Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Single Family Lender Insurance Process: Eligibility, Indemnification, and Termination, 62335-62342 [2010-25441]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h) The Manager, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, has the authority to
approve alternative methods of compliance
for this AD if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Related Information
(i) Contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA 01803; e-mail: michael.schwetz@faa.gov;
telephone (781) 238–7761; fax (781) 238–
7170, for more information about this AD.
(j) Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin
247F–61–54, Revision 1, dated January 12,
2004, pertains to the subject of this AD.
Contact Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller
Technical Team, One Hamilton Road, Mail
Stop 1–3–AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096–
1010; fax (860) 654–5107, for a copy of this
service information.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
October 4, 2010.
Diane S. Romanosky,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–25390 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 203
[Docket No. FR–5156–P–01]
RIN 2502 AI58
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Single Family Lender Insurance
Process: Eligibility, Indemnification,
and Termination
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Through this proposed rule,
HUD continues its efforts to improve
and expand the risk management
activities of the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA). The proposed
regulatory changes will update and
enhance the Lender Insurance process
through which the majority of FHAinsured mortgages are endorsed for
insurance. Most significantly, the
proposed rule would provide additional
guidance on HUD’s regulations
implementing the statutory
requirements regarding mortgagee
indemnification to HUD of insurance
claims in the case of fraud,
misrepresentation, or noncompliance
with applicable loan origination
requirements. The proposed rule also
provides that mortgagees must
continually maintain the acceptable
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
claim and default rate required for
eligibility to initially be delegated
Lender Insurance authority, in order to
retain such authority. In addition, this
proposed rule also provides that HUD
will review Lender Insurance mortgagee
performance on a continual basis. HUD
also proposes to revise the methodology
for determining acceptable claim and
default rates, to more accurately reflect
mortgagee performance, and to
streamline the approval process for
Lender Insurance mortgagees that have
undergone a corporate restructuring.
The Department has also taken the
opportunity afforded by this proposed
rule to make two technical corrections
to the regulations and to solicit public
comment on whether FHA mortgagees
should be required to submit mortgage
loan case binders to HUD electronically.
DATES: Comment Due Date: December 7,
2010.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule to the Regulations
Division, Office of General Counsel,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,
Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–
0500. Communications must refer to the
above docket number and title. There
are two methods for submitting public
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0001.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD
strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically.
Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt by HUD, and enables
HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments
submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can
be viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. Again, all submissions must refer to
the docket number and title of the rule. No
Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX)
comments are not acceptable.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62335
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address. Due to security measures at the
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Information Relay Service at 800–877–
8339. Copies of all comments submitted
are available for inspection and
downloading at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Ross, Acting Director, Office of
Single Family Program Development,
Office of Housing, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW., Room 9278,
Washington, DC 20410–8000; telephone
number 202–708–2121 (this is not a tollfree number). Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number via TTY by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1–800–
877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) was established by Congress in
1934 to improve nationwide housing
standards, to provide employment and
stimulate industry, to improve
conditions with respect to home
mortgage financing, to prevent
speculative excesses in new mortgage
investment, and to eliminate the
necessity for costly second mortgage
financing. FHA-insured single family
mortgages are originated and
underwritten through the Direct
Endorsement process. A majority of
FHA-insured mortgages that are
originated under the Direct
Endorsement process are endorsed for
insurance by mortgage lenders through
a second process, the Lender Insurance
process.
The Direct Endorsement and Lender
Insurance processes are not separate
programs; rather, they are the
mechanisms that enable FHA-approved
lenders to consider single family
mortgage applications without first
submitting paperwork to HUD. The
Lender Insurance process is authorized
under section 256 of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–21). The
HUD regulations that presently govern
the Direct Endorsement and Lender
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
62336
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Insurance processes are codified at 24
CFR part 203 (entitled Single Family
Mortgage Insurance).
The Direct Endorsement process is
described in § 203.5 and is available to
mortgagees who meet the requirements
set forth in § 203.3. Under Direct
Endorsement, the mortgagee determines
that the proposed mortgage is eligible
for insurance under applicable
regulations, and submits the required
documents to FHA in accordance with
§ 203.255. The Direct Endorsement
mortgagee’s performance is subject to
pre-endorsement and post-endorsement
review by the Secretary.
Direct Endorsement mortgagees that
meet the requirements of § 203.4 may be
approved for Lender Insurance, as
described in § 203.6. Under the Lender
Insurance process, a mortgagee conducts
its own pre-insurance review and
insures the mortgage without a preendorsement review by HUD. In order to
be eligible to participate in the FHA
single family programs as a Lender
Insurance mortgagee, an FHA mortgage
lender must be an unconditionally
approved Direct Endorsement mortgagee
that is high performing—i.e., for at least
2 years prior to its application for
Lender Insurance authority, the
mortgagee must have had a claim and
default record acceptable to HUD.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
II. This Proposed Rule
Through this proposed rule, HUD
continues its efforts to improve and
expand the risk management activities
of FHA. The proposed regulatory
changes will update and enhance the
Lender Insurance process. Most
significantly, the proposed rule would
revise HUD’s regulations implementing
the statutory requirements regarding
lender indemnification to HUD of
insurance claims in the case of fraud,
misrepresentation, or noncompliance
with applicable loan origination
requirements. The proposed rule will
also provide that mortgagees, in order to
retain their Lender Insurance authority,
must continually maintain the
acceptable claim and default rate
required of them when they were
initially delegated such authority. In
addition, this proposed rule provides
that HUD will review Lender Insurance
mortgagee performance on a continual
basis. HUD also proposes to revise the
methodology for determining acceptable
claim and default rates to more
accurately reflect mortgagee
performance, and to streamline the
approval process for Lender Insurance
mortgagees that have undergone a
corporate restructuring. The Department
has also taken the opportunity afforded
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
by this proposed rule to make two
technical corrections to the regulations.
The proposed regulatory changes are
as follows:
1. Lender indemnification for
insurance claims. Under section 256(c)
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z–21(c)), an FHA-approved Lender
Insurance mortgagee may be required to
indemnify HUD for the loss if the
mortgage loan was ‘‘not originated in
compliance with the requirements
established by the Secretary, and the
Secretary pays an insurance claim
* * * within a reasonable period
specified by the Secretary.’’ HUD may
also require indemnification at any time
‘‘if fraud or misrepresentation was
involved in connection with
origination’’ of the mortgage loan. FHA
may impose indemnifications,
irrespective of whether the
noncompliance, fraud, or
misrepresentation caused the mortgage
default. Currently, the section 256
statutory indemnification requirement is
limited to mortgagees with Lender
Insurance authority. On January 20,
2010, the Department announced that it
would seek changes to section 256 of
the National Housing Act, to apply the
indemnification provisions to all Direct
Endorsement lenders.1
The section 256 statutory
indemnification requirements are
currently codified at § 203.255(f)(4).
HUD proposes to create a new
§ 203.255(g) that would provide
additional guidance on the statutory
requirements of section 256.
As discussed, the section 256
indemnification requirements are
applicable to claims paid in connection
to a mortgage that was not ‘‘originated’’
in accordance with FHA requirements.
For purposes of § 203.255(f), this
proposed rule would define the term
‘‘origination’’ as meaning ‘‘the process of
creating a mortgage, starting with the
taking of the initial application,
continuing with the processing and
underwriting, and ending with the
mortgagee endorsing the mortgage note
for FHA mortgage insurance.’’ The
proposed definition of ‘‘origination’’
would apply only to indemnifications
for mortgages endorsed for FHA
mortgage insurance under section 256 of
the National Housing Act by authorized
Lender Insurance mortgagees, and is not
being proposed by HUD to apply in any
other contexts related to the FHA
programs.
1 See HUD press release HUD No. 10–016,
available at: https://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/
portal/HUD/press/
press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10016.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
As noted, cases of fraud or
misrepresentation may require
indemnification at any time. However,
for cases not involving fraud or
misrepresentation, section 256(c) limits
the Department’s ability to require
indemnification to insurance claims
paid within a ‘‘reasonable time period’’
established by HUD. New § 203.255(g)
would implement this timing
requirement by codifying HUD’s
longstanding practice of requiring
indemnification for FHA insurance
claims paid ‘‘within five years from the
date of mortgage insurance
endorsement.’’ The date of endorsement
is a fixed date, and therefore has the
benefit of being known to both HUD and
the Lender Insurance mortgagee.
Moreover, 5 years is a reasonable
‘‘seasoning’’ period for a particular
mortgage loan to either perform or go
into default and for the Department to
ascertain whether errors in the
origination of the mortgage loan were
made, while not being so long a time
frame so as to burden mortgagees with
the possibility of indemnification for a
long-ago endorsed mortgage loan.
Section 256(c) authorizes HUD to
require indemnification where the
mortgage was not originated in
compliance with the HUD-established
requirements. Proposed § 203.255(g)
identifies the origination requirements
for which HUD may seek
indemnification if the Lender Insurance
mortgagee knew or should have known
that the requirements were not followed
in the origination of the mortgage. HUD
will seek such remedy for violations of
FHA origination requirements that HUD
deems serious and material; for
example, in cases where the mortgage
should never have been endorsed by the
mortgagee, because FHA would not
have insured the mortgage absent proper
adherence to the Lender Insurance
process. Specifically, a mortgagee may
be required to indemnify HUD if it
failed to, among other actions: (1) Verify
and analyze the creditworthiness,
income, and/or employment of the
mortgagor in accordance with FHA
requirements; (2) verify the source of
assets brought by the mortgagor for
payment of the required down payment
and/or closing costs in accordance with
FHA requirements; (3) address property
deficiencies identified in the appraisal
affecting the health and safety of the
occupants or the structural integrity of
the property in accordance with FHA
requirements; or (4) ensure, in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 203.5(e), that the appraisal of the
property serving as security for the
mortgage loan satisfies FHA appraisal
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements. HUD may seek
indemnification irrespective of whether
the violation caused the mortgage
default.
HUD deems violations of the
origination requirements identified in
the proposed rule as serious and
material, because they pertain to the
core analyses that must be performed for
all properly underwritten mortgage
loans. The purpose of mortgage loan
underwriting is to evaluate the
willingness and financial capability of
the mortgagor to pay the loan, and to
assess the physical condition of the
property that is to serve as security for
the mortgage loan, in order to determine
whether it constitutes adequate
collateral. These basic underwriting
principles are enshrined in the so-called
‘‘Four C’s of Credit’’ (credit, capacity,
capital, and collateral) commonly
referred to in the mortgage lending
industry. The origination requirements
listed above correspond to these
fundamental underwriting functions.
Accordingly, HUD believes that
indemnification may be an appropriate
remedy where the mortgagee knew or
should have known that these
requirements were not followed in the
origination of the mortgage loan.
The proposed rule would also specify
that the demand for indemnification
will be made by either the Secretary or
the Mortgagee Review Board. Under an
indemnification agreement, the
originating mortgage lender agrees to
either abstain from filing an insurance
claim, or to reimburse FHA if a
subsequent holder of the mortgage files
an insurance claim and FHA suffers a
financial loss.
2. Acceptable claim and default rate
for Lender Insurance mortgagees.
Section 256(b) of the National Housing
Act requires that the Secretary of HUD,
in deciding whether to grant a
mortgagee’s application for Lender
Insurance approval, consider ‘‘the
experience and performance of the
mortgagee compared to the default rate
of all insured mortgagees in comparable
markets.’’ HUD has implemented this
statutory requirement at § 203.4(b),
which requires that ‘‘a mortgagee must
have had an acceptable claim and
default record for at least 2 years prior
to its application for’’ Lender Insurance
authority. The present regulation
defines an acceptable claim and default
as at or below 150 percent of either:
(1) The national average rate for all
insured mortgages; or (2) if the
mortgagee operates in a single state, the
average rate for insured mortgages in the
state.
The current regulation may make it
easier for a single state mortgagee to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
meet the acceptable standard if the
mortgagee operates in a state that has a
high default rate. In contrast, a
mortgagee would be disadvantaged by
having its claim and default rate
compared to the national average if the
mortgagee operates in two states that
have high default rates, even if the
mortgagee is in full compliance with
FHA requirements and otherwise
eligible for Lender Insurance approval.
To address these potential concerns,
HUD proposes to revise the
methodology for computing the
acceptable claim and default rate for
Lender Insurance approval. The
proposed rule would revise § 203.4(b)
by providing that a mortgagee is eligible
for the Lender Insurance program if its
claim and default rate is at or below 150
percent of the average rate in the state(s)
where the mortgagee operates. The
proposed methodology will more
accurately reflect mortgagee
performance by evaluating each
mortgagee based on its actual area of
operations.
3. Need to maintain acceptable claim
and default rate. As noted, § 203.4(b)
requires that mortgagees have an
acceptable claim and default rate as an
eligibility criterion for initial Lender
Insurance approval; however, the
regulation does not specify what
constitutes an acceptable claim and
default rate for purposes of maintaining
Lender Insurance approval. This
proposed rule emphasizes that a Lender
Insurance mortgagee must continually
maintain the acceptable claim and
default rate required of them when they
were initially granted Lender Insurance
authority. HUD will review Lender
Insurance mortgagee performance on a
continual basis, and mortgagees that fail
to maintain the required claim and
default rate will be subject to
termination of their Lender Insurance
authority.
4. Lender Insurance approval in the
case of merger, acquisition, or
restructuring. Section 256 of the
National Housing Act requires that HUD
consider ‘‘the experience and
performance of the mortgagee’’ in
determining the appropriateness of
delegating the Secretary’s authority to
endorse mortgages for FHA insurance.
HUD’s implementing regulations at
§ 203.4(b) elaborate on the statutory
requirement by providing that ‘‘a
mortgagee must have had an acceptable
claim and default record for at least 2
years prior to its application for’’ Lender
Insurance authority. As discussed above
in this preamble, the Lender Insurance
process is reserved for high-performing
mortgagees. The performance history
requirement helps to ensure that only
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62337
those mortgagees with a proven track
record are eligible for Lender Insurance
authority.
Newly formed business entities that
do not have a performance record are,
therefore, ineligible for Lender
Insurance approval. This is true even if
the newly formed lending institution
was created by a merger, acquisition, or
reorganization where one or more of the
participating entities had Lender
Insurance approval, and the new
resulting lending institution retains the
structure, staff, and operational
protocols that would—absent the 2-year
historical performance requirement—
make the new entity eligible for Lender
Insurance authority under section 256 of
the National Housing Act. Deferral of
Lender Insurance eligibility is merited
for new corporate entities that have not
had the time to establish an acceptable
performance track history. However, in
the case of new entities created by a
merger, acquisition, or reorganization, it
is possible to forecast future
performance with a high degree of
certainty based on the performance
history of the predecessor entities. To
deny Lender Insurance eligibility to
such mortgagees simply for purposes of
‘‘running out the clock’’ is contrary to
the rationale of the performance history
requirement and the Lender Insurance
process.
In the past, the Department has
addressed this issue through the
granting of case-by-case regulatory
waivers, a process that has the potential
to be lengthy and, on occasion,
administratively burdensome. This
proposed rule would eliminate the need
for regulatory waivers by codifying the
conditions under which the Secretary
may grant Lender Insurance authority to
a mortgagee with less than the required
historical performance record. The
proposed criteria would permit HUD to
evaluate the performance of the new
mortgagee based on the performance
history of the predecessor corporate
entities, while also safeguarding against
the possibility that a mortgagee with a
poor track record might attempt to
circumvent the purposes of section 256
by acquiring or merging with a highperforming lending institution.
First, the mortgagee must be an entity
created by a merger, acquisition, or
reorganization completed less than 2
years prior to the date of the mortgagee’s
application for Lender Insurance
approval. Secondly, one or more of the
entities participating in the merger,
acquisition, or reorganization must have
had Lender Insurance approval at the
time of the corporate restructuring.
Third, all of the lending institutions
participating in the corporate
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62338
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
restructuring must have had an
acceptable claim and default record for
the 2-years preceding the mortgagee’s
application for Lender Insurance
approval. Fourth, and last, the
extrapolated claim and default record of
the mortgagee derived by aggregating
the claims and defaults of the entities
participating in the merger, acquisition,
or reorganization, for the 2-year period
prior to the mortgagee’s application for
Lender Insurance approval, constitutes
an acceptable rate of claims and
defaults.
The proposed new process would
permit, but not compel, HUD to grant
Lender Insurance authority to those
mortgagees meeting the criteria outlined
above. While a rebuttable presumption
in favor of granting approval would be
established by a mortgagee that meets
all four of the required criterions, HUD
may consider other available evidence
or data indicative of performance, and
may deny the application for Lender
Insurance authority and require the
mortgagee to wait until it establishes an
acceptable performance track record.
The proposed regulatory provision is
consistent with HUD’s responsibility to
evaluate mortgagee experience and
ensure that Lender Insurance authority
is provided only to high-performing
lenders that comply with FHA
requirements, while also facilitating the
provision of FHA-insurance by new
lending institutions created by a
corporate restructuring.
5. HUD reviews. Consistent with its
duty to protect the FHA insurance fund,
HUD monitors mortgagee performance
on an ongoing basis (see, for example,
the present regulation at 24 CFR 202.3
providing for such HUD reviews).
However, the current Lender Insurance
regulation at § 203.4(c) only refers to an
annual performance review. This
proposed rule would clarify that HUD
will monitor a mortgagee’s eligibility to
participate in the Lender Insurance
program on a continual basis.
6. Termination of Lender Insurance
authority. This proposed rule would
revise § 203.4(d), which governs
terminations of Lender Insurance
authority, for purposes of clarity and
readability. The proposed rule would
provide additional specificity on the
grounds for termination. Revised
§ 203.4(d) provides that HUD may
immediately terminate the mortgagee’s
approval to participate in the Lender
Insurance program, if the mortgagee
violates any of the requirements and
procedures established by the Secretary
for mortgagees approved to participate
in the Lender Insurance program, the
Direct Endorsement program, or the
Title II Single Family mortgage
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
insurance program, or if HUD
determines that other good cause exists.
In addition, the proposed rule clarifies
that terminations of Lender Insurance
approval are effective upon receipt of
HUD’s notice of such termination. The
proposed rule would also revise
§ 203.4(d) to clarify that pursuant to
section 256(d) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–21(d)), HUD
termination decisions are not subject to
judicial review and that terminations
instituted under § 203.4(d) are distinct
from withdrawal of mortgagee approval
by the Mortgagee Review Board under
24 CFR part 25.
7. Lender insurance pre-insurance
review. The present regulations at
§ 203.255(f)(1) require that mortgagees
conduct a pre-insurance review of
mortgages insured under the Lender
Insurance process. The regulations
provide that the pre-insurance review
must meet HUD requirements, but does
not specify the requirements for
applicable reviews, instead providing
that ‘‘HUD will directly inform
participating mortgagees of its minimum
requirements for pre-insurance review.’’
This proposed rule would codify
existing Lender Insurance practice
concerning the pre-insurance review
provisions, by specifying that Lender
Insurance mortgagees are responsible for
conducting the pre-insurance review
that would otherwise be performed by
HUD under the Direct Endorsement
process.
8. Technical correction. In addition to
the proposed regulatory changes
discussed above in this preamble, HUD
has taken the opportunity afforded by
this proposed rule to make a
nonsubstantive change to the existing
regulations. The proposed rule would
make a technical correction to
§ 203.4(a), which incorrectly crossreferences to § 203.5 as containing the
requirements for Direct Endorsement
approval. These approval procedures
are codified at § 203.3.
III. Issue Under Consideration:
Mandatory Electronic Submission of
Case Binders
In addition to soliciting public
comment on the proposed regulatory
changes described above in this
preamble, the Department solicits
comment on a possible change to
current recordkeeping and submission
requirements that the Department is
considering. The present Direct
Endorsement regulations at 24 CFR
203.255(b) require mortgagees to submit
to HUD specified documentation within
60 days after the date of closing of a
mortgage loan (collectively, these
documents and certifications are
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
referred to as the mortgage loan ‘‘case
binder’’). The Lender Insurance
regulations at 24 CFR 203.255(f)(2)
provide that mortgagees must maintain
records, including origination files, in a
manner and for a time frame prescribed
by HUD, and must make these mortgage
loan ‘‘case binders’’ available to HUD
staff upon request.
Customarily, case binders are
maintained and submitted to HUD in
hard-copy paper format. Given changes
in technology that facilitate the
electronic submission and storing of
mortgage loan records, HUD is now
considering requiring by June 2012 that
all case binders be submitted
electronically regardless of the
insurance process used by a mortgagee.
Although Lender Insurance mortgagees
are not currently required to submit case
binders (except upon HUD’s request for
a post-endorsement technical review),
under HUD’s proposal they would be
required to submit these mortgage loan
records electronically within a specified
time frame following insurance of the
mortgage. The final rule may contain
regulatory text requiring the electronic
submission of case binders, and HUD
invites public comment on such a
possible change, including the
appropriateness of a June 2012
implementation date, the costs and
benefits that would be associated with
the electronic submission of case
binders, and what the required time
frames should be for submission of
electronic case binders following
insurance of the mortgage. For more
information about the costs and benefits
of this provision, please see the
regulatory planning and review section
of this preamble.
IV. Findings and Certification
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 12866 (entitled
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’).
OMB determined that this rule is a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ as
defined in section 3(f) of the Order
(although not an economically
significant regulatory action, as
provided under section 3(f)(1) of the
Order).
This proposed rule would modify
three existing areas affecting FHAapproved lenders. First, this rule would
impose indemnification provisions to
all approved mortgagees with Lender
Insurance authority. Second, this rule
would amend the methodology and
requirements for determining an
acceptable claim and default rate.
Lastly, this rule would amend the 2-year
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
historical performance requirement for
mortgagees resulting from merger,
acquisition, or reorganization. Other
provisions of this rule describe
clarifying or technical changes which
would not produce an economic impact.
The proposed rule also solicits
comments on a possible change to
current recordkeeping and submission
requirements that the Department is
considering. To the extent that these
amendments have any economic
impact, it would be to reduce the
compliance costs currently borne by
lenders, by clarifying and providing
additional instructions that supplement
existing FHA requirements and
procedures. This rule, as proposed,
would not have an economic effect of
greater than $100 million and thus does
not require a regulatory impact analysis.
The reasons for HUD’s determination
are as follows:
Indemnification Requirements. With
regard to the proposed indemnification
provisions, this proposed rule codifies
much of existing HUD practice, and this
rule alone should not result in a
dramatic change in underwriting
practices and the quality of FHA loans,
assuming that all of FHA’s Direct
Endorsement lenders currently conduct
due diligence in extending FHA-insured
loans. A marginal change will be
encountered by those lenders with
ineffective risk management practices
and/or those lenders who have refused
to execute an indemnification
agreement. HUD expects there to be
some reduction in claims paid by FHA,
but not a noticeable reduction in the
claims rate attributed to this change by
itself. FHA’s average loss rate on claims
for first quarter Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
(October 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010)
properties conveyed to HUD and
subsequently sold was approximately 60
percent. For every claim averted, there
would be a transfer (loss avoidance) of
approximately $73,000 to FHA.
The primary change is that all Direct
Endorsement lenders with Lender
Insurance authority will be subject to
indemnification procedures and will not
be able to negotiate the settlement, as is
the current practice. This facet of the
rule could lead to an efficiency: the
initial process by a lender of deciding
whether to indemnify FHA will be
eliminated, and would be accompanied
by reductions in the length and cost of
negotiations. Time and effort may be
saved because the costs of a lengthy
preparation for both FHA and the lender
in coming before the Mortgage Review
Board are reduced by this proposed
rule. The number of signed
indemnifications for the last seven fiscal
years (FY 2004 through the end of FY
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
2010) has averaged 1,282
indemnification agreements annually. If
the average negotiation costs are one
percent of the loan amount for both
FHA and the lender (approximately
$140,000 is currently the average FHAinsured mortgage amount), then the
transaction costs to avoid or delay the
indemnification would be $1,400 per
loan. Over an average of 1,300
indemnifications, the aggregate
transaction costs saved by this rule
would be $1.7 million.
Acceptable Claim and Default Rate.
The proposed rule would make two
changes regarding acceptable claim and
default rates for Lender Insurance
mortgagees. First, HUD proposes to
more accurately evaluate a mortgagee’s
performance record by basing the claim
and default rate comparison on the
mortgagee’s actual area of operations.
The proposed rule also clarifies that, in
order to retain their Lender Insurance
authority, mortgagees must continually
maintain the acceptable claim and
default rate required of them when they
were initially delegated such authority.
To simulate the impact of the
proposed changes, HUD used data on
active Direct Endorsement lenders. By
moving to a consistent methodology,
regional lenders are compared not to a
national standard, but to their peers
operating in the same area. Using as a
base the total number of 1,945 currently
active Direct Endorsement lenders, an
additional 18 lenders would have the
claim and default rate necessary for
Lender Insurance authority under this
proposed rule. However, the proposed
requirement that Lender Insurance
mortgagees maintain the acceptable
default and claim rate initially required
for Lender Insurance eligibility appears
to result in a minimal reduction in the
number of Direct Endorsement lenders
that would be deemed to eligible for
Lender Insurance authority.
Specifically, 113 out of the 1,945
currently active Direct Endorsement
mortgagees would no longer have the
necessary claim and default rate to
maintain Lender Insurance authority;
however, these mortgagees would retain
their Direct Endorsement authority and
could continue to participate in FHA
programs.
The combined effect of the two
proposed changes would be to reduce
the number of Direct Endorsement
mortgagees eligible for Lender Insurance
authority (a reduction of 54). In the
short run, this effect can be thought of
as a transfer between lenders of different
regions. In the longer run, HUD expects
the impact of this rule to be
geographically neutral. Lenders will not
be permanently reduced as a result of
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62339
this rule; rather, HUD expects that
lenders who can meet the eligibility
criteria will eventually assume the
business of those lenders who could not
meet the new eligibility criteria.
Lender Insurance Approval in the
Case of Corporate Restructuring. The
proposed rule would facilitate the
compliance of new lending institutions
resulting from a merger, acquisition, or
reorganization with the statutory
requirements for Lender Insurance
approval. The proposed rule would thus
make changes designed to provide
additional regulatory flexibility and
better reflect existing market conditions.
The regulatory 2-year performance
history requirement may impose a
burden on lenders whose compliance
with FHA requirements was not affected
by the business reorganization.
Although HUD has in the past granted
regulatory waivers to address this
problem, the proposed rule will codify
a solution that is less administratively
burdensome than the regulatory waiver
process.
Mandatory Electronic Submission of
Case Binders. The present Direct
Endorsement regulations require
mortgagees to submit case binders to
HUD within 60 days after the date of
closing of a mortgage loan. Customarily,
case binders are maintained and
submitted to HUD in hard-copy paper
format. Given changes in technology
that facilitate the electronic submission
and storing of mortgage loan records,
the proposed rule solicits comments on
whether HUD should require that all
case binders be submitted
electronically. Although Lender
Insurance mortgagees are not currently
required to submit case binders (except
upon HUD’s request), under HUD’s
proposal they would be required to
submit these mortgage loan records
electronically within a specified time
frame following insurance of the
mortgage.
The minimum cost of this change to
mortgagee would be zero. Most
companies already possess the
technology to process electronic
documents for their investors. In
addition, there are currently seven
lenders that submit a total of 250,000
electronic case binders annually. These
firms would not incur additional costs
for submitting electronic binders to
FHA. Although most companies already
subscribe to a service that transmits
electronic documents, sending them to
FHA would impose an additional cost.
A reasonable estimate of the additional
cost per loan is a transaction fee in the
range of $9 to $17 per case binder, with
an upfront cost of $5,000 to $15,000 per
firm. With 4,000 firms, the aggregate
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62340
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
fixed cost of this portion of the rule
would range from $20 million to $60
million. If FHA has an average of 1.5
million loans, then 1.25 million loans
would be affected (1.5 million minus
250,000). The aggregate variable cost of
this requirement would constitute from
$11 million to $21 million ($9 to $17
multiplied by 1.25 million).
The low-cost-scenario is defined as
the case where the fixed and variable
costs are lowest and the high-cost
scenario where the costs are highest.
The annualized cost over 10 years at a
3 percent discount rate would be $14
million in the low-cost scenario and $29
million annually in the high-cost
scenario. At a 7 percent discount rate,
the annualized cost over 10 years would
be $15 million annually for the low-cost
scenario and $31 million for the highcost scenario.
The net cost, however, of moving to
mandatory electronic submission
should not be lesser the gross cost
described above, since there will be
some substitution from more expensive
postal to electronic submission. These
benefits are expected to last for the next
10 years until a new investment is
required. Consider, for example, if the
case binders of one-half of all loans
were mailed to FHA at a cost of $30 per
binder, then the annual savings of postal
costs would be $18.7 million. This
provision generates net benefits for the
low-cost of transmission scenario (a
total of $44 million at a 3 percent
discount rate over 10 years) but not for
the high-cost of transmission of scenario
(a net cost of $81 million at the 3
percent discount rate). The annualized
net benefit in the low-cost scenario is
$5.4 million and the annualized net cost
in the high-cost scenario is $9.6
annually.
The docket file is available for public
inspection in the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to
security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, please schedule
an appointment to review the docket file
by calling the Regulations Division at
202–402–3055 (this is not a toll-free
number). Individuals with speech or
hearing impairments may access this
number via TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Information Relay Service at
800–877–8339.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires
an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
requirements, unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The proposed rule would not add any
new regulatory burdens on FHAapproved mortgage lenders. Rather, as
noted above in this preamble (see the
section captioned ‘‘Regulatory Planning
and Review’’), the proposed rule would
codify much of existing practice
regarding indemnification. Specifically,
the proposed rule would codify a
definition of the term ‘‘origination’’ for
purposes of indemnification, specify
time limits on HUD’s ability to demand
indemnification in cases not involving
fraud or misrepresentation, and identify
specific defects in mortgage loan
origination that may prompt HUD to
seek indemnification. The primary
change is that all Lender Insurance
mortgagees will be subject to
indemnification and will not be able to
negotiate a settlement in lieu of
indemnification. As noted in the
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’
section of this preamble, this change
may have a marginal impact on those
lenders with ineffective risk
management practices and who have
refused to execute an indemnification
agreement. Accordingly, to the extent
that indemnification provisions of this
proposed rule have any economic
impact, it will be as a result of the
lender’s own actions—i.e., its inability
or unwillingness to comply with
prudent risk management practices—
and not as a result of HUD regulatory
action.
HUD also proposes to revise the
methodology for determining acceptable
claim and default rates. The regulatory
change will more accurately evaluate a
mortgagee’s performance record by
basing the claim and default rate
comparison on the mortgagee’s actual
area of operations, rather than on the
national average. This change would
have an overall beneficial economic
impact on small business lenders.2 HUD
data indicates that an additional ten
small business lenders would be
deemed to have an acceptable claim and
default rate for purposes of Lender
Insurance authority as a result of this
change. (There are currently 602 active
small business Direct Endorsement
mortgagees participating in FHA
programs.)
The proposed rule also specifies that
mortgagees must maintain the
2 The Small Business Administration size
standard regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 define small
business lenders and mortgagees as having less than
$7 million in annual revenues for nondepository
firms and assets under $175 million for depository
firms.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
acceptable claim and default rate
required of them when they were
initially granted Lender Insurance
authority, in order to retain such
authority, and that HUD will monitor
mortgagee performance on an ongoing
basis. As noted in the ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ section of this
preamble, this provision of the proposed
rule would result in a minimal
reduction in the number of Direct
Endorsement lenders that would be
deemed eligible for Lender Insurance
authority (113 out of a total of 1,945
currently active Direct Endorsement
mortgagees). However, the economic
impacts of this change should be
minimal, as these lenders will continue
to be able to participate in FHA
programs as Direct Endorsement
mortgagees. Moreover HUD reiterates
that Lender Insurance authority is
reserved for high-performing mortgagees
that have a proven track record of risk
management and sound underwriting
practices. The regulatory change would
merely require that Lender Insurance
mortgagees maintain the same
performance record that first made them
eligible for Lender Insurance authority.
To the extent that the proposed
amendment has any impact, it will be as
a consequence of the lender’s inability
to maintain acceptable risk management
practices, and not as a result a HUD
regulatory mandate.
The proposed rule also would make
several changes designed to provide
additional regulatory flexibility and
better reflect existing market conditions.
For example, the proposed rule would
facilitate the compliance of new lending
institutions created by a merger,
acquisition, or reorganization with the
statutory requirements for Lender
Insurance approval. Under HUD’s
regulations implementing section 256 of
the National Housing Act, mortgagees
must comply with a 2-year performance
history requirement in order to qualify
for Lender Insurance approval. As a new
business entity, the lending institution
created by a merger, acquisition, or
reorganization would not be able to
comply with the performance 2-year
history requirements, and thus would be
ineligible for Lender Insurance
authority. The regulatory 2-year
performance history requirement may
impose a burden on lenders whose
compliance with FHA requirements is
not affected by the business
reorganization. Although HUD has in
the past granted regulatory waivers to
address this problem, the proposed rule
will codify a solution that is less
administratively burdensome than the
regulatory waiver process.
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The proposed rule also solicits
comment on a possible change to
current recordkeeping and submission
requirements. In light of changes in
technology that facilitate the electronic
submission and storing of mortgage loan
records, HUD is considering requiring
that case binders be submitted
electronically regardless of the
insurance process used by a mortgagee.
As discussed in detail in the ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ section of this
preamble, the proposed change likely
would reduce the economic burden
imposed on mortgagees by no longer
requiring that they incur the cost of
maintaining paper records (except in the
worst high-cost scenario). Moreover,
these benefits are expected to last for the
next 10 years until a new technology
investment is required.
Accordingly, for the above reasons,
the undersigned certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Notwithstanding HUD’s
determination that this rule will not
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities, HUD
specifically invites comments regarding
any less burdensome alternatives to this
rule that will meet HUD’s objectives, as
described in this preamble.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled
‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism
implications if the rule either imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments and is not
required by statute, or the rule preempts
state law, unless the agency meets the
consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This
rule will not have federalism
implications and would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or preempt
state law within the meaning of the
Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements
for federal agencies to assess the effects
of their regulatory actions on state,
local, and tribal governments, and on
the private sector. This proposed rule
does not impose any federal mandates
on any state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector,
within the meaning of UMRA.
Environmental Impact
This proposed rule does not direct,
provide for assistance or loan and
mortgage insurance for, or otherwise
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
govern or regulate, real property
acquisition, disposition, leasing,
rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or
new construction, or establish, revise, or
provide for standards for construction or
construction materials, manufactured
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly,
under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is
categorically excluded from
environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements for this proposed rule
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) and assigned
OMB control number 2502–0059. In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless the collection
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic
Assistance Number for the principal
FHA single family mortgage insurance
program is 14.117.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 203
Hawaiian Natives, Home
improvement, Indians—lands, Loan
programs—housing and community
development, Mortgage insurance,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Solar energy.
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in the preamble, HUD
proposes to amend 24 CFR part 203 to
read as follows:
PART 203—SINGLE FAMILY
MORTGAGE INSURANCE
1. The authority citation for part 203
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b,
1715z–16, 1715u, and 1717z–21; 42 U.S.C.
3535(d).
2. In § 203.4, amend paragraph (a) by
revising the reference ‘‘§ 203.5’’ to read
‘‘§ 203.3’’ and revise paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d), to read as follows:
§ 203.4 Approval of mortgagees for Lender
Insurance.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Performance: Claim and default
rate. (1) In addition to being
unconditionally approved for the Direct
Endorsement program, a mortgagee
must have had an acceptable claim and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62341
default rate (as described in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section) for at least 2 years
prior to its application for participation
in the Lender Insurance program, and
must maintain such a claim and default
rate in order to retain Lender Insurance
approval.
(2) HUD may approve a mortgagee
that is otherwise eligible for Lender
Insurance approval, but has an
acceptable claim and default record of
less than 2 years, if:
(i) The mortgagee is a an entity
created by a merger, acquisition, or
reorganization completed less than 2
years prior to the date of the mortgagee’s
application for Lender Insurance
approval;
(ii) One or more of the entities
participating in the merger, acquisition,
or reorganization had Lender Insurance
approval at the time of the merger,
acquisition, or reorganization;
(iii) All of the lending institutions
participating in the merger, acquisition,
or reorganization had an acceptable
claim and default record for the 2 years
preceding the mortgagee’s application
for Lender Insurance approval; and
(iv) The extrapolated claim and
default record of the mortgagee derived
by aggregating the claims and defaults of
the entities participating in the merger,
acquisition, or reorganization, for the
2-year period prior to the mortgagee’s
application for Lender Insurance
approval, constitutes an acceptable rate
of claims and defaults, as defined by
this section.
(3) A mortgagee has an acceptable
claim and default rate if its rate of
claims and defaults is at or below 150
percent of the average rate for insured
mortgages in the state(s) in which the
mortgagee operates.
(c) Reviews. HUD will monitor a
mortgagee’s eligibility to participate in
the Lender Insurance program on a
continual basis.
(d) Termination of approval. (1) HUD
may immediately terminate the
mortgagee’s approval to participate in
the Lender Insurance program, in
accordance with section 256(d) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–
21(d)), if the mortgagee:
(i) Violates any of the requirements
and procedures established by the
Secretary for mortgagees approved to
participate in HUD’s Lender Insurance
program, Direct Endorsement program,
or the Title II Single Family mortgage
insurance program; or
(ii) If HUD determines that other good
cause exists.
(2) Such termination will be effective
upon receipt of HUD’s notice advising
of the termination. Within 30 days after
receiving HUD’s notice of termination, a
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
62342
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mortgagee may request an informal
conference with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Single Family Housing or
designee. The conference will be
conducted within 30 days after HUD
receives a timely request for the
conference. After the conference, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary (or designee)
may decide to affirm the termination
action or to reinstate the mortgagee’s
Lender Insurance program approval.
The decision will be communicated to
the mortgagee in writing, will be
deemed a final agency action, and,
pursuant to section 256(d) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–
21(d)), is not subject to judicial review.
(3) Termination of an origination
approval agreement under part 202 of
this chapter or termination of Direct
Endorsement approval under
§ 203.3(d)(2) for a mortgagee or one or
more branch offices automatically
terminates Lender Insurance approval
for the mortgagee or the branch office or
offices, without imposing any further
requirement on the mortgagee or such
offices to comply with this paragraph.
(4) Any termination instituted under
this section is distinct from withdrawal
of mortgagee approval by the Mortgagee
Review Board under 24 CFR part 25.
3. In § 203.255, revise paragraph (f)(1),
remove paragraph (f)(4), and add
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 203.255
Insurance of mortgage.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Lender Insurance. (1) Preinsurance review. For applications for
insurance involving mortgages
originated under the Lender Insurance
program under § 203.6, the mortgagee is
responsible for performing a preinsurance review that would otherwise
be performed by HUD under
§ 203.255(c) on the documents that
would otherwise be submitted to HUD
under § 203.255(b). The mortgagee’s
staff that performs the pre-insurance
review must not be the same staff that
originated the mortgage or underwrote
the mortgage for insurance.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Indemnification. (1) General. By
insuring the mortgage, a Lender
Insurance mortgagee agrees to
indemnify HUD, in accordance with this
paragraph.
(2) Definition of origination. For
purposes of indemnification under this
paragraph, the term ‘‘origination’’ means
the process of creating a mortgage,
starting with the taking of the initial
application, continuing with the
processing and underwriting, and
ending with the mortgagee endorsing
the mortgage note for FHA insurance.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Oct 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
(3) Serious and material violation.
The mortgagee shall indemnify HUD for
an FHA insurance claim paid within 5
years of mortgage insurance
endorsement, if the mortgagee knew or
should have known of a serious and
material violation of FHA origination
requirements, such that the mortgage
loan should not have been approved
and endorsed by the mortgagee and
irrespective of whether the violation
caused the mortgage default. Such a
serious and material violation of FHA
requirements in the origination of the
mortgage may occur if the mortgagee
failed to, among other actions:
(i) Verify the creditworthiness,
income, and/or employment of the
mortgagor in accordance with FHA
requirements;
(ii) Verify the assets brought by the
mortgagor for payment of the required
down payment and/or closing costs in
accordance with FHA requirements; or
(iii) Address property deficiencies
identified in the appraisal affecting the
health and safety of the occupants or the
structural integrity of the property in
accordance with FHA requirements, or
(iv) Ensure that the appraisal of the
property serving as security for the
mortgage loan satisfies FHA appraisal
requirements, in accordance with
§ 203.5(e).
(4) Fraud or misrepresentation. The
mortgagee shall indemnify HUD for an
insurance claim if fraud or
misrepresentation was involved in
connection with the origination of the
mortgage, regardless of when the
mortgage was endorsed for insurance
and irrespective of whether the fraud or
misrepresentation caused the mortgage
default.
(5) Demand for indemnification. The
demand for indemnification will be
made by either the Secretary or the
Mortgagee Review Board. Under an
indemnification agreement, the Lender
Insurance mortgagee agrees to either
abstain from filing an insurance claim,
or reimburse FHA if a subsequent
holder of the mortgage files an
insurance claim and FHA suffers a
financial loss.
Dated: September 16, 2010.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal
Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010–25441 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 2
Paroling, Recommitting, and
Supervising Federal Prisoners:
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under
the United States and District of
Columbia Codes
United States Parole
Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The United States Parole
Commission seeks public comment on a
proposed rule that would amend the
Offense Behavior Severity Index in its
paroling policy guidelines to equalize
the ratings for crack cocaine and powder
cocaine offenses.
DATES: Comments must be received by
December 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification
number USPC–2010–03 by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. Parole Commission, 5550
Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase,
Maryland 20815.
• Fax: (301) 492–5563.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Johanna E. Markind, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Parole
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd.,
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815,
telephone (301) 492–5959. Questions
about this publication are welcome, but
inquiries concerning individual cases
cannot be answered over the telephone.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The U.S. Parole Commission is
responsible for making parole release
decisions for those federal prisoners
who are eligible for parole under the
now-repealed indeterminate sentencing
system. Under this system, a prisoner
may be released to community
supervision after he serves a minimum
term required by his sentence or by
operation of law. After the Commission
makes a discretionary judgment to
release the prisoner and imposes
conditions of release, the released
prisoner remains on supervision until
the expiration of his sentence or his
supervision is terminated early. Parole
may be revoked and the offender
returned to imprisonment for violating
the conditions of release. The
Commission carries out its duties under
the statutes at 18 U.S.C. 4201–4218. The
Commission also has similar
E:\FR\FM\08OCP1.SGM
08OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 195 (Friday, October 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62335-62342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25441]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 203
[Docket No. FR-5156-P-01]
RIN 2502 AI58
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Single Family Lender
Insurance Process: Eligibility, Indemnification, and Termination
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to
improve and expand the risk management activities of the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA). The proposed regulatory changes will
update and enhance the Lender Insurance process through which the
majority of FHA-insured mortgages are endorsed for insurance. Most
significantly, the proposed rule would provide additional guidance on
HUD's regulations implementing the statutory requirements regarding
mortgagee indemnification to HUD of insurance claims in the case of
fraud, misrepresentation, or noncompliance with applicable loan
origination requirements. The proposed rule also provides that
mortgagees must continually maintain the acceptable claim and default
rate required for eligibility to initially be delegated Lender
Insurance authority, in order to retain such authority. In addition,
this proposed rule also provides that HUD will review Lender Insurance
mortgagee performance on a continual basis. HUD also proposes to revise
the methodology for determining acceptable claim and default rates, to
more accurately reflect mortgagee performance, and to streamline the
approval process for Lender Insurance mortgagees that have undergone a
corporate restructuring. The Department has also taken the opportunity
afforded by this proposed rule to make two technical corrections to the
regulations and to solicit public comment on whether FHA mortgagees
should be required to submit mortgage loan case binders to HUD
electronically.
DATES: Comment Due Date: December 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General
Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must
refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for
submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above
docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410-0001.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment,
ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters
and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments
must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above.
Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of
the rule. No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not
acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the
above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters
building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be
scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is
not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments
may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments
submitted are available for inspection and downloading at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Ross, Acting Director, Office of
Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9278,
Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-2121 (this is not a
toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may
access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay
Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was established by
Congress in 1934 to improve nationwide housing standards, to provide
employment and stimulate industry, to improve conditions with respect
to home mortgage financing, to prevent speculative excesses in new
mortgage investment, and to eliminate the necessity for costly second
mortgage financing. FHA-insured single family mortgages are originated
and underwritten through the Direct Endorsement process. A majority of
FHA-insured mortgages that are originated under the Direct Endorsement
process are endorsed for insurance by mortgage lenders through a second
process, the Lender Insurance process.
The Direct Endorsement and Lender Insurance processes are not
separate programs; rather, they are the mechanisms that enable FHA-
approved lenders to consider single family mortgage applications
without first submitting paperwork to HUD. The Lender Insurance process
is authorized under section 256 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-21). The HUD regulations that presently govern the Direct
Endorsement and Lender
[[Page 62336]]
Insurance processes are codified at 24 CFR part 203 (entitled Single
Family Mortgage Insurance).
The Direct Endorsement process is described in Sec. 203.5 and is
available to mortgagees who meet the requirements set forth in Sec.
203.3. Under Direct Endorsement, the mortgagee determines that the
proposed mortgage is eligible for insurance under applicable
regulations, and submits the required documents to FHA in accordance
with Sec. 203.255. The Direct Endorsement mortgagee's performance is
subject to pre-endorsement and post-endorsement review by the
Secretary.
Direct Endorsement mortgagees that meet the requirements of Sec.
203.4 may be approved for Lender Insurance, as described in Sec.
203.6. Under the Lender Insurance process, a mortgagee conducts its own
pre-insurance review and insures the mortgage without a pre-endorsement
review by HUD. In order to be eligible to participate in the FHA single
family programs as a Lender Insurance mortgagee, an FHA mortgage lender
must be an unconditionally approved Direct Endorsement mortgagee that
is high performing--i.e., for at least 2 years prior to its application
for Lender Insurance authority, the mortgagee must have had a claim and
default record acceptable to HUD.
II. This Proposed Rule
Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to improve
and expand the risk management activities of FHA. The proposed
regulatory changes will update and enhance the Lender Insurance
process. Most significantly, the proposed rule would revise HUD's
regulations implementing the statutory requirements regarding lender
indemnification to HUD of insurance claims in the case of fraud,
misrepresentation, or noncompliance with applicable loan origination
requirements. The proposed rule will also provide that mortgagees, in
order to retain their Lender Insurance authority, must continually
maintain the acceptable claim and default rate required of them when
they were initially delegated such authority. In addition, this
proposed rule provides that HUD will review Lender Insurance mortgagee
performance on a continual basis. HUD also proposes to revise the
methodology for determining acceptable claim and default rates to more
accurately reflect mortgagee performance, and to streamline the
approval process for Lender Insurance mortgagees that have undergone a
corporate restructuring. The Department has also taken the opportunity
afforded by this proposed rule to make two technical corrections to the
regulations.
The proposed regulatory changes are as follows:
1. Lender indemnification for insurance claims. Under section
256(c) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-21(c)), an FHA-
approved Lender Insurance mortgagee may be required to indemnify HUD
for the loss if the mortgage loan was ``not originated in compliance
with the requirements established by the Secretary, and the Secretary
pays an insurance claim * * * within a reasonable period specified by
the Secretary.'' HUD may also require indemnification at any time ``if
fraud or misrepresentation was involved in connection with
origination'' of the mortgage loan. FHA may impose indemnifications,
irrespective of whether the noncompliance, fraud, or misrepresentation
caused the mortgage default. Currently, the section 256 statutory
indemnification requirement is limited to mortgagees with Lender
Insurance authority. On January 20, 2010, the Department announced that
it would seek changes to section 256 of the National Housing Act, to
apply the indemnification provisions to all Direct Endorsement
lenders.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See HUD press release HUD No. 10-016, available at: https://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The section 256 statutory indemnification requirements are
currently codified at Sec. 203.255(f)(4). HUD proposes to create a new
Sec. 203.255(g) that would provide additional guidance on the
statutory requirements of section 256.
As discussed, the section 256 indemnification requirements are
applicable to claims paid in connection to a mortgage that was not
``originated'' in accordance with FHA requirements. For purposes of
Sec. 203.255(f), this proposed rule would define the term
``origination'' as meaning ``the process of creating a mortgage,
starting with the taking of the initial application, continuing with
the processing and underwriting, and ending with the mortgagee
endorsing the mortgage note for FHA mortgage insurance.'' The proposed
definition of ``origination'' would apply only to indemnifications for
mortgages endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance under section 256 of the
National Housing Act by authorized Lender Insurance mortgagees, and is
not being proposed by HUD to apply in any other contexts related to the
FHA programs.
As noted, cases of fraud or misrepresentation may require
indemnification at any time. However, for cases not involving fraud or
misrepresentation, section 256(c) limits the Department's ability to
require indemnification to insurance claims paid within a ``reasonable
time period'' established by HUD. New Sec. 203.255(g) would implement
this timing requirement by codifying HUD's longstanding practice of
requiring indemnification for FHA insurance claims paid ``within five
years from the date of mortgage insurance endorsement.'' The date of
endorsement is a fixed date, and therefore has the benefit of being
known to both HUD and the Lender Insurance mortgagee. Moreover, 5 years
is a reasonable ``seasoning'' period for a particular mortgage loan to
either perform or go into default and for the Department to ascertain
whether errors in the origination of the mortgage loan were made, while
not being so long a time frame so as to burden mortgagees with the
possibility of indemnification for a long-ago endorsed mortgage loan.
Section 256(c) authorizes HUD to require indemnification where the
mortgage was not originated in compliance with the HUD-established
requirements. Proposed Sec. 203.255(g) identifies the origination
requirements for which HUD may seek indemnification if the Lender
Insurance mortgagee knew or should have known that the requirements
were not followed in the origination of the mortgage. HUD will seek
such remedy for violations of FHA origination requirements that HUD
deems serious and material; for example, in cases where the mortgage
should never have been endorsed by the mortgagee, because FHA would not
have insured the mortgage absent proper adherence to the Lender
Insurance process. Specifically, a mortgagee may be required to
indemnify HUD if it failed to, among other actions: (1) Verify and
analyze the creditworthiness, income, and/or employment of the
mortgagor in accordance with FHA requirements; (2) verify the source of
assets brought by the mortgagor for payment of the required down
payment and/or closing costs in accordance with FHA requirements; (3)
address property deficiencies identified in the appraisal affecting the
health and safety of the occupants or the structural integrity of the
property in accordance with FHA requirements; or (4) ensure, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 203.5(e), that the appraisal
of the property serving as security for the mortgage loan satisfies FHA
appraisal
[[Page 62337]]
requirements. HUD may seek indemnification irrespective of whether the
violation caused the mortgage default.
HUD deems violations of the origination requirements identified in
the proposed rule as serious and material, because they pertain to the
core analyses that must be performed for all properly underwritten
mortgage loans. The purpose of mortgage loan underwriting is to
evaluate the willingness and financial capability of the mortgagor to
pay the loan, and to assess the physical condition of the property that
is to serve as security for the mortgage loan, in order to determine
whether it constitutes adequate collateral. These basic underwriting
principles are enshrined in the so-called ``Four C's of Credit''
(credit, capacity, capital, and collateral) commonly referred to in the
mortgage lending industry. The origination requirements listed above
correspond to these fundamental underwriting functions. Accordingly,
HUD believes that indemnification may be an appropriate remedy where
the mortgagee knew or should have known that these requirements were
not followed in the origination of the mortgage loan.
The proposed rule would also specify that the demand for
indemnification will be made by either the Secretary or the Mortgagee
Review Board. Under an indemnification agreement, the originating
mortgage lender agrees to either abstain from filing an insurance
claim, or to reimburse FHA if a subsequent holder of the mortgage files
an insurance claim and FHA suffers a financial loss.
2. Acceptable claim and default rate for Lender Insurance
mortgagees. Section 256(b) of the National Housing Act requires that
the Secretary of HUD, in deciding whether to grant a mortgagee's
application for Lender Insurance approval, consider ``the experience
and performance of the mortgagee compared to the default rate of all
insured mortgagees in comparable markets.'' HUD has implemented this
statutory requirement at Sec. 203.4(b), which requires that ``a
mortgagee must have had an acceptable claim and default record for at
least 2 years prior to its application for'' Lender Insurance
authority. The present regulation defines an acceptable claim and
default as at or below 150 percent of either: (1) The national average
rate for all insured mortgages; or (2) if the mortgagee operates in a
single state, the average rate for insured mortgages in the state.
The current regulation may make it easier for a single state
mortgagee to meet the acceptable standard if the mortgagee operates in
a state that has a high default rate. In contrast, a mortgagee would be
disadvantaged by having its claim and default rate compared to the
national average if the mortgagee operates in two states that have high
default rates, even if the mortgagee is in full compliance with FHA
requirements and otherwise eligible for Lender Insurance approval. To
address these potential concerns, HUD proposes to revise the
methodology for computing the acceptable claim and default rate for
Lender Insurance approval. The proposed rule would revise Sec.
203.4(b) by providing that a mortgagee is eligible for the Lender
Insurance program if its claim and default rate is at or below 150
percent of the average rate in the state(s) where the mortgagee
operates. The proposed methodology will more accurately reflect
mortgagee performance by evaluating each mortgagee based on its actual
area of operations.
3. Need to maintain acceptable claim and default rate. As noted,
Sec. 203.4(b) requires that mortgagees have an acceptable claim and
default rate as an eligibility criterion for initial Lender Insurance
approval; however, the regulation does not specify what constitutes an
acceptable claim and default rate for purposes of maintaining Lender
Insurance approval. This proposed rule emphasizes that a Lender
Insurance mortgagee must continually maintain the acceptable claim and
default rate required of them when they were initially granted Lender
Insurance authority. HUD will review Lender Insurance mortgagee
performance on a continual basis, and mortgagees that fail to maintain
the required claim and default rate will be subject to termination of
their Lender Insurance authority.
4. Lender Insurance approval in the case of merger, acquisition, or
restructuring. Section 256 of the National Housing Act requires that
HUD consider ``the experience and performance of the mortgagee'' in
determining the appropriateness of delegating the Secretary's authority
to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. HUD's implementing regulations
at Sec. 203.4(b) elaborate on the statutory requirement by providing
that ``a mortgagee must have had an acceptable claim and default record
for at least 2 years prior to its application for'' Lender Insurance
authority. As discussed above in this preamble, the Lender Insurance
process is reserved for high-performing mortgagees. The performance
history requirement helps to ensure that only those mortgagees with a
proven track record are eligible for Lender Insurance authority.
Newly formed business entities that do not have a performance
record are, therefore, ineligible for Lender Insurance approval. This
is true even if the newly formed lending institution was created by a
merger, acquisition, or reorganization where one or more of the
participating entities had Lender Insurance approval, and the new
resulting lending institution retains the structure, staff, and
operational protocols that would--absent the 2-year historical
performance requirement--make the new entity eligible for Lender
Insurance authority under section 256 of the National Housing Act.
Deferral of Lender Insurance eligibility is merited for new corporate
entities that have not had the time to establish an acceptable
performance track history. However, in the case of new entities created
by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization, it is possible to forecast
future performance with a high degree of certainty based on the
performance history of the predecessor entities. To deny Lender
Insurance eligibility to such mortgagees simply for purposes of
``running out the clock'' is contrary to the rationale of the
performance history requirement and the Lender Insurance process.
In the past, the Department has addressed this issue through the
granting of case-by-case regulatory waivers, a process that has the
potential to be lengthy and, on occasion, administratively burdensome.
This proposed rule would eliminate the need for regulatory waivers by
codifying the conditions under which the Secretary may grant Lender
Insurance authority to a mortgagee with less than the required
historical performance record. The proposed criteria would permit HUD
to evaluate the performance of the new mortgagee based on the
performance history of the predecessor corporate entities, while also
safeguarding against the possibility that a mortgagee with a poor track
record might attempt to circumvent the purposes of section 256 by
acquiring or merging with a high-performing lending institution.
First, the mortgagee must be an entity created by a merger,
acquisition, or reorganization completed less than 2 years prior to the
date of the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance approval.
Secondly, one or more of the entities participating in the merger,
acquisition, or reorganization must have had Lender Insurance approval
at the time of the corporate restructuring. Third, all of the lending
institutions participating in the corporate
[[Page 62338]]
restructuring must have had an acceptable claim and default record for
the 2-years preceding the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance
approval. Fourth, and last, the extrapolated claim and default record
of the mortgagee derived by aggregating the claims and defaults of the
entities participating in the merger, acquisition, or reorganization,
for the 2-year period prior to the mortgagee's application for Lender
Insurance approval, constitutes an acceptable rate of claims and
defaults.
The proposed new process would permit, but not compel, HUD to grant
Lender Insurance authority to those mortgagees meeting the criteria
outlined above. While a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting
approval would be established by a mortgagee that meets all four of the
required criterions, HUD may consider other available evidence or data
indicative of performance, and may deny the application for Lender
Insurance authority and require the mortgagee to wait until it
establishes an acceptable performance track record. The proposed
regulatory provision is consistent with HUD's responsibility to
evaluate mortgagee experience and ensure that Lender Insurance
authority is provided only to high-performing lenders that comply with
FHA requirements, while also facilitating the provision of FHA-
insurance by new lending institutions created by a corporate
restructuring.
5. HUD reviews. Consistent with its duty to protect the FHA
insurance fund, HUD monitors mortgagee performance on an ongoing basis
(see, for example, the present regulation at 24 CFR 202.3 providing for
such HUD reviews). However, the current Lender Insurance regulation at
Sec. 203.4(c) only refers to an annual performance review. This
proposed rule would clarify that HUD will monitor a mortgagee's
eligibility to participate in the Lender Insurance program on a
continual basis.
6. Termination of Lender Insurance authority. This proposed rule
would revise Sec. 203.4(d), which governs terminations of Lender
Insurance authority, for purposes of clarity and readability. The
proposed rule would provide additional specificity on the grounds for
termination. Revised Sec. 203.4(d) provides that HUD may immediately
terminate the mortgagee's approval to participate in the Lender
Insurance program, if the mortgagee violates any of the requirements
and procedures established by the Secretary for mortgagees approved to
participate in the Lender Insurance program, the Direct Endorsement
program, or the Title II Single Family mortgage insurance program, or
if HUD determines that other good cause exists. In addition, the
proposed rule clarifies that terminations of Lender Insurance approval
are effective upon receipt of HUD's notice of such termination. The
proposed rule would also revise Sec. 203.4(d) to clarify that pursuant
to section 256(d) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-21(d)),
HUD termination decisions are not subject to judicial review and that
terminations instituted under Sec. 203.4(d) are distinct from
withdrawal of mortgagee approval by the Mortgagee Review Board under 24
CFR part 25.
7. Lender insurance pre-insurance review. The present regulations
at Sec. 203.255(f)(1) require that mortgagees conduct a pre-insurance
review of mortgages insured under the Lender Insurance process. The
regulations provide that the pre-insurance review must meet HUD
requirements, but does not specify the requirements for applicable
reviews, instead providing that ``HUD will directly inform
participating mortgagees of its minimum requirements for pre-insurance
review.'' This proposed rule would codify existing Lender Insurance
practice concerning the pre-insurance review provisions, by specifying
that Lender Insurance mortgagees are responsible for conducting the
pre-insurance review that would otherwise be performed by HUD under the
Direct Endorsement process.
8. Technical correction. In addition to the proposed regulatory
changes discussed above in this preamble, HUD has taken the opportunity
afforded by this proposed rule to make a nonsubstantive change to the
existing regulations. The proposed rule would make a technical
correction to Sec. 203.4(a), which incorrectly cross-references to
Sec. 203.5 as containing the requirements for Direct Endorsement
approval. These approval procedures are codified at Sec. 203.3.
III. Issue Under Consideration: Mandatory Electronic Submission of Case
Binders
In addition to soliciting public comment on the proposed regulatory
changes described above in this preamble, the Department solicits
comment on a possible change to current recordkeeping and submission
requirements that the Department is considering. The present Direct
Endorsement regulations at 24 CFR 203.255(b) require mortgagees to
submit to HUD specified documentation within 60 days after the date of
closing of a mortgage loan (collectively, these documents and
certifications are referred to as the mortgage loan ``case binder'').
The Lender Insurance regulations at 24 CFR 203.255(f)(2) provide that
mortgagees must maintain records, including origination files, in a
manner and for a time frame prescribed by HUD, and must make these
mortgage loan ``case binders'' available to HUD staff upon request.
Customarily, case binders are maintained and submitted to HUD in
hard-copy paper format. Given changes in technology that facilitate the
electronic submission and storing of mortgage loan records, HUD is now
considering requiring by June 2012 that all case binders be submitted
electronically regardless of the insurance process used by a mortgagee.
Although Lender Insurance mortgagees are not currently required to
submit case binders (except upon HUD's request for a post-endorsement
technical review), under HUD's proposal they would be required to
submit these mortgage loan records electronically within a specified
time frame following insurance of the mortgage. The final rule may
contain regulatory text requiring the electronic submission of case
binders, and HUD invites public comment on such a possible change,
including the appropriateness of a June 2012 implementation date, the
costs and benefits that would be associated with the electronic
submission of case binders, and what the required time frames should be
for submission of electronic case binders following insurance of the
mortgage. For more information about the costs and benefits of this
provision, please see the regulatory planning and review section of
this preamble.
IV. Findings and Certification
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 12866 (entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'').
OMB determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action,''
as defined in section 3(f) of the Order (although not an economically
significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the
Order).
This proposed rule would modify three existing areas affecting FHA-
approved lenders. First, this rule would impose indemnification
provisions to all approved mortgagees with Lender Insurance authority.
Second, this rule would amend the methodology and requirements for
determining an acceptable claim and default rate. Lastly, this rule
would amend the 2-year
[[Page 62339]]
historical performance requirement for mortgagees resulting from
merger, acquisition, or reorganization. Other provisions of this rule
describe clarifying or technical changes which would not produce an
economic impact. The proposed rule also solicits comments on a possible
change to current recordkeeping and submission requirements that the
Department is considering. To the extent that these amendments have any
economic impact, it would be to reduce the compliance costs currently
borne by lenders, by clarifying and providing additional instructions
that supplement existing FHA requirements and procedures. This rule, as
proposed, would not have an economic effect of greater than $100
million and thus does not require a regulatory impact analysis. The
reasons for HUD's determination are as follows:
Indemnification Requirements. With regard to the proposed
indemnification provisions, this proposed rule codifies much of
existing HUD practice, and this rule alone should not result in a
dramatic change in underwriting practices and the quality of FHA loans,
assuming that all of FHA's Direct Endorsement lenders currently conduct
due diligence in extending FHA-insured loans. A marginal change will be
encountered by those lenders with ineffective risk management practices
and/or those lenders who have refused to execute an indemnification
agreement. HUD expects there to be some reduction in claims paid by
FHA, but not a noticeable reduction in the claims rate attributed to
this change by itself. FHA's average loss rate on claims for first
quarter Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 (October 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010)
properties conveyed to HUD and subsequently sold was approximately 60
percent. For every claim averted, there would be a transfer (loss
avoidance) of approximately $73,000 to FHA.
The primary change is that all Direct Endorsement lenders with
Lender Insurance authority will be subject to indemnification
procedures and will not be able to negotiate the settlement, as is the
current practice. This facet of the rule could lead to an efficiency:
the initial process by a lender of deciding whether to indemnify FHA
will be eliminated, and would be accompanied by reductions in the
length and cost of negotiations. Time and effort may be saved because
the costs of a lengthy preparation for both FHA and the lender in
coming before the Mortgage Review Board are reduced by this proposed
rule. The number of signed indemnifications for the last seven fiscal
years (FY 2004 through the end of FY 2010) has averaged 1,282
indemnification agreements annually. If the average negotiation costs
are one percent of the loan amount for both FHA and the lender
(approximately $140,000 is currently the average FHA-insured mortgage
amount), then the transaction costs to avoid or delay the
indemnification would be $1,400 per loan. Over an average of 1,300
indemnifications, the aggregate transaction costs saved by this rule
would be $1.7 million.
Acceptable Claim and Default Rate. The proposed rule would make two
changes regarding acceptable claim and default rates for Lender
Insurance mortgagees. First, HUD proposes to more accurately evaluate a
mortgagee's performance record by basing the claim and default rate
comparison on the mortgagee's actual area of operations. The proposed
rule also clarifies that, in order to retain their Lender Insurance
authority, mortgagees must continually maintain the acceptable claim
and default rate required of them when they were initially delegated
such authority.
To simulate the impact of the proposed changes, HUD used data on
active Direct Endorsement lenders. By moving to a consistent
methodology, regional lenders are compared not to a national standard,
but to their peers operating in the same area. Using as a base the
total number of 1,945 currently active Direct Endorsement lenders, an
additional 18 lenders would have the claim and default rate necessary
for Lender Insurance authority under this proposed rule. However, the
proposed requirement that Lender Insurance mortgagees maintain the
acceptable default and claim rate initially required for Lender
Insurance eligibility appears to result in a minimal reduction in the
number of Direct Endorsement lenders that would be deemed to eligible
for Lender Insurance authority. Specifically, 113 out of the 1,945
currently active Direct Endorsement mortgagees would no longer have the
necessary claim and default rate to maintain Lender Insurance
authority; however, these mortgagees would retain their Direct
Endorsement authority and could continue to participate in FHA
programs.
The combined effect of the two proposed changes would be to reduce
the number of Direct Endorsement mortgagees eligible for Lender
Insurance authority (a reduction of 54). In the short run, this effect
can be thought of as a transfer between lenders of different regions.
In the longer run, HUD expects the impact of this rule to be
geographically neutral. Lenders will not be permanently reduced as a
result of this rule; rather, HUD expects that lenders who can meet the
eligibility criteria will eventually assume the business of those
lenders who could not meet the new eligibility criteria.
Lender Insurance Approval in the Case of Corporate Restructuring.
The proposed rule would facilitate the compliance of new lending
institutions resulting from a merger, acquisition, or reorganization
with the statutory requirements for Lender Insurance approval. The
proposed rule would thus make changes designed to provide additional
regulatory flexibility and better reflect existing market conditions.
The regulatory 2-year performance history requirement may impose a
burden on lenders whose compliance with FHA requirements was not
affected by the business reorganization. Although HUD has in the past
granted regulatory waivers to address this problem, the proposed rule
will codify a solution that is less administratively burdensome than
the regulatory waiver process.
Mandatory Electronic Submission of Case Binders. The present Direct
Endorsement regulations require mortgagees to submit case binders to
HUD within 60 days after the date of closing of a mortgage loan.
Customarily, case binders are maintained and submitted to HUD in hard-
copy paper format. Given changes in technology that facilitate the
electronic submission and storing of mortgage loan records, the
proposed rule solicits comments on whether HUD should require that all
case binders be submitted electronically. Although Lender Insurance
mortgagees are not currently required to submit case binders (except
upon HUD's request), under HUD's proposal they would be required to
submit these mortgage loan records electronically within a specified
time frame following insurance of the mortgage.
The minimum cost of this change to mortgagee would be zero. Most
companies already possess the technology to process electronic
documents for their investors. In addition, there are currently seven
lenders that submit a total of 250,000 electronic case binders
annually. These firms would not incur additional costs for submitting
electronic binders to FHA. Although most companies already subscribe to
a service that transmits electronic documents, sending them to FHA
would impose an additional cost. A reasonable estimate of the
additional cost per loan is a transaction fee in the range of $9 to $17
per case binder, with an upfront cost of $5,000 to $15,000 per firm.
With 4,000 firms, the aggregate
[[Page 62340]]
fixed cost of this portion of the rule would range from $20 million to
$60 million. If FHA has an average of 1.5 million loans, then 1.25
million loans would be affected (1.5 million minus 250,000). The
aggregate variable cost of this requirement would constitute from $11
million to $21 million ($9 to $17 multiplied by 1.25 million).
The low-cost-scenario is defined as the case where the fixed and
variable costs are lowest and the high-cost scenario where the costs
are highest. The annualized cost over 10 years at a 3 percent discount
rate would be $14 million in the low-cost scenario and $29 million
annually in the high-cost scenario. At a 7 percent discount rate, the
annualized cost over 10 years would be $15 million annually for the
low-cost scenario and $31 million for the high-cost scenario.
The net cost, however, of moving to mandatory electronic submission
should not be lesser the gross cost described above, since there will
be some substitution from more expensive postal to electronic
submission. These benefits are expected to last for the next 10 years
until a new investment is required. Consider, for example, if the case
binders of one-half of all loans were mailed to FHA at a cost of $30
per binder, then the annual savings of postal costs would be $18.7
million. This provision generates net benefits for the low-cost of
transmission scenario (a total of $44 million at a 3 percent discount
rate over 10 years) but not for the high-cost of transmission of
scenario (a net cost of $81 million at the 3 percent discount rate).
The annualized net benefit in the low-cost scenario is $5.4 million and
the annualized net cost in the high-cost scenario is $9.6 annually.
The docket file is available for public inspection in the
Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC
20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building,
please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the
Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number
via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at
800-877-8339.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would not add any new regulatory burdens on FHA-
approved mortgage lenders. Rather, as noted above in this preamble (see
the section captioned ``Regulatory Planning and Review''), the proposed
rule would codify much of existing practice regarding indemnification.
Specifically, the proposed rule would codify a definition of the term
``origination'' for purposes of indemnification, specify time limits on
HUD's ability to demand indemnification in cases not involving fraud or
misrepresentation, and identify specific defects in mortgage loan
origination that may prompt HUD to seek indemnification. The primary
change is that all Lender Insurance mortgagees will be subject to
indemnification and will not be able to negotiate a settlement in lieu
of indemnification. As noted in the ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
section of this preamble, this change may have a marginal impact on
those lenders with ineffective risk management practices and who have
refused to execute an indemnification agreement. Accordingly, to the
extent that indemnification provisions of this proposed rule have any
economic impact, it will be as a result of the lender's own actions--
i.e., its inability or unwillingness to comply with prudent risk
management practices--and not as a result of HUD regulatory action.
HUD also proposes to revise the methodology for determining
acceptable claim and default rates. The regulatory change will more
accurately evaluate a mortgagee's performance record by basing the
claim and default rate comparison on the mortgagee's actual area of
operations, rather than on the national average. This change would have
an overall beneficial economic impact on small business lenders.\2\ HUD
data indicates that an additional ten small business lenders would be
deemed to have an acceptable claim and default rate for purposes of
Lender Insurance authority as a result of this change. (There are
currently 602 active small business Direct Endorsement mortgagees
participating in FHA programs.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Small Business Administration size standard regulations
at 13 CFR 121.201 define small business lenders and mortgagees as
having less than $7 million in annual revenues for nondepository
firms and assets under $175 million for depository firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule also specifies that mortgagees must maintain the
acceptable claim and default rate required of them when they were
initially granted Lender Insurance authority, in order to retain such
authority, and that HUD will monitor mortgagee performance on an
ongoing basis. As noted in the ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
section of this preamble, this provision of the proposed rule would
result in a minimal reduction in the number of Direct Endorsement
lenders that would be deemed eligible for Lender Insurance authority
(113 out of a total of 1,945 currently active Direct Endorsement
mortgagees). However, the economic impacts of this change should be
minimal, as these lenders will continue to be able to participate in
FHA programs as Direct Endorsement mortgagees. Moreover HUD reiterates
that Lender Insurance authority is reserved for high-performing
mortgagees that have a proven track record of risk management and sound
underwriting practices. The regulatory change would merely require that
Lender Insurance mortgagees maintain the same performance record that
first made them eligible for Lender Insurance authority. To the extent
that the proposed amendment has any impact, it will be as a consequence
of the lender's inability to maintain acceptable risk management
practices, and not as a result a HUD regulatory mandate.
The proposed rule also would make several changes designed to
provide additional regulatory flexibility and better reflect existing
market conditions. For example, the proposed rule would facilitate the
compliance of new lending institutions created by a merger,
acquisition, or reorganization with the statutory requirements for
Lender Insurance approval. Under HUD's regulations implementing section
256 of the National Housing Act, mortgagees must comply with a 2-year
performance history requirement in order to qualify for Lender
Insurance approval. As a new business entity, the lending institution
created by a merger, acquisition, or reorganization would not be able
to comply with the performance 2-year history requirements, and thus
would be ineligible for Lender Insurance authority. The regulatory 2-
year performance history requirement may impose a burden on lenders
whose compliance with FHA requirements is not affected by the business
reorganization. Although HUD has in the past granted regulatory waivers
to address this problem, the proposed rule will codify a solution that
is less administratively burdensome than the regulatory waiver process.
[[Page 62341]]
The proposed rule also solicits comment on a possible change to
current recordkeeping and submission requirements. In light of changes
in technology that facilitate the electronic submission and storing of
mortgage loan records, HUD is considering requiring that case binders
be submitted electronically regardless of the insurance process used by
a mortgagee. As discussed in detail in the ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' section of this preamble, the proposed change likely would
reduce the economic burden imposed on mortgagees by no longer requiring
that they incur the cost of maintaining paper records (except in the
worst high-cost scenario). Moreover, these benefits are expected to
last for the next 10 years until a new technology investment is
required.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this
rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of
small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less
burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives,
as described in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism
implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs
on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning
of the Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and
tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule does
not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
Environmental Impact
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan
and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real
property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration,
demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for
standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule
is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for this proposed rule have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB
control number 2502-0059. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the
principal FHA single family mortgage insurance program is 14.117.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 203
Hawaiian Natives, Home improvement, Indians--lands, Loan programs--
housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Solar energy.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD
proposes to amend 24 CFR part 203 to read as follows:
PART 203--SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE INSURANCE
1. The authority citation for part 203 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 1715z-16, 1715u, and
1717z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
2. In Sec. 203.4, amend paragraph (a) by revising the reference
``Sec. 203.5'' to read ``Sec. 203.3'' and revise paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d), to read as follows:
Sec. 203.4 Approval of mortgagees for Lender Insurance.
* * * * *
(b) Performance: Claim and default rate. (1) In addition to being
unconditionally approved for the Direct Endorsement program, a
mortgagee must have had an acceptable claim and default rate (as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) for at least 2 years
prior to its application for participation in the Lender Insurance
program, and must maintain such a claim and default rate in order to
retain Lender Insurance approval.
(2) HUD may approve a mortgagee that is otherwise eligible for
Lender Insurance approval, but has an acceptable claim and default
record of less than 2 years, if:
(i) The mortgagee is a an entity created by a merger, acquisition,
or reorganization completed less than 2 years prior to the date of the
mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance approval;
(ii) One or more of the entities participating in the merger,
acquisition, or reorganization had Lender Insurance approval at the
time of the merger, acquisition, or reorganization;
(iii) All of the lending institutions participating in the merger,
acquisition, or reorganization had an acceptable claim and default
record for the 2 years preceding the mortgagee's application for Lender
Insurance approval; and
(iv) The extrapolated claim and default record of the mortgagee
derived by aggregating the claims and defaults of the entities
participating in the merger, acquisition, or reorganization, for the 2-
year period prior to the mortgagee's application for Lender Insurance
approval, constitutes an acceptable rate of claims and defaults, as
defined by this section.
(3) A mortgagee has an acceptable claim and default rate if its
rate of claims and defaults is at or below 150 percent of the average
rate for insured mortgages in the state(s) in which the mortgagee
operates.
(c) Reviews. HUD will monitor a mortgagee's eligibility to
participate in the Lender Insurance program on a continual basis.
(d) Termination of approval. (1) HUD may immediately terminate the
mortgagee's approval to participate in the Lender Insurance program, in
accordance with section 256(d) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-21(d)), if the mortgagee:
(i) Violates any of the requirements and procedures established by
the Secretary for mortgagees approved to participate in HUD's Lender
Insurance program, Direct Endorsement program, or the Title II Single
Family mortgage insurance program; or
(ii) If HUD determines that other good cause exists.
(2) Such termination will be effective upon receipt of HUD's notice
advising of the termination. Within 30 days after receiving HUD's
notice of termination, a
[[Page 62342]]
mortgagee may request an informal conference with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Single Family Housing or designee. The conference will be
conducted within 30 days after HUD receives a timely request for the
conference. After the conference, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (or
designee) may decide to affirm the termination action or to reinstate
the mortgagee's Lender Insurance program approval. The decision will be
communicated to the mortgagee in writing, will be deemed a final agency
action, and, pursuant to section 256(d) of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1715z-21(d)), is not subject to judicial review.
(3) Termination of an origination approval agreement under part 202
of this chapter or termination of Direct Endorsement approval under
Sec. 203.3(d)(2) for a mortgagee or one or more branch offices
automatically terminates Lender Insurance approval for the mortgagee or
the branch office or offices, without imposing any further requirement
on the mortgagee or such offices to comply with this paragraph.
(4) Any termination instituted under this section is distinct from
withdrawal of mortgagee approval by the Mortgagee Review Board under 24
CFR part 25.
3. In Sec. 203.255, revise paragraph (f)(1), remove paragraph
(f)(4), and add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 203.255 Insurance of mortgage.
* * * * *
(f) Lender Insurance. (1) Pre-insurance review. For applications
for insurance involving mortgages originated under the Lender Insurance
program under Sec. 203.6, the mortgagee is responsible for performing
a pre-insurance review that would otherwise be performed by HUD under
Sec. 203.255(c) on the documents that would otherwise be submitted to
HUD under Sec. 203.255(b). The mortgagee's staff that performs the
pre-insurance review must not be the same staff that originated the
mortgage or underwrote the mortgage for insurance.
* * * * *
(g) Indemnification. (1) General. By insuring the mortgage, a
Lender Insurance mortgagee agrees to indemnify HUD, in accordance with
this paragraph.
(2) Definition of origination. For purposes of indemnification
under this paragraph, the term ``origination'' means the process of
creating a mortgage, starting with the taking of the initial
application, continuing with the processing and underwriting, and
ending with the mortgagee endorsing the mortgage note for FHA
insurance.
(3) Serious and material violation. The mortgagee shall indemnify
HUD for an FHA insurance claim paid within 5 years of mortgage
insurance endorsement, if the mortgagee knew or should have known of a
serious and material violation of FHA origination requirements, such
that the mortgage loan should not have been approved and endorsed by
the mortgagee and irrespective of whether the violation caused the
mortgage default. Such a serious and material violation of FHA
requirements in the origination of the mortgage may occur if the
mortgagee failed to, among other actions:
(i) Verify the creditworthiness, income, and/or employment of the
mortgagor in accordance with FHA requirements;
(ii) Verify the assets brought by the mortgagor for payment of the
required down payment and/or closing costs in accordance with FHA
requirements; or
(iii) Address property deficiencies identified in the appraisal
affecting the health and safety of the occupants or the structural
integrity of the property in accordance with FHA requirements, or
(iv) Ensure that the appraisal of the property serving as security
for the mortgage loan satisfies FHA appraisal requirements, in
accordance with Sec. 203.5(e).
(4) Fraud or misrepresentation. The mortgagee shall indemnify HUD
for an insurance claim if fraud or misrepresentation was involved in
connection with the origination of the mortgage, regardless of when the
mortgage was endorsed for insurance and irrespective of whether the
fraud or misrepresentation caused the mortgage default.
(5) Demand for indemnification. The demand for indemnification will
be made by either the Secretary or the Mortgagee Review Board. Under an
indemnification agreement, the Lender Insurance mortgagee agrees to
either abstain from filing an insurance claim, or reimburse FHA if a
subsequent holder of the mortgage files an insurance claim and FHA
suffers a financial loss.
Dated: September 16, 2010.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010-25441 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P