share$447,125
Oriental Bank pays $447,125 for flood insurance violations
Issued by FDIC
1002.11—Relation to state law.
(a) Inconsistent state laws. Except as otherwise provided in this section, this part alters, affects, or preempts only those state laws that are inconsistent with the Act and this part and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. A state law is not inconsistent if it is more protective of an applicant.
Official Interpretation
11(a) Inconsistent state laws.
1. Preemption determination—New York. The Bureau recognizes state law preemption determinations made by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System prior to July 21, 2011, until and unless the Bureau makes and publishes any contrary determination. The Board of Governors determined that the following provisions in the state law of New York are preempted by the Federal law, effective November 11, 1988:
i. Article 15, section 296a(1)(b). Unlawful discriminatory practices in relation to credit on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or disability. This provision is preempted to the extent that it bars taking a prohibited basis into account when establishing eligibility for certain special-purpose credit programs.
ii. Article 15, section 296a(1)(c). Unlawful discriminatory practice to make any record or inquiry based on race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or disability. This provision is preempted to the extent that it bars a creditor from requesting and considering information regarding the particular characteristics (for example, race, national origin, or sex) required for eligibility for special-purpose credit programs.
2. Preemption determination—Ohio. The Bureau recognizes state law preemption determinations made by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System prior to July 21, 2011, until and unless the Bureau makes and publishes any contrary determination. The Board of Governors determined that the following provision in the state law of Ohio is preempted by the Federal law, effective July 23, 1990:
i. Section 4112.021(B)(1)—Unlawful discriminatory practices in credit transactions. This provision is preempted to the extent that it bars asking or favorably considering the age of an elderly applicant; prohibits the consideration of age in a credit scoring system; permits without limitation the consideration of age in real estate transactions; and limits the consideration of age in special-purpose credit programs to certain government-sponsored programs identified in the state law.
(b) Preempted provisions of state law. (1) A state law is deemed to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and this part and less protective of an applicant within the meaning of section 705(f) of the Act to the extent that the law:
(i) Requires or permits a practice or act prohibited by the Act or this part;
(ii) Prohibits the individual extension of consumer credit to both parties to a marriage if each spouse individually and voluntarily applies for such credit;
(iii) Prohibits inquiries or collection of data required to comply with the Act or this part;
(iv) Prohibits asking about or considering age in an empirically derived, demonstrably and statistically sound, credit scoring system to determine a pertinent element of creditworthiness, or to favor an elderly applicant; or
(v) Prohibits inquiries necessary to establish or administer a special purpose credit program as defined by §1002.8.
(2) A creditor, state, or other interested party may request that the Bureau determine whether a state law is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and this part.
(c) Laws on finance charges, loan ceilings. If married applicants voluntarily apply for and obtain individual accounts with the same creditor, the accounts shall not be aggregated or otherwise combined for purposes of determining permissible finance charges or loan ceilings under any Federal or state law. Permissible loan ceiling laws shall be construed to permit each spouse to become individually liable up to the amount of the loan ceilings, less the amount for which the applicant is jointly liable.
(d) State and Federal laws not affected. This section does not alter or annul any provision of state property laws, laws relating to the disposition of decedents' estates, or Federal or state banking regulations directed only toward insuring the solvency of financial institutions.
(e) Exemption for state-regulated transactions. (1) Applications. A state may apply to the Bureau for an exemption from the requirements of the Act and this part for any class of credit transactions within the state. The Bureau will grant such an exemption if the Bureau determines that:
(i) The class of credit transactions is subject to state law requirements substantially similar to those of the Act and this part or that applicants are afforded greater protection under state law; and
(ii) There is adequate provision for state enforcement.
(2) Liability and enforcement. (i) No exemption will extend to the civil liability provisions of section 706 of the Act or the administrative enforcement provisions of section 704 of the Act.
(ii) After an exemption has been granted, the requirements of the applicable state law (except for additional requirements not imposed by Federal law) will constitute the requirements of the Act and this part.
First published on:
01/22/2014