case,
see Maljack Prods., Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of  America, Inc., 52
F.3d 373, 375 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (on motion to  dismiss we accept the
facts alleged in the complaint as true),  the Secretary...." In
addition, after the citation to "Letter  from Larry Oxendine to John
E. Dean (Feb. 20, 1991)" on  page 15, add the following: "; see also
57 Fed. Reg. 60,304  ("The Secretary has also decided to describe an
'origination  relationship' as a special business relationship between
a  school and a lender so as to distinguish it from the relation- ship
that exists between these parties as part of the normal  loan
processing and delivery system.")."


Per Curiam


For the Court:


Mark J. Langer, Clerk


By:


Deputy Clerk