High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X)

Federal RegisterJan 31, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

12 CFR Parts 1024 and 1026

[Docket No. CFPB-2012-0029]

RIN 3170-AA12

High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X)

AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Final rule; official interpretations.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) issues this final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's amendments to the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The final rule amends Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) by expanding the types of mortgage loans that are subject to the protections of the Home Ownership and Equity Protections Act of 1994 (HOEPA), revising and expanding the tests for coverage under HOEPA, and imposing additional restrictions on mortgages that are covered by HOEPA, including a pre-loan counseling requirement. The final rule also amends Regulation Z and Regulation X (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) by imposing certain other requirements related to homeownership counseling, including a requirement that consumers receive information about homeownership counseling providers.

DATES:

The rule is effective January 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Arculin and Courtney Jean, Counsels; and Pavneet Singh, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Final Rule

The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) was enacted in 1994 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to address abusive practices in refinancing and home-equity mortgage loans with high interest rates or high fees. Loans that meet HOEPA's high-cost coverage tests are subject to special disclosure requirements and restrictions on loan terms, and borrowers in high-cost mortgages

have enhanced remedies for violations of the law. The provisions of TILA, including HOEPA, are implemented in the Bureau's Regulation Z.

Mortgages covered by the HOEPA amendments have been referred to as “HOEPA loans,” “Section 32 loans,” or “high-cost mortgages.” The Dodd-Frank Act now refers to these loans as “high-cost mortgages.”

See

Dodd-Frank Act section 1431; TILA section 103(bb). For simplicity and consistency, this final rule uses the term “high-cost mortgages” to refer to mortgages covered by the HOEPA amendments.

12 CFR part 1026.

In response to the recent mortgage crisis, Congress amended HOEPA through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) in order to expand the coverage of HOEPA and add protections for high-cost mortgages, including a requirement that borrowers receive homeownership counseling before obtaining a high-cost mortgage. In addition, several provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act also require or encourage consumers to obtain homeownership counseling for other types of loans. The Bureau is finalizing this rule to implement the HOEPA and homeownership counseling-related requirements.

Scope of HOEPA Coverage

The final rule implements the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments that expanded the universe of loans potentially covered by HOEPA. Under the final rule, most types of mortgage loans secured by a consumer's principal dwelling, including purchase-money mortgages, refinances, closed-end home-equity loans, and open-end credit plans (

i.e.,

home equity lines of credit or HELOCs) are potentially subject to HOEPA coverage. The final rule retains the exemption from HOEPA coverage for reverse mortgages. In addition, the final rule adds exemptions from HOEPA coverage for three types of loans that the Bureau believes do not present the same risk of abuse as other mortgage loans: loans to finance the initial construction of a dwelling, loans originated and financed by Housing Finance Agencies, and loans originated through the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Housing Service section 502 Direct Loan Program.

Revised HOEPA Coverage Tests

The final rule implements the Dodd-Frank Act's revisions to HOEPA's coverage tests by providing that a transaction is a high-cost mortgage if any of the following tests is met:

• The transaction's annual percentage rate (APR) exceeds the applicable average prime offer rate by more than 6.5 percentage points for most first-lien mortgages, or by more than 8.5 percentage points for a first mortgage if the dwelling is personal property and the transaction is for less than $50,000;

• The transaction's APR exceeds the applicable average prime offer rate by more than 8.5 percentage points for subordinate or junior mortgages;

• The transaction's points and fees exceed 5 percent of the total transaction amount or, for loans below $20,000, the lesser of 8 percent of the total transaction amount or $1,000 (with the dollar figures also adjusted annually for inflation); or

• The credit transaction documents permit the creditor to charge or collect a prepayment penalty more than 36 months after transaction closing or permit such fees or penalties to exceed, in the aggregate, more than 2 percent of the amount prepaid.

The final rule also provides guidance on how to apply the various coverage tests, such as how to determine the applicable average prime offer rate and how to calculate points and fees.

Restrictions on Loan Terms

The final rule also implements new Dodd-Frank Act restrictions and requirements concerning loan terms and origination practices for mortgages that fall within HOEPA's coverage test. For example:

• Balloon payments are generally banned, unless they are to account for the seasonal or irregular income of the borrower, they are part of a short-term bridge loan, or they are made by creditors meeting specified criteria, including operating predominantly in rural or underserved areas.

• Creditors are prohibited from charging prepayment penalties and financing points and fees.

• Late fees are restricted to four percent of the payment that is past due, fees for providing payoff statements are restricted, and fees for loan modification or payment deferral are banned.

• Creditors originating HELOCs are required to assess consumers' ability to repay. (Creditors originating high-cost, closed-end credit transactions already are required to assess consumers' ability to repay under the Bureau's 2013 Ability-to-repay (ATR) Final Rule addressing a Dodd-Frank Act requirement that creditors determine that a consumer is able to repay a mortgage loan.)

• Creditors and mortgage brokers are prohibited from recommending or encouraging a consumer to default on a loan or debt to be refinanced by a high-cost mortgage.

• Before making a high-cost mortgage, creditors are required to obtain confirmation from a federally certified or approved homeownership counselor that the consumer has received counseling on the advisability of the mortgage.

Other Counseling-Related Requirements

The final rule implements two additional Dodd-Frank Act homeownership counseling-related provisions that are not amendments to HOEPA.

• The final rule requires lenders to provide a list of homeownership counseling organizations to consumers within three business days after they apply for a mortgage loan, with the exclusion of reverse mortgages and mortgage loans secured by a timeshare. The final rule requires the lender to obtain the list from either a Web site that will be developed by the Bureau or data that will made available by the Bureau or the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for compliance with this requirement.

• The final rule implements a new requirement under TILA that creditors must obtain confirmation that a first-time borrower has received homeownership counseling from a federally certified or approved homeownership counselor or counseling organization before making a loan that provides for or permits negative amortization to the borrower.

Effective Date

The rule is effective January 10, 2014.

II. Background

A. HOEPA

HOEPA was enacted as part of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160, in response to evidence concerning abusive practices in mortgage loan refinancing and home-equity lending.

The statute did not apply to purchase-money mortgages or reverse mortgages but covered other closed-end mortgage credit,

e.g.,

refinances and closed-end home equity loans. Coverage was triggered where a loan's APR exceeded comparable Treasury securities by specified thresholds for particular loan types, or where points and fees exceeded 8 percent of the total loan amount or a dollar threshold.

HOEPA amended TILA by adding new sections 103(aa) and 129, 15 U.S.C. 1602(aa) and 1639.

For high-cost mortgages meeting either of those thresholds, HOEPA required lenders to provide special pre-closing disclosures, restricted prepayment penalties and certain other loan terms, and regulated various lender practices, such as extending credit without regard to a consumer's ability to repay the loan. HOEPA also provided a mechanism for consumers to rescind covered loans that included certain prohibited terms and to obtain higher damages than are allowed for other types of TILA violations, including finance charges and fees paid by the consumer. Finally, HOEPA amended TILA section 131, 15 U.S.C. 1641, to provide for increased liability to purchasers of high cost mortgages. Purchasers and assignees of loans not covered by HOEPA generally are liable only for violations of TILA which are apparent on the face of the disclosure statements, whereas purchasers of high cost mortgages generally are subject to all claims and defenses against the original creditor with respect to the mortgage.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) first issued regulations implementing HOEPA in 1995.

See

60 FR 15463 (March 24, 1995). The Board published additional significant changes in 2001 that lowered HOEPA's APR trigger for first-lien mortgage loans, expanded the definition of points and fees to include the cost of optional credit insurance and debt cancellation premiums, and enhanced the restrictions associated with high cost mortgages.

See

66 FR 65604 (Dec. 20, 2001). In 2008, the Board exercised its authority under HOEPA to require certain consumer protections concerning a consumer's ability to repay, prepayment penalties, and escrow accounts for taxes and insurance for a new category of “higher-priced mortgage loans” with APRs that are lower than those prescribed for high cost mortgages but that nevertheless exceed the average prime offer rate by prescribed amounts. 73 FR 44522 (July 30, 2008) (the 2008 HOEPA Final Rule).

Historically, the Board's Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, has implemented TILA, including HOEPA. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, general rulemaking authority for TILA, including HOEPA, transferred from the Board to the Bureau on July 21, 2011.

See

sections 1061, 1096, and 1100A(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, 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 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. Sections 1026.31, 1026.32, and 1026.34 of the Bureau's Regulation Z implement the HOEPA provisions of TILA.

B. RESPA

Congress enacted the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601

et seq.,

in 1974 to provide consumers with greater and timelier information on the nature and costs of the residential real estate settlement process and to protect consumers from unnecessarily high settlement charges, including through the use of disclosures and the prohibition of kickbacks and referral fees. RESPA's disclosure requirements generally apply to “settlement services” for “federally related mortgage loans,” a term that includes virtually any purchase-money or refinance loan secured by a first or subordinate lien on one-to-four family residential real property. 12 U.S.C. 2602(1). Section 5 of RESPA generally requires that lenders provide applicants for federally related mortgage loans a home-buying information booklet containing information about the nature and costs of real estate settlement services and a good faith estimate of charges the borrower is likely to incur during the settlement process.

Id.

at 2604. The booklet and 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.

at 2604(d).

Historically, Regulation X of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 24 CFR part 3500, has implemented RESPA. The Dodd-Frank Act 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.

C. The Dodd-Frank Act

Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act after a cycle of unprecedented expansion and contraction in the mortgage market sparked the most severe U.S. recession since the Great Depression.

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Bureau and consolidated various rulemaking and supervisory authorities in the new agency, including the authority to implement TILA (including HOEPA) and RESPA.

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 more discussion of the mortgage market, the financial crisis, and mortgage origination generally,

see

the Bureau's 2013 ATR Final Rule.

Sections 1011 and 1021 of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, the “Consumer Financial Protection Act,” Public Law 111-203, sec. 1001-1100H, 124 Stat. 1375 (2010) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 5491, 5511). The Consumer Financial Protection Act is substantially codified at 12 U.S.C. 5481-5603.

As part of these changes, sections 1431 through 1433 of the Dodd-Frank Act significantly amended HOEPA to expand the types of loans potentially subject to HOEPA coverage, to revise the triggers for HOEPA coverage, and to strengthen and expand the restrictions that HOEPA imposes on those mortgages.

Several provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act also require and encourage consumers to obtain homeownership counseling. Sections 1433(e) and 1414 require creditors to obtain confirmation that a borrower has obtained counseling from a federally approved counselor prior to extending a high-cost mortgage under HOEPA or (in the case of first-time borrowers) a negative amortization loan. The Dodd-Frank Act also amended RESPA to require distribution of a housing counselor list as part of the general mortgage application process. The Bureau is finalizing this rule to implement the HOEPA and homeownership counseling-related requirements.

As amended, the HOEPA provisions of TILA will be codified at 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb) and 1639. The Bureau notes that the Dodd-Frank Act amended existing TILA section 103(aa) and renumbered it as section 103(bb), 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb).

See

§ 1100A(1)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act. This proposal generally references TILA section 103(aa) to refer to the pre-Dodd-Frank Act provision, which is in effect until the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments take effect, and TILA section 103(bb) to refer to the amended and renumbered provision.

D. The Market for High-Cost Mortgages

Since the enactment of HOEPA, originations of mortgages covered by HOEPA have accounted for an extremely small percentage of the market. This may be due to a variety of factors, including the fact that HOEPA's coverage thresholds were set relatively high, HOEPA's assignee liability provisions make the loans relatively unattractive to secondary market investors, and general compliance burden and perceived stigma. Data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801

et seq.,

further indicate that the percentage share of high-cost mortgages has generally been declining since 2004, the first year that HMDA reporters were required to identify high-cost mortgages. Between 2004 and 2011, high-cost mortgages typically comprised about 0.2 percent of HMDA-reporters' originations of refinance or home-improvement loans secured by a one-to-four family home (the class of mortgages generally covered by HOEPA). This percentage peaked at 0.45 percent in 2005 when, of about 8.0 million originations of such loans, there were approximately 36,000 high-cost mortgages reported in HMDA. The percentage fell to 0.05 percent by 2011 when nearly 2,400 high-cost mortgages were reported compared with roughly 4.5 million refinance or home-improvement loans secured by a one- to four-family home.

Similarly, the number of HMDA-reporting creditors that originate high-cost mortgages is relatively small. From 2004 through 2009, between 1,000 to 2,000 creditors that report under HMDA (between 12 to 22 percent of HMDA-reporters in a given year) reported extending high-cost mortgages. In each year between 2004 and 2011, the vast majority of creditors—roughly 80-90 percent of those that made any high-cost mortgages and 96 percent or more of all HMDA reporters—made fewer than 10 high-cost mortgages. In 2010, only about 650 creditors reported any high-cost mortgages. In 2011 fewer than 600 creditors, or roughly 8 percent of HMDA filers, reported originating any high-cost mortgages, and about 50 creditors accounted for over half of 2011 HOEPA originations. As discussed above, the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the types of loans potentially covered by HOEPA by including purchase-money mortgages and HELOCs and also lowering the coverage thresholds. Notwithstanding this expansion, the Bureau believes that HOEPA lending will continue to constitute a small percentage of the mortgage lending market.

See

part VII below for a detailed discussion of the likely impact of the Bureau's implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments on HOEPA lending.

III. Summary of the Rulemaking Process

A. The Bureau's Proposal

The Bureau issued for public comment its proposal to amend Regulation Z to implement the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HOEPA on July 9, 2012. This proposal was published in the

Federal Register

on August 15, 2012.

See

77 FR 49090 (August 15, 2012) (2012 HOEPA Proposal or the proposal). The proposal also would have implemented certain homeownership counseling-related requirements that Congress adopted in the Dodd-Frank Act, that are not amendments to HOEPA.

The proposal would have implemented the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments that expanded the universe of loans potentially covered by HOEPA to include most types of mortgage loans secured by a consumer's principal dwelling. Reverse mortgages continued to be excluded. The proposal also would have implemented the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments to HOEPA's coverage tests, including adding a new threshold for prepayment penalties, and would have provided guidance on how to apply the coverage tests. In addition, the proposed rule also would have implemented new Dodd-Frank Act restrictions and requirements concerning loan terms and origination practices for high-cost mortgages.

With respect to homeownership counseling-related requirements that are not amendments to HOEPA, under the proposal, lenders generally would have been required to distribute a list of five homeownership counselors or counseling organizations to a consumer applying for a federally related mortgage loan within three business days after receiving the consumer's application. The proposal also would have implemented a new requirement that first-time borrowers receive homeownership counseling before taking out a negative amortization loan.

B. Comments and Outreach

The Bureau received over 150 comments on its proposal from, among others, consumer groups, industry trade associations, banks, community banks, credit unions, financial companies, State housing finance authorities, counseling associations and intermediaries, a State Attorney General's office, and individual consumers and academics. In addition, after the close of the original comment period, various interested parties including industry and consumer group commenters were required to submit written summaries of ex parte

communications with the Bureau, consistent with the Bureau's policy.

Materials submitted were filed in the record and are publicly available at

http://www.regulations.gov.

With the exception of comments addressing proposed mitigating measures to account for a more inclusive finance charge, these comments and ex parte communications are discussed below in the section-by-section analysis of the final rule.

The Bureau's policy regarding ex parte communications can be found at

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2011/08/Bulletin_20110819_ExPartePresentationsRulemakingProceedings.pdf.

As discussed in further detail below, the Bureau sought comment in its HOEPA proposal on whether to adopt certain adjustments or mitigating measures in its HOEPA implementing regulations if it were to adopt a broader definition of “finance charge” under Regulation Z. The Bureau has since published a notice in the

Federal Register

making clear that it will defer its decision whether to adopt the more inclusive finance charge proposal, and therefore any implementation thereof, until it finalizes the its proposal to TILA-RESPA Proposal, which is planned for later in 2013. 77 FR 54843 (Sept. 6, 2012). Accordingly, this final rule is deferring discussion of any comments addressing proposed mitigating measures to account for a more inclusive finance charge under HOEPA.

The Bureau has carefully considered the comments and ex parte communications and has decided to modify the proposal in certain respects and adopt the final rules as described below in the section-by-section analysis.

C. Other Rulemakings

In addition to this final rule, the Bureau is adopting several other final rules and issuing one proposal, all relating to mortgage credit to implement requirements of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau is also issuing a final rule jointly with other Federal agencies to implement requirements for mortgage appraisals in title XIV. Each of the final rules follows a proposal issued in 2011 by the Board or in 2012 by the Bureau alone or jointly with other Federal agencies. Collectively, these proposed and final rules are referred to as the Title XIV Rulemakings.

•

Ability-to-Repay:

The Bureau is finalizing a rule, following a May 2011 proposal issued by the Board (the Board's 2011 ATR Proposal),

to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act (1) requiring creditors to determine that a consumer has a reasonable ability to repay covered mortgage loans and establishing standards for compliance, such as by making a “qualified mortgage,” and (2) establishing certain limitations on prepayment penalties, pursuant to TILA section 129C as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1411, 1412, and 1414. 15 U.S.C. 1639c. The Bureau's final rule is referred to as the 2013 ATR Final Rule. Simultaneously with the 2013 ATR Final Rule, the Bureau is issuing a proposal to amend the final rule implementing the ability-to-repay requirements, including by the addition of exemptions for certain nonprofit creditors and certain homeownership stabilization programs and a definition of a “qualified mortgage” for certain loans made and held in portfolio by small creditors (the 2013 ATR Concurrent Proposal). The Bureau expects to act on the 2013 ATR Concurrent Proposal on an expedited basis, so that any exceptions or adjustments to the 2013 ATR Final Rule can take effect simultaneously with that rule.

76 FR 27390 (May 11, 2011).

•

Escrows:

The Bureau is finalizing a rule, following a March 2011 proposal issued by the Board (the Board's 2011 Escrows Proposal),

to implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act expanding on existing rules that require escrow accounts to be established for higher-priced mortgage loans and creating an exemption for certain loans held by creditors operating predominantly in rural or underserved areas, pursuant to TILA section 129D as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1461. 15 U.S.C. 1639d. The Bureau's final rule is referred to as the 2013 Escrows Final Rule.

76 FR 11598 (Mar. 2, 2011).

•

Servicing:

Following its August 2012 proposals (the 2012 RESPA Servicing Proposal and 2012 TILA Servicing Proposal),

the Bureau is adopting final rules to implement Dodd-Frank Act requirements regarding force-placed insurance, error resolution, information requests, and payment crediting, as well as requirements for mortgage loan periodic statements and adjustable-rate mortgage reset disclosures, pursuant to section 6 of RESPA and sections 128, 128A, 129F, and 129G of TILA, as amended or established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1418, 1420, 1463, and 1464. 12 U.S.C. 2605; 15 U.S.C. 1638, 1638a, 1639f, and 1639g. The Bureau also is finalizing rules on early intervention for troubled and delinquent borrowers, and loss mitigation procedures, pursuant to the Bureau's authority under section 6 of RESPA, as amended by Dodd-Frank Act section 1463, to establish obligations for mortgage servicers that it finds to be appropriate to carry out the consumer protection purposes of RESPA, and its authority under section 19(a) of RESPA to prescribe rules necessary to achieve the purposes of RESPA. The Bureau's final rule under RESPA with respect to mortgage servicing also establishes requirements for general servicing standards policies and procedures and continuity of contact pursuant to its authority under section 19(a) of RESPA. The Bureau's final rules are referred to as the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule and the 2013 TILA Servicing Final Rule, respectively.

77 FR 57200 (Sept. 17, 2012) (RESPA); 77 FR 57318 (Sept. 17, 2012) (TILA).

•

Loan Originator Compensation:

Following its August 2012 proposal (the 2012 Loan Originator Proposal),

the Bureau is issuing a final rule to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring certain creditors and loan originators to meet certain duties of care, including qualification requirements; requiring the establishment of certain compliance procedures by depository institutions; prohibiting 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; and establishing restrictions on mandatory arbitration and financing of single premium credit insurance, pursuant to TILA sections 129B and 129C as established by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1402, 1403, and 1414(a). 15 U.S.C. 1639b, 1639c. The Bureau's final rule is referred to as the 2013 Loan Originator Final Rule.

77 FR 55272 (Sept. 7, 2012).

•

Appraisals:

The Bureau, jointly with other Federal agencies,

is issuing a final rule implementing Dodd-Frank Act requirements concerning appraisals for higher-risk mortgages, pursuant to TILA section 129H as established by Dodd-Frank Act section 1471. 15 U.S.C. 1639h. This rule follows the agencies' August 2012 joint proposal (the 2012 Interagency Appraisals Proposal).

The agencies' joint final rule is referred to as the 2013 Interagency Appraisals Final Rule. In addition, following its August 2012 proposal (the 2012 ECOA

Appraisals Proposal),

the Bureau is issuing a final rule to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring 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, pursuant to section 701(e) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) as amended by Dodd-Frank Act section 1474. 15 U.S.C. 1691(e). The Bureau's final rule is referred to as the 2013 ECOA Appraisals Final Rule.

Specifically, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

77 FR 54722 (Sept. 5, 2012).

77 FR 50390 (Aug. 21, 2012).

The Bureau is not at this time finalizing proposals concerning various disclosure requirements that were added by title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act, integration of mortgage disclosures under TILA and RESPA, or a simpler, more inclusive definition of the finance charge for purposes of disclosures for closed-end credit transactions under Regulation Z. The Bureau expects to finalize these proposals and to consider whether to adjust regulatory thresholds under the Title XIV Rulemakings in connection with any change in the calculation of the finance charge later in 2013, after it has completed quantitative testing, and any additional qualitative testing deemed appropriate, of the forms that it proposed in July 2012 to combine TILA mortgage disclosures with the good faith estimate (RESPA GFE) and settlement statement (RESPA settlement statement) required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, pursuant to Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(f) and sections 4(a) of RESPA and 105(b) of TILA, as amended by Dodd-Frank Act sections 1098 and 1100A, respectively (the 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal).

Accordingly, the Bureau already has issued a final rule delaying implementation of various affected title XIV disclosure provisions.

The Bureau's approaches to coordinating the implementation of the Title XIV Rulemakings and to the finance charge proposal are discussed in turn below.

77 FR 51116 (Aug. 23, 2012).

77 FR 70105 (Nov. 23, 2012).

Coordinated Implementation of Title XIV Rulemakings

As noted in all of its foregoing proposals, the Bureau regards each of the Title XIV Rulemakings as affecting aspects of the mortgage industry and its regulations. Accordingly, as noted in its proposals, the Bureau is coordinating carefully the Title XIV Rulemakings, particularly with respect to their effective dates. The Dodd-Frank Act requirements to be implemented by the Title XIV Rulemakings 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.

See

Dodd-Frank Act section 1400(c), 15 U.S.C. 1601 note. In addition, some of the Title XIV Rulemakings are to take effect no later than one year after they are issued.

Id.

The comments on the appropriate implementation date for this final rule are discussed in detail below in part VI of this notice. In general, however, consumer advocates requested that the Bureau put the protections in the Title XIV Rulemakings into effect as soon as practicable. In contrast, the Bureau received some industry comments indicating that implementing so many new requirements at the same time would create a significant cumulative burden for creditors. In addition, many commenters also acknowledged the advantages of implementing multiple revisions to the regulations in a coordinated fashion.

Thus, a tension exists between coordinating the adoption of the Title XIV Rulemakings and facilitating industry's implementation of such a large set of new requirements. Some have suggested that the Bureau resolve this tension by adopting a sequenced implementation, while others have requested that the Bureau simply provide a longer implementation period for all of the final rules.

Of the several final rules being adopted under the Title XIV Rulemakings, six entail amendments to Regulation Z, with the only exceptions being the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule (Regulation X) and the 2013 ECOA Appraisals Final Rule (Regulation B); the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule also amends Regulation X, in addition to Regulation Z. The six Regulation Z final rules involve numerous instances of intersecting provisions, either by cross-references to each other's provisions or by adopting parallel provisions. Thus, adopting some of those amendments without also adopting certain other, closely related provisions would create significant technical issues,

e.g.,

new provisions containing cross-references to other provisions that do not yet exist, which could undermine the ability of creditors and other parties subject to the rules to understand their obligations and implement appropriate systems changes in an integrated and efficient manner.

The Bureau recognizes that many of the new provisions will require creditors to make changes to automated systems and, further, that most administrators of large systems are reluctant to make too many changes to their systems at once. At the same time, however, the Bureau notes that the Dodd-Frank Act established virtually all of these changes to institutions' compliance responsibilities, and contemplated that they be implemented in a relatively short period of time. And, as already noted, the extent of interaction among many of the Title XIV Rulemakings necessitates that many of their provisions take effect together. Finally, notwithstanding commenters' expressed concerns for cumulative burden, the Bureau expects that creditors actually may realize some efficiencies from adapting their systems for compliance with multiple new, closely related requirements at once, especially if given sufficient overall time to do so.

Accordingly, the Bureau is requiring that, as a general matter, creditors and other affected persons begin complying with the final rules on January 10, 2014. As noted above, section 1400(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that some provisions of the Title XIV Rulemakings take effect no later than one year after the Bureau issues them. Accordingly, the Bureau is establishing January 10, 2014, one year after issuance of the Bureau's 2013 ATR, Escrows, and HOEPA Final Rules (

i.e.,

the earliest of the title XIV final rules), as the baseline effective date for most of the Title XIV Rulemakings. The Bureau believes that, on balance, this approach will facilitate the implementation of the rules' overlapping provisions, while also affording creditors sufficient time to implement the more complex or resource-intensive new requirements.

The Bureau has identified certain rulemakings or selected aspects thereof, however, that do not present significant implementation burdens for industry. Accordingly, the Bureau is setting earlier effective dates for those final rules or certain aspects thereof, as applicable. Those effective dates are set forth and explained in the

Federal Register

notices for those final rules.

More Inclusive Finance Charge Proposal

As noted above, the Bureau proposed in the 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal to make the definition of finance charge more inclusive, thus rendering the finance charge and annual percentage rate a more useful tool for consumers to compare the cost of credit across different alternatives. 77 FR 51116, 51143 (Aug. 23, 2012). Because the new definition would include additional costs that are not currently counted, it would cause the finance charges and APRs on many affected transactions to increase. This in turn could cause more such transactions to become subject to various compliance regimes under Regulation Z. Specifically, the finance charge is central to the calculation of a transaction's “points and fees,” which in turn has been (and remains) a coverage threshold for the special protections afforded “high-cost mortgages” under HOEPA. Points and fees also will be subject to a 3-percent

limit for purposes of determining whether a transaction is a “qualified mortgage” under the 2013 ATR Final Rule. Meanwhile, the APR serves as a coverage threshold for HOEPA protections as well as for certain protections afforded “higher-priced mortgage loans” under § 1026.35, including the mandatory escrow account requirements being amended by the 2013 Escrows Final Rule. Finally, because the 2013 Interagency Appraisals Final Rule uses the same APR-based coverage test as is used for identifying higher-priced mortgage loans, the APR affects that rulemaking as well. Thus, the proposed more inclusive finance charge would have had the indirect effect of increasing coverage under HOEPA and the escrow and appraisal requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans, as well as decreasing the number of transactions that may be qualified mortgages—even holding actual loan terms constant—simply because of the increase in calculated finance charges, and consequently APRs, for closed-end credit transactions generally.

As noted above, these expanded coverage consequences were not the intent of the more inclusive finance charge proposal. Accordingly, as discussed more extensively in the 2011 Escrows Proposal, the 2012 HOEPA Proposal, the Board's 2011 ATR Proposal, and the Interagency Appraisals Proposal, the Board and subsequently the Bureau (and other agencies) sought comment on certain adjustments to the affected regulatory thresholds to counteract this unintended effect. First, the Board and then the Bureau proposed to adopt a “transaction coverage rate” for use as the metric to determine coverage of these regimes in place of the APR. The transaction coverage rate would have been calculated solely for coverage determination purposes and would not have been disclosed to consumers, who still would have received only a disclosure of the expanded APR. The transaction coverage rate calculation would exclude from the prepaid finance charge all costs otherwise included for purposes of the APR calculation except charges retained by the creditor, any mortgage broker, or any affiliate of either. Similarly, the Board and Bureau proposed to reverse the effects of the more inclusive finance charge on the calculation of points and fees; the points and fees figure is calculated only as a HOEPA and qualified mortgage coverage metric and is not disclosed to consumers. The Bureau also sought comment on other potential mitigation measures, such as adjusting the numeric thresholds for particular compliance regimes to account for the general shift in affected transactions' APRs.

The Bureau's 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal sought comment on whether to finalize the more inclusive finance charge proposal in conjunction with the Title XIV Rulemakings or with the rest of the TILA-RESPA Proposal concerning the integration of mortgage disclosure forms. 77 FR 51116, 51125 (Aug. 23, 2012). Upon additional consideration and review of comments received, the Bureau decided to defer a decision whether to adopt the more inclusive finance charge proposal and any related adjustments to regulatory thresholds until it later finalizes the TILA-RESPA Proposal. 77 FR 54843 (Sept. 6, 2012); 77 FR 54844 (Sept. 6, 2012).

Accordingly, the 2013 Escrows, HOEPA, ATR, and Interagency Appraisals Final Rules all are deferring any action on their respective proposed adjustments to regulatory thresholds.

These notices extended the comment period on the more inclusive finance charge and corresponding regulatory threshold adjustments under the 2012 TILA-RESPA and HOEPA Proposals. It did not change any other aspect of either proposal.

IV. Legal Authority

The final rule was issued on January 10, 2013, in accordance with 12 CFR 1074.1. The Bureau issued this final 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 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.”

TILA, HOEPA (which is codified as part of TILA), and RESPA are Federal consumer financial laws.

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.

Dodd-Frank Act section 1061(b), 12 U.S.C. 5581(b).

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

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, HOEPA, and RESPA).

A. RESPA

As amended by the Dodd-Frank 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.

B. TILA

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 the TILA. Except with respect to the substantive restrictions on high-cost mortgages provided in TILA section 129, TILA section 105(a) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations that 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 determines are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith. 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's 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 Bureau's authority under 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 high-cost mortgages pursuant to section 105(a). As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a) grants the Bureau authority to make adjustments and exceptions to the requirements of TILA for all transactions subject to TILA, except with respect to the substantive provisions of TILA section 129 that apply to high-cost mortgages, as noted above. 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.

Pursuant to TILA section 103(bb)(2), 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb)(2), the Bureau may prescribe regulations to adjust the statutory percentage points for the APR threshold to determine whether a transaction is covered as a high-cost mortgage, if the Bureau determines that such an increase or decrease is consistent with the statutory consumer protections for high-cost mortgages and is warranted by the need for credit. Under TILA section 103(bb)(4), the Bureau may adjust the definition of points and fees for purposes of that threshold to include such charges that the Bureau determines to be appropriate.

With respect to the high-cost mortgage provisions of TILA section 129, TILA section 129(p), 15 U.S.C. 1639(p), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, grants the Bureau authority to create exemptions to the restrictions on high-cost mortgages and to expand the protections that apply to high-cost mortgages. Under TILA section 129(p)(1), the Bureau may exempt specific mortgage products or categories from any or all of the prohibitions specified in TILA section 129(c) through (i),

if the Bureau finds that the exemption is in the interest of the borrowing public and will apply only to products that maintain and strengthen homeownership and equity protections.

The referenced provisions of TILA section 129 are: (c) (No prepayment penalty); (d) (Limitations after default); (e) (No balloon payments); (f) (No negative amortization); (g) (No prepaid payments); (h) (Prohibition on extending credit without regard to payment ability of consumer); and (i) (Requirements for payments under home improvement contracts).

TILA section 129(p)(2) grants the Bureau authority to prohibit acts or practices in connection with:

• Mortgage loans that the Bureau finds to be unfair, deceptive, or designed to evade the provisions of HOEPA; and

• Refinancing of mortgage loans the Bureau finds to be associated with abusive lending practices or that are otherwise not in the interest of the borrower.

The authority granted to the Bureau under TILA section 129(p)(2) is broad. The provision is not limited to acts or practices by creditors. TILA section 129(p)(2) authorizes protections against unfair or deceptive practices “in connection with mortgage loans,” and it authorizes protections against abusive practices “in connection with * * * refinancing of mortgage loans.” Thus, the Bureau's authority is not limited to regulating specific contractual terms of mortgage loan agreements; it extends to regulating mortgage loan-related practices generally, within the standards set forth in the statute. The Bureau notes that TILA does not set forth a standard for what is unfair or deceptive, but those terms have settled meanings under other Federal and State consumer protection laws. The Conference Report for HOEPA indicates that, in determining whether a practice in connection with mortgage loans is unfair or deceptive, the Bureau should look to the standards employed for interpreting State unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes and section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a).

H. Conf. Rept. 103-652, at 162 (1994).

In addition, section 1433(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act created a new TILA section 129(u)(3), which authorizes the Bureau to implement pre-loan counseling requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act for high-cost mortgages. Specifically, under TILA section 129(u)(3), the Bureau may prescribe regulations as the Bureau determines to be appropriate to implement TILA section 129(u)(1), which establishes the Dodd-Frank Act's pre-loan counseling requirement for high-cost mortgages.

C. The Dodd-Frank Act

Section 1405(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of [title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act], in order to improve consumer awareness and understanding of transactions involving residential mortgage loans through the use of disclosures, the [Bureau] may, by rule, exempt from or modify disclosure requirements, in whole or in part, for any class of residential mortgage loans if the [Bureau] determines that such exemption or modification is in the interest of consumers and in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 1601 note. Section 1401 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which added TILA section 103(cc), 15 U.S.C. 1602(cc), generally defines residential mortgage loan as any consumer credit transaction that is secured by a mortgage on a dwelling or on residential real property that includes a dwelling other than an open-end credit plan or an extension of credit secured by a consumer's interest in a timeshare plan. Notably, the authority granted by section 1405(b) applies to “disclosure requirements” generally, and is not limited to a specific statute or statutes. Accordingly, Dodd-Frank Act section 1405(b) is a broad source of authority to modify the disclosure requirements of both TILA and RESPA.

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). TILA, RESPA, and title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal consumer financial laws. Accordingly, the Bureau is exercising its authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1) to prescribe rules that carry out the purposes and objectives of TILA and title X and prevent evasion of those laws.

For the reasons discussed below in the section-by-section analysis, the Bureau is finalizing regulations pursuant to its authority under TILA, RESPA, and titles X and XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Regulation X

Section 1024.20 List of Homeownership Counseling Organizations

The Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA to create a new requirement that lenders provide a list of homeownership counselors to applicants for federally related mortgage loans. Specifically, section 1450 the Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA section 5(c) to require lenders to provide applicants with a “reasonably complete or updated list of homeownership counselors who are certified pursuant to section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) and located in the area of the lender.”

Section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. 1701x(e), requires that homeownership counseling provided under programs administered by HUD can only be provided by organizations or individuals certified by HUD as competent to provide homeownership counseling. Section 106(e) also requires HUD to establish standards and procedures for testing and certifying counselors.

The list of homeownership counselors is to be included with a “home buying information booklet” that the Bureau is directed to prepare “to help consumers applying for federally related mortgage loans to understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement services.”

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, HUD was charged with distributing the RESPA “special information booklet” to lenders to help purchase-money mortgage borrowers understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement services. The Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA section 5(a) to direct the Bureau to distribute the “home buying information booklet” to all lenders that make federally related mortgage loans. The Dodd-Frank Act also amended section 5(a) to require the Bureau to distribute lists of homeownership counselors to such lenders.

The Dodd-Frank Act also amends RESPA section 5(b), 12 U.S.C. 2604(b), to require that the “home buying information booklet” (the RESPA “special information booklet,” prior to the Dodd-Frank Act), include “[i]nformation about homeownership counseling services made available pursuant to section 106(a)(4) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(a)(4)), a recommendation that the consumer use such services, and notification that a list of certified providers of homeownership counseling in the area, and their contact information, is available.”

The proposal would have implemented the Dodd-Frank Act's requirement that a lender provide lists of homeownership counselors to applicants for federally related mortgage loans. Proposed § 1024.20 generally would have required a lender to provide an applicant for a federally related mortgage loan with a list of five homeownership counselors or counseling organizations in the location of the applicant, not later than three days after receiving an application. Proposed § 1024.20 also would have set forth additional requirements related to the content and delivery of the list. The Bureau is finalizing proposed § 1024.20 with certain changes, as discussed in further detail below.

20(a) Provision of List

20(a)(1)

Scope of Requirement

As noted above, new RESPA section 5(c) requires lenders to include a list of homeownership counselors located in the area of the lender with the home buying information booklet that is to be distributed to applicants. To implement RESPA section 5(c), the Bureau proposed in § 1024.20(a)(1) that the list of homeownership counselors or counseling agencies be provided to applicants for all federally related mortgage loans, except for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs), as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1024.20(c) below. Under RESPA and its implementing regulations, a federally related mortgage loan includes purchase-money mortgage loans, subordinate-lien mortgages, refinancings, closed-end home-equity mortgage loans, HELOCs, and reverse mortgages.

Thus, proposed § 1024.20(a)(1) would have required that lenders provide the list of homeownership counselors to applicants for numerous types of federally related mortgage loans beyond purchase-money mortgages.

12 U.S.C. 2602(1); 12 CFR 1024.2.

As the Bureau noted in the preamble of the proposal, based on its reading of section 5 of RESPA as amended, and its understanding of the purposes of that section, the Bureau believes that the amendments to RESPA indicate that Congress intended the booklet and list of counselors to be provided to applicants for all federally related mortgage loans and not just purchase-money mortgage loans. The Bureau acknowledged that section 5(d) of RESPA, in language that was not amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires lenders to provide the home buying information booklet “to each person from whom [the lender] receives or for whom it prepares a written application to borrow money to finance the purchase of residential real estate.” However, the Bureau also noted that RESPA sections 5(a) and (b), as amended, indicate that the booklet and list of counselors are to be provided to applicants for all federally related mortgage loans. Section 5(a) as amended (1) specifically references helping consumers applying for federally related mortgage loans understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement services; and (2) directs the Bureau to distribute the booklet and the lists of housing counselors to lenders that make federally related mortgage loans. Moreover, the prescribed content of the booklet is not limited to information on purchase-money mortgages. Under RESPA section 5(b), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, the booklet must include information specific to refinancings and HELOCs, as well as “the costs incident to a real estate settlement or a federally related mortgage loan.”

Additionally, the Bureau noted in the preamble of the proposal its view that a trained counselor can be useful to any consumer considering any type of mortgage loan. Mortgage transactions beyond purchase-money transactions, such as refinancings and open-end home-secured credit transactions, can entail significant risks and costs for consumers—risks and costs that a trained homeownership counselor can assist consumers in fully understanding.

Thus, for the reasons noted above, the Bureau proposed in § 1024.20(a)(1) to interpret the scope of the homeownership counselor list requirement to apply to all federally related mortgage loans pursuant to section 19(a) of RESPA, which provides the Bureau with the authority to “prescribe such rules and regulations, to make such interpretations, and to grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of transactions, as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of the [RESPA].”

The Bureau sought comment from the public on the costs and benefits of the provision of the list of homeownership counselors to applicants for refinancings and HELOCs. The Bureau also sought comment on the potential effect of the Bureau's proposal on access to homeownership counseling generally by consumers, and the effect of increased consumer demand on existing counseling resources. In particular, the Bureau solicited comment on the effect on counseling resources of providing the list beyond applicants for purchase-money mortgages.

A number of industry commenters stated that lenders should not be required to provide counselor lists to applicants for refinancings or HELOCs. One large bank commenter, for example, asserted that the congressional intent to limit the requirement to purchase-

money mortgages is clear. Some other commenters were concerned that applicants for refinancings or HELOCs would either ignore the list or be offended by the suggestion that they would benefit from counseling, because such applicants already understand how mortgages work. Comments from consumer groups and a State Attorney General's office, however, supported the requirement to provide the counselor list to applicants for refinancings and HELOCs. Such commenters noted, for example, that consumers may find themselves in financial distress only after tapping into their home equity through a refinancing or a HELOC, in some cases repeatedly.

The Bureau is generally finalizing in § 1024.20(a)(1) the requirement to provide a list of counseling providers to applicants of federally related mortgage loans as proposed, for the reasons noted above. The Bureau continues to believe that the statutory language as a whole indicates Congress's intent to require lenders to provide the counselor list to applicants of refinancings and HELOCs, as well as purchase-money mortgages. Moreover, the Bureau agrees with commenters that suggest applicants for refinancings or HELOCs may benefit from information about counseling, even though such applicants have previously obtained a mortgage. The Bureau is, however, also adopting certain exemptions from the requirement, as described in the discussion of § 1024.20(c) below.

Content of List

As discussed above, RESPA section 5(c) requires that the list of homeownership counselors be comprised of homeownership counselors certified pursuant to section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and located in the area of the lender. RESPA section 5(c) does not specify any particular information about homeownership counselors that must be provided on the required list. Proposed § 1024.20(a)(1) would have provided that the list include five homeownership counselors or homeownership counseling organizations located in the zip code of the applicant's current address or, if there were not the requisite five counselors or counseling organizations in that zip code, counselors or organizations within the zip code or zip codes closest to the loan applicant's current address. Proposed § 1024.20(a)(2) would have required lenders to include in the list only homeownership counselors or counseling organizations from either the most current list of homeownership counselors or counseling organizations made available by the Bureau for use by lenders in complying with § 1024.20, or the most current list maintained by HUD of homeownership counselors or counseling organizations certified or otherwise approved by HUD. Proposed § 1024.20(a)(3) would have required that the list include: (1) Each counselor's or counseling organization's name, business address, telephone number and, if available from the Bureau or HUD, other contact information; and (2) contact information for the Bureau and HUD.

The Bureau stated in the preamble of the proposal that it expected to develop a Web site portal to facilitate compliance with the counselor list requirement. As the Bureau explained, such a Web site portal would allow lenders to type in the loan applicant's zip code to generate the requisite list, which could then be printed for distribution to the loan applicant. The Bureau also stated its belief that such an approach: (1) Could significantly mitigate any paperwork burden associated with requiring that the list be distributed to applicants for federally related mortgage loans; and (2) is consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act's amendment to section 5(a) of RESPA requiring the Bureau to distribute to lenders “lists, organized by location, of homeownership counselors certified under section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) for use in complying with the requirement under [section 5(c)].”

The Bureau solicited comment on the appropriate number of counselors or organizations to be included on the list and on whether there should be a limitation on the number of counselors from the same counseling agency. The Bureau also solicited comment on whether its planned Web site portal would be useful and whether there are other mechanisms through which the Bureau can help facilitate compliance and provide lists to lenders and consumers.

A significant number of industry commenters objected to the proposed requirement to create individualized lists for borrowers as overly burdensome. Some commenters raised concerns that having to create these individualized lists would expose them to risk in the event of an error in compiling the list. Many industry commenters suggested that lenders should instead be permitted to comply with the requirement by providing Bureau and HUD contact information for the consumer to obtain information about counselors. Other commenters suggested it would be more beneficial to refer consumers to web databases containing all counselors in a state, or to provide a list based on an applicant's state rather than zip code. Commenters argued that changing the provision to allow compliance through a static list would minimize costs, create greater efficiency, and be more accurate. Some commenters argued that locating the nearest zip code to a consumer's home zip code would be overly burdensome. Several commenters objected to the requirement that the list be obtained from “the most current” lists of counselors or counseling organizations maintained by the Bureau or HUD, or suggested that “most current” should mean “monthly.” A number of consumer group commenters, however, supported the requirement for an individualized list because such a list would be most beneficial to consumers. One such commenter also noted that requiring lenders to retrieve a fresh list for each applicant will ensure the lists received by consumers are the most up-to-date.

Industry commenters were generally very supportive of the Bureau's intention to create a Web site portal to facilitate compliance, particularly if the individualized list requirement were retained. Some industry commenters noted that the list requirement would not be difficult to comply with as proposed, if a Web site portal were available. A few commenters, while primarily supportive of a requirement to provide a static rather than an individualized list, alternatively favored the idea of the Web site portal to generate the list (including automatically selecting adjacent zip codes to an applicant's zip code, if necessary). Some commenters requested a safe harbor for lenders providing a list generated through the Web site portal. Commenters proposed a number of additions or variations to the Web site portal. A number of industry commenters stated the Bureau should provide lenders with the option to import the data from the Web site portal directly into their systems, to ease compliance burden. Several industry commenters noted it would be essential that the Web site portal generate a list for lenders based on a simple zip code query. A few commenters suggested that the Web site portal should provide a randomized list in response to a zip code query, to avoid favoritism. Some commenters suggested the Web site portal should be made available to the public and publicized by the Bureau (

e.g.,

though a public campaign in coordination with homeownership

counseling organizations, counseling trade groups, and HUD), and that lenders should be required to make lists available through their Web sites, branch offices, and mortgage advertising. Several commenters stated that the Bureau should coordinate the development of its Web site portal with HUD, so lenders are not required to search two separate databases.

A number of industry commenters raised concerns about the requirement to provide a list of five counselors or counseling agencies, asserting that five is an arbitrary number and that it would be a difficult requirement to meet in certain geographic locations. Some commenters noted, for example, that Alaska has only three counseling agencies statewide, and that Wyoming has only four. One commenter suggested that lenders should not have to disclose counselors from different states, if there are not five counselors in the consumer's state. A few commenters suggested that the requirement be more flexible and require, for example, a list of “no fewer than three” counseling agencies.

Several consumer advocacy and housing counselor advocacy groups commented that only homeownership counseling agencies, rather than individual homeownership counselors, should be permitted to appear on the list. These commenters noted that providing a list of individual counselors to consumers is neither practical nor efficient, as an individual counselor may not be available. A few commenters suggested that the list include agencies offering remote counseling services. For example, an alliance of counseling organizations suggested the list be required to include a minimum number of national counseling agencies or intermediaries

outside of a consumer's zip code that can provide phone counseling.

National intermediary organizations generally provide funding, training, and oversight of affiliated local counseling agencies, but may also provide counseling services directly to consumers. Christopher E. Herbert et al., Abt Assoc. Inc.,

The State of the Housing Counseling Industry,

at xi, 2 (U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. 2008).

Several consumer advocacy and housing counselor advocacy commenters requested that additional information be required to be provided on the list. For example, they asked that the lists be required to include a counseling agency's specialty (

e.g.,

pre-purchase, refinance, home equity, rental, reverse mortgage, etc.) and any foreign language capacity. Another commenter requested that the list include a description of the services that the counselor would provide and fees typically charged for such services.

Based on the comments received concerning compliance burden and the potential operational difficulties associated with developing lists as envisioned in the proposal, the Bureau is revising § 1024.20(a)(1) to require lenders to fulfill the list obligation through use of either a Bureau Web site or data made available by the Bureau or HUD. Specifically, final § 1024.20(a)(1) allows lenders to distribute lists of counseling organizations providing relevant counseling services in the applicant's location that are obtained up to 30 days in advance from either a Web site maintained by the Bureau or data made available by the Bureau or HUD for lenders to use in complying with the requirements of § 1024.20, provided that the data are used in accordance with instructions provided with the data. Because lenders will thus generate the required lists through either a Web site that will automatically provide the required content of the list based on certain inputs, or through data that is accompanied by instructions to generate lists consistent with the Web site, the final rule also eliminates proposed § 1024.20(a)(1)(i) and (ii) and proposed § 1024.20(a)(2) and (3) as unnecessary.

The Bureau intends to create a Web site portal, in close coordination with HUD, that will require lenders to input certain required information (such as, for example, the applicant's zip code and the type of mortgage product) in order to generate a list of homeownership counseling organizations that provide relevant counseling services in the loan applicant's location. While the Bureau understands the concerns raised by commenters about the burden of generating zip-code based lists for potential borrowers, the Bureau notes that the statutory requirement indicates that the list should be comprised of counselors “located in the area of the lender.” The Bureau is interpreting this requirement to mean the location of the applicant who is being served by the lender. The Bureau continues to believe that a list of counseling resources available near the applicant's location will be most useful to the applicant.

The Bureau also believes that permitting lists to be generated based on larger geographic areas, such as an applicant's state, would frequently result in an applicant receiving a list that is overwhelmingly lengthy. The Bureau notes, for example, that HUD's Web site indicates that there are a significant number of states that are served by well over 20 homeownership counseling organizations. The Bureau notes, moreover, that the Web site portal will obviate the need for a lender to determine the closest zip codes to an applicant.

The Bureau also relies on its exemption and modification authority under RESPA section 19(a) and the Dodd-Frank Act section 1405(b). The Bureau believes that interpreting “located in the area of the lender” to mean the location of the applicant who is being served by the lender will help facilitate the effective functioning of this new RESPA disclosure. It will also, therefore, help carry out the purposes of RESPA for more effective advance cost disclosures for consumers, by providing information to loan applicants regarding counseling resources available for assisting them in understanding their prospective mortgage loans and settlement costs. In addition, because the Bureau believes that lists organized by the location of the applicant will be most useful to the applicants, the Bureau believes this interpretation is in the interest of consumers and in the public interest.

The Bureau recognizes the concerns of industry commenters that requiring greater data inputs from lenders to generate a list will increase the burden on the lender. The Bureau intends to require as few data inputs as practicable to generate a relevant list for the applicant, in order to minimize compliance burden. The Bureau agrees with commenters that the Web site portal it develops should be made directly available to consumers, and the Bureau does intend to publicize the Web site portal to make consumers better aware of the counseling resources available.

The Bureau also agrees with commenters who suggested the list should include only homeownership counseling organizations rather than individual counselors. The Bureau explained in the preamble of the proposal that it was proposing to allow the list to include counselors or counseling organizations certified or otherwise approved by HUD, pursuant to its exemption authority under section 19(a) of RESPA and its modification authority under section 1405(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau is finalizing § 1024.20(a)(1) to require that the list contain only counseling organizations, pursuant to the same exemption authority, and anticipates that the Web site portal it develops may generate lists that include counseling organizations that are either certified or otherwise approved by HUD.

Because

the Web site portal will automatically create lists that include the relevant homeownership counseling organizations, the Bureau is not finalizing proposed § 1024.20(a)(2).

As the Bureau noted in the preamble of the proposal, the Bureau understands that HUD, other than for its counseling program for HECMs, currently only approves homeownership counseling agencies, rather than certifying these agencies or individual counselors, as it has not yet implemented section 1445 of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding certification of counseling providers. The Bureau also notes that permitting the list to include individual counselors could cause confusion for consumers, as an individual counselor may be

unavailable. The Bureau is therefore exercising its exemption and modification authority under RESPA section 19(a) and the Dodd-Frank Act section 1405(b) to provide flexibility in order to facilitate the availability of competent counseling organizations for placement on the lists, so that counseling organizations that are either approved or certified by HUD may appear on the lists. Permitting the list to include HUD-approved or HUD-certified counseling organizations will help facilitate the effective functioning of this new RESPA disclosure. It will also, therefore, help carry out the purposes of RESPA for more effective advance cost disclosures for consumers, by providing information to loan applicants regarding counseling resources available for assisting them in understanding their prospective mortgage loans and settlement costs. The Bureau intends to work closely with HUD to facilitate operational coordination and consistency between the counseling and certification requirements HUD puts into place and the lists generated by the Bureau's Web site portal.

The Bureau believes that allowing lenders to obtain the list up to 30 days prior to providing it to the loan applicant strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring the information received by consumers is useful, and avoiding unnecessary burdens on lenders. The Bureau notes a lender may be able to keep counselor lists generated based on certain data inputs on file, and provide those stored lists to applicants as appropriate for up to 30 days, in order to avoid generating a new list for each applicant.

With respect to the information that will appear on the lists of counseling organizations, the Bureau notes that rather than specify particular information, such as the counseling organization's telephone number, that must appear on the list through regulation, the Bureau will design its Web site portal so that the appropriate information will automatically appear on the lists that are generated. The Bureau will also work to ensure that any data provided for compliance with the requirement is accompanied by instructions that will result in the creation of a list that is consistent with what would have been generated if the Web site portal had been used. Accordingly, the Bureau is not finalizing proposed § 1024.20(a)(3). The Bureau believes this will help ease compliance burden. The Bureau anticipates that the lists generated through its Web site portal or in accordance with its instructions will include contact information for the counseling organizations and may include additional information about the counseling organizations such as language capacity and areas of expertise. The Bureau also anticipates that the lists generated through its Web site portal will also include information enabling the consumer to access either the Bureau or the HUD list of homeownership counseling organizations, so that an applicant who receives the list can obtain information about additional counseling organizations if desired.

Timing of the List

As discussed above, RESPA section 5(c) requires that the list be included with the home buying information booklet that is to be distributed to applicants no later than three business days after the lender receives a loan application. Proposed § 1024.20(a)(1) would have required a lender to provide the list no later than three business days after the lender, mortgage broker, or dealer receives an application (or information sufficient to complete an application). The definition of “application” that would have applied appears in § 1024.2(b). The Bureau noted in the proposal that its 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal proposed to adopt a new definition of “application” under Regulation Z, and it sought comment on whether to tie the provision of the list to this proposed definition instead of the definition in § 1024.2(b). Some industry commenters asked for greater flexibility with respect to the timing of the list requirement, so that a list could be provided later than three business days after the lender receives a loan application. A few consumer groups and a counseling association commenter objected to the timing of the list requirement on the basis that counseling should occur earlier in the shopping process, not at application. The Bureau received one comment in support of linking the timing requirement for the list with the good faith estimate required by RESPA. A few commenters noted that regardless of whether the list had to be provided at the same time as the RESPA good faith estimate, it should only have to be provided once per loan, even if a loan estimate had to be revised.

The Bureau believes that the counselor list should be provided no later than the same time period as other applicable disclosures, in order to be most beneficial to consumers. The Bureau agrees with consumer group commenters that obtaining information about counseling at a point earlier than application could be beneficial to consumers. The Bureau notes, however, that the statutory requirement provides that the list of homeownership counselors be provided with the home buying booklet. The Bureau agrees with commenters that stated a lender should only be required to provide a single list in conjunction with an application, and notes that the final rule does not require that more than one list be provided. In addition, because the Bureau has not yet finalized the 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal, the Bureau declines to provide a different definition of application in the final rule. The Bureau is therefore finalizing the timing requirement in § 1024.20(a)(1) as proposed, consistent with the timing requirement of the booklet.

20(a)(2)

RESPA section 5(c) does not specify whether the required list of homeownership counselors can be combined with other disclosures. To afford lenders flexibility and ease compliance burden, proposed § 1024.20(a)(4) would have allowed the list to be combined with other mortgage loan disclosures, unless otherwise prohibited. The Bureau did not receive any comments addressing this provision, and is finalizing it substantially as proposed, except that it is renumbering the provision as § 1024.20(a)(2).

20(a)(3)

Under RESPA section 5(c), a lender must provide a list of homeownership counselors to an applicant. To afford flexibility and help ease compliance burden, proposed § 1024.20(a)(5) would have allowed a mortgage broker or dealer to provide the list to those applicants from whom it receives or for whom it prepares applications. Under proposed § 1024.20(a)(5), where a mortgage broker or dealer provides the list, the lender is not required to provide an additional list but remains responsible for ensuring that the list has been provided to the loan applicant and satisfies the requirements of proposed § 1024.20.

The Bureau received one comment objecting to the language that a mortgage broker or dealer “may” provide the list to a loan applicant from whom it receives for whom it prepares an application. This commenter suggested that this language be changed to “must,” to reflect that mortgage brokers and dealers are required to provide the list to their loan applicants.

As discussed above however, under the language of proposed § 1024.20(a)(5) the lender would have been responsible for ensuring that the list of counseling organizations is provided to the loan applicant in accordance with the requirements of § 1024.20(a)(5). As a result, the provision would have required that a loan applicant receive

the list, with the lender maintaining ultimate responsibility for ensuring that it is provided, regardless of who provides the list. Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing proposed § 1024.20(a)(5) substantially as proposed, except that it is renumbering the provision as § 1024.20(a)(3).

20(a)(4)

RESPA section 5(c) does not specify how the required list must be delivered. Proposed § 1024.20(a)(6) would have set out the requirements for providing the list to the loan applicant,

i.e.,

in person, by mail, or by other means of delivery. As proposed, the list could have been provided to the loan applicant in electronic form, subject to the consumer consent and other applicable provisions of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), 15 U.S.C. 7001

et seq.

A few industry commenters asserted that because the list requirement permits electronic delivery under the E-Sign Act, the list should not be referred to as “written.” One consumer group commenter encouraged the Bureau to remove language permitting the electronic delivery of disclosures, arguing that this could lead to a greater chance the disclosure would not be received (

e.g.,

if the lender used the incorrect email address).

The Bureau does not believe that the requirement that the list be “written” conflicts with the provisions relating to delivery in electronic form pursuant to the E-Sign Act. In fact, the E-Sign Act itself specifically provides that the use of an electronic record to provide information can satisfy a requirement that certain information required to be made available to a consumer be provided in writing, subject to consumer consent provisions.

Moreover, the Bureau believes it is important to retain the requirement that the list be in writing to provide for a retainable copy of the counseling organization names and contact information. In addition, the Bureau notes that permitting the electronic delivery of the disclosure is consistent with existing § 1024.23 of Regulation X, which provides for the applicability of the E-Sign Act to RESPA. For these reasons, the Bureau is finalizing § 1024.20(a)(6) substantially as proposed, but is renumbering it as § 1024.20(a)(4) for organizational purposes.

15 U.S.C. 7001(c).

20(a)(5)

Proposed § 1024.20(a)(7) would have provided that the lender is not required to provide the list if, before the end of the three business day period, the lender denies the loan application or the loan applicant withdraws the application. The Bureau did not receive any comments addressing this provision. The Bureau is therefore finalizing § 1024.20(a)(7) substantially as proposed, but is renumbering it as § 1024.20(a)(5).

20(a)(6)

Proposed § 1024.20(a)(8) would have provided flexibility related to the requirements for providing the list when there are multiple lenders and multiple applicants in a mortgage loan transaction. Under proposed § 1024.20(a)(8), if a mortgage loan transaction involved more than one lender, only one list was to be given to the loan applicant, and the lenders were to agree among themselves which lender would provide the list. Proposed § 1024.20(a)(8) also would have provided that if there were more than one loan applicant, the required list could be provided to any loan applicant that would have primary liability on the loan obligation.

Industry commenters stated that it should be permissible for multiple lenders to provide the list for operational convenience. The Bureau notes that proposed § 1024.20(a)(8) is consistent with Regulation Z § 1026.31(e), which also addresses disclosure requirements in the case of multiple creditors. The Bureau believes this consistency is appropriate, and that it could be confusing for consumers to receive multiple copies of a counselor list disclosure. Accordingly, the Bureau is finalizing § 1024.20(a)(8) as proposed, except for making minor edits for clarity and consistency and renumbering the provision as § 1024.20(a)(6).

20(b) Open-End Lines of Credit (Home-Equity Plans) Under Regulation Z

As noted above, RESPA section 5(c) requires that the list be included with the home buying information booklet that is to be distributed to applicants no later than three business days after the lender receives a loan application, and the Bureau proposed in § 1024.20(a)(1) to interpret the scope of the homeownership counselor list requirement to apply to all federally related loans, including HELOCs (except as described in the discussion of § 1024.20(c) below). Proposed § 1024.20(b) would have permitted a lender or broker, for an open-end credit plan subject to the requirements of § 1024.20, to comply with the timing and delivery requirement of either § 1024.20(a), or with the timing and delivery requirements set out in Regulation Z § 1026.40(b) for open-end disclosures. Several commenters noted that they appreciated this flexibility and asked the Bureau to retain this approach in the final rule. The Bureau agrees with commenters that the flexibility to provide the list under the timing requirements of § 1026.40(b) should be retained. The Bureau believes allowing this flexibility in timing will meet the purposes of the list requirement as well as help ease compliance burden. The Bureau is therefore adopting § 1024.20(b) as proposed, with minor edits for clarity and consistency.

20(c) Exemptions

20(c)(1) Reverse Mortgage Transactions

RESPA section 5(c) requires lenders to include a list of homeownership counselors with the home buying information booklet that is to be distributed to applicants. As noted above, the Bureau generally proposed in § 1024.20(a)(1) to interpret the scope of the homeownership counselor list requirement to apply to applicants of all federally related mortgage loans pursuant to section 19(a) of RESPA. Proposed § 1024.20(c) would have exempted a lender from providing an applicant for a HECM, as that type of reverse mortgage is defined in 12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(b)(3), with the list required by § 1024.20 if the lender is otherwise required by HUD to provide a list, and does provide a list, of HECM counselors or counseling agencies to the loan applicant. As discussed further below in the section-by-section analysis of Regulation Z, § 1026.34(a)(5), the Bureau's final pre-loan counseling requirement for high-cost mortgages, Federal law currently requires homeowners to receive counseling before obtaining a HECM reverse mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA),

which is a part of HUD. HUD imposes various requirements related to HECM counseling, including requiring FHA-approved HECM mortgagees to provide HECM applicants with a list of HUD-approved HECM counseling agencies. The Bureau noted in the preamble of the proposal its concern that a duplicative list requirement could cause confusion for consumers and unnecessary burden for lenders. Accordingly, the Bureau proposed to exercise its exemption authority under RESPA section 19(a) to allow lenders that provide a list under HUD's HECM program to satisfy the requirements of § 1024.20.

12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(d)(2)(B).

A trade association for the reverse mortgage industry argued that lenders should not be obligated to provide a counselor list to applicants for HECM mortgages through § 1024.20. This commenter stated that HECM lenders are already required to provide a lengthier list of counselors specializing in reverse mortgage counseling. The commenter pointed out that in most instances a HECM lender cannot even complete a HECM application until they receive a HECM counseling certificate, except in limited circumstances under which HECM applicants can waive counseling requirements (

e.g.,

for some types of refinancings from a HECM to another HECM). The commenter also argued that lenders should not have to provide applicants for non-HECM reverse mortgages the counseling list if the lender meets the HECM counseling disclosure requirements.

The Bureau agrees that lenders should not have to provide a list of counselors to HECM applicants because the list is of limited value for such applicants, given that the majority of such applicants would already have been required to receive counseling prior to submitting an application for a HECM. In addition, upon further consideration, the Bureau believes that lenders should not have to provide applicants for any reverse mortgages subject to Regulation Z § 1026.33(a) with a list of housing counselors. Given that counseling for HECMs and other reverse mortgages is typically provided by specially trained counselors, the Bureau believes that any additional counseling requirements related to these products would be better addressed separately. As noted above, HECM mortgagees are already required to provide HECM applicants with a list of HUD-approved HECM counseling agencies. The Bureau notes that it anticipates undertaking a rulemaking in the future to address how title XIV requirements apply to reverse mortgages and to consider other consumer protection issues in the reverse mortgage market.

That rulemaking will provide an opportunity to consider further issues related to counseling or counseling information on reverse mortgages. Because the Bureau concludes that requiring lenders to provide a list of counselors to reverse mortgage borrowers under § 1024.20 is largely duplicative of HECM requirements and may not provide additional, useful information for borrowers of other types of reverse mortgages, final § 1024.20(c)(1) provides an exemption for reverse mortgages pursuant to the Bureau's authority under RESPA section 19(a).

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Reverse Mortgage Report, at 10-11 (June 2012),

available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/a/assets/documents/201206_cfpb_Reverse_Mortgage_Report.pdf.

20(c)(2) Timeshare Plans

The Bureau generally proposed in § 1024.20(a)(1) to interpret the scope of the homeownership counselor list requirement to apply to applicants of all federally related loans pursuant to section 19(a) of RESPA, which would include applicants for a mortgage secured by a consumer's interest in a timeshare. The Bureau did not propose any type of exemption from the list requirement for this category of applicants. Timeshare industry commenters argued that the requirement for a list of counselors should not apply to lenders receiving an application for a mortgage secured by a consumer's interest in a timeshare. They asserted an exception is warranted for mortgages secured by timeshares because of their belief that there was no Congressional intent to require counseling for timeshare buyers due to unique characteristics of the timeshare industry, the lack of predatory lending in this market, the lower risk to consumers associated with default of a mortgage secured by a timeshare,

the protections provided by State law, and the timeshare business model that relies upon purchase and financing documents being executed simultaneously.

Commenters stated that typically if a consumer defaults, the only consequence is that the consumer loses the timeshare interest.

The Bureau agrees that lenders should not be obligated to provide a list of homeownership counselors to applicants for mortgages secured by a timeshare, and is therefore exercising its authority under section 19(a) of RESPA to provide an exemption for these transactions in final § 1024.20(c)(2). Although the Bureau believes that some form of counseling may be beneficial to such consumers, the Bureau is concerned that counselors at counseling agencies approved by HUD to counsel consumers on standard mortgage financing may not be trained to provide useful counseling addressing timeshare purchases. For that reason, the Bureau is concerned that the benefit of the list of counselors to a consumer purchasing a timeshare could be quite low. The Bureau has therefore determined that exempting timeshare purchases from the list requirement is reasonable, because it is unclear whether the list would provide helpful information to consumers. Accordingly, the final rule does not require a lender to provide an applicant for a mortgage loan secured by a timeshare, as described under 11 U.S.C. 101(53D), with the list of homeownership counseling organizations required under § 1024.20.

B. Regulation Z

Section 1026.1 Authority, Purpose, Coverage, Organization, Enforcement, and Liability

1(d) Organization

1(d)(5)

Section 1026.1(d)(5) describes the organization of subpart E of Regulation Z, which contains special rules for mortgage transactions, including high-cost mortgages. The Bureau would have revised § 1026.1(d)(5) for consistency with the Bureau's proposed amendments to §§ 1026.32 and 1026.34 for high-cost mortgages. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to revise § 1026.1(d)(5) to include the term “open-end credit plan” and to remove the term “closed-end” where appropriate. In addition, the Bureau proposed to include a reference to the new prepayment penalty coverage test for high-cost mortgages added by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau did not receive any comments on proposed § 1026.1(d)(5) and is finalizing the provision as proposed, with one non-substantive change to reflect the Dodd-Frank Act's adoption of the term “high-cost mortgage” to refer to a transaction that meets any of the coverage tests set forth in § 1026.32(a).

Section 1026.31 General Rules

31(c) Timing of Disclosure

31(c)(1) Disclosures for High-Cost Mortgages

Since the enactment of the original HOEPA legislation in 1994, TILA section 129(a) has set forth the information that creditors must provide in the additional disclosure for high-cost mortgages, and TILA section 129(b) has described the timing requirements for this disclosure. Specifically, under TILA section 129(b)(1), the disclosure must be provided not less than three business days prior to consummation of the transaction. Pursuant to TILA section 129(b)(2)(A), if the terms of the transaction change after the disclosures have been provided in a way that makes the disclosure inaccurate, then a new disclosure must be given. TILA section 129(b)(2)(B) provides that such new disclosures may be given by telephone if the consumer initiated the change and if, at consummation, the new disclosure is provided in writing and the consumer and creditor certify that the telephone disclosure was given at least three days

before consummation. TILA section 129(b)(2)(C) permitted the Board (now the Bureau) to prescribe regulations authorizing the modification or waiver of rights under TILA section 129(b) if such modification was necessary to permit consumers to meet a bona fide financial emergency.

TILA section 129(b) is implemented in existing § 1026.31(c)(1). Section 1026.31(c)(1) provides that the high-cost mortgage disclosure shall be provided at least three business days prior to consummation, and § 1026.31(c)(1)(i) sets forth the general rule for providing a new disclosure in the case of a change in terms. Section 1026.31(c)(1)(ii) permits the new disclosure for a change in terms to be provided by telephone in certain circumstances, and § 1026.31(c)(1)(iii) sets forth the conditions pursuant to which a consumer is permitted to modify or waive the three-day waiting period for a disclosure for a bona fide personal financial emergency.

The Dodd-Frank Act did not amend TILA section 129(b)(2) concerning the timing requirements for high-cost mortgage disclosures, except to clarify that authority under TILA section 129(b)(2)(C) to permit a modification or waiver of rights for bona fide personal financial emergencies transferred from the Board to the Bureau. The Bureau thus proposed only limited revisions to § 1026.31(c)(1) and related commentary that would have reflected the expanded types of loans potentially subject to HOEPA coverage as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, the proposal would have included the term “account opening” in addition to “consummation” to reflect the fact that the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the requirements for high-cost mortgages to HELOCs.

The Bureau received one comment concerning proposed § 1026.31(c)(1). The commenter, a consumer advocacy organization, urged the Bureau to eliminate the language in § 1026.31(c)(1)(ii) permitting telephone disclosures when a consumer initiates a change in the transaction after the creditor has provided the high-cost mortgage disclosure, and that change results in different terms. The commenter argued that permitting telephone disclosures would encourage sloppiness and inconsistency in the delivery of information and argued that the consumer would not be able to remember the information conveyed. As noted above, § 1026.31(c)(1)(ii) permitting telephone disclosures in the case of a change in terms implements a long-existing provision of TILA. The Bureau would need to use its authority under TILA section 105(a) to remove this provision. Given that the Dodd-Frank Act neither removed nor revised this provision, the Bureau declines to make such a change at this time. With respect to the commenter's specific concerns, the Bureau notes that § 1026.31(c)(1)(ii) requires a written disclosure at consummation or account opening that reflects any changed terms, along with a certification by the consumer and creditor that telephone disclosures reflecting those terms were made at the appropriate time prior to consummation or account opening.

The commenter similarly urged the Bureau to eliminate the language in § 1026.31(c)(1)(iii) permitting the consumer to modify the three-day waiting period for a bona fide personal financial emergency. The commenter stated that the urgency for financing for some consumers should not supplant protections for other consumers. The Bureau declines to remove or amend § 1026.31(c)(1)(iii). The Board prescribed § 1026.31(c)(1)(iii) pursuant to its authority under TILA section 129(b)(2)(C) when it first implemented HOEPA by final rule in 1995.

The Bureau understands that there may be concerns about creditors abusing the waiver provision in certain circumstances, however the Bureau believes that the provision may benefit consumers who, for example, are facing imminent foreclosure. Absent specific information indicating that a change is warranted, the Bureau declines to modify this long-standing provision. The Bureau thus finalizes its amendments to § 1026.31(c)(1) generally as proposed (

i.e.,

to reflect the provision's expanded application to HELOCs), with only minor revisions for clarity.

See

60 FR 15463, 15464-65 (Mar. 24, 1995).

In addition, the Bureau is revising comment 31(c)(1)(i)-2 for clarification purposes and consistency with final § 1026.34(a)(10). Upon further consideration of these provisions, the Bureau recognizes that the prohibition of financing points and fees in § 1026.34(a)(10) prohibits the financing of any points and fees, as defined in § 1026.32(b)(1) and (2), for all high-cost mortgages. This prohibition includes the financing of premiums or other charges for the optional products such as credit insurance described in proposed comment 31(c)(1)(i)-2. Section 1026.34(a)(10) permits, however, the financing of charges not included in the definition of points and fees. For example, § 1026.34(a)(10) permits the financing of bona fide third-party charges, such as fees charged by a third-party counselor in connection with the consumer's receipt of pre-loan counseling for a high-cost mortgage under § 1025.34(a)(5). Accordingly, proposed comment 31(c)(1)(i)-2 is revised for clarification purposes and consistency with these other provisions.

31(h) Corrections and Unintentional Violations.

Section 1433(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act added new section 129(v) to TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639(v), which prescribes certain conditions under which a creditor or assignee of a high-cost mortgage that has failed to comply with a HOEPA requirement, despite acting in good faith, will not be deemed to have violated the requirement. Section 129(v) permits the creditor or assignee to use this provision when either of the two following sets of conditions is satisfied: (1) “Within 30 days of the loan closing and prior to the institution of any action, the consumer is notified of or discovers the violation, appropriate restitution is made, and whatever adjustments are necessary are made to the loan to either, at the choice of the consumer—(A) make the loan satisfy the requirements of this chapter; or (B) in the case of a high-cost mortgage, change the terms of the loan in a manner beneficial to the consumer so that the loan will no longer be a high-cost mortgage”; or (2) “within 60 days of the creditor's discovery or receipt of notification of an unintentional violation or bona fide error and prior to the institution of any action, the consumer is notified of the compliance failure, appropriate restitution is made, and whatever adjustments are necessary are made to the loan to either, at the choice of the consumer—(A) make the loan satisfy the requirements of this chapter; or (B) in the case of a high-cost mortgage, change the terms of the loan in a manner beneficial so that the loan will no longer be a high-cost mortgage.”

The Bureau did not propose to issue regulatory guidance concerning this provision. The Bureau solicited comment on the extent to which creditors or assignees are likely to invoke this provision; whether regulatory guidance would be useful; and if so, what issues would be most important to address.

15 U.S.C. 1639(v).

The Bureau did not receive comments from industry suggesting that creditors or assignees would be likely to invoke the provision. However, the Bureau received a number of comments from industry and consumer groups that suggested the Bureau provide guidance on certain statutory terms. Both industry

and consumer groups asked for a definition of the statutory term “good faith” and also sought guidance on whether the statutory requirement that notice of an unintentional error be given “prior to the institution of any action” applies only to lawsuits initiated by the consumer, or should be construed more broadly to include enforcement actions and various types of informal disputes between the borrower and creditor. Consumer groups also sought guidance and clarification as to how a creditor's use of the statute to correct an unintentional violation will interplay with TILA rescission rights.

See

15 U.S.C. 1635 and 1639(n).

In addition, both industry and consumer groups sought guidance on the operation of the 30- and 60-day periods set forth in sections 129(v)(1) and (2), respectively. These commenters expressed concern that the statute, as drafted, could be interpreted to require a creditor or assignee seeking the benefit of section 129(v) to provide notice to the consumer, receive the election of the consumer's preferred adjustment, and implement the consumer's election within the 30- or 60-day period. Industry and consumer groups stated that such a timeframe would be unworkable, and industry commenters suggested this would result in creditors and assignees not using the provision.

Both industry and consumer groups offered suggestions for a more workable operational framework. Specifically, industry commenters suggested that the 30- and 60-day time limits should refer only to the time in which the creditor or assignee must notify the consumer about the violation, but additional time should be afforded for the creditor to offer a choice of adjustments to the consumer, for the consumer to elect an adjustment, and the creditor to implement the consumer's elected adjustment. Consumer groups also noted that a consumer may need substantial time to consider a creditor's proposed adjustment in order to make an informed choice, and generally suggested that an additional 30 to 60 days from the time of notice be given to consumers to make an election of adjustment. Similarly, industry commenters suggested an additional time period of 30 to 60 days be afforded to the creditor or assignee to implement the consumer's elected adjustment and pay any restitution that may be appropriate.

The Bureau recognizes that section 129(v) is a complex provision, and agrees with public commenters that several of the features and terms of the provision are ambiguous. However, it is not yet clear what role section 129(v) will play in HOEPA's scheme of regulation, particularly in light of the Dodd-Frank Act's comprehensive amendments to HOEPA, and the lack of comments from industry suggesting that creditors or assignees will be likely to invoke this provision. The Bureau therefore declines at this point to issue detailed interpretive guidance regarding section 129(v).

However, the Bureau agrees with industry and consumer groups that it is important to clarify how the 30- and 60-day periods operate. Comments suggested that implementing the consumer's choice of adjustment—which may require the creditor or assignee to make changes to the documentation, disclosure, or terms of a transaction—may itself take more than 30 days. It is thus not feasible to require creditors and assignees invoking the provision to also provide notice of the violation to the consumer and allow the consumer appropriate time to consider and elect an adjustment and to provide notice of that election to the creditor within that same 30 or 60 day period.

The Bureau is adopting a new provision at § 1026.31(h) and accompanying comment 31(h)-1 interpreting section 129(v) to address these issues. Section 1026.31(h) states that a creditor or assignee in a high-cost mortgage who, when acting in good faith, failed to comply with a requirement under section 129 of the Act will not be deemed to have violated such requirement if the creditor or assignee satisfies specified conditions. Those conditions include providing notice to the consumer within 30 or 60 days (as appropriate) of the prescribed triggering conditions and implementing the consumer's chosen adjustments and providing appropriate restitution within a reasonable time.

In adopting new provision § 1026.31(h), the Bureau is interpreting the language of section 129(v) to provide greater clarity with respect to these timeframes, which will assist creditors, assignees, and consumers seeking to use section 129(v). In the Bureau's view, section 129(v) is ambiguous regarding whether the “within 30 [or 60] days” timing requirement encompasses all the events that must occur for a creditor or assignee to claim the provision's benefit—including the implementation of the consumer's choice of adjustment—or only the first step, the consumer's notification or discovery of the violation. The Bureau believes Congress's intent was to make it possible, under appropriate circumstances, for creditors and assignees to satisfy the conditions of section 129(v). If securing the protection of section 129(v) required a creditor or assignee to complete within 30 or 60 days tasks that cannot reasonably be done in that time, creditors or assignees might never seek to use the provision. The Bureau thus believes that, to effectuate Congress's intent, section 129(v) should be interpreted, if possible, so that creditors and assignees can feasibly meet its conditions. The Bureau agrees with industry and consumer groups that it would be unworkable for a creditor to complete within 30 or 60 days all the steps to qualify for section 129(v) relief. Accordingly, the Bureau interprets the language of section 129(v) to mean that the 30- and 60-day statutory periods set forth the timeframe for providing notice of the violation to the consumer, but does not also require that the consumer elect an adjustment and that the creditor or assignee implement that adjustment, along with appropriate restitution, within the same timeframe.

With respect to the remaining statutory conditions—the consumer's election of an adjustment, the creditor or assignee's implementation of that adjustment, and the creditor or assignee's paying of any appropriate restitution—the Bureau believes that Congress intended this provision to encourage creditors and assignees who have acted in good faith to remediate their violations of HOEPA, and that additional time is necessary for them to do so.

However, the Bureau stresses that, for a creditor or assignee to enjoy the benefit of section 129(v), the required adjustment must still be completed in a reasonable time. While the Bureau interprets the specified 30- or 60-day period to cover only notice of a violation to the consumer, the Bureau does not believe Congress intended to allow the remaining steps in section 129(v) to take an arbitrarily long time. The Bureau believes Congress intended a creditor or assignee to make the appropriate restitution and complete the required section 129(v) modification within a reasonable time period.

In the Bureau's view, allowing a reasonable time for a creditor or assignee to carry out the steps necessary to benefit from section 129(v) would effectuate Congress's purpose of encouraging creditors and assignees who have acted

in good faith to remediate their violations of HOEPA. If a creditor could take any amount of time to fulfill the section 129(v) conditions, the creditor might wait without completing the required modification unless and until it faced liability for its violation.

When a statute is silent about how long a given action may take, Congress may be understood to have implicitly required the action to be completed in a reasonable time.

See

Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, 2B Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 55.3 (7th ed.) (“If a statute imposes a duty but is silent as to when it is to be performed, a reasonable time is implied.”).

Section 1026.31(h) reflects this interpretation by requiring both appropriate restitution and the required adjustments to a loan to be completed within a reasonable time. What length of time is reasonable may depend on the circumstances, including the nature of the violation at stake. The Bureau therefore declines to provide detailed guidance on what periods would be reasonable. However, as the accompanying new comment 31(h)-1 notes, the Bureau generally regards 30 days after the consumer sends notice of the chosen adjustment as reasonable.

Comment 31(h)-1 also provides a clarifying interpretation of the notice and election procedures. Section 129(v) is also ambiguous as to how consumers are to be notified that they have a choice of remedy and how they are to inform creditors of their choice. The Bureau believes that Congress intended for consumers to have a reasonable opportunity to make a choice under section 129(v). In the Bureau's view, this purpose is effectuated by interpreting section 129(v) to require a creditor or assignee to provide adequate notice of the choices available to the consumer. Specifically, comment 31(h)-1 notes that the initial notice sent to the consumer should be in writing, should offer the consumer the proposed adjustments, and should state the time within which the consumer must choose an adjustment. Comment 31(h)-1 further explains that the Bureau regards 60 days as generally sufficient to provide adequate notice of the consumer's right to make an election.

Finally, the Bureau is clarifying in § 1026.31(h) and its accompanying commentary certain statutory terminology for consistency with existing Regulation Z terminology, and to reflect the Dodd-Frank Act's expansion of loans potentially subject to HOEPA coverage to include open-end credit plans. Thus, § 1026.31(h) and its accompanying commentary use the terms “consummation or account opening” and “loan or credit plan” to clarify that § 1026.31(h) applies to both closed-end and open-end credit.

Section 1026.32 Requirements for High-Cost Mortgages

32(a) Coverage

32(a)(1)

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, the statutory protections for high cost mortgages generally were limited to closed-end refinancings and home-equity mortgage loans with APRs or points and fees that exceeded the thresholds prescribed by TILA section 103(aa), as implemented by existing § 1026.32(a)(1). The Dodd-Frank Act expanded HOEPA's coverage by providing in TILA section 103(bb)(1) that the term “high-cost mortgage” means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the consumer's principal dwelling, other than a reverse mortgage transaction, if any of the prescribed high-cost mortgage thresholds are met. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) through (iii), below, the Dodd-Frank Act adjusted HOEPA's existing APR and points and fees thresholds and added a third HOEPA coverage test based on a transaction's prepayment penalties.

The proposal would have revised § 1026.32(a)(1) to implement TILA's amended definition of “high-cost mortgage” by removing the coverage exclusions for residential mortgage transactions (

i.e.,

purchase-money mortgage loans) and HELOCs while retaining the exclusion of reverse mortgage transactions. Specifically, the proposal would have defined “high-cost mortgage” in § 1026.32(a)(1) to mean any consumer credit transaction, other than a reverse mortgage transaction as defined in § 1026.33(a), that is secured by the consumer's principal dwelling and in which any one of the high-cost APR, points and fees, or prepayment penalty coverage tests is met. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)-1 would have clarified that a high-cost mortgage includes both a closed- and open-end credit transaction secured by the consumer's principal dwelling. The comment also would have clarified that, for purposes of determining coverage under § 1026.32, an open-end credit transaction is limited to account opening; an individual advance of funds or a draw on the credit line subsequent to account opening does not constitute a “transaction” for this purpose. As noted in the proposal, the Bureau believes that such a clarification is needed to permit creditors to determine whether a HELOC is a high-cost mortgage once (

i.e.,

at account opening), rather than having to evaluate the HELOC for high-cost mortgage coverage each time the consumer draws on the credit line.

The Bureau received numerous comments concerning the proposed expanded scope of loan types covered by HOEPA. The Bureau addresses those coverage-related comments in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.32(a)(2) below. One commenter expressed an overall concern that the Bureau is not coordinating its 2013 HOEPA Final Rule with the implementation of other title XIV provisions, and suggested that HOEPA's protections were not necessary given these other provisions. As discussed in Part III of this preamble, the Bureau is carefully coordinating its rules. The Bureau notes that the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments to HOEPA are self-effectuating in the absence of regulations.

The Bureau received no comments concerning other aspects of proposed § 1026.32(a)(1) or comment 32(a)(1)-1 and adopts them generally as proposed, except that the Bureau retains for organizational purposes the existing structure of § 1026.32(a)(1), including its cross-reference to § 1026.32(a)(2) for exemptions from HOEPA coverage.

32(a)(1)(i)

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 103(aa)(1)(A) provided that a transaction was covered by HOEPA if the APR at consummation of the transaction would exceed by more than 10 percentage points the yield on Treasury securities having comparable periods of maturity (measured as of the fifteenth day of the month immediately preceding the month in which the application for the extension of credit was received by the creditor). Pursuant to its authority under TILA section 103(aa)(2) (re-designated by the Dodd-Frank Act as section 103(bb)(2)), the Board in 2001 lowered the APR threshold for first-lien transactions to 8 percentage points above the yield on comparable Treasury securities and retained the higher APR threshold of 10 percentage points above the yield on comparable Treasury securities for subordinate-lien transactions, thus creating a two-tiered APR test for HOEPA coverage.

The APR thresholds are implemented in existing § 1026.32(a)(1)(i).

66 FR 65604, 65617 (Dec. 20, 2001).

TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A)(i), as added by section 1431 of the Dodd-Frank Act, essentially codifies the two-tiered APR test for HOEPA coverage adopted by the Board in 2001, with certain changes. Specifically, TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A)(i):

• Changes the APR benchmark from the yield on comparable Treasury securities to the “average prime offer rate,” as defined in TILA section 129C(b)(2)(B);

• Revises the percentage-point thresholds for first- and subordinate-lien transactions; and

• Creates a separate, higher percentage-point threshold for smaller-dollar-amount, first-lien transactions secured by personal property.

These changes, as implemented by the final rule, are discussed below, following a discussion of (1) the Bureau's proposal to use the “transaction coverage rate” as an alternative to the APR for purposes of determining HOEPA coverage under § 1026.32(a)(1)(i), and (2) general comments concerning the use of the APR for testing for HOEPA coverage.

Annual Percentage Rate versus Transaction Coverage Rate

The Bureau proposed two alternatives in proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) to implement the revised APR thresholds for HOEPA coverage under TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A)(i). Alternative 1 would have used the APR as the metric to be compared to the average prime offer rate for determining HOEPA coverage for both closed- and open-end credit transactions. Alternative 2 would have been substantially identical to Alternative 1, but it would have substituted a “transaction coverage rate” for the APR as the metric to be compared to the average prime offer rate for closed-end credit transactions. The Bureau proposed Alternative 2 in connection with the Bureau's 2012 TILA-RESPA Integration Proposal, which would have broadened the general definition of finance charge for closed-end transactions under Regulation Z.

In its HOEPA proposal, the Bureau solicited comment on whether to adopt Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 for closed-end transactions. The Bureau also noted that it would not adopt Alternative 2 if it did not change the definition of finance charge in connection with the 2012 TILA-RESPA Integration Proposal. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-1 would have clarified how to determine the “transaction coverage rate” for closed-end transactions if Alternative 2 were adopted.

See

77 FR 49091, 49100-03 (Aug. 15, 2012) (discussing the transaction coverage rate).

As discussed in part II above, in August 2012, the Bureau extended the notice-and-comment period for comments relating to the proposed adoption of the more inclusive finance charge, including related aspects of the HOEPA proposal such as the transaction coverage rate. At that time, the Bureau noted that it would not be finalizing the more inclusive finance charge in January 2013.

The Bureau therefore does not address in this rulemaking the numerous public comments that it received concerning the proposed alternatives for the APR coverage test. The Bureau instead will address such comments in connection with its finalization of the 2012 TILA-RESPA Integration Proposal, thus resolving that issue together with the Bureau's determination whether to adopt the more inclusive finance charge. The final rule thus adopts Alternative 1 (

i.e.,

use of APR) in § 1026.32(a)(1)(i).

See

77 FR 54843 (Sept. 6, 2012) (discussing the TILA-RESPA Integration Proposal); 77 FR 54844 (Sept. 6, 2012) (discussing the HOEPA Proposal).

Use of the Annual Percentage Rate for HOEPA Coverage

The Bureau received several comments generally discussing the use of the APR for determining HOEPA coverage. One State housing finance authority commenter suggested that the Bureau replace the APR-based coverage test for both closed- and open-end transactions with a simpler, interest rate-based test that would be easier to explain to consumers and would eliminate regional variations due to closing charges. Given that TILA clearly contemplates an APR-based coverage test for determining the applicability of HOEPA protections, as well as other types of special protections, the Bureau declines to adopt an interest rate-based test for high-cost mortgages in this rulemaking.

See

TILA sections 129C(a)(6)(D)(ii) and 129C(c)(1)(B)(ii) (ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage requirements), 129D(b)(3) (escrow requirements), and 129H(f)(2) (appraisal requirements).

The Bureau also declines to adopt in the final rule, as suggested by one consumer advocacy commenter, a requirement that non-interest finance charge items be included in the APR calculation for HELOCs for purposes of determining HOEPA coverage. As noted, the Dodd-Frank Act expanded HOEPA coverage to HELOCs in TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A). In doing so, Congress did not set forth any special standards for applying the APR coverage test to open-end credit. Under the HOEPA proposal, HELOC creditors thus would have tested HELOCs for HOEPA coverage by using the standard APR that creditors calculate for HELOC disclosures. Specifically, unlike for closed-end transactions, where the APR reflects costs other than interest, HELOC APRs include only interest.

One consumer group commenter urged the Bureau to make the APR coverage test more consistent between closed- and open-end credit by adopting a more inclusive APR calculation for HELOCs. The commenter argued that, under the Bureau's proposal, a creditor could impose astronomical closing costs on a HELOC without meeting the APR coverage test, because such charges are not included in the APR calculation for HELOCs. The commenter expressed concern that the difference in the APR calculation for HELOCs versus closed-end transactions will unduly encourage creditors to steer consumers toward HELOCs, and particularly to HELOCs with excessively high closing costs.

TILA section 128(a)(3) and (4) requires disclosure of the finance charge and the finance charge expressed as an “annual percentage rate,” for which the interest rate (along with other items in the finance charge) is a factor in the calculation.

See

§ 1026.18(d) and (e). TILA section 127A(a), in contrast, provides that HELOC creditors must disclose the annual percentage rate along with a statement that the rate does not include costs other than interest. Thus, pursuant to §§ 1026.14(b) and .40, the APR to be disclosed for a HELOC—as for other types of open-end credit—is the periodic rate multiplied by the number of periods in a year under § 1026.40.

The Bureau acknowledges that Regulation Z requires a different calculation of APR for closed-end transactions (interest rate plus other charges) than for HELOCs (interest rate only) for disclosure purposes. Using these existing APRs for HOEPA coverage necessarily means that non-interest charges will be reflected in the APR for closed-end, but not for open-end, transactions. The Bureau declines at this time, however, to adopt a different APR for HELOCs. First, the Bureau notes that creditors have been required to use the (interest rate) APR for HELOC disclosures for more than twenty years, and this APR is consistent with the APR used for other open-end credit.

Moreover, notwithstanding the commenter's concern, the Bureau believes that the HOEPA points and fees coverage test should constrain HELOC creditors from imposing excessively high closing costs. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.32(b)(2) below, the final rule adopts a points and fees definition that is the same in all material respects for closed- and open-end credit. Finally, the Bureau believes that introducing a new APR calculation for HELOC creditors solely for determining HOEPA coverage could impose additional compliance costs that would need to be carefully

analyzed. Thus, the Bureau believes that comments concerning the disparity between the APR for closed- and open-end credit transactions are better considered as part of a broader reevaluation of the HELOC provisions of Regulation Z, rather than in the context of this rulemaking to implement section 1431 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

See, e.g.,

54 FR 24670 (June 9, 1989) (adopting HELOC disclosure rules to implement the Home Equity Loan Consumer Protection Act of 1988); § 1026.14(b).

In this regard, the Bureau notes that it has inherited from the Board a proposal to amend the requirements for HELOC disclosures under current § 1026.40 (§ 226.5b in the Board's proposal).

See

74 FR 43428 (Aug. 26, 2009). The Bureau anticipates finalizing the Board's proposal in the future.

Average Prime Offer Rate as Benchmark

As noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act amended HOEPA by changing the benchmark against which the APR must be measured to determine HOEPA coverage from the yield on comparable Treasury securities to the average prime offer rate, defined in TILA section 129C(b)(2)(B) to mean the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction as of the date on which the interest rate for the transaction is set, as published by the Bureau. TILA section 129C(b)(2)(B) essentially codifies the definition of average prime offer rate adopted by the Board in its 2008 HOEPA Final Rule and implemented in § 1026.35.

See

73 FR 44522, 44534-36 (July 30, 2008).

Section 1026.35 prohibits certain acts or practices in connection with higher-priced mortgage loans. Higher-priced mortgage loans, in contrast to high-cost mortgages, are closed-end credit transactions with APRs that, in general, exceed the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction as of the date the interest rate for the transaction is set by more than 1.5 or 3.5 percentage points for first- and subordinate-lien transactions, respectively.

Existing § 1026.35 contains repayment ability requirements and other restrictions for higher-priced mortgage loans. The Bureau's 2013 ATR Final Rule is removing those requirements in connection with its implementation in § 1026.43 of the Dodd-Frank Act's ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage provisions. However, § 1026.35 is being retained for escrow- and appraisal-related requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans, which are being implemented in the Bureau's 2013 Escrows Final Rule and the 2013 interagency appraisals rulemaking, respectively.

Section 1026.35(a)(2) provides that the average prime offer rate means an APR that is derived from the average interest rates, points and “other loan pricing terms” currently offered to consumers by a representative sample of creditors for fixed- and variable-rate closed-end credit transactions with low-risk pricing characteristics. Section 1026.35(a)(2) also indicates that a table with the average prime offer rates for a broad range of types of closed-end credit transactions is published on the internet and updated at least weekly. Existing comments 35(a)(2)-1 through -4 provide further details concerning the calculation and use of the average prime offer rate.

In relevant part:

In proposing to cross-reference Regulation Z's existing guidance for average prime offer rates relating to higher-priced mortgage loans, the HOEPA proposal noted that Regulation Z's existing comments 35(a)(2)-1 through -4 likely would be renumbered as comments 35(a)(2)(ii)-1 through -4 for organizational purposes if and when the Bureau adopted the transaction coverage rate in § 1026.35 in connection with a more inclusive finance charge definition. As discussed, the Bureau has postponed action with respect to the proposed more inclusive finance charge. However, as described in connection with the Bureau's 2013 Escrows Final Rule, the Bureau is renumbering existing commentary to § 1026.35 concerning the average prime offer rate for other reasons. The cross-references in commentary to § 1026.32(a)(2) in this final rule reflect the numbering that is being adopted in the 2013 Escrows Final Rule, rather than the numbering of existing commentary to section 1026.35.

• Comment 35(a)(2)-1 states that data reported in the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS) is used to calculate the average prime offer rates reported in the internet table.

For variable-rate transactions, the “other loan pricing terms” (

i.e.,

other than interest rates and points) that are used to calculate the average prime offer rates include commonly used indices, margins, and initial fixed-rate periods.

The PMMS contains pricing data for four types of closed-end transactions: one-year ARM,

5/1

ARM, 30-year fixed-rate, and 15-year fixed-rate. The pricing data for those transactions is used to estimate average prime offer rates for the other fixed- and variable-rate loan products listed in the internet table.

• Comment 35(a)(2)-2 notes that the published average prime offer rate tables indicate how to identify a “comparable transaction” for purposes of calculating the APR to average prime offer rate spread that is required to determine higher-priced mortgage loan coverage under § 1026.35.

The referenced guidance is available at

http:

//www.ffiec.gov/ratespread

. The first factor to consider in determining a “comparable transaction” is whether the transaction under consideration is fixed-rate or variable-rate. (One table contains average prime offer rates for fixed-rate transactions, and one table contains average prime offer rates for variable-rate transactions.) The other information necessary for determining the most comparable transaction is (1) the date that the interest rate for the transaction was set; and (2) the term of the transaction. In the case of a fixed-rate transaction, the term is the transaction's term to maturity. In the case of a variable-rate transaction, the term is the initial fixed-rate period, rounded to the nearest number of whole years (or, if the initial fixed-rate period is less than one year, the term is one year).

• Comment 35(a)(2)-3 provides that, for purposes of determining higher-priced mortgage loan coverage under § 1026.35, a transaction's APR is compared to the average prime offer rate as of the date the transaction's interest rate is set (or “locked”) before consummation. The comment specifies that if a creditor sets the interest rate initially and then sets it at a different level before consummation, the creditor should use the last date the interest rate is set before consummation.

• Comment 35(a)(2)-4 restates that the average prime offer rate tables, along with the methodology for calculating average prime offer rates, are published on the internet.

Proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) would have implemented the change in the benchmark for HOEPA's APR coverage test from the yield on comparable Treasury securities to the average prime offer rate. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-2 would have clarified that creditors should determine the applicable average prime offer rate for closed-end transactions for purposes of § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) pursuant to the same guidance set forth in § 1026.35(a)(2) and commentary thereto. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-3 would have provided additional guidance for using the methodology set forth in § 1026.35(a)(2) to determine the applicable average prime offer rate for HELOCs. The Bureau believes that additional guidance for HELOCs is warranted because, as discussed in the preamble to the proposal, the average prime offer rate currently is calculated only for closed-end transactions. The Bureau is not aware of any publicly available and authoritative surveys of pricing data for HELOCs from which to calculate a separate average prime offer rate for open-end credit.

Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-3 therefore would have instructed creditors to test HELOCs for HOEPA coverage by comparing the HELOC's APR (calculated in accordance with proposed § 1026.32(a)(2)

) to the average prime offer rate for “the most closely comparable closed-end loan” based on applicable loan characteristics and other loan pricing terms. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-3 would have provided illustrative examples to facilitate compliance.

As already noted, the methodology for deriving the average prime offer rate is based on Freddie Mac's Primary Mortgage Market Survey®, which does not provide any data on HELOCs. More detailed discussions of the average prime offer rate is provided in the Board's 2008 HOEPA Final Rule and other publicly-available sources.

See

73 FR 44522, 44533-36 (July 30, 2008);

http://www.ffiec.gov/ratespread/default.aspx.

Section 1026.32(a)(3) as adopted in the final rule was proposed as § 1026.32(a)(2).

The proposal explained why the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to require HELOC creditors to use the average prime offer rate for the most closely-comparable closed-end loan when determining HELOC coverage. The Bureau noted its belief that market

rates for HELOCs generally are based on a prime lending rate, such as the average prime rate as published in the Wall Street Journal.

When the Bureau compared the prime rate published by the Board over a 12-year period to average prime offer rates for annually-adjusting, closed-end credit transactions (

i.e.,

one-year adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs)) for the same period, the Bureau found that the rates generally were comparable. Thus, the Bureau believes that using the average prime offer rate for the most closely-comparable closed-end loan is a reasonable benchmark for HOEPA's APR test for HELOCs. The Bureau further believes that requiring HELOC creditors to use this benchmark will facilitate compliance because HELOC creditors may use existing rate-spread calculators on the FFIEC's Web site to determine HOEPA coverage. Finally, the Bureau believes that requiring HELOC creditors to use the closed-end, average prime offer rate tables is appropriate under TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A)(i), which requires a comparison of a mortgage transaction's APR to the average prime offer rate without distinguishing between closed- and open-end credit. The Bureau nevertheless solicited data or comment on all aspects of determining the average prime offer rate for HELOCs. In particular, the Bureau solicited comment on whether a benchmark other than the average prime offer rate for the most closely-comparable closed-end loan would better meet the objectives of HOEPA's APR coverage test for HELOCs and facilitate compliance.

Pursuant to § 1026.40(f)(1), a variable-rate HELOC can vary

only

in accordance with a publicly-available index that is outside of the creditor's control, such as the Wall Street Journal prime rate.

Commenters generally did not object to changing the benchmark for HOEPA's APR coverage test from the yield on Treasury securities to the average prime offer rate.

Indeed, several industry commenters specifically supported the change, noting that the average prime offer rate tracks market prices better than the yield on Treasury securities. One such industry commenter noted that, under recent market conditions, the maximum APR for HOEPA coverage for a first-lien, 10-year, fixed-rate mortgage would be higher under the HOEPA Proposal (

i.e.,

6.5 percentage points over the average prime offer rate) than under existing § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) (

i.e.,

eight percentage points over the yield on comparable Treasuries). Specifically, the commenter stated that, under the HOEPA Proposal, the maximum APR for HOEPA coverage for this transaction would be 10.42 percent, whereas the maximum APR under existing § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) would be 9.70 percent.

As noted below, however, several industry commenters objected to using the same average prime offer rate for closed- and open-end credit transactions.

Another industry commenter observed that using the average prime offer rate as the benchmark will not be difficult because the average prime offer rate has been used for some time as the benchmark for determining coverage under Regulation Z's higher-priced mortgage loan rules in existing § 1026.35. The commenter, however, suggested that the Bureau work with the FFIEC to ensure that the rate-spread calculator currently employed for purposes of determining higher-priced mortgage loan coverage would be adjusted and usable for purposes of determining HOEPA coverage.

Two commenters urged the Bureau to harmonize the methodologies for calculating the average prime offer rate and the APR for adjustable-rate mortgages under § 1026.32(a)(3). These commenters stated that, for example, if the APR for an adjustable-rate transaction for purposes of determining HOEPA coverage is determined under § 1026.32(a)(3) based on the higher of the initial interest rate or the fully-indexed rate, then the applicable average prime offer rate should be calculated in the same way to ensure that there is a more accurate comparison for purposes of the HOEPA coverage calculation.

Several industry commenters, while not objecting to the use of an average prime offer rate benchmark for HELOCs, urged the Bureau to specify in the final rule (or work to develop) a separate methodology for calculating the average prime offer rate for open-end credit transactions. The commenters stated that it is not sensible to apply the average prime offer rate for closed-end credit transactions to HELOCs, because closed- and open-end mortgage products have different risks, pricing, and loan characteristics. The commenters did not suggest an alternative benchmark or any alternatives for calculating an average prime offer rate for HELOCs. One commenter suggested, however, that if the Bureau adopted “the most closely comparable closed-end loan” standard as proposed, then the Bureau should specify how a creditor that originates a HELOC that could be comparable to multiple, different closed-end loans should determine which closed-end loan is the most closely comparable. Finally, one commenter requested guidance concerning the comparable maturity date for an “evergreen” HELOC (

i.e.,

a HELOC with no scheduled maturity date) for which the interest rate may be fixed or adjustable.

The Bureau is adopting the change in the APR benchmark from the yield on Treasury securities to the average prime offer rate as set forth in proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i). The Bureau is finalizing proposed comments 32(a)(1)(i)-2 and -3 as comments 32(a)(1)(i)-1 and -2, respectively, for organizational purposes.

The Bureau makes certain other non-substantive changes to the proposed commentary for purposes of clarification. Specifically, the comments are reorganized, a cross-reference to comment 35(a)(2)-3 is added to comment 32(a)(1)(i)-2,

and comment 32(a)(1)(i)-3 is added to cross reference guidance in comment 35(a)(1)-2 on determining the date as of which creditors should compare a transaction's APR to the average prime offer rate. Finally, as discussed further below, additional guidance concerning how a HELOC creditor should determine the most closely comparable closed-end mortgage loan is added to comment 32(a)(1)(i)-2.

In light of the adoption of Alternative 1 rather than Alternative 2, as discussed above, there is no need at present to finalize proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-1, which would have provided guidance concerning the transaction coverage rate. Consequently, proposed comments 32(a)(1)(i)-2 and -3 concerning the average prime offer rate are finalized (with the additional clarifying changes noted herein) as comments 32(a)(1)(i)-1 and -2, respectively.

This cross-reference is to a new comment that the Bureau is finalizing in its 2013 Escrows Final Rule. The new comment clarifies that “average prime offer rate” as used in § 1026.35 has the same meaning as in Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, and it notes that additional guidance concerning the average prime offer rate is located both in the official commentary to Regulation C as well as on the FFIEC's Web site.

In response to commenters' suggestions that the FFIEC rate-spread calculator be adapted for use in determining HOEPA coverage, the Bureau does not anticipate difficulties in using the calculator for this purpose. The calculator exists on the FFIEC Web site primarily for use in determining the “rate spread” that must be reported, if any, under HMDA and Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003. Specifically Regulation C § 1003.4(a)(12) requires HMDA reporters to report the spread between a loan's APR and the applicable average prime offer rate (determined identically to the determination for higher-priced mortgage loans under § 1026.35) if that spread exceeds 1.5 percentage points for a first-lien loan or 3.5 percentage points for a subordinate-lien loan. Those spreads match the spreads that historically have applied for higher-priced mortgage loan coverage

determinations under § 1026.35(a)(2), allowing creditors to use the calculator to determine whether a transaction is a higher-priced mortgage loan.

Creditors may accomplish this by noting whether the calculator yields a rate spread for reporting under HMDA (which means the transaction is a higher-priced mortgage loan) or “N/A” for HMDA reporting purposes (which means the transaction is not a higher-priced mortgage loan). From there, it is a simple step further to note whether any rate spread the calculator yields for HMDA reporting purposes exceeds 6.5 or 8.5 percentage points over the average prime offer rate, as applicable, to know whether the transaction is a high-cost mortgage under § 1026.32(a)(1)(i).

The higher-priced mortgage loan thresholds in § 1026.35(a)(1) are being revised through a separate rulemaking to incorporate a separate, higher threshold of 2.5 percentage points above the average prime offer rate for first-lien “jumbo” transactions pursuant to Dodd-Frank Act section 1471.

The Bureau acknowledges, as noted by a commenter, that the APR calculation required by § 1026.32(a)(3) for determining HOEPA coverage for a variable-rate transaction generally requires a creditor to use the fully-indexed rate, whereas blended APRs (

i.e.,

APRs that take low introductory rates into consideration) are used to calculate average prime offer rates. The Bureau nevertheless finalizes the rule as proposed. The Bureau believes that APRs (and thus average prime offer rates) calculated pursuant to the blended method are unlikely in most cases to be significantly lower than APRs calculated using the fully-indexed rate.

Moreover, the methodology for calculating the average prime offer rate was well-established when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act and affirmatively (1) incorporated the average prime offer rate as the benchmark for the APR trigger; and (2) required the use of the fully-indexed rate for determining the APR for variable-rate transactions.

Specifically, such a difference would occur only if an introductory rate lasted for an extraordinarily long portion of a transaction's overall term, or if the introductory rate differed very substantially from the fully-indexed rate.

See

comment 17(c)(1)-10.i.

Finally, the Bureau does not at this time adopt a separate methodology for determining the average prime offer rate for HELOCs. Based on available data, the Bureau continues to believe that using the average prime offer rate for the most closely-comparable, closed-end credit transaction is a reasonable benchmark for HOEPA's APR test for HELOCs. The fact that HELOCs are tied to a prime rate which, over a 12-year period, was generally comparable to the average prime offer rate for one-year ARMs informs the Bureau's conclusion. In addition, as discussed above, the average prime offer rate tables are published with a rate-spread calculator that determines the average prime offer rate for the most comparable closed-end credit transaction and automatically compares it to a transaction's APR and lien status to determine the transaction's APR's spread over the applicable average prime offer rate. This calculator can easily be used by creditors originating HELOCs.

Specifically, as described in further detail in comment 32(a)(1)(i)-2, a HELOC creditor should use the published rate-spread calculator to identify the average prime offer rate for the most closely-comparable closed-end credit transaction by inputting the same terms that would be required to determine the most comparable transaction for any closed-end origination. These terms are: (1) Whether the HELOC is fixed- or variable-rate; (2) if the HELOC is fixed-rate, the term to maturity; (3) if the HELOC is variable-rate, the duration of any initial, fixed-rate period; and (4) the date that the interest rate for the transaction is set. Finally, comment 32(a)(1)(i)-2 clarifies that a creditor originating a fixed-rate, evergreen HELOC should enter a term of 30 years.

The Bureau believes that 30 years is a reasonable proxy for the term of an evergreen HELOC given that 30 years is the longest term to maturity for conventional mortgage loans.

In the case of a variable-rate evergreen HELOC (as for all other closed- and open-end, variable-rate mortgage products) creditors should look to the length of any initial, fixed-rate period.

The published average prime offer rate tables contain average rates for fixed-rate loans with terms of up to 50 years. Historically, however, the average rates for loans with fixed-rate terms of 30 years have been the same as the average rates for loans with fixed-rate terms of longer than 30 years.

32(a)(1)(i)(A)

As added by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A)(i)(I) states that a consumer credit transaction secured by a first mortgage on a consumer's principal dwelling is a high-cost mortgage if the APR at consummation of the transaction will exceed the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction by more than 6.5 percentage points (or 8.5 percentage points, if the dwelling is personal property and the transaction is for less than $50,000). Thus, under TILA section 103(bb)(1)(A)(i)(I), the APR percentage-point threshold for HOEPA coverage for most first-lien transactions (

i.e.,

all first-lien, real property-secured transactions, as well as first-lien, personal property-secured transactions for $50,000 or more) is 6.5 percentage points over the average prime offer rate.

Proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i)(A) (under either proposed Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) would have implemented the statutory 6.5 percentage-point APR threshold by generally mirroring the statutory language but also providing for certain non-substantive changes for clarity, organization, or consistency with existing Regulation Z and the Bureau's other mortgage rulemakings as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i)(A) would have referred to a “first-lien transaction” instead of a “first mortgage.”

As noted in part IV above, TILA section 103(bb)(2)(A) and (B) provides the Bureau with authority to adjust HOEPA's APR percentage-point thresholds if the Bureau determines that the increase or decrease is consistent with the statutory protections for high-cost mortgages and is warranted by the need for credit. The Bureau did not propose any adjustments to the 6.5 percentage-point APR threshold prescribed by the Dodd-Frank Act for either closed- or open-end transactions. However, the Bureau solicited comment and data on whether any such adjustment would better protect consumers from the risks associated with high-cost mortgages or would be warranted by the need for credit, particularly for HELOCs.

General.

Consumer groups generally did not comment on the revised APR percentage-point threshold in proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i)(A). One consumer group commenter, however, advocated that the Bureau adopt a threshold of 3.5 percentage points above the average prime offer rate. The commenter noted that, in the current rate environment, most first-lien transactions would not be covered under the revised APR test until their APRs reached approximately 10 percent. This commenter stated that the threshold as proposed would allow unreasonably high rates to be imposed on vulnerable borrowers.

Industry commenters and one State housing finance authority generally expressed concern that the revised APR percentage-point threshold in proposed § 1026.32(a)(1)(i)(A) would inhibit access to credit and suggested various adjustments.

For example, several

industry commenters urged the Bureau either to increase the threshold or to leave it at its existing (pre-Dodd-Frank Act) level. These commenters generally asserted that the existing threshold has worked well to date, that the Bureau has provided no empirical evidence demonstrating that the threshold needs to be adjusted, and that the enhanced HOEPA protections that the Bureau is finalizing in this rulemaking obviate any need to reduce the threshold. One industry commenter argued that increased coverage under the revised HOEPA coverage tests generally would interfere with the goal of the Bureau's 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal by eliminating a consumer's ability to shop for and obtain a mortgage near HOEPA's amended thresholds.

Commenters generally did not distinguish between the revised APR percentage-point thresholds for first- and subordinate-lien transactions. For purposes of this section-by-section analysis, however, the two thresholds are discussed separately.

The Bureau adopts the 6.5 percentage-point APR threshold for most first-lien transactions in § 1026.32(a)(1)(i)(A) as proposed. The Bureau has authority under TILA section 103(bb)(2)(A) to increase or decrease this APR threshold from the level set forth in the statute to a level between 6 and 10 percentage points above the average prime offer rate. However, prior to making such an adjustment, the Bureau must find that an increase or decrease from the statutory level is consistent with consumer protection and warranted by the need for credit. As noted, both consumer group and industry commenters suggested various adjustments to the threshold or suggested that the existing threshold should not be adjusted in light of protections. None of these commenters, however, provided data or other specific information to indicate how much of an adjustment from the level prescribed by Congress is warranted by a need for access to credit or to protect consumers from abusive lending.

As to the consumer group comment suggesting that the Bureau decrease the APR threshold by several percentage points, the Bureau notes that, under TILA section 103(bb)(2)(B)(i), it does not have authority to reduce the threshold below 6 percentage points above the average prime offer rate. Even for adjustments that would lower the APR threshold within the permitted range (

i.e.,

from the statutory 6.5 percentage points to an adjusted 6 percentage points above the average prime offer rate), the Bureau does not believe that it has sufficient information at this time to justify such a departure based on the need to protect consumers from abusive lending.

As to industry commenters' general argument that the Bureau should maintain the threshold at its existing (pre-Dodd-Frank) level or increase it, the Bureau believes that implementing the APR percentage-point threshold at its statutorily-prescribed level, without any adjustment, is particularly appropriate at this time given the simultaneous change in the benchmark for HOEPA coverage from the yield on Treasury securities to the average prime offer rate. The Bureau believes there are several advantages of using the average prime offer rate rather than the yield on Treasury securities including, as one industry commenter noted, that the average prime offer rate more closely tracks movements in mortgage rates than do yields on Treasury securities.

With this change to the benchmark, then, it is not clear that revising the threshold from an eight percentage-point spread to a 6.5 percentage-point spread will result in unwarranted HOEPA coverage. Indeed, as noted in the section-by-section analysis of § 1026.32(a)(1)(i) above, one industry commenter observed that the maximum APR for HOEPA coverage may, depending on market conditions, be higher in certain circumstances under the final rule than under existing § 1026.32(a)(1)(i). Of course, if the Bureau observes an increase in coverage to a degree that interferes with access to credit, the Bureau has authority to increase the threshold as appropriate at that time.