Home > Regulation & Examinations > Laws & Regulations > FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts




FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts


FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

    [Main Tabs]     [Index]     [Previous Page]     [Search]


FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
REPORT BULLETIN NO. 4

September 16, 2013

550 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20429

Order printed copies

Supplement Highlights

* Assessments, Large Bank Pricing. The FDIC amended its regulations by revising some of the definitions used to determine assessment rates for large and highly complex insured depository institutions. 77 Fed. Reg. 66015.

See pages 2296.02-F-12–2296.02-F-24

* Inflation Adjustment of Civil Money Penalty Amounts. This final rule amended HUD's civil money penalty and civil penalty regulations by making inflation adjustments that are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) (FCPIA Act). The FCPIA Act mandates the adjustments and the formula used to calculate them. Also in this final rule, HUD took the opportunity to update an outdated cross-reference in its civil money penalty regulations. 78 Fed. Reg. 4060.

See pages 9810.01–9810.02

* Escrow Requirements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) published a final rule that amended Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to implement certain amendments to the Truth in Lending Act made by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Regulation Z currently requires creditors to establish escrow accounts for higher-priced mortgage loans secured by a first lien on a principal dwelling. The rule implements statutory changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act that lengthen the time for which a mandatory escrow account established for a higher-priced mortgage loan must be maintained. The rule also exempts certain transactions from the statute's escrow requirement. The primary exemption applies to mortgage transactions extended by creditors that operate predominantly in rural or underserved areas, originate a limited number of first-lien covered transactions, have assets below a certain threshold, and do not maintain escrow accounts on mortgage obligations they currently service. 78 Fed. Reg. 4753.

See pages 7021–7024.02, and 7355–7358.03

* Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E) Temporary Delay of Effective Date. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) issued its final rule to delay the February 7, 2013, effective date of final rules published by the Bureau on February 7, 2012, and August 20, 2012 (collectively, 2012 Final Rule), that amend Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). The 2012 Final Rule implements statutory requirements set forth in section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) regarding remittance transfers. The Bureau is delaying the effective date of the 2012 Final Rule pending the finalization of a proposal, published on December 31, 2012 (December 2012 Proposal), that would address three narrow issues in the 2012 Final Rule. The Bureau will determine the new effective date when it finalizes the December 2012 Proposal. 78 Fed. Reg.

See pages 6607–6610, and 6629–6642

* Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Standard. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (Fair Housing Act or Act), prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. HUD, which is statutorily charged with the authority and responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the Fair Housing Act and with the power to make rules implementing the Act, has long interpreted the Act to prohibit practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate. The eleven federal courts of appeals that have ruled on this issue agree with this interpretation. While HUD and every federal appellate court to have ruled on the issue have determined that liability under the Act may be established through proof of discriminatory effects, the statute itself does not specify a standard for proving a discriminatory effects violation. As a result, although HUD and courts are in agreement that practices with discriminatory effects may violate the Fair Housing Act, there has been some minor variation in the application of the discriminatory effects standard.

Through this final rule, HUD formalizes its long-held recognition of discriminatory effects liability under the Act and, for purposes of providing consistency nationwide, formalizes a burden-shifting test for determining whether a given practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, leading to liability under the Act. This final rule also adds to, and revises, illustrations of discriminatory housing practices found in HUD\'s Fair Housing Act regulations. This final rule follows a November 16, 2011, proposed rule and takes into consideration comments received on that proposed rule. 78 Fed. Reg. 11481.

See pages 6379–6380.01



    [Main Tabs]     [Index]     [Next Page]     [Search]

regs@fdic.gov