# Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-17663

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** August 23, 2012
- **Citation:** 77 FR 51116

## Text

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
12 CFR Parts 1024 and 1026
[Docket No. CFPB-2012-0028]
RIN 3170-AA19
Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z)

AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Proposed rule with request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

Sections 1032(f), 1098, and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) direct the Bureau to issue proposed rules and forms that combine certain disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Consistent with this requirement, the Bureau is proposing to amend Regulation X (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to establish new disclosure requirements and forms in Regulation Z for most closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by real property. In addition to combining the existing disclosure requirements and implementing new requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act, the proposed rule provides extensive guidance regarding compliance with those requirements.

DATES:

Comments regarding the proposed amendments to 12 CFR 1026.1(c) and 1026.4 must be received on or before September 7, 2012. For all other sections including proposed amendments, comments must be received on or before November 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2012-0028 or RIN 3170-AA19, by any of the following methods:

•
Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

Instructions:
All submissions should include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning (202) 435-7275.

All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Friend, Michael G. Silver and Priscilla Walton-Fein, Counsels; Andrea Pruitt Edmonds, Richard B. Horn, Joan Kayagil, and Thomas J. Kearney, Senior Counsels; Paul Mondor, Senior Counsel & Special Advisor; and Benjamin K. Olson, Managing Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. Background

For more than 30 years, Federal law has required lenders to provide two different disclosure forms to consumers applying for a mortgage. The law also has generally required two different forms at or shortly before closing on the loan. Two different Federal agencies developed these forms separately, under two Federal statutes: the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA). The information on these forms is overlapping and the language is inconsistent. Not surprisingly, consumers often find the forms confusing. It is also not surprising that lenders and settlement agents find the forms burdensome to provide and explain.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) directs the Bureau to combine the forms. To accomplish this, the Bureau has engaged in extensive consumer and industry research and public outreach for more than a year.
1

Based on this input, the Bureau is now proposing a rule with new, combined forms. The proposed rule also provides a detailed explanation of how the forms should be filled out and used.

1
See part III below for a discussion of the Bureau's testing of the forms with more than 100 consumers, lenders, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents. This part also describes the Bureau's outreach efforts, including the panel convened by the Bureau to examine ways to minimize the burden of the proposed rule on small businesses.

The first new form (the Loan Estimate) is designed to provide disclosures that will be helpful to consumers in understanding the key features, costs, and risks of the mortgage for which they are applying. This form will be provided to consumers within three business days after they submit a loan application. The second form (the Closing Disclosure) is designed to provide disclosures that will be helpful to consumers in understanding all of the costs of the transaction. This form will be provided to consumers three business days before they close on the loan.

The forms use clear language and design to make it easier for consumers to locate key information, such as interest rate, monthly payments, and costs to close the loan. The forms also provide more information to help consumers decide whether they can afford the loan and to compare the cost of different loan offers, including the cost of the loans over time.

In developing the new Loan Estimate form and Closing Disclosure form, the Bureau has reconciled the differences between the existing forms and combined several other mandated disclosures. The Bureau also has responded to industry complaints of uncertainty about how to fill out the existing forms by providing detailed instructions on how to complete the new forms.
2

This should reduce the burden on lenders and others in preparing forms in the future.

2
This guidance is provided in the proposed regulations and the proposed Official Interpretations, which are in Supplement I.

B. Scope of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule applies to most closed-end consumer mortgages. The proposed rule does not apply to home-equity lines of credit, reverse mortgages, or mortgages secured by a mobile home or by a dwelling that is not attached to real property (in other words, land). The proposed rule also does not apply to loans made by a creditor who makes five or fewer mortgages in a year.
3

3
For additional discussion of the scope of the proposed rule, see part VI below regarding section 1026.19, Coverage of Integrated Disclosure Requirements.

C. The Loan Estimate

The Loan Estimate form would replace two current Federal forms. It would replace the Good Faith Estimate designed by the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) under RESPA and the “early” Truth in Lending disclosure designed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) under TILA.
4

The proposed rule and the Official Interpretations (on which lenders can rely) contain detailed instructions as to how each line on the Loan Estimate form would be completed.
5

There are sample forms for different types of loan products.
6

The Loan Estimate form also incorporates new disclosures required by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act.
7

4
These disclosures are available at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/rmra/res/gfestimate.pdf
and
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/graphics/pdfs/ec27se91.024.pdf.

5
The requirements for the Loan Estimate are in proposed § 1026.37. Additional discussion of this and other sections of the proposed rule is provided in the relevant portion of part VI below.

6
Appendix H to the proposed rule provides examples of how to fill out these forms for a variety of different loans, including loans with fixed or adjustable rates or features such as balloon payments and prepayment penalties.

7
For a discussion of these disclosures, see part V.B below.

Provision by mortgage broker.
The lender may rely on a mortgage broker to provide the Loan Estimate form. However, the lender also remains responsible for the accuracy of the form.
8

8
This provision is in proposed § 1026.19(e)(1)(ii).

Timing.
The lender or broker must give the form to the consumer within three business days after the consumer applies for a mortgage loan.
9

The proposed rule contains a specific definition of what constitutes an “application” for these purposes.
10

9
This provision is in proposed § 1026.19(e)(1)(iii).

10
The definition of “application” is in proposed § 1026.2(a)(3).

Limitation on fees.
Consistent with current law, the lender generally cannot charge consumers any fees until after the consumers have been given the Loan Estimate form and the consumers have communicated their intent to proceed with the transaction. There is an exception that allows lenders to charge fees to obtain consumers' credit reports.
11

11
This provision is in proposed § 1026.19(e)(2)(i).

Disclaimer on early estimates.
Lenders and brokers may provide consumers with written estimates prior to application. The proposed rule requires that any such written estimates contain a disclaimer to prevent confusion with the Loan Estimate form. This disclaimer would not be required for advertisements.
12

12
This provision is in proposed § 1026.19(e)(2)(ii).

D. The Closing Disclosure

The Closing Disclosure form would replace the current form used to close a loan, the HUD-1, which was designed by HUD under RESPA. It would also replace the revised Truth in Lending disclosure designed by the Board under TILA.
13

The proposed rule and the Official Interpretations (on which lenders can rely) contain detailed instructions as to how each line on the Closing Disclosure form would be completed.
14

The Closing Disclosure form contains additional new disclosures required by the Dodd-Frank Act and a detailed accounting of the settlement transaction.

13
These disclosures are available at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/forms/files/1.pdf
and
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/graphics/pdfs/ec27se91.024.pdf.

14
The requirements for the Closing Disclosure are in proposed § 1026.38.

Timing.
The lender must give consumers this Closing Disclosure form at least three business days before the consumer closes on the loan. Generally, if changes occur between the time the Closing Disclosure form is given and the closing, the consumer must be provided a new form. When that happens, the consumer must be given three additional business days to review that form before closing.
15

However, the proposed rule contains an exception from the three-day requirement for some common changes. These include changes resulting from negotiations between buyer and seller after the final walk-through. There also is an exception for minor changes which result in less than $100 in increased costs.
16

The Bureau seeks comment on whether to permit additional changes without requiring a new three-day period before closing.

15
This provision is in proposed § 1026.19(f)(1)(ii).

16
These exceptions are in proposed § 1026.19(f)(2).

Provision.
Currently, settlement agents are required to provide the HUD-1, while lenders are required to provide the revised Truth in Lending disclosure. The Bureau is proposing two alternatives for who is required to provide consumers with the new Closing Disclosure form. Under the first option, the lender would be responsible for delivering the Closing Disclosure form to the consumer. Under the second option, the lender may rely on the settlement agent to provide the form. However, under the second option, the lender would also remain responsible for the accuracy of the form.
17

The Bureau seeks comment as to which alternative is preferable.

17
These alternatives are set forth in proposed § 1026.19(f)(1).

E. Limits on Closing Cost Increases

Similar to existing law, the proposed rule would restrict the circumstances in which consumers can be required to pay more for settlement services—the various services required to complete a loan, such as appraisals, inspections, etc.—than the amount stated on their Loan Estimate form. Unless an exception applies, charges for the following services could not increase: (1) The lender's or mortgage broker's charges for its own services; (2) charges for services provided by an affiliate of the lender or mortgage broker; and (3) charges for services for which the lender or mortgage broker does not permit the consumer to shop. Also unless an exception applies, charges for other services generally could not increase by more than 10 percent.
18

18
The limitations and the exceptions discussed below are in proposed § 1026.19(e)(3).

The rule would provide exceptions, for example, when: (1) The consumer asks for a change; (2) the consumer chooses a service provider that was not identified by the lender; (3) information provided at application was inaccurate or becomes inaccurate; or (4) the Loan Estimate expires. When an exception applies, the lender generally must provide an updated Loan Estimate form within three business days.

F. Changes to APR

The proposed rule redefines the way the Annual Percentage Rate or “APR” is calculated. Under the rule, the APR will encompass almost all of the up-front costs of the loan.
19

This will make it easier for consumers to use the APR to compare loans and easier for industry to calculate the APR.

19
These revisions are in proposed § 1026.4.

G. Recordkeeping

The proposed rule requires lenders to keep records of the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure forms provided to consumers in a standard electronic format.
20

This will make it easier for regulators to monitor compliance. The Bureau seeks comment on whether smaller lenders should be exempt from this requirement.

20
This provision is in proposed § 1026.25.

H. Effective Date

The Bureau is seeking comment on when this final rule should be effective. Because the final rule will provide important benefits to consumers, the Bureau seeks to make it effective as soon as possible. However, the Bureau understands that the final rule will

require lenders, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents to make extensive revisions to their software and to retrain their staff. In addition, some entities will be required to implement other Dodd-Frank Act provisions, which are subject to separate rulemaking deadlines under the statute and will have separate effective dates. Therefore, the Bureau is seeking comment on how much time industry needs to make these changes. The Bureau is proposing to delay compliance with certain new disclosure requirements contained in the Dodd-Frank Act until the Bureau's final rule takes effect.
21

21
For additional discussion, see part V below.

II. Background

A. The Mortgage Market

Overview of the Market and the Mortgage Crisis

The mortgage market is the single largest market for consumer financial products and services in the United States, with approximately $10.3 trillion in loans outstanding.
22

During the last decade, the market went through an unprecedented cycle of expansion and contraction that was fueled in part by the securitization of mortgages and creation of increasingly sophisticated derivative products designed to mitigate accompanying risks. So many other parts of the American financial system were drawn into mortgage-related activities that when the bubble collapsed in 2008, it sparked the most severe recession in the United States since the Great Depression.

22
Inside Mortgage Finance, Outstanding 1-4 Family Mortgage Securities, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012).

The expansion in this market is commonly attributed to both particular economic conditions and by changes within the industry. Interest rates dropped significantly—by more than 20 percent—from 2000 through 2003.
23

Housing prices increased dramatically—about 152 percent—between 1997 and 2006.
24

Driven by the decrease in interest rates and the increase in housing prices, the volume of refinances increased from about 2.5 million loans in 2000 to more than 15 million in 2003.
25

23

See
U.S. Dep't. of Hous. and Urban Dev.,
An Analysis of Mortgage Refinancing, 2001-2003
(Nov. 2004), available at
www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/MortgageRefinance03.pdf;
Souphala Chomsisengphet and Anthony Pennington-Cross,
The Evolution of the Subprime Mortgage Market,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 88(1), 31, 48 (Jan./Feb. 2006), available at
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/article/5019.

24
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission,
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report
(Feb. 25, 2011) (FCIC Report) at 156, available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf.

25

An Analysis of Mortgage Refinancing, 2001-2003,
at 1.

At the same time, advances in the securitization of mortgages attracted increasing involvement from financial institutions that were not directly involved in the extension of credit to consumers and from investors worldwide. Securitization of mortgages allows originating lenders to sell off their loans (and reinvest the funds earned in making new ones) to investors who want an income stream over time. Securitization had been pioneered by what are now called government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). But by the early 2000s, large numbers of private financial institutions were deeply involved in creating increasingly sophisticated investment mortgage-related vehicles through securities and derivative products.

Growth in the mortgage loan market was particularly pronounced in what are known as “subprime” and “Alt-A” products. Subprime products were sold both to borrowers with poor or no credit history, as well as to borrowers with good credit. The Alt-A category of loans permitted borrowers to provide little or no documentation of income or other repayment ability. Because these loans involved additional risk, they were typically more expensive to borrowers than so-called “prime” mortgages, though many offered low introductory rates. In 2003, subprime and Alt-A origination volume was about $400 billion. In 2006, it had reached $830 billion.
26

26
Inside Mortgage Finance: Mortgage Market Statistical Annual 2011.

So long as housing prices were continuing to increase, it was relatively easy for borrowers to refinance their loans to avoid interest rate resets and other adjustments. However, housing prices began to decline as early as 2005, slowing the growth in refinances.
27

At the same time, as the economy worsened the rates of serious delinquency (90 or more days past due or in foreclosure) for these subprime and Alt-A products began a steep increase from approximately 10 percent in 2006, to 20 percent in 2007, to over 40 percent in 2010.
28

27
FCIC Report at 215.

28

Id.
at 217.

The impact of this level of delinquencies on the private investors who purchased these loans from the mortgage originators was severe. Private securitizations of subprime loans peaked at $465 billion in 2005, but were virtually eliminated in 2008. Private securitizations of Alt-A loans followed a similar trajectory.
29

This effect was even felt by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were large purchasers of these securitizations, and it resulted in the Federal government in late 2008 placing the GSEs into conservatorship in order to support the collapsing mortgage market.

29

Id.
at 124.

Four years later, the United States continues to grapple with the fallout. Home prices are down 35 percent from peak to trough on a national basis, and it is not clear whether the national market has reached bottom.
30

The fall in housing prices is estimated to have resulted in about $7 trillion in household wealth losses.
31

Moreover, mortgage markets continue to rely on extraordinary U.S government support. In addition, distressed homeownership and foreclosure rates remain at unprecedented levels. Approximately 5.8 million homeowners were somewhere between 30 days late on their mortgage and in the foreclosure process as of April 2012.
32

Finally, the U.S. continues to face a stubbornly high unemployment rate, which was at 8.2 percent at the end of May 2012.
33

30
S&P/Case-Shiller 20-City Composite accessed from Bloomberg, LP on June 6, 2012.

31
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
The U.S. Housing Market: Current Conditions and Policy Considerations
(Jan. 4, 2012), available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/other-reports/files/housing-white-paper-20120104.pdf.

32
Lender Processing Services April 2012 Mortgage Monitor.

33
Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed from Bloomberg, LP on June 6, 2012.

While there remains debate about which market issues definitively sparked this crisis, there were several mortgage origination issues that pervaded the mortgage lending system prior to the crisis and are generally accepted as having contributed to its collapse. First, the market experienced a steady deterioration of credit standards in mortgage lending, particularly evidenced by the growth of subprime and Alt-A loans, which consumers were often unable or unwilling to repay.
34

34
FCIC Report at 88.

Second, the mortgage market saw a proliferation of more complex mortgage products with terms that were often difficult for consumers to understand. These products included most notably 2/28 and 3/27 Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgages and Option ARM products.
35

These products were often marketed to subprime and Alt-A customers. The appetite on the part of mortgage investors for such products often created inappropriate incentives for mortgage originators to originate these more expensive and profitable mortgage products.
36

35

Id.
at 106. “Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage” is a term frequently used to describe adjustable rate

mortgage loans that have a low fixed introductory rate for a certain period of time. “Option ARM” is a term frequently used to describe adjustable rate mortgage loans that have a scheduled loan payment that may result in negative amortization for a certain period of time, but that expressly permit specified larger payments in the contract or servicing documents, such as an interest-only payment or a fully amortizing payment. For these loans, the scheduled negatively amortizing payment was typically described in marketing and servicing materials as the “optional payment.”

36

Id.
at 109.

Third, responsibility for the regulation of consumer financial protection laws was spread across seven regulators including the Board, HUD, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the National Credit Union Administration. Such a spread in responsibility may have hampered the government's ability to coordinate regulatory monitoring and response to such issues.
37

37

Id.
at 111.

In the wake of this financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to address many of these concerns. In this Act, Congress created the Bureau and consolidated the rulemaking authority for many consumer financial protection statutes, including the two primary Federal consumer protection statutes governing mortgage origination, TILA and RESPA, in the Bureau.
38

Congress also provided the Bureau with supervision authority for certain consumer financial protection statutes over certain entities, including insured depository institutions with total assets over $10 billion and their affiliates, and certain other non-depository entities.
39

38
Sections 1011 and 1021 of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, the “Consumer Financial Protection Act,” Public Law 111-203, sections 1001-1100H, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5491, 5511. The Consumer Financial Protection Act is substantially codified at 12 U.S.C. 5481-5603.

39
Sections 1024 through 1026 of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5514-5516.

At the same time, Congress significantly amended the statutory requirements governing mortgage practices with the intent to restrict the practices that contributed to the crisis. For example, in response to concerns that some lenders made loans to consumers without sufficiently determining their ability to repay, section 1411 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended TILA to require that creditors make a reasonable and good faith determination, based on verified and documented information, that the consumer will have a reasonable ability to repay the loan.
40

Sections 1032(f), 1098, and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Act address concerns that Federal mortgage disclosures did not adequately explain to consumers the terms of their loans (particularly complex adjustable rate or optional payment loans) by requiring new disclosure forms that will improve consumer understanding of mortgage transactions (which is the subject of this proposal).
41

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act established other new standards concerning a wide range of mortgage lending practices, including compensation for mortgage originators
42

and mortgage servicing.
43

For additional information, see the discussion below in part II.F.

40
Section 1411 of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1639c.

41
1032(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5532(f). Sections 1098 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Act amend RESPA and TILA, respectively.

42
Sections 1402 through 1405 of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1639b.

43
Sections 1418, 1420, 1463, and 1464 of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. 2605; 15 U.S.C. 1638, 1638a, 1639f, and 1639g.

Size of the Current Mortgage Origination Market

Even with the economic downturn, approximately $1.28 trillion in mortgage loans were originated in 2011.
44

In exchange for a mortgage loan, borrowers promise to make regular mortgage payments and provide their home or real property as collateral. The overwhelming majority of homebuyers use mortgage loans to pay for at least some of their property. In 2011, 93 percent of all new home purchases were financed with a mortgage loan.
45

44
Moody's Analytics, Credit Forecast (2012). Reflects first-lien mortgage loans.

45
Inside Mortgage Finance, New Homes Sold by Financing, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012).

Borrowers may take out mortgage loans in order to purchase a new home, to refinance an existing mortgage, or to access home equity. Purchase loans and refinances produced 6.3 million new mortgage loan originations in 2011 alone.
46

The proportion of loans that are for purchases as opposed to refinances varies with the interest rate environment. In 2011, 65 percent of the market was refinance transactions and 35 percent was purchase loans, by volume.
47

Historically the distribution has been more even. In 2000, refinances accounted for 44 percent of the market while purchase loans comprised 56 percent, and in 2005 the two products were split evenly.
48

46
Moody's Analytics, Credit Forecast (2012). Reflects first-lien mortgage loans.

47
Inside Mortgage Finance, Mortgage Originations by Product, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012). These percentages are based on the dollar amount of the loans.

48
Inside Mortgage Finance, Mortgage Originations by Product, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012). These percentages are based on the dollar amount of the loans.

Using a home equity loan, a homeowner can use their equity as collateral in exchange for a loan. The loan proceeds can be used, for example, to pay for home improvements or to pay off other debts. These home equity loans resulted in an additional 1.3 million mortgage loan originations in 2011.
49

49
Moody's Analytics, Credit Forecast (2012). Reflects open-end and closed-end home equity loans.

Shopping for Mortgage Loans

When shopping for a mortgage loan, research has shown that consumers are most concerned about the interest rate and their monthly payment.
50

Consumers may underestimate the possibility that interest rates and payments can increase later on, or they may not fully understand that this possibility exists. They also may not appreciate other costs that could arise later, such as prepayment penalties.
51

This focus on short term costs while underestimating long term costs may result in consumers taking out mortgage loans that are more costly than they realize.
52

50
Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys.,
Summary of Findings: Design and Testing of Truth in Lending Disclosures for Closed-End Mortgages,
prepared by Macro International, Inc. (July 16, 2009), p. 6, available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/meetings/2009/20090723/Full%20Macro%20CE%20Report.pdf.;

see also
Kleimann Communication Group, Inc.,
Know Before You Owe: Evolution of the Integrated TILA-RESPA Disclosures
(July 2012), available at
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_report_tila-respa-testing.pdf
.

51
James Lacko and Janis Pappalardo,
Improving Consumer Mortgage Disclosures: An Empirical Assessment of Current and Prototype Disclosure Forms,
Federal Trade Commission, p. 26 (June 2007) (finding borrowers had misunderstood key loan features, including the overall cost of the loan, future payment amount, ability to refinance, payment of up-front points and fees, whether the monthly payment included escrow for taxes and insurance, any balloon payment, whether the interest rate had been locked, whether the rate was adjustable or fixed, and any prepayment penalty), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/06/P025505MortgageDisclosureReport.pdf.

52
Oren Bar-Gill,
The Law, Economics and Psychology of Subprime Mortgage Contracts,
94 Cornell L. Rev. 1073, 1079 (2009) (discussing how subprime borrowers may not fully understand the loan costs due to product complexity and deferral of loan costs into the future);
id.
at 1133 (explaining that borrower underestimation of mortgage loan cost distorts their decision to take out a loan, resulting in excessive borrowing), available at
http://legalworkshop.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cornell-A23090727-bar-gill.pdf.

Research points to a relationship between consumer confusion about loan terms and conditions and an increased likelihood of adopting higher-cost, higher-risk mortgage loans in the years leading up to the mortgage crisis. A study of data from the 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances found that some adjustable-rate mortgage loan borrowers—particularly those with below median income—underestimated or did not realize how much their interest rates could change.
53

These findings are consistent with a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, which raised concerns that mortgage loan disclosure laws did not require specific disclosures for adjustable rate loans.
54

This evidence suggests that borrowers who are not presented with clear, understandable information about their mortgage loan offer may lack an accurate understanding of the loan costs and risks.

53
Brian K. Bucks and Karen M. Pence,
Do Borrowers Know their Mortgage Terms?,
J. of Urban Econ. (2008), available at
http://works.bepress.com/karen_pence/5.

54
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Alternative Mortgage Products: Impact on Default Remains Unclear, but Disclosure of Risks to Borrowers Could Be Improved
(Sept. 20, 2006), available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061112t.pdf.

The Mortgage Origination Process

Borrowers must go through a mortgage origination process to take out a mortgage loan. During this process, borrowers have two significant factors to consider: the costs that they pay to close the loan, and the costs over the life of the loan. Both factors can vary tremendously, making the home purchase especially complex. Furthermore, there are many actors involved in a mortgage origination. In addition to the lender and the borrower, a single transaction may involve a seller, mortgage broker, real estate agent, settlement agent, appraiser, multiple insurance providers, and local government clerks and tax offices. These actors typically charge fees or commissions for the services they provide. Borrowers learn about the loan costs and the sources of those costs through a variety of sources, including disclosures provided throughout the mortgage origination process.

Loan Terms.
The loan terms affect how the loan is to be repaid, including the type of loan product,
55

the interest rate, the payment amount, and the length of the loan term.

55
Types of loan products include a fixed rate loan, adjustable rate loan, and interest-only loan.

Among other things, the type of loan product determines whether the interest rate can change and, if so, when and by how much. A fixed rate loan sets the interest rate at origination, and the rate stays the same until the borrower pays off the loan. However, the interest rate on an adjustable rate loan is periodically reset based on an interest rate index. This shifting rate could change the borrower's monthly payment. Typically, an adjustable rate loan will combine both types of rates, so that the interest rate is fixed for a certain period of time before adjusting. For example, a 5/1 adjustable rate loan would have a fixed interest rate for five years, and then adjust every year until the loan ends. Any changes in the interest rate after the first five years would change the borrower's payments. Today, fixed rate mortgages are the most common mortgage product, accounting for 87 percent of the mortgage loan market in 2011.
56

Adjustable rate mortgages accounted for only 13 percent of the mortgage loan market in 2011, although they have been more popular in the past.
57

Adjustable-rate mortgages accounted for 30 percent of mortgage loan volume in 2000, and reached a recent high of 50 percent in 2004.
58

56
Inside Mortgage Finance, Mortgage Originations by Product, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012). These percentages are based on the dollar amount of the loans.

57
Inside Mortgage Finance, Mortgage Originations by Product, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012). These percentages are based on the dollar amount of the loans.

58
Inside Mortgage Finance, Mortgage Originations by Product, Mortgage Market Statistical Annual (2012). These percentages are based on the dollar amount of the loans.

Borrowers are usually required to make payments on a monthly basis. These payments typically are calculated to pay off the entire loan balance by the time the loan term ends.
59

The way a borrower's payments affect the amount of the loan balance over time is called amortization. Most borrowers take out fully amortizing loans, meaning that their payments are applied to both principal and interest so that the loan's principal balance will gradually decrease until it is completely paid off. The typical 30-year fixed rate loan has fully amortizing monthly payments that are calculated to pay off the loan in full over 30 years. However, loan amortization can take other forms. An interest-only loan would require the borrower to make regular payments that cover interest but not principal. In some cases, these interest-only payments end after a period of time (such as five years) and the borrower must begin making significantly higher payments that cover both interest and principal to amortize the loan over the remaining loan term. In other cases, the entire principal balance must be paid when the loan becomes due.

59
Some loans may require a large final payment (or “balloon” payment) in addition to monthly payments.

The time period that the borrower has to repay the loan is known as the loan term, and is specified in the mortgage contract. Many loans are set for a term of 30 years. Depending on the amortization type of the loan, it will either be paid in full or have a balance due at the end of the term.

Closing Costs.
Closing costs are the costs of completing a mortgage transaction, including origination fees, appraisal fees, title insurance, taxes, and homeowner's insurance. The borrower may pay an application or origination fee. Lenders generally also require an appraisal as part of the origination process in order to determine the value of the home. The appraisal helps the lender determine whether the home is valuable enough to act as collateral for the mortgage loan. The borrower is generally responsible for the appraisal fee, which may be paid at or before closing. Finally, lenders typically require borrowers to take out various insurance policies. Insurance protects the lender's collateral interest in the property. Homeowner's insurance protects against the risk that the home is damaged or destroyed, while title insurance protects the lender against the risk of claims against the borrower's legal right to the property. In addition, the borrower may be required to take out mortgage insurance which protects the lender in the event of default.

Application.
In order to obtain a mortgage loan, borrowers must first apply through a loan originator. There are two different kinds of loan originators. A retail originator works directly for a mortgage lender. A mortgage lender that employs retail originators could be a bank or credit union, or it could be a specialized mortgage finance company. The other kind of loan originator is a mortgage broker. Mortgage brokers work with many different lenders and facilitate the transaction for the borrower.

A loan originator may help borrowers determine what kind of loan best suits their needs, and will collect their completed loan application. The application includes borrower credit and income information, along with information about the home to be purchased.

Borrowers can apply to multiple loan originators in order to compare the loans that they are being offered. Once they have decided to move forward with the loan, the borrower must notify the loan originator. The loan originator will

typically wait to receive this notification before taking more information from the borrower and giving the borrower's application to a loan underwriter.

Mortgage Processing.
A loan underwriter uses the application and additional information to confirm initial information provided by the borrower. The underwriter will assess whether the lender should take on the risk of making the mortgage loan. In order to make this decision, the underwriter considers whether the borrower can repay the loan, and whether the home is worth enough to act as collateral for the loan. If the underwriter finds that the borrower and the home qualify, the underwriter will approve the borrower's mortgage application.

Depending on the loan terms, as discussed above, lenders may require borrowers to retain title insurance, homeowner's insurance, private mortgage insurance, and other services. The lender may allow the borrower to shop for certain closing services on their own.

Closing.
After being accepted for a mortgage loan, completing any closing requirements, and receiving necessary disclosures, the borrower can close on the loan. Multiple parties participate at closing, including the borrower and the settlement agent.

The settlement agent ensures that all the closing requirements are met, and that all fees are collected. The settlement agent also completes all of the closing documents. The settlement agent makes sure that the borrower signs these closing documents, including a promissory note and the security instrument. This promissory note is evidence of the loan debt, and documents the borrower's promise to pay back the loan. It states the terms of the loan, including the interest rate and length. The security instrument, in the form of a mortgage, provides the home as collateral for the loan. A deed of trust is similar to a mortgage, except that a trustee is named to hold title to the property as security for the loan. The borrower receives title to the property after the loan is paid in full. Both a mortgage and deed of trust allow the lender to foreclose and sell the home if the borrower does not repay the loan.

In the case of a purchase loan, the funds to purchase the home and pay closing costs are distributed at closing or shortly thereafter. In the case of a refinance loan, the funds from the new loan are used to pay off the old loan, with any additional amount going to the borrower or to pay off other debts. Refinance loans also have closing costs, which may be paid by the borrower at closing or, in some cases, rolled into the loan amount. In home-equity loans, the borrower's funds and the closing costs are provided upon closing. A settlement agent makes sure that all amounts are given to the appropriate parties. After the closing, the settlement agent records the deed at the local government registry.

B. RESPA and Regulation X

Congress enacted the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 based on findings that significant reforms in the real estate settlement process were needed to ensure that consumers are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the residential real estate settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that Congress found to have developed. 12 U.S.C. 2601(a). With respect to RESPA's disclosure requirements, the Act's purpose is to provide “more effective advance disclosure to home buyers and sellers of settlement costs.”
Id.
2601(b)(1). In addition to providing consumers with appropriate disclosures, the purposes of RESPA include effecting certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate that will result in (1) the elimination of kickbacks or referral fees that Congress found to increase unnecessarily the costs of certain settlement services; and (2) a reduction in the amounts home buyers are required to place in escrow accounts established to insure the payment of real estate taxes and insurance.
Id.
2601. In 1990, Congress amended RESPA by adding a new section 6 covering persons responsible for servicing mortgage loans and amending statutory provisions related to mortgage servicers' administration of borrowers' escrow accounts.
60

60
Public Law 101-625, 104 Stat. 4079 (1990), sections 941-42.

RESPA's disclosure requirements generally apply to “settlement services” for “federally related mortgage loans.” Under the statute, the term “settlement services” includes any service provided in connection with a real estate settlement.
Id.
2602(3). The term “federally related mortgage loan” is broadly defined to encompass virtually any purchase money or refinance loan, with the exception of temporary financing, that is “secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property (including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives) designed principally for the occupancy of from one to four families * * *.”
Id.
2602(1).

Section 4 of RESPA requires that, in connection with a “mortgage loan transaction,” a disclosure form that includes a “real estate settlement cost statement” be prepared and made available to the borrower for inspection at or before settlement.
61

Id.
2603. The law further requires that form “conspicuously and clearly itemize all charges imposed upon the borrower and all charges imposed upon the seller in connection with the settlement * * *.”
Id.
2603(a). Section 5 of RESPA provides for a booklet to help consumers applying for loans to finance the purchase of residential real estate from lenders that make federally related mortgage loans to understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement services.
Id.
2604(a). Further, each lender must “include with the booklet a good faith estimate of the amount or range of charges for specific settlement services the borrower is likely to incur in connection with the settlement * * *.”
Id.
2604(c). The booklet and the good faith estimate must be provided not later than three business days after the lender receives an application, unless the lender denies the application for credit before the end of the three-day period.
Id.
2604(d).

61
Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, section 4 of RESPA applied to “all transactions in the United States which involve federally related mortgage loans.” 12 U.S.C. 2603 (2009). However, section 1098 of the Dodd-Frank Act deleted the reference to “federally related mortgage loan” in this section and replaced it with “mortgage loan transactions.” The regulation implementing this statutory requirement has historically applied and continues to apply to “federally related mortgage loans.”
See
12 CFR 1024.8; 24 CFR 3500.8 (2010).

Historically, Regulation X of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 24 CFR part 3500, has implemented RESPA. On March 14, 2008, after a 10-year investigatory process, HUD proposed extensive revisions to the good faith estimate and settlement forms required under Regulation X, as well as new accuracy standards with respect to the estimates provided to consumers. 73 FR 14030 (Mar. 14, 2008) (HUD's 2008 RESPA Proposal).
62

In November 2008, HUD finalized the proposed revisions in substantially the same form, including new standard good faith estimate and settlement forms, which lenders, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents were required to use beginning on January 1, 2010. 73 FR 68204 (Nov. 17, 2008) (HUD's 2008 RESPA Final Rule). HUD's 2008 RESPA Final Rule implemented significant changes to the

rules regarding the accuracy of the estimates provided to consumers. The final rule required re-disclosure of the good faith estimate form when the actual costs increased beyond a certain percentage of the estimated amounts, and permitted such increases only under certain specified circumstances.
Id.
at 68240 (amending 24 CFR 3500.7). HUD's 2008 RESPA Final Rule also included significant changes to the RESPA disclosure requirements, including prohibiting itemization of certain amounts and instead requiring the disclosure of aggregate settlement costs; adding loan terms, such as whether there is a prepayment penalty and the borrower's interest rate and monthly payment; and requiring use of a standard form for the good faith estimate.
Id.
The standard form was developed through consumer testing conducted by HUD, which included qualitative testing consisting of one-on-one cognitive interviews.
63

HUD issued informal guidance regarding the final rule on its Web site, in the form of frequently asked questions
64

(HUD RESPA FAQs) and bulletins
65

(HUD RESPA Roundups).

62
During this 10-year period, in 2002, HUD published a proposed rule revising the good faith estimate forms and accuracy standards for cost estimates, which it never finalized. 67 FR 49134 (July 29, 2002).

63
U.S. Dep't. of Hous. and Urban Dev.,
Summary Report: Consumer Testing of the Good Faith Estimate Form (GFE),
prepared by Kleimann Communication Group, Inc. (2008), available at
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Summary_Report_GFE.pdf.

64

New RESPA Rule FAQs,
available at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=resparulefaqs422010.pdf.

65

RESPA Roundup Archive,
available at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/res/resroundup
.

The Dodd-Frank Act (discussed further in part I.D, below) transferred rulemaking authority for RESPA to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011.
See
sections 1061 and 1098 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and RESPA, as amended, the Bureau published for public comment an interim final rule establishing a new Regulation X, 12 CFR part 1024, implementing RESPA. 76 FR 78978 (Dec. 20, 2011). This rule did not impose any new substantive obligations but did make certain technical, conforming, and stylistic changes to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau's Regulation X took effect on December 30, 2011. RESPA section 5's requirements of an information booklet and good faith estimate of settlement costs (RESPA GFE) are implemented in Regulation X by §§ 1024.6 and 1024.7, respectively. RESPA section 4's requirement of a real estate settlement statement (RESPA settlement statement) is implemented by § 1024.8.

C. TILA and Regulation Z

Congress enacted the Truth in Lending Act based on findings that the informed use of credit resulting from consumers' awareness of the cost of credit would enhance economic stability and would strengthen competition among consumer credit providers. 15 U.S.C. 1601(a). One of the purposes of TILA is to provide 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.
Id.
TILA's disclosures differ depending on whether credit is an open-end (revolving) plan or a closed-end (installment) loan. TILA also contains procedural and substantive protections for consumers.

TILA's disclosure requirements apply to a “consumer credit transaction” extended by a “creditor.” Under the statute, consumer credit means “the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment,” where “the party to whom credit is offered or extended is a natural person, and the money, property, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.”
Id.
1602(f), (i). A creditor generally is “a person who both (1) regularly extends * * * consumer credit which is payable by agreement in more than four installments or for which the payment of a finance charge is or may be required, and (2) is the person to whom the debt arising from the consumer credit transaction is initially payable on the face of the evidence of indebtedness or, if there is no such evidence of indebtedness, by agreement.”
Id.
1602(g).

TILA section 128 requires that, for closed-end credit, the disclosures generally be made “before the credit is extended.”
Id.
1638(b)(1). For closed-end transactions secured by a consumer's dwelling and subject to RESPA, good faith estimates of the disclosures are required “not later than three business days after the creditor receives the consumer's written application, which shall be at least 7 business days before consummation of the transaction.”
Id.
1638(b)(2)(A). Finally, if the annual percentage rate (APR) disclosed in this early TILA disclosure statement becomes inaccurate, “the creditor shall furnish an additional, corrected statement to the borrower, not later than 3 business days before the date of consummation of the transaction.”
Id.
1638(b)(2)(D).

Historically, Regulation Z of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR part 226, has implemented TILA. TILA section 128's requirement that the disclosure statement be provided before the credit is extended (final TILA disclosure) is implemented in Regulation Z by § 1026.17(b). The requirements that a good faith estimate of the disclosure be provided within three business days after application and at least seven business days prior to consummation (early TILA disclosure) and that a corrected disclosure be provided at least three business days before consummation (corrected TILA disclosure), as applicable, are implemented by § 1026.19(a). The contents of the TILA disclosures, as required by TILA section 128, are implemented by § 1026.18.

On July 30, 2008, Congress enacted the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 (MDIA).
66

MDIA, in part, amended the timing requirements for the early TILA disclosures, requiring that these TILA disclosures be provided within three business days after an application for a dwelling-secured closed-end mortgage loan also subject to RESPA is received and before the consumer has paid any fee (other than a fee for obtaining the consumer's credit history).
67

Creditors also must mail or deliver these early TILA disclosures at least seven business days before consummation and provide corrected disclosures if the disclosed APR changes in excess of a specified tolerance. The consumer must receive the corrected disclosures no later than three business days before consummation. The Board implemented these MDIA requirements in final rules published May 19, 2009, which became effective July 30, 2009, as required by the statute. 74 FR 23289 (May 19, 2009) (MDIA Final Rule).

66
MDIA is contained in sections 2501 through 2503 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110-289, enacted on July 30, 2008. MDIA was later amended by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-343, enacted on October 3, 2008.

67
MDIA codified some requirements previously adopted by the Board in a July 2008 final rule. 73 FR 44522 (July 30, 2008) (HOEPA Final Rule). To ease discussion, the description of MDIA's disclosure requirements includes the requirements of the 2008 HOEPA Final Rule.

MDIA also requires disclosure of payment examples if the loan's interest rate or payments can change, along with a statement that there is no guarantee the consumer will be able to refinance the transaction in the future. Under the statute, these provisions of MDIA became effective on January 30, 2011. The Board worked to implement these provisions of MDIA at the same time that it was completing work on a several

year review of Regulation Z's provisions concerning home-secured credit. As a result, the Board issued two sets of proposals approximately one year apart. On August 26, 2009, the Board published proposed amendments to Regulation Z containing comprehensive changes to the disclosures for closed-end credit secured by real property or a consumer's dwelling, including revisions to the format and content of the disclosures implementing MDIA's payment examples and refinance statement requirements, and several new requirements. 74 FR 43232 (Aug. 26, 2009) (2009 Closed-End Proposal).

For the 2009 Closed-End Proposal, the Board developed several new model disclosure forms through consumer testing consisting of focus groups and one-on-one cognitive interviews.
68

In addition, the 2009 Closed-End Proposal proposed an extensive revision to the definition of “finance charge” that would replace the “some fees in, some fees out” approach for determining the finance charge with a simpler, more inclusive “all-in” approach. The proposed definition of “finance charge” would include a fee or charge if it is (1) “payable directly or indirectly by the consumer” to whom credit is extended, and (2) “imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to or a condition of the extension of credit.” The finance charge would continue to exclude fees or charges paid in comparable cash transactions.
69

68
Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys.,
Summary of Findings: Design and Testing of Truth in Lending Disclosures for Closed-End Mortgages,
prepared by Macro International, Inc. (July 16, 2009) (Macro 2009 Closed-End Report), available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/meetings/2009/20090723/Full%20Macro%20CE%20Report.pdf.

69
As discussed in the analysis of the proposed amendments to § 1026.4 in part VI, in response to concerns about the effect of an “all-in” finance charge on the higher-priced and HOEPA coverage thresholds in §§ 1026.35 and 1026.32, respectively, the Board proposed to implement a different “transaction coverage rate” for higher-priced coverage and to retain the existing “some fees in, some fees out” treatment of certain charges in the definition of points and fees for purposes of determining HOEPA coverage.
See
76 FR 27390, 27411-12 (May 11, 2011); 76 FR 11598, 11608-09 (Mar. 2, 2011); 75 FR 58539, 58636-38, 58660-61 (Sept. 24, 2010).

On September 24, 2010, the Board published an interim final rule to implement MDIA's payment example and refinance statement requirements. 75 FR 58470 (Sept. 24, 2010) (MDIA Interim Rule). The Board's MDIA Interim Rule effectively adopted those aspects of the 2009 Closed-End Proposal that implemented these MDIA requirements, without adopting that proposal's other provisions, which were not subject to the same January 30, 2011 statutory effective date. The Board later issued another interim final rule to make certain clarifying changes to the provisions of the MDIA Interim Rule. 75 FR 81836 (Dec. 29, 2010).

On September 24, 2010, the Board also proposed further amendments to Regulation Z regarding rescission rights, disclosure requirements in connection with modifications of existing mortgage loans, and disclosures and requirements for reverse mortgage loans. This proposal was the second stage of the comprehensive review conducted by the Board of TILA's rules for home-secured credit. 75 FR 58539 (Sept. 24, 2010) (2010 Mortgage Proposal).

The Board also began, on September 24, 2010, issuing proposals implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, which had been signed on July 21, 2010. The Board issued a proposed rule implementing section 1461 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which, in part, adjusts the rate threshold for determining whether escrow accounts are required for “jumbo loans,” whose principal amounts exceed the maximum eligible for purchase by Freddie Mac.
70

75 FR 58505 (Sept. 24, 2010). On March 2, 2011, the Board proposed amendments to Regulation Z implementing other requirements of sections 1461 and 1462 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which added new substantive and disclosure requirements regarding escrow accounts to TILA. 76 FR 11598 (March 2, 2011) (2011 Escrows Proposal). Sections 1461 and 1462 of the Dodd-Frank Act create new TILA section 129D, which substantially codifies requirements that the Board had previously adopted in Regulation Z regarding escrow requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans (including the revised rate threshold for “jumbo loans” described above), but also adds disclosure requirements, and lengthens the period for which escrow accounts are required.

70
The Board finalized this proposal effective April 1, 2011. 76 FR 11319 (Mar. 2, 2011).

On May 11, 2011, the Board proposed amendments to Regulation Z to implement section 1411 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends TILA to prohibit creditors from making mortgage loans without regard to the consumer's repayment ability. 76 FR 27390 (May 11, 2011) (2011 ATR Proposal). Section 1411 of the Dodd-Frank Act adds section 129C to TILA, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1639c, which prohibits a creditor from making a mortgage loan unless the creditor makes a reasonable and good faith determination, based on verified and documented information, that the consumer will have a reasonable ability to repay the loan, including any mortgage-related obligations (such as property taxes).

Effective July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for TILA to the

Bureau.
71

See
sections 1061 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Act. Along with this authority, the Bureau assumed responsibility for the proposed rules discussed above. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and TILA, as amended, the Bureau published for public comment an interim final rule establishing a new Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, implementing TILA (except with respect to persons excluded from the Bureau's rulemaking authority by section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act). 76 FR 79768 (Dec. 22, 2011). This rule did not impose any new substantive obligations but did make certain technical, conforming, and stylistic changes to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau's Regulation Z took effect on December 30, 2011.

71
Section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act excludes from this transfer of authority, subject to certain exceptions, any rulemaking authority over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. 12 U.S.C. 5519.

D. The History of Integration Efforts

For more than 30 years, TILA and RESPA have required creditors and settlement agents to give consumers who apply for and obtain a mortgage loan different but overlapping disclosure forms regarding the loan's terms and costs. This duplication has long been recognized as inefficient and confusing for both consumers and industry.

Previous efforts to develop a combined TILA and RESPA disclosure form were fueled by the amount, complexity, and overlap of information in the disclosures. On September 30, 1996, Congress enacted the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996,
72

which required the Board and HUD to “simplify and improve the disclosures applicable to the transactions under [TILA and RESPA], including the timing of the disclosures; and to provide a single format for such disclosures which will satisfy the requirements of each such Act with respect to such transactions.”
73

If the agencies found that legislative action might be necessary or appropriate to simplify and unify the disclosures, they were to submit a report to Congress containing recommendations for such action. In the same legislation, Congress added

exemption authority in TILA section 105(f) for classes of transactions for which, in the determination of the Board (now the Bureau), coverage under all or part of TILA does not provide a meaningful benefit to consumers in the form of useful information or protection.
74

72
Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).

73

Id.,
section 2101.

74

Id.,
section 2102(b).

The Board and HUD did not propose an integrated disclosure pursuant to this legislation. Instead, in July 1998, the Board and HUD issued a “Joint Report to the Congress Concerning Reform to the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act” (Board-HUD Joint Report).
75

The Board-HUD Joint Report concluded that “meaningful change could come only through legislation” and provided Congress with the Board's and HUD's recommendations for revising TILA and RESPA.

75
Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. And U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev.,
Joint Report to the Congress Concerning Reform to the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(1998), available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/tila.pdf.

The agencies recommended a number of amendments to TILA and RESPA in the report, such as amendment of TILA's definition of “finance charge” to eliminate the “some fees in, some fees out” approach and instead include “all costs the consumer is required to pay in order to close the loan, with limited exceptions”; the amendment of RESPA to require either the guaranteeing of closing costs on the GFE or estimates that are subject to an accuracy standard; and provision of the final TILA disclosure and settlement statement three days before closing, so that consumers would be able to study the disclosures in an unpressured environment.

The Board-HUD Joint Report also recommended several additional changes to the TILA disclosures. In particular, the report recommended significant revisions to the “Fed Box,” which is the tabular disclosure provided to consumers in the early and final TILA disclosures under Regulation Z containing the APR, the finance charge (which is intended to be the cost of credit expressed as a dollar amount), the amount financed (which is intended to reflect the loan proceeds available to the consumer), and the total of payments (which is the dollar amount of the transaction over the loan term, including principal and finance charges).
76

The report recommended, among other things, eliminating the amount financed from the disclosure for mortgage loans because it probably was not useful to consumers in understanding mortgage loans. The report also recommended adding disclosure of the total closing costs in the Fed Box, citing focus groups conducted by the Board in which participants stated that disclosure of the amount needed to close the loan would be useful.

76

See, e.g.,
Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026 app. H-2 Loan Model Form.

The Board-HUD Joint Report did not result in legislative action. Eleven years later, and four months before the revised RESPA disclosures under HUD's 2008 RESPA Final Rule were to become mandatory, the Board published the 2009 Closed-End Proposal, which proposed significant revisions to the TILA disclosures and stated that the Board would work with HUD towards integrating the two disclosure regimes. The proposal stated that “the Board anticipates working with [HUD] to ensure that TILA and [RESPA] disclosures are compatible and complementary, including potentially developing a single disclosure form that creditors could use to combine the initial disclosures required under TILA and RESPA.”
77

The proposal stated that consumer testing would be used to ensure consumers could understand and use the combined disclosures. However, only ten months later in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted by Congress, which transferred rulemaking authority under both TILA and RESPA to the Bureau and mandated that the Bureau establish a single disclosure scheme under TILA and RESPA. Now, nearly 16 years after Congress first directed the Board and HUD to integrate the disclosures under TILA and RESPA, the Bureau publishes this proposed rule.

77
74 FR 43232, 43233.

E. The Dodd-Frank Act

As noted above, RESPA and TILA historically have been implemented by regulations of HUD and the Board, respectively, and the Dodd-Frank Act consolidated this rulemaking authority in the Bureau. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act amended both statutes to mandate that the Bureau establish a single disclosure scheme for use by lenders or creditors in complying comprehensively with the disclosure requirements discussed above. Section 1098(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA section 4(a) to require that the Bureau “publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions (including real estate settlement cost statements) which includes the disclosure requirements of this section and section 5, in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [TILA] that, taken together, may apply to a transaction that is subject to both or either provisions of law.” 12 U.S.C. 2603(a). Similarly, section 1100A(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended TILA section 105(b) to require that the Bureau “publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions (including real estate settlement cost statements) which includes the disclosure requirements of this title in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [RESPA] that, taken together, may apply to a transaction that is subject to both or either provisions of law.” 15 U.S.C. 1604(b).

The amendments to RESPA and TILA mandating a “single, integrated disclosure” are among numerous conforming amendments to existing Federal laws found in subtitle H of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
78

Subtitle C of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, “Specific Bureau Authorities,” codified at 12 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter V, part C, contains a similar provision. Specifically, section 1032(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, by July 21, 2012, the Bureau “shall propose for public comment rules and model disclosures that combine the disclosures required under [TILA] and [sections 4 and 5 of RESPA] into a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions covered by those laws, unless the Bureau determines that any proposal issued by the [Board] and [HUD] carries out the same purpose.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(f). The Bureau is publishing this proposed rule pursuant to that mandate and the parallel mandates established by the conforming amendments to RESPA and TILA, discussed above.

78
The Consumer Financial Protection Act is title X, “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,” of the Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), sections 1001-1100H. In the Consumer Financial Protection Act, Congress established the Bureau and its powers and authorities, transferred to the Bureau various existing functions of other agencies, mandated certain regulatory improvements, and prescribed other requirements and conforming amendments. Subtitle H, “Conforming Amendments,” is the last subtitle and consists of sections 1081-1100H. Certain titles of the Dodd-Frank Act are codified at 12 U.S.C. chapter 53. Subtitles A through G (but not H) of title X are codified at 12 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter V, parts A through G. Thus, the Consumer Financial Protection Act is substantially codified at 12 U.S.C. 5481-5603.

F. Other Rulemakings

In addition to this proposal, the Bureau currently is engaged in six other rulemakings relating to mortgage credit

to implement requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act:

•
HOEPA:
On the same day that this proposal is released by the Bureau, the Bureau is releasing a proposal to implement Dodd-Frank Act requirements expanding protections for “high-cost” mortgage loans under HOEPA, pursuant to TILA sections 103(bb) and 129, as amended by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1431 through 1433 (2012 HOEPA Proposal). 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb) and 1639.
79

79
Available at
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/notice-and-comment/.

•
Servicing:
The Bureau is in the process of developing a proposal to implement Dodd-Frank Act requirements regarding force-placed insurance, error resolution, and payment crediting, as well as forms for mortgage loan periodic statements and “hybrid” adjustable-rate mortgage reset disclosures, pursuant to sections 6 of RESPA and 128, 128A, 129F, and 129G of TILA, as amended or established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1418, 1420, 1463, and 1464. The Bureau has publicly stated that in connection with the servicing rulemaking the Bureau is considering proposing rules on reasonable information management, early intervention for troubled and delinquent borrowers, and continuity of contact, pursuant to the Bureau's authority to carry out the consumer protection purposes of RESPA in section 6 of RESPA, as amended by Dodd-Frank Act section 1463. 12 U.S.C. 2605; 15 U.S.C. 1638, 1638a, 1639f, and 1639g.

•
Loan Originator Compensation:
The Bureau is in the process of developing a proposal to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring certain creditors and mortgage loan originators to meet duty of care qualifications and prohibiting mortgage loan originators, creditors, and the affiliates of both from receiving compensation in various forms (including based on the terms of the transaction) and from sources other than the consumer, with specified exceptions, pursuant to TILA section 129B as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1402 and 1403. 15 U.S.C. 1639b.

•
Appraisals:
The Bureau, jointly with Federal prudential regulators and other Federal agencies, is in the process of developing a proposal to implement Dodd-Frank Act requirements concerning appraisals for higher-risk mortgages, appraisal management companies, and automated valuation models, pursuant to TILA section 129H as established by Dodd-Frank Act section 1471, 15 U.S.C. 1639h, and sections 1124 and 1125 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1473(f), 12 U.S.C. 3353, and 1473(q), 12 U.S.C. 3354, respectively. In addition, the Bureau is developing rules to implement section 701(e) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), as amended by Dodd-Frank Act section 1474, to require that creditors provide applicants with a free copy of written appraisals and valuations developed in connection with applications for loans secured by a first lien on a dwelling (collectively, Appraisals Rulemaking). 15 U.S.C. 1691(e).

•
Ability to Repay:
The Bureau is in the process of finalizing a proposal issued by the Board to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring creditors to determine that a consumer can repay a mortgage loan and establishing standards for compliance, such as by making a “qualified mortgage,” pursuant to TILA section 129C as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1411 and 1412 (Ability to Repay Rulemaking). 15 U.S.C. 1639c.

•
Escrows:
The Bureau is in the process of finalizing a proposal issued by the Board to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring certain escrow account disclosures and exempting from the higher-priced mortgage loan escrow requirement loans made by certain small creditors, among other provisions, pursuant to TILA section 129D as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1461 and 1462 (Escrows Rulemaking). 15 U.S.C. 1639d.

With the exception of the requirements being implemented in this rulemaking, the Dodd-Frank Act requirements referenced above generally will take effect on January 21, 2013 unless final rules implementing those requirements are issued on or before that date and provide for a different effective date. To provide an orderly, coordinated, and efficient comment process, the Bureau is generally setting the deadlines for comments on this and other proposed mortgage rules based on the date the proposal is issued, instead of the date this notice is published in the
Federal Register
. Specifically, as discussed below, it may be appropriate to finalize proposed §§ 1026.1(c) and 1026.4 in conjunction with the final rules adopted on or before January 21, 2013. Therefore, the Bureau is providing 60 days for comment on those proposals (until September 7, 2012), which will ensure that the Bureau receives comments with sufficient time remaining to issue final rules by that date. For the other portions of this proposed rule (including the Paperwork Reduction Analysis in part IX below), the Bureau is providing 120 days (until November 6, 2012). Because the precise date this notice will be published cannot be predicted in advance, setting the deadlines based on the date of issuance will allow interested parties that intend to comment on multiple proposals to plan accordingly.

The Bureau regards the foregoing rulemakings as components of a larger undertaking; many of them intersect with one or more of the others. Accordingly, the Bureau is coordinating carefully the development of the proposals and final rules identified above. Each rulemaking will adopt new regulatory provisions to implement the various Dodd-Frank Act mandates described above. In addition, each of them may include other provisions the Bureau considers necessary or appropriate to ensure that the overall undertaking is accomplished efficiently and that it ultimately yields a regulatory scheme for mortgage credit that achieves the statutory purposes set forth by Congress, while avoiding unnecessary burdens on industry.

Thus, many of the rulemakings listed above involve issues that extend across two or more rulemakings. In this context, each rulemaking may raise concerns that might appear unaddressed if that rulemaking were viewed in isolation. For efficiency's sake, however, the Bureau is publishing and soliciting comment on proposed answers to certain issues raised by two or more of its mortgage rulemakings in whichever rulemaking is most appropriate, in the Bureau's judgment, for addressing each specific issue. Accordingly, the Bureau urges the public to review this and the other mortgage proposals identified above, including those previously published by the Board, together. Such a review will ensure a more complete understanding of the Bureau's overall approach and will foster more comprehensive and informed public comment on the Bureau's several proposals, including provisions that may have some relation to more than one rulemaking but are being proposed for comment in only one of them.

For example, as discussed in detail in the section-by-section analysis under proposed § 1026.4 below, this proposal includes a simpler, more inclusive definition of the finance charge, similar to what the Board proposed in its 2009 Closed-End Proposal.
See
74 FR 43232, 43241-45 (Aug. 26, 2009). The Board recognized at that time that the more inclusive finance charge would cause more loans to be considered higher-priced mortgage loans under § 1026.35 and would expand the coverage of

HOEPA and similar State laws.
Id.
at 43244-45. For these reasons, in its 2010 Mortgage Proposal, the Board proposed to retain the existing treatment of third-party charges in the points and fees definition, notwithstanding the proposed expansion of the finance charge for disclosure purposes. 75 FR 58539, 58637-38 (Sept. 24, 2010). Similarly, the Board's 2010 Mortgage Proposal introduced a new metric for determining coverage of the higher-priced mortgage loan protections to be used in place of a transaction's APR, known as the “transaction coverage rate” (TCR), which does not reflect the additional charges that are reflected in the disclosed APR under the more inclusive finance charge definition.
Id.
at 58660-62.

The Bureau recognizes, as did the Board, that the proposed more inclusive finance charge could affect the coverage of the higher-priced mortgage loan and HOEPA protections. The Bureau also is aware that, consequently, a more inclusive finance charge has implications for the HOEPA, Appraisals, Ability to Repay, and Escrows rulemakings identified above. Those impacts are analyzed below, but the Bureau believes that it is also helpful to analyze potential mitigation measures on a rule-by-rule basis. Accordingly, the Bureau expects to seek comment in the HOEPA and Appraisals rulemakings on whether and how to account for the implications of the more inclusive finance charge on those specific regulatory regimes, for instance by adopting the TCR as previously proposed by the Board.
80

80
The Board already sought comment on this issue in its proposals to implement the ability to repay and escrow requirements.

III. Outreach and Consumer Testing

As noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act established two goals for this rulemaking: “to facilitate compliance with the disclosure requirements of [TILA and RESPA]” and “to aid the borrower or lessee in understanding the transaction by utilizing readily understandable language to simplify the technical nature of the disclosures.” Dodd-Frank Act sections 1098, 1100A. Further, the Bureau has a specific mandate and authority from Congress to promote consumer comprehension of financial transactions through clear disclosures. Section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to “implement * * * Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring,”
inter alia,
that “markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.” 12 U.S.C. 5511(a). Section 1021(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, in turn, authorizes the Bureau as part of its core mission to exercise its authorities to ensure that, with respect to consumer financial products and services, “consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions.” 12 U.S.C. 5511(b). Consistent with these goals and in preparation for proposing integrated rules and forms, the Bureau conducted a multifaceted information gathering campaign, including researching how consumers interact with and understand information, testing of prototype forms, developing interactive online tools to gather public feedback, and hosting roundtable discussions, teleconferences, and meetings with consumer advocacy groups, industry stakeholders, and other government agencies.

A. Early Stakeholder Outreach & Prototype Form Design

In September 2010, the Bureau began meeting with consumer advocates, other banking agencies, community banks, credit unions, settlement agents, and other industry representatives. This outreach helped the Bureau better understand the issues that consumers and industry face when they use the current TILA and RESPA disclosures.

At the same time, the Bureau began to research how consumers interact with and understand information. Given the complexities and variability of mortgage loan transactions and their underlying real estate transactions, the Bureau understood that the integrated disclosures would have to convey a large amount of complex and technical information to consumers in a manner that they could use and understand. Considering that, in January 2011, the Bureau contracted with a communication, design, consumer testing, and research firm, Kleimann Communication Group, Inc. (Kleimann), which specializes in consumer financial disclosures. Kleimann has been hired by other Federal agencies to perform such design and qualitative testing work in connection with other financial disclosure forms. For example, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal banking agencies contracted with Kleimann to design and conduct consumer testing for revised model privacy disclosures.
81

Also, HUD contracted with Kleimann to assist in the design and consumer testing for its revised good faith estimate and settlement statement forms.
82

81
72 FR 14940, 14944 (Mar. 29, 2007); 74 FR 62890, 62893 (Dec. 1, 2009).

82
73 FR 14030, 14043; 73 FR 68204, 68265.

The Bureau and Kleimann reviewed relevant research and the work of other Federal financial services regulatory agencies to inform the Bureau's design of the prototype integrated disclosures. One of the findings of this research was that there is a significant risk to consumers of experiencing “information overload” when the volume or complexity of information detracts from the consumer decision-making processes. “Information overload” has often been cited as a problem with financial disclosures.
83

Researchers suggest that there should be a balance between the types and amount of information in the disclosures, because too much information has the potential to detract from consumers' decision-making processes.
84

In its 2009 Closed-End Proposal, the Board cited a reduction in “information overload” as one of the potential benefits of its plan to harmonize the TILA and RESPA disclosures in collaboration with HUD.
85

The Board's consumer testing in connection with its 2009 Closed-End Proposal found that when participants were asked what was most difficult about their mortgage experience, the most frequent answer was the amount of paperwork.
86

HUD also stated that one of its guiding principles for HUD's 2008 RESPA Proposal was that “the [mortgage loan settlement process] can be improved with simplification of disclosures and better borrower information,” the complexity of which

caused many problems with the process.
87

83

See e.g.,
Debra Pogrund Stark and Jessica M. Choplin,
A Cognitive and Social Psychological Analysis of Disclosure Laws and Call for Mortgage Counseling to Prevent Predatory Lending,
16 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L. 85, 96 (2010); Paula J. Dalley,
The Use and Misuse of Disclosure as a Regulatory System,
34 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 1089, 1115 (2007); Patricia A. McCoy,
The Middle-Class Crunch: Rethinking Disclosure in a World of Risk-Based Pricing,
44 Harv. J. on Legis. 123, 133 (2007); Lauren E. Willis,
Decisionmaking and The Limits of Disclosure: The Problem of Predatory Lending: Price,
65 Md. L. Rev. 707, 766 (2006); Troy A. Paredes,
After the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: The Future Disclosure System: Blinded by the Light: Information Overload and its Consequences for Securities Regulation,
81 Wash. U. L. Q. 417 (2003); William N. Eskridge, Jr.,
One Hundred Years of Ineptitude: The Need for Mortgage Rules Consonant with the Economic and Psychological Dynamics of the Home Sale and Loan Transaction,
70 Va. L. Rev. 1083, 1133 (1984).

84
John Kozup & Jeanne M. Hogarth,
Financial Literacy, Public Policy, and Consumers' Self-Protection—More Questions, Fewer Answers,
42 Journal of Consumer Affairs 2, 127 (2008).

85
74 FR 43232, 43234.

86

See
Macro 2009 Closed-End Report at 19. For additional discussion regarding information overload, see the section-by-section analysis to proposed § 1026.37(l).

87
73 FR 14030, 14031.

The potential for “information overload” was also cited by Congress as one of the reasons it amended the TILA disclosures in the Truth-in-Lending Simplification and Reform Act of 1980.
88

According to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, this legislation arose in part because:

88
Public Law 96-221, 94 Stat 132 (1980).

During its hearings the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee heard testimony from a leading psychologist who has studied the problem of `informational overload.' The Subcommittee learned that judging from consumer tests in other areas, the typical disclosure statement utilized today by creditors is not an effective communication device. Most disclosure statements are lengthy, written in legalistic fine print, and have essential Truth in Lending disclosures scattered among various contractual terms. The result is a piece of paper which appears to be `just another legal document' instead of the simple, concise disclosure form Congress intended.
89

89
Public Law 96-221, Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Senate Report No. 96073 (Apr. 24, 1979).

Based on this research, the Bureau is particularly mindful of the risk of information overload, especially considering the large volume of other information and paperwork consumers are required to process throughout the mortgage loan and real estate transaction.

The Bureau began development of the integrated disclosures with certain design objectives. Considering that the quantity of information both on the disclosures and in other paperwork throughout the mortgage loan and real estate transaction may increase the risk of information overload, the Bureau began development of the integrated disclosures with the objective of creating a graphic design that used as few words as possible when presenting the key loan and cost information. The Bureau's purpose for such a design was to make the information readily visible so that consumers could quickly and easily find the information they were looking for, without being confronted with large amounts of text. Accordingly, the Bureau decided to limit the content of the disclosures to loan terms, cost information, and certain textual disclosures and to exclude educational material. The Bureau understood that consumers would receive educational materials under applicable law, such as the Special Information Booklet required by section 5 of RESPA, or through other means. In addition, the Bureau understood that it would provide additional educational information and tools on its Web site and place a Web site link on the integrated disclosures directing consumers to that site, which would obviate the need to place educational material directly on the disclosures.

The Bureau also believed the design should highlight on the first page the most important loan information that consumers readily understand and use to evaluate and compare loans, placing more detailed and technical information later in the disclosure. In addition, the Bureau believed the design should use plain language and limit the use of technical, statutory, or complex financial terms wherever possible.

The Bureau believes these design objectives best satisfy the purposes of the integrated disclosures set forth by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1098 and 1100A, as well as the Bureau's mandate under Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b) to ensure that consumers are provided with “understandable information” to enable them to make responsible decisions about financial transactions.

From January through May 2011, the Bureau and Kleimann developed a plan to design integrated disclosure prototypes and conduct qualitative usability testing, consisting of one-on-one cognitive interviews. The Bureau and Kleimann worked collaboratively on developing the qualitative testing plan and several prototype forms for the Loan Estimate (
i.e.,
the disclosure to be provided in connection with a consumer's application integrating the RESPA GFE and the early TILA disclosure). Although qualitative testing is commonly used by Federal agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of disclosures prior to issuing a proposal, the qualitative testing plan developed by the Bureau and Kleimann was unique in that the Bureau conducted qualitative testing with industry participants as well as consumers. Each round of qualitative testing included at least two industry participants, including lenders from several different types of depository institutions (including credit unions and community banks) and non-depository institutions, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents.

B. Prototype Testing and the Know Before You Owe (KBYO) Project

In May 2011, the Bureau selected two initial prototype designs of the Loan Estimate, which were used in qualitative testing interviews in Baltimore, Maryland. In these interviews, consumers were asked to work through the prototype forms while conveying their impressions, and also asked a series of questions designed to assess whether the forms presented information in a format that enabled them to understand and compare the mortgage loans presented to them. These questions ranged from the highly specific (
e.g.,
asking whether the consumer could identify the loan payment in year 10 of a 30-year, adjustable-rate loan) to the highly general (
e.g.,
asking consumers to choose the loan that best met their needs).
90

Industry participants were asked to use the prototype forms to explain mortgage loans as they would to a consumer and to identify implementation issues and areas for improvement.

90
The consumers who participated in these interviews had varying levels of education (from consumers with less than a high school education to consumers with graduate degrees) and varying levels of experience with the home buying and mortgage loan process (from consumers who never owned a home to consumers who had been through the home buying and mortgage loan process before).

At the same time, to supplement its qualitative testing, the Bureau launched an initiative, which it titled “Know Before You Owe,” to obtain public feedback on the prototype disclosure forms.
91

The Bureau believed this would provide an opportunity to obtain a large amount of feedback from a broad base of consumers and industry respondents around the country. This initiative consisted of either publishing and obtaining feedback on the prototype designs through an interactive tool on the Bureau's Web site or posting the prototypes to the Bureau's blog on its Web site and providing an opportunity for the public to email feedback directly to the Bureau. Individual consumers, loan officers, mortgage brokers, settlement agents, and others provided feedback based on their own experiences with the mortgage loan process by commenting on specific sections of the form, prioritizing information presented on the form, and identifying additional information that should be included.
92

91

See

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/knowbeforeyouowe/.

92
Examples of consumer and industry responses to the prototypes of the disclosures can be seen in the CFPB blog, including at:
www.consumerfinance.gov/know-before-you-owe-go; www.consumerfinance.gov/13000-lessons-learned;
and
www.consumerfinance.gov/know-before-you-owe-its-closing-time.

From May to October 2011, Kleimann and the Bureau conducted a series of five rounds of qualitative testing of different iterations of the Loan Estimate with consumer and industry participants. In addition to Baltimore, Maryland, this testing was conducted in Los Angeles, California; Chicago,

Illinois; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Each round focused on a different aspect of the integrated disclosure, such as the overall design, the disclosure of closing costs, and the disclosure of loan payments over the term of the loan. The overall goal of this qualitative testing was to ensure that the forms enabled consumers to understand and compare the terms and costs of the loan.

After each round of testing, Kleimann analyzed and reported to the Bureau on the results of the testing. Based on these results and supplemental feedback received through the KBYO process, the Bureau revised the prototype disclosure forms for the next round of testing. This iterative process helped the Bureau develop forms that enable consumers to understand and compare mortgage loans and that assist industry in complying with the law. For a detailed discussion of this testing, see the report prepared by Kleimann,
Know Before You Owe: Evolution of the Integrated TILA-RESPA Disclosures
(Kleimann Testing Report), which the Bureau is publishing on its Web site in conjunction with this proposed rule.
93

93
Kleimann Communication Group, Inc.,
Know Before You Owe: Evolution of the Integrated TILA-RESPA Disclosures
(July 2012), available at
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_report_tila-respa-testing.pdf
.

After completion of the qualitative testing that focused solely on the Loan Estimate, the Bureau and Kleimann began work on the prototype designs for the Closing Disclosure (
i.e.,
the disclosure provided in connection with the closing of the mortgage loan that integrates the RESPA settlement statement and the final TILA disclosure). From November 2011 through March 2012, the Bureau and Kleimann conducted five rounds of qualitative testing of different iterations of the Closing Disclosure with consumer and industry participants. This testing was conducted in five different cities across the country: Des Moines, Iowa; Birmingham, Alabama; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas; and Baltimore, Maryland.

Similar to the qualitative testing of the Loan Estimate, the Bureau revised the prototype Closing Disclosure forms after each round based on the results Kleimann provided to the Bureau and the feedback received from the KBYO process. The Bureau focused on several aspects of the prototypes during each round, such as the settlement disclosures adapted from the HUD-1, new disclosure items required under title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act, and tables to help identify changes in the information disclosed in the initial Loan Estimate. The overall goal of the qualitative testing of the Closing Disclosure was to ensure that the forms enabled consumers to understand their actual terms and costs, and to compare the Closing Disclosure with the Loan Estimate to identify changes. Accordingly, several rounds included testing of different iterations of the Loan Estimate with the Closing Disclosure.

Overall, the Bureau performed qualitative testing with 92 consumer participants and 22 industry participants, for a total of 114 participants. In addition, through the Bureau's KBYO initiative, the Bureau received over 150,000 visits to the KBYO Web site and over 27,000 public comments and emails about the prototype disclosures.

C. Ongoing Stakeholder Outreach

Throughout the qualitative testing of the prototype disclosure forms, the Bureau continued to conduct extensive outreach to consumer advocacy groups, other regulatory agencies, and industry representatives and trade associations. The Bureau held meetings with individual stakeholders upon request, and also invited stakeholders to meetings in which individual views of each stakeholder could be heard. The Bureau conducted these meetings with a wide range of stakeholders that may be affected by the integrated disclosures, even if not directly regulated by the proposed rule. The meetings included community banks, credit unions, thrifts, mortgage companies, mortgage brokers, settlement agents, settlement service providers, software providers, appraisers, not-for-profit consumer and housing groups, and government and quasi-governmental agencies. Many of the persons attending these meetings represented small business entities from different parts of the country. In addition to these meetings, after each round of qualitative testing, the Bureau received numerous letters from individuals, consumer advocates, financial services providers, and trade associations, which provided the Bureau with additional feedback on the prototype disclosure forms.

In preparing this proposal, the Bureau also considered comments provided in response to its December 2011 proposal regarding streamlining of regulations for which rulemaking authority was inherited by the CFPB from other Federal agencies, including TILA and RESPA. 76 FR 75825 (Dec. 5, 2011) (2011 Streamlining Proposal). That proposal specifically sought public comment on provisions of the inherited regulations that the Bureau should make the highest priority for updating, modifying, or eliminating because they are outdated, unduly burdensome, or unnecessary, and sought suggestions for practical measures to make compliance with the regulations easier. Several commenters requested that the Bureau reconcile inconsistencies in the terminology and requirements of Regulations X and Z. Wherever possible, the Bureau has proposed to do so in this rulemaking. In addition, other relevant comments received in response to the 2011 Streamlining Proposal are addressed below.

D. Small Business Review Panel

In February 2012, the Bureau convened a Small Business Review Panel with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
94

As part of this process, the Bureau prepared an outline of the proposals then under consideration and the alternatives considered (Small Business Review Panel Outline), which it posted on its Web site for review by the general public as well as the small entities participating in the panel process.
95

The Small Business Review Panel gathered information from representatives of small lenders, mortgage brokers, settlement agents, and not-for-profit organizations and made findings and recommendations regarding the potential compliance costs and other impacts of the proposed rule on those entities. These findings and recommendations are set forth in the Small Business Review Panel Report, which will be made part of the administrative record in this rulemaking.
96

The Bureau has carefully considered these findings and recommendations in preparing this proposal and has addressed certain specific examples below.

94
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires the Bureau to convene a Small Business Review Panel before proposing a rule that may have a substantial economic impact on a significant number of small entities.
See
Public Law 104-121, tit. II, 110 Stat. 847, 857 (1996) (as amended by Pub. L. 110-28, sec. 8302 (2007)).

95
Available at
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/sbrefa-small-providers-and-mortgage-disclosure/.

96

Final Report of the Small Business Review Panel on CFPB's Proposals Under Consideration for Integration of TILA and RESPA Mortgage Disclosure Requirements
(Apr. 23, 2012), available at
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_report_tila-respa-sbrefa-feedback.pdf.

In addition, the Bureau held roundtable meetings with other Federal banking and housing regulators, consumer advocacy groups, and

industry representatives regarding the Small Business Review Panel Outline. At the Bureau's request, many of the participants provided feedback, which the Bureau has used in preparing this proposal.

E. Next Steps

The public may submit comments on the proposed rule for 120 days after issuance (with the exception of the proposed amendments to §§ 1026.1(c) and 1026.4 that have a shorter 60-day comment period as discussed below). These comments will be available to the public, as will summaries of written or oral presentations in accordance with the Bureau's ex parte policy.
97

During the comment period and after it closes, the Bureau will carefully review and analyze the comments.

97
CFPB Bulletin 11-3 (August 16, 2011), available at
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2011/08/Bulletin_20110819_ExPartePresentationsRulemakingProceedings.pdf.

Once the Bureau has completed its review and analysis of the comments, it will consult with other Federal agencies and determine whether changes should be made to the proposed forms or rules. If changes are contemplated to the forms, the Bureau may conduct additional qualitative testing to evaluate the effectiveness of those changes. Whether or not changes are made, the Bureau may conduct large-scale quantitative testing of the forms to confirm that the forms aid consumers' understanding of mortgage transactions, if appropriate. On March 28, 2012, the Bureau published a notice for comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act in connection with this quantitative testing, specifically inviting comment on whether the information collected will have practical utility, the accuracy of the Bureau's burden hour estimates, and ways to enhance the quality of the information collected and minimize the burden on respondents.
98

The Bureau received no comments to this notice.

98
77 FR 18793 (Mar. 28, 2012).

During the Small Business Review Panel, several small business representatives requested that the Bureau explore the feasibility of conducting testing of the disclosure forms on actual loans before issuing a final rule.
See
Small Business Review Panel Report at 28. Based on this feedback and consistent with the Small Business Review Panel's recommendation, the Bureau is considering testing the forms on actual loans after reviewing comments received in connection with this proposal, and making any appropriate revisions to the proposed forms.

After the Bureau has completed the appropriate steps, it will prepare and issue a final rule. However, as discussed below in part V.A, the Bureau understands from the Small Business Review Panel process and from other outreach that lenders, settlement agents, and others will need a period of time to update their systems and processes to comply with the final rule and to train their employees. Accordingly, the Bureau is asking for comment on a time period that strikes the appropriate balance between providing consumers with improved disclosures as soon as possible and providing industry with the necessary time to come into compliance.

In addition, during the Small Business Review Panel, several small business representatives requested that the Bureau provide detailed guidance on how to complete the integrated forms, including, as appropriate, samples of completed forms for a variety of loan transactions.
See
Small Business Review Panel Report at 28. Similar feedback was also submitted by several industry trade associations in response to the Small Business Review Panel Outline. The Bureau also understands from its other outreach efforts that industry has experienced difficulties in complying with HUD's 2008 RESPA Final Rule, in part because of a lack of detailed guidance in HUD's 2008 RESPA Final Rule, and the many informal interpretations of the rule issued by HUD in the HUD RESPA FAQs and HUD RESPA Roundups. Based on this feedback and consistent with the Small Business Review Panel's recommendation, the proposed rule contains detailed provisions regarding the completion of the integrated disclosures, multiple examples of completed disclosures forms in appendix H to Regulation Z, and additional guidance and clarification in the Bureau's official commentary to Regulation Z. Such detailed guidance has, of course, added significant length to the proposed rule. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the level of detail in the proposed regulations and guidance (including the number of examples illustrating what is and is not permitted) will make compliance more, rather than less, burdensome and whether the Bureau should adopt a less prescriptive approach in the final rule.

IV. Legal Authority

The Bureau is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority under TILA, RESPA, and the Dodd-Frank Act. On July 21, 2011, section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau all of the HUD Secretary's consumer protection functions relating to RESPA.
99

Accordingly, effective July 21, 2011, the authority of HUD to issue regulations pursuant to RESPA transferred to the Bureau. Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act also transferred to the Bureau the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies, including the Board. The term “consumer financial protection function” is defined to include “all authority to prescribe rules or issue orders or guidelines pursuant to any Federal consumer financial law, including performing appropriate functions to promulgate and review such rules, orders, and guidelines.”
100

TILA, RESPA, and title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal consumer financial laws.
101

Accordingly, the Bureau has authority to issue regulations pursuant to TILA and RESPA, including the disclosure requirements added to those statutes by title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

99
Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, section 1061(b)(7); 12 U.S.C. 5581(b)(7).

100
12 U.S.C. 5581(a)(1).

101
Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(14), 12 U.S.C. 5481(14) (defining “Federal consumer financial law” to include the “enumerated consumer laws” and the provisions of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act); Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(12), 12 U.S.C. 5481(12) (defining “enumerated consumer laws” to include TILA and RESPA).

A. The Integrated Disclosure Mandate

Section 1032(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that, “[n]ot later than one year after the designated transfer date [of July 21, 2011], the Bureau shall propose for public comment rules and model disclosures that combine the disclosures required under [TILA] and sections 4 and 5 of [RESPA], into a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions covered by those laws, unless the Bureau determines that any proposal issued by the [Board] and [HUD] carries out the same purpose.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(f). In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 105(b) of TILA and section 4(a) of RESPA to require the integration of the TILA disclosures and the disclosures required by sections 4 and 5 of RESPA.
102

The

purpose of the integrated disclosure is to facilitate compliance with the disclosure requirements of TILA and RESPA, and to help the borrower understand the transaction by utilizing readily understandable language to simplify the technical nature of the disclosures. Dodd-Frank Act sections 1098, 1100A.

102
Section 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Act amended TILA section 105(b) to provide that the “Bureau shall publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions (including real estate settlement cost statements) which includes the disclosure requirements of this title in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 that, taken together, may apply to a transaction that is subject to both or either provisions of law.” 15 U.S.C. 1604(b). Section 1098 of the Dodd-Frank amended RESPA section 4(a) to require the Bureau to publish a “single, integrated disclosure for

mortgage loan transactions (including real estate settlement cost statements) which includes the disclosure requirements of this section and section 5, in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Act that, taken together, may apply to a transaction that is subject to both or either provisions of law.” 12 U.S.C. 2603(a).

Although Congress imposed this integrated disclosure requirement, it did not fully harmonize the underlying statutes. In particular, TILA and RESPA establish different timing requirements for disclosing mortgage credit terms and costs to consumers and require that those disclosures be provided by different parties. TILA generally requires that, within three business days of receiving the consumer's application and at least seven business days before consummation of certain mortgage transactions, creditors must provide consumers a good faith estimate of the costs of credit.
103

TILA section 128(b)(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1638(b)(2)(A). If the annual percentage rate that was initially disclosed becomes inaccurate, TILA requires creditors to redisclose the information at least three business days before consummation. TILA section 128(b)(2)(D); 15 U.S.C. 1638(b)(2)(D). These disclosures must be provided in final form at consummation. TILA section 128(b)(2)(B)(ii); 15 U.S.C. 1638(b)(2)(B)(ii). RESPA also requires that the creditor or broker provide consumers with a good faith estimate of settlement charges no later than three business days after receiving the consumer's application. However, unlike TILA, RESPA requires that, at or before settlement, “the person conducting the settlement” (which may or may not be the creditor) provide the consumer with a statement that records all charges imposed upon the consumer in connection with the settlement. RESPA sections 4(b), 5(c); 12 U.S.C. 2603(b), 2604(c).

103
This requirement applies to extensions of credit that are both secured by a dwelling and subject to RESPA. TILA section 128(b)(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. 1638(b)(2)(A).

The Dodd-Frank Act did not reconcile these and other statutory differences. Therefore, to meet the Dodd-Frank Act's express requirement to integrate the disclosures required by TILA and RESPA, the Bureau must do so. Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(f), TILA section 105(b), and RESPA section 4(a) provide the Bureau with implicit authority to issue regulations that reconcile certain provisions of TILA and RESPA to carry out Congress's mandate to integrate the statutory disclosure requirements. For the reasons discussed in this notice, the Bureau is proposing regulations to carry out the requirements of Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(f), TILA section 105(b), and RESPA section 4(a).

B. Other Rulemaking and Exception Authorities

The proposed rule also relies on the rulemaking and exception authorities specifically granted to the Bureau by TILA, RESPA, and the Dodd-Frank Act, including the authorities discussed below.
104

104
As discussed in part II above, prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, rulemaking authority over TILA was vested in the Board and rulemaking authority over RESPA was vested in HUD. The Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for TILA and RESPA to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011.
See
Dodd-Frank Act sections 1061, 1098, and 1100A. The Bureau implements the proposed rule pursuant to its authorities in section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Truth in Lending Act

TILA section 105(a).
As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a), 15 U.S.C. 1604(a), directs the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA, and provides that such regulations may contain additional requirements, classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for all or any class of transactions, that the Bureau judges are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance. A purpose of TILA is “to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” TILA section 102(a); 15 U.S.C. 1601(a). This stated purpose is tied to Congress' finding that “economic stabilization would be enhanced and the competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use of credit[.]” TILA section 102(a). Thus, strengthened competition among financial institutions is a goal of TILA, achieved through the effectuation of TILA's purposes.

Historically, TILA section 105(a) has served as a broad source of authority for rules that promote the informed use of credit through required disclosures and substantive regulation of certain practices. However, Dodd-Frank Act section 1100A clarified the Bureau's section 105(a) authority by amending that section to provide express authority to prescribe regulations that contain “additional requirements” that the Bureau finds are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance. This amendment clarified the authority to exercise TILA section 105(a) to prescribe requirements beyond those specifically listed in the statute that meet the standards outlined in section 105(a). The Dodd-Frank Act also clarified the Bureau's rulemaking authority over certain high-cost mortgages pursuant to section 105(a). As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a) authority to make adjustments and exceptions to the requirements of TILA applies to all transactions subject to TILA, except with respect to the provisions of TILA section 129
105

that apply to the high-cost mortgages referred to in TILA section 103(bb), 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb). For the reasons discussed in this notice, the Bureau is proposing regulations to carry out TILA's purposes and is proposing such additional requirements, adjustments, and exceptions as, in the Bureau's judgment, are necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of TILA, prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance. In developing these aspects of the proposal pursuant to its authority under TILA section 105(a), the Bureau has considered the purposes of TILA, including ensuring meaningful disclosures, facilitating consumers' ability to compare credit terms, and helping consumers avoid the uninformed use of credit, and the findings of TILA, including strengthening competition among financial institutions and promoting economic stabilization.

105
15 U.S.C. 1639. TILA section 129 contains requirements for certain high-cost mortgages, established by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), which are commonly called HOEPA loans.

TILA section 105(f).
Section 105(f) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1604(f), authorizes the Bureau to exempt from all or part of TILA any class of transactions if the Bureau determines that TILA coverage does not provide a meaningful benefit to consumers in the form of useful information or protection. In exercising this authority, the Bureau must consider the factors identified in section 105(f) of TILA and publish its rationale at the time it proposes an exemption for public comment. Specifically, the Bureau must consider:

(a) The amount of the loan and whether the disclosures, right of rescission, and other provisions provide a benefit to the consumers who are parties to such transactions, as determined by the Bureau;

(b) The extent to which the requirements of this subchapter complicate, hinder, or make more expensive the credit process for the class of transactions;

(c) The status of the borrower, including—

(1) Any related financial arrangements of the borrower, as determined by the Bureau;

(2) The financial sophistication of the borrower relative to the type of transaction; and

(3) The importance to the borrower of the credit, related supporting property, and coverage under this subchapter, as determined by the Bureau;

(d) Whether the loan is secured by the principal residence of the consumer; and

(e) Whether the goal of consumer protection would be undermined by such an exemption.

For the reasons discussed in this notice, the Bureau is proposing to exempt certain transactions from the requirements of TILA pursuant to its authority under TILA section 105(f). In developing this proposal under TILA section 105(f), the Bureau has considered the relevant factors and determined that the proposed exemptions may be appropriate.

TILA section 129B(e).
Dodd-Frank Act section 1405(a) amended TILA to add new section 129B(e), 15 U.S.C. 1639B(e). That section authorizes the Bureau to prohibit or condition terms, acts, or practices relating to residential mortgage loans on a variety of bases, including when the Bureau finds the terms, acts, or practices are not in the interest of the borrower. In developing proposed rules under TILA section 129B(e), the Bureau has considered whether the proposed rules are in the interest of the borrower, as required by the statute. For the reasons discussed in this notice, the Bureau is proposing portions of this rule pursuant to its authority under TILA section 129B(e).

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

Section 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2617(a), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such rules and regulations and to make such interpretations and grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of transactions as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of RESPA. One purpose of RESPA is to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate that will result in more effective advance disclosure to home buyers and sellers of settlement costs. RESPA section 2(b); 12 U.S.C. 2601(b). In addition, in enacting RESPA, Congress found that consumers are entitled to be “provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and [to be] protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices * * *” RESPA section 2(a); 12 U.S.C. 2601(a). In the past, section 19(a) has served as a broad source of authority to prescribe disclosures and substantive requirements to carry out the purposes of RESPA.

In developing proposed rules under RESPA section 19(a) for this proposal, the Bureau has considered the purposes of RESPA, including to cause changes in the settlement process that will result in more effective advance disclosure of settlement costs. For the reasons discussed in this notice, the Bureau is proposing portions of this rule pursuant to its authority under RESPA section 19(a).

Dodd-Frank Act

Dodd-Frank Act section 1021.
Section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau shall seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. 12 U.S.C. 5511(a). In addition, section 1021(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau is authorized to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services: (1) Consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (2) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; (3) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; (4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and (5) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation. 12 U.S.C. 5511(b).

Accordingly, this proposal is consistent with the purposes of Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(a) and with the objectives of Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b), specifically including Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(1) and (3).

Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b).
Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof[.]” 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act prescribes certain standards for rulemaking that the Bureau must follow in exercising its authority under section 1022

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-17663. Public record. Not legal advice.