Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 28364-28407 [2020-08409]
Download as PDF
28364
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1003
[Docket No. CFPB–2019–0021]
RIN 3170–AA76
Home Mortgage Disclosure
(Regulation C)
Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
ACTION: Final rule; official
interpretation.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (Bureau) is
amending Regulation C to increase the
threshold for reporting data about
closed-end mortgage loans, so that
institutions originating fewer than 100
closed-end mortgage loans in either of
the two preceding calendar years will
not have to report such data effective
July 1, 2020. The Bureau is also setting
the threshold for reporting data about
open-end lines of credit at 200 open-end
lines of credit effective January 1, 2022,
upon the expiration of the current
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
1, 2020, except for the amendments to
§ 1003.2 in amendatory instruction 5,
the amendments to § 1003.3 in
amendatory instruction 6, and the
amendments to supplement I to part
1003 in amendatory instruction 7,
which are effective on January 1, 2022.
See part VI for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaydee DiGiovanni, Counsel; or Amanda
Quester or Alexandra Reimelt, Senior
Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202–
435–7700 or https://
reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov. If
you require this document in an
alternative electronic format, please
contact CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
I. Summary of the Final Rule
Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003,
implements the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801
through 2810. In an October 2015 final
rule (2015 HMDA Rule), the Bureau
established institutional and
transactional coverage thresholds in
Regulation C that determine whether
financial institutions are required to
collect, record, and report any HMDA
data on closed-end mortgage loans or
open-end lines of credit (collectively,
coverage thresholds).1
1 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 80 FR
66128 (Oct. 28, 2015). HMDA requires financial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
The 2015 HMDA Rule set the closedend threshold at 25 loans in each of the
two preceding calendar years, and the
open-end threshold at 100 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years. In 2017,
before those thresholds took effect, the
Bureau temporarily increased the openend threshold to 500 open-end lines of
credit for two years (calendar years 2018
and 2019). In October 2019, the Bureau
extended to January 1, 2022, the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit for open-end coverage.
This final rule adjusts Regulation C’s
coverage thresholds for closed-end
mortgage loans and open-end lines of
credit.2 Effective July 1, 2020, this final
rule permanently raises the closed-end
coverage threshold from 25 to 100
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the
two preceding calendar years. The final
rule also amends § 1003.3(c)(11) and
comment 3(c)(11)–2 so that institutions
have the option to report closed-end
data collected in 2020 if they: (1) Meet
the definition of financial institution as
of January 1, 2020 but are newly
excluded on July 1, 2020 by the increase
in the closed-end threshold, and (2)
report closed-end data for the full
calendar year. The final rule sets the
permanent open-end threshold at 200
open-end lines of credit effective
January 1, 2022, upon expiration of the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit.
II. Background
A. HMDA and Regulation C
HMDA requires certain depository
institutions and for-profit nondepository
institutions to report data about
originations and purchases of mortgage
loans, as well as mortgage loan
applications that do not result in
originations (for example, applications
that are denied or withdrawn). The
purposes of HMDA are to provide the
institutions to collect, record, and report data. To
simplify review of this document, the Bureau
generally refers herein to the obligation to report
data instead of listing all of these obligations in
each instance.
2 When amending the Bureau’s commentary, the
Office of the Federal Register requires reprinting of
certain subsections being amended in their entirety
rather than providing more targeted amendatory
instructions and commentary. The subsections of
regulatory text and commentary included in this
document show the complete language of those
subsections. In addition, the Bureau is releasing an
unofficial, informal redline to assist industry and
other stakeholders in reviewing the changes that it
is finalizing to the regulatory text and commentary
of Regulation C. This redline can be found on the
Bureau’s regulatory implementation page for the
HMDA Rule at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/
policy-compliance/guidance/hmdaimplementation/. If any conflicts exist between the
redline and this final rule, this final rule is the
controlling document.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
public with loan data that can be used:
(i) To help determine whether financial
institutions are serving the housing
needs of their communities; (ii) to assist
public officials in distributing publicsector investment so as to attract private
investment to areas where it is needed;
and (iii) to assist in identifying possible
discriminatory lending patterns and
enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.3
Prior to the enactment of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
Regulation C required reporting of 22
data points and allowed for optional
reporting of the reasons for which an
institution denied an application.4
B. Dodd-Frank Act
In 2010, Congress enacted the DoddFrank Act, which amended HMDA and
transferred HMDA rulemaking authority
and other functions from the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board) to the Bureau.5 Among
other changes, the Dodd-Frank Act
expanded the scope of information
relating to mortgage applications and
loans that institutions must compile,
maintain, and report under HMDA.
Specifically, the Dodd-Frank Act
amended HMDA section 304(b)(4) by
adding one new data point. The DoddFrank Act also added new HMDA
section 304(b)(5) and (6), which requires
various additional new data points.6
New HMDA section 304(b)(6), in
addition, authorizes the Bureau to
require, ‘‘as [it] may determine to be
appropriate,’’ a unique identifier that
identifies the loan originator, a
universal loan identifier (ULI), and the
parcel number that corresponds to the
real property pledged as collateral for
the mortgage loan.7 New HMDA section
304(b)(5)(D) and (6)(J) further provides
the Bureau with the authority to
mandate reporting of ‘‘such other
information as the Bureau may
require.’’ 8
C. 2015 HMDA Rule
In October 2015, the Bureau issued
the 2015 HMDA Rule implementing the
Dodd-Frank Act amendments to
HMDA.9 Most of the 2015 HMDA Rule
3 12
CFR 1003.1.
used in this final rule, the term ‘‘data point’’
refers to items of information that entities are
required to compile and report, generally listed in
separate paragraphs in Regulation C. Some data
points are reported using multiple data fields.
5 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1980,
2035–38, 2097–101 (2010).
6 Dodd-Frank Act section 1094(3), amending
HMDA section 304(b), 12 U.S.C. 2803(b).
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 80 FR 66128 (Oct. 28, 2015).
4 As
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
took effect on January 1, 2018.10 The
2015 HMDA Rule implemented the new
data points specified in the Dodd-Frank
Act, added a number of additional data
points pursuant to the Bureau’s
discretionary authority under HMDA
section 304(b)(5) and (6), and made
revisions to certain pre-existing data
points to clarify their requirements,
provide greater specificity in reporting,
and align certain data points more
closely with industry data standards,
among other changes.
The 2015 HMDA Rule requires some
financial institutions to report data on
certain dwelling-secured, open-end
lines of credit, including home-equity
lines of credit. Prior to the 2015 HMDA
Rule, Regulation C allowed, but did not
require, reporting of home-equity lines
of credit.
The 2015 HMDA Rule also
established institutional coverage
thresholds based on loan volume that
limit the definition of ‘‘financial
institution’’ to include only those
institutions that either originated at
least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
each of the two preceding calendar
years or originated at least 100 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years.11 The 2015
HMDA Rule separately established
transactional coverage thresholds that
are part of the test for determining
which loans are excluded from coverage
and were designed to work in tandem
with the institutional coverage
thresholds.12
D. 2017 HMDA Rule
In April 2017, the Bureau issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking to
address certain technical errors in the
2015 HMDA Rule, ease the burden of
reporting certain data requirements, and
clarify key terms to facilitate
compliance with Regulation C.13 In July
2017, the Bureau issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (July 2017 HMDA
Proposal) to increase temporarily the
2015 HMDA Rule’s open-end coverage
threshold of 100 for both institutional
and transactional coverage, so that
institutions originating fewer than 500
open-end lines of credit in either of the
two preceding calendar years would not
have to commence collecting or
10 Id.
at 66128, 66256–58.
at 66148–50, 66309 (codified at 12 CFR
1003.2(g)(1)(v)). The 2015 HMDA Rule excludes
certain transactions from the definition of covered
loans, and those excluded transactions do not count
towards the threshold. Id.
12 Id. at 66173, 66310, 66322 (codified at 12 CFR
1003.3(c)(11) and (12)).
13 Technical Corrections and Clarifying
Amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure
(Regulation C) October 2015 Final Rule, 82 FR
19142 (Apr. 25, 2017).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
11 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
reporting data on their open-end lines of
credit until January 1, 2020.14 In August
2017, the Bureau issued the 2017
HMDA Rule, which, inter alia,
temporarily increased the open-end
threshold to 500 open-end lines of
credit for calendar years 2018 and
2019.15 In doing so, the Bureau
indicated that the two-year period
would allow time for the Bureau to
decide, through an additional
rulemaking, whether any permanent
adjustments to the open-end threshold
are needed.16
E. Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief,
and Consumer Protection Act and 2018
HMDA Rule
On May 24, 2018, the President
signed into law the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act (EGRRCPA).17 Section
104(a) of the EGRRCPA amends HMDA
section 304(i) by adding partial
exemptions from HMDA’s requirements
for certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions.18
New HMDA section 304(i)(1) provides
that the requirements of HMDA section
304(b)(5) and (6) shall not apply with
respect to closed-end mortgage loans of
an insured depository institution or
insured credit union if it originated
fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage
14 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)
Temporary Increase in Institutional and
Transactional Coverage Thresholds for Open-End
Lines of Credit, 82 FR 33455 (July 20, 2017).
15 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 82
FR 43088 (Sept. 13, 2017).
16 Id. at 43095. The 2017 HMDA Rule also, among
other things, replaced ‘‘each’’ with ‘‘either’’ in
§ 1003.3(c)(11) and (12) to correct a drafting error
and to ensure that the exclusion provided in that
section mirrors the loan-volume threshold for
financial institutions in § 1003.2(g). Id. at 43100,
43102. Recognizing the significant systems and
operations challenges needed to adjust to the
revised regulation, the Bureau also issued a
statement in December 2017 indicating that, for
HMDA data collected in 2018 and reported in 2019,
the Bureau did not intend to require data
resubmission unless data errors were material.
Among other things, the Bureau also indicated that
it intended to engage in a rulemaking to reconsider
various aspects of the 2015 HMDA Rule, such as the
institutional and transactional coverage tests and
the rule’s discretionary data points. Bureau of
Consumer Fin. Prot., ‘‘Statement with Respect to
HMDA Implementation’’ (Dec. 21, 2017), available
at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/
cfpb_statement-with-respect-to-hmdaimplementation_122017.pdf. The Board, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National
Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency released similar
statements relating to their supervisory
examinations.
17 Public Law 115–174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
18 For purposes of HMDA section 104, the
EGRRCPA provides that the term ‘‘insured credit
union’’ has the meaning given the term in section
101 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C.
1752, and the term ‘‘insured depository institution’’
has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28365
loans in each of the two preceding
calendar years. New HMDA section
304(i)(2) provides that the requirements
of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) shall
not apply with respect to open-end lines
of credit of an insured depository
institution or insured credit union if it
originated fewer than 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years.
Notwithstanding the new partial
exemptions, new HMDA section
304(i)(3) provides that an insured
depository institution must comply with
HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) if it has
received a rating of ‘‘needs to improve
record of meeting community credit
needs’’ during each of its two most
recent examinations or a rating of
‘‘substantial noncompliance in meeting
community credit needs’’ on its most
recent examination under section
807(b)(2) of the CRA.19
On August 31, 2018, the Bureau
issued an interpretive and procedural
rule (2018 HMDA Rule) to implement
and clarify the partial exemptions
established by section 104(a) of the
EGRRCPA and effectuate the purposes
of the EGRRCPA and HMDA.20 In the
2018 HMDA Rule, the Bureau stated
that it anticipated that, at a later date,
it would initiate a notice-and-comment
rulemaking to incorporate the
interpretations and procedures into
Regulation C and further implement the
EGRRCPA.
F. May 2019 Proposal and 2019 HMDA
Rule
On May 2, 2019, the Bureau issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (May
2019 Proposal) relating to Regulation C’s
coverage thresholds and the EGRRCPA
partial exemptions and requested public
comment.21 In the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau proposed two alternatives to
amend Regulation C to increase the
current threshold of 25 closed-end
mortgage loans for reporting data about
closed-end mortgage loans so that
19 12
U.S.C. 2906(b)(2).
Exemptions from the Requirements of
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Under the
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act (Regulation C), 83 FR 45325 (Sept.
7, 2018).
21 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 84
FR 20972 (May 13, 2019). The Bureau also issued
concurrently with the May 2019 Proposal an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to
solicit comment, data, and information from the
public about the data points that the 2015 HMDA
Rule added to Regulation C or revised to require
additional information and Regulation C’s coverage
of certain business- or commercial-purpose
transactions. Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation
C) Data Points and Coverage, 84 FR 20049 (May 8,
2019). The Bureau anticipates that it will issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking later this year to
follow up on the ANPR.
20 Partial
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28366
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
institutions originating fewer than either
50 closed-end mortgage loans or,
alternatively, 100 closed-end mortgage
loans in either of the two preceding
calendar years would not have to report
such data. The May 2019 Proposal
proposed an effective date of January 1,
2020, for the amendment to the closedend coverage threshold. The May 2019
Proposal also proposed to adjust the
coverage threshold for reporting data
about open-end lines of credit by (a)
extending to January 1, 2022 the current
temporary coverage threshold of 500
open-end lines of credit, and (b) setting
the permanent coverage threshold at 200
open-end lines of credit upon the
expiration of the proposed extension of
the temporary coverage threshold. In the
May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau also
proposed to make changes to effectuate
section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA,
including incorporating into Regulation
C the interpretations and procedures
from the 2018 HMDA Rule to
implement and clarify section 104(a).
The comment period for the May 2019
Proposal closed on June 12, 2019.22 The
Bureau received over 300 comments
during the initial comment period from
lenders, industry trade associations,
consumer groups, consumers, members
of Congress, and others. Among the
comments received were a number of
letters expressing concern that the
national loan level dataset for 2018 and
the Bureau’s annual overview of
residential mortgage lending based on
that data (collectively, the 2018 HMDA
Data 23) would not be available until
after the close of the comment period for
the May 2019 Proposal. Stakeholders
asked to submit comments on the May
2019 Proposal that reflect consideration
of the 2018 HMDA Data. To allow for
the submission of such comments, on
July 31, 2019 the Bureau issued a notice
to reopen the comment period on
certain aspects of the proposal until
October 15, 2019 (July 2019 Reopening
Notice).24 Specifically, the Bureau
reopened the comment period with
respect to: (1) The Bureau’s proposed
amendments to the permanent coverage
threshold for closed-end mortgage loans,
(2) the Bureau’s proposed amendments
to the permanent coverage threshold for
open-end lines of credit, and (3) the
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
22 A
separate comment period related to the
Paperwork Reduction Act closed on July 12, 2019.
84 FR 20972 (May 13, 2019).
23 This document uses ‘‘2018 HMDA Data’’ to
refer to the publicly available national loan level
dataset for 2018 and the Bureau’s annual overview
of residential mortgage lending, and ‘‘2018 HMDA
data’’ to refer to the HMDA data submitted for
collection year 2018.
24 See Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C);
Reopening of Comment Period, 84 FR 37804 (Aug.
2, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
appropriate effective date for any
amendment to the closed-end coverage
threshold.25 The Bureau stated that,
after reviewing the comments received
by the October 15, 2019 deadline, it
anticipated that it would issue in 2020
this separate final rule addressing the
permanent thresholds for closed-end
mortgage loans and open-end lines of
credit.
The Bureau concluded that further
comment was not necessary with
respect to the other aspects of the May
2019 Proposal.26 The Bureau therefore
did not reopen the comment period
with respect to the May 2019 Proposal’s
proposed two-year extension of the
temporary coverage threshold for openend lines of credit or the provisions in
the May 2019 Proposal that would
incorporate the EGRRCPA partial
exemptions into Regulation C and
further effectuate EGRRCPA section
104(a). The Bureau issued a final rule
that finalized as proposed these aspects
of the May 2019 Proposal on October 10,
2019 (2019 HMDA Rule).27 The Bureau
explained in the 2019 HMDA Rule that
extending the current threshold of 500
open-end lines of credit for an
additional two years would allow the
Bureau to consider fully the appropriate
level for the permanent open-end
coverage threshold for data collected
beginning January 1, 2022, after
reviewing additional comments relating
to that aspect of the May 2019 Proposal.
The Bureau also stated that such an
extension would ensure that any
institutions that are covered under the
new permanent open-end coverage
threshold would have until January 1,
2022, to comply.
G. HMDA Coverage Under Current
Regulation C
The Bureau’s estimates of HMDA
coverage and the sources used in
deriving those estimates are explained
in detail in the Bureau’s analysis under
Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part
VII below.28 The Bureau estimates that
25 Id.
at 37806.
26 Id.
27 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 84
FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
28 See infra part VII.D.1. All coverage numbers
provided in this document are estimates based on
available data, as explained in part VII below. Due
to rounding there may be some minor discrepancies
within the estimates provided. As discussed further
in part VII below, the Bureau’s analyses in the May
2019 Proposal were based on HMDA data collected
in 2016 and 2017 and other sources. In part VII of
this final rule, the Bureau has supplemented the
analyses from the May 2019 Proposal with the 2018
HMDA data. See infra part VII.E.2 & VII.E.3. In the
May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that there
were about 4,960 financial institutions required to
report their closed-end mortgage loans and
applications under HMDA, with about 4,263 of
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
currently there are about 4,860 financial
institutions required to report their
closed-end mortgage loans and
applications under HMDA. The Bureau
estimates that approximately 4,120 of
these current reporters are depository
institutions and approximately 740 are
nondepository institutions. The Bureau
estimates that together these financial
institutions originated about 6.3 million
closed-end mortgage loans in calendar
year 2018. The Bureau estimates that
among the 4,860 financial institutions
that are currently required to report
closed-end mortgage loans under
HMDA, about 3,250 insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions
are partially exempt for closed-end
mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA,
and thus are not required to report a
subset of the data points currently
required by Regulation C for these
transactions.
As explained in more detail in part
VII.E.3 and table 4 below, under the
current temporary threshold of 500
open-end lines of credit, the Bureau
estimates that there are about 333
financial institutions required under
HMDA to report about 1.23 million
open-end lines of credit. Of these
institutions, the Bureau estimates that
approximately 318 are depository
institutions and approximately 15 are
nondepository institutions. The Bureau
estimates that none of these 333
institutions are partially exempt under
the EGRRCPA.
Absent this final rule, if the open-end
coverage threshold were to adjust to 100
on January 1, 2022, the Bureau estimates
that the number of reporters would be
about 1,014, who in total originate about
1.41 million open-end lines of credit.
The Bureau estimates that
approximately 972 of these open-end
reporters would be depository
institutions and approximately 42
would be nondepository institutions.
The Bureau estimates that, among the
1,014 financial institutions that would
be required to report open-end lines of
credit under a threshold of 100, about
595 insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions are partially
exempt for open-end lines of credit
under the EGRRCPA, and thus are not
those reporters being depository institutions and
about 697 being nondepository institutions. The
Bureau estimated that together, these financial
institutions originated about 7 million closed-end
mortgage loans in calendar year 2017. The Bureau
also estimated that among the estimated 4,960
closed-end reporters, about 3,300 insured
depository institutions and insured credit unions
were eligible for a partial exemption under the
EGRRCPA. The estimates in this final rule differ
slightly from those in the May 2019 Proposal due
to the supplementation of the analyses with 2018
HMDA data.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
required to report a subset of the data
points currently required by Regulation
C for these transactions. Additional
information on the Bureau’s estimates
for open-end reporting, including the
Bureau’s estimates at the permanent
threshold of 200 lines of credit, is
provided in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g) and part VII
below.
III. Summary of the Rulemaking
Process
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
On May 2, 2019, the Bureau issued
the May 2019 Proposal, which was
published in the Federal Register on
May 13, 2019.29 As explained in part
II.F above, the comment period on the
May 2019 Proposal closed on June 12,
2019, and the Bureau subsequently
reopened the comment period with
respect to certain aspects of the May
2019 Proposal until October 15, 2019.30
In total, the Bureau received over 700
comments in response to the May 2019
Proposal and the July 2019 Reopening
Notice from lenders, industry trade
associations, consumer groups,
consumers, and others.31 As discussed
in more detail below, the Bureau has
considered the comments received both
29 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 84
FR 20972 (May 13, 2019).
30 Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C);
Reopening of Comment Period, 84 FR 37804 (Aug.
2, 2019).
31 A large number of consumer groups, civil rights
groups, and other organizations stated in a joint
comment letter in response to the July 2019
Reopening Notice that, because the 2018 HMDA
Data were released in late August 2019, the
reopened comment period did not provide
sufficient time for the public to analyze the
proposed changes prior to October 15, 2019. These
commenters stated further that the public was not
provided a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the May 2019 Proposal and that the Bureau would
not have the benefit of fully informed comments
that took into consideration the 2018 HMDA Data.
The Bureau determines that additional time to
comment on the aspects of the May 2019 Proposal
addressed in this final rule is not necessary. The
Bureau believes the more than 45-day period
between the release of the 2018 HMDA Data and the
close of the reopened comment period on October
15, 2019, provided interested persons sufficient
time to meaningfully review the proposed changes
relating to the permanent open-end and closed-end
thresholds and provide comment informed by the
2018 HMDA Data. Regarding commenters’ separate
concerns over the Bureau’s dissemination of the
data, the Bureau made available with the 2018
HMDA Data a HMDA data browser that facilitates
analysis in spreadsheet software, such as Excel, and
allows users to filter the national loan-level data to
create summary tables and custom datasets. The
HMDA data browser allows users to, for example,
create summary tables that can be used to show
which institutions are active in a particular
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), state, or
county. Users can develop some understanding of
the effect of various loan-volume thresholds, for
individual institutions, by analyzing the publicly
available modified loan/application register data or,
for all institutions, by analyzing the publicly
available national loan-level dataset.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
during the initial comment period and
in response to the July 2019 Reopening
Notice in adopting this final rule.
IV. Legal Authority
The Bureau is issuing this final rule
pursuant to its authority under the
Dodd-Frank Act and HMDA. Section
1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred
to the Bureau the ‘‘consumer financial
protection functions’’ previously vested
in certain other Federal agencies,
including the Board.32 The term
‘‘consumer financial protection
function’’ is defined to include ‘‘all
authority to prescribe rules or issue
orders or guidelines pursuant to any
Federal consumer financial law,
including performing appropriate
functions to promulgate and review
such rules, orders, and guidelines.’’ 33
Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank
Act authorizes the Bureau’s Director to
prescribe rules ‘‘as may be necessary or
appropriate to enable the Bureau to
administer and carry out the purposes
and objectives of the Federal consumer
financial laws, and to prevent evasions
thereof.’’ 34 Both HMDA and title X of
the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal
consumer financial laws.35 Accordingly,
the Bureau has authority to issue
regulations to implement HMDA.
HMDA section 305(a) broadly
authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry
out HMDA’s purposes.36 These
regulations may include classifications,
differentiations, or other provisions, and
may provide for such adjustments and
exceptions for any class of transactions,
as in the judgment of the Bureau are
necessary and proper to effectuate the
purposes of HMDA, and prevent
circumvention or evasion thereof, or to
facilitate compliance therewith.37
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1003.2 Definitions
2(g) Financial Institution
Regulation C requires financial
institutions to report HMDA data.
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial
institution for purposes of Regulation C
and sets forth Regulation C’s
32 12 U.S.C. 5581. Section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank
Act also replaced the term ‘‘Board’’ with ‘‘Bureau’’
in most places in HMDA. 12 U.S.C. 2803 et seq.
33 12 U.S.C. 5581(a)(1)(A).
34 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
35 Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(14), 12 U.S.C.
5481(14) (defining ‘‘Federal consumer financial
law’’ to include the ‘‘enumerated consumer laws’’
and the provisions of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act);
Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(12), 12 U.S.C.
5481(12) (defining ‘‘enumerated consumer laws’’ to
include HMDA).
36 12 U.S.C. 2804(a).
37 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28367
institutional coverage criteria for
depository financial institutions and
nondepository financial institutions.38
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
adjusted the institutional coverage
criteria under Regulation C so that
depository institutions and
nondepository institutions are required
to report HMDA data if they: (1)
Originated at least 25 closed-end
mortgage loans or 100 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding
calendar years, and (2) meet all of the
other applicable criteria for reporting. In
the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
amended § 1003.2(g) and related
commentary to increase temporarily
from 100 to 500 the number of open-end
originations required to trigger reporting
responsibilities.39 In the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau proposed (1) to
amend §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and
(g)(2)(ii)(A) and 1003.3(c)(11) and
related commentary to raise the closedend coverage threshold to either 50 or
100 closed-end mortgage loans, and (2)
to amend §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and
(g)(2)(ii)(B) and 1003.3(c)(12) and
related commentary to extend to January
1, 2022, the current temporary open-end
coverage threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit and then to set the
threshold permanently at 200 open-end
lines of credit beginning in calendar
year 2022. In the 2019 HMDA Rule, as
discussed in part II.F above, the Bureau
finalized the proposed amendments
relating to the two-year extension of the
temporary open-end coverage threshold.
The Bureau stated at that time that it
anticipated that it would issue a
separate final rule in 2020 addressing
the permanent thresholds for closed-end
mortgage loans and open-end lines of
credit.40 For the reasons discussed
below, the Bureau is raising the closedend coverage threshold to 100, effective
July 1, 2020, and is finalizing the
proposed permanent open-end coverage
threshold of 200, effective January 1,
2022, upon expiration of the current
temporary open-end coverage threshold
of 500.41
Legal Authority for Changes to
§ 1003.2(g)
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
adopted the thresholds for certain
depository institutions in § 1003.2(g)(1)
pursuant to its authority under section
305(a) of HMDA to provide for such
adjustments and exceptions for any
38 12 CFR 1003.2(g)(1) (definition of depository
financial institution); 1003.2(g)(2) (definition of
nondepository financial institution).
39 82 FR 43088, 43095 (Sept. 13, 2017).
40 84 FR 57946, 57949 (Oct. 29, 2019).
41 For discussion of the effective dates, see part
VI.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28368
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
class of transactions that in the
judgment of the Bureau are necessary
and proper to effectuate the purposes of
HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of
HMDA, for the reasons given in the
2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau found
that the exception in § 1003.2(g)(1) is
necessary and proper to effectuate the
purposes of and facilitate compliance
with HMDA. The Bureau found that the
provision, by reducing burden on
financial institutions and establishing a
consistent loan-volume test applicable
to all financial institutions, would
facilitate compliance with HMDA’s
requirements.42 Additionally, as
discussed in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau adopted the thresholds for
certain nondepository institutions in
§ 1003.2(g)(2) pursuant to its
interpretation of HMDA sections
303(3)(B) and 303(5), which require
persons other than banks, savings
associations, and credit unions that are
‘‘engaged for profit in the business of
mortgage lending’’ to report HMDA
data. The Bureau stated that it interprets
these provisions, as the Board also did,
to evince the intent to exclude from
coverage institutions that make a
relatively small number of mortgage
loans.43 Pursuant to its authority under
HMDA section 305(a), and for the
reasons discussed below, the Bureau
believes that the final rule’s
amendments to the thresholds in
§ 1003.2(g)(1) and (2) are necessary and
proper to effectuate the purposes of
HMDA and facilitate compliance with
HMDA by reducing burden and
establishing a consistent loan-volume
test, while still providing significant
market coverage.44
2(g)(1) Depository Financial Institution
2(g)(1)(v)
2(g)(1)(v)(A)
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial
institution for purposes of Regulation C
and conditions Regulation C’s
institutional coverage, in part, on the
institution’s closed-end mortgage loan
origination volume. In the 2015 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau added the threshold of
25 closed-end mortgage loans to the preexisting regulatory coverage scheme for
depository institutions.45 In the May
42 80
FR 66128, 66150 (Oct. 28, 2015).
at 66153.
44 A State attorney general suggested in its
comments that increasing the thresholds exceeds
the Bureau’s legal authority, but as discussed above,
the Bureau is adopting the increased thresholds
based on its authority under section 305(a) of
HMDA.
45 80 FR 66128, 66129 (Oct. 28, 2015). Prior to the
2015 HMDA Rule, a bank, savings association, or
credit union was covered under Regulation C if: (1)
On the preceding December 31, it satisfied an asset-
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
43 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to
amend § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and related
commentary to increase the closed-end
threshold for depository institutions
from 25 to 50 or, alternatively, 100
closed-end mortgage loans. For the
reasons discussed below, the Bureau is
now amending § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and
related commentary to raise the
threshold to 100 closed-end mortgage
loans.46
Background on Closed-End Mortgage
Loan Threshold for Institutional
Coverage of Depository Institutions
HMDA and its implementing
regulation, Regulation C, require certain
depository institutions (banks, savings
associations, and credit unions) to
report data about originations and
purchases of mortgage loans, as well as
mortgage loan applications that do not
result in originations (for example,
applications that are denied or
withdrawn). In adopting the threshold
of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in the
2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau stated
that it believed that the institutional
coverage criteria should balance the
burden on financial institutions of
reporting HMDA data against the value
of the data reported and that a threshold
should be set that did not impair
HMDA’s ability to achieve its purposes
but also did not impose burden on
institutions if their data are of limited
value.47 The Bureau also stated that the
closed-end threshold of 25 would
meaningfully reduce burden by
relieving an estimated 1,400 depository
institutions, or 22 percent of depository
institutions that previously reported
HMDA data, of their obligations to
report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans.48 The Bureau
acknowledged that it would be possible
to maintain reporting of a significant
percentage of the national mortgage
market with a closed-end threshold set
higher than 25 loans annually and that
data reported by some institutions that
would satisfy the threshold of 25 closedend mortgage loans may not be as useful
for statistical analysis as data reported
by institutions with much higher loan
volumes.49 However, the Bureau
determined that a higher closed-end
threshold would have a material
negative impact on the availability of
data about patterns and trends at the
local level and the data about local
communities are essential to achieve
HMDA’s purposes.50 The Bureau
concluded that, if it were to set the
closed-end threshold higher than 25, the
resulting loss of data at the local level
would substantially impede the public’s
and public officials’ ability to
understand access to credit in their
communities.51
However, after issuing the 2015
HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule,
the Bureau heard concerns that lowervolume institutions continue to
experience significant burden with the
threshold set at 25 closed-end mortgage
loans.52 For example, several depository
institutions recommended that the
Bureau use its exemption authority to
increase the closed-end loan threshold
and stated that the costs of HMDA
reporting and its impact on the
operations of lower-volume financial
institutions do not justify the small
amount of data such institutions would
report.53 In light of the concerns
expressed by industry stakeholders
regarding the considerable burden
associated with reporting the new data
points on closed-end mortgage loans
required by the 2015 HMDA Rule, in the
May 2019 Proposal the Bureau proposed
to increase the closed-end threshold for
institutions to ensure that it
appropriately balances the benefits of
the HMDA data reported by lowervolume institutions in furthering
HMDA’s purposes with the burden on
49 Id.
at 66147.
50 Id.
51 Id.
at 66148.
Bureau temporarily raised the threshold for
open-end lines of credit in the 2017 HMDA Rule
because of concerns based on new information that
the estimates the Bureau used in the 2015 HMDA
Rule may have understated the burden that openend reporting would impose on smaller institutions
if they were required to begin reporting on January
1, 2018. However, the Bureau declined to raise the
threshold for closed-end mortgage loans at that time
and stated that, in developing the 2015 HMDA
Rule, it had robust data to make a determination
about the number of transactions that would be
reported at the threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage
loans as well as the one-time and ongoing costs to
industry. 82 FR 43088, 43095–96 (Sept. 13, 2017).
53 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau stated
that it received this recommendation in response to
the Bureau’s 2018 Request for Information
Regarding the Bureau’s Adopted Regulations and
New Rulemaking Authorities (RFI) although the
2015 HMDA Rule was outside the scope of the RFI.
See 84 FR 20972, 20976 (May 13, 2019).
52 The
size threshold; (2) on the preceding December 31,
it had a home or branch office in an MSA; (3)
during the previous calendar year, it originated at
least one home purchase loan or refinancing of a
home purchase loan secured by a first lien on a oneto four-unit dwelling; and (4) the institution is
federally insured or regulated, or the mortgage loan
referred to in item (3) was insured, guaranteed, or
supplemented by a Federal agency or intended for
sale to the Federal National Mortgage Association
or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. 12
CFR 1003.2 (2016).
46 In addition to finalizing changes that the
Bureau proposed to comment 2(g)–1 and changes
related to optional reporting that are discussed
below, the final rule makes minor changes to
comment 2(g)–1 to update the years and loanvolumes in an example that illustrates how the
closed-end mortgage loan threshold works.
47 80 FR 66128, 66147 (Oct. 28, 2015).
48 Id. at 66148, 66277.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
such institutions associated with
reporting closed-end data. The Bureau
stated in the proposal that increasing
the closed-end threshold may provide
meaningful burden relief for lowervolume depository institutions without
reducing substantially the data reported
under HMDA. The Bureau sought
comments on how the proposed
increase to the closed-end threshold
would affect the number of depository
institutions required to report data on
closed-end mortgage loans, the
significance of the data that would not
be available for achieving HMDA’s
purposes as a result of the proposed
increase, and the reduction in burden
that would result from the proposed
increase for depository institutions that
would not be required to report.
Comments Received on Closed-End
Threshold for Institutional Coverage of
Depository Institutions
The Bureau received many comments
regarding the proposed alternatives for
increasing the closed-end threshold
from 25 to 50 or, alternatively, 100 in
proposed § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). Except for
comments related to the EGRRCPA,
commenters typically did not
distinguish between their recommended
closed-end threshold for depository
institutions under § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A)
and their recommended closed-end
threshold for nondepository institutions
under § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A).
Many commenters, including most
financial institutions and national and
State trade associations that
commented, supported increasing the
closed-end threshold. Most of these
commenters discussed the burden of
collecting and reporting HMDA data,
and despite acknowledging the
importance of HMDA data, stated that
the cost of complying with regulations
has affected their ability to serve their
communities. Many industry
commenters stated that the burden of
complying with HMDA requirements is
exacerbated in smaller financial
institutions due to fewer staff and a lack
of automated processes. A number of
small financial institutions stated that
they have only a few employees who
work in mortgage lending and that these
employees spend a considerable amount
of time on HMDA compliance,
including collecting and entering
HMDA data into the appropriate
software system and reviewing the data
for accuracy. One national trade
association added that many small
financial institutions operate in
geographic areas with shortages of
compliance professionals. Several
industry commenters also noted that the
economies of scale that larger financial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
institutions can leverage are generally
not available to small financial
institutions. Many small financial
institutions stated that, if the Bureau
increased the closed-end threshold and
thus excluded them from HMDA’s
coverage, the significant burden relief
would allow their staff to focus on
serving customers.
A national trade association stated
that a significant number of small
financial institutions limit or no longer
offer specific mortgage products due to
the increased regulatory burden and
legal risks associated with such loans.
This commenter stated that certain
institutions manage their mortgage
lending to stay below the threshold for
HMDA reporting, which ultimately
leaves customers with fewer lending
options, and suggested that an increase
in the closed-end threshold could
increase the flow of credit by small
banks into their communities. For
example, one small financial institution
suggested that, if it did not have to
collect HMDA data, the resulting
decrease in compliance costs would
allow it to maintain a program that
provides mortgages to low-to-moderate
income families.
Several industry commenters stated
that the loss of HMDA data as a result
of an increase in the closed-end
threshold would not impact the ability
to identify potentially discriminatory
lending or areas in need of public sector
investment. One national trade
association stated that institutions that
would qualify for the exclusion under
the thresholds proposed by the Bureau
were extremely small market
participants with limited loan volumes
and that data on their lending patterns
could be obtained through the
examination process. This commenter
also suggested that any type of fair
lending peer comparisons using the
HMDA data could still be accurate
because, under the proposed threshold
of 100, at least 96 percent of total
originations would be retained. Many
small financial institutions stated that,
in their fair lending exams, their
regulators have relied on HMDA data,
but also on transaction testing data and
staff interviews, partly because of the
limited number of mortgage
applications these institutions receive.
These commenters stated further that
their regulators also retain full access to
their lending files and data needed for
their fair lending assessment. A number
of commenters, including many small
financial institutions and a State trade
association, stated that small financial
institutions are eligible for partial
exemptions under the EGRRCPA and
thus are already exempt from reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28369
much of the data on their credit
decisions that would signal lending
disparities, such as pricing information
and credit scores. The State trade
association further stated that examiners
already need to review such
institutions’ files, rather than relying on
their HMDA data, to identify potentially
discriminatory lending patterns. A State
trade association expressed the belief
that, due to budget constraints for some
local governments and housing
authorities, HMDA data are not
considered in the distribution of public
sector investments in certain areas.
Moreover, this commenter stated that, in
areas where government authorities do
consider HMDA data in making public
investment decisions, HMDA data from
lower-volume institutions make up a
small percentage of the overall lending
data within the area and thus do not
impact such investment decisions.
Relying on the reasons described
above, most of the commenters
supporting the proposed increase to the
closed-end threshold stated that they
preferred the proposed threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans over the
proposed threshold of 50 closed-end
mortgage loans. In some cases,
commenters urged the Bureau to
consider increasing the closed-end
threshold even higher, such as to 250,
500, or 1,000. A national trade
association recommended increasing the
closed-end threshold to 500 to
harmonize HMDA’s coverage
requirements with the threshold for the
EGRRCPA partial exemptions. A trade
association and some small financial
institutions suggested that the Bureau
increase the threshold to 1,000 closedend mortgage loans, expressing the
belief that the Bureau’s proposal did not
go far enough to distinguish small
lending institutions from larger
institutions in the mortgage market. The
trade association reasoned that
increasing the threshold to at least 1,000
closed-end mortgage loans would
meaningfully reduce regulatory burden
associated with HMDA compliance and
allow institutions to direct their cost
savings towards improving customer
service, increasing consumer-friendly
products, and continuing to invest in
their communities.
Other commenters, including many
community organizations, consumer
advocates, research organizations, and
individuals, opposed the Bureau’s
proposal to increase the closed-end
threshold. These commenters stated that
an increase to the closed-end threshold,
which would result in a decrease in
HMDA data, would imperil HMDA’s
purpose of assessing whether financial
institutions are meeting the housing
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
28370
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
needs of their communities. For
example, one research organization
stated that robust, quality data are
critical to the work of regulators and
community reinvestment advocates in
assessing how well institutions are
serving their communities. One
commenter stated that lenders rely on
HMDA data for internal fair lending and
community reinvestment compliance
efforts and to assess their performance
relative to that of their peers and
competitors. A comment letter from 19
U.S. Senators stated that the Bureau’s
proposal ignores existing exemptions
that already reduce the usefulness of
HMDA data in many communities.
These Senators pointed out that the
2015 HMDA Rule exempted 22 percent
of depository institutions that had
previously been required to report
HMDA data, which resulted in a
significant loss of data in certain census
tracts. They also noted that an
underlying purpose of HMDA is to show
how institutions are serving local
communities and stated that, even if the
loss of data from smaller-volume
institutions would be limited when
compared to the overall market, the loss
of the data would have a real and
meaningful impact for residents of
affected communities. In a joint
comment letter, a large number of
consumer groups, civil rights groups,
and other organizations expressed a
similar concern that increasing the
threshold would result in a large loss of
HMDA reporting that would otherwise
provide a view of lending trends in
underserved areas.
Many consumer groups, civil rights
groups, and other organizations also
discussed the importance of HMDA data
for transparency and accountability,
noting that the public visibility of
HMDA data has motivated financial
institutions to increase lending to
traditionally underserved borrowers and
communities. They expressed concern
that the smaller institutions that would
no longer be required to report closedend data at the proposed higher
thresholds disproportionately lend in
underserved neighborhoods and that the
proposed threshold increase would
result in a more notable decrease in
closed-end data for distressed urban
areas, rural areas, tribal areas,
communities of color, and
neighborhoods that have a high number
of immigrants. These commenters
asserted that for decades the public has
used HMDA data to uncover and
address redlining and other fair lending
and fair housing violations and stated
that an increase in the threshold would
make identifying such practices more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
difficult. A consumer advocacy
organization stated that lenders offering
unfavorable and unsustainable loan
terms and refinance loans in the period
just before the financial crisis
disproportionally targeted certain
groups. Many commenters also stated
that an increase in the closed-end
threshold would impact the public’s
ability to evaluate whether public
investments are successful in
revitalizing struggling areas. For
example, one community group noted
that the loss of HMDA data from banks
and credit unions operating in rural
towns and communities would result in
less information about where capital is
being deployed in those areas.
Many commenters who were opposed
to increasing the closed-end threshold
pointed out the impact that an increase
to the closed-end threshold would have
on the work of Federal and State
agencies. They stated that raising the
thresholds would compromise
enforcement work against unfair and
deceptive lending because there would
be less data available to monitor such
activity. Similarly, commenters stated
that examinations pursuant to the
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
would become more burdensome
because examiners would likely need to
be onsite to review data rather than
using publicly available HMDA data. A
State attorney general commenter
suggested that under the Bureau’s
proposal, major lenders would be
exempt from HMDA reporting and that
the lack of data from such lenders
would affect its ability to ensure that all
of its residents are able to access
affordable credit free of discrimination.
In addition, this commenter stated that
the proposed closed-end threshold
increase would all but eliminate its
ability to enforce fair lending laws in
‘‘hyper-localized’’ markets in rural areas
because small, local lenders are
disproportionately represented in rural
areas (the commenter did not define the
term ‘‘hyper-localized,’’ but the Bureau
understands this term as referring to
markets that are limited to a small
geographic area).
Several commenters also expressed
concerns about the impact that an
increase in the closed-end threshold
would have on visibility into specific
loan products, such as loans for
multifamily housing and manufactured
housing. For example, a State attorney
general expressed concerns that a
threshold higher than the current
threshold of 25 would limit data
reported on multifamily dwellings that
provide a significant source of
affordable housing in urban areas across
the State. Another commenter opposed
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an increase to the closed-end threshold
because of concerns that it would
decrease visibility into manufactured
housing loans, reasoning that there are
a small number of lenders that make
such loans.
Many commenters who opposed an
increase in the closed-end threshold
also stated that the cost savings that
would result from excluding lenders
from HMDA reporting would be modest.
These commenters asserted that the
burden of HMDA reporting is not so
significant as to make up for the loss of
data that would otherwise be available
at the current threshold of 25 closed-end
mortgage loans for the public and
regulators to monitor fair lending
compliance. These commenters stated
further that the estimates of potential
cost savings provided by the Bureau in
the proposal were too high and that the
cost of HMDA reporting is low. First,
they stated that most of the lenders that
would be excluded under the Bureau’s
proposed rule are already exempt from
reporting many of the new HMDA data
points because they qualify for partial
exemptions under the EGRRCPA and
would therefore be reporting data that
lenders have been reporting for decades.
Second, these commenters noted that
much of the data reportable under
HMDA must be collected for other rules,
including the TILA–RESPA Integrated
Disclosure and Ability-to-Repay/
Qualified Mortgage rules, and ordinary
underwriting standards. Finally, these
commenters stated that HMDA data
should be collected as a matter of sound
banking practices and asserted that
reporting the data is unlikely to require
substantial resources given modern
technological advancements.
Final Rule
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA
section 305(a) as discussed above, the
Bureau is finalizing the closed-end
threshold for depository institutions at
100 in § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). As discussed
below, the Bureau believes that
increasing the closed-end threshold to
100 will provide meaningful burden
relief for lower-volume depository
institutions while maintaining reporting
sufficient to achieve HMDA’s purposes.
Since the 2015 HMDA Rule was
issued, a few developments have
affected the Bureau’s analyses of the
costs and benefits associated with the
closed-end threshold. The Bureau has
gathered extensive information
regarding stakeholders’ experience with
the 2015 HMDA Rule, through
comments received in this rulemaking
and other feedback. As stated above, the
Bureau has heard that financial
institutions have encountered
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
significant burdens in complying with
the rule, and the Bureau is particularly
concerned about the increased burdens
faced by smaller institutions.
Additionally, the Bureau now has
access to HMDA data from 2018, which
was the first year that financial
institutions collected data under the
2015 HMDA Rule, and has used these
data in updating and generating the
estimates provided in this final rule.
With the benefit of this additional
information about the 2015 HMDA Rule,
and the new data to supplement the
Bureau’s analyses, the Bureau is now in
a better position to assess both the
benefits and burdens of the reporting
required under the 2015 HMDA Rule.
Another development since the 2015
HMDA Rule is the enactment of the
EGRRCPA, which created partial
exemptions from HMDA’s requirements
that certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions
may now use.54 The partial exemption
for closed-end mortgage loans under the
EGRRCPA relieves certain insured
depository institutions and insured
credit unions that originated fewer than
500 closed-end mortgage loans in each
of the two preceding calendar years of
the obligation to report many of the data
points generally required by Regulation
C.55 While the EGRRCPA relieves
burden for some depository institutions,
it does not relieve smaller depository
institutions from the burdens of
reporting entirely.
The Bureau has considered the
appropriate closed-end threshold in
light of these developments and the
comments received. On balance, the
Bureau determines that the threshold of
100 closed-end mortgage loans provides
sufficient information on closed-end
mortgage lending to serve HMDA’s
purposes, while appropriately reducing
ongoing costs that smaller institutions
are incurring under the current
threshold. These considerations are
discussed in turn below, and additional
explanation of the Bureau’s cost
estimates is provided in the Bureau’s
analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section
1022(b) in part VII.E.2 below.
Effect on Market Coverage
For this final rule, the Bureau
reviewed multiple data sources,
including recent HMDA data 56 and
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
54 Public
Law 115–174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
84 FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
56 The Bureau stated in the May 2019 Proposal
that it intended to review the 2018 HMDA data
more closely in connection with this rulemaking
once the 2018 submissions were more complete.
The Bureau released the 2018 HMDA Data
including the two data point articles on August 30,
2019, and reopened the comment period until
55 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
Reports of Condition and Income (Call
Reports), and developed estimates for
the two thresholds the Bureau proposed
in the alternative, 50 and 100, as well
as thresholds of 250 and 500, which
many commenters suggested the Bureau
consider. The Bureau notes that many of
the estimates provided in this final rule
differ slightly from the initial estimates
provided in the May 2019 Proposal. As
discussed below in part VII.E.2, the
estimates in this final rule update the
initial estimates provided in the May
2019 Proposal with the 2018 HMDA
data, which were not available at the
time the Bureau developed the May
2019 Proposal. For the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau used data from
2016 and 2017 with a two-year lookback period covering calendar years
2016 and 2017 to estimate potential
reporters and projected the lending
activities of financial institutions using
their 2017 data as proxies. In generating
the updated estimates provided in this
final rule, the Bureau has used data
from 2017 and 2018 with a two-year
look-back period covering calendar
years 2017 and 2018 to estimate
potential reporters and has projected the
lending activities of financial
institutions using their 2018 data as
proxies. In addition, for the estimates
provided in the May 2019 Proposal and
in this final rule, the Bureau restricted
the projected reporters to only those that
actually reported data in the most recent
year of HMDA data considered (2017 for
the May 2019 Proposal and 2018 for this
final rule).57
The estimates below compare
coverage under these thresholds to
coverage under the current threshold of
25 closed-end mortgage loans. The
estimated effect that increasing the
threshold from 25 closed-end mortgage
loans to various higher thresholds
would have on the overall HMDA data,
local-level HMDA data, and specific
loan products reported are discussed in
turn below.
Effect on covered depository
institutions and reportable originations.
For this final rule, the Bureau has
October 15, 2019, to give commenters an
opportunity to comment on the 2018 HMDA Data.
The estimates reflected in this final rule are based
on the HMDA data collected in 2017 and 2018 as
well as other sources.
57 The Bureau recognizes that the coverage
estimates generated using this restriction may omit
certain financial institutions that should have
reported but did not report in the most recent
HMDA reporting year. However, the Bureau applied
this restriction to ensure that institutions included
in its coverage estimates are in fact financial
institutions for purposes of Regulation C because it
recognizes that institutions might not meet the
Regulation C definition of financial institution for
reasons that are not evident in the data sources that
it utilized.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28371
considered the impact that the two
alternative proposed thresholds and
other possible thresholds would have on
the number of depository institutions
that would report HMDA data and how
many originations they would report.58
The Bureau estimates that if the closedend threshold were increased from 25 to
50, approximately 3,400 out of
approximately 4,120 depository
institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 85
percent) would continue to be required
to report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau
estimates that if the threshold were
increased from 25 to 50, approximately
98.9 percent or approximately 2.89
million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current
Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported.59
The Bureau estimates that with the
closed-end threshold set at 100 under
the final rule, approximately 2,480 out
of approximately 4,120 depository
institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 60
percent) will continue to be required to
report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau
estimates that when the final rule
increases the closed-end threshold from
25 to 100 loans, approximately 96
percent or approximately 2.79 million
total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current
Regulation C coverage criteria will
continue to be reported.60
58 The estimates for coverage and reportable
originations described in this section cover only
depository institutions. Estimates for coverage of
nondepository institutions and reportable
originations of nondepository institutions are
described in the section-by-section analysis of
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) below. For estimates that are
comprehensive of depository and nondepository
institutions, see part VII.E.2 below.
59 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 50, about 3,518 out of about 4,263 depository
institutions covered under the current threshold of
25 (or approximately 83 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans,
and approximately 99 percent or approximately
3.54 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions under the
current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
60 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 100, about 2,581 out of about 4,263 depository
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
Continued
12MYR2
28372
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
The Bureau also generated estimates
for closed-end thresholds higher than
those that the Bureau proposed. These
estimates indicate that the decrease in
the number of depository institutions
that would be required to report HMDA
data and the resulting decrease in the
HMDA data that would be reported
becomes more pronounced at thresholds
higher than 100. For example, if the
closed-end threshold were set at 250,
the Bureau estimates that approximately
1,340 out of approximately 4,120
depository institutions covered under
the current threshold of 25 (or
approximately 32 percent) would
continue to be required to report HMDA
data on closed-end mortgage loans.
Further, the Bureau estimates that, if the
threshold were set at 250 closed-end
mortgage loans, approximately 89
percent or approximately 2.57 million
total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current
Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported.61
The Bureau estimates that if the
closed-end threshold were set at 500,
approximately 720 out of approximately
4,120 depository institutions covered
under the current threshold of 25 (or
approximately 18 percent) would
continue to be required to report HMDA
data on closed-end mortgage loans.
Further, the Bureau estimates that, if the
threshold were set at 500,
approximately 81 percent or
approximately 2.34 million total
originations of closed-end mortgage
loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions
institutions covered under the current threshold of
25 (or approximately 61 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans,
and approximately 90 percent or approximately
3.43 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions under the
current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
61 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 250, about 1,413 out of about 4,263 depository
institutions covered under the current threshold of
25 (or approximately 33 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans,
and approximately 90 percent or approximately
3.21 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions under the
current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
under the current Regulation C coverage
criteria would continue to be reported.62
As described above, many
commenters opposed increasing the
closed-end threshold because of
concerns that there would be less data
with which to further HMDA’s statutory
purposes. While the Bureau recognizes
that the increase in the threshold to 100
closed-end mortgage loans will reduce
market coverage compared to the
current threshold of 25, the Bureau
estimates that information covering
approximately 96 percent of loans
currently reported will still be available
to further HMDA’s statutory purposes.
The Bureau believes that the small
amount of HMDA data obtained from
lower-volume depository institutions
does not justify the costs imposed on
those institutions to comply with
HMDA data reporting requirements.
Although a commenter suggested the
Bureau increase the closed-end
threshold to 500 to harmonize the
thresholds with the EGRRCPA
provisions, the Bureau determines that
it is not appropriate to set the closedend threshold at 500. Doing so would
provide a complete exclusion from
reporting all closed-end data for
institutions below the threshold of 500,
even though Congress opted to provide
only a partial exemption at the
threshold of 500, and would extend that
complete exclusion to institutions that
Congress did not include in even the
partial exemption. The EGRRCPA
partial exemption already relieves most
lenders originating fewer than 500
closed-end loans in each of the two
preceding calendar years from the
requirement to report many data points
associated with their closed-end
transactions.63 Providing a complete
exclusion at 500 closed-end mortgage
loans would exclude visibility into
62 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 500, about 798 out of about 4,263 depository
institutions covered under the current threshold of
25 (or approximately 19 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans,
and approximately 83 percent or approximately
2.97 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions under the
current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
63 As discussed in more detail in part VII.E.2
below, about 1,620 of the estimated 2,480 financial
institutions that the Bureau estimates will report
closed-end loans at the threshold of 100 are eligible
for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA. The
Bureau estimates that these partially exempt
institutions report only 369,000 out of the estimated
2.7 million closed-end mortgage loans that will be
reported at the threshold of 100.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
approximately 82 percent of institutions
covered under the current threshold of
25 closed-end mortgage loans, which
would result in a significant loss of
coverage in closed-end lending and
negatively impact the utility of HMDA
data.
Effect on HMDA data at the local
level. For the proposal and this final
rule, the Bureau reviewed estimates at
varying closed-end thresholds to
examine the potential effect on available
data at the census tract level. The
Bureau’s estimates of the effect on
reportable HMDA data at the census
tract level comprise both depository
institutions and nondepository
institutions. The Bureau estimates that,
if the closed-end threshold were raised
from 25 to 50, approximately 74,300 out
of the approximately 74,600 total census
tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or over 99 percent,
would retain more than 80 percent of
reportable HMDA data, relative to the
current threshold. The Bureau estimates
there would be a decrease of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans relative to
the current threshold in approximately
300 out of approximately 74,600 total
census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or less than one-half
of 1 percent. With respect to low-tomoderate income census tracts, if the
closed-end threshold were raised from
25 to 50, the Bureau estimates that,
relative to the current threshold of 25,
over 99 percent of low-moderate income
census tracts would retain more than 80
percent of reportable HMDA data, and
there would be at least a 20 percent
decrease in reportable HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans in less than
1 percent of such tracts. In addition, the
Bureau examined the effects on rural
census tracts and estimates that, relative
to the current threshold of 25, more than
98 percent of rural tracts would retain
more than 80 percent of reportable
HMDA data, and there would be at least
a 20 percent decrease in reportable
HMDA data in just over 1 percent of
rural tracts.64
64 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 50, there would be a loss of at least 20 percent
of reportable HMDA data in just under 300 out of
approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or less
than one-half of 1 percent of the total number of
census tracts, relative to the current threshold. For
low-to-moderate income census tracts, the Bureau
estimated that there would be a loss of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in less than 1
percent of such tracts relative to the current
threshold, and for rural census tracts, the Bureau
estimated there would be at least a 20 percent loss
of reportable HMDA data in less than one-half of
1 percent of such tracts relative to the current
threshold. As explained above and in greater detail
in part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
With the threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans established by this final
rule, the Bureau estimates that, relative
to the current threshold of 25,
approximately 73,400 census tracts out
of approximately 74,600 total census
tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or over 98 percent,
would retain more than 80 percent of
reportable HMDA data. The Bureau
estimates that there will be a decrease
of at least 20 percent of reportable
HMDA data on closed-end mortgage
loans relative to the current threshold in
about 1,200 out of approximately 74,600
total census tracts in which HMDA data
are currently reported, or under 2
percent. For low-to-moderate income
census tracts, with the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau
estimates that, relative to the current
threshold of 25, approximately 97
percent of such tracts will retain more
than 80 percent of reportable HMDA
data, and there will be a decrease of at
least 20 percent of reportable HMDA
data in approximately 3 percent of such
tracts. The Bureau also estimates that,
relative to the current threshold of 25,
approximately 95 percent of rural tracts
will retain more than 80 percent of
reportable HMDA data, and there will
be a decrease of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in approximately
5 percent of such tracts.65
The Bureau’s estimates also reflect
that the effect on data available at the
census tract level would become more
pronounced at closed-end mortgage loan
thresholds above 100. For example, the
Bureau estimates that, if the threshold
were increased from 25 to 250 loans,
approximately 68,800 out of the
approximately 74,600 total census tracts
in which HMDA data are currently
reported, or over 92 percent, would
retain more than 80 percent of
reportable HMDA data, relative to the
current threshold. The Bureau estimates
estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this
final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
65 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 100, there would be a loss of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in about 1,100 out
of approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or 1.5
percent of the total number of census tracts, relative
to the current threshold. For low-to-moderate
income census tracts, the Bureau estimated that
there would be a loss of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in 3 percent of such tracts
relative to the current threshold, and for rural
census tracts, the Bureau estimated there would be
at least a 20 percent loss of reportable HMDA data
in less than 3 percent of such tracts relative to the
current threshold. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
28373
there would be a decrease of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans in about
5,800 out of approximately 74,600 total
census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or about 8 percent of
those census tracts, relative to the
current threshold. For low-to-moderate
income census tracts, if the threshold
were increased from 25 to 250, the
Bureau estimates that approximately 90
percent of tracts would retain more than
80 percent of reportable HMDA data,
and there would be a decrease of at least
20 percent of reportable HMDA data in
approximately 10 percent of such tracts,
relative to the current threshold. For
rural tracts, the Bureau estimates that
approximately 81 percent of tracts
would retain more than 80 percent of
reportable HMDA data, and there would
be a decrease of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in approximately
19 percent of such tracts, relative to the
current threshold.66
Further, the Bureau estimates that, if
the closed-end threshold were increased
from 25 to 500 loans, approximately
60,500 out of approximately 74,600 total
census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or approximately 81
percent, would retain more than 80
percent of reportable HMDA data. The
Bureau estimates there would be a
decrease of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans in approximately 14,100,
or 19 percent of the total number of
census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, relative to the
current threshold of 25. For low-tomoderate income census tracts, the
Bureau estimates that, if the threshold
were increased from 25 to 500, over 78
percent of such tracts would retain more
than 80 percent of reportable HMDA
data, and there would be a decrease of
at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA
data in over 21 percent of such tracts.
For rural census tracts, the Bureau
estimates that approximately 62 percent
of such tracts would retain more than 80
percent of reportable HMDA data, and
there would be a decrease of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in
approximately 37 percent of such tracts,
relative to the current threshold.67
The Bureau recognizes that any loanvolume threshold will affect individual
markets differently, depending on the
extent to which smaller creditors service
individual markets and the market share
of those creditors. The Bureau
concludes, however, based on the
estimates provided above, that the
threshold of 100 closed-end loans
adopted in this final rule will provide
substantial visibility into rural and lowto-moderate income tracts and permit
the public and public officials to
identify patterns and trends at the local
level. At the same time, the Bureau is
concerned that the higher closed-end
mortgage loan-volume thresholds above
100 suggested by industry commenters
could have a material negative impact
on the availability of data about patterns
and trends at the local level and could
affect the availability of data necessary
to achieve HMDA’s purposes.
Specific types of data. The Bureau has
also considered the impact that
increasing the threshold could have on
data related to specific types of closedend lending mentioned by commenters,
such as applications and originations
related to multifamily housing and
manufactured housing lending. The
Bureau estimates that with the closedend threshold increased from 25 to 100
under the final rule, approximately 87
percent of multifamily loan applications
and originations will continue to be
reported by depository and
nondepository institutions combined,
when compared to the current threshold
of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
today’s market conditions. Regarding
the effect on manufactured housing
data, the Bureau estimates that at a
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans, approximately 96 percent of loans
and applications related to
manufactured housing will continue to
66 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 250, there would be a loss of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in over 4,000 out
of approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or 5.4
percent of the total number of census tracts, relative
to the current threshold. For low-to-moderate
income census tracts, the Bureau estimated that
there would be a loss of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in just over 8 percent of such
tracts relative to the current threshold, and for rural
census tracts, the Bureau estimated there would be
at least a 20 percent loss of reportable HMDA data
in about 14 percent of such tracts relative to the
current threshold. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
67 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 500, there would be a loss of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in approximately
11,000 out of approximately 74,000 total census
tracts, or 14.9 percent of the total number of census
tracts, relative to the current threshold. For low-tomoderate income census tracts, the Bureau
estimated that there would be a loss of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in 17 percent of
such tracts relative to the current threshold, and for
rural census tracts, the Bureau estimated there
would be at least a 20 percent loss of reportable
HMDA data in 32 percent of such tracts relative to
the current threshold. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28374
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
be reported by depository and
nondepository institutions combined,
when compared to the current threshold
of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
today’s market conditions. Increasing
the threshold above 100 would have a
more pronounced impact on data
regarding both multifamily housing and
manufactured housing lending.
Although less data will be available
regarding multifamily housing and
manufactured housing lending at the
threshold of 100 than at the current
threshold, the Bureau believes that the
limited decreases in the amount of data
are justified by the benefits of relieving
smaller-volume institutions of the
burdens of HMDA reporting.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Ongoing Cost Reduction From
Threshold of 100
As noted above, small financial
institutions and trade associations
commented on the cost of HMDA
reporting, suggesting that compliance
costs have had an impact on the ability
of small financial institutions to serve
their customers and communities. For
the proposal and this final rule, the
Bureau developed estimates for
depository and nondepository
institutions combined to determine the
savings in annual ongoing costs at
various thresholds.68 These estimates
illustrate the cost savings under the
various thresholds when compared to
the current threshold of 25.
The Bureau estimates that if the
closed-end threshold were set at 50,
institutions that originate between 25
and 49 closed-end mortgage loans
would save approximately $3.7 million
per year in total annual ongoing costs,
relative to the current threshold of 25.69
The Bureau estimates that with a
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans established by the final rule,
institutions that originate between 25
and 99 closed-end mortgage loans will
save approximately $11.2 million per
year, relative to the current threshold of
68 These cost estimates reflect the combined
ongoing reduction in costs for depository and
nondepository institutions. These estimates also
take into account the enactment of the EGRRCPA,
which created partial exemptions from HMDA’s
requirements that certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions may use, and
reflect updates made to the cost estimates since the
May 2019 Proposal. See part VII.E.2 below for a
more comprehensive discussion of the cost
estimates.
69 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 50, the aggregate savings on the operational
costs associated with reporting closed-end mortgage
loans would be approximately $2.2 million per
year. As explained above and in greater detail in
part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the estimates
between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule
are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the
newly available 2018 HMDA data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
25.70 With a threshold of 250 or 500
closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau
estimates that institutions would save
approximately $27.2 million and $45.4
million, respectively, relative to the
current threshold of 25. Based on the
Bureau’s estimates, the Bureau believes
that the cost reduction from increasing
the threshold from 25 to 100 closed-end
mortgage loans is significant and more
than double the cost savings that a
threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage
loans would have provided, providing
meaningful cost savings to institutions.
The Bureau recognizes that the
estimated ongoing costs savings
associated with increasing the threshold
from 25 to 100 closed-end loans are less
than they would have been absent the
relief provided by the EGRRCPA.
Nonetheless, the Bureau determines that
these ongoing cost savings will provide
meaningful burden reduction to smaller
institutions that are currently covered at
the threshold of 25 closed-end loans but
will be excluded from closed-end
reporting under the increased threshold
in this final rule. Avoiding the
imposition of such costs for these
affected institutions may also enable
smaller institutions to focus on lending
activities and serving their
communities, as suggested by some
commenters.
The Bureau concludes that increasing
the closed-end threshold to 100 will
provide meaningful burden relief for
lower-volume depository institutions
while maintaining reporting sufficient
to achieve HMDA’s purposes. As
discussed above, the Bureau has heard
of significant burdens in complying
with the 2015 HMDA Rule, especially
from smaller institutions, and the
Bureau has been able to confirm the
impact of the rule and any potential
changes to the closed-end threshold,
based on the new 2018 HMDA data. The
Bureau recognizes that there is some
loss of data at this threshold but
believes that it strikes the right balance
between the burden of collecting and
reporting and the benefit of HMDA data.
The Bureau’s estimates reflect an
estimated decrease of about 4 percent of
total originations by depository
institutions reportable under the current
closed-end threshold of 25 in today’s
market conditions. According to the
Bureau’s estimates, about 60 percent of
70 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated
that if the closed-end threshold were increased from
25 to 100, the aggregate savings on the operational
costs associated with reporting closed-end mortgage
loans would be approximately $8.1 million per
year. As explained above and in greater detail in
part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the estimates
between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule
are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the
newly available 2018 HMDA data.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
current HMDA reporters that are
depository institutions will continue to
report HMDA data, and only
approximately 1,200 out of 74,600
census tracts will reflect a decrease of at
least 20 percent in HMDA data from
depository and nondepository
institutions. Therefore, the Bureau
believes that the decrease in data from
institutions that will be newly excluded
with the closed-end threshold set at 100
is justified by the significant reduction
in burden for the approximately 1,640
lower-volume depository institutions
that will no longer be required to report
HMDA data when compared to the
current threshold of 25. The threshold
of 100 closed-end mortgage loans
balances the benefits and burdens of
covering institutions engaged in closedend mortgage lending by retaining
significant coverage of the closed-end
market while excluding from coverage
smaller institutions whose limited
closed-end data would be of lesser
utility in furthering HMDA’s purposes.
For the reasons stated above, the Bureau
is amending § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and
comments 2(g)–1 and 2(g)–5 to adjust
the threshold to 100 closed-end
mortgage loans. As discussed in part
VI.A below, the change to the closedend threshold will take effect on July 1,
2020, to provide relief quickly.71
2(g)(1)(v)(B)
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial
institution for purposes of Regulation C
and conditions Regulation C’s
institutional coverage, in part, on the
institution’s open-end line of credit
origination volume. In the 2015 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau established the
threshold at 100 open-end lines of credit
and required financial institutions that
originate at least 100 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding
calendar years to report data on openend lines of credit.72 In the 2017 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau amended § 1003.2(g) to
increase for two years (calendar years
2018 and 2019) the open-end threshold
from 100 to 500 open-end lines of
credit. In the May 2019 Proposal, the
Bureau proposed to amend
71 Thus, as comment 2(g)–1 explains, in 2021, a
financial institution does not meet the loan-volume
test described in § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) if it originated
fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans during
either 2019 or 2020. See part VI.A below for a
discussion of the HMDA obligations for the 2020
data collection year of institutions affected by the
closed-end threshold change, and see the sectionby-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(11) in this part for
a discussion of optional reporting of 2020 closedend data permitted for such institutions.
72 Section 1003.3(c)(12) includes a
complementary transactional coverage threshold set
at the same level that determines whether a
financial institution is required to collect and report
data on open-end lines of credit.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and comments 2(g)–
3 and –5, effective January 1, 2020, to
extend until January 1, 2022, the
temporary open-end institutional
coverage threshold for depository
institutions of 500 open-end lines of
credit. Upon expiration of this
temporary threshold, the Bureau
proposed to increase the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit.73 The Bureau sought
comments on how the proposed
temporary and permanent increases to
the open-end threshold would affect the
number of financial institutions
required to report data on open-end
lines of credit, the significance of the
data that would not be available for
achieving HMDA’s purposes as a result
of the proposed increases, and the
reduction in burden that would result
from the proposed increases for
institutions that would not be required
to report. In the 2019 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau finalized the proposed extension
of the temporary open-end institutional
coverage threshold for depository
institutions of 500 open-end lines of
credit in § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) until
January 1, 2022.74 For the reasons
discussed below, the Bureau is now
finalizing the proposed amendments to
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and comments 2(g)–
3 and –5 to increase the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit, effective January 1, 2022.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Background on Reporting Data
Concerning Open-End Lines of Credit
Under the 2015 HMDA Rule and the
2017 HMDA Rule
By its terms, the definition of
‘‘mortgage loan’’ in HMDA covers all
loans secured by residential real
property and home improvement loans,
whether open- or closed-end.75
However, home-equity lines of credit
were uncommon in the 1970s and early
1980s when Regulation C was first
issued, and the Board’s definition of
mortgage loan covered only closed-end
73 The Bureau also proposed conforming changes
to the institutional coverage threshold for
nondepository institutions in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B)
and to the transactional coverage threshold in
§ 1003.3(c)(12), as discussed below.
74 The Bureau also finalized conforming
amendments to extend for two years the temporary
open-end institutional coverage threshold for
nondepository institutions in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B)
and to align the timeframe of the temporary openend transactional coverage threshold in
§ 1003.3(c)(12). Because the extension of the
temporary threshold lasts two years, and the Bureau
had not yet made a determination about its
proposed permanent threshold when it issued the
2019 HMDA Rule, that rule would have restored
effective January 1, 2022 the threshold set in the
2015 HMDA Rule of 100 open-end lines of credit
in §§ 1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12) absent this final
rule.
75 HMDA section 303(2), 12 U.S.C. 2802(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
loans. In 2000, in response to the
increasing importance of open-end
lending in the housing market, the
Board proposed to revise Regulation C
to require mandatory reporting of all
home-equity lines of credit, which
lenders had the option to report.76
However, the Board’s 2002 final rule left
open-end reporting voluntary, as the
Board determined that the benefits of
mandatory reporting relative to other
then-proposed amendments (such as
collecting information about higherpriced loans) did not justify the
increased burden.77
As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
open-end mortgage lending continued to
increase in the years following the
Board’s 2002 final rule, particularly in
areas with high home-price
appreciation.78 In light of that
development and the role that open-end
lines of credit may have played in
contributing to the financial crisis,79 the
Bureau decided in the 2015 HMDA Rule
to require reporting of dwelling-secured,
consumer purpose open-end lines of
credit,80 concluding that doing so was a
reasonable interpretation of ‘‘mortgage
loan’’ in HMDA and necessary and
proper to effectuate the purposes of
HMDA and prevent evasions thereof.81
As noted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, in
expanding coverage to include
mandatory reporting of open-end lines
of credit, the Bureau recognized that
doing so would impose one-time and
76 65 FR 78656, 78659–60 (Dec. 15, 2000). In
1988, the Board had amended Regulation C to
permit, but not require, financial institutions to
report certain home-equity lines of credit. 53 FR
31683, 31685 (Aug. 19, 1988).
77 67 FR 7222, 7225 (Feb. 15, 2002).
78 80 FR 66128, 66160 (Oct. 28, 2015).
79 Id. The Bureau stated in the 2015 HMDA Rule
that research indicated that some real estate
investors used open-end, home-secured lines of
credit to purchase non-owner-occupied properties,
which correlated with higher first-mortgage defaults
and home-price depreciation during the financial
crisis. Id. In the years leading up to the crisis, such
home-equity lines of credit often were made and
fully drawn more or less simultaneously with firstlien home purchase loans, essentially creating high
loan-to-value home purchase transactions that were
not visible in the HMDA dataset. Id.
80 The Bureau also required reporting of
applications for, and originations of, dwellingsecured commercial-purpose lines of credit for
home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing
purposes. Id. at 66171.
81 Id. at 66157–62. HMDA and Regulation C are
designed to provide citizens and public officials
sufficient information about mortgage lending to
ensure that financial institutions are serving the
housing needs of their communities, to assist public
officials in distributing public-sector investment so
as to attract private investment to areas where it is
needed, and to assist in identifying possible
discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing
antidiscrimination statutes. The Bureau believes
that collecting information about all dwellingsecured, consumer-purpose open-end lines of credit
serves these purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28375
ongoing operational costs on reporting
institutions, that the one-time costs of
modifying processes and systems and
training staff to begin open-end line of
credit reporting likely would impose
significant costs on some institutions,
and that institutions’ ongoing reporting
costs would increase as a function of
their open-end lending volume.82 The
Bureau sought to avoid imposing these
costs on small institutions with limited
open-end lending, where the benefits of
reporting the data did not justify the
costs of reporting.83 In seeking to draw
such a line, the Bureau acknowledged
that it was handicapped by the lack of
available data concerning open-end
lending.84 This created challenges both
in estimating the distribution of openend origination volume across financial
institutions and in estimating the onetime and ongoing costs that institutions
of various sizes would be likely to incur
in reporting data on open-end lending.
To estimate the one-time and ongoing
costs of reporting data under HMDA in
the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
identified seven ‘‘dimensions’’ of
compliance operations and used those
to define three broadly representative
financial institutions according to the
overall level of complexity of their
compliance operations: ‘‘tier 1’’ (highcomplexity), ‘‘tier 2’’ (moderatecomplexity), and ‘‘tier 3’’ (lowcomplexity).85 The Bureau then sought
to estimate one-time and ongoing costs
for a representative institution in each
tier.86
The Bureau recognized in the 2015
HMDA Rule that the one-time cost of
reporting open-end lines of credit could
be substantial because most financial
institutions had not reported open-end
lines of credit and thus would have to
82 Id.
83 Id.
at 66128, 66161.
at 66149.
84 Id.
85 Id. at 66261, 66269–70. In the 2015 HMDA Rule
and the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau assigned
financial institutions to tiers by adopting cutoffs
based on the estimated open-end line of credit
volume. Id. at 66285; 82 FR 43088, 43128 (Sept. 13,
2017). Specifically, the Bureau assumed the lenders
that originated fewer than 200 but more than 100
open-end lines of credit were tier 3 (lowcomplexity) open-end reporters; lenders that
originate between 200 and 7,000 open-lines of
credit were tier 2 (moderate-complexity) open-end
reporters; and lenders that originated more than
7,000 open-end lines of credit were tier 1 (highcomplexity) open-end reporters. 80 FR 66128,
66285 (Oct. 28, 2015); 82 FR 43088, 43128 (Sept.
13, 2017). As explained below in part VII.D.1, for
purposes of this final rule, the Bureau has used a
more precise methodology to assign excluded
financial institutions to tiers 2 and 3 for their openend reporting, which relies on constraints relating
to the estimated numbers of impacted institutions
and loan/application register records for the
applicable provision.
86 80 FR 66128, 66264–65 (Oct. 28, 2015); see also
id. at 66284.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28376
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
develop completely new systems to
begin reporting these data. As a result,
there would be one-time costs to create
processes and systems for open-end
lines of credit.87 However, for lowcomplexity tier 3 institutions, the
Bureau believed that the additional onetime costs of open-end reporting would
be relatively low. Because these
institutions are less reliant on
information technology systems for
HMDA reporting and they may process
open-end lines of credit on the same
system and in the same business unit as
closed-end mortgage loans, their onetime costs would be derived mostly
from new training and procedures
adopted for the overall changes in the
final rule, not distinct from costs related
to changes in reporting of closed-end
mortgage loans.88
The Bureau acknowledged in the 2015
HMDA Rule that ongoing costs for openend reporting vary by institutions due to
many factors, such as size, operational
structure, and product complexity, and
that this variance makes it impossible to
provide complete and definitive cost
estimates.89 At the same time, the
Bureau stated that it believed that the
HMDA reporting process and ongoing
operational cost structure for open-end
reporting would be fundamentally
similar to closed-end reporting.90 Thus,
using the ongoing cost estimates
developed for closed-end reporting, the
Bureau estimated that for a
representative high-complexity tier 1
institution the ongoing operational costs
would be $273,000 per year; for a
representative moderate-complexity tier
2 institution $43,400 per year; and for
a representative low-complexity tier 3
institution $8,600 per year.91 These
translated into costs per HMDA record
of approximately $9, $43, and $57
respectively.92 The Bureau
acknowledged that, precisely because
no good source of publicly available
data existed concerning open-end lines
of credit, it was difficult to predict the
accuracy of the Bureau’s cost estimates
but also stated its belief that these
estimates were reasonably reliable.93
Drawing on all of these estimates, the
Bureau decided in the 2015 HMDA Rule
to establish an open-end threshold that
would require institutions that originate
100 or more open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding calendar
years to report data on such lines of
87 Id.
at 66264; see also id. at 66284–85.
at 66265; see also id. at 66284.
89 Id. at 66285.
90 Id.
91 Id. at 66264, 66286.
92 Id.
93 Id. at 66162.
88 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
credit. The Bureau estimated that this
threshold would avoid imposing the
burden of establishing mandatory openend reporting on approximately 3,000
predominantly smaller-sized
institutions with low-volume open-end
lending 94 and would require reporting
by 749 financial institutions, all but 24
of which would also report data on their
closed-end mortgage lending.95 The
Bureau explained in the 2015 HMDA
Rule that it believed this threshold
appropriately balanced the benefits and
burdens of covering institutions based
on their open-end mortgage lending.96
However, as discussed in the 2017
HMDA Rule, the Bureau lacked robust
data for the estimates that it used to
establish the open-end threshold in the
2015 HMDA Rule.97
The 2017 HMDA Rule explained that,
between 2013 and 2017, the number of
dwelling-secured open-end lines of
credit financial institutions originated
had increased by 36 percent.98 The
Bureau noted that, to the extent
institutions that had been originating
fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit
shared in that growth, the number of
institutions at the margin that would be
required to report under an open-end
threshold of 100 lines of credit would
also increase.99 Additionally, in the
2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau explained
that information received by the Bureau
since issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule had
caused the Bureau to question its
assumption that certain low-complexity
institutions 100 process home-equity
lines of credit on the same data
platforms as closed-end mortgages, on
which the Bureau based its assumption
that the one-time costs for these
institutions would be minimal.101 After
issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau heard reports suggesting that
one-time costs to begin reporting openend lines of credit could be as high as
$100,000 for such institutions.102 The
Bureau likewise heard reports
94 Id. The estimate of the number of institutions
that would be excluded from reporting open-end
lines of credit by the transactional coverage
threshold was relative to the number that would
have been covered under the Bureau’s proposal that
led to the 2015 HMDA Rule. Under that proposal,
a financial institution would have been required to
report its open-end lines of credit if it had
originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
each of the two preceding years without regard to
how many open-end lines of credit the institution
originated. See Home Mortgage Disclosure
(Regulation C), 79 FR 51732 (Aug. 29, 2014).
95 80 FR 66128, 66281 (Oct. 28, 2015).
96 Id. at 66162.
97 82 FR 43088, 43094 (Sept. 13, 2017).
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 See supra notes 85–93 and accompanying text.
101 82 FR 43088, 43094 (Sept. 13, 2017).
102 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
suggesting that the ongoing costs for
these institutions to report open-end
lines of credit, which the Bureau
estimated would be under $10,000 per
year and add under $60 per line of
credit, could be at least three times
higher than the Bureau had
estimated.103
Based on this information regarding
one-time and ongoing costs and new
data indicating that more institutions
would have reporting responsibilities
under the 100-loan open-end threshold
than estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
the Bureau increased for two years (i.e.,
until January 1, 2020) the open-end
threshold to 500 in the 2017 HMDA
Rule.104 Specifically, the Bureau
amended § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and
comments 2(g)–3 and –5, effective
January 1, 2018, to increase temporarily
the open-end threshold from 100 to 500
and, effective January 1, 2020, to revert
to a permanent threshold of 100. This
temporary increase was intended to
allow the Bureau to collect additional
data and assess what open-end
threshold would best balance the
benefits and burdens of covering
institutions.
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
proposed to extend until January 1,
2022, the temporary open-end
institutional coverage threshold for
depository institutions of 500 open-end
lines of credit. Upon expiration of this
temporary threshold, the Bureau
proposed to set the permanent threshold
at 200 open-end lines of credit.105 In the
2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau finalized
the proposed two-year extension of the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit.106 The Bureau explained
that the extension of the temporary
threshold would provide additional
time for the Bureau to issue this final
rule in 2020 on the permanent open-end
threshold and for affected institutions to
prepare for compliance with the final
rule.107
103 Id.
104 Id. at 43088. Comments received on the July
2017 HMDA Proposal to change temporarily the
open-end threshold are discussed in the 2017
HMDA Rule. Id. at 43094–95. In the 2015 HMDA
Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
declined to retain optional reporting of open-end
lines of credit, after concluding that improved
visibility into this segment of the mortgage market
is critical because of the risks posed by these
products to consumers and local markets and the
lack of other publicly available data about these
products. Id. at 43095; 80 FR 66128, 66160–61 (Oct.
28, 2015). However, Regulation C as amended by
the 2017 HMDA Rule permits voluntary reporting
by financial institutions that do not meet the openend threshold. 12 CFR 1003.3(c)(12).
105 The Bureau proposed conforming
amendments to § 1003.3(c)(12).
106 84 FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
107 Id. at 57953.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Comments Received on Permanent
Open-End Line of Credit Threshold for
Institutional Coverage of Depository
Institutions
The Bureau received a number of
comments relating to the proposed
permanent increase in the open-end
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit in §§ 1003.2(g) and
1003.3(c)(12). Commenters typically
discussed the open-end threshold
without distinguishing between the
threshold applicable to depository
institutions under § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B)
and the threshold applicable to
nondepository institutions under
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B).
Industry commenters generally
expressed support for an increase in the
permanent open-end threshold,
indicating that a threshold of 200 openend lines of credit would be preferable
to the threshold of 100 open-end lines
of credit that would otherwise take
effect beginning in 2022. Many industry
commenters described the significant
costs that HMDA data collection and
reporting impose on small institutions,
and some expressed concern that they
might not be able to offer open-end lines
of credit at all if the threshold of 100
open-end lines of credit were to take
effect. One national trade association
and many small financial institutions
stated that open-end lines of credit are
crucial products for borrowers and
expressed concern that the costs
associated with reporting such lines of
credit would make them unprofitable,
leading banks to either discontinue
offering such loans or to pass on cost
increases to consumers. Many industry
commenters also suggested that higher
thresholds would allow institutions to
focus on making loans in the
communities they serve rather than
diverting resources to HMDA
compliance. Another national trade
association stated that lenders may seek
to manage their origination volumes to
stay below the applicable open-end
threshold, which could limit
consumers’ access to credit. This
commenter stated that compliance with
HMDA requires specialized staffing and
training as well as dedicated software,
policies, and procedures, and that an
institution’s decision to exceed the
origination volume that triggers openend reporting would involve a careful
assessment of the time, cost, and risk
associated with implementing and
supporting ongoing open-end reporting.
Several commenters stated that there
would be significant costs to
implementing open-end reporting for
institutions that have not previously
reported such transactions, with one
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
small financial institution stating that it
originated between 100 and 200 openend lines of credit annually and that
reporting such loans would entail
considerable effort because these
transactions are processed by a different
department and system than its
reportable closed-end mortgage loans.
Some industry commenters
advocating for an increase in the openend threshold asserted that data on
open-end lines of credit are of limited
value in serving HMDA’s statutory
purposes. A few national trade
associations stated that open-end lines
of credit provide little information about
whether lenders are serving the housing
needs of their communities because
such loans are generally used for nonhousing related purposes, such as
paying for educational expenses or
consolidating outstanding debt. One
national trade association stated that
open-end lending data are of limited
value for fair lending purposes because
of the unique features typically present
in such transactions and because only
certain borrowers—existing
homeowners with equity in their
homes—can obtain them.
A large number of industry
commenters recommended that the
Bureau make the temporary threshold of
500 open-end lines of credit permanent
or raise the threshold even higher, such
as to 1,000. These commenters noted
that based on the Bureau’s estimates,
maintaining the current threshold of 500
open-end lines of credit would relieve
approximately 280 institutions from
reporting open-end data with only a 6
percent decrease in the overall number
of open-end lines of credit reported
relative to the proposed permanent
threshold of 200. One State trade
association expressed concern that the
limited increase in open-end data
reported at a permanent threshold of
200 as compared to 500 open-end lines
of credit would not justify the costs for
the institutions that would be newly
required to report open-end data. One
national trade association stated that
many smaller institutions originate
close to 500 open-end lines of credit
annually and that if the permanent
threshold were set at 200 these lenders
might curtail their open-end lending to
avoid incurring the additional
compliance costs associated with openend reporting. A few industry
commenters stated that the continuity
that would be provided by a permanent
500 open-end threshold would be
valuable and questioned why the
Bureau would set the open-end
threshold at 500 for several years but
not retain this threshold. Although not
part of the May 2019 Proposal, many
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28377
industry commenters recommended that
the Bureau return to optional rather
than mandatory reporting of open-end
lines of credit.
Other commenters, including many
consumer and civil rights groups, a
bank, a State attorney general, and some
members of Congress, expressed
opposition to the proposed increase
from 100 to 200 in the permanent openend threshold based on their concerns
about the consequences of excluding
more institutions and open-end lines of
credit from HMDA reporting. Many of
these commenters stated that, in the
years before the 2008 financial crisis,
abuses pervaded in open-end lending
that resulted in distress or foreclosure
for large numbers of homeowners. A
State attorney general noted that openend lines of credit were often extended
simultaneously with closed-end home
purchase loans in place of down
payments, thus bypassing the need for
borrowers to obtain private mortgage
insurance and creating higher debt
obligations that increased the risk to
both closed-end mortgage lenders and
borrowers. A large number of consumer
groups, civil rights groups, and other
organizations noted in a joint comment
letter the Bureau’s estimates in the May
2019 Proposal that increasing the
permanent threshold from 100 to 200
open-end lines of credit would exempt
401 lenders originating 69,000 open-end
lines of credit from reporting such data
under HMDA. These commenters
expressed concern that too many
lenders and open-end lines of credit
might escape public scrutiny at such a
higher permanent threshold and thus
make it more likely that events similar
to those that led to the 2008 financial
crisis would occur again.
These consumer groups, civil rights
groups, and other organizations also
stated that the 2018 HMDA Data
indicated that open-end lines of credit
have a high incidence of features that
can be risky for borrowers, particularly
when layered on top of one another.
They explained that the 2018 HMDA
Data show that 77 percent of open-end
lines of credit have adjustable rates, 50
percent feature interest-only payments,
and 28 percent include prepayment
penalties. These commenters also stated
that the 2018 HMDA Data show that the
median interest rate, as well as the
interest rate at the 95th percentile, was
significantly higher for open-end lines
of credit than for closed-end mortgage
loans and suggested that the most
vulnerable borrowers were obtaining the
open-end lines of credit with the highest
interest rates.
These commenters stated further that
the increase in open-end lending
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28378
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
between 2013 and 2017 discussed in the
May 2019 Proposal supports
maintaining the permanent threshold of
100 open-end lines of credit to increase
visibility into open-end lending. A State
attorney general expressed concern that
the May 2019 Proposal did not provide
a rationale as to how decreasing openend reporting by increasing the
permanent open-end threshold serves
the purposes of HMDA. This commenter
stated that the Bureau’s analysis instead
focused almost entirely on the cost to
lenders associated with open-end
reporting. Some members of Congress
stated that data on open-end lines of
credit remain limited and noted that the
Bureau had to consult multiple sources
to estimate the impact of the proposed
changes to the open-end threshold.
These commenters expressed concern
that the Bureau would reduce future
open-end reporting based on limited
data, particularly in light of the local
and national concerns related to openend lending prior to the financial crisis
in 2008 cited by the Bureau in the 2015
HMDA Rule.
Final Rule
The Bureau has considered the
comments received and, pursuant to its
authority under HMDA section 305(a) as
discussed above, has decided to
increase the permanent open-end
threshold to 200 open-end lines of
credit, as proposed. As discussed below,
the increase in the permanent threshold
from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit
will provide meaningful burden relief
for smaller institutions while still
providing significant market coverage of
open-end lending.
As discussed in the May 2019
Proposal, several developments since
the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Rule
have affected the Bureau’s analyses of
the costs and benefits associated with
the open-end threshold. As explained in
more detail in part VII below, the
estimates the Bureau used in the 2015
HMDA Rule may understate the burden
that open-end reporting would impose
on smaller institutions if they were
required to begin reporting on January 1,
2022. For example, in developing the
one-time cost estimates for open-end
lines of credit in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
the Bureau had envisioned that there
would be cost sharing between the line
of business that conducts open-end
lending and the line of business that
conducts closed-end lending at the
corporate level, as the implementation
of open-end reporting that became
mandatory under the 2015 HMDA Rule
would coincide with the
implementation of the changes to
closed-end reporting under the 2015
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
HMDA Rule. However, this type of cost
sharing is less likely now since financial
institutions have already implemented
almost all of the closed-end reporting
changes required under the 2015 HMDA
Rule. As explained in more detail in
part VII.E.3, the Bureau’s coverage
estimates also indicate that the total
number of institutions exceeding the
threshold of 100 open-end lines of
credit in 2018 would be approximately
1,014, which is significantly higher than
the estimate of 749 in the 2015 HMDA
Rule that was based on 2013 data.108
Another development since the
Bureau finalized the 2015 HMDA Rule
is the enactment of the EGRRCPA,
which created partial exemptions from
HMDA’s requirements that certain
insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions may now use.109
The partial exemption for open-end
lines of credit under the EGRRCPA
relieves certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions
that originated fewer than 500 open-end
mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding calendar years of the
obligation to report many of the data
points generally required by Regulation
C.110 The EGRRCPA has thus changed
the costs and benefits associated with
different coverage thresholds, as the
partial exemptions are available to the
vast majority of the depository financial
institutions that originate fewer than
500 open-end lines of credit
annually.111
The Bureau has considered the
appropriate permanent open-end
threshold in light of these developments
and the comments received in response
to the May 2019 Proposal and the July
2019 Reopening Notice. On balance, the
Bureau determines that the permanent
threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit provides sufficient information
on open-end lending to serve HMDA’s
purposes while appropriately reducing
one-time and ongoing costs for smaller
institutions that would be incurred if
the threshold of 100 open-end lines of
credit were to take effect.112 These
considerations are discussed in turn
below, and additional explanation of the
Bureau’s cost estimates is provided in
the Bureau’s analysis under Dodd-Frank
108 82
FR 43088, 43094 (Sept. 13, 2017).
Law 115–174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
110 See 84 FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
111 See infra part VII.E.3.
112 One commenter expressed concern as to how
the increase in the open-end threshold would serve
HMDA’s purposes. As discussed above, this
increase in the permanent open-end threshold
effectuates the purposes of HMDA and facilitates
compliance with HMDA by reducing burden, while
still providing significant market coverage.
109 Public
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Act section 1022(b) in part VII.E.3
below.113
Effect on market coverage. While the
increase in the permanent threshold to
200 open-end lines of credit will reduce
market coverage compared to the
threshold of 100 that would otherwise
take effect, information about a sizeable
portion of the open-end lending market
will still be available. The Bureau has
used multiple data sources, including
credit union Call Reports, Call Reports
for banks and thrifts, HMDA data, and
Consumer Credit Panel data, to develop
estimates about open-end originations
for institutions that offer open-end lines
of credit and to assess the impact of
various thresholds on the numbers of
institutions that report and the number
of lines of credit about which they
report under various scenarios.114 Based
on this information, the Bureau
estimates that, as of 2018,
approximately 333 financial institutions
originated at least 500 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding
years, approximately 613 financial
institutions originated at least 200 openend lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years, and approximately
1,014 financial institutions originated at
least 100 open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding years.115
Under the permanent threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit, the Bureau
estimates about 1.34 million lines of
credit or approximately 84 percent of
origination volume will be reported by
about 9 percent of all institutions
providing open-end lines of credit.116
By comparison, the Bureau estimates
that about 1.41 million lines of credit or
approximately 89 percent of origination
volume would be reported by about 15
percent of all institutions providing
open-end lines of credit if the
permanent threshold were to adjust to
113 As explained in part VII below, the Bureau
derived these estimates using estimates of savings
for open-end lines of credit for representative
financial institutions.
114 As noted by several members of Congress, the
Bureau consulted multiple sources to develop its
open-end estimates for the May 2019 Proposal.
Because collection of data on open-end lines of
credit only became mandatory starting in 2018
under the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA
Rule, no single data source existed as of the time
of the May 2019 Proposal that could accurately
capture the number of originations of open-end
lines of credit in the entire market and by lenders.
In part VII of this final rule, the Bureau has
supplemented the analyses from the May 2019
Proposal with the 2018 HMDA data. For
information about the HMDA data used in
developing and supplementing the Bureau
estimates, see infra part VII.E.3.
115 See infra part VII.E.3 at table 4 for estimates
of coverage among all lenders that are active in the
open-end line of credit market at open-end coverage
thresholds of 100, 200, and 500.
116 Id.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
100 open-end lines of credit. The
Bureau determines that the benefits of
the one-time and ongoing cost savings
for the estimated 401 affected
institutions originating between 100 and
199 open-end lines of credit, all but 17
of which are depository financial
institutions, justify the limited decrease
in the data reported about open-end
lending that will result from this
threshold increase. The permanent
threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit balances the benefits and burdens
of covering institutions engaged in
open-end mortgage lending by retaining
significant coverage of the open-end
market while excluding from coverage
smaller institutions whose limited openend data would be of lesser utility in
furthering HMDA’s purposes.
Additionally, the effect of a threshold
of 200 open-end lines of credit will be
limited because the EGRRCPA now
provides a partial exemption that
exempts approximately 378 of the
estimated 401 institutions that the
permanent threshold increase will affect
from any obligation to report many of
the data points generally required by
Regulation C for open-end lines of
credit. In light of the EGRRCPA’s partial
exemption from reporting certain data
for open-end lines of credit for certain
insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions, setting the
permanent threshold at 200 open-end
lines of credit will result in a much
smaller decrease in data than the Bureau
anticipated when it adopted a threshold
of 100 open-end lines of credit in the
2015 HMDA Rule or when it revisited
the open-end line of credit threshold in
the 2017 HMDA Rule.
The Bureau declines to increase the
permanent threshold further, as
suggested by several commenters. Under
a threshold of 500 open-end lines of
credit, the Bureau estimates that about
1.23 million lines of credit or
approximately 78 percent of origination
volume would be reported by about 5
percent of all institutions providing
open-end lines of credit. The Bureau
determines that the more significant
reduction in open-end reporting that
would result if the current threshold of
500 open-end lines of credit were
permanent, or if the Bureau increased
the threshold to a level above 500, is not
warranted. The temporary threshold of
500 open-end lines of credit was
intended to allow the Bureau time to
collect additional data and assess the
appropriate level of the permanent
threshold.117 Although the Bureau
appreciates some commenters’
117 See 84 FR 57946, 57953 (Oct. 29, 2019); 82 FR
43088, 43095–96 (Sept. 13, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
suggestions regarding the benefits of
continuity that would result from a
permanent threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit, it determines that the
permanent threshold of 200 open-end
lines of credit adopted in this rule best
balances the benefits and burdens of
covering institutions based on their
open-end lending volume. The data
about open-end lines of credit that will
be reported at this threshold will assist
HMDA data users in understanding how
financial institutions are serving the
housing needs of their communities and
assist in the distribution of public sector
investments. The Bureau recognizes, as
noted by several commenters, that openend lines of credit may be used for nonhousing related purposes, but the
Bureau believes the data on these
dwelling-secured loans will further
HMDA purposes. The visibility into this
segment of the mortgage market that
will result from the permanent
threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit, as opposed to a higher threshold,
will also allow for a better
understanding of these products and
monitoring of the potential risks, as
noted by many commenters, that could
be associated with such loans. Such
data could also help to assist in
identifying possible discriminatory
lending patterns if, for example, risky
lending practices were concentrated
among certain borrowers or
communities.118
Additionally, and as discussed above,
the EGRRCPA partial exemption already
relieves most lenders originating fewer
than 500 open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding years from the
requirement to report many data points
associated with their open-end
transactions. In light of the concerns
discussed above and the existing relief
provided by the EGRRCPA at a
threshold of 500, the Bureau determines
that it is not appropriate to set the
permanent threshold for open-end lines
of credit at 500 or higher. Doing so
would provide a complete exclusion
from reporting all open-end data for
institutions below the threshold of 500,
118 One commenter suggested that data on openend lines of credit are less valuable for fair lending
analyses because these products are limited to
borrowers with existing equity in their homes. In
the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau recognized that
borrowers may not be evaluated for open-end credit
in the same manner as for traditional mortgage
loans, with adequate home equity being a factor. It
stated further, however, that lending practices
during the financial crisis demonstrated that during
prolonged periods of home-price appreciation
lenders became increasingly comfortable originating
home-equity products to borrowers with less and
less equity to spare. 80 FR 66128, 66161 (Oct. 28,
2015). The Bureau continues to believe that the
more leveraged the borrower, the more at risk the
borrower is of losing his or her home. Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28379
even though Congress opted to provide
only a partial exemption at the
threshold of 500, and would extend that
complete exclusion to institutions that
Congress did not include in even the
partial exemption. For the reasons
stated above, the Bureau also declines to
adopt the recommendation of several
commenters to return to voluntary openend reporting, which it did not
propose.119
Reduction in one-time costs from
permanent threshold of 200. The
Bureau’s increase in the permanent
open-end threshold to 200 open-end
lines of credit after the temporary
extension expires in 2022 will avoid
imposing one-time costs of reporting
open-end lines of credit on institutions
originating between 100 and 199 openend lines of credit. The Bureau
estimates that setting the permanent
threshold at 200 rather than 100 openend lines of credit will exclude 401
institutions from reporting open-end
lines of credit starting in 2022.
According to the Bureau’s estimates,
about 309 of those 401 financial
institutions are low-complexity tier 3
open-end reporters, about 92 are
moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end
reporters, and none are high-complexity
tier 1 reporters.120
The Bureau recognizes that, as a small
financial institution commenter
discussed, financial institutions may
process applications for open-end lines
of credit in different departments and
on different systems than those used for
closed-end loans. Many institutions that
would have had to report with a
threshold of 100 after the extension of
the temporary threshold of 500 expires
in 2022 do not currently report openend lines of credit. These institutions
might have to develop completely new
reporting infrastructures to comply with
mandatory reporting if the threshold of
100 lines of credit were to take effect,
including new training, software, and
policies and procedures. As a result,
these institutions would incur one-time
costs to create processes and systems for
reporting open-end lines of credit in
addition to the one-time costs to modify
processes and systems used for
reporting other mortgage products.
As explained in part VII below, the
Bureau estimates that increasing the
119 See supra note 104. In establishing partial
exemptions for reporting data on open-end lines of
credit in the EGRRCPA, Congress appears to have
assumed that open-end lines of credit should be
reported, building upon the Bureau’s decision in
the 2015 HMDA Rule to require reporting of openend lines of credit.
120 For an explanation of the Bureau’s
assumptions in assigning institutions to tiers 1, 2,
and 3, see supra note 85 and infra part VII.D.1.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28380
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit starting in 2022 will
result in a one-time cost savings of
approximately $3,000 for lowcomplexity tier 3 reporters and $250,000
for moderate-complexity tier 2 reporters,
for an aggregate savings of about $23.9
million in avoided one-time costs
associated with reporting open-end
lines of credit.121 The Bureau
determines that avoiding the burden on
smaller institutions of implementing
open-end reporting, which as
commenters noted could involve setting
up entirely new reporting
infrastructures distinct from those used
for closed-end mortgage loans, is
justified by the limited decrease in
open-end data that will be reported
under this final rule, as discussed in
more detail above.
Ongoing cost reduction from
permanent threshold of 200. The
increase in the open-end threshold from
100 to 200 open-end lines of credit
starting in 2022 will permanently
relieve institutions that originate
between 100 and 199 open-end lines of
credit of the ongoing costs associated
with reporting open-end lines of credit
that they might otherwise incur if the
threshold of 100 open-end lines of
credit established in the 2015 HMDA
Rule were to take effect. As noted above,
many industry commenters expressed
how costly and resource-intensive
HMDA compliance can be on an
ongoing basis for smaller institutions.
As discussed in more detail in part
VII below, the Bureau estimates that
increasing the permanent threshold
from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit
will result in annual ongoing cost
savings of approximately $4,300 for
low-complexity tier 3 institutions
eligible for the EGRRCPA partial
exemption and $21,900 for moderatecomplexity tier 2 institutions eligible for
the EGRRCPA partial exemption. For
the low-complexity tier 3 and moderatecomplexity tier 2 institutions that are
not eligible for the EGRRCPA partial
121 As discussed in more detail in part VII below,
the Bureau has supplemented its analyses from the
May 2019 Proposal with 2018 HMDA data. These
data allow the Bureau to develop estimates based
on the total number of open-end loan/application
register records, rather than the number of open-end
originations. As a result, the Bureau has assigned
more of the estimated 401 institutions affected by
the increase in the threshold from 100 to 200 openend lines of credit to the tier 2 category and fewer
to the tier 3 category as compared to the May 2019
Proposal. This increase in the estimated number of
affected tier 2 institutions results in a higher
estimated aggregate one-time cost savings
associated with the threshold increase than the
Bureau’s estimate of $3.8 million in the May 2019
Proposal. For information about the HMDA data
used in developing and supplementing the Bureau
estimates, see infra part VII.E.3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
exemption, the Bureau estimates that
the increase in the permanent threshold
from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit
will result in annual ongoing cost
savings of approximately $8,800 and
$44,700, respectively. The Bureau
estimates that the increase in the
permanent threshold will result in
aggregate savings on the ongoing
operational costs associated with openend lines of credit of about $3.7 million
per year starting in 2022.122 The Bureau
recognizes that the estimated ongoing
costs savings associated with increasing
the permanent threshold from 100 to
200 open-end lines of credit are less
than they would have been absent the
relief provided by the EGRRCPA.
Nonetheless, the Bureau determines that
these ongoing cost savings, coupled
with the one-time cost savings
discussed above, will provide
meaningful burden reduction to smaller
institutions that would have been
covered at the threshold of 100 openend lines of credit but will be excluded
from open-end reporting under this final
rule. Avoiding the imposition of such
costs for these affected institutions will
also limit any potential for cost
increases to borrowers or other
disruptions in open-end lending that
could result from HMDA coverage, as
discussed by some commenters.
For the reasons discussed above, the
Bureau amends § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and
comments 2(g)–3 and –5, to set the
open-end institutional coverage
threshold for depository institutions at
200, effective January 1, 2022.
2(g)(2) Nondepository Financial
Institution
HMDA extends reporting
responsibilities to certain nondepository
institutions, defined as any person
engaged for profit in the business of
mortgage lending other than a bank,
savings association, or credit union.123
HMDA section 309(a) authorizes the
Bureau to adopt an exemption for
covered nondepository institutions that
are comparable within their respective
industries to banks, savings
associations, and credit unions with $10
million or less in assets in the previous
122 As noted above, as compared to the May 2019
Proposal the Bureau now assigns more of the
estimated 401 institutions affected by the increase
in the threshold from 100 to 200 to the tier 2
category and fewer to the tier 3 category. As a
result, the Bureau’s estimated aggregate savings on
ongoing operational costs associated with the
threshold increase is higher than the Bureau’s
estimate of $2.1 million in the May 2019 Proposal.
For information about the HMDA data used in
developing and supplementing the Bureau
estimates, see infra part VII.E.3.
123 HMDA section 303(5) (defining ‘‘other lending
institutions’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fiscal year.124 HMDA sections 303(3)(B)
and 303(5) require persons other than
banks, savings associations, and credit
unions that are ‘‘engaged for profit in
the business of mortgage lending’’ to
report HMDA data. As the Bureau stated
in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
interpreted these provisions, as the
Board did, to evince the intent to
exclude from coverage institutions that
make a relatively small volume of
mortgage loans.125 In the 2015 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau interpreted ‘‘engaged
for profit in the business of mortgage
lending’’ to include nondepository
institutions that originated at least 25
closed-end mortgage loans or 100 openend lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years. Due to the
questions raised about potential risks
posed to applicants and borrowers by
nondepository institutions and the lack
of other publicly available data sources
about nondepository institutions, the
Bureau believed that requiring
additional nondepository institutions to
report HMDA data would better
effectuate HMDA’s purposes. The
Bureau estimated in 2015 that these
changes to institutional coverage could
result in HMDA coverage for up to an
additional 450 nondepository
institutions. The Bureau stated in the
2015 HMDA Rule its belief that it was
important to increase visibility into the
lending practices of nondepository
institutions because of their history of
making riskier loans than depository
institutions, including their role in the
financial crisis and lack of available
data about the mortgage lending
practices of lower-volume
nondepository institutions. The Bureau
also stated that expanded coverage of
nondepository institutions would
ensure more equal visibility into the
practices of nondepository institutions
and depository institutions.
For the reasons discussed below, the
Bureau has now determined that higher
thresholds for closed-end mortgage
loans and open-end lines of credit will
more appropriately cover nondepository
institutions that ‘‘are engaged for profit
in the business of mortgage lending’’
and maintain visibility into the lending
practices of such institutions.
2(g)(2)(ii)(A)
Regulation C implements HMDA’s
coverage criteria for nondepository
institutions in § 1003.2(g)(2). The
Bureau revised the coverage criteria for
nondepository institutions in the 2015
HMDA Rule by requiring such
124 HMDA
section 309(a), 12 U.S.C. 2808(a).
FR 66128, 66153 (Oct. 28, 2015) (citing 54
FR 51356, 51358–59 (Dec. 15, 1989)).
125 80
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
institutions to report HMDA data if they
met the statutory location test and
exceeded either the closed-end or openend thresholds.126 In the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) and related
commentary to raise the closed-end
threshold for nondepository institutions
to either 50 or, alternatively, 100 closedend mortgage loans. For the reasons
discussed below, the Bureau is
amending § 1003.2(g)(1)(ii)(A) and
related commentary to raise the
threshold to 100 closed-end mortgage
loans.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Background on Closed-End Mortgage
Loan Threshold for Institutional
Coverage of Nondepository Institutions
After issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule
and the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
heard concerns that lower-volume
institutions experience significant
burden with the current threshold of 25
closed-end mortgage loans.127 Various
industry stakeholders advocated for an
increase to the closed-end threshold in
order to reduce burden on additional
lower-volume financial institutions. In
light of the concerns raised by industry
stakeholders, the Bureau proposed to
raise the closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions and
indicated that it was considering
whether a higher threshold would more
appropriately cover nondepository
institutions that ‘‘are engaged for profit
in the business of mortgage lending’’
and maintain visibility into the lending
practices of such institutions. The
Bureau sought comment on whether an
increase to the threshold would more
appropriately balance the benefits and
burdens of covering lower-volume
126 Prior to the 2015 HMDA Rule, for-profit
nondepository institutions that met the location test
only had to report if: (1) In the preceding calendar
year, the institution originated home purchase
loans, including refinancings of home purchase
loans, that equaled either at least 10 percent of its
loan-origination volume, measured in dollars, or at
least $25 million; and (2) On the preceding
December 31, the institution had total assets of
more than $10 million, counting the assets of any
parent corporation; or in the preceding calendar
year, the institution originated at least 100 home
purchase loans, including refinancings of home
purchase loans. 12 CFR 1003.2 (2017).
127 The Bureau temporarily raised the threshold
for open-end lines of credit in the 2017 HMDA Rule
because of concerns based on new information that
the estimates the Bureau used in the 2015 HMDA
Rule may have understated the burden that openend reporting would impose on smaller institutions
if they were required to begin reporting on January
1, 2018. However, the Bureau declined to raise the
threshold for closed-end mortgage loans and stated
that in developing the 2015 HMDA Rule, it had
robust data to make a determination about the
number of transactions that would be reported with
a threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans as well
as the one-time and ongoing costs to industry. 82
FR 43088, 43095–96 (Sept. 13, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
nondepository institutions based on
their closed-end lending.
The Bureau proposed two alternatives
to the closed-end mortgage loan
threshold, and both proposed
alternatives would have maintained a
uniform closed-end threshold for
depository and nondepository
institutions.128 The Bureau sought
specific comment on how the proposed
increase to the closed-end threshold
would affect the number of
nondepository institutions required to
report data on closed-end mortgage
loans, the significance of the data that
would not be available as a result of the
proposed increase to the closed-end
threshold, and the reduction in burden
that would result from the proposed
increase to the closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions that would
not be required to report.
Comments Received on Closed-End
Threshold for Institutional Coverage for
Nondepository Institutions
As mentioned above, commenters
typically discussed the closed-end
threshold without distinguishing
between the threshold applicable to
depository institutions under
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and the threshold
applicable to nondepository institutions
under § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A). Comments
received regarding the Bureau’s
proposal to increase the closed-end
threshold are discussed in more detail
in the section-by-section analysis of
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above.
Final Rule
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA
section 305(a), the Bureau is finalizing
the closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions at 100 in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Bureau has
considered the comments received in
response to the May 2019 Proposal and
updated estimates in determining the
appropriate threshold. As discussed
below, the Bureau believes that it is
reasonable to interpret ‘‘engaged for
profit in the business of mortgage
lending’’ to include nondepository
institutions that originated at least 100
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the
two preceding calendar years and that
doing so will effectuate the purposes of
HMDA and facilitate compliance. The
Bureau believes that increasing the
closed-end threshold to 100 will
provide meaningful burden relief for
lower-volume nondepository
institutions while maintaining sufficient
reporting to achieve HMDA’s purposes.
128 For a discussion on the proposed closed-end
coverage threshold for depository institutions, see
the section-by-section analysis of
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28381
The final rule’s uniform loan-volume
threshold applicable to depository and
nondepository institutions also
maintains the simplicity of this aspect
of the reporting regime, thereby
facilitating compliance.129
As explained in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above, a
few developments have affected the
Bureau’s analyses of the costs and
benefits associated with the closed-end
threshold for depository and
nondepository institutions since the
2015 HMDA Rule was issued. The
Bureau has gathered extensive
information regarding stakeholders’
experience with the 2015 HMDA Rule
through comments received in this
rulemaking and other feedback. As
described above, the Bureau has heard
that financial institutions have
encountered significant burdens in
complying with the 2015 HMDA Rule,
and the Bureau is particularly
concerned about the increased burdens
faced by smaller institutions.
Additionally, the Bureau now has
access to HMDA data from 2018, which
was the first year that financial
institutions collected data under the
2015 HMDA Rule, and has used these
data in updating and confirming the
estimates included in this final rule.
With the benefit of this additional
information about the 2015 HMDA Rule
and the new data to supplement the
Bureau’s analyses, the Bureau is now in
a better position to assess both the
benefits and burdens of the reporting
required under the 2015 HMDA Rule.
The Bureau has considered the
appropriate closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions in light of
these developments and the comments
received. The Bureau determines that
the threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans for nondepository
institutions provides sufficient
information on closed-end mortgage
lending to serve HMDA’s purposes and
maintains uniformity with the closedend threshold for depository institutions
established in this rule, while
appropriately reducing ongoing costs
that smaller nondepository institutions
are incurring under the current
threshold. These considerations are
discussed in turn below, and additional
explanation of the Bureau’s cost
estimates is provided in the Bureau’s
analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section
1022(b) in part VII.E.2 below.
129 The 2015 HMDA Rule simplified the reporting
regime by establishing a uniform loan-volume
threshold applicable to depository and
nondepository institutions.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28382
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Effect on Market Coverage
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Similar to the estimates in the sectionby-section analysis of
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A), the Bureau
developed estimates for nondepository
institution coverage at varying
thresholds. Using multiple data sources,
including recent HMDA data 130 and
Call Reports, the Bureau developed
estimates for the two thresholds the
Bureau proposed in the alternative, 50
and 100, as well as the thresholds of 250
and 500, which many commenters
suggested the Bureau consider.131 These
estimates compare coverage under these
thresholds to coverage under the current
threshold of 25.
Similar to the estimates described
above for the closed-end threshold for
depository institutions, many of the
estimates provided for the closed-end
threshold for nondepository institutions
differ slightly from the initial estimates
provided in the May 2019 Proposal. The
estimates in this final rule update the
initial estimates provided in the May
2019 Proposal using the 2018 HMDA
data, which were not available at the
time the Bureau developed the May
2019 Proposal. For the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau used HMDA data
from 2016 and 2017 with a two-year
look-back period covering calendar
years 2016 and 2017 to estimate
potential reporters and projected the
lending activities of financial
institutions using their 2017 HMDA
data as proxies. In generating the
updated estimates provided in this final
rule, the Bureau used data from 2017
and 2018 with a two-year look-back
period covering calendar years 2017 and
2018 to estimate potential reporters and
has projected the lending activities of
financial institutions using their 2018
data as proxies. In addition, for the
estimates provided in the May 2019
Proposal and in this final rule, the
Bureau restricted the projected reporters
to only those that actually reported data
in the most recent year of HMDA data
130 The Bureau stated in the May 2019 Proposal
that it intended to review the 2018 HMDA data
more closely in connection with this rulemaking
once the 2018 submissions were more complete.
The estimates reflected in this final rule are based
on the HMDA data collected in 2017 and 2018 as
well as other sources. These estimates are discussed
further in the analysis under Dodd-Frank Act
section 1022(b) in part VII below.
131 Except for the estimates provided at the
census tract level, the estimates provided for
potential thresholds in this section cover only
nondepository institutions. Estimates for depository
institutions are described in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). For estimates that
are comprehensive of depository and nondepository
institutions, see part VII.E.2 below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
considered (2017 for the May 2019
Proposal and 2018 for this final rule).132
Effect on covered nondepository
institutions and reportable originations.
As discussed above, many commenters
opposed increasing the closed-end
threshold because of concerns that there
would be less data with which to
evaluate whether HMDA’s statutory
purposes are being met. However, the
Bureau’s analysis indicates that the
proposed thresholds of either 50 or 100
closed-end mortgage loans will maintain
sufficient reporting to achieve HMDA’s
purposes.
If the threshold were increased to 50
closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau
estimates that approximately 720 out of
approximately 740 nondepository
institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 97
percent) would continue to be required
to report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau
estimates that if the threshold were
increased from 25 to 50, this would
result in about 99.97 percent of closedend mortgage loan originations
currently reported or approximately
3.428 million total closed-end mortgage
loan originations, under current market
conditions, that would continue to be
reported by nondepository
institutions.133
The Bureau estimates that with the
closed-end threshold set at 100 under
the final rule, approximately 680 out of
approximately 740 nondepository
institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 92
percent) will continue to be required to
report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau
estimates that when the final rule
132 The Bureau recognizes that the coverage
estimates generated using this restriction may omit
certain financial institutions that should have
reported but did not report in the most recent
HMDA reporting year. However, the Bureau applied
this restriction to ensure that institutions included
in its coverage estimates are in fact financial
institutions for purposes of Regulation C because it
recognizes that institutions might not meet the
Regulation C definition of financial institution for
reasons that are not evident in the data sources that
it utilized.
133 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased from 25 to 50, about 683 out of about 697
nondepository institutions covered under the
current threshold of 25 (or approximately 98
percent) would continue to report HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans, and over 99 percent or
approximately 3.44 million total originations of
closed-end mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository institutions
under the current Regulation C coverage criteria
would continue to be reported. As explained above
and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to
updates made to incorporate the newly available
2018 HMDA data.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
increases the threshold to 100, about
99.9 percent of originations of closedend mortgage loans currently reported
or approximately 3.425 million total
originations of closed-end mortgage
loans reported by nondepository
institutions, under current market
conditions, will continue to be
reported.134
The Bureau also generated estimates
for closed-end thresholds higher than
the ones the Bureau proposed, as many
commenters suggested that the Bureau
consider thresholds higher than
proposed. These estimates reflect the
decrease in the number of
nondepository institutions that would
be required to report HMDA data and
the resulting decrease in the HMDA data
that would be reported becomes more
pronounced at thresholds higher than
100. For example, if the closed-end
threshold were set at 250, the Bureau
estimates that approximately 590 out of
approximately 740 nondepository
institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 80
percent) would continue to be required
to report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau
estimates that if the threshold were
increased from 25 to 250 loans, this
would result in about 99.4 percent of
closed-end mortgage loan originations
currently reported or approximately
3.408 million total closed-end mortgage
loan originations, under current market
conditions, that would continue to be
reported by nondepository
institutions.135 If the closed-end
134 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased from 25 to 100, about 661 out of about
697 nondepository institutions covered under the
current threshold of 25 (or approximately 95
percent) would continue to report HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans, and over 99 percent or
approximately 3.44 million total originations of
closed-end mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository institutions
under the current Regulation C coverage criteria
would continue to be reported. As explained above
and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to
updates made to incorporate the newly available
2018 HMDA data.
135 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased from 25 to 250, about 573 out of about
697 nondepository institutions covered under the
current threshold of 25 (or approximately 82
percent) would continue to report HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans, and about 99 percent or
approximately 3.42 million total originations of
closed-end mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository institutions
under the current Regulation C coverage criteria
would continue to be reported. As explained above
and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to
updates made to incorporate the newly available
2018 HMDA data.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
threshold were set at 500, the Bureau
estimates that approximately 480 out of
approximately 740 nondepository
institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 65
percent) would continue to be required
to report HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau
estimates that if the threshold were
increased from 25 to 500 loans, this
would result in about 98.2 percent of
closed-end mortgage loan originations
currently reported or approximately
3.367 million total closed-end mortgage
loan originations, under current market
conditions, that would continue to be
reported by nondepository
institutions.136
The Bureau recognizes the importance
of maintaining data about the lending
practices of nondepository institutions.
The Bureau also acknowledges the
concerns raised by commenters that
setting the threshold higher than 25 will
result in less data, but the Bureau
believes that the modest decrease in
data at the threshold of 100 (estimated
at less than one percent of data
currently reported) will not undermine
enforcement of fair lending laws or
regulators’ ability to identify potentially
discriminatory lending through HMDA
data. The Bureau believes that retaining
approximately 99.9 percent of the data
that would be reported under the
current threshold of 25 will result in
nondepository institutions reporting
sufficient HMDA data to enable the
public and regulators to monitor risks
posed by nondepository institutions.
Effect on HMDA data at the local
level. The Bureau recognizes that any
loan-volume threshold will affect
individual markets differently,
depending on the extent to which
smaller creditors service individual
markets and the market share of those
creditors. For the proposal and this final
rule, the Bureau reviewed estimates at
varying closed-end thresholds to
examine the potential effect on available
data at the census tract level. The
estimates of the effect on reportable
HMDA data at the census tract level are
136 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased from 25 to 500, about 477 out of about
697 nondepository institutions covered under the
current threshold of 25 (or approximately 68
percent) would continue to report HMDA data on
closed-end mortgage loans, and about 98 percent or
approximately 3.38 million total originations of
closed-end mortgage loans in current market
conditions reported by depository institutions
under the current Regulation C coverage criteria
would continue to be reported. As explained above
and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to
updates made to incorporate the newly available
2018 HMDA data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above.
Based on the Bureau’s review of the
estimates, the Bureau believes that an
increase to the closed-end threshold
from 25 to 100 will result in sufficient
data at the local level, including with
respect to rural and low-to-moderate
income census tracts, to further HMDA’s
purposes.
Specific types of data. As mentioned
in the section-by-section analysis in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A), a number of
commenters expressed concerns about
the impact that an increase to the
closed-end threshold would have on
HMDA data regarding specific types of
loan products, such as loans for
multifamily housing and manufactured
housing. The Bureau believes that data
on these types of loan products will still
be available at the threshold of 100 set
by this final rule. For example, the
Bureau estimates that with the closedend threshold increased from 25 to 100
under the final rule, approximately 87
percent of multifamily loan applications
and originations will continue to be
reported by depository and
nondepository institutions combined,
when compared to the current threshold
of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
today’s market conditions. Regarding
the effect on manufactured housing
data, the Bureau estimates that at a
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans, approximately 96 percent of loans
and applications related to
manufactured housing will continue to
be reported by depository and
nondepository institutions combined,
when compared to the current threshold
of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
today’s market conditions. The Bureau’s
estimates indicate that a significant
number of multifamily housing and
manufactured housing loans and
applications under today’s market
conditions will continue to be reported
under the final rule’s threshold of 100.
Ongoing Cost Reduction From
Threshold of 100
As noted above, small financial
institutions and trade associations
commented on the cost of HMDA
reporting, suggesting that compliance
costs have had an impact on the ability
of small financial institutions to serve
their communities. For the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule, the Bureau
developed estimates for depository and
nondepository institutions combined to
determine the savings in annual ongoing
costs at various thresholds.137 The
137 These cost estimates reflect the combined
ongoing reduction in costs for depository and
nondepository institutions. These estimates also
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28383
Bureau estimates that if the closed-end
threshold were set at 50, institutions
that originate between 25 and 49 closedend mortgage loans would save
approximately $3.7 million per year in
total annual ongoing costs relative to the
current threshold of 25.138 The Bureau
estimates that with the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans established
by the final rule, institutions that
originate between 25 and 99 closed-end
mortgage loans will save approximately
$11.2 million per year, relative to the
current threshold of 25.139 With a
threshold of 250 or 500 closed-end
mortgage loans, the Bureau estimates
that institutions would save
approximately $27.2 million and $45.4
million, respectively, relative to the
current threshold of 25.
The Bureau concludes that increasing
the closed-end threshold to 100 will
provide meaningful burden reduction
for lower-volume nondepository
institutions, while maintaining
sufficient reporting to achieve HMDA’s
purposes. In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau expressed concern that if it were
to set the threshold higher than 100, the
resulting decrease into the visibility of
the lending practices of nondepository
institutions might hamper the ability of
the public and regulators to monitor
risks posed to consumers by those
nondepository institutions.140 The
Bureau maintains the same concern
under this final rule based on its
analysis of various closed-end
thresholds using more recent estimates.
For example, if the Bureau were to set
the closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions at 500 as
take into account the enactment of the EGRRCPA,
which created partial exemptions from HMDA’s
requirements that certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions may use, and
reflect updates made to the cost estimates since the
May 2019 Proposal. See part VII.E.2 below for a
more comprehensive discussion of the cost
estimates.
138 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased from 25 to 50, the aggregate savings on
the operational costs associated with reporting
closed-end mortgage loans would be approximately
$2.2 million per year. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
139 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased from 25 to 100, the aggregate savings on
the operational costs associated with reporting
closed-end mortgage loans would be approximately
$8.1 million per year. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences
in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal
and this final rule are mostly due to updates made
to incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA
data.
140 80 FR 66128, 66281 (Oct. 28, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28384
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
suggested by a number of commenters,
while an estimated 98.2 percent of
closed-end mortgage originations
currently reported under today’s market
conditions would continue to be
reported, there would be data reported
about the lending patterns of only 65
percent of nondepository institutions
that are reporters under the current
threshold of 25. The Bureau is
concerned that an increase to the
closed-end threshold higher than 100
could hamper the ability of the public
and regulators to monitor risks posed to
consumers by nondepository
institutions. In comparison, with the
Bureau finalizing the closed-end
threshold at 100, an estimated 99.9
percent of nondepository closed-end
mortgage originations currently reported
under today’s market conditions will
continue to be reported, and there will
be data reported about 92 percent of
nondepository institutions relative to
the current threshold of 25. The
Bureau’s estimates suggest that, at the
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans established by the final rule, the
cost savings for financial institutions
will be meaningful while maintaining
substantial HMDA data for analysis at
the national and local levels.141
Based on its analysis, the Bureau
believes it is reasonable to interpret
‘‘engaged for profit in the business of
mortgage lending’’ to include
nondepository institutions that
originated at least 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding calendar years. The Bureau
determines that this final rule’s
amendments to § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) will
also effectuate the purposes of HMDA
by ensuring significant coverage of
nondepository mortgage lending. A
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans also facilitates compliance with
HMDA by reducing burden on smaller
institutions and excluding
nondepository institutions that are not
engaged for profit in the business of
mortgage lending. In addition, the final
rule’s uniform loan-volume threshold
applicable to depository and
nondepository institutions maintains
the simplicity of this aspect of the
reporting regime, thereby facilitating
compliance.142 For the reasons stated
141 These cost estimates reflect the combined
ongoing reduction in costs for depository and
nondepository institutions. These estimates also
take into account the enactment of the EGRRCPA,
which created partial exemptions from HMDA’s
requirements that certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions may now
use. See part VII.E.2 below for a more
comprehensive analysis on cost estimates.
142 The 2015 HMDA Rule established the uniform
loan-volume threshold applicable to depository and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
above, the Bureau is amending
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) to adjust the closedend threshold to 100. As discussed in
part VI.A below, the change to the
closed-end threshold will take effect on
July 1, 2020, to provide more immediate
relief to affected institutions.143
2(g)(2)(ii)(B)
The 2015 HMDA Rule established a
coverage threshold of 100 open-end
lines of credit in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) as
part of the definition of nondepository
financial institution. As discussed in
more detail in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above,
the 2017 HMDA Rule amended
§§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and
1003.3(c)(12) and related commentary to
raise temporarily the threshold to 500
open-end lines of credit for calendar
years 2018 and 2019.144 In the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau proposed to extend
to January 1, 2022, Regulation C’s
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit for institutional and
transactional coverage of both
depository and nondepository
institutions. The Bureau also proposed
to increase the permanent threshold
from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit
at the end of the extension. In the 2019
HMDA Rule, the Bureau extended for
two years the temporary open-end
institutional coverage threshold for
nondepository institutions in
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). The Bureau is now
finalizing as proposed the increase in
the permanent threshold to 200 openend lines of credit effective January 1,
2022.
As noted above, commenters typically
discussed the open-end threshold
without distinguishing between the
threshold applicable to depository
institutions under § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B)
and the threshold applicable to
nondepository institutions under
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). Comments received
regarding the proposed increase in the
permanent open-end threshold are
discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B).
According to the Bureau’s estimates,
nondepository institutions account for
only a small percentage of the
institutions and loans in the open-end
line of credit market.145 Table 4 in the
Bureau’s analysis under Dodd-Frank Act
section 1022(b) in part VII.E.3 below
provides coverage estimates for
nondepository institutions at the
permanent threshold of 200 open-end
nondepository institutions to simplify the reporting
regime.
143 See section VI for a discussion of the effective
dates.
144 82 FR 43088, 43095 (Sept. 13, 2017).
145 See infra part VII.E.3 at table 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lines of credit that the Bureau is
finalizing. Under the permanent
threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit, the Bureau estimates that about
48,000 open-end lines of credit or
approximately 84 percent of
nondepository open-end origination
volume will be reported by
approximately 25 nondepository
institutions or about 11 percent of all
nondepository institutions providing
open-end lines of credit. By comparison,
the Bureau estimates that if the
permanent threshold were set at 100
open-end lines of credit, about 51,000
lines of credit or approximately 89
percent of nondepository open-end
origination volume would be reported
by approximately 42 nondepository
institutions or about 19 percent of all
nondepository institutions providing
open-end lines of credit.
For the reasons discussed in the
section-by-section analysis of
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), and to ensure the
thresholds are consistent for depository
and nondepository institutions, the
Bureau is finalizing as proposed an
increase to Regulation C’s permanent
open-end threshold upon expiration of
the current temporary open-end
threshold. This final rule increases to
200 the permanent open-end line of
credit threshold for institutional
coverage of nondepository institutions
in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) effective January
1, 2022. This amendment to the openend threshold for institutional coverage
of nondepository institutions in
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) conforms to the
amendments that the Bureau is
finalizing with respect to the permanent
open-end threshold for institutional
coverage of depository institutions in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and the permanent
open-end threshold for transactional
coverage in § 1003.3(c)(12).
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA
section 305(a) as discussed above, the
Bureau is finalizing an increase to the
permanent threshold for open-end lines
of credit in § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). Based
on its analysis, the Bureau believes it is
reasonable to interpret ‘‘engaged for
profit in the business of mortgage
lending’’ to include nondepository
institutions that originated at least 200
open-end lines of credit in each of the
two preceding calendar years. The
Bureau determines that this final rule’s
amendments to § 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) will
also effectuate the purposes of HMDA
by ensuring significant coverage of
nondepository mortgage lending. This
increase to the permanent threshold also
facilitates compliance with HMDA by
reducing burden on smaller institutions
and excluding nondepository
institutions that are not engaged for
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
profit in the business of mortgage
lending. The Bureau determines that the
reasons provided for changing the
permanent threshold for depository
institutions in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above
apply to the permanent threshold for
nondepository institutions as well.
Additionally, the increase in the
permanent threshold in
§ 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) to 200 open-end
lines of credit will promote consistency,
and thereby facilitate compliance, by
subjecting nondepository institutions to
the same threshold that applies to the
depository institutions that make up the
majority of the open-end line of credit
market.
Section 1003.3 Exempt Institutions
and Excluded and Partially Exempt
Transactions
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
3(c) Excluded Transactions
3(c)(11)
Section 1003.3(c)(11) provides an
exclusion from the requirement to
report closed-end mortgage loans for
institutions that originated fewer than
25 closed-end mortgage loans in either
of the two preceding calendar years.
This transactional coverage threshold
complements the closed-end mortgage
loan reporting threshold included in the
definition of financial institution in
§ 1003.2(g). In the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau proposed to increase
Regulation C’s closed-end threshold for
institutional and transactional coverage
from 25 to either 50 or 100. Comments
regarding the proposed increase to the
closed-end coverage threshold are
discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). For the
reasons discussed in the section-bysection analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A),
the Bureau is now increasing Regulation
C’s closed-end threshold for
institutional and transactional coverage
from 25 to 100. Therefore, the Bureau is
finalizing the amendments it proposed
to § 1003.3(c)(11) and comments
3(c)(11)–1 and –2 to increase the closedend threshold for transactional coverage
from 25 to 100, with minor clarifying
changes.146 These amendments conform
to the related changes the Bureau is
finalizing with respect to the closed-end
threshold for institutional coverage in
§ 1003.2(g).
Although not part of the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau is also finalizing
additional related amendments to
§ 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)–2
146 In light of the new closed-end and open-end
thresholds adopted in this final rule, the final rule
makes minor changes in comment 3(c)(11)–1 to
adjust the years and loan volumes in examples that
illustrate how the thresholds work.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
to ensure that institutions affected by
the threshold increase have the option
to report data collected in 2020 should
they choose to do so. As discussed in
part VI.A below, the change to the
closed-end threshold will take effect on
July 1, 2020. The Bureau selected this
effective date to ensure that the relief
provided in this final rule is available
quickly to affected institutions, after a
number of industry commenters
expressed support for a mid-year
effective date. However, a number of
commenters also noted that institutions
may have difficulty making changes to
their HMDA operations and might need
time to implement changes in response
to the final rule. For example, a State
trade association that expressed support
for a mid-year effective date noted that
there may be operational issues that
make it difficult for institutions to avail
themselves of the threshold increase in
mid-year and requested that the Bureau
allow a transition period for any
institution that may need additional
time. The Bureau also recognizes that,
since 2020 data collection is already
underway, some affected institutions
may wish to report the HMDA data that
they have collected. The Bureau
believes that voluntary reporting of 2020
closed-end data from such institutions
would be beneficial to the HMDA
dataset, as long as the data are
submitted for the entire calendar year.
The Bureau is amending
§ 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)–2
to allow institutions newly excluded by
the final rule the option to report their
2020 closed-end data. Specifically, the
Bureau is amending § 1003.3(c)(11) to
clarify that, for purposes of information
collection in 2020, ‘‘financial
institution’’ as used in the discussion of
optional reporting in § 1003.3(c)(11)
includes an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1,
2020. Thus, for purposes of information
collection in 2020, an institution that
was a financial institution as of January
1, 2020, may collect, record, report, and
disclose information, as described in
§§ 1003.4 and .5, for closed-end
mortgage loans excluded under
§ 1003.3(c)(11), as though they were
covered loans, provided that the
institution complies with such
requirements for all applications for
closed-end mortgage loans that it
receives, closed-end mortgage loans that
it originates, and closed-end mortgage
loans that it purchases that otherwise
would have been covered loans during
calendar year 2020. The amendment to
comment 3(c)(11)–2 clarifies that an
institution that was a financial
institution as of January 1, 2020, but is
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28385
not a financial institution on July 1,
2020, because it originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans in either
2018 or 2019 is not required in 2021 to
report, but may report, applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closedend mortgage loans for calendar year
2020 that are excluded transactions
because the institution originated fewer
than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either 2018 or 2019. The amendment to
comment 3(c)(11)–2 further clarifies that
an institution that was a financial
institution as of January 1, 2020, and
chooses to report such excluded
applications for, originations of, or
purchases of closed-end mortgage loans
in 2021 must report all such
applications for closed-end mortgage
loans that it receives, closed-end
mortgage loans that it originates, and
closed-end mortgage loans that it
purchases that otherwise would be
covered loans for all of calendar year
2020. These amendments thus permit an
institution that was a financial
institution as of January 1, 2020, but is
not a financial institution on July 1,
2020, because it originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans in either
2018 or 2019 to report voluntarily in
2021 its closed-end HMDA data
collected in 2020, as long as the
institution reports such closed-end data
for the full calendar year 2020.147 The
Bureau believes that these amendments
are appropriate to ensure that
institutions newly excluded by the midyear increase in the closed-end
threshold in this final rule have the
option to report their 2020 closed-end
data should they choose to do so.
As explained in part VI below, the
amendments to increase the closed-end
threshold, including the amendments to
§ 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)–2
permitting optional reporting of data
collected in 2020, take effect on July 1,
2020. Because the deadline for reporting
of data collected in 2020 (voluntary or
otherwise) is March 1, 2021, the
amendments to § 1003.3(c)(11) and
comment 3(c)(11)–2 relating to optional
reporting of data collected in 2020 will
no longer be necessary after 2021. To
streamline Regulation C, the final rule
therefore removes these amendments
effective January 1, 2022.
3(c)(12)
As adopted in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
§ 1003.3(c)(12) provides an exclusion
147 Section 1003.3(c)(11) (both currently and as
revised) and comment 3(c)(11)–2 permit a financial
institution whose closed-end mortgage loans are
excluded by § 1003.3(c)(11) to report voluntarily its
closed-end data, as long as the financial institution
reports such closed-end data for the full calendar
year.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28386
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
from the requirement to report open-end
lines of credit for institutions that did
not originate at least 100 such loans in
each of the two preceding calendar
years. This transactional coverage
threshold complements the open-end
threshold included in the definition of
financial institution in § 1003.2(g),
which sets forth Regulation C’s
institutional coverage. The 2017 HMDA
Rule replaced ‘‘each’’ with ‘‘either’’ in
§ 1003.3(c)(11) and (12) to correct a
drafting error and to ensure that the
exclusions provided in § 1003.3(c)(11)
and (12) mirror the loan-volume
thresholds for financial institutions in
§ 1003.2(g).148 As discussed in more
detail in the section-by-section analysis
of § 1003.2(g), in the 2017 HMDA Rule
the Bureau also amended §§ 1003.2(g)
and 1003.3(c)(12) and related
commentary to raise temporarily the
open-end threshold in those provisions
to 500 lines of credit for calendar years
2018 and 2019.149 In the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau proposed to extend
to January 1, 2022, Regulation C’s
current temporary open-end threshold
for institutional and transactional
coverage of 500 open-end lines of credit
and then to increase the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit upon the expiration of the
proposed extension of the temporary
threshold. The Bureau stated in the
2019 HMDA Rule that it intended to
address in a separate final rule in 2020
the May 2019 Proposal’s proposed
amendment to the permanent threshold
for open-end lines of credit. Comments
regarding the proposed permanent
increase in the open-end threshold are
discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above.
For the reasons discussed in the
section-by-section analysis of
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), the Bureau is now
finalizing as proposed the increase in
the permanent threshold to 200 openend lines of credit, effective January 1,
2022. To align the permanent increase
in the open-end threshold for
institutional coverage in § 1003.2(g)
with the transactional coverage
threshold, the Bureau is also finalizing
the permanent increase in the open-end
threshold for transactional coverage in
§ 1003.3(c)(12) and comments 3(c)(12)–
1 and –2, as proposed, with minor
changes for clarity.150
148 82
FR 43088, 43102 (Sept. 13, 2017).
at 43095.
150 In addition to finalizing the proposed changes
to comment 3(c)(12)–1, the final rule makes minor
changes in comment 3(c)(12)–1 to adjust the years
and loan volumes in an example that illustrates
how the open-end line of credit threshold works.
149 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
VI. Effective Dates
In consideration of comments
received and for the reasons discussed
below, the Bureau is finalizing the
increase in the closed-end threshold to
100 effective July 1, 2020,151 and the
adjustment to the permanent open-end
threshold to 200 effective January 1,
2022, when the current temporary openend threshold expires.152
A. Closed-End Threshold
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
proposed to amend §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A)
and (g)(2)(ii)(A) and 1003.3(c)(11) and
related commentary to raise the closedend threshold for institutional and
transactional coverage effective January
1, 2020. In the July 2019 Reopening
Notice the agency issued in 2019, the
Bureau explained that, due to the
reopening of the comment period on the
closed-end threshold, it would not be
possible to finalize any change to the
closed-end threshold in time to take
effect on the Bureau’s originally
proposed effective date of January 1,
2020. The Bureau therefore requested
additional comment on the appropriate
effective date for any change to the
closed-end threshold, should the Bureau
decide to finalize a change. The Bureau
specifically requested comment on the
costs and benefits of a mid-year effective
date during 2020 versus a January 1,
2021 effective date. With respect to the
alternative of a mid-year effective date
during 2020, the Bureau also requested
comment on the costs and benefits of
specific days of the week or times of the
month, quarter, or year for a new closedend threshold to take effect and whether
there are any other considerations that
the Bureau should address in a final
rule if it were to adopt a mid-year
effective date.
Most commenters did not address the
effective date question, and those that
did expressed differing views. A
number of banks requested an
immediate effective date upon
publication of the final rule and
requested elimination of any reporting
requirement for 2020 data collected
prior to that date to provide more
immediate regulatory relief. These
commenters also asked that the Bureau
clarify in the final rule that applications
151 As explained below, institutions that are
subject to HMDA’s closed-end requirements prior to
the effective date but that do not meet the new
closed-end threshold for calendar year 2020 as of
July 1, 2020 are relieved of the obligation to collect,
record, and report data for their 2020 closed-end
mortgage loans effective July 1, 2020.
152 As explained below, the amendments to the
open-end threshold apply to covered loans and
applications with respect to which final action is
taken beginning on January 1, 2022.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
taken prior to a mid-year effective date,
which would no longer be HMDA
reportable after the threshold increase
but for which demographic information
was collected, do not violate the
demographic collection rules in
Regulations B and C. In a joint comment
letter, a group of trade associations
urged the Bureau to finalize the rule
before March 1, 2020 (the deadline for
reporting data that financial institutions
collected in 2019) and have it take
immediate or even retroactive effect. A
State trade association that supports a
mid-year effective date noted that there
may be operational issues that make it
difficult for institutions to avail
themselves of the threshold increase in
mid-year and requested that the Bureau
allow a transition for any institution
that may need additional time. Other
commenters, including at least one
bank, a State credit union league, and a
joint comment submitted on behalf of
consumer groups, civil rights groups,
and other organizations, favored a
January 1, 2021 effective date. These
commenters noted that institutions may
have difficulty making changes quickly
and that implementing changes at the
beginning of the year makes data more
consistent and minimizes confusion.
The Bureau has considered the
comments received and concludes that
a mid-year effective date for the closedend threshold is appropriate to provide
burden relief quickly to institutions that
would have to report under the
threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage
loans but will not have to report under
the threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans.153 The amendments
relating to the closed-end threshold in
§§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A)
and 1003.3(c)(11) and related
commentary are effective on July 1,
2020.154 Thus, in calendar year 2020, an
institution could have been subject to
HMDA’s closed-end requirements as of
January 1, 2020 because it originated at
least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
2018 and 2019 and meets all of the other
requirements under § 1003.2(g), but no
longer subject to HMDA’s closed-end
requirements as of July 1, 2020 (a newly
excluded institution) because it
originated fewer than 100 closed-end
153 The Bureau declines, however, the suggestion
of some commenters that the rule should take
immediate or even retroactive effect. The Bureau
believes that the roughly 75-day period between the
final rule’s issuance and effective date will provide
time for affected institutions to review the final rule
and adjust their operations in accordance with it.
154 As explained below, the final rule also
reverses the amendments relating to optional
reporting of 2020 data in § 1003.3(c)(11) and
comment 3(c)(11)–2 effective January 1, 2022
because those amendments will have become
obsolete by that time.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
mortgage loans during 2018 or 2019.
The final rule relieves newly excluded
institutions of the obligation to collect,
record, and report data for their 2020
closed-end mortgage loans effective July
1, 2020. Newly excluded institutions
may cease collecting 2020 data for
closed-end mortgage loans as of July 1,
2020. Pursuant to § 1003.4(f), newly
excluded institutions must still record
data on a loan/application register for
the first quarter of 2020 by 30 calendar
days after the end of the first quarter.
They will not, however, be required to
record closed-end data for the second
quarter of 2020 because the deadline
under § 1003.4(f) for recording such data
falls after July 1, 2020. Because newly
excluded institutions collecting HMDA
data in 2020 would not otherwise report
those data until early 2021, the final
rule also relieves newly excluded
institutions of the obligation to report by
March 1, 2021 data collected in 2020 on
closed-end mortgage loans (including
closed-end data collected in 2020 before
July 1, 2020).
The Bureau appreciates that some
newly excluded institutions will need to
continue to collect certain data due to
other regulatory requirements or may
wish to continue collecting data for
other reasons. For example, Regulation
B includes an independent requirement
to collect information regarding the
applicant’s ethnicity, race, sex, marital
status, and age where the credit sought
is primarily for the purchase or
refinancing of a dwelling that is or will
be the applicant’s principal residence
and will secure the credit.155
Institutions may also decide to continue
collecting after the effective date for
other reasons—for example, in order to
assess whether they will be subject to
HMDA data collection requirements in
2021 or to continue monitoring their
own operations. As noted above, some
commenters indicated that many
smaller institutions might not be able to
change their collection practices
quickly.
To accommodate such institutions,
the amendments to § 1003.3(c)(11) and
comment 3(c)(11)–2 permit an
institution that was a financial
institution as of January 1, 2020 but is
not a financial institution on July 1,
2020 because it originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans in 2018
or 2019 to report voluntarily in 2021 its
closed-end HMDA data collected in
2020, as long as the institution reports
such closed-end data for the full
calendar year 2020.156 These changes
155 12
CFR 1002.13.
1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)–2
(both currently and as revised) permit a financial
156 Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
take effect with the other closed-end
changes on July 1, 2020 and are
discussed in more detail in the sectionby-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(11).
Because the deadline for reporting of
2020 data (voluntary or otherwise) is in
2021, the final rule also removes the
amendments to § 1003.3(c)(11) and
comment 3(c)(11)–2 relating to optional
reporting of 2020 data effective January
1, 2022.
As noted above, a number of industry
commenters asked that the Bureau
clarify in its final rule that applications
taken prior to a mid-year effective date,
which would no longer be HMDA
reportable after the threshold increase
but for which demographic information
was collected, do not violate the rules
governing demographic information
collection in Regulations B and C.
Newly excluded institutions do not
violate Regulation B or C by collecting
demographic information about
applicants before the effective date in
accordance with their legal obligations
under Regulation C as that regulation is
in effect before the effective date. As
noted above, even after the effective
date, creditors will still be required
under Regulation B to collect
information regarding ethnicity, race,
sex, marital status, and age where the
credit sought is primarily for the
purchase or refinancing of a dwelling
that is or will be the applicant’s
principal residence and will secure the
credit.157 The Bureau recognizes that
some newly excluded institutions may
also continue collecting demographic
information for other loans in 2020 after
the effective date—for example, if they
need additional time to update their
systems and forms and to retrain
employees or if they decide to continue
collecting for the full year and report
2020 data voluntarily in accordance
with § 1003.3(c)(11) and comment
3(c)(11)–2. Although Regulation B, 12
CFR 1002.5(b), prohibits creditors from
inquiring about the race, color, religion,
national origin, or sex of a credit
applicant except under certain
circumstances, the Bureau notes that
even after the effective date, applicable
exceptions in Regulation B will permit
newly excluded institutions 158 to
institution whose closed-end mortgage loans are
excluded by § 1003.3(c)(11) to report voluntarily its
closed-end data, as long as the financial institution
reports such closed-end data for the full calendar
year.
157 12 CFR 1002.13.
158 As used here, a newly excluded institution
means an institution that was subject to HMDA’s
closed-end requirements as of January 1, 2020
because it originated at least 25 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2018 and 2019 and met all of the
other requirements under § 1003.2(g) but is no
longer subject to HMDA’s closed-end requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28387
collect information in 2020 about the
ethnicity, race, and sex of applicants for
loans that would have been covered
loans absent this final rule.159
B. Open-End Threshold
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
proposed to amend §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B)
and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and 1003.3(c)(12) and
related commentary to extend to January
1, 2022, the current temporary open-end
threshold of 500 open-end lines of
credit and then to set the threshold
permanently at 200 open-end lines of
credit beginning in calendar year 2022.
In the 2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
finalized as proposed the two-year
extension of the temporary open-end
threshold, effective January 1, 2020. In
this final rule the Bureau is adjusting
the permanent open-end threshold to
200 open-end lines of credit. For these
amendments, the Bureau is finalizing
the effective date of January 1, 2022, as
proposed, to coincide with the
expiration of the current temporary
open-end threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit. As explained below, the
amendments to the open-end threshold
apply to covered loans and applications
with respect to which final action is
taken beginning January 1, 2022.
Consistent with feedback provided by
industry stakeholders in connection
with the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017
HMDA Rule, a number of commenters
indicated in response to the May 2019
Proposal that a long implementation
period is necessary when coverage
changes result in new institutions
as of July 1, 2020 due to the final rule’s change to
the closed-end threshold.
159 For example, § 1002.5(a)(4)(iii) permits
creditors that submitted HMDA data for any of the
preceding five calendar years but that are not
currently a financial institution to collect
information regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of
applicants for loans that would otherwise be
covered loans if not excluded by § 1003.3(c)(11) or
(12). Section 1002.5(a)(4)(i) permits creditors that
are currently financial institutions due to their
open-end originations to collect information
regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of an
applicant for a closed-end mortgage loan that is an
excluded transaction under § 1003.3(c)(11) if they
either: (1) Report data concerning such closed-end
mortgage loans and applications, or (2) reported
closed-end HMDA data for any of the preceding five
calendar years. Additionally, § 1002.5(a)(4)(iv)
permits a ‘‘creditor that exceeded an applicable
loan volume threshold in the first year of the twoyear threshold period provided in 12 CFR 1003.2(g),
1003.3(c)(11), or 1003.3(c)(12)’’ to collect in the
second year information regarding the ethnicity,
race, and sex of an applicant for a loan that would
otherwise be a covered loan if not excluded by
§ 1003.3(c)(11) or (12). In the unusual
circumstances present here, where Regulation C’s
closed-end threshold is changing in the middle of
2020, the Bureau interprets ‘‘an applicable loan
volume threshold’’ as used in § 1002.5(a)(4)(iv) to
include, even after the July 1, 2020 effective date,
25 closed-end mortgage loans for the year 2019
during the 2019–2020 period.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
28388
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
having reporting obligations under
HMDA. A few trade associations and
industry commenters suggested the
Bureau adopt a transition period or
good-faith efforts standard for
compliance with HMDA requirements
in consultation with other regulators.
The Bureau determines that the
period of more than 20 months between
this final rule’s issuance and the January
1, 2022 effective date for the adjustment
to the open-end threshold will provide
newly covered financial institutions
with sufficient time to revise and update
policies and procedures, implement any
necessary systems changes, and train
staff before beginning to collect openend data in 2022. As the Bureau
explained in the 2019 HMDA Rule, the
two-year extension of the temporary
threshold of 500 open-end lines of
credit ensures that institutions that will
be required to report under the new
permanent threshold that takes effect in
2022 will have time to adapt their
systems and prepare for compliance.
Under the permanent open-end
threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit, beginning in calendar year 2022,
financial institutions that originated at
least 200 open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding calendar
years must collect and record data on
their open-end lines of credit pursuant
to § 1003.4 and report such data by
March 1 of the following calendar year
pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(i). As noted
above, this requirement applies to
covered loans and applications with
respect to which final action is taken on
or after January 1, 2022. For example, if
a financial institution described in
§ 1003.2(g) originated at least 200 openend lines of credit each year in 2020 and
2021 and takes final action on an
application for an open-end line of
credit on February 15, 2022, the
financial institution must collect and
record data on that application and
report such data by March 1, 2023. This
is true regardless of when the financial
institution received the application.160
However, if an institution originated
fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit
in either of the two preceding calendar
years, that institution is not required to
collect, record, or report data on its
open-end lines of credit for that
calendar year. For example, if an
institution originated at least 200 openend lines of credit in 2020 but fewer
than 200 open-end lines of credit in
2021, that institution does not need to
collect, record, or report any data on
160 The Bureau understands that final action
taken on an application may occur in a different
year than the application date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
open-end lines of credit for which it
takes final action in 2022.
VII. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b)
Analysis
The Bureau has considered the
potential benefits, costs, and impacts of
the final rule.161 In developing the final
rule, the Bureau has consulted with or
offered to consult with the prudential
regulators (the Board, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
the National Credit Union
Administration, and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency), the
Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the Department of
Justice, the Department of the Treasury,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, the
Federal Trade Commission, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding, among other things,
consistency with any prudential,
market, or systemic objectives
administered by such agencies.
As discussed in greater detail
elsewhere throughout this
supplementary information, in this
rulemaking the Bureau is amending
Regulation C, effective July 1, 2020, to
increase the threshold for reporting data
about closed-end mortgage loans to 100
originated closed-end mortgage loans in
each of the two preceding years. In
addition, the Bureau is amending
Regulation C to set the open-end
threshold at 200 originated open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years beginning in calendar
year 2022.
A. Provisions To Be Analyzed
The final rule contains regulatory or
commentary language (provisions). The
discussion below considers the benefits,
costs, and impacts of the following sets
of major provisions of the final rule to:
1. Increase the threshold for reporting
data about closed-end mortgage loans
from 25 to 100 originations in each of
the two preceding calendar years,
effective July 1, 2020; and
2. Set the threshold for reporting data
about open-end lines of credit at 200
originations in each of the two
preceding calendar years, effective
January 1, 2022.
161 Specifically, section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the
Dodd-Frank Act calls for the Bureau to consider the
potential benefits and costs of a regulation to
consumers and covered persons, including the
potential reduction of access by consumers to
consumer financial products or services; the impact
on depository institutions and credit unions with
$10 billion or less in total assets as described in
section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact
on consumers in rural areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
With respect to each major provision,
the discussion below considers the
benefits, costs, and impacts to
consumers and covered persons. The
discussion also addresses comments the
Bureau received on the proposed DoddFrank Act section 1022(b) analysis, as
well as certain other comments on the
benefits or costs of the relevant
provisions of the May 2019 Proposal
that the Bureau is finalizing in this rule,
when doing so is helpful to
understanding the Dodd-Frank Act
section 1022(b) analysis. Some
commenters that mentioned the benefits
or costs of a provision of the May 2019
Proposal in the context of commenting
on the merits of that provision are
addressed in the relevant section-bysection analysis, above. In this respect,
the Bureau’s discussion under DoddFrank Act section 1022(b) is not limited
to this discussion in part VII of the final
rule.
B. Baselines for Consideration of Costs
and Benefits
The Bureau has discretion in any
rulemaking to choose an appropriate
scope of analysis with respect to
potential benefits, costs, and impacts
and an appropriate baseline.
For the purposes of this analysis,
references to the ‘‘first set of provisions’’
in this final rule are to those that
increase the threshold for reporting data
about closed-end mortgage loans from
25 to 100 originations in each of the two
preceding calendar years, effective July
1, 2020. Under current Regulation C,
absent this final rule, financial
institutions that originated no fewer
than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
each of the two preceding calendar
years and meet other reporting criteria
are required to report their closed-end
activity under HMDA; furthermore,
depository institutions and credit
unions that originated fewer than 500
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the
two preceding calendar years are
generally exempt under the EGRRCPA
from reporting certain data points under
HMDA. That is the baseline adopted for
this set of provisions throughout the
analyses presented below.
For the purposes of this analysis,
references to the ‘‘second set of
provisions’’ in this final rule are to those
that set the threshold for reporting data
about open-end lines of credit at 200
originations in each of the two
preceding calendar years, effective
January 1, 2022. In the 2019 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau granted two-year
temporary relief (specifically, for 2020
and 2021) for financial institutions that
did not originate at least 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
preceding calendar years. The 2019
HMDA Rule provides that, absent any
future rulemaking, the open-end
threshold will revert to 100 open-end
lines of credit starting in 2022, as
established in the 2015 HMDA Rule.
This final rule sets the threshold for
reporting data about open-end lines of
credit at 200 originations in each of the
two preceding calendar years, effective
January 1, 2022. Meanwhile, the
EGRRCPA’s partial exemption for openend lines of credit of eligible insured
depository institutions and insured
credit unions took effect on May 24,
2018. Therefore, for the consideration of
benefits and costs of this second set of
provisions the Bureau is adopting a
baseline in which the open-end
threshold starting in year 2022 is reset
at 100 open-end lines of credit in each
of the two preceding calendar years,
with some depository institutions and
credit unions partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA.
The Bureau notes that the May 2019
proposal’s analysis relied on three
separate baselines for each of the three
sets of provisions in the proposal. With
regard to the provision to increase the
closed-end threshold from 25 to 100, the
Bureau had explained that the
appropriate baseline for this provision is
a post-EGRRCPA world in which
eligible financial institutions under the
EGRRCPA are already partially exempt
from the reporting of certain data points
for closed-end mortgage loans. And with
regard to the provision to set the
permanent open-end threshold at 200,
the Bureau had adopted a baseline in
which the open-end coverage threshold
starting in year 2020 is reset at 100
open-end lines of credit in each of the
two preceding calendar years with some
depository institutions and credit
unions partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA. But for the purpose of this
final rule, with the 2019 HMDA Rule
already having incorporated the
EGRRCPA changes and finalized the
two-year extension of the temporary
open-end threshold, the Bureau can
simplify by using a baseline that
includes the 2019 HMDA Rule for the
two provisions being finalized now,
with the closed-end analysis using July
1, 2020 as the baseline, and the openend analysis using January 1, 2022 as
the baseline.
C. Coverage of the Final Rule
Both sets of provisions relieve certain
financial institutions from HMDA’s
requirements for data points regarding
closed-end mortgage loans or open-end
lines of credit that they originate or
purchase, or for which they receive
applications, as described further in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
each section below. The final rule
affects all financial institutions below
certain thresholds as discussed in detail
below.
D. Basic Approach of the Bureau’s
Consideration of Benefits and Costs and
Data Limitations
This discussion relies on data that the
Bureau has obtained from industry,
other regulatory agencies, and publicly
available sources. However, as
discussed further below, the Bureau’s
ability to fully quantify the potential
costs, benefits, and impacts of this final
rule is limited in some instances by a
scarcity of necessary data.
1. Benefits to Covered Persons
This final rule relates to the
institutions and transactions that are
excluded from HMDA’s reporting
requirements. Both sets of provisions in
this final rule will reduce the regulatory
burdens on covered persons while also
decreasing the data reported to serve the
statute’s purposes. Therefore, the
benefits of these provisions to covered
persons are mainly the reduction of the
costs to covered persons relative to the
compliance costs the covered persons
would have to incur under each
baseline scenario.
The Bureau’s 2015 HMDA Rule, as
well as the 2014 proposed rule for the
2015 HMDA Rule and the material
provided to the Small Business Review
Panel leading to the 2015 HMDA Rule,
presented a basic framework of
analyzing compliance costs for HMDA
reporting, including ongoing costs and
one-time costs for financial institutions.
Based on the Bureau’s then study of the
HMDA compliance process and costs,
with the help of additional information
gathered and verified through the Small
Business Review Panel process, the
Bureau classified the operational
activities that financial institutions use
for HMDA data collection and reporting
into 18 discrete compliance ‘‘tasks’’
which can be grouped into four
‘‘primary tasks.’’ 162 Recognizing that
the cost per loan of complying with
HMDA’s requirements differs by
financial institution, the Bureau further
162 These tasks include: (1) Data collection:
Transcribing data, resolving reportability questions,
and transferring data to HMDA Management System
(HMS); (2) Reporting and resubmission: Geocoding,
standard annual edit and internal checks,
researching questions, resolving question responses,
checking post-submission edits, filing postsubmission documents, creating modified loan/
application register, distributing modified loan/
application register, distributing disclosure
statement, and using vendor HMS software; (3)
Compliance and internal audits: Training, internal
audits, and external audits; and (4) HMDA-related
exams: Examination preparation and examination
assistance.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28389
identified seven key dimensions of
compliance operations that were
significant drivers of compliance costs,
including the reporting system used, the
degree of system integration, the degree
of system automation, the compliance
program, and the tools for geocoding,
performing completeness checks, and
editing. The Bureau found that the
compliance operations of financial
institutions tended to have similar
levels of complexity across all seven
dimensions. For example, if a given
financial institution had less system
integration, then it tended to use less
automation and less complex tools for
geocoding. Financial institutions
generally did not use less complex
approaches on one dimension and more
complex approaches on another. The
small entity representatives validated
this perspective during the Small
Business Review Panel meeting
convened under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.163
The Bureau realizes that costs vary by
institution due to many factors, such as
size, operational structure, and product
complexity, and that this variance exists
on a continuum that is impossible to
fully represent. To consider costs in a
practical and meaningful way, in the
2015 HMDA Rule the Bureau adopted
an approach that focused on three
representative tiers of financial
institutions. In particular, to capture the
relationships between operational
complexity and compliance cost, the
Bureau used the seven key dimensions
noted above to define three broadly
representative financial institutions
according to the overall level of
complexity of their compliance
operations. Tier 1 denotes a
representative financial institution with
the highest level of complexity, tier 2
denotes a representative financial
institution with a moderate level of
complexity, and tier 3 denotes a
representative financial institution with
the lowest level of complexity. For each
tier, the Bureau developed a separate set
of assumptions and cost estimates.
Table 1 below provides an overview
of all three representative tiers across
the seven dimensions of compliance
operations: 164
163 See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., ‘‘Final
Report of the Small Business Review Panel on the
CFPB’s Proposals Under Consideration for the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
Rulemaking’’ 22, 37 (Apr. 24, 2014), https://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_report_
hmda_sbrefa.pdf.
164 The Bureau notes this description has taken
into account the operational improvements the
Bureau has implemented regarding HMDA
reporting since issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule and
differs slightly from the original taxonomy in the
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
Continued
12MYR2
28390
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—TYPES OF HMDA REPORTERS 1
Tier 3 FIs tend to . . .
Tier 2 FIs tend to . . .
Tier 1 FIs tend to . . .
Enter data in Excel loan/application
register Formatting Tool.
(None) ..................................................
Use LOS and HMS; Submit data via
the HMDA Platform.
Have forward integration (LOS to
HMS).
Manually enter data into loan/application register Formatting Tool; review
and verify edits in the HMDA Platform.
Use FFIEC tool (manual) .....................
Loan/application register file produced
by HMS; review edits in HMS and
HMDA platform; verify edits via
HMDA Platform.
Use batch processing ..........................
Completeness
Checks.
Edits .........................
Check in HMDA Platform only .............
Use FFIEC Edits only ..........................
Use LOS, which includes completeness checks.
Use FFIEC and customized edits ........
Use multiple LOS, central SoR, HMS;
Submit data via the HMDA Platform.
Have backward and forward integration; Integration with public HMDA
APIs.
Loan/application register file produced
by HMS; high automation compiling
file and reviewing edits; verify edits
via the HMDA platform.
Use batch processing with multiple
sources.
Use multiple stages of checks.
Compliance Program
Have a joint compliance and audit office.
Have basic internal and external accuracy audit.
Systems ...................
Integration ................
Automation ...............
Geocoding ................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
1 FI
Use FFIEC and customized edits run
multiple times.
Have in-depth accuracy and fair lending audit.
is ‘‘financial institution’’; LOS is ‘‘Loan Origination System’’; HMS is ‘‘HMDA Data Management Software’’; SoR is ‘‘System of Record.’’
For a representative institution in
each tier, in the 2015 HMDA Rule the
Bureau produced a series of estimates of
the costs of compliance, including the
ongoing costs that financial institutions
incurred prior to the implementation of
the 2015 HMDA Rule, and the changes
to the ongoing costs due to the 2015
HMDA Rule. The Bureau further
provided the breakdown of the changes
to the ongoing costs due to each major
provision in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
which includes the changes to the scope
of the institutional coverage, the change
to the scope of the transactional
coverage, the revisions to the existing
data points (as before the 2015 HMDA
Rule) and the addition of new data
points by the 2015 HMDA Rule.
For the impact analysis in this final
rule, the Bureau is utilizing the cost
estimates provided in the 2015 HMDA
Rule for the representative financial
institution in each of the three tiers,
with some updates, mainly to reflect the
inflation rate. In addition, for the
financial institutions eligible for partial
exemptions under the EGRRCPA, the
Bureau is making updates to align the
partially exempt data points (and data
fields used to report these data points)
with the cost impact analyses discussed
in the impact analyses for the 2015
HMDA Rule. The Bureau’s analyses
below also take into account the
operational improvements that have
been implemented by the Bureau
regarding HMDA reporting since the
issuance of the 2015 HMDA Rule. The
details of such analyses are contained in
the following sections addressing the
two sets of provisions of this final rule.
The Bureau received a number of
comments relating to the benefits to
covered persons of the May 2019
Proposal, both in response to the
original proposal and in response to the
July 2019 Reopening Notice, and it has
considered these comments in finalizing
this rule. Many industry commenters
reported that they expend substantial
resources on HMDA compliance that
they could instead use for other
purposes or that they have structured
their lines of business to ensure they are
not required to report under HMDA.
Some cited, for example, the burden of
establishing procedures, purchasing
reporting software, and training staff to
comply with HMDA, and noted that
compliance can be particularly difficult
for smaller institutions with limited
staff. A trade association commented
that the Bureau’s estimates do not
account for the reduction in
examination burdens and the resources
diverted to HMDA compliance from
other more productive activities. It also
asserted that the Bureau’s burden
analysis did not properly address data
security costs associated with HMDA
collection and reporting. Another trade
association suggested that the threetiered approach to estimating costs does
not seem to account for the unique
challenges of adapting business and
multifamily lending to HMDA
regulations and HMDA reporting
infrastructure designed with singlefamily consumer mortgage lending in
mind.
In their comments, consumer groups,
civil rights groups, and other nonprofit
organizations stated that Federal agency
fair lending and CRA exams will
become more burdensome for Federal
agencies and the HMDA-exempt lenders
since the agencies will now have to ask
for internal data from the lenders
instead of being able to use the HMDA
data. They also noted that smallervolume lenders already benefit from the
EGRRCPA’s partial exemptions and
stated that almost all of the data that
such institutions must report under
HMDA would already need to be
collected to comply with other statutes
like the Truth in Lending Act, to sell
loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or
to acquire Federal Housing
Administration insurance for loans. A
nonprofit organization that does HMDArelated research commented that it is
hard to imagine that a bank would not
keep an electronic record of its lending,
even if it were not subject to HMDA
reporting.
The Bureau has considered these
comments and concludes, as it did in
the 2019 HMDA Rule, that they do not
undermine the Bureau’s approach or
cost parameters used in part VI of the
May 2019 Proposal. For example, the
activities that many industry
commenters described as burdensome—
including scrubbing data, training
personnel, and preparing for HMDArelated examinations—are consistent
with and captured by the 18 discrete
compliance ‘‘tasks’’ that the Bureau
identified through its study of the
HMDA compliance process and costs in
the 2015 HMDA rulemaking. As part of
its analysis, the Bureau also recognized
that costs vary by institution due to
many factors, such as size, operational
structure, and product complexity, and
adopted a tiered framework to capture
2015 HMDA Rule that reflected the technology at
the time of the study.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the relationships between operational
complexity and compliance cost. While
some products are more costly than
others to report, the three-tiered
framework uses representative
institutions to capture this type of
variability and estimate overall costs of
HMDA reporting. In estimating
compliance costs associated with
HMDA reporting through this
framework, the Bureau also recognized
that much of the information required
for HMDA reporting is information that
financial institutions would need to
collect, retain, and secure as part of
their lending process, even if they were
not subject to HMDA reporting. The
Bureau therefore does not believe that
the comments received provide a basis
for departing from the approach for
analyzing costs and benefits for covered
persons used in part VI of the May 2019
Proposal.
The next step of the Bureau’s
consideration of the reduction of costs
for covered persons involved
aggregating the institution-level
estimates of the cost reduction under
each set of provisions up to the marketlevel. This aggregation required
estimates of the total number of
potentially impacted financial
institutions and their total number of
loan/application register records. The
Bureau used a wide range of data in
conducting this task, including recent
HMDA data,165 Call Reports, and
Consumer Credit Panel data. These
analyses were challenging, because no
single data source provided complete
coverage of all the financial institutions
that could be impacted and because
there is varying data quality among the
different sources.
To perform the aggregation, the
Bureau mapped the potentially
impacted financial institutions to the
three tiers described above. For each of
the provisions analyzed, the Bureau
assumed none of the changes would
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
165 The
majority of the analyses in part VI of the
May 2019 Proposal were conducted prior to the
official submission deadline of the 2018 HMDA
data on March 1, 2019, and 2017 was the most
recent year of HMDA data the Bureau used for the
analyses presented in the May 2019 Proposal. For
this part of the final rule, the Bureau has
supplemented the analyses with the 2018 HMDA
data. The majority of the analyses for this final rule
were conducted prior to the official submission
deadline of the 2019 HMDA data on March 2, 2020.
As of the date of issuance of this final rule, the
Bureau is processing the 2019 HMDA loan/
application register submissions and checking data
quality, and some financial institutions are
continuing to revise and resubmit their 2019 HMDA
data. Accordingly, the Bureau has not considered
the 2019 HMDA data in the analyses for this final
rule. The Bureau notes the market may fluctuate
from year to year, and the Bureau’s rulemaking is
not geared towards such transitory changes on an
annual basis but is instead based on larger trends.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
affect the high-complexity tier 1
reporters. The Bureau then assigned the
potentially impacted financial
institutions to either tier 2 or tier 3. In
doing so, the Bureau relied on two
constraints: (1) The estimated number of
impacted institutions in tiers 2 and 3,
combined, must equal the estimated
number of impacted institutions for the
applicable provision, and (2) the
number of loan/application register
records submitted annually by the
impacted financial institutions in tiers 2
and 3, combined, must equal the
estimated number of loan/application
register records for the applicable
provision. As in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
the Bureau assumed for closed-end
reporting that a representative lowcomplexity tier 3 financial institution
has 50 closed-end mortgage loan HMDA
loan/application register records per
year and a representative moderatecomplexity tier 2 financial institution
has 1,000 closed-end mortgage loan
HMDA loan/application register records
per year. Similarly, the Bureau assumed
for open-end reporting that a
representative low-complexity tier 3
financial institution has 150 open-end
HMDA loan/application register records
per year and a representative moderatecomplexity tier 2 financial institution
has 1,000 open-end HMDA loan/
application register records per year.
Constraining the total number of
impacted institutions and the number of
impacted loan/application register
records across tier 2 and tier 3 to the
aggregate estimates thus enables the
Bureau to calculate the approximate
numbers of impacted institutions in
tiers 2 and 3 for each set of
provisions.166
Multiplying the impact estimates for
representative financial institutions in
each tier by the estimated number of
impacted institutions, the Bureau
arrived at the market-level estimates.
2. Costs to Covered Persons
In general, and as discussed in part
VII.D.1 above, both sets of provisions in
this final rule will reduce the ongoing
operational costs associated with HMDA
reporting for the affected covered
persons. In the interim, it is possible
that to adapt to the rule, covered
persons may incur certain one-time
costs. Such one-time costs are mostly
related to training and system changes
in covered persons’ HMDA reporting/
loan origination systems. Based on the
Bureau’s outreach to industry, however,
the Bureau believes that such one-time
costs are fairly small. Commenters did
not indicate that covered persons who
166 See
PO 00000
supra note 85.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28391
would be excluded completely from
reporting HMDA data would incur
significant costs, either for closed-end
mortgage loans or for open-end lines of
credit, or both.
3. Benefits to Consumers
Having generated estimates of the
changes in ongoing costs and one-time
costs to covered financial institutions,
the Bureau then can attempt to estimate
the potential pass-through of such cost
reduction from these institutions to
consumers, which could benefit
consumers and affect credit access.
According to economic theory, in a
perfectly competitive market where
financial institutions are profit
maximizers, the affected financial
institutions would pass on to consumers
the marginal, i.e., variable, cost savings
per application or origination, and
absorb the one-time and increased fixed
costs of complying with the rule. The
Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA
Rule the impacts on the variable costs
of the representative financial
institutions in each tier due to various
provisions of that rule. Similarly, the
estimates of the pass-through effect from
covered persons to consumers due to
the provisions under this rule are based
on the relevant estimates of the changes
to the variable costs in the 2015 HMDA
Rule with some updates. The Bureau
notes that the market structure in the
consumer mortgage lending markets
may differ from that of a perfectly
competitive market (for instance due to
information asymmetry between lenders
and borrowers) in which case the passthrough to the consumers would most
likely be smaller than the pass-through
under the perfect competition
assumption.167
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
requested additional comments on the
potential pass-through from financial
institutions to consumers due to the
reduction in reporting costs. A trade
association commented that it believed
that the proposed higher thresholds will
move mortgage markets to more perfect
competition. It suggested that
institutions that currently manage their
origination volumes to stay below
HMDA reporting thresholds will be
incentivized to increase operations and
that, by being able to offer savings on
fees and pricing, and by being more
competitive due to lower productions
costs, smaller banks will be able to enter
the mortgage market at more profitable
levels. However, as the Bureau noted in
the 2019 HMDA Rule, this comment did
167 The further the market moves away from a
perfectly competitive market, the smaller the passthrough would be.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28392
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
not provide specific estimates that the
Bureau can utilize in refining the
analyses.
4. Cost to Consumers
HMDA is a sunshine statute. The
purposes of HMDA are to provide the
public with loan data that can be used:
(i) To help determine whether financial
institutions are serving the housing
needs of their communities; (ii) to assist
public officials in distributing publicsector investment so as to attract private
investment to areas where it is needed;
and (iii) to assist in identifying possible
discriminatory lending patterns and
enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.168
The provisions in this final rule, as
adopted, lessen the reporting
requirements for excluded financial
institutions by relieving them of the
obligation to report all data points
related to either closed-end mortgage
loans or open-end lines of credit. As a
sunshine statute regarding data
reporting and disclosure, most of the
benefits of HMDA are realized
indirectly. With less data required to be
collected and reported under HMDA,
the HMDA data available to serve
HMDA’s statutory purposes will
decline.169 However, to quantify the
reduction of such benefits to consumers
presents substantial challenges. The
Bureau sought comment on the
magnitude of the loss of HMDA benefits
from these changes to the available data
and/or methodologies for measuring
these effects in the May 2019 Proposal.
The Bureau received a number of
comments emphasizing the loss of
HMDA benefits from decreased
information lenders would report under
HMDA were the May 2019 Proposal to
be finalized. For example, a group of
148 local and national organizations
stated that raising reporting thresholds
will lead to another round of abusive
and discriminatory lending similar to
abuses that occurred in the years before
the financial crisis. These commenters
also stated that the general public,
researchers, and Federal agencies will
have an incomplete picture of lending
trends in thousands of census tracts and
neighborhoods if affected institutions no
longer report HMDA data. Additionally,
a State attorney general stated that the
May 2019 Proposal failed to fully
account for the harms that would be
imposed by the proposal, including the
costs to States in losing access to helpful
data. However, as the Bureau noted in
the 2019 HMDA Rule, none of these
commenters provided specific
quantifiable estimates of the loss of
benefits from decreased information
lenders would report under HMDA.
The Bureau acknowledges that
quantifying and monetizing benefits of
HMDA to consumers would require
identifying all possible uses of HMDA
data, establishing causal links to the
resulting public benefits, and then
quantifying the magnitude of these
benefits. For instance, quantification
would require measuring the impact of
increased transparency on financial
institution behavior, the need for public
and private investment, the housing
needs of communities, the number of
financial institutions potentially
engaging in discriminatory or predatory
behavior, and the number of consumers
currently being unfairly disadvantaged
and the level of quantifiable damage
from such disadvantage. Similarly, for
the impact analyses of this final rule,
the Bureau is unable to readily quantify
the loss of some of the HMDA benefits
to consumers with precision, both
because the Bureau does not have the
data to quantify all HMDA benefits and
because the Bureau is not able to assess
completely how this final rule will
reduce those benefits.
In light of these data limitations, the
discussion below generally provides a
qualitative (not quantitative)
consideration of the costs, i.e., the
potential loss of HMDA benefits to
consumers from the rule.
E. Potential Benefits and Costs to
Consumers and Covered Persons
1. Overall Summary
In this section, the Bureau presents a
concise, high-level table summarizing
the benefits and costs considered in the
remainder of the discussion. This table
is not intended to capture all details and
nuances that are provided both in the
rest of the analysis and in the sectionby-section discussion above. Instead, it
provides an overview of the major
benefits and costs of the final rule,
including the provisions to be analyzed,
the baseline chosen for each set of
provisions, the sub-provisions to be
analyzed, the implementation dates of
the sub-provisions, the annual savings
on the operational costs of covered
persons due to the sub-provisions, the
impact on the one-time costs of covered
persons due to the sub-provision, and
generally how the provisions in the final
rule affect HMDA’s benefits.
TABLE 2—OVERVIEW OF MAJOR POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE FINAL RULE
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Provisions to be
analyzed
Baseline
Baseline threshold
New threshold
Implementation
date
Savings on annual
operational costs
Impact on one time
costs
Loss of data
coverage
Complete exclusion of reporting of approximately 1,700
reporters with
about 112,000
closed-end
mortgage
loans.
Complete exclusion of reporting of approximately 400 reporters with
about 69,000
open-end line
of credit originations.
Increasing Closedend Mortgage
Loan Coverage
Threshold.
2015 and 2017
HMDA Rules,
EGRRCPA,
2019 HMDA
Rule.
25 originations in
each of two
preceding calendar years.
100 originations
in each of two
preceding calendar years.
Effective July 1,
2020.
$6.4 M .....................
Negligible .................
Increasing Openend Line of
Credit Coverage
Threshold.
2015 and 2017
HMDA Rules,
EGRRCPA,
2019 HMDA
Rule.
100 originations
in each of two
preceding calendar years.
200 originations
in each of two
preceding calendar years.
Effective January
1, 2022.
$3.7 M .....................
Savings of $23.9 M
168 12
CFR 1003.1(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
169 The changes in this final rule will reduce
public information regarding whether financial
institutions are serving the needs of their
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
communities. To the extent that these data are used
for other purposes, the loss of data could result in
other costs.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
2. Provisions to Increase the Closed-End
Threshold
Scope of the Provisions
The final rule increases the thresholds
for reporting data about closed-end
mortgage loans so that financial
institutions originating fewer than 100
closed-end mortgage loans in either of
the two preceding calendar years are
excluded from HMDA’s requirements
for closed-end mortgage loans effective
July 1, 2020.
The 2015 HMDA Rule requires
institutions that originated at least 25
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the
two preceding calendar years and meet
all other reporting criteria to report their
closed-end mortgage applications and
loans. The EGRRCPA provides a partial
exemption for insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions
that originated fewer than 500 closedend mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding years and do not have certain
less than satisfactory CRA examination
ratings. This section considers the
provisions in the final rule that increase
the closed-end loan threshold to 100 so
that only financial institutions that
originated at least 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding years must report data on
their closed-end mortgage applications
and loans under HMDA.
Using data from various sources,
including past HMDA submissions, Call
Reports, Credit Union Call Reports,
Summary of Deposits, and the National
Information Center, the Bureau applied
all current HMDA reporting
requirements, including Regulation C’s
existing complete regulatory exclusion
for institutions that originated fewer
than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar
years, and estimates that currently there
are about 4,860 financial institutions
required to report their closed-end
mortgage loans and applications under
HMDA. Together, these financial
institutions originated about 6.3 million
closed-end mortgage loans in calendar
year 2018. The Bureau observes that the
total number of institutions that were
engaged in closed-end mortgage lending
in 2018, regardless of whether they met
all HMDA reporting criteria, was about
11,600, and the total number of closedend mortgage originations in 2018 was
about 7.2 million. In other words, under
the current 25 closed-end loan
threshold, about 41.9 percent of all
mortgage lenders are required to report
HMDA data, and they account for about
87.8 percent of all closed-end mortgage
originations in the country. The Bureau
estimates that among those 4,860
financial institutions that are currently
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:56 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
required to report closed-end mortgage
loans under HMDA, about 3,250 insured
depository institutions and insured
credit unions are partially exempt for
closed-end mortgage loans under the
EGRRCPA, and thus are not required to
report a subset of the data points
currently required by Regulation C for
these transactions.
The Bureau stated in the May 2019
Proposal that it intended to review the
2018 HMDA data more closely in
connection with this rulemaking once
the 2018 submissions were more
complete. The Bureau released the
national loan level dataset for 2018 and
the Bureau’s annual overview of
residential mortgage lending based on
HMDA data 170 (collectively the 2018
HMDA Data) in August 2019, and
reopened the comment period on
aspects of the May 2019 Proposal until
October 15, 2019, to give commenters an
opportunity to comment on the 2018
HMDA Data. The estimates reflected in
this final rule are based on the HMDA
data collected in 2017 and 2018 as well
as other sources. The Bureau notes that
the estimates provided above update the
initial estimates provided in the May
2019 Proposal with the 2018 HMDA
data.171 In particular, as the 2018
HMDA data analyses were not available
at the time when the Bureau developed
the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau used
HMDA data from 2016 and 2017 with a
two-year look-back period in calendar
years 2016 and 2017 for its estimates of
170 The Bureau’s overview is available in two
articles. Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., ‘‘Data Point:
2018 Mortgage Market Activity and Trends: A First
Look at the 2018 HMDA Data’’ (Aug. 2019), https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/researchreports/data-point-2018-mortgage-market-activityand-trends/; Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot.,
‘‘Introducing New and Revised Data Points in
HMDA: Initial Observations from New and Revised
Data Points in 2018 HMDA’’ (Aug. 2019), https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/researchreports/introducing-new-revised-data-pointshmda/.
171 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that there were about 4,960 financial
institutions required to report their closed-end
mortgage loans and applications under HMDA.
Together, these financial institutions originated
about 7.0 million closed-end mortgage loans in
calendar year 2017. The Bureau observed that the
total number of financial institutions that were
engaged in closed-mortgage lending in 2017,
regardless of whether they met all HMDA reporting
criteria, was about 12,700, and the total number of
closed-end mortgage originations in 2017 was about
8.2 million. The Bureau estimated then that under
the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage
loans, about 39 percent of all mortgage lenders were
required to report HMDA data, and they accounted
for about 85.6 percent of all closed-end mortgage
originations in the country; among those 4,960
financial institutions that were required to report
closed-end mortgage loans under HMDA, about
3,300 insured depository institutions and insured
credit unions were partially exempt for closed-end
mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA and the 2018
HMDA Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28393
potential reporters and projected the
lending activities of financial
institutions using their 2017 activities as
proxies. In generating the updated
estimates for this final rule, the Bureau
has used HMDA data from 2017 and
2018 with a two-year look-back period
in calendar years 2017 and 2018 for its
estimates of potential reporters and
projected the lending activities of
financial institutions using their 2018
activities as proxies. In addition, for the
estimates provided in the May 2019
Proposal and in this final rule, the
Bureau restricted the projected reporters
to only those that actually reported data
in the most recently available year of
HMDA data (2017 for the May 2019
proposal and 2018 for this final rule).172
The Bureau estimates that when the
closed-end threshold increases to 100
under this final rule, the total number
of financial institutions required to
report closed-end mortgage loans will
drop to about 3,160, a decrease of about
1,700 financial institutions compared to
the current level. These 1,700 newly
excluded institutions originated about
112,000 closed-end mortgage loans in
2018. The Bureau estimates that there
will be about 6.2 million closed-end
mortgage loan originations reported
under the threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans, which will account for
about 86.3 percent of all closed-end
mortgage loan originations in the entire
mortgage market. The Bureau further
estimates that about 1,630 of the 1,700
newly excluded closed-end reporters
that will be excluded under the
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans are eligible for a partial exemption
for closed-end mortgage loans under the
EGRRCPA.
The Bureau notes that the estimates
presented above update the
corresponding estimates from the May
2019 Proposal 173 for the reasons
172 The Bureau recognizes that the estimates
generated using this restriction may omit certain
financial institutions that should have reported but
did not report in the most recent HMDA reporting
year. However, the Bureau applied this restriction
to ensure that institutions included in its estimates
are in fact financial institutions for purposes of
Regulation C because it recognizes that institutions
might not meet the Regulation C definition of
financial institution for reasons that are not evident
in the data sources that it reviewed.
173 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that if the closed-end threshold were
increased to 100, the total number of financial
institutions that would be required to report closedend mortgage loans would drop to about 3,240, a
decrease of about 1,720 financial institutions
compared to the current level. These 1,720 newly
excluded institutions originated about 147,000
closed-end mortgage loans in 2017. There would be
about 6.87 million closed-end mortgage loan
originations reported under the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans, which would account
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
Continued
12MYR2
28394
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
explained above, reflecting more recent
data. The updated estimates overall are
consistent with the Bureau’s analysis in
the May 2019 Proposal and continue to
support the Bureau’s view regarding the
impacts of a threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans.
Table 3 below shows the Bureau’s
estimates of the number of closed-end
reporters that would be required to
report under various potential
thresholds, and the number of closedend originations reported by these
financial institutions, both in total and
broken down by whether they are
depository institutions or nondepository institutions, and among
depository institutions whether they are
partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA.174
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CLOSED-END REPORTERS AND CLOSED-END MORTGAGE LOANS REPORTED UNDER
VARIOUS THRESHOLDS
Depository institution
Non-depository
institution
Threshold
Not partially
exempt
Partially
exempt
Total
25:
# of Reporters .......................................................................................
# of Reported Loans (in thousands) ....................................................
740
3,429
870
2,419
3,250
475
4,860
6,323
# of Reporters .......................................................................................
# of Reported Loans (in thousands) ....................................................
720
3,428
870
2,419
2,530
443
4,120
6,290
# of Reporters .......................................................................................
# of Reported Loans (in thousands) ....................................................
680
3,425
860
2,417
1,620
369
3,160
6,211
50
100
The final rule’s complete exclusion
from closed-end mortgage reporting for
institutions that originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans in either
of the two preceding calendar years
conveys a direct benefit to the excluded
covered persons by reducing the
ongoing costs of having to report closedend mortgage loans and applications
that were previously required.
In the impact analysis of the 2015
HMDA Rule, prior to the adoption of the
changes in the 2015 HMDA Rule and
implementation of the Bureau’s
operational improvements, the Bureau
estimated that the annual operational
costs for financial institutions of
reporting under HMDA were
approximately $2,500 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
financial institution with a loan/
application register size of 50 records;
$35,600 for a representative moderatecomplexity tier 2 financial institution
with a loan/application register size of
1,000 records; and $313,000 for a
representative high-complexity tier 1
financial institution with a loan/
application register size of 50,000
records. The Bureau estimated that
accounting for the operational
improvements, the net impact of the
2015 HMDA Rule on ongoing
operational costs for closed-end
reporters would be approximately
$1,900, $7,800, and $20,000 175 per year,
for representative low-, moderate-, and
high-complexity financial institutions,
respectively. This means that with all
components of the 2015 HMDA Rule
implemented and accounting for the
Bureau’s operational improvements, the
estimated annual operational costs for
closed-end mortgage reporting would be
approximately $4,400 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
reporter, $43,400 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 reporter, and
$333,000 for a representative highcomplexity tier 1 reporter.
For purposes of this final rule,
updating the above numbers to account
for inflation, the Bureau estimates that
if a financial institution is required to
report under the 2015 HMDA Rule and
is not partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA, the savings on the annual
operational costs from not reporting any
closed-end mortgage data under the
final rule is as follows: approximately
$4,500 for a representative lowcomplexity tier 3 institution, $44,700 for
a representative moderate-complexity
tier 2 institution, and $343,000 for a
representative high-complexity tier 1
institution. On the other hand, the
Bureau estimates that if a financial
institution is eligible for a partial
exemption on its closed-end mortgage
loans under the EGRRCPA, the annual
savings in the ongoing costs from the
partial exemption alone would be
approximately $2,300 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
institution, $11,900 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution
and $33,900 for a representative highcomplexity tier 1 institution. Therefore,
the Bureau estimates that if a financial
institution is required to report under
the 2015 HMDA Rule, but is partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA, the
savings in the annual operational costs
from not reporting any closed-end
mortgage data would be as follows:
approximately $2,200 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
institution, $32,800 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution,
and $309,000 for a representative highcomplexity tier 1 institution. These
estimates have already been adjusted for
inflation.
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau specifically requested
information relating to the costs
financial institutions incurred in
collecting and reporting 2018 data in
compliance with the 2015 HMDA Rule.
The Bureau stated this information
might be valuable in estimating costs in
for about 83.7 percent of all closed-end mortgage
originations in the entire mortgage market.
The Bureau further estimated that all but about
50 of the 1,720 newly excluded closed-end
mortgage loan reporters that would be excluded
under the proposed threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans would be eligible for a partial
exemption for closed-end mortgage loans as
provided by the EGRRCPA and the 2018 HMDA
Rule.
174 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
provided a similar table that included a breakdown
of reporters by agency. For the final rule, as more
relevant here, the Bureau has instead used this table
to summarize the Bureau’s estimates broken down
by whether the reporters are depository institutions
or non-depository institutions and, among
depository institutions, whether they are partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA.
175 This does not include the costs of quarterly
reporting for financial institutions that have annual
origination volume greater than 60,000. Those
quarterly reporters are all high-complexity tier 1
institutions, and the Bureau estimates none of the
quarterly reporters will be excluded under this final
rule.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Benefits to Covered Persons
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
one small financial institution
commented that it was spending
approximately $12,000 in employee
expenses alone to generate its loan/
application register or approximately
$68 to $100 per loan/application register
record. Based on the information
provided by this commenter, the Bureau
estimates the annual loan/application
register size for this commenter is
between 175 and 200 records, which is
close to the Bureau’s assumption for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
financial institution in the estimates
provided in the 2015 HMDA Rule.
Specifically, the Bureau estimated that
for a representative low-complexity tier
3 financial institution with 50 HMDA
loan/application register records, the
total ongoing costs with operational
improvements the Bureau has
implemented since issuing the 2015
HMDA Rule would be about $4,400, or
about $88 per loan/application register
record. Overall, the cost and hourly
estimates provided by the commenters
vary. Figure 1 plots the average costs per
loan/application register record (on the
vertical axis) against the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
loan/application register records (on
vertical axis) for the low-complexity tier
3 financial institutions that provided
cost estimates in their comments and
that the Bureau was able to match to
their 2018 HMDA loan/application
register records. Other than a few
outliers, they are all within the
reasonable range that the Bureau
anticipated and close to (though not
exactly equal to) the Bureau’s cost
estimates for representative lowcomplexity tier 3 institutions. The
Bureau notes that variation of
operational costs among different
financial institutions is not surprising.
As the Bureau recognized in the 2015
HMDA Rule and the May 2019 Proposal,
costs vary by institution due to many
factors, such as size, operational
structure, and product complexity, and
that is the reason the Bureau adopted a
tiered framework to capture the
relationships between operational
complexity and compliance cost. The
three-tiered framework uses
representative institutions to capture
this type of variability and estimate
overall costs of HMDA reporting.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
ER12MY20.177
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
the Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)
analysis issued with the final rule. The
Bureau received a number of comments
regarding the costs of collecting and
reporting data in compliance with the
2015 HMDA Rule. Among the
comments that provided specific cost
estimates of compliance, most are
related to closed-end reporting. The
degree of details of such comments vary.
Some provided the estimates of HMDA
operational costs in dollar terms, some
provided estimates of hours employees
spent on each loan/application register
record on average, some provided the
cost of purchasing software, some
provided consulting and auditing costs,
and some provided the number of loan/
application register records they
processed while others did not.
The Bureau has reviewed these cost
estimates provided in comments and
compared them with the Bureau’s
estimates of HMDA operational costs
using the three representative tier
approach. Most of these commenters
had low loan/application register
volume similar to the representative tier
3 financial institutions. For example,
28395
28396
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
The Bureau has considered the
comments it received on compliance
costs and concludes that they do not
undermine the Bureau’s approach or
cost parameters used in part VI of the
May 2019 Proposal. The Bureau
therefore does not believe that the
comments received provide a basis for
departing from the approach for
analyzing costs for covered persons
used in part VI of the May 2019
Proposal.
Using the methodology discussed
above in part VI.D.1, the Bureau
estimates that with the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans under the
final rule, about 1,700 institutions will
be completely excluded from reporting
closed-end mortgage data compared to
the current level. About 1,630 of the
1,700 are eligible for the partial
exemption for closed-end mortgage
loans under the EGRRCPA.
Approximately 1,640 of these newlyexcluded institutions are depository
institutions, and approximately 60 are
nondepository institutions.
The Bureau estimates that, of the
approximately 1,630 institutions that
are (1) required to report closed-end
mortgage loans under the 2015 HMDA
Rule, (2) partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA, and (3) completely excluded
under the threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans, about 1,560 are similar
to the representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution and about 70 are
similar to the representative moderatecomplexity tier 2 institution. Of the
approximately 70 remaining institutions
that are required to report closed-end
mortgage data under the 2015 HMDA
Rule and are not partially exempt under
the EGRRCPA but will be completely
excluded under the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans, about 60 are
similar to the representative lowcomplexity tier 3 institution and about
10 are similar to the representative
moderate-complexity tier 2
institution.176
176 The Bureau estimated in the May 2019
Proposal that approximately 1,720 institutions
would be newly excluded from the closed-end
reporting under the proposed 100 loan threshold, of
which about 1,670 are already partially exempt
under EGRRCPA, and among those 1,670 financial
institutions, about 1,540 are low-complexity tier 3
institutions and 130 are moderate-complexity tier 2
institutions. The Bureau also estimated in the May
2019 Proposal that of the approximately 50
remaining institutions that are required to report
closed-end mortgage data under the 2015 HMDA
Rule and are not partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA but would be completely excluded under
the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans,
about 45 are similar to the representative lowcomplexity tier 3 institution and about 5 are similar
to the representative moderate-complexity tier 2
institution. These estimates are updated in the final
rule and presented here.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
Based on the estimates of the savings
of annual ongoing costs for closed-end
reporting per representative institution,
grouped by whether or not it is partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA, and the
estimated tier distribution of these
financial institutions that will be
excluded under the 100 closed-end loan
threshold, the Bureau estimates that the
total savings in the annual ongoing costs
from HMDA reporting by excluded
firms that are already partially exempt
for closed-end mortgage loans under the
EGRRCPA will be about $5.9 million.
The Bureau also estimates that the total
savings in the annual ongoing costs
from HMDA reporting by fully excluded
firms that are not eligible for a partial
exemption under the EGRRCPA will be
about $0.5 million. Together the annual
savings in the operational costs of firms
newly excluded under the threshold of
100 closed-end loans will be about $6.4
million.177
Alternative Considered: 50 Closed-End
Threshold
The threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans adopted in this final rule
is one of the two alternative closed-end
thresholds that the Bureau proposed in
the May 2019 Proposal. The other
alternative threshold proposed in the
May 2019 Proposal was 50.
The Bureau estimates that if the
closed-end threshold were increased to
50, the total number of financial
institutions that would be required to
report closed-end mortgage loans would
drop to about 4,120, a decrease of about
740 financial institutions compared to
the current level at 25. The 740
institutions that would be excluded
originated about 33,000 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2018. There would be
about 6.29 million closed-end mortgage
originations reported under the
alternative threshold of 50 closed-end
mortgage loans that the Bureau
considered, which would account for
about 87.4 percent of all closed-end
mortgage loan originations in the entire
mortgage market.
The Bureau further estimates that
about 720 of the 740 closed-end
mortgage reporters that would be
177 The Bureau estimated in the May 2019
Proposal that the total savings in the annual
ongoing costs from HMDA reporting by excluded
firms that are already partially exempt for closedend mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA would be
about $7.7 million. The Bureau also estimated that
the total savings in the annual ongoing costs from
HMDA reporting by fully excluded firms that are
not eligible for a partial exemption under the
EGRRCPA would be about $0.4 million. The Bureau
estimated that together the annual savings in the
operational costs of firms newly excluded under the
threshold of 100 closed-end loans would be about
$6.4 million. These estimates are updated in the
final rule and presented here.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
excluded under the alternative
threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage
loans would be eligible for a partial
exemption for closed-end mortgage
loans under the EGRRCPA.
The Bureau estimates that, of the
approximately 720 financial institutions
that are (1) required to report closed-end
mortgage loans under the 2015 HMDA
Rule, (2) partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA, and (3) completely excluded
under the alternative threshold of 50
closed-end mortgage loans, about 710
are similar to the representative lowcomplexity tier 3 institution and about
10 are similar to the representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution.
Of the approximately 20 remaining
financial institutions that are required to
report closed-end mortgage loans under
the 2015 HMDA Rule and are not
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
but would be completely excluded
under the alternative threshold of 50
closed-end mortgage loans, all are
similar to the representative lowcomplexity tier 3 institution.
As described above, the Bureau first
estimates the savings of annual ongoing
costs for closed-end reporting per
representative institution, grouped by
whether or not it is partially exempt for
closed-end reporting under the
EGRRCPA, and the tier distribution of
these institutions that would be
excluded under the alternative
threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage
loans. Using that information, the
Bureau then estimates that, under the
alternative threshold of 50 closed-end
mortgage loans, the total savings in
annual ongoing costs from HMDA
reporting by fully excluded institutions
that are already partially exempt under
the EGRRCPA would be about $1.9
million, and the total savings in the
annual ongoing costs from HMDA
reporting by fully excluded firms that
are not eligible for a partial exemption
under the EGRRCPA would be about
$0.1 million. Together the annual
savings in the operational costs of firms
excluded under the alternative
threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage
loans would be about $2.0 million.
The Bureau notes the estimates
provided above for the alternative
threshold of 50 update the estimates for
the proposed threshold of 50 in the May
2019 Proposal for the reasons explained
above.178
178 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that with the proposed threshold of 50
closed-end mortgage loans, about 760 institutions
would be completely excluded from reporting
closed-end mortgage data compared to the current
level. All but about 20 of these 760 institutions
would be eligible for a partial exemption under the
EGRRCPA and the 2018 HMDA Rule. The Bureau
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The Bureau further notes that,
because the Bureau is finalizing the
closed-end threshold at 100 instead of
50, the covered persons will realize
additional annual savings in their
operational costs of about $4.4 million.
Costs to Covered Persons
It is possible that, like any new
regulation or revision to an existing
regulation, financial institutions will
incur certain one-time costs adapting to
the changes to the regulation. Based on
the Bureau’s outreach to stakeholders,
the Bureau understands that most of
these one-time costs consists of
interpreting and implementing the
regulatory changes and not from
purchasing software upgrades or turning
off the existing reporting functionality
that the newly excluded institutions
already built or purchased prior to the
new changes taking effect.
The Bureau sought comments on any
costs to institutions that would be
newly excluded under either of the
alternative proposed increases to the
closed-end threshold. No commenter
expressed concern that the costs for
newly excluded reporters would be
substantial.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Benefits to Consumers
Having generated estimates of the
reduction in ongoing costs on covered
financial institutions due to the increase
in the closed-end loan threshold, the
Bureau then attempts to estimate the
potential pass-through of such cost
reduction from these institutions to
consumers, which could benefit
consumers and affect credit access.
According to economic theory, in a
perfectly competitive market where
estimated then that, of the approximately 740
financial institutions that are (1) required to report
closed-end mortgages under the 2015 HMDA Rule,
(2) partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, and (3)
completely excluded under the proposed 50 loan
threshold, about 727 were similar to the
representative low-complexity tier 3 institution and
about 13 were similar to the representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution. Of the
approximately 20 remaining financial institutions
that are required to report closed-end mortgages
under the 2015 HMDA Rule and are not partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA but would be
completely excluded under the proposed threshold
of 50 closed-end mortgage loans, about 19 were
similar to the representative low-complexity tier 3
institution and only one was similar to the
representative moderate-complexity tier 2
institution. The Bureau estimated that the total
savings in annual ongoing costs from HMDA
reporting by fully excluded institutions that are
already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
would be about $2 million, and the total savings in
the annual ongoing costs from HMDA reporting by
fully excluded firms that previously were not
eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA
would be about $140,000. Together the annual
savings in the operational costs of firms excluded
under the proposed threshold of 50 closed-end
mortgage loans would be about $2.2 million.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:56 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
financial institutions are profit
maximizers, the affected financial
institutions would pass on to consumers
the marginal, i.e., variable, cost savings
per application or origination, and
absorb the one-time and increased fixed
costs of complying with the rule.
The Bureau estimated in the 2015
HMDA Rule that the final rule would
increase variable costs by $23 per
closed-end mortgage application for
representative low-complexity tier 3
institutions and $0.20 per closed-end
mortgage application for representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions.
The Bureau estimated that prior to the
2015 HMDA Rule, the variable costs of
HMDA reporting were about $18 per
closed-end mortgage application for
representative low-complexity tier 3
institutions and $6 per closed-end
mortgage application for representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions.
For purposes of this final rule, adjusting
the above numbers for inflation, the
Bureau estimates the savings on the
variable cost per closed-end application
for a representative low-complexity tier
3 financial institution that is not
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
but excluded from closed-end reporting
under this final rule will be about $42
per application; the savings on the
variable cost per application for a
representative moderate-complexity tier
2 financial institution that is not
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
but excluded from closed-end reporting
under the final rule will be about $6.40
per application.
The Bureau estimates that the partial
exemption for closed-end mortgage
loans under the EGRRCPA for eligible
insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions reduces the
variable costs of HMDA reporting by
approximately $24 per closed-end
mortgage application for representative
low-complexity tier 3 institutions, $0.68
per closed-end mortgage application for
representative moderate-complexity tier
2 institutions, and $0.05 per closed-end
mortgage application for representative
high-complexity tier 1 institutions. The
savings on the variable cost per
application for a representative lowcomplexity tier 3 financial institution
that is partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA and also fully excluded from
closed-end reporting under the final
rule will be about $18.30 per
application. The savings on the variable
cost per application for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 financial
institution that is partially exempt
under the EGRRCPA and fully excluded
from closed-end reporting under the
final rule will be about $5.70 per
application. These are the cost
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28397
reductions that excluded institutions
under the final rule might pass through
to consumers, assuming the market is
perfectly competitive. This potential
reduction in the expense consumers
face when applying for a mortgage will
be amortized over the life of the loan
and may represent a very small amount
relative to the cost of a mortgage loan.
As a point of reference, the median total
loan costs for closed-end mortgages was
$6,056 according to the 2018 HMDA
Data.179 The Bureau notes that the
market structure in the consumer
mortgage lending market may differ
from that of a perfectly competitive
market (for instance due to information
asymmetry between lenders and
borrowers) in which case the passthrough to the consumers would most
likely be smaller than the pass-through
under the perfect competition
assumption.180
Costs to Consumers
The increase in the closed-end
threshold to 100 loans will relieve
excluded financial institutions from the
reporting requirements for all closedend mortgage loans and applications. As
a result, HMDA data on these
institutions’ closed-end mortgage loans
and applications will no longer be
available to regulators, public officials,
and members of the public. The
decreased data about excluded
institutions may lead to adverse
outcomes for some consumers. For
instance, HMDA data, if reported, could
help regulators and public officials
better understand the type of funds that
are flowing from lenders to consumers
and consumers’ needs for mortgage
credit. The data may also help improve
the processes used to identify possible
discriminatory lending patterns and
enforce antidiscrimination statutes. A
State attorney general commenter
expressed concern that the May 2019
Proposal did not fully account for these
costs, including the costs to States in
losing access to helpful data, while a
consumer organization commenter
stated that the public would face an
increased burden in understanding and
accurately mapping the flow of credit.
The Bureau did not, however, receive
any comments that quantify the losses.
The Bureau recognizes that the costs
to consumers from increasing the
179 See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot.,
‘‘Introducing New and Revised Data Points in
HMDA: Initial Observations from New and Revised
Data Points in 2018 HMDA’’ (Aug. 2019), https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/researchreports/introducing-new-revised-data-pointshmda/.
180 The further the market moves away from a
perfectly competitive market, the smaller the passthrough would be.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28398
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
threshold to 100 loans will be higher
than it would be if the Bureau were to
increase the threshold to 50 loans. The
Bureau currently lacks sufficient data to
quantify these costs other than the
estimated numbers of covered loans and
covered institutions under the two
alternative proposed thresholds, as
discussed above and reported in Table
3.
3. Provisions to Increase the Open-End
Threshold
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Scope of the Provisions
The final rule will permanently set
the threshold for reporting data about
open-end lines of credit at 200 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years starting in
2022.
The 2015 HMDA Rule generally
requires financial institutions that
originated at least 100 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding years
to report data about their open-end lines
of credit and applications. The 2017
HMDA Rule temporarily increased the
open-end threshold to 500 open-end
lines of credit for two years, and the
2019 HMDA Rule extended the
temporary threshold for two additional
years. Thus, only financial institutions
that originated at least 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years are subject to HMDA’s
requirements for their open-end lines of
credit for 2018 through 2021. The
EGRRCPA generally provides a partial
exemption for insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions
that originated fewer than 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years and do not have certain
less than satisfactory CRA examination
ratings. However, for 2018 through
2021, all insured depository institutions
and insured credit unions that are
eligible for a partial exemption for openend lines of credit by the EGRRCPA are
also fully excluded from HMDA’s
requirements for their open-end lines of
credit. Absent this final rule, starting in
2022 the open-end threshold would
have reverted to 100, and eligible
institutions that exceeded the threshold
of 100 open-end lines of credit would
have been able to use the EGRRCPA’s
open-end partial exemption if they
originated fewer than 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years. Thus, the appropriate
baseline for the consideration of benefits
and costs of the change to the open-end
threshold is a situation in which the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
open-end threshold is set at 100 for each
of two preceding years for data
collection starting in 2022, with a
partial exemption threshold of 500
open-end lines of credit.
The Bureau has used multiple data
sources, including credit union Call
Reports, Call Reports for banks and
thrifts, HMDA data, and Consumer
Credit Panel data, to develop estimates
about open-end originations for lenders
that offer open-end lines of credit and
to assess the impact of various
thresholds on the number of reporters
and on market coverage under various
scenarios.181
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau estimated that if the
threshold were set at 100 open-end lines
of credit, the number of reporters would
be about 1,014, who in total originated
about 1.41 million open-end lines of
credit, representing about 88.7 percent
of all originations and 15.3 percent of all
lenders in the market. In comparison, if
the threshold were set at 200 open-end
lines of credit, the Bureau estimated that
the number of reporters would be about
613, who in total originated about 1.34
million open-end lines of credit. In
terms of market coverage, this would
represent about 84.2 percent of all
originations and 9.2 percent of all
lenders in the open-end line of credit
market. In other words, if the threshold
were increased to 200, in comparison to
the default baseline where the threshold
was set at 100 in 2022, the Bureau
estimated that the number of
institutions affected would be about
401, who in total originated about
69,000 open-end lines of credit. Among
those 401 institutions, the Bureau
estimated that about 378 already qualify
for a partial exemption for their openend lines of credit under the EGRRCPA
and in total they originate about 61,000
open-end lines of credit.
As the 2018 HMDA data analyses
were not available at the time of the
May 2019 Proposal, 2017 was the most
recent year of HMDA data the Bureau
used for the analyses in the May 2019
Proposal. For this part of the final rule,
the Bureau has supplemented the
analyses with the 2018 HMDA data now
available. In the 2018 HMDA data,
181 In general, credit union Call Reports provide
the number of originations of open-end lines of
credit secured by real estate but exclude lines of
credit in the first-lien status. Call Reports for banks
and thrifts report only the balance of the homeequity lines of credit at the end of the reporting
period but not the number of originations in the
period.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
which used an open-end reporting
threshold of 500, about 957 reporters
actually reported any open-end line of
credit transactions. In total, these
institutions reported about 1.15 million
open-end originations, which is close to
what the Bureau projected in its
estimate of 1.23 million originations to
be reported in the May 2019 Proposal.
Even though the number of open-end
reporters in the 2018 HMDA data (957)
is greater than the number the Bureau
forecasted would be required to report
(333) in the May 2019 Proposal, only
307 of the institutions that reported
open-end transactions in the 2018
HMDA data actually reported greater
than 500 open-end originations, which
is close to the Bureau’s projection that
there would be 333 required open-end
reporters with a reporting threshold of
500. The Bureau’s projection in the May
2019 Proposal for the temporary
threshold of 500 open-end originations
was based on the projected number of
open-end reporters whose open-end
origination volumes were greater than
500 in each of the preceding two years
(which is how the HMDA reporting
requirements are structured), and not on
the volume from the current HMDA
activity year. In addition, that projection
cannot account for the number of
reporters who would report voluntarily
even though they are not required to do
so. Given these factors, it is possible that
some lenders with open-end line of
credit origination volumes exceeding
500 in both 2016 and 2017 originated
fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit
in 2018, but were nevertheless required
to report their 2018 data under the
HMDA reporting requirements. On the
other hand, it is also possible that some
reporters opted to report their open-end
lending activities in the 2018 HMDA
data even though they were not required
to report. Regardless, these 2018 openend reporters with a reported
origination volume of fewer than 500
open-end lines of credit in 2018 are not
required to collect data on their openend activity in 2020 after the two-year
temporary extension of the 500 openend threshold of the 2019 HMDA Rule
took effect, based on the two-year lookback period for the reporting
requirements. Therefore, the Bureau
believes that its estimates of the number
of impacted institutions provided in the
May 2019 Proposal were and are
reasonable and consistent with the
actual number of open-end reporters in
the 2018 HMDA data.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28399
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Moreover, there are two additional
considerations that support the Bureau’s
continued reliance in this final rule on
its estimates on open-end coverage
under various thresholds developed in
the May 2019 Proposal. First, the
permanent threshold of 200 open-end
lines of credit starting in 2022 adopted
in this final rule is lower than the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit that was in effect for the
2018 HMDA data. Hence, most
institutions that originated fewer than
500 open-end lines of credit but at least
200 open-end lines of credit likely were
not captured by the 2018 HMDA data,
but they would have been required to
report if the threshold had been set at
200. Second, the HMDA reporting
requirements consider a two-year lookback period, and only 2018 HMDA data
analyses were available as of the time of
this final rule’s development. For these
reasons, the Bureau believes that its
estimates of open-end coverage under
various thresholds developed for the
May 2019 Proposal continue to provide
the most reliable estimates for this final
rule.
On the other hand, because the
number of open-end applications was
not available in any data sources prior
to the 2018 HMDA data, in past HMDA
rulemakings related to open-end
reporting, the Bureau relied on the
projected number of originations as a
proxy for the number of loan/
application register records for the
analyses. With the 2018 HMDA data
reported, the Bureau now can evaluate
the impact of the final rule using the
projected loan/application register
records instead of projected originations
for the first time. Because most of the
data points under HMDA are required
for all loan/application register records,
not just originated loans, the Bureau has
updated the estimates of cost and cost
savings for open-end lines of credit
based on the number of loan/application
register records instead of originations.
The Bureau’s coverage estimates,
however, continue to be based on
originations because the thresholds are
based on origination volume, and thus,
as noted immediately above, the
estimates previously provided continue
to be reasonable. The analyses below
have been supplemented to reflect the
new 2018 HMDA data that includes
applications, originations, and
purchased loans. Table 4 below shows
the estimated number of reporters of
open-end lines of credit, their estimated
origination volume, and the market
share under thresholds of 100, 200 and
500 open-end lines of credit.182 The
Bureau notes that the threshold of 100
open-end lines of credit is the baseline
of the analyses adopted for purposes of
this final rule, the threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit is the threshold
adopted under the final rule, and the
threshold of 500 open-end lines of
credit is the temporary threshold in
place for 2020 and 2021 under the 2019
HMDA Rule.
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OPEN-END REPORTERS AND OPEN-END LINES OF CREDIT REPORTED UNDER VARIOUS
THRESHOLDS
Reporting Threshold
Open-end Lines of Credit
Universe
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
# of Loans (in 1000’s):
All ...................................................................................................................................................
Market Coverage .........................................................................................................................................
Type:
Banks & Thrifts ..............................................................................................................................
Credit Unions .................................................................................................................................
Non-DIs .........................................................................................................................................
# of Institutions:
All ...................................................................................................................................................
Type:
Banks & Thrifts ..............................................................................................................................
Credit Unions .................................................................................................................................
Non-DIs .........................................................................................................................................
Benefits to Covered Persons
The increase in the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years starting in
2022, conveys a direct benefit to
covered persons that originated fewer
than 200 open-end lines of credit in
either of the two preceding years but
originated at least 100 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding years
in reducing the ongoing costs of having
to report their open-end lines of credit.
The Bureau estimates that increasing the
permanent threshold to 200 open-end
lines of credit will relieve
approximately 384 depository
institutions and approximately 17 nondepository institutions from reporting
open-end lines of credit as compared to
having the threshold decrease to 100.
The Bureau estimates that, with the
threshold increased to 200 as compared
to decreasing to 100 starting in 2022,
about 401 financial institutions will be
excluded from reporting open-end lines
of credit starting in 2022. About 378 of
those 401 financial institutions are
eligible for the partial exemption for
open-end lines of credit under the
EGRRCPA, and about 23 of them are not
eligible for the partial exemption for
182 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
provided a similar table that included a breakdown
of open-end reporters by agency. For the final rule,
as more relevant here, the Bureau has instead
included the breakdown by depository institution
versus non-depository institution.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
100
200
500
1,590
................
1,410
88.7%
1,341
84.4%
1,233
77.6%
880
653
57
814
545
51
787
506
48
753
437
44
6,615
1,014
613
333
3,819
2,578
218
391
581
42
212
376
25
113
205
15
open-end lines of credit because in one
of the preceding two years their openend origination volume exceeded 500.
Of the 378 institutions that are already
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
but will be fully excluded from openend reporting starting in 2022 under this
final rule, the Bureau estimates that
about 301 are low-complexity tier 3
open-end reporters, about 77 are
moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end
reporters, and none are high-complexity
tier 1 reporters. In addition, of the 23
institutions that are not eligible for the
partial exemption under the EGRRCPA
but will be fully excluded from open-
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28400
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
end reporting starting in 2022 under this
final rule, the Bureau estimates that
about 8 are low-complexity tier 3 openend reporters, about 15 are moderatecomplexity tier 2 open-end reporters,
and none are high-complexity tier 1
reporters.183 Using the estimates of
savings on ongoing costs for open-end
lines of credit for representative
financial institutions, grouped by
whether the lender is already eligible for
the partial exemption under the
EGRRCPA, as described above, the
Bureau estimates that by increasing the
threshold to 200 open-end lines of
credit starting in 2022, the excluded
financial institutions that are already
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
will receive an aggregate reduction in
operational cost associated with openend lines of credit of about $3.0 million
per year starting in 2022, while the
excluded financial institutions that are
not already partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA will receive an aggregate
reduction in operational cost associated
with open-end lines of credit of about
$0.7 million per year starting in 2022. In
total, increasing the threshold from 100
to 200 open-end lines of credit will
result in savings in the operational costs
associated with open-end lines of credit
of about $3.7 million per year starting in
2022.184 The increase in the threshold to
200 open-end lines of credit starting in
calendar year 2022, as compared to
having the threshold revert to 100, also
conveys a direct benefit to covered
persons that originated fewer than 200
open-end lines of credit in either of the
183 The Bureau notes that more reporters are
estimated to be in tier 2 in this updated analysis
in the final rule than the number of reporters that
the Bureau estimated to be in tier 2 in the May 2019
Proposal. This is mainly due to the fact that the
Bureau now is able to supplement new information
from the 2018 HMDA data, which allows the
Bureau to conduct the estimates based on the
number of open-end loan/application register
records rather than the number of originations. Each
institution is estimated to have more loan/
application register records than in the May 2019
Proposal, because the Bureau is considering
applications as well as originations, thus more
institutions that were previously assigned to the tier
3 category are shifted into the tier 2 category.
184 In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that the annual savings on operational
costs would be about $1.8 million if the open-end
threshold were increased from 100 to 200 in 2022.
The higher estimate presented above for the final
rule is mainly due to the fact that the Bureau now
is able to supplement new information from the
2018 HMDA data, which allows the Bureau to
conduct the estimates based on the number of openend loan/application register records rather than the
number of originations, resulting in more affected
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions and higher
operational cost savings. Although the estimated
total cost reduction is higher than it was in the
proposal based on the additional 2018 HMDA data,
the overall analysis is consistent with the Bureau’s
methodology and conclusions from the May 2019
Proposal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
two preceding years but originated at
least 100 open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding years in
removing the one-time costs of having to
report their open-end lines of credit,
had the reporting threshold decreased to
100 according to the 2017 HMDA Rule.
It is the Bureau’s understanding that
most of the financial institutions that
were temporarily excluded for 2018
through 2021 under the temporary
threshold of 500 open-end lines of
credit established in the 2017 HMDA
Rule and 2019 HMDA Rule have not
fully prepared for open-end reporting
because they have been waiting for the
Bureau to decide on the permanent
open-end reporting threshold that will
apply after the temporary threshold
expires in 2022. Under the baseline in
this impact analysis, absent this final
rule, some of those financial institutions
would have to start reporting their openend lines of credit starting in 2022, and
hence incur one-time costs to create
processes and systems for open-end
lines of credit. If the proposal to
increase the open-end threshold to 200
starting in 2022 were not finalized,
financial institutions that originated
fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit
in either of the two preceding years but
originated at least 100 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding years
would eventually have incurred onetime costs of having to report their
open-end lines of credit, once the
reporting threshold reverted to the
permanent threshold of 100.
As noted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau recognizes that many financial
institutions, especially larger and more
complex institutions, process
applications for open-end lines of credit
in their consumer lending departments
using procedures, policies, and data
systems separate from those used for
closed-end loans. In the 2015 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau assumed that the onetime costs for reporting information on
open-end lines of credit required under
the 2015 HMDA Rule would be roughly
equal to 50 percent of the one-time costs
of reporting information on closed-end
mortgages. This translates to one-time
costs of about $400,000 and $125,000
for open-end reporting for
representative high- and moderatecomplexity financial institutions,
respectively, that will be required to
report open-end lines of credit while
also reporting closed-end mortgage
loans. This assumption accounted for
the fact that reporting open-end lines of
credit will require some new systems,
extra start-up training, and new
compliance procedures and manuals,
while recognizing that some fixed, onetime costs would need to be incurred
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
anyway in making systemic changes to
bring institutions into compliance with
Regulation C and could be shared with
closed-end lines of business. The
assumption was consistent with the
Bureau’s estimate that an overwhelming
majority of open-end reporters would
also be reporting simultaneously closedend mortgage loans and applications. In
the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau also
assumed that the additional one-time
costs of open-end reporting would be
relatively low for low-complexity tier 3
financial institutions because they are
less reliant on information technology
systems for HMDA reporting and may
process open-end lines of credit on the
same system and in the same business
unit as closed-end mortgage loans.
Therefore, for low-complexity tier 3
financial institutions, the Bureau had
assumed that the additional one-time
cost created by open-end reporting is
minimal and is derived mostly from
new training and procedures adopted
for the overall changes in the 2015
HMDA Rule.
In the proposal leading to the 2015
HMDA Rule, the Bureau asked for
public comments and specific data
regarding the one-time cost of reporting
open-end lines of credit. Although some
commenters on that proposal provided
generic feedback on the additional
burden of reporting data on these
products, very few provided specific
estimates of the potential one-time costs
of reporting open-end lines of credit.
After issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau heard anecdotal reports that
one-time costs to begin reporting
information on open-end lines of credit
could be higher than the Bureau’s
estimates in the 2015 HMDA Rule. In
the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
indicated that it had reviewed the 2015
estimates and believed that the one-time
cost estimates for open-end lines of
credit provided in 2015, if applied to
the proposed rule, would most likely be
underestimates, for two reasons.
First, in developing the one-time cost
estimates for open-end lines of credit in
the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau had
envisioned that there would be cost
sharing between the line of business
that conducts open-end lending and the
line of business that conducts closedend lending at the corporate level, as the
implementation of open-end reporting
that became mandatory under the 2015
HMDA Rule would coincide with the
implementation of the changes to
closed-end reporting under the 2015
HMDA Rule. For instance, the resources
of the corporate compliance department
and information technology department
could be shared and utilized
simultaneously across different lines of
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
business within the same lender in its
efforts to set up processes and systems
adapting to the 2015 HMDA Rule.
Therefore, the Bureau assumed the onetime cost due to open-end reporting
would be about one-half of the one-time
costs due to closed-end reporting, in
order to both reasonably count for the
costs for reporting open-end lines of
credit and avoid double counting.
However, as the Bureau noted in the
May 2019 Proposal, circumstances have
somewhat changed since the 2015
HMDA Rule. The 2017 HMDA Rule
temporarily increased the open-end
lines of credit threshold from 100 to 500
for two years (2018 and 2019). The 2019
HMDA Rule further extended the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit for two additional years
(2020 and 2021). Thus, there will be a
considerable lag between the
implementation of closed-end reporting
changes under the 2015 HMDA Rule
and the implementation of mandatory
open-end reporting for those open-end
lenders that have been temporarily
excluded under the 2017 HMDA Rule
and the 2019 HMDA Rule, but will be
required to comply with HMDA’s
requirements for their open-end lines of
credit starting in 2022 with the 200
origination threshold taking effect. As a
result, the efficiency gain from one-time
cost sharing between the closed-end and
open-end reporting that was envisioned
in the cost-benefit analysis of the 2015
HMDA Rule likely will not be
applicable, if some of the temporarily
excluded open-end reporters under the
2017 HMDA Rule and the 2019 HMDA
Rule were to start preparing for openend reporting several years after the
implementation of closed-end changes.
Therefore, the Bureau now believes
the one-time costs of starting to report
information on open-end lines of credit,
if the financial institution is to start
reporting open-end lines of credit in
2022 and beyond, will be higher than
the Bureau’s initial estimates of onetime costs of open-end reporting
provided in the 2015 HMDA Rule. Thus,
for this impact analysis, the Bureau
assumes for a representative moderatecomplexity tier 2 open-end reporter that
the one-time costs of starting open-end
reporting in 2022 will be approximately
equal to the one-time cost estimate for
closed-end reporting that the Bureau
estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule,
instead of being about one half of the
one-time cost estimate for closed-end
reporting. This translates to about
$250,000 per representative moderatecomplexity tier 2 open-end reporter,
instead of $125,000 as the Bureau
estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
regarding the one-time costs of openend reporting. This is the case
regardless of whether the open-end
reporters also report closed-end
mortgage loans under HMDA. The
Bureau notes that the moderatecomplexity tier 2 financial institutions
that will be permanently excluded from
open-end reporting under this final rule
will no longer have to incur such onetime costs.
Second, the temporary threshold that
the 2017 HMDA Rule and 2019 HMDA
Rule established delayed open-end
reporting for those low-complexity tier
3 financial institutions that originated
between 100 and 499 open-end lines of
credit in either of the two preceding
years. This delay means that those
institutions would have had to incur the
one-time costs to restart the training
process for staff directly responsible for
open-end data collection and reporting
and update compliance procedures and
manuals if the open-end threshold had
reverted to 100 starting in 2022. In the
2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau estimated
the total one-time cost estimate for lowcomplexity tier 3 financial institutions
would be approximately $3,000
regardless of whether the financial
institution reports open-end lines of
credit. Under this final rule, the Bureau
thus assumes that the low-complexity
tier 3 financial institutions that will be
completely excluded from open-end
reporting will be able to avoid incurring
a one-time cost of about $3,000.
The Bureau estimates that, with the
permanent threshold increased to 200
starting in 2022 as compared to
reverting to 100, about 401 more
institutions will be excluded from
reporting open-end lines of credit
starting in 2022. About 309 of those 401
institutions are low-complexity tier 3
open-end reporters, about 92 are
moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end
reporters, and none are high-complexity
tier 1 reporters. Using the estimates of
savings on one-time costs for open-end
lines of credit for representative
financial institutions discussed above,
the Bureau estimates that with the
increase in the threshold to 200 openend lines of credit starting in 2022, the
excluded institutions will receive an
aggregate savings in avoided one-time
cost associated with open-end lines of
credit of about $23.9 million. This is an
upward revision from the estimated
savings of about $3.7 million in avoided
one-time costs in the May 2019
Proposal, mainly because the Bureau
has supplemented its analysis with new
information from the 2018 HMDA data.
As discussed above, these data allow the
Bureau to develop estimates based on
the total number of open-end loan/
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28401
application register records rather than
the number of open-end originations,
and as a result the Bureau has shifted
more affected institutions from tier 3 to
tier 2. The overall analysis, however, is
consistent with the Bureau’s
methodology and conclusions from the
May 2019 Proposal.
Costs to Covered Persons
Like any new regulation or revision to
the existing regulations, financial
institutions may incur certain one-time
costs adapting to the changes to the
regulation. Based on the Bureau’s
outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau
understands that most of such one-time
costs would result from interpreting and
implementing the regulatory changes,
not from purchasing software upgrades
or turning off the existing reporting
functionality that the excluded
institutions already built or purchased
prior to the new changes taking its
effect.
The Bureau sought comment on the
costs and benefits to institutions that the
rule would exclude pursuant to the
proposed increases to the open-end
threshold. No commenter expressed
concern that the costs for newly
excluded reporters would be
substantial.
Benefits to Consumers
Having generated estimates of the
reduction in ongoing costs on covered
financial institutions due to the increase
in the open-end threshold, the Bureau
then attempts to estimate the potential
pass-through of such cost reduction
from the lenders to consumers, which
could benefit consumers and affect
credit access. According to economic
theory, in a perfectly competitive
market where financial institutions are
profit maximizers, the affected financial
institutions would pass on to consumers
the marginal, i.e., variable, cost savings
per application or origination, and
absorb the one-time and increased fixed
costs of complying with the rule.
The Bureau estimated in the 2015
HMDA Rule that the rule would
increase variable costs by $41.50 per
open-end line of credit application for
representative low-complexity tier 3
institutions and $6.20 per open-end line
of credit application for representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions.
If the market is perfectly competitive, all
of these savings on variable costs by the
excluded open-end reporters could
potentially be passed through to the
consumers. These expenses will be
amortized over the life of a loan and
may represent a negligible reduction in
the cost of a mortgage loan. As a point
of reference, the median loan amount of
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28402
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
open-end lines of credit (excluding
reverse mortgages) in the 2018 HMDA
data was $75,000.185 The Bureau notes
that the market structure in the
consumer mortgage lending market may
differ from that of a perfectly
competitive market (for instance due to
information asymmetry between lenders
and borrowers) in which case the passthrough to the consumers would most
likely be smaller than the pass-through
under the perfect competition
assumption.186
Costs to Consumers
Setting the permanent open-end
threshold at 200 starting in 2022 will
reduce the open-end data submitted
under HMDA. As a result, HMDA data
on these institutions’ open-end lines of
credit and applications will no longer be
available to regulators, public officials,
and members of the public. The
decreased data concerning affected
financial institutions may lead to
adverse outcomes for some consumers.
For instance, reporting data on openend line of credit applications and
originations and on certain demographic
characteristics of applicants and
borrowers could help the regulators and
public officials better understand the
type of funds that are flowing from
lenders to consumers and consumers’
need for mortgage credit. Open-end line
of credit data that may be relevant to
underwriting decisions may also help
improve the processes used to identify
possible discriminatory lending patterns
and enforce antidiscrimination statutes.
The Bureau has no quantitative data that
can sufficiently measure the magnitude
of any such impact of setting the
permanent open-end threshold at 200.
Additionally, the Bureau sought
comment on the costs to consumers
associated with the proposed increase to
the open-end threshold but did not
receive any comments that quantify the
losses.
F. Potential Specific Impacts of the
Final Rule
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Depository Institutions and Credit
Unions With $10 Billion or Less in Total
Assets, as Described in Section 1026
As discussed above, the final rule will
increase the threshold for reporting data
about closed-end mortgage loans from
185 See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot.,
‘‘Introducing New and Revised Data Points in
HMDA: Initial Observations from New and Revised
Data Points in 2018 HMDA’’ (Aug. 2019), https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/researchreports/introducing-new-revised-data-points-hmda/
.
186 The further the market moves away from a
perfectly competitive market, the smaller the passthrough would be.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
25 to 100 originations in both of the
preceding two calendar years and
increase the permanent threshold for
reporting data about open-end lines of
credit from 100 to 200 open-end lines of
credit in both of the preceding two
calendar years starting in 2022.
Both sets of provisions focus on
burden reduction for smaller
institutions. Therefore, the Bureau
believes that the benefits of this final
rule to depository institutions and credit
unions with $10 billion or less in total
assets will be similar to the benefit to
creditors as a whole, as discussed above.
For the closed-end threshold
provision, the Bureau estimates that for
depository institutions and credit
unions with $10 billion in assets or less
that would have been required to report
under the 2015 HMDA Rule, and are not
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA,
the savings on the annual operational
costs from being excluded from closedend reporting under the proposal will be
approximately $4,500 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
institution, $44,700 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution,
and $343,000 for a representative highcomplexity tier 1 institution that fall
below the threshold of 100. For
depository institutions and credit
unions with $10 billion in assets or less
that would have been required to report
under the 2015 HMDA Rule, but are
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA,
the Bureau estimates the savings on the
annual operational costs from not
reporting any closed-end mortgage data
under the final rule will be
approximately $2,200 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
institution, $32,800 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution,
and $309,000 for a representative highcomplexity tier 1 institution. For
purposes of this final rule, the Bureau
estimates that about 1,640 of the
approximately 1,700 institutions that
will be excluded by the reporting
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans are small depository institutions
or credit unions with assets at or below
$10 billion, and all but three of them are
already partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA. About 1,560 of them are
similar to representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution, with the rest being
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions.
Combined, the annual savings on
operational costs for depository
institutions and credit unions with $10
billion or less in assets newly excluded
under the threshold of 100 closed-end
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mortgage loans will be about $6.0
million.187
For the open-end threshold
provisions, the Bureau estimates that for
depository institutions and credit
unions with $10 billion in assets or less
that will not have to report open-end
lines of credit under the final rule, the
reduction in annual ongoing operational
costs for the excluded institutions not
eligible for the partial exemption for
open-end lines of credit under the
EGRRCPA will be approximately
$8,800, $44,700, and $281,000 per year,
for representative low-, moderate-, and
high-complexity financial institutions,
respectively. The Bureau estimates that
the reduction in annual ongoing
operational costs for excluded
institutions already partially exempt for
open-end lines of credit under the
EGRRCPA will be approximately
$4,300, $21,900, and $138,000 annually,
for representative low-, moderate-, and
high-complexity financial institutions,
respectively. The Bureau estimates that
about 378 of the approximately 401
institutions that will be excluded from
open-end reporting starting in 2022
under the final rule are small depository
institutions or credit unions with assets
at or below $10 billion, and about 372
of them are already partially exempt
under the EGRRCPA. Combined, the
Bureau estimates that the annual saving
on operational costs for depository
institutions and credit unions with $10
billion or less in assets newly excluded
from open-end reporting under the
threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit in this final rule would be about
$3.5. million per year starting in 2022.
Using the estimates of savings on onetime costs for open-end lines of credit
for representative financial institutions
discussed above, the Bureau estimates
that by increasing the open-end
187 In comparison, in the May 2019 Proposal, the
Bureau estimated that about 1,666 of the
approximately 1,720 institutions that would be
excluded from the proposed alternative 100 loan
closed-end reporting threshold were small
depository institutions or credit unions with assets
at or below $10 billion, and all but two of them
were already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA.
About 1,573 of them are similar to representative
low-complexity tier 3 institution, with the rest
being moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions. Due
to a transcription error, the Bureau indicated in the
May 2019 Proposal that, combined, the annual
saving on operational costs for depository
institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or
less in assets newly excluded under the proposed
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans would
be about $4.8 million; however, upon review, the
Bureau has determined that that estimate should
instead have been $6.7 million based on the
analysis in the May 2019 Proposal. As noted above,
using the 2018 HMDA data, the Bureau now
estimates that there will be approximately $6.0
million estimated savings in annual operational
costs under threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
threshold to 200 starting in 2022, the
excluded depository institutions and
credit unions with $10 billion or less in
assets will receive an aggregate savings
in avoided one-time costs associated
with open-end lines of credit of about
$20.9 million.188
2. Impact of the Provisions on
Consumers in Rural Areas
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
The final rule will not directly impact
consumers in rural areas. However, as
with all consumers, consumers in rural
areas may be impacted indirectly. This
would occur if financial institutions
serving rural areas are HMDA reporters
(in which case the final rule will lead
to decreased information in rural areas)
and if these institutions pass on some or
all of the cost reduction to consumers
(in which case, some consumers could
benefit).
Recent research suggests that financial
institutions that primarily serve rural
areas are generally not HMDA
reporters.189 The Housing Assistance
Council (HAC) suggests that the current
asset and geographic coverage criteria
already in place disproportionately
exempt small lenders operating in rural
communities. For example, HAC uses
2009 Call Report data to show that
approximately 700 FDIC-insured
lending institutions had assets totaling
less than the HMDA institutional
coverage threshold and were
headquartered in rural communities.
These institutions, which would not be
HMDA reporters, may represent one of
the few sources of credit for many rural
areas. Some research also suggests that
limited HMDA data are currently
reported for rural areas, especially areas
further from Metropolitan Statistical
188 In comparison, in the May 2019 Proposal, the
Bureau estimated that the annual saving on
operational costs for depository institutions and
credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets
newly excluded from open-end reporting under the
threshold of 200 open-end lines of credit would be
about $19. million. Also, in the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau estimated the aggregate savings in
avoided one-time cost associated with the threshold
of 200 open-end lines of credit would be $3.8
million. The increases in the estimated cost savings
in this final rule for both annual ongoing costs and
one-time costs are due to the fact that the Bureau’s
updated estimates are able to incorporate the
number of applications instead of originations
based on information supplemented by the 2018
HMDA data.
189 See, e.g., Keith Wiley, ‘‘What Are We Missing?
HMDA Asset-Excluded Filers,’’ Hous. Assistance
Council (2011), https://ruralhome.org/storage/
documents/smallbanklending.pdf; Lance George &
Keith Wiley, ‘‘Improving HMDA: A Need to Better
Understand Rural Mortgage Markets,’’ Hous.
Assistance Council (2010), https://
www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/
notehmdasm.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
Areas (MSAs).190 If a large portion of the
rural housing market is serviced by
financial institutions that are already
not HMDA reporters, any indirect
impact of the changes on consumers in
rural areas would be limited, as the
changes directly involve none of those
financial institutions.
However, although some research
suggests that HMDA currently does not
cover a significant number of financial
institutions serving the rural housing
market, HMDA data do contain
information for some covered loans
involving properties in rural areas.
These data can be used to estimate the
number of HMDA reporters servicing
rural areas, and the number of
consumers in rural areas that might
potentially be affected by the changes to
Regulation C. For this analysis, the
Bureau uses non-MSA areas as a proxy
for rural areas, with the understanding
that portions of MSAs and non-MSAs
may contain urban and rural territory
and populations. In 2018, 4,773 HMDA
reporters reported applications or
purchased loans for property located in
geographic areas outside of an MSA. In
total, these 5,207 financial institutions
reported 1,562,399 applications or
purchased loans for properties in nonMSA areas. This number provides an
upper-bound estimate of the number of
consumers in rural areas that could be
impacted indirectly by the changes. In
general, individual financial institutions
report small numbers of covered loans
from non-MSAs, as approximately 76
percent reported fewer than 100 covered
loans from non-MSAs.
Following microeconomic principles,
the Bureau believes that financial
institutions will pass on reduced
variable costs to future mortgage
applicants, but absorb one-time costs
and increased fixed costs if financial
institutions are profit maximizers and
the market is perfectly competitive.191
The Bureau defines variable costs as
costs that depend on the number of
applications received. Based on initial
outreach efforts, the following five
operational steps affect variable costs:
Transcribing data, resolving
reportability questions, transferring data
to an HMS, geocoding, and researching
questions. The primary impact of the
final rule on these operational steps is
a reduction in time spent per task.
190 See Robert B. Avery et al., ‘‘Opportunities and
Issues in Using HMDA Data,’’ 29 J. of Real Est. Res.
352 (2007).
191 If markets are not perfectly competitive or
financial institutions are not profit maximizers,
then what financial institutions pass on may differ.
For example, they may attempt to pass on one-time
costs and increases in fixed costs, or they may not
be able to pass on variable costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28403
Overall, the Bureau estimates that the
impact of the final rule on variable costs
per application is to reduce variable
costs by no more than $42 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3
financial institution, $6 for a
representative moderate-complexity tier
2 financial institution, and $3 for a
representative high-complexity tier 1
financial institution.192 The 4,773
financial institutions that serviced rural
areas could attempt to pass these
reduced variable costs on to all future
mortgage customers, including the
estimated 1.6 million consumers from
rural areas. Amortized over the life of
the loan, this expense likely represents
a negligible reduction in the cost of a
mortgage loan. The Bureau notes that
the market structure in the consumer
mortgage lending market may differ
from that of a perfectly competitive
market (for instance due to information
asymmetry between lenders and
borrowers) in which case the passthrough to the consumers would most
likely be smaller than the pass-through
under the perfect competition
assumption.193
The rural market may differ from nonrural markets in terms of market
structure, demand, supply, and
competition level. For instance, local or
community banks may be more likely to
serve some rural markets than national
lenders. Therefore, consumers in rural
areas may experience benefits and costs
from the final rule that are different than
those experienced by consumers in
general. To the extent that the impacts
of the final rule on creditors differ by
type of creditor, this may affect the costs
and benefits of the final rule on
consumers in rural areas.
The Bureau also recognizes, as
discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of § 1003.2(g) above, that rural
and low-to-moderate income census
tracts will lose proportionately more
data as the threshold increases than
other areas. However, the Bureau
currently lacks sufficient data to
quantify the impact of this decrease in
data.
VIII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 194 as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
192 These cost estimates represent the highest
estimates among the estimates presented in
previous sections and form the upper bound of
possible savings.
193 The further the market moves away from a
perfectly competitive market, the smaller the passthrough would be.
194 Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28404
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
1996 195 (RFA) requires each agency to
consider the potential impact of its
regulations on small entities, including
small businesses, small governmental
units, and small not-for-profit
organizations.196 The RFA defines a
‘‘small business’’ as a business that
meets the size standard developed by
the Small Business Administration
pursuant to the Small Business Act.197
The RFA generally requires an agency
to conduct an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 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.198 The Bureau also is subject to
certain additional procedures under the
RFA involving the convening of a panel
to consult with small business
representatives prior to proposing a rule
for which an IRFA is required.199
As discussed above, this final rule
increases the threshold for reporting
data about closed-end mortgage loans
from 25 to 100 originations in each of
the two preceding calendar years and
sets the permanent open-end threshold
at 200 originations when the temporary
threshold of 500 originations expires in
2022. The section 1022(b)(2) analysis
above describes how this final rule
reduces the costs and burdens on
covered persons, including small
entities. Additionally, as described in
the analysis above, a small entity that is
in compliance with the law at such time
when this final rule takes effect does not
need to take any additional action to
remain in compliance other than
choosing to switch off all or parts of
reporting systems and functions. Based
on these considerations, the final rule
does not have a significant economic
impact on any small entities.
Accordingly, the Director hereby
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
195 Public Law 104–21, section 241, 110 Stat. 847,
864–65 (1996).
196 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The term ‘‘ ‘small
organization’ means any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is
not dominant in its field, unless an agency
establishes [an alternative definition under notice
and comment].’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(4). The term ‘‘ ‘small
governmental jurisdiction’ means governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand, unless an agency
establishes [an alternative definition after notice
and comment].’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
197 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The Bureau may establish an
alternative definition after consulting with the
Small Business Administration and providing an
opportunity for public comment. Id.
198 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
199 5 U.S.C. 609.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
substantial number of small entities.
Thus, neither an FRFA nor a small
business review panel is required for
this final rule.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies are generally required
to seek the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB’s) approval for
information collection requirements
prior to implementation. The collections
of information related to Regulation C
have been previously reviewed and
approved by OMB and assigned OMB
Control number 3170–0008. Under the
PRA, the Bureau may not conduct or
sponsor and, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a person is not
required to respond to an information
collection unless the information
collection displays a valid control
number assigned by OMB. The Bureau
has determined that this final rule
would not impose any new or revised
information collection requirements
(recordkeeping, reporting or disclosure
requirements) on covered entities or
members of the public that would
constitute collections of information
requiring OMB approval under the PRA.
X. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act,200 the Bureau will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to the rule’s published
effective date. The Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs has designated
this rule as not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
XI. Signing Authority
The Director of the Bureau, having
reviewed and approved this document
is delegating the authority to
electronically sign this document to
Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register
Liaison, for purposes of publication in
the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1003
Banks, Banking, Credit unions,
Mortgages, National banks, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Savings associations.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth above, the
Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR
part 1003, as follows:
200 5
PO 00000
U.S.C. 801 et seq.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PART 1003—HOME MORTGAGE
DISCLOSURE (REGULATION C)
1. The authority citation for part 1003
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805,
5512, 5581.
2. Effective July 1, 2020, § 1003.2 is
amended by revising paragraphs
(g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:
■
§ 1003.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) In each of the two preceding
calendar years, originated at least 100
closed-end mortgage loans that are not
excluded from this part pursuant to
§ 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (c)(13); or
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) In each of the two preceding
calendar years, originated at least 100
closed-end mortgage loans that are not
excluded from this part pursuant to
§ 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (c)(13); or
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Effective July 1, 2020, § 1003.3 is
amended by revising paragraph (c)(11)
to read as follows:
§ 1003.3 Exempt institutions and excluded
and partially exempt transactions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(11) A closed-end mortgage loan, if
the financial institution originated fewer
than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar
years; a financial institution (including,
for purposes of information collected in
2020, an institution that was a financial
institution as of January 1, 2020) may
collect, record, report, and disclose
information, as described in §§ 1003.4
and 1003.5, for such an excluded
closed-end mortgage loan as though it
were a covered loan, provided that the
financial institution complies with such
requirements for all applications for
closed-end mortgage loans that it
receives, closed-end mortgage loans that
it originates, and closed-end mortgage
loans that it purchases that otherwise
would have been covered loans during
the calendar year during which final
action is taken on the excluded closedend mortgage loan;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Effective July 1, 2020, supplement
I to part 1003 is amended as follows:
■ a. Under Section 1003.2—Definitions,
revise 2(g) Financial Institution.
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
b. Under Section 1003.3—Exempt
Institutions and Excluded and Partially
Exempt Transactions, under 3(c)
Excluded Transactions, revise
Paragraph 3(c)(11).
The revisions read as follows:
■
Supplement I to Part 1003—Official
Interpretations
*
*
*
*
*
Section 1003.2—Definitions
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
2(g) Financial Institution
1. Preceding calendar year and preceding
December 31. The definition of financial
institution refers both to the preceding
calendar year and the preceding December
31. These terms refer to the calendar year and
the December 31 preceding the current
calendar year. For example, in 2021, the
preceding calendar year is 2020, and the
preceding December 31 is December 31,
2020. Accordingly, in 2021, Financial
Institution A satisfies the asset-size threshold
described in § 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if its assets
exceeded the threshold specified in comment
2(g)–2 on December 31, 2020. Likewise, in
2021, Financial Institution A does not meet
the loan-volume test described in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) if it originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans during either
2019 or 2020.
2. Adjustment of exemption threshold for
banks, savings associations, and credit
unions. For data collection in 2020, the assetsize exemption threshold is $47 million.
Banks, savings associations, and credit
unions with assets at or below $47 million
as of December 31, 2019, are exempt from
collecting data for 2020.
3. Merger or acquisition—coverage of
surviving or newly formed institution. After
a merger or acquisition, the surviving or
newly formed institution is a financial
institution under § 1003.2(g) if it, considering
the combined assets, location, and lending
activity of the surviving or newly formed
institution and the merged or acquired
institutions or acquired branches, satisfies
the criteria included in § 1003.2(g). For
example, A and B merge. The surviving or
newly formed institution meets the loan
threshold described in § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) if
the surviving or newly formed institution, A,
and B originated a combined total of at least
500 open-end lines of credit in each of the
two preceding calendar years. Likewise, the
surviving or newly formed institution meets
the asset-size threshold in § 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if
its assets and the combined assets of A and
B on December 31 of the preceding calendar
year exceeded the threshold described in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(i). Comment 2(g)–4 discusses a
financial institution’s responsibilities during
the calendar year of a merger.
4. Merger or acquisition—coverage for
calendar year of merger or acquisition. The
scenarios described below illustrate a
financial institution’s responsibilities for the
calendar year of a merger or acquisition. For
purposes of these illustrations, a ‘‘covered
institution’’ means a financial institution, as
defined in § 1003.2(g), that is not exempt
from reporting under § 1003.3(a), and ‘‘an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
institution that is not covered’’ means either
an institution that is not a financial
institution, as defined in § 1003.2(g), or an
institution that is exempt from reporting
under § 1003.3(a).
i. Two institutions that are not covered
merge. The surviving or newly formed
institution meets all of the requirements
necessary to be a covered institution. No data
collection is required for the calendar year of
the merger (even though the merger creates
an institution that meets all of the
requirements necessary to be a covered
institution). When a branch office of an
institution that is not covered is acquired by
another institution that is not covered, and
the acquisition results in a covered
institution, no data collection is required for
the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution
that is not covered merge. The covered
institution is the surviving institution, or a
new covered institution is formed. For the
calendar year of the merger, data collection
is required for covered loans and
applications handled in the offices of the
merged institution that was previously
covered and is optional for covered loans and
applications handled in offices of the merged
institution that was previously not covered.
When a covered institution acquires a branch
office of an institution that is not covered,
data collection is optional for covered loans
and applications handled by the acquired
branch office for the calendar year of the
acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution
that is not covered merge. The institution
that is not covered is the surviving
institution, or a new institution that is not
covered is formed. For the calendar year of
the merger, data collection is required for
covered loans and applications handled in
offices of the previously covered institution
that took place prior to the merger. After the
merger date, data collection is optional for
covered loans and applications handled in
the offices of the institution that was
previously covered. When an institution
remains not covered after acquiring a branch
office of a covered institution, data collection
is required for transactions of the acquired
branch office that take place prior to the
acquisition. Data collection by the acquired
branch office is optional for transactions
taking place in the remainder of the calendar
year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The
surviving or newly formed institution is a
covered institution. Data collection is
required for the entire calendar year of the
merger. The surviving or newly formed
institution files either a consolidated
submission or separate submissions for that
calendar year. When a covered institution
acquires a branch office of a covered
institution, data collection is required for the
entire calendar year of the merger. Data for
the acquired branch office may be submitted
by either institution.
5. Originations. Whether an institution is a
financial institution depends in part on
whether the institution originated at least 100
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding calendar years or at least 500 openend lines of credit in each of the two
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
28405
preceding calendar years. Comments 4(a)–2
through –4 discuss whether activities with
respect to a particular closed-end mortgage
loan or open-end line of credit constitute an
origination for purposes of § 1003.2(g).
6. Branches of foreign banks—treated as
banks. A Federal branch or a State-licensed
or insured branch of a foreign bank that
meets the definition of a ‘‘bank’’ under
section 3(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(a)) is a bank
for the purposes of § 1003.2(g).
7. Branches and offices of foreign banks
and other entities—treated as nondepository
financial institutions. A Federal agency,
State-licensed agency, State-licensed
uninsured branch of a foreign bank,
commercial lending company owned or
controlled by a foreign bank, or entity
operating under section 25 or 25A of the
Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 601 and 611
(Edge Act and agreement corporations) may
not meet the definition of ‘‘bank’’ under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act and may
thereby fail to satisfy the definition of a
depository financial institution under
§ 1003.2(g)(1). An entity is nonetheless a
financial institution if it meets the definition
of nondepository financial institution under
§ 1003.2(g)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
Section 1003.3—Exempt Institutions and
Excluded and Partially Exempt Transactions
*
*
*
*
*
3(c) Excluded Transactions
*
*
*
*
*
Paragraph 3(c)(11)
1. General. Section 1003.3(c)(11) provides
that a closed-end mortgage loan is an
excluded transaction if a financial institution
originated fewer than 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in either of the two preceding
calendar years. For example, assume that a
bank is a financial institution in 2021 under
§ 1003.2(g) because it originated 600 openend lines of credit in 2019, 650 open-end
lines of credit in 2020, and met all of the
other requirements under § 1003.2(g)(1). Also
assume that the bank originated 75 and 90
closed-end mortgage loans in 2019 and 2020,
respectively. The open-end lines of credit
that the bank originated or purchased, or for
which it received applications, during 2021
are covered loans and must be reported,
unless they otherwise are excluded
transactions under § 1003.3(c). However, the
closed-end mortgage loans that the bank
originated or purchased, or for which it
received applications, during 2021 are
excluded transactions under § 1003.3(c)(11)
and need not be reported. See comments
4(a)–2 through –4 for guidance about the
activities that constitute an origination.
2. Optional reporting. A financial
institution may report applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans that are excluded transactions
because the financial institution originated
fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar years.
However, a financial institution that chooses
to report such excluded applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans must report all such
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
28406
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
applications for closed-end mortgage loans
that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans
that it originates, and closed-end mortgage
loans that it purchases that otherwise would
be covered loans for a given calendar year.
Note that applications which remain pending
at the end of a calendar year are not reported,
as described in comment 4(a)(8)(i)–14. An
institution that was a financial institution as
of January 1, 2020 but is not a financial
institution on July 1, 2020 because it
originated fewer than 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2018 or 2019 is not
required in 2021 to report, but may report,
applications for, originations of, or purchases
of closed-end mortgage loans for calendar
year 2020 that are excluded transactions
because the institution originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans in 2018 or
2019. However, an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1, 2020 and
chooses to report such excluded applications
for, originations of, or purchases of closedend mortgage loans in 2021 must report all
such applications for closed-end mortgage
loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage
loans that it originates, and closed-end
mortgage loans that it purchases that
otherwise would be covered loans for all of
calendar year 2020.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Effective January 1, 2022, § 1003.2,
as amended at 84 FR 57946, October 29,
2019, is further amended by revising
paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B)
to read as follows:
■
§ 1003.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding
calendar years, originated at least 200
open-end lines of credit that are not
excluded from this part pursuant to
§ 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding
calendar years, originated at least 200
open-end lines of credit that are not
excluded from this part pursuant to
§ 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Effective January 1, 2022, § 1003.3,
is amended by revising paragraph
(c)(11) and as amended at 84 FR 57946,
October 29, 2019, is further amended by
revising paragraph (c)(12) to read as
follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
*
§ 1003.3 Exempt institutions and excluded
and partially exempt transactions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(11) A closed-end mortgage loan, if
the financial institution originated fewer
than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
years; a financial institution may
collect, record, report, and disclose
information, as described in §§ 1003.4
and 1003.5, for such an excluded
closed-end mortgage loan as though it
were a covered loan, provided that the
financial institution complies with such
requirements for all applications for
closed-end mortgage loans that it
receives, closed-end mortgage loans that
it originates, and closed-end mortgage
loans that it purchases that otherwise
would have been covered loans during
the calendar year during which final
action is taken on the excluded closedend mortgage loan;
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the
financial institution originated fewer
than 200 open-end lines of credit in
either of the two preceding calendar
years; a financial institution may
collect, record, report, and disclose
information, as described in §§ 1003.4
and 1003.5, for such an excluded openend line of credit as though it were a
covered loan, provided that the
financial institution complies with such
requirements for all applications for
open-end lines of credit that it receives,
open-end lines of credit that it
originates, and open-end lines of credit
that it purchases that otherwise would
have been covered loans during the
calendar year during which final action
is taken on the excluded open-end line
of credit; or
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Effective January 1, 2022,
supplement I to part 1003, as amended
at 84 FR 57946, October 29, 2019, is
further amended as follows:
■ a. Under Section 1003.2—Definitions,
revise 2(g) Financial Institution; and
■ b. Under Section 1003.3—Exempt
Institutions and Excluded and Partially
Exempt Transactions, under 3(c)
Excluded Transactions, revise
Paragraphs 3(c)(11) and 3(c)(12).
The revisions read as follows:
Supplement I to Part 1003—Official
Interpretations
*
*
*
*
*
Section 1003.2—Definitions
*
*
*
*
*
2(g) Financial Institution
1. Preceding calendar year and preceding
December 31. The definition of financial
institution refers both to the preceding
calendar year and the preceding December
31. These terms refer to the calendar year and
the December 31 preceding the current
calendar year. For example, in 2021, the
preceding calendar year is 2020, and the
preceding December 31 is December 31,
2020. Accordingly, in 2021, Financial
Institution A satisfies the asset-size threshold
described in § 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if its assets
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exceeded the threshold specified in comment
2(g)–2 on December 31, 2020. Likewise, in
2021, Financial Institution A does not meet
the loan-volume test described in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) if it originated fewer than
100 closed-end mortgage loans during either
2019 or 2020.
2. [Reserved]
3. Merger or acquisition—coverage of
surviving or newly formed institution. After
a merger or acquisition, the surviving or
newly formed institution is a financial
institution under § 1003.2(g) if it, considering
the combined assets, location, and lending
activity of the surviving or newly formed
institution and the merged or acquired
institutions or acquired branches, satisfies
the criteria included in § 1003.2(g). For
example, A and B merge. The surviving or
newly formed institution meets the loan
threshold described in § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) if
the surviving or newly formed institution, A,
and B originated a combined total of at least
200 open-end lines of credit in each of the
two preceding calendar years. Likewise, the
surviving or newly formed institution meets
the asset-size threshold in § 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if
its assets and the combined assets of A and
B on December 31 of the preceding calendar
year exceeded the threshold described in
§ 1003.2(g)(1)(i). Comment 2(g)–4 discusses a
financial institution’s responsibilities during
the calendar year of a merger.
4. Merger or acquisition—coverage for
calendar year of merger or acquisition. The
scenarios described below illustrate a
financial institution’s responsibilities for the
calendar year of a merger or acquisition. For
purposes of these illustrations, a ‘‘covered
institution’’ means a financial institution, as
defined in § 1003.2(g), that is not exempt
from reporting under § 1003.3(a), and ‘‘an
institution that is not covered’’ means either
an institution that is not a financial
institution, as defined in § 1003.2(g), or an
institution that is exempt from reporting
under § 1003.3(a).
i. Two institutions that are not covered
merge. The surviving or newly formed
institution meets all of the requirements
necessary to be a covered institution. No data
collection is required for the calendar year of
the merger (even though the merger creates
an institution that meets all of the
requirements necessary to be a covered
institution). When a branch office of an
institution that is not covered is acquired by
another institution that is not covered, and
the acquisition results in a covered
institution, no data collection is required for
the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution
that is not covered merge. The covered
institution is the surviving institution, or a
new covered institution is formed. For the
calendar year of the merger, data collection
is required for covered loans and
applications handled in the offices of the
merged institution that was previously
covered and is optional for covered loans and
applications handled in offices of the merged
institution that was previously not covered.
When a covered institution acquires a branch
office of an institution that is not covered,
data collection is optional for covered loans
and applications handled by the acquired
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
branch office for the calendar year of the
acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution
that is not covered merge. The institution
that is not covered is the surviving
institution, or a new institution that is not
covered is formed. For the calendar year of
the merger, data collection is required for
covered loans and applications handled in
offices of the previously covered institution
that took place prior to the merger. After the
merger date, data collection is optional for
covered loans and applications handled in
the offices of the institution that was
previously covered. When an institution
remains not covered after acquiring a branch
office of a covered institution, data collection
is required for transactions of the acquired
branch office that take place prior to the
acquisition. Data collection by the acquired
branch office is optional for transactions
taking place in the remainder of the calendar
year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The
surviving or newly formed institution is a
covered institution. Data collection is
required for the entire calendar year of the
merger. The surviving or newly formed
institution files either a consolidated
submission or separate submissions for that
calendar year. When a covered institution
acquires a branch office of a covered
institution, data collection is required for the
entire calendar year of the merger. Data for
the acquired branch office may be submitted
by either institution.
5. Originations. Whether an institution is a
financial institution depends in part on
whether the institution originated at least 100
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding calendar years or at least 200 openend lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years. Comments 4(a)–2
through –4 discuss whether activities with
respect to a particular closed-end mortgage
loan or open-end line of credit constitute an
origination for purposes of § 1003.2(g).
6. Branches of foreign banks—treated as
banks. A Federal branch or a State-licensed
or insured branch of a foreign bank that
meets the definition of a ‘‘bank’’ under
section 3(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(a)) is a bank
for the purposes of § 1003.2(g).
7. Branches and offices of foreign banks
and other entities—treated as nondepository
financial institutions. A Federal agency,
State-licensed agency, State-licensed
uninsured branch of a foreign bank,
commercial lending company owned or
controlled by a foreign bank, or entity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:14 May 12, 2020
Jkt 250001
operating under section 25 or 25A of the
Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 601 and 611
(Edge Act and agreement corporations) may
not meet the definition of ‘‘bank’’ under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act and may
thereby fail to satisfy the definition of a
depository financial institution under
§ 1003.2(g)(1). An entity is nonetheless a
financial institution if it meets the definition
of nondepository financial institution under
§ 1003.2(g)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
Section 1003.3—Exempt Institutions and
Excluded and Partially Exempt Transactions
*
*
*
*
*
3(c) Excluded Transactions
*
*
*
*
*
Paragraph 3(c)(11)
1. General. Section 1003.3(c)(11) provides
that a closed-end mortgage loan is an
excluded transaction if a financial institution
originated fewer than 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in either of the two preceding
calendar years. For example, assume that a
bank is a financial institution in 2022 under
§ 1003.2(g) because it originated 300 openend lines of credit in 2020, 350 open-end
lines of credit in 2021, and met all of the
other requirements under § 1003.2(g)(1). Also
assume that the bank originated 75 and 90
closed-end mortgage loans in 2020 and 2021,
respectively. The open-end lines of credit
that the bank originated or purchased, or for
which it received applications, during 2022
are covered loans and must be reported,
unless they otherwise are excluded
transactions under § 1003.3(c). However, the
closed-end mortgage loans that the bank
originated or purchased, or for which it
received applications, during 2022 are
excluded transactions under § 1003.3(c)(11)
and need not be reported. See comments
4(a)–2 through–4 for guidance about the
activities that constitute an origination.
2. Optional reporting. A financial
institution may report applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans that are excluded transactions
because the financial institution originated
fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar years.
However, a financial institution that chooses
to report such excluded applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans must report all such
applications for closed-end mortgage loans
that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans
that it originates, and closed-end mortgage
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
28407
loans that it purchases that otherwise would
be covered loans for a given calendar year.
Note that applications which remain pending
at the end of a calendar year are not reported,
as described in comment 4(a)(8)(i)–14.
Paragraph 3(c)(12)
1. General. Section 1003.3(c)(12) provides
that an open-end line of credit is an excluded
transaction if a financial institution
originated fewer than 200 open-end lines of
credit in either of the two preceding calendar
years. For example, assume that a bank is a
financial institution in 2022 under
§ 1003.2(g) because it originated 100 closedend mortgage loans in 2020, 175 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2021, and met all of the
other requirements under § 1003.2(g)(1). Also
assume that the bank originated 175 and 185
open-end lines of credit in 2020 and 2021,
respectively. The closed-end mortgage loans
that the bank originated or purchased, or for
which it received applications, during 2022
are covered loans and must be reported,
unless they otherwise are excluded
transactions under § 1003.3(c). However, the
open-end lines of credit that the bank
originated or purchased, or for which it
received applications, during 2022 are
excluded transactions under § 1003.3(c)(12)
and need not be reported. See comments
4(a)–2 through –4 for guidance about the
activities that constitute an origination.
2. Optional reporting. A financial
institution may report applications for,
originations of, or purchases of open-end
lines of credit that are excluded transactions
because the financial institution originated
fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in
either of the two preceding calendar years.
However, a financial institution that chooses
to report such excluded applications for,
originations of, or purchases of open-end
lines of credit must report all such
applications for open-end lines of credit
which it receives, open-end lines of credit
that it originates, and open-end lines of credit
that it purchases that otherwise would be
covered loans for a given calendar year. Note
that applications which remain pending at
the end of a calendar year are not reported,
as described in comment 4(a)(8)(i)–14.
*
*
*
*
*
Laura Galban,
Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2020–08409 Filed 5–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
E:\FR\FM\12MYR2.SGM
12MYR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28364-28407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08409]
[[Page 28363]]
Vol. 85
Tuesday,
No. 92
May 12, 2020
Part III
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12 CFR Part 1003
Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 92 / Tuesday, May 12, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28364]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
12 CFR Part 1003
[Docket No. CFPB-2019-0021]
RIN 3170-AA76
Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)
AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
ACTION: Final rule; official interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is
amending Regulation C to increase the threshold for reporting data
about closed-end mortgage loans, so that institutions originating fewer
than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding
calendar years will not have to report such data effective July 1,
2020. The Bureau is also setting the threshold for reporting data about
open-end lines of credit at 200 open-end lines of credit effective
January 1, 2022, upon the expiration of the current temporary threshold
of 500 open-end lines of credit.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 1, 2020, except for the
amendments to Sec. 1003.2 in amendatory instruction 5, the amendments
to Sec. 1003.3 in amendatory instruction 6, and the amendments to
supplement I to part 1003 in amendatory instruction 7, which are
effective on January 1, 2022. See part VI for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaydee DiGiovanni, Counsel; or Amanda
Quester or Alexandra Reimelt, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations,
at 202-435-7700 or https://reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov. If you
require this document in an alternative electronic format, please
contact [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Final Rule
Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, implements the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801 through 2810. In an October 2015
final rule (2015 HMDA Rule), the Bureau established institutional and
transactional coverage thresholds in Regulation C that determine
whether financial institutions are required to collect, record, and
report any HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of
credit (collectively, coverage thresholds).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 80 FR 66128 (Oct.
28, 2015). HMDA requires financial institutions to collect, record,
and report data. To simplify review of this document, the Bureau
generally refers herein to the obligation to report data instead of
listing all of these obligations in each instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 HMDA Rule set the closed-end threshold at 25 loans in each
of the two preceding calendar years, and the open-end threshold at 100
open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.
In 2017, before those thresholds took effect, the Bureau temporarily
increased the open-end threshold to 500 open-end lines of credit for
two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019). In October 2019, the Bureau
extended to January 1, 2022, the temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit for open-end coverage.
This final rule adjusts Regulation C's coverage thresholds for
closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit.\2\ Effective
July 1, 2020, this final rule permanently raises the closed-end
coverage threshold from 25 to 100 closed-end mortgage loans in each of
the two preceding calendar years. The final rule also amends Sec.
1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2 so that institutions have the
option to report closed-end data collected in 2020 if they: (1) Meet
the definition of financial institution as of January 1, 2020 but are
newly excluded on July 1, 2020 by the increase in the closed-end
threshold, and (2) report closed-end data for the full calendar year.
The final rule sets the permanent open-end threshold at 200 open-end
lines of credit effective January 1, 2022, upon expiration of the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When amending the Bureau's commentary, the Office of the
Federal Register requires reprinting of certain subsections being
amended in their entirety rather than providing more targeted
amendatory instructions and commentary. The subsections of
regulatory text and commentary included in this document show the
complete language of those subsections. In addition, the Bureau is
releasing an unofficial, informal redline to assist industry and
other stakeholders in reviewing the changes that it is finalizing to
the regulatory text and commentary of Regulation C. This redline can
be found on the Bureau's regulatory implementation page for the HMDA
Rule at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/hmda-implementation/. If any conflicts exist between the redline and
this final rule, this final rule is the controlling document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. HMDA and Regulation C
HMDA requires certain depository institutions and for-profit
nondepository institutions to report data about originations and
purchases of mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that
do not result in originations (for example, applications that are
denied or withdrawn). The purposes of HMDA are to provide the public
with loan data that can be used: (i) To help determine whether
financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their
communities; (ii) to assist public officials in distributing public-
sector investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it
is needed; and (iii) to assist in identifying possible discriminatory
lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.\3\ Prior to
the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Regulation C required reporting of 22
data points and allowed for optional reporting of the reasons for which
an institution denied an application.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 12 CFR 1003.1.
\4\ As used in this final rule, the term ``data point'' refers
to items of information that entities are required to compile and
report, generally listed in separate paragraphs in Regulation C.
Some data points are reported using multiple data fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Dodd-Frank Act
In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended HMDA
and transferred HMDA rulemaking authority and other functions from the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to the
Bureau.\5\ Among other changes, the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope
of information relating to mortgage applications and loans that
institutions must compile, maintain, and report under HMDA.
Specifically, the Dodd-Frank Act amended HMDA section 304(b)(4) by
adding one new data point. The Dodd-Frank Act also added new HMDA
section 304(b)(5) and (6), which requires various additional new data
points.\6\ New HMDA section 304(b)(6), in addition, authorizes the
Bureau to require, ``as [it] may determine to be appropriate,'' a
unique identifier that identifies the loan originator, a universal loan
identifier (ULI), and the parcel number that corresponds to the real
property pledged as collateral for the mortgage loan.\7\ New HMDA
section 304(b)(5)(D) and (6)(J) further provides the Bureau with the
authority to mandate reporting of ``such other information as the
Bureau may require.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1980, 2035-38, 2097-101
(2010).
\6\ Dodd-Frank Act section 1094(3), amending HMDA section
304(b), 12 U.S.C. 2803(b).
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. 2015 HMDA Rule
In October 2015, the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Rule implementing
the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA.\9\ Most of the 2015 HMDA Rule
[[Page 28365]]
took effect on January 1, 2018.\10\ The 2015 HMDA Rule implemented the
new data points specified in the Dodd-Frank Act, added a number of
additional data points pursuant to the Bureau's discretionary authority
under HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6), and made revisions to certain
pre-existing data points to clarify their requirements, provide greater
specificity in reporting, and align certain data points more closely
with industry data standards, among other changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 80 FR 66128 (Oct. 28, 2015).
\10\ Id. at 66128, 66256-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 HMDA Rule requires some financial institutions to report
data on certain dwelling-secured, open-end lines of credit, including
home-equity lines of credit. Prior to the 2015 HMDA Rule, Regulation C
allowed, but did not require, reporting of home-equity lines of credit.
The 2015 HMDA Rule also established institutional coverage
thresholds based on loan volume that limit the definition of
``financial institution'' to include only those institutions that
either originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the
two preceding calendar years or originated at least 100 open-end lines
of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.\11\ The 2015
HMDA Rule separately established transactional coverage thresholds that
are part of the test for determining which loans are excluded from
coverage and were designed to work in tandem with the institutional
coverage thresholds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 66148-50, 66309 (codified at 12 CFR
1003.2(g)(1)(v)). The 2015 HMDA Rule excludes certain transactions
from the definition of covered loans, and those excluded
transactions do not count towards the threshold. Id.
\12\ Id. at 66173, 66310, 66322 (codified at 12 CFR
1003.3(c)(11) and (12)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. 2017 HMDA Rule
In April 2017, the Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to
address certain technical errors in the 2015 HMDA Rule, ease the burden
of reporting certain data requirements, and clarify key terms to
facilitate compliance with Regulation C.\13\ In July 2017, the Bureau
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (July 2017 HMDA Proposal) to
increase temporarily the 2015 HMDA Rule's open-end coverage threshold
of 100 for both institutional and transactional coverage, so that
institutions originating fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in
either of the two preceding calendar years would not have to commence
collecting or reporting data on their open-end lines of credit until
January 1, 2020.\14\ In August 2017, the Bureau issued the 2017 HMDA
Rule, which, inter alia, temporarily increased the open-end threshold
to 500 open-end lines of credit for calendar years 2018 and 2019.\15\
In doing so, the Bureau indicated that the two-year period would allow
time for the Bureau to decide, through an additional rulemaking,
whether any permanent adjustments to the open-end threshold are
needed.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Technical Corrections and Clarifying Amendments to the Home
Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) October 2015 Final Rule, 82 FR
19142 (Apr. 25, 2017).
\14\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) Temporary Increase
in Institutional and Transactional Coverage Thresholds for Open-End
Lines of Credit, 82 FR 33455 (July 20, 2017).
\15\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 82 FR 43088 (Sept.
13, 2017).
\16\ Id. at 43095. The 2017 HMDA Rule also, among other things,
replaced ``each'' with ``either'' in Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and (12) to
correct a drafting error and to ensure that the exclusion provided
in that section mirrors the loan-volume threshold for financial
institutions in Sec. 1003.2(g). Id. at 43100, 43102. Recognizing
the significant systems and operations challenges needed to adjust
to the revised regulation, the Bureau also issued a statement in
December 2017 indicating that, for HMDA data collected in 2018 and
reported in 2019, the Bureau did not intend to require data
resubmission unless data errors were material. Among other things,
the Bureau also indicated that it intended to engage in a rulemaking
to reconsider various aspects of the 2015 HMDA Rule, such as the
institutional and transactional coverage tests and the rule's
discretionary data points. Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot.,
``Statement with Respect to HMDA Implementation'' (Dec. 21, 2017),
available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_statement-with-respect-to-hmda-implementation_122017.pdf. The
Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National
Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency released similar statements relating to their
supervisory examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act and
2018 HMDA Rule
On May 24, 2018, the President signed into law the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA).\17\ Section
104(a) of the EGRRCPA amends HMDA section 304(i) by adding partial
exemptions from HMDA's requirements for certain insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions.\18\ New HMDA section 304(i)(1)
provides that the requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) shall
not apply with respect to closed-end mortgage loans of an insured
depository institution or insured credit union if it originated fewer
than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding
calendar years. New HMDA section 304(i)(2) provides that the
requirements of HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6) shall not apply with
respect to open-end lines of credit of an insured depository
institution or insured credit union if it originated fewer than 500
open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.
Notwithstanding the new partial exemptions, new HMDA section 304(i)(3)
provides that an insured depository institution must comply with HMDA
section 304(b)(5) and (6) if it has received a rating of ``needs to
improve record of meeting community credit needs'' during each of its
two most recent examinations or a rating of ``substantial noncompliance
in meeting community credit needs'' on its most recent examination
under section 807(b)(2) of the CRA.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
\18\ For purposes of HMDA section 104, the EGRRCPA provides that
the term ``insured credit union'' has the meaning given the term in
section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1752, and the
term ``insured depository institution'' has the meaning given the
term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C.
1813.
\19\ 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2018, the Bureau issued an interpretive and
procedural rule (2018 HMDA Rule) to implement and clarify the partial
exemptions established by section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA and effectuate
the purposes of the EGRRCPA and HMDA.\20\ In the 2018 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau stated that it anticipated that, at a later date, it would
initiate a notice-and-comment rulemaking to incorporate the
interpretations and procedures into Regulation C and further implement
the EGRRCPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Partial Exemptions from the Requirements of the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act Under the Economic Growth, Regulatory
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Regulation C), 83 FR 45325
(Sept. 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. May 2019 Proposal and 2019 HMDA Rule
On May 2, 2019, the Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(May 2019 Proposal) relating to Regulation C's coverage thresholds and
the EGRRCPA partial exemptions and requested public comment.\21\ In the
May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed two alternatives to amend
Regulation C to increase the current threshold of 25 closed-end
mortgage loans for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans so
that
[[Page 28366]]
institutions originating fewer than either 50 closed-end mortgage loans
or, alternatively, 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two
preceding calendar years would not have to report such data. The May
2019 Proposal proposed an effective date of January 1, 2020, for the
amendment to the closed-end coverage threshold. The May 2019 Proposal
also proposed to adjust the coverage threshold for reporting data about
open-end lines of credit by (a) extending to January 1, 2022 the
current temporary coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit,
and (b) setting the permanent coverage threshold at 200 open-end lines
of credit upon the expiration of the proposed extension of the
temporary coverage threshold. In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau also
proposed to make changes to effectuate section 104(a) of the EGRRCPA,
including incorporating into Regulation C the interpretations and
procedures from the 2018 HMDA Rule to implement and clarify section
104(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 84 FR 20972 (May
13, 2019). The Bureau also issued concurrently with the May 2019
Proposal an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit
comment, data, and information from the public about the data points
that the 2015 HMDA Rule added to Regulation C or revised to require
additional information and Regulation C's coverage of certain
business- or commercial-purpose transactions. Home Mortgage
Disclosure (Regulation C) Data Points and Coverage, 84 FR 20049 (May
8, 2019). The Bureau anticipates that it will issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking later this year to follow up on the ANPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment period for the May 2019 Proposal closed on June 12,
2019.\22\ The Bureau received over 300 comments during the initial
comment period from lenders, industry trade associations, consumer
groups, consumers, members of Congress, and others. Among the comments
received were a number of letters expressing concern that the national
loan level dataset for 2018 and the Bureau's annual overview of
residential mortgage lending based on that data (collectively, the 2018
HMDA Data \23\) would not be available until after the close of the
comment period for the May 2019 Proposal. Stakeholders asked to submit
comments on the May 2019 Proposal that reflect consideration of the
2018 HMDA Data. To allow for the submission of such comments, on July
31, 2019 the Bureau issued a notice to reopen the comment period on
certain aspects of the proposal until October 15, 2019 (July 2019
Reopening Notice).\24\ Specifically, the Bureau reopened the comment
period with respect to: (1) The Bureau's proposed amendments to the
permanent coverage threshold for closed-end mortgage loans, (2) the
Bureau's proposed amendments to the permanent coverage threshold for
open-end lines of credit, and (3) the appropriate effective date for
any amendment to the closed-end coverage threshold.\25\ The Bureau
stated that, after reviewing the comments received by the October 15,
2019 deadline, it anticipated that it would issue in 2020 this separate
final rule addressing the permanent thresholds for closed-end mortgage
loans and open-end lines of credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A separate comment period related to the Paperwork
Reduction Act closed on July 12, 2019. 84 FR 20972 (May 13, 2019).
\23\ This document uses ``2018 HMDA Data'' to refer to the
publicly available national loan level dataset for 2018 and the
Bureau's annual overview of residential mortgage lending, and ``2018
HMDA data'' to refer to the HMDA data submitted for collection year
2018.
\24\ See Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C); Reopening of
Comment Period, 84 FR 37804 (Aug. 2, 2019).
\25\ Id. at 37806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau concluded that further comment was not necessary with
respect to the other aspects of the May 2019 Proposal.\26\ The Bureau
therefore did not reopen the comment period with respect to the May
2019 Proposal's proposed two-year extension of the temporary coverage
threshold for open-end lines of credit or the provisions in the May
2019 Proposal that would incorporate the EGRRCPA partial exemptions
into Regulation C and further effectuate EGRRCPA section 104(a). The
Bureau issued a final rule that finalized as proposed these aspects of
the May 2019 Proposal on October 10, 2019 (2019 HMDA Rule).\27\ The
Bureau explained in the 2019 HMDA Rule that extending the current
threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit for an additional two years
would allow the Bureau to consider fully the appropriate level for the
permanent open-end coverage threshold for data collected beginning
January 1, 2022, after reviewing additional comments relating to that
aspect of the May 2019 Proposal. The Bureau also stated that such an
extension would ensure that any institutions that are covered under the
new permanent open-end coverage threshold would have until January 1,
2022, to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
\27\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 84 FR 57946 (Oct.
29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. HMDA Coverage Under Current Regulation C
The Bureau's estimates of HMDA coverage and the sources used in
deriving those estimates are explained in detail in the Bureau's
analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part VII below.\28\
The Bureau estimates that currently there are about 4,860 financial
institutions required to report their closed-end mortgage loans and
applications under HMDA. The Bureau estimates that approximately 4,120
of these current reporters are depository institutions and
approximately 740 are nondepository institutions. The Bureau estimates
that together these financial institutions originated about 6.3 million
closed-end mortgage loans in calendar year 2018. The Bureau estimates
that among the 4,860 financial institutions that are currently required
to report closed-end mortgage loans under HMDA, about 3,250 insured
depository institutions and insured credit unions are partially exempt
for closed-end mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA, and thus are not
required to report a subset of the data points currently required by
Regulation C for these transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See infra part VII.D.1. All coverage numbers provided in
this document are estimates based on available data, as explained in
part VII below. Due to rounding there may be some minor
discrepancies within the estimates provided. As discussed further in
part VII below, the Bureau's analyses in the May 2019 Proposal were
based on HMDA data collected in 2016 and 2017 and other sources. In
part VII of this final rule, the Bureau has supplemented the
analyses from the May 2019 Proposal with the 2018 HMDA data. See
infra part VII.E.2 & VII.E.3. In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that there were about 4,960 financial institutions
required to report their closed-end mortgage loans and applications
under HMDA, with about 4,263 of those reporters being depository
institutions and about 697 being nondepository institutions. The
Bureau estimated that together, these financial institutions
originated about 7 million closed-end mortgage loans in calendar
year 2017. The Bureau also estimated that among the estimated 4,960
closed-end reporters, about 3,300 insured depository institutions
and insured credit unions were eligible for a partial exemption
under the EGRRCPA. The estimates in this final rule differ slightly
from those in the May 2019 Proposal due to the supplementation of
the analyses with 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in more detail in part VII.E.3 and table 4 below,
under the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit,
the Bureau estimates that there are about 333 financial institutions
required under HMDA to report about 1.23 million open-end lines of
credit. Of these institutions, the Bureau estimates that approximately
318 are depository institutions and approximately 15 are nondepository
institutions. The Bureau estimates that none of these 333 institutions
are partially exempt under the EGRRCPA.
Absent this final rule, if the open-end coverage threshold were to
adjust to 100 on January 1, 2022, the Bureau estimates that the number
of reporters would be about 1,014, who in total originate about 1.41
million open-end lines of credit. The Bureau estimates that
approximately 972 of these open-end reporters would be depository
institutions and approximately 42 would be nondepository institutions.
The Bureau estimates that, among the 1,014 financial institutions that
would be required to report open-end lines of credit under a threshold
of 100, about 595 insured depository institutions and insured credit
unions are partially exempt for open-end lines of credit under the
EGRRCPA, and thus are not
[[Page 28367]]
required to report a subset of the data points currently required by
Regulation C for these transactions. Additional information on the
Bureau's estimates for open-end reporting, including the Bureau's
estimates at the permanent threshold of 200 lines of credit, is
provided in the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g) and part
VII below.
III. Summary of the Rulemaking Process
On May 2, 2019, the Bureau issued the May 2019 Proposal, which was
published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2019.\29\ As explained in
part II.F above, the comment period on the May 2019 Proposal closed on
June 12, 2019, and the Bureau subsequently reopened the comment period
with respect to certain aspects of the May 2019 Proposal until October
15, 2019.\30\ In total, the Bureau received over 700 comments in
response to the May 2019 Proposal and the July 2019 Reopening Notice
from lenders, industry trade associations, consumer groups, consumers,
and others.\31\ As discussed in more detail below, the Bureau has
considered the comments received both during the initial comment period
and in response to the July 2019 Reopening Notice in adopting this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C), 84 FR 20972 (May
13, 2019).
\30\ Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C); Reopening of
Comment Period, 84 FR 37804 (Aug. 2, 2019).
\31\ A large number of consumer groups, civil rights groups, and
other organizations stated in a joint comment letter in response to
the July 2019 Reopening Notice that, because the 2018 HMDA Data were
released in late August 2019, the reopened comment period did not
provide sufficient time for the public to analyze the proposed
changes prior to October 15, 2019. These commenters stated further
that the public was not provided a meaningful opportunity to comment
on the May 2019 Proposal and that the Bureau would not have the
benefit of fully informed comments that took into consideration the
2018 HMDA Data. The Bureau determines that additional time to
comment on the aspects of the May 2019 Proposal addressed in this
final rule is not necessary. The Bureau believes the more than 45-
day period between the release of the 2018 HMDA Data and the close
of the reopened comment period on October 15, 2019, provided
interested persons sufficient time to meaningfully review the
proposed changes relating to the permanent open-end and closed-end
thresholds and provide comment informed by the 2018 HMDA Data.
Regarding commenters' separate concerns over the Bureau's
dissemination of the data, the Bureau made available with the 2018
HMDA Data a HMDA data browser that facilitates analysis in
spreadsheet software, such as Excel, and allows users to filter the
national loan-level data to create summary tables and custom
datasets. The HMDA data browser allows users to, for example, create
summary tables that can be used to show which institutions are
active in a particular Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), state,
or county. Users can develop some understanding of the effect of
various loan-volume thresholds, for individual institutions, by
analyzing the publicly available modified loan/application register
data or, for all institutions, by analyzing the publicly available
national loan-level dataset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Legal Authority
The Bureau is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority
under the Dodd-Frank Act and HMDA. Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act
transferred to the Bureau the ``consumer financial protection
functions'' previously vested in certain other Federal agencies,
including the Board.\32\ The term ``consumer financial protection
function'' is defined to include ``all authority to prescribe rules or
issue orders or guidelines pursuant to any Federal consumer financial
law, including performing appropriate functions to promulgate and
review such rules, orders, and guidelines.'' \33\ Section 1022(b)(1) of
the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau's Director to prescribe rules
``as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer
and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer
financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.'' \34\ Both HMDA and
title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal consumer financial laws.\35\
Accordingly, the Bureau has authority to issue regulations to implement
HMDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 12 U.S.C. 5581. Section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act also
replaced the term ``Board'' with ``Bureau'' in most places in HMDA.
12 U.S.C. 2803 et seq.
\33\ 12 U.S.C. 5581(a)(1)(A).
\34\ 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
\35\ Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(14), 12 U.S.C. 5481(14)
(defining ``Federal consumer financial law'' to include the
``enumerated consumer laws'' and the provisions of title X of the
Dodd-Frank Act); Dodd-Frank Act section 1002(12), 12 U.S.C. 5481(12)
(defining ``enumerated consumer laws'' to include HMDA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMDA section 305(a) broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.\36\ These
regulations may include classifications, differentiations, or other
provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any
class of transactions, as in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary
and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA, and prevent
circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance
therewith.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 12 U.S.C. 2804(a).
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1003.2 Definitions
2(g) Financial Institution
Regulation C requires financial institutions to report HMDA data.
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial institution for purposes of
Regulation C and sets forth Regulation C's institutional coverage
criteria for depository financial institutions and nondepository
financial institutions.\38\ In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau adjusted
the institutional coverage criteria under Regulation C so that
depository institutions and nondepository institutions are required to
report HMDA data if they: (1) Originated at least 25 closed-end
mortgage loans or 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years, and (2) meet all of the other applicable
criteria for reporting. In the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau amended Sec.
1003.2(g) and related commentary to increase temporarily from 100 to
500 the number of open-end originations required to trigger reporting
responsibilities.\39\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed (1)
to amend Sec. Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A) and
1003.3(c)(11) and related commentary to raise the closed-end coverage
threshold to either 50 or 100 closed-end mortgage loans, and (2) to
amend Sec. Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and 1003.3(c)(12)
and related commentary to extend to January 1, 2022, the current
temporary open-end coverage threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit
and then to set the threshold permanently at 200 open-end lines of
credit beginning in calendar year 2022. In the 2019 HMDA Rule, as
discussed in part II.F above, the Bureau finalized the proposed
amendments relating to the two-year extension of the temporary open-end
coverage threshold. The Bureau stated at that time that it anticipated
that it would issue a separate final rule in 2020 addressing the
permanent thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines
of credit.\40\ For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is raising
the closed-end coverage threshold to 100, effective July 1, 2020, and
is finalizing the proposed permanent open-end coverage threshold of
200, effective January 1, 2022, upon expiration of the current
temporary open-end coverage threshold of 500.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 12 CFR 1003.2(g)(1) (definition of depository financial
institution); 1003.2(g)(2) (definition of nondepository financial
institution).
\39\ 82 FR 43088, 43095 (Sept. 13, 2017).
\40\ 84 FR 57946, 57949 (Oct. 29, 2019).
\41\ For discussion of the effective dates, see part VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Authority for Changes to Sec. 1003.2(g)
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau adopted the thresholds for
certain depository institutions in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1) pursuant to its
authority under section 305(a) of HMDA to provide for such adjustments
and exceptions for any
[[Page 28368]]
class of transactions that in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary
and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. Pursuant to section
305(a) of HMDA, for the reasons given in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
found that the exception in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1) is necessary and proper
to effectuate the purposes of and facilitate compliance with HMDA. The
Bureau found that the provision, by reducing burden on financial
institutions and establishing a consistent loan-volume test applicable
to all financial institutions, would facilitate compliance with HMDA's
requirements.\42\ Additionally, as discussed in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau adopted the thresholds for certain nondepository institutions in
Sec. 1003.2(g)(2) pursuant to its interpretation of HMDA sections
303(3)(B) and 303(5), which require persons other than banks, savings
associations, and credit unions that are ``engaged for profit in the
business of mortgage lending'' to report HMDA data. The Bureau stated
that it interprets these provisions, as the Board also did, to evince
the intent to exclude from coverage institutions that make a relatively
small number of mortgage loans.\43\ Pursuant to its authority under
HMDA section 305(a), and for the reasons discussed below, the Bureau
believes that the final rule's amendments to the thresholds in Sec.
1003.2(g)(1) and (2) are necessary and proper to effectuate the
purposes of HMDA and facilitate compliance with HMDA by reducing burden
and establishing a consistent loan-volume test, while still providing
significant market coverage.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 80 FR 66128, 66150 (Oct. 28, 2015).
\43\ Id. at 66153.
\44\ A State attorney general suggested in its comments that
increasing the thresholds exceeds the Bureau's legal authority, but
as discussed above, the Bureau is adopting the increased thresholds
based on its authority under section 305(a) of HMDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2(g)(1) Depository Financial Institution
2(g)(1)(v)
2(g)(1)(v)(A)
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial institution for purposes of
Regulation C and conditions Regulation C's institutional coverage, in
part, on the institution's closed-end mortgage loan origination volume.
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau added the threshold of 25 closed-end
mortgage loans to the pre-existing regulatory coverage scheme for
depository institutions.\45\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
proposed to amend Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and related commentary to
increase the closed-end threshold for depository institutions from 25
to 50 or, alternatively, 100 closed-end mortgage loans. For the reasons
discussed below, the Bureau is now amending Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A)
and related commentary to raise the threshold to 100 closed-end
mortgage loans.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 80 FR 66128, 66129 (Oct. 28, 2015). Prior to the 2015 HMDA
Rule, a bank, savings association, or credit union was covered under
Regulation C if: (1) On the preceding December 31, it satisfied an
asset-size threshold; (2) on the preceding December 31, it had a
home or branch office in an MSA; (3) during the previous calendar
year, it originated at least one home purchase loan or refinancing
of a home purchase loan secured by a first lien on a one- to four-
unit dwelling; and (4) the institution is federally insured or
regulated, or the mortgage loan referred to in item (3) was insured,
guaranteed, or supplemented by a Federal agency or intended for sale
to the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation. 12 CFR 1003.2 (2016).
\46\ In addition to finalizing changes that the Bureau proposed
to comment 2(g)-1 and changes related to optional reporting that are
discussed below, the final rule makes minor changes to comment 2(g)-
1 to update the years and loan-volumes in an example that
illustrates how the closed-end mortgage loan threshold works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background on Closed-End Mortgage Loan Threshold for Institutional
Coverage of Depository Institutions
HMDA and its implementing regulation, Regulation C, require certain
depository institutions (banks, savings associations, and credit
unions) to report data about originations and purchases of mortgage
loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that do not result in
originations (for example, applications that are denied or withdrawn).
In adopting the threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in the 2015
HMDA Rule, the Bureau stated that it believed that the institutional
coverage criteria should balance the burden on financial institutions
of reporting HMDA data against the value of the data reported and that
a threshold should be set that did not impair HMDA's ability to achieve
its purposes but also did not impose burden on institutions if their
data are of limited value.\47\ The Bureau also stated that the closed-
end threshold of 25 would meaningfully reduce burden by relieving an
estimated 1,400 depository institutions, or 22 percent of depository
institutions that previously reported HMDA data, of their obligations
to report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans.\48\ The Bureau
acknowledged that it would be possible to maintain reporting of a
significant percentage of the national mortgage market with a closed-
end threshold set higher than 25 loans annually and that data reported
by some institutions that would satisfy the threshold of 25 closed-end
mortgage loans may not be as useful for statistical analysis as data
reported by institutions with much higher loan volumes.\49\ However,
the Bureau determined that a higher closed-end threshold would have a
material negative impact on the availability of data about patterns and
trends at the local level and the data about local communities are
essential to achieve HMDA's purposes.\50\ The Bureau concluded that, if
it were to set the closed-end threshold higher than 25, the resulting
loss of data at the local level would substantially impede the public's
and public officials' ability to understand access to credit in their
communities.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 80 FR 66128, 66147 (Oct. 28, 2015).
\48\ Id. at 66148, 66277.
\49\ Id. at 66147.
\50\ Id.
\51\ Id. at 66148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, after issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule,
the Bureau heard concerns that lower-volume institutions continue to
experience significant burden with the threshold set at 25 closed-end
mortgage loans.\52\ For example, several depository institutions
recommended that the Bureau use its exemption authority to increase the
closed-end loan threshold and stated that the costs of HMDA reporting
and its impact on the operations of lower-volume financial institutions
do not justify the small amount of data such institutions would
report.\53\ In light of the concerns expressed by industry stakeholders
regarding the considerable burden associated with reporting the new
data points on closed-end mortgage loans required by the 2015 HMDA
Rule, in the May 2019 Proposal the Bureau proposed to increase the
closed-end threshold for institutions to ensure that it appropriately
balances the benefits of the HMDA data reported by lower-volume
institutions in furthering HMDA's purposes with the burden on
[[Page 28369]]
such institutions associated with reporting closed-end data. The Bureau
stated in the proposal that increasing the closed-end threshold may
provide meaningful burden relief for lower-volume depository
institutions without reducing substantially the data reported under
HMDA. The Bureau sought comments on how the proposed increase to the
closed-end threshold would affect the number of depository institutions
required to report data on closed-end mortgage loans, the significance
of the data that would not be available for achieving HMDA's purposes
as a result of the proposed increase, and the reduction in burden that
would result from the proposed increase for depository institutions
that would not be required to report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The Bureau temporarily raised the threshold for open-end
lines of credit in the 2017 HMDA Rule because of concerns based on
new information that the estimates the Bureau used in the 2015 HMDA
Rule may have understated the burden that open-end reporting would
impose on smaller institutions if they were required to begin
reporting on January 1, 2018. However, the Bureau declined to raise
the threshold for closed-end mortgage loans at that time and stated
that, in developing the 2015 HMDA Rule, it had robust data to make a
determination about the number of transactions that would be
reported at the threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans as well as
the one-time and ongoing costs to industry. 82 FR 43088, 43095-96
(Sept. 13, 2017).
\53\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau stated that it
received this recommendation in response to the Bureau's 2018
Request for Information Regarding the Bureau's Adopted Regulations
and New Rulemaking Authorities (RFI) although the 2015 HMDA Rule was
outside the scope of the RFI. See 84 FR 20972, 20976 (May 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received on Closed-End Threshold for Institutional Coverage of
Depository Institutions
The Bureau received many comments regarding the proposed
alternatives for increasing the closed-end threshold from 25 to 50 or,
alternatively, 100 in proposed Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). Except for
comments related to the EGRRCPA, commenters typically did not
distinguish between their recommended closed-end threshold for
depository institutions under Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and their
recommended closed-end threshold for nondepository institutions under
Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A).
Many commenters, including most financial institutions and national
and State trade associations that commented, supported increasing the
closed-end threshold. Most of these commenters discussed the burden of
collecting and reporting HMDA data, and despite acknowledging the
importance of HMDA data, stated that the cost of complying with
regulations has affected their ability to serve their communities. Many
industry commenters stated that the burden of complying with HMDA
requirements is exacerbated in smaller financial institutions due to
fewer staff and a lack of automated processes. A number of small
financial institutions stated that they have only a few employees who
work in mortgage lending and that these employees spend a considerable
amount of time on HMDA compliance, including collecting and entering
HMDA data into the appropriate software system and reviewing the data
for accuracy. One national trade association added that many small
financial institutions operate in geographic areas with shortages of
compliance professionals. Several industry commenters also noted that
the economies of scale that larger financial institutions can leverage
are generally not available to small financial institutions. Many small
financial institutions stated that, if the Bureau increased the closed-
end threshold and thus excluded them from HMDA's coverage, the
significant burden relief would allow their staff to focus on serving
customers.
A national trade association stated that a significant number of
small financial institutions limit or no longer offer specific mortgage
products due to the increased regulatory burden and legal risks
associated with such loans. This commenter stated that certain
institutions manage their mortgage lending to stay below the threshold
for HMDA reporting, which ultimately leaves customers with fewer
lending options, and suggested that an increase in the closed-end
threshold could increase the flow of credit by small banks into their
communities. For example, one small financial institution suggested
that, if it did not have to collect HMDA data, the resulting decrease
in compliance costs would allow it to maintain a program that provides
mortgages to low-to-moderate income families.
Several industry commenters stated that the loss of HMDA data as a
result of an increase in the closed-end threshold would not impact the
ability to identify potentially discriminatory lending or areas in need
of public sector investment. One national trade association stated that
institutions that would qualify for the exclusion under the thresholds
proposed by the Bureau were extremely small market participants with
limited loan volumes and that data on their lending patterns could be
obtained through the examination process. This commenter also suggested
that any type of fair lending peer comparisons using the HMDA data
could still be accurate because, under the proposed threshold of 100,
at least 96 percent of total originations would be retained. Many small
financial institutions stated that, in their fair lending exams, their
regulators have relied on HMDA data, but also on transaction testing
data and staff interviews, partly because of the limited number of
mortgage applications these institutions receive. These commenters
stated further that their regulators also retain full access to their
lending files and data needed for their fair lending assessment. A
number of commenters, including many small financial institutions and a
State trade association, stated that small financial institutions are
eligible for partial exemptions under the EGRRCPA and thus are already
exempt from reporting much of the data on their credit decisions that
would signal lending disparities, such as pricing information and
credit scores. The State trade association further stated that
examiners already need to review such institutions' files, rather than
relying on their HMDA data, to identify potentially discriminatory
lending patterns. A State trade association expressed the belief that,
due to budget constraints for some local governments and housing
authorities, HMDA data are not considered in the distribution of public
sector investments in certain areas. Moreover, this commenter stated
that, in areas where government authorities do consider HMDA data in
making public investment decisions, HMDA data from lower-volume
institutions make up a small percentage of the overall lending data
within the area and thus do not impact such investment decisions.
Relying on the reasons described above, most of the commenters
supporting the proposed increase to the closed-end threshold stated
that they preferred the proposed threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans over the proposed threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage loans. In
some cases, commenters urged the Bureau to consider increasing the
closed-end threshold even higher, such as to 250, 500, or 1,000. A
national trade association recommended increasing the closed-end
threshold to 500 to harmonize HMDA's coverage requirements with the
threshold for the EGRRCPA partial exemptions. A trade association and
some small financial institutions suggested that the Bureau increase
the threshold to 1,000 closed-end mortgage loans, expressing the belief
that the Bureau's proposal did not go far enough to distinguish small
lending institutions from larger institutions in the mortgage market.
The trade association reasoned that increasing the threshold to at
least 1,000 closed-end mortgage loans would meaningfully reduce
regulatory burden associated with HMDA compliance and allow
institutions to direct their cost savings towards improving customer
service, increasing consumer-friendly products, and continuing to
invest in their communities.
Other commenters, including many community organizations, consumer
advocates, research organizations, and individuals, opposed the
Bureau's proposal to increase the closed-end threshold. These
commenters stated that an increase to the closed-end threshold, which
would result in a decrease in HMDA data, would imperil HMDA's purpose
of assessing whether financial institutions are meeting the housing
[[Page 28370]]
needs of their communities. For example, one research organization
stated that robust, quality data are critical to the work of regulators
and community reinvestment advocates in assessing how well institutions
are serving their communities. One commenter stated that lenders rely
on HMDA data for internal fair lending and community reinvestment
compliance efforts and to assess their performance relative to that of
their peers and competitors. A comment letter from 19 U.S. Senators
stated that the Bureau's proposal ignores existing exemptions that
already reduce the usefulness of HMDA data in many communities. These
Senators pointed out that the 2015 HMDA Rule exempted 22 percent of
depository institutions that had previously been required to report
HMDA data, which resulted in a significant loss of data in certain
census tracts. They also noted that an underlying purpose of HMDA is to
show how institutions are serving local communities and stated that,
even if the loss of data from smaller-volume institutions would be
limited when compared to the overall market, the loss of the data would
have a real and meaningful impact for residents of affected
communities. In a joint comment letter, a large number of consumer
groups, civil rights groups, and other organizations expressed a
similar concern that increasing the threshold would result in a large
loss of HMDA reporting that would otherwise provide a view of lending
trends in underserved areas.
Many consumer groups, civil rights groups, and other organizations
also discussed the importance of HMDA data for transparency and
accountability, noting that the public visibility of HMDA data has
motivated financial institutions to increase lending to traditionally
underserved borrowers and communities. They expressed concern that the
smaller institutions that would no longer be required to report closed-
end data at the proposed higher thresholds disproportionately lend in
underserved neighborhoods and that the proposed threshold increase
would result in a more notable decrease in closed-end data for
distressed urban areas, rural areas, tribal areas, communities of
color, and neighborhoods that have a high number of immigrants. These
commenters asserted that for decades the public has used HMDA data to
uncover and address redlining and other fair lending and fair housing
violations and stated that an increase in the threshold would make
identifying such practices more difficult. A consumer advocacy
organization stated that lenders offering unfavorable and unsustainable
loan terms and refinance loans in the period just before the financial
crisis disproportionally targeted certain groups. Many commenters also
stated that an increase in the closed-end threshold would impact the
public's ability to evaluate whether public investments are successful
in revitalizing struggling areas. For example, one community group
noted that the loss of HMDA data from banks and credit unions operating
in rural towns and communities would result in less information about
where capital is being deployed in those areas.
Many commenters who were opposed to increasing the closed-end
threshold pointed out the impact that an increase to the closed-end
threshold would have on the work of Federal and State agencies. They
stated that raising the thresholds would compromise enforcement work
against unfair and deceptive lending because there would be less data
available to monitor such activity. Similarly, commenters stated that
examinations pursuant to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) would
become more burdensome because examiners would likely need to be onsite
to review data rather than using publicly available HMDA data. A State
attorney general commenter suggested that under the Bureau's proposal,
major lenders would be exempt from HMDA reporting and that the lack of
data from such lenders would affect its ability to ensure that all of
its residents are able to access affordable credit free of
discrimination. In addition, this commenter stated that the proposed
closed-end threshold increase would all but eliminate its ability to
enforce fair lending laws in ``hyper-localized'' markets in rural areas
because small, local lenders are disproportionately represented in
rural areas (the commenter did not define the term ``hyper-localized,''
but the Bureau understands this term as referring to markets that are
limited to a small geographic area).
Several commenters also expressed concerns about the impact that an
increase in the closed-end threshold would have on visibility into
specific loan products, such as loans for multifamily housing and
manufactured housing. For example, a State attorney general expressed
concerns that a threshold higher than the current threshold of 25 would
limit data reported on multifamily dwellings that provide a significant
source of affordable housing in urban areas across the State. Another
commenter opposed an increase to the closed-end threshold because of
concerns that it would decrease visibility into manufactured housing
loans, reasoning that there are a small number of lenders that make
such loans.
Many commenters who opposed an increase in the closed-end threshold
also stated that the cost savings that would result from excluding
lenders from HMDA reporting would be modest. These commenters asserted
that the burden of HMDA reporting is not so significant as to make up
for the loss of data that would otherwise be available at the current
threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans for the public and regulators
to monitor fair lending compliance. These commenters stated further
that the estimates of potential cost savings provided by the Bureau in
the proposal were too high and that the cost of HMDA reporting is low.
First, they stated that most of the lenders that would be excluded
under the Bureau's proposed rule are already exempt from reporting many
of the new HMDA data points because they qualify for partial exemptions
under the EGRRCPA and would therefore be reporting data that lenders
have been reporting for decades. Second, these commenters noted that
much of the data reportable under HMDA must be collected for other
rules, including the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure and Ability-to-
Repay/Qualified Mortgage rules, and ordinary underwriting standards.
Finally, these commenters stated that HMDA data should be collected as
a matter of sound banking practices and asserted that reporting the
data is unlikely to require substantial resources given modern
technological advancements.
Final Rule
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a) as discussed
above, the Bureau is finalizing the closed-end threshold for depository
institutions at 100 in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). As discussed below,
the Bureau believes that increasing the closed-end threshold to 100
will provide meaningful burden relief for lower-volume depository
institutions while maintaining reporting sufficient to achieve HMDA's
purposes.
Since the 2015 HMDA Rule was issued, a few developments have
affected the Bureau's analyses of the costs and benefits associated
with the closed-end threshold. The Bureau has gathered extensive
information regarding stakeholders' experience with the 2015 HMDA Rule,
through comments received in this rulemaking and other feedback. As
stated above, the Bureau has heard that financial institutions have
encountered
[[Page 28371]]
significant burdens in complying with the rule, and the Bureau is
particularly concerned about the increased burdens faced by smaller
institutions. Additionally, the Bureau now has access to HMDA data from
2018, which was the first year that financial institutions collected
data under the 2015 HMDA Rule, and has used these data in updating and
generating the estimates provided in this final rule. With the benefit
of this additional information about the 2015 HMDA Rule, and the new
data to supplement the Bureau's analyses, the Bureau is now in a better
position to assess both the benefits and burdens of the reporting
required under the 2015 HMDA Rule.
Another development since the 2015 HMDA Rule is the enactment of
the EGRRCPA, which created partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements
that certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions
may now use.\54\ The partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans
under the EGRRCPA relieves certain insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions that originated fewer than 500 closed-end
mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years of the
obligation to report many of the data points generally required by
Regulation C.\55\ While the EGRRCPA relieves burden for some depository
institutions, it does not relieve smaller depository institutions from
the burdens of reporting entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
\55\ See 84 FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau has considered the appropriate closed-end threshold in
light of these developments and the comments received. On balance, the
Bureau determines that the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans
provides sufficient information on closed-end mortgage lending to serve
HMDA's purposes, while appropriately reducing ongoing costs that
smaller institutions are incurring under the current threshold. These
considerations are discussed in turn below, and additional explanation
of the Bureau's cost estimates is provided in the Bureau's analysis
under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part VII.E.2 below.
Effect on Market Coverage
For this final rule, the Bureau reviewed multiple data sources,
including recent HMDA data \56\ and Reports of Condition and Income
(Call Reports), and developed estimates for the two thresholds the
Bureau proposed in the alternative, 50 and 100, as well as thresholds
of 250 and 500, which many commenters suggested the Bureau consider.
The Bureau notes that many of the estimates provided in this final rule
differ slightly from the initial estimates provided in the May 2019
Proposal. As discussed below in part VII.E.2, the estimates in this
final rule update the initial estimates provided in the May 2019
Proposal with the 2018 HMDA data, which were not available at the time
the Bureau developed the May 2019 Proposal. For the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau used data from 2016 and 2017 with a two-year look-back
period covering calendar years 2016 and 2017 to estimate potential
reporters and projected the lending activities of financial
institutions using their 2017 data as proxies. In generating the
updated estimates provided in this final rule, the Bureau has used data
from 2017 and 2018 with a two-year look-back period covering calendar
years 2017 and 2018 to estimate potential reporters and has projected
the lending activities of financial institutions using their 2018 data
as proxies. In addition, for the estimates provided in the May 2019
Proposal and in this final rule, the Bureau restricted the projected
reporters to only those that actually reported data in the most recent
year of HMDA data considered (2017 for the May 2019 Proposal and 2018
for this final rule).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The Bureau stated in the May 2019 Proposal that it intended
to review the 2018 HMDA data more closely in connection with this
rulemaking once the 2018 submissions were more complete. The Bureau
released the 2018 HMDA Data including the two data point articles on
August 30, 2019, and reopened the comment period until October 15,
2019, to give commenters an opportunity to comment on the 2018 HMDA
Data. The estimates reflected in this final rule are based on the
HMDA data collected in 2017 and 2018 as well as other sources.
\57\ The Bureau recognizes that the coverage estimates generated
using this restriction may omit certain financial institutions that
should have reported but did not report in the most recent HMDA
reporting year. However, the Bureau applied this restriction to
ensure that institutions included in its coverage estimates are in
fact financial institutions for purposes of Regulation C because it
recognizes that institutions might not meet the Regulation C
definition of financial institution for reasons that are not evident
in the data sources that it utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimates below compare coverage under these thresholds to
coverage under the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans.
The estimated effect that increasing the threshold from 25 closed-end
mortgage loans to various higher thresholds would have on the overall
HMDA data, local-level HMDA data, and specific loan products reported
are discussed in turn below.
Effect on covered depository institutions and reportable
originations. For this final rule, the Bureau has considered the impact
that the two alternative proposed thresholds and other possible
thresholds would have on the number of depository institutions that
would report HMDA data and how many originations they would report.\58\
The Bureau estimates that if the closed-end threshold were increased
from 25 to 50, approximately 3,400 out of approximately 4,120
depository institutions covered under the current threshold of 25 (or
approximately 85 percent) would continue to be required to report HMDA
data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau estimates that
if the threshold were increased from 25 to 50, approximately 98.9
percent or approximately 2.89 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The estimates for coverage and reportable originations
described in this section cover only depository institutions.
Estimates for coverage of nondepository institutions and reportable
originations of nondepository institutions are described in the
section-by-section analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) below. For
estimates that are comprehensive of depository and nondepository
institutions, see part VII.E.2 below.
\59\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 50, about 3,518 out
of about 4,263 depository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 83 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and approximately 99
percent or approximately 3.54 million total originations of closed-
end mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by
depository institutions under the current Regulation C coverage
criteria would continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the
estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule are
mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly available 2018
HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau estimates that with the closed-end threshold set at 100
under the final rule, approximately 2,480 out of approximately 4,120
depository institutions covered under the current threshold of 25 (or
approximately 60 percent) will continue to be required to report HMDA
data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau estimates that
when the final rule increases the closed-end threshold from 25 to 100
loans, approximately 96 percent or approximately 2.79 million total
originations of closed-end mortgage loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions under the current Regulation C
coverage criteria will continue to be reported.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 100, about 2,581 out
of about 4,263 depository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 61 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and approximately 90
percent or approximately 3.43 million total originations of closed-
end mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by
depository institutions under the current Regulation C coverage
criteria would continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the
estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule are
mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly available 2018
HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28372]]
The Bureau also generated estimates for closed-end thresholds
higher than those that the Bureau proposed. These estimates indicate
that the decrease in the number of depository institutions that would
be required to report HMDA data and the resulting decrease in the HMDA
data that would be reported becomes more pronounced at thresholds
higher than 100. For example, if the closed-end threshold were set at
250, the Bureau estimates that approximately 1,340 out of approximately
4,120 depository institutions covered under the current threshold of 25
(or approximately 32 percent) would continue to be required to report
HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau estimates
that, if the threshold were set at 250 closed-end mortgage loans,
approximately 89 percent or approximately 2.57 million total
originations of closed-end mortgage loans in current market conditions
reported by depository institutions under the current Regulation C
coverage criteria would continue to be reported.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 250, about 1,413 out
of about 4,263 depository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 33 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and approximately 90
percent or approximately 3.21 million total originations of closed-
end mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by
depository institutions under the current Regulation C coverage
criteria would continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the
estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule are
mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly available 2018
HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau estimates that if the closed-end threshold were set at
500, approximately 720 out of approximately 4,120 depository
institutions covered under the current threshold of 25 (or
approximately 18 percent) would continue to be required to report HMDA
data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau estimates that,
if the threshold were set at 500, approximately 81 percent or
approximately 2.34 million total originations of closed-end mortgage
loans in current market conditions reported by depository institutions
under the current Regulation C coverage criteria would continue to be
reported.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 500, about 798 out of
about 4,263 depository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 19 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and approximately 83
percent or approximately 2.97 million total originations of closed-
end mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by
depository institutions under the current Regulation C coverage
criteria would continue to be reported. As explained above and in
greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the
estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule are
mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly available 2018
HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, many commenters opposed increasing the closed-
end threshold because of concerns that there would be less data with
which to further HMDA's statutory purposes. While the Bureau recognizes
that the increase in the threshold to 100 closed-end mortgage loans
will reduce market coverage compared to the current threshold of 25,
the Bureau estimates that information covering approximately 96 percent
of loans currently reported will still be available to further HMDA's
statutory purposes. The Bureau believes that the small amount of HMDA
data obtained from lower-volume depository institutions does not
justify the costs imposed on those institutions to comply with HMDA
data reporting requirements.
Although a commenter suggested the Bureau increase the closed-end
threshold to 500 to harmonize the thresholds with the EGRRCPA
provisions, the Bureau determines that it is not appropriate to set the
closed-end threshold at 500. Doing so would provide a complete
exclusion from reporting all closed-end data for institutions below the
threshold of 500, even though Congress opted to provide only a partial
exemption at the threshold of 500, and would extend that complete
exclusion to institutions that Congress did not include in even the
partial exemption. The EGRRCPA partial exemption already relieves most
lenders originating fewer than 500 closed-end loans in each of the two
preceding calendar years from the requirement to report many data
points associated with their closed-end transactions.\63\ Providing a
complete exclusion at 500 closed-end mortgage loans would exclude
visibility into approximately 82 percent of institutions covered under
the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans, which would
result in a significant loss of coverage in closed-end lending and
negatively impact the utility of HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ As discussed in more detail in part VII.E.2 below, about
1,620 of the estimated 2,480 financial institutions that the Bureau
estimates will report closed-end loans at the threshold of 100 are
eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA. The Bureau
estimates that these partially exempt institutions report only
369,000 out of the estimated 2.7 million closed-end mortgage loans
that will be reported at the threshold of 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on HMDA data at the local level. For the proposal and this
final rule, the Bureau reviewed estimates at varying closed-end
thresholds to examine the potential effect on available data at the
census tract level. The Bureau's estimates of the effect on reportable
HMDA data at the census tract level comprise both depository
institutions and nondepository institutions. The Bureau estimates that,
if the closed-end threshold were raised from 25 to 50, approximately
74,300 out of the approximately 74,600 total census tracts in which
HMDA data are currently reported, or over 99 percent, would retain more
than 80 percent of reportable HMDA data, relative to the current
threshold. The Bureau estimates there would be a decrease of at least
20 percent of reportable HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans
relative to the current threshold in approximately 300 out of
approximately 74,600 total census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or less than one-half of 1 percent. With respect to
low-to-moderate income census tracts, if the closed-end threshold were
raised from 25 to 50, the Bureau estimates that, relative to the
current threshold of 25, over 99 percent of low-moderate income census
tracts would retain more than 80 percent of reportable HMDA data, and
there would be at least a 20 percent decrease in reportable HMDA data
on closed-end mortgage loans in less than 1 percent of such tracts. In
addition, the Bureau examined the effects on rural census tracts and
estimates that, relative to the current threshold of 25, more than 98
percent of rural tracts would retain more than 80 percent of reportable
HMDA data, and there would be at least a 20 percent decrease in
reportable HMDA data in just over 1 percent of rural tracts.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 50, there would be a
loss of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in just under
300 out of approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or less than
one-half of 1 percent of the total number of census tracts, relative
to the current threshold. For low-to-moderate income census tracts,
the Bureau estimated that there would be a loss of at least 20
percent of reportable HMDA data in less than 1 percent of such
tracts relative to the current threshold, and for rural census
tracts, the Bureau estimated there would be at least a 20 percent
loss of reportable HMDA data in less than one-half of 1 percent of
such tracts relative to the current threshold. As explained above
and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the
estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this final rule are
mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly available 2018
HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28373]]
With the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans established by
this final rule, the Bureau estimates that, relative to the current
threshold of 25, approximately 73,400 census tracts out of
approximately 74,600 total census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or over 98 percent, would retain more than 80
percent of reportable HMDA data. The Bureau estimates that there will
be a decrease of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data on closed-
end mortgage loans relative to the current threshold in about 1,200 out
of approximately 74,600 total census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or under 2 percent. For low-to-moderate income
census tracts, with the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans, the
Bureau estimates that, relative to the current threshold of 25,
approximately 97 percent of such tracts will retain more than 80
percent of reportable HMDA data, and there will be a decrease of at
least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in approximately 3 percent of
such tracts. The Bureau also estimates that, relative to the current
threshold of 25, approximately 95 percent of rural tracts will retain
more than 80 percent of reportable HMDA data, and there will be a
decrease of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in
approximately 5 percent of such tracts.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 100, there would be a
loss of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in about 1,100
out of approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or 1.5 percent of
the total number of census tracts, relative to the current
threshold. For low-to-moderate income census tracts, the Bureau
estimated that there would be a loss of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in 3 percent of such tracts relative to the
current threshold, and for rural census tracts, the Bureau estimated
there would be at least a 20 percent loss of reportable HMDA data in
less than 3 percent of such tracts relative to the current
threshold. As explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2
below, the differences in the estimates between the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau's estimates also reflect that the effect on data
available at the census tract level would become more pronounced at
closed-end mortgage loan thresholds above 100. For example, the Bureau
estimates that, if the threshold were increased from 25 to 250 loans,
approximately 68,800 out of the approximately 74,600 total census
tracts in which HMDA data are currently reported, or over 92 percent,
would retain more than 80 percent of reportable HMDA data, relative to
the current threshold. The Bureau estimates there would be a decrease
of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data on closed-end mortgage
loans in about 5,800 out of approximately 74,600 total census tracts in
which HMDA data are currently reported, or about 8 percent of those
census tracts, relative to the current threshold. For low-to-moderate
income census tracts, if the threshold were increased from 25 to 250,
the Bureau estimates that approximately 90 percent of tracts would
retain more than 80 percent of reportable HMDA data, and there would be
a decrease of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in
approximately 10 percent of such tracts, relative to the current
threshold. For rural tracts, the Bureau estimates that approximately 81
percent of tracts would retain more than 80 percent of reportable HMDA
data, and there would be a decrease of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in approximately 19 percent of such tracts,
relative to the current threshold.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 250, there would be a
loss of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in over 4,000
out of approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or 5.4 percent of
the total number of census tracts, relative to the current
threshold. For low-to-moderate income census tracts, the Bureau
estimated that there would be a loss of at least 20 percent of
reportable HMDA data in just over 8 percent of such tracts relative
to the current threshold, and for rural census tracts, the Bureau
estimated there would be at least a 20 percent loss of reportable
HMDA data in about 14 percent of such tracts relative to the current
threshold. As explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2
below, the differences in the estimates between the May 2019
Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Bureau estimates that, if the closed-end threshold
were increased from 25 to 500 loans, approximately 60,500 out of
approximately 74,600 total census tracts in which HMDA data are
currently reported, or approximately 81 percent, would retain more than
80 percent of reportable HMDA data. The Bureau estimates there would be
a decrease of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data on closed-end
mortgage loans in approximately 14,100, or 19 percent of the total
number of census tracts in which HMDA data are currently reported,
relative to the current threshold of 25. For low-to-moderate income
census tracts, the Bureau estimates that, if the threshold were
increased from 25 to 500, over 78 percent of such tracts would retain
more than 80 percent of reportable HMDA data, and there would be a
decrease of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in over 21
percent of such tracts. For rural census tracts, the Bureau estimates
that approximately 62 percent of such tracts would retain more than 80
percent of reportable HMDA data, and there would be a decrease of at
least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in approximately 37 percent of
such tracts, relative to the current threshold.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 500, there would be a
loss of at least 20 percent of reportable HMDA data in approximately
11,000 out of approximately 74,000 total census tracts, or 14.9
percent of the total number of census tracts, relative to the
current threshold. For low-to-moderate income census tracts, the
Bureau estimated that there would be a loss of at least 20 percent
of reportable HMDA data in 17 percent of such tracts relative to the
current threshold, and for rural census tracts, the Bureau estimated
there would be at least a 20 percent loss of reportable HMDA data in
32 percent of such tracts relative to the current threshold. As
explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this
final rule are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly
available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau recognizes that any loan-volume threshold will affect
individual markets differently, depending on the extent to which
smaller creditors service individual markets and the market share of
those creditors. The Bureau concludes, however, based on the estimates
provided above, that the threshold of 100 closed-end loans adopted in
this final rule will provide substantial visibility into rural and low-
to-moderate income tracts and permit the public and public officials to
identify patterns and trends at the local level. At the same time, the
Bureau is concerned that the higher closed-end mortgage loan-volume
thresholds above 100 suggested by industry commenters could have a
material negative impact on the availability of data about patterns and
trends at the local level and could affect the availability of data
necessary to achieve HMDA's purposes.
Specific types of data. The Bureau has also considered the impact
that increasing the threshold could have on data related to specific
types of closed-end lending mentioned by commenters, such as
applications and originations related to multifamily housing and
manufactured housing lending. The Bureau estimates that with the
closed-end threshold increased from 25 to 100 under the final rule,
approximately 87 percent of multifamily loan applications and
originations will continue to be reported by depository and
nondepository institutions combined, when compared to the current
threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in today's market conditions.
Regarding the effect on manufactured housing data, the Bureau estimates
that at a threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans, approximately 96
percent of loans and applications related to manufactured housing will
continue to
[[Page 28374]]
be reported by depository and nondepository institutions combined, when
compared to the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in
today's market conditions. Increasing the threshold above 100 would
have a more pronounced impact on data regarding both multifamily
housing and manufactured housing lending. Although less data will be
available regarding multifamily housing and manufactured housing
lending at the threshold of 100 than at the current threshold, the
Bureau believes that the limited decreases in the amount of data are
justified by the benefits of relieving smaller-volume institutions of
the burdens of HMDA reporting.
Ongoing Cost Reduction From Threshold of 100
As noted above, small financial institutions and trade associations
commented on the cost of HMDA reporting, suggesting that compliance
costs have had an impact on the ability of small financial institutions
to serve their customers and communities. For the proposal and this
final rule, the Bureau developed estimates for depository and
nondepository institutions combined to determine the savings in annual
ongoing costs at various thresholds.\68\ These estimates illustrate the
cost savings under the various thresholds when compared to the current
threshold of 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ These cost estimates reflect the combined ongoing reduction
in costs for depository and nondepository institutions. These
estimates also take into account the enactment of the EGRRCPA, which
created partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements that certain
insured depository institutions and insured credit unions may use,
and reflect updates made to the cost estimates since the May 2019
Proposal. See part VII.E.2 below for a more comprehensive discussion
of the cost estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau estimates that if the closed-end threshold were set at
50, institutions that originate between 25 and 49 closed-end mortgage
loans would save approximately $3.7 million per year in total annual
ongoing costs, relative to the current threshold of 25.\69\ The Bureau
estimates that with a threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans
established by the final rule, institutions that originate between 25
and 99 closed-end mortgage loans will save approximately $11.2 million
per year, relative to the current threshold of 25.\70\ With a threshold
of 250 or 500 closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau estimates that
institutions would save approximately $27.2 million and $45.4 million,
respectively, relative to the current threshold of 25. Based on the
Bureau's estimates, the Bureau believes that the cost reduction from
increasing the threshold from 25 to 100 closed-end mortgage loans is
significant and more than double the cost savings that a threshold of
50 closed-end mortgage loans would have provided, providing meaningful
cost savings to institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 50, the aggregate
savings on the operational costs associated with reporting closed-
end mortgage loans would be approximately $2.2 million per year. As
explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this
final rule are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly
available 2018 HMDA data.
\70\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 100, the aggregate
savings on the operational costs associated with reporting closed-
end mortgage loans would be approximately $8.1 million per year. As
explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this
final rule are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly
available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau recognizes that the estimated ongoing costs savings
associated with increasing the threshold from 25 to 100 closed-end
loans are less than they would have been absent the relief provided by
the EGRRCPA. Nonetheless, the Bureau determines that these ongoing cost
savings will provide meaningful burden reduction to smaller
institutions that are currently covered at the threshold of 25 closed-
end loans but will be excluded from closed-end reporting under the
increased threshold in this final rule. Avoiding the imposition of such
costs for these affected institutions may also enable smaller
institutions to focus on lending activities and serving their
communities, as suggested by some commenters.
The Bureau concludes that increasing the closed-end threshold to
100 will provide meaningful burden relief for lower-volume depository
institutions while maintaining reporting sufficient to achieve HMDA's
purposes. As discussed above, the Bureau has heard of significant
burdens in complying with the 2015 HMDA Rule, especially from smaller
institutions, and the Bureau has been able to confirm the impact of the
rule and any potential changes to the closed-end threshold, based on
the new 2018 HMDA data. The Bureau recognizes that there is some loss
of data at this threshold but believes that it strikes the right
balance between the burden of collecting and reporting and the benefit
of HMDA data. The Bureau's estimates reflect an estimated decrease of
about 4 percent of total originations by depository institutions
reportable under the current closed-end threshold of 25 in today's
market conditions. According to the Bureau's estimates, about 60
percent of current HMDA reporters that are depository institutions will
continue to report HMDA data, and only approximately 1,200 out of
74,600 census tracts will reflect a decrease of at least 20 percent in
HMDA data from depository and nondepository institutions. Therefore,
the Bureau believes that the decrease in data from institutions that
will be newly excluded with the closed-end threshold set at 100 is
justified by the significant reduction in burden for the approximately
1,640 lower-volume depository institutions that will no longer be
required to report HMDA data when compared to the current threshold of
25. The threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans balances the
benefits and burdens of covering institutions engaged in closed-end
mortgage lending by retaining significant coverage of the closed-end
market while excluding from coverage smaller institutions whose limited
closed-end data would be of lesser utility in furthering HMDA's
purposes. For the reasons stated above, the Bureau is amending Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and comments 2(g)-1 and 2(g)-5 to adjust the
threshold to 100 closed-end mortgage loans. As discussed in part VI.A
below, the change to the closed-end threshold will take effect on July
1, 2020, to provide relief quickly.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Thus, as comment 2(g)-1 explains, in 2021, a financial
institution does not meet the loan-volume test described in Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) if it originated fewer than 100 closed-end
mortgage loans during either 2019 or 2020. See part VI.A below for a
discussion of the HMDA obligations for the 2020 data collection year
of institutions affected by the closed-end threshold change, and see
the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) in this part
for a discussion of optional reporting of 2020 closed-end data
permitted for such institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2(g)(1)(v)(B)
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial institution for purposes of
Regulation C and conditions Regulation C's institutional coverage, in
part, on the institution's open-end line of credit origination volume.
In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau established the threshold at 100
open-end lines of credit and required financial institutions that
originate at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years to report data on open-end lines of
credit.\72\ In the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau amended Sec. 1003.2(g)
to increase for two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019) the open-end
threshold from 100 to 500 open-end lines of credit. In the May 2019
Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend
[[Page 28375]]
Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and comments 2(g)-3 and -5, effective January
1, 2020, to extend until January 1, 2022, the temporary open-end
institutional coverage threshold for depository institutions of 500
open-end lines of credit. Upon expiration of this temporary threshold,
the Bureau proposed to increase the permanent threshold from 100 to 200
open-end lines of credit.\73\ The Bureau sought comments on how the
proposed temporary and permanent increases to the open-end threshold
would affect the number of financial institutions required to report
data on open-end lines of credit, the significance of the data that
would not be available for achieving HMDA's purposes as a result of the
proposed increases, and the reduction in burden that would result from
the proposed increases for institutions that would not be required to
report. In the 2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau finalized the proposed
extension of the temporary open-end institutional coverage threshold
for depository institutions of 500 open-end lines of credit in Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) until January 1, 2022.\74\ For the reasons discussed
below, the Bureau is now finalizing the proposed amendments to Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and comments 2(g)-3 and -5 to increase the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit, effective January
1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Section 1003.3(c)(12) includes a complementary
transactional coverage threshold set at the same level that
determines whether a financial institution is required to collect
and report data on open-end lines of credit.
\73\ The Bureau also proposed conforming changes to the
institutional coverage threshold for nondepository institutions in
Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) and to the transactional coverage
threshold in Sec. 1003.3(c)(12), as discussed below.
\74\ The Bureau also finalized conforming amendments to extend
for two years the temporary open-end institutional coverage
threshold for nondepository institutions in Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) and to align the timeframe of the temporary
open-end transactional coverage threshold in Sec. 1003.3(c)(12).
Because the extension of the temporary threshold lasts two years,
and the Bureau had not yet made a determination about its proposed
permanent threshold when it issued the 2019 HMDA Rule, that rule
would have restored effective January 1, 2022 the threshold set in
the 2015 HMDA Rule of 100 open-end lines of credit in Sec. Sec.
1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12) absent this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background on Reporting Data Concerning Open-End Lines of Credit Under
the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule
By its terms, the definition of ``mortgage loan'' in HMDA covers
all loans secured by residential real property and home improvement
loans, whether open- or closed-end.\75\ However, home-equity lines of
credit were uncommon in the 1970s and early 1980s when Regulation C was
first issued, and the Board's definition of mortgage loan covered only
closed-end loans. In 2000, in response to the increasing importance of
open-end lending in the housing market, the Board proposed to revise
Regulation C to require mandatory reporting of all home-equity lines of
credit, which lenders had the option to report.\76\ However, the
Board's 2002 final rule left open-end reporting voluntary, as the Board
determined that the benefits of mandatory reporting relative to other
then-proposed amendments (such as collecting information about higher-
priced loans) did not justify the increased burden.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ HMDA section 303(2), 12 U.S.C. 2802(2).
\76\ 65 FR 78656, 78659-60 (Dec. 15, 2000). In 1988, the Board
had amended Regulation C to permit, but not require, financial
institutions to report certain home-equity lines of credit. 53 FR
31683, 31685 (Aug. 19, 1988).
\77\ 67 FR 7222, 7225 (Feb. 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Rule, open-end mortgage lending
continued to increase in the years following the Board's 2002 final
rule, particularly in areas with high home-price appreciation.\78\ In
light of that development and the role that open-end lines of credit
may have played in contributing to the financial crisis,\79\ the Bureau
decided in the 2015 HMDA Rule to require reporting of dwelling-secured,
consumer purpose open-end lines of credit,\80\ concluding that doing so
was a reasonable interpretation of ``mortgage loan'' in HMDA and
necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and prevent
evasions thereof.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 80 FR 66128, 66160 (Oct. 28, 2015).
\79\ Id. The Bureau stated in the 2015 HMDA Rule that research
indicated that some real estate investors used open-end, home-
secured lines of credit to purchase non-owner-occupied properties,
which correlated with higher first-mortgage defaults and home-price
depreciation during the financial crisis. Id. In the years leading
up to the crisis, such home-equity lines of credit often were made
and fully drawn more or less simultaneously with first-lien home
purchase loans, essentially creating high loan-to-value home
purchase transactions that were not visible in the HMDA dataset. Id.
\80\ The Bureau also required reporting of applications for, and
originations of, dwelling-secured commercial-purpose lines of credit
for home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing purposes. Id. at
66171.
\81\ Id. at 66157-62. HMDA and Regulation C are designed to
provide citizens and public officials sufficient information about
mortgage lending to ensure that financial institutions are serving
the housing needs of their communities, to assist public officials
in distributing public-sector investment so as to attract private
investment to areas where it is needed, and to assist in identifying
possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing
antidiscrimination statutes. The Bureau believes that collecting
information about all dwelling-secured, consumer-purpose open-end
lines of credit serves these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, in expanding coverage to include
mandatory reporting of open-end lines of credit, the Bureau recognized
that doing so would impose one-time and ongoing operational costs on
reporting institutions, that the one-time costs of modifying processes
and systems and training staff to begin open-end line of credit
reporting likely would impose significant costs on some institutions,
and that institutions' ongoing reporting costs would increase as a
function of their open-end lending volume.\82\ The Bureau sought to
avoid imposing these costs on small institutions with limited open-end
lending, where the benefits of reporting the data did not justify the
costs of reporting.\83\ In seeking to draw such a line, the Bureau
acknowledged that it was handicapped by the lack of available data
concerning open-end lending.\84\ This created challenges both in
estimating the distribution of open-end origination volume across
financial institutions and in estimating the one-time and ongoing costs
that institutions of various sizes would be likely to incur in
reporting data on open-end lending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Id. at 66128, 66161.
\83\ Id. at 66149.
\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the one-time and ongoing costs of reporting data under
HMDA in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau identified seven ``dimensions''
of compliance operations and used those to define three broadly
representative financial institutions according to the overall level of
complexity of their compliance operations: ``tier 1'' (high-
complexity), ``tier 2'' (moderate-complexity), and ``tier 3'' (low-
complexity).\85\ The Bureau then sought to estimate one-time and
ongoing costs for a representative institution in each tier.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Id. at 66261, 66269-70. In the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017
HMDA Rule, the Bureau assigned financial institutions to tiers by
adopting cutoffs based on the estimated open-end line of credit
volume. Id. at 66285; 82 FR 43088, 43128 (Sept. 13, 2017).
Specifically, the Bureau assumed the lenders that originated fewer
than 200 but more than 100 open-end lines of credit were tier 3
(low-complexity) open-end reporters; lenders that originate between
200 and 7,000 open-lines of credit were tier 2 (moderate-complexity)
open-end reporters; and lenders that originated more than 7,000
open-end lines of credit were tier 1 (high-complexity) open-end
reporters. 80 FR 66128, 66285 (Oct. 28, 2015); 82 FR 43088, 43128
(Sept. 13, 2017). As explained below in part VII.D.1, for purposes
of this final rule, the Bureau has used a more precise methodology
to assign excluded financial institutions to tiers 2 and 3 for their
open-end reporting, which relies on constraints relating to the
estimated numbers of impacted institutions and loan/application
register records for the applicable provision.
\86\ 80 FR 66128, 66264-65 (Oct. 28, 2015); see also id. at
66284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau recognized in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the one-time cost
of reporting open-end lines of credit could be substantial because most
financial institutions had not reported open-end lines of credit and
thus would have to
[[Page 28376]]
develop completely new systems to begin reporting these data. As a
result, there would be one-time costs to create processes and systems
for open-end lines of credit.\87\ However, for low-complexity tier 3
institutions, the Bureau believed that the additional one-time costs of
open-end reporting would be relatively low. Because these institutions
are less reliant on information technology systems for HMDA reporting
and they may process open-end lines of credit on the same system and in
the same business unit as closed-end mortgage loans, their one-time
costs would be derived mostly from new training and procedures adopted
for the overall changes in the final rule, not distinct from costs
related to changes in reporting of closed-end mortgage loans.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id. at 66264; see also id. at 66284-85.
\88\ Id. at 66265; see also id. at 66284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau acknowledged in the 2015 HMDA Rule that ongoing costs
for open-end reporting vary by institutions due to many factors, such
as size, operational structure, and product complexity, and that this
variance makes it impossible to provide complete and definitive cost
estimates.\89\ At the same time, the Bureau stated that it believed
that the HMDA reporting process and ongoing operational cost structure
for open-end reporting would be fundamentally similar to closed-end
reporting.\90\ Thus, using the ongoing cost estimates developed for
closed-end reporting, the Bureau estimated that for a representative
high-complexity tier 1 institution the ongoing operational costs would
be $273,000 per year; for a representative moderate-complexity tier 2
institution $43,400 per year; and for a representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution $8,600 per year.\91\ These translated into costs per
HMDA record of approximately $9, $43, and $57 respectively.\92\ The
Bureau acknowledged that, precisely because no good source of publicly
available data existed concerning open-end lines of credit, it was
difficult to predict the accuracy of the Bureau's cost estimates but
also stated its belief that these estimates were reasonably
reliable.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Id. at 66285.
\90\ Id.
\91\ Id. at 66264, 66286.
\92\ Id.
\93\ Id. at 66162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drawing on all of these estimates, the Bureau decided in the 2015
HMDA Rule to establish an open-end threshold that would require
institutions that originate 100 or more open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding calendar years to report data on such lines
of credit. The Bureau estimated that this threshold would avoid
imposing the burden of establishing mandatory open-end reporting on
approximately 3,000 predominantly smaller-sized institutions with low-
volume open-end lending \94\ and would require reporting by 749
financial institutions, all but 24 of which would also report data on
their closed-end mortgage lending.\95\ The Bureau explained in the 2015
HMDA Rule that it believed this threshold appropriately balanced the
benefits and burdens of covering institutions based on their open-end
mortgage lending.\96\ However, as discussed in the 2017 HMDA Rule, the
Bureau lacked robust data for the estimates that it used to establish
the open-end threshold in the 2015 HMDA Rule.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id. The estimate of the number of institutions that would
be excluded from reporting open-end lines of credit by the
transactional coverage threshold was relative to the number that
would have been covered under the Bureau's proposal that led to the
2015 HMDA Rule. Under that proposal, a financial institution would
have been required to report its open-end lines of credit if it had
originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two
preceding years without regard to how many open-end lines of credit
the institution originated. See Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation
C), 79 FR 51732 (Aug. 29, 2014).
\95\ 80 FR 66128, 66281 (Oct. 28, 2015).
\96\ Id. at 66162.
\97\ 82 FR 43088, 43094 (Sept. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2017 HMDA Rule explained that, between 2013 and 2017, the
number of dwelling-secured open-end lines of credit financial
institutions originated had increased by 36 percent.\98\ The Bureau
noted that, to the extent institutions that had been originating fewer
than 100 open-end lines of credit shared in that growth, the number of
institutions at the margin that would be required to report under an
open-end threshold of 100 lines of credit would also increase.\99\
Additionally, in the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau explained that
information received by the Bureau since issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule had
caused the Bureau to question its assumption that certain low-
complexity institutions \100\ process home-equity lines of credit on
the same data platforms as closed-end mortgages, on which the Bureau
based its assumption that the one-time costs for these institutions
would be minimal.\101\ After issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
heard reports suggesting that one-time costs to begin reporting open-
end lines of credit could be as high as $100,000 for such
institutions.\102\ The Bureau likewise heard reports suggesting that
the ongoing costs for these institutions to report open-end lines of
credit, which the Bureau estimated would be under $10,000 per year and
add under $60 per line of credit, could be at least three times higher
than the Bureau had estimated.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id.
\99\ Id.
\100\ See supra notes 85-93 and accompanying text.
\101\ 82 FR 43088, 43094 (Sept. 13, 2017).
\102\ Id.
\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this information regarding one-time and ongoing costs and
new data indicating that more institutions would have reporting
responsibilities under the 100-loan open-end threshold than estimated
in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau increased for two years (i.e., until
January 1, 2020) the open-end threshold to 500 in the 2017 HMDA
Rule.\104\ Specifically, the Bureau amended Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B)
and comments 2(g)-3 and -5, effective January 1, 2018, to increase
temporarily the open-end threshold from 100 to 500 and, effective
January 1, 2020, to revert to a permanent threshold of 100. This
temporary increase was intended to allow the Bureau to collect
additional data and assess what open-end threshold would best balance
the benefits and burdens of covering institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id. at 43088. Comments received on the July 2017 HMDA
Proposal to change temporarily the open-end threshold are discussed
in the 2017 HMDA Rule. Id. at 43094-95. In the 2015 HMDA Rule and
the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau declined to retain optional reporting
of open-end lines of credit, after concluding that improved
visibility into this segment of the mortgage market is critical
because of the risks posed by these products to consumers and local
markets and the lack of other publicly available data about these
products. Id. at 43095; 80 FR 66128, 66160-61 (Oct. 28, 2015).
However, Regulation C as amended by the 2017 HMDA Rule permits
voluntary reporting by financial institutions that do not meet the
open-end threshold. 12 CFR 1003.3(c)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to extend until
January 1, 2022, the temporary open-end institutional coverage
threshold for depository institutions of 500 open-end lines of credit.
Upon expiration of this temporary threshold, the Bureau proposed to set
the permanent threshold at 200 open-end lines of credit.\105\ In the
2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau finalized the proposed two-year extension of
the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit.\106\ The
Bureau explained that the extension of the temporary threshold would
provide additional time for the Bureau to issue this final rule in 2020
on the permanent open-end threshold and for affected institutions to
prepare for compliance with the final rule.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The Bureau proposed conforming amendments to Sec.
1003.3(c)(12).
\106\ 84 FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
\107\ Id. at 57953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28377]]
Comments Received on Permanent Open-End Line of Credit Threshold for
Institutional Coverage of Depository Institutions
The Bureau received a number of comments relating to the proposed
permanent increase in the open-end threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit in Sec. Sec. 1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12). Commenters
typically discussed the open-end threshold without distinguishing
between the threshold applicable to depository institutions under Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and the threshold applicable to nondepository
institutions under Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B).
Industry commenters generally expressed support for an increase in
the permanent open-end threshold, indicating that a threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit would be preferable to the threshold of 100
open-end lines of credit that would otherwise take effect beginning in
2022. Many industry commenters described the significant costs that
HMDA data collection and reporting impose on small institutions, and
some expressed concern that they might not be able to offer open-end
lines of credit at all if the threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit
were to take effect. One national trade association and many small
financial institutions stated that open-end lines of credit are crucial
products for borrowers and expressed concern that the costs associated
with reporting such lines of credit would make them unprofitable,
leading banks to either discontinue offering such loans or to pass on
cost increases to consumers. Many industry commenters also suggested
that higher thresholds would allow institutions to focus on making
loans in the communities they serve rather than diverting resources to
HMDA compliance. Another national trade association stated that lenders
may seek to manage their origination volumes to stay below the
applicable open-end threshold, which could limit consumers' access to
credit. This commenter stated that compliance with HMDA requires
specialized staffing and training as well as dedicated software,
policies, and procedures, and that an institution's decision to exceed
the origination volume that triggers open-end reporting would involve a
careful assessment of the time, cost, and risk associated with
implementing and supporting ongoing open-end reporting. Several
commenters stated that there would be significant costs to implementing
open-end reporting for institutions that have not previously reported
such transactions, with one small financial institution stating that it
originated between 100 and 200 open-end lines of credit annually and
that reporting such loans would entail considerable effort because
these transactions are processed by a different department and system
than its reportable closed-end mortgage loans.
Some industry commenters advocating for an increase in the open-end
threshold asserted that data on open-end lines of credit are of limited
value in serving HMDA's statutory purposes. A few national trade
associations stated that open-end lines of credit provide little
information about whether lenders are serving the housing needs of
their communities because such loans are generally used for non-housing
related purposes, such as paying for educational expenses or
consolidating outstanding debt. One national trade association stated
that open-end lending data are of limited value for fair lending
purposes because of the unique features typically present in such
transactions and because only certain borrowers--existing homeowners
with equity in their homes--can obtain them.
A large number of industry commenters recommended that the Bureau
make the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit permanent
or raise the threshold even higher, such as to 1,000. These commenters
noted that based on the Bureau's estimates, maintaining the current
threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit would relieve approximately
280 institutions from reporting open-end data with only a 6 percent
decrease in the overall number of open-end lines of credit reported
relative to the proposed permanent threshold of 200. One State trade
association expressed concern that the limited increase in open-end
data reported at a permanent threshold of 200 as compared to 500 open-
end lines of credit would not justify the costs for the institutions
that would be newly required to report open-end data. One national
trade association stated that many smaller institutions originate close
to 500 open-end lines of credit annually and that if the permanent
threshold were set at 200 these lenders might curtail their open-end
lending to avoid incurring the additional compliance costs associated
with open-end reporting. A few industry commenters stated that the
continuity that would be provided by a permanent 500 open-end threshold
would be valuable and questioned why the Bureau would set the open-end
threshold at 500 for several years but not retain this threshold.
Although not part of the May 2019 Proposal, many industry commenters
recommended that the Bureau return to optional rather than mandatory
reporting of open-end lines of credit.
Other commenters, including many consumer and civil rights groups,
a bank, a State attorney general, and some members of Congress,
expressed opposition to the proposed increase from 100 to 200 in the
permanent open-end threshold based on their concerns about the
consequences of excluding more institutions and open-end lines of
credit from HMDA reporting. Many of these commenters stated that, in
the years before the 2008 financial crisis, abuses pervaded in open-end
lending that resulted in distress or foreclosure for large numbers of
homeowners. A State attorney general noted that open-end lines of
credit were often extended simultaneously with closed-end home purchase
loans in place of down payments, thus bypassing the need for borrowers
to obtain private mortgage insurance and creating higher debt
obligations that increased the risk to both closed-end mortgage lenders
and borrowers. A large number of consumer groups, civil rights groups,
and other organizations noted in a joint comment letter the Bureau's
estimates in the May 2019 Proposal that increasing the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit would exempt 401
lenders originating 69,000 open-end lines of credit from reporting such
data under HMDA. These commenters expressed concern that too many
lenders and open-end lines of credit might escape public scrutiny at
such a higher permanent threshold and thus make it more likely that
events similar to those that led to the 2008 financial crisis would
occur again.
These consumer groups, civil rights groups, and other organizations
also stated that the 2018 HMDA Data indicated that open-end lines of
credit have a high incidence of features that can be risky for
borrowers, particularly when layered on top of one another. They
explained that the 2018 HMDA Data show that 77 percent of open-end
lines of credit have adjustable rates, 50 percent feature interest-only
payments, and 28 percent include prepayment penalties. These commenters
also stated that the 2018 HMDA Data show that the median interest rate,
as well as the interest rate at the 95th percentile, was significantly
higher for open-end lines of credit than for closed-end mortgage loans
and suggested that the most vulnerable borrowers were obtaining the
open-end lines of credit with the highest interest rates.
These commenters stated further that the increase in open-end
lending
[[Page 28378]]
between 2013 and 2017 discussed in the May 2019 Proposal supports
maintaining the permanent threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit to
increase visibility into open-end lending. A State attorney general
expressed concern that the May 2019 Proposal did not provide a
rationale as to how decreasing open-end reporting by increasing the
permanent open-end threshold serves the purposes of HMDA. This
commenter stated that the Bureau's analysis instead focused almost
entirely on the cost to lenders associated with open-end reporting.
Some members of Congress stated that data on open-end lines of credit
remain limited and noted that the Bureau had to consult multiple
sources to estimate the impact of the proposed changes to the open-end
threshold. These commenters expressed concern that the Bureau would
reduce future open-end reporting based on limited data, particularly in
light of the local and national concerns related to open-end lending
prior to the financial crisis in 2008 cited by the Bureau in the 2015
HMDA Rule.
Final Rule
The Bureau has considered the comments received and, pursuant to
its authority under HMDA section 305(a) as discussed above, has decided
to increase the permanent open-end threshold to 200 open-end lines of
credit, as proposed. As discussed below, the increase in the permanent
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit will provide
meaningful burden relief for smaller institutions while still providing
significant market coverage of open-end lending.
As discussed in the May 2019 Proposal, several developments since
the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Rule have affected the Bureau's
analyses of the costs and benefits associated with the open-end
threshold. As explained in more detail in part VII below, the estimates
the Bureau used in the 2015 HMDA Rule may understate the burden that
open-end reporting would impose on smaller institutions if they were
required to begin reporting on January 1, 2022. For example, in
developing the one-time cost estimates for open-end lines of credit in
the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau had envisioned that there would be cost
sharing between the line of business that conducts open-end lending and
the line of business that conducts closed-end lending at the corporate
level, as the implementation of open-end reporting that became
mandatory under the 2015 HMDA Rule would coincide with the
implementation of the changes to closed-end reporting under the 2015
HMDA Rule. However, this type of cost sharing is less likely now since
financial institutions have already implemented almost all of the
closed-end reporting changes required under the 2015 HMDA Rule. As
explained in more detail in part VII.E.3, the Bureau's coverage
estimates also indicate that the total number of institutions exceeding
the threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit in 2018 would be
approximately 1,014, which is significantly higher than the estimate of
749 in the 2015 HMDA Rule that was based on 2013 data.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ 82 FR 43088, 43094 (Sept. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another development since the Bureau finalized the 2015 HMDA Rule
is the enactment of the EGRRCPA, which created partial exemptions from
HMDA's requirements that certain insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions may now use.\109\ The partial exemption for open-
end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA relieves certain insured
depository institutions and insured credit unions that originated fewer
than 500 open-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar
years of the obligation to report many of the data points generally
required by Regulation C.\110\ The EGRRCPA has thus changed the costs
and benefits associated with different coverage thresholds, as the
partial exemptions are available to the vast majority of the depository
financial institutions that originate fewer than 500 open-end lines of
credit annually.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
\110\ See 84 FR 57946 (Oct. 29, 2019).
\111\ See infra part VII.E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau has considered the appropriate permanent open-end
threshold in light of these developments and the comments received in
response to the May 2019 Proposal and the July 2019 Reopening Notice.
On balance, the Bureau determines that the permanent threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit provides sufficient information on open-end
lending to serve HMDA's purposes while appropriately reducing one-time
and ongoing costs for smaller institutions that would be incurred if
the threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit were to take effect.\112\
These considerations are discussed in turn below, and additional
explanation of the Bureau's cost estimates is provided in the Bureau's
analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part VII.E.3
below.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ One commenter expressed concern as to how the increase in
the open-end threshold would serve HMDA's purposes. As discussed
above, this increase in the permanent open-end threshold effectuates
the purposes of HMDA and facilitates compliance with HMDA by
reducing burden, while still providing significant market coverage.
\113\ As explained in part VII below, the Bureau derived these
estimates using estimates of savings for open-end lines of credit
for representative financial institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on market coverage. While the increase in the permanent
threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit will reduce market coverage
compared to the threshold of 100 that would otherwise take effect,
information about a sizeable portion of the open-end lending market
will still be available. The Bureau has used multiple data sources,
including credit union Call Reports, Call Reports for banks and
thrifts, HMDA data, and Consumer Credit Panel data, to develop
estimates about open-end originations for institutions that offer open-
end lines of credit and to assess the impact of various thresholds on
the numbers of institutions that report and the number of lines of
credit about which they report under various scenarios.\114\ Based on
this information, the Bureau estimates that, as of 2018, approximately
333 financial institutions originated at least 500 open-end lines of
credit in each of the two preceding years, approximately 613 financial
institutions originated at least 200 open-end lines of credit in each
of the two preceding years, and approximately 1,014 financial
institutions originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each
of the two preceding years.\115\ Under the permanent threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit, the Bureau estimates about 1.34 million lines
of credit or approximately 84 percent of origination volume will be
reported by about 9 percent of all institutions providing open-end
lines of credit.\116\ By comparison, the Bureau estimates that about
1.41 million lines of credit or approximately 89 percent of origination
volume would be reported by about 15 percent of all institutions
providing open-end lines of credit if the permanent threshold were to
adjust to
[[Page 28379]]
100 open-end lines of credit. The Bureau determines that the benefits
of the one-time and ongoing cost savings for the estimated 401 affected
institutions originating between 100 and 199 open-end lines of credit,
all but 17 of which are depository financial institutions, justify the
limited decrease in the data reported about open-end lending that will
result from this threshold increase. The permanent threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit balances the benefits and burdens of covering
institutions engaged in open-end mortgage lending by retaining
significant coverage of the open-end market while excluding from
coverage smaller institutions whose limited open-end data would be of
lesser utility in furthering HMDA's purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ As noted by several members of Congress, the Bureau
consulted multiple sources to develop its open-end estimates for the
May 2019 Proposal. Because collection of data on open-end lines of
credit only became mandatory starting in 2018 under the 2015 HMDA
Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule, no single data source existed as of the
time of the May 2019 Proposal that could accurately capture the
number of originations of open-end lines of credit in the entire
market and by lenders. In part VII of this final rule, the Bureau
has supplemented the analyses from the May 2019 Proposal with the
2018 HMDA data. For information about the HMDA data used in
developing and supplementing the Bureau estimates, see infra part
VII.E.3.
\115\ See infra part VII.E.3 at table 4 for estimates of
coverage among all lenders that are active in the open-end line of
credit market at open-end coverage thresholds of 100, 200, and 500.
\116\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the effect of a threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit will be limited because the EGRRCPA now provides a partial
exemption that exempts approximately 378 of the estimated 401
institutions that the permanent threshold increase will affect from any
obligation to report many of the data points generally required by
Regulation C for open-end lines of credit. In light of the EGRRCPA's
partial exemption from reporting certain data for open-end lines of
credit for certain insured depository institutions and insured credit
unions, setting the permanent threshold at 200 open-end lines of credit
will result in a much smaller decrease in data than the Bureau
anticipated when it adopted a threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit
in the 2015 HMDA Rule or when it revisited the open-end line of credit
threshold in the 2017 HMDA Rule.
The Bureau declines to increase the permanent threshold further, as
suggested by several commenters. Under a threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit, the Bureau estimates that about 1.23 million lines of
credit or approximately 78 percent of origination volume would be
reported by about 5 percent of all institutions providing open-end
lines of credit. The Bureau determines that the more significant
reduction in open-end reporting that would result if the current
threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit were permanent, or if the
Bureau increased the threshold to a level above 500, is not warranted.
The temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit was intended to
allow the Bureau time to collect additional data and assess the
appropriate level of the permanent threshold.\117\ Although the Bureau
appreciates some commenters' suggestions regarding the benefits of
continuity that would result from a permanent threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit, it determines that the permanent threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit adopted in this rule best balances the
benefits and burdens of covering institutions based on their open-end
lending volume. The data about open-end lines of credit that will be
reported at this threshold will assist HMDA data users in understanding
how financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their
communities and assist in the distribution of public sector
investments. The Bureau recognizes, as noted by several commenters,
that open-end lines of credit may be used for non-housing related
purposes, but the Bureau believes the data on these dwelling-secured
loans will further HMDA purposes. The visibility into this segment of
the mortgage market that will result from the permanent threshold of
200 open-end lines of credit, as opposed to a higher threshold, will
also allow for a better understanding of these products and monitoring
of the potential risks, as noted by many commenters, that could be
associated with such loans. Such data could also help to assist in
identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns if, for example,
risky lending practices were concentrated among certain borrowers or
communities.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See 84 FR 57946, 57953 (Oct. 29, 2019); 82 FR 43088,
43095-96 (Sept. 13, 2017).
\118\ One commenter suggested that data on open-end lines of
credit are less valuable for fair lending analyses because these
products are limited to borrowers with existing equity in their
homes. In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau recognized that borrowers
may not be evaluated for open-end credit in the same manner as for
traditional mortgage loans, with adequate home equity being a
factor. It stated further, however, that lending practices during
the financial crisis demonstrated that during prolonged periods of
home-price appreciation lenders became increasingly comfortable
originating home-equity products to borrowers with less and less
equity to spare. 80 FR 66128, 66161 (Oct. 28, 2015). The Bureau
continues to believe that the more leveraged the borrower, the more
at risk the borrower is of losing his or her home. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, and as discussed above, the EGRRCPA partial exemption
already relieves most lenders originating fewer than 500 open-end lines
of credit in each of the two preceding years from the requirement to
report many data points associated with their open-end transactions. In
light of the concerns discussed above and the existing relief provided
by the EGRRCPA at a threshold of 500, the Bureau determines that it is
not appropriate to set the permanent threshold for open-end lines of
credit at 500 or higher. Doing so would provide a complete exclusion
from reporting all open-end data for institutions below the threshold
of 500, even though Congress opted to provide only a partial exemption
at the threshold of 500, and would extend that complete exclusion to
institutions that Congress did not include in even the partial
exemption. For the reasons stated above, the Bureau also declines to
adopt the recommendation of several commenters to return to voluntary
open-end reporting, which it did not propose.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ See supra note 104. In establishing partial exemptions for
reporting data on open-end lines of credit in the EGRRCPA, Congress
appears to have assumed that open-end lines of credit should be
reported, building upon the Bureau's decision in the 2015 HMDA Rule
to require reporting of open-end lines of credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in one-time costs from permanent threshold of 200. The
Bureau's increase in the permanent open-end threshold to 200 open-end
lines of credit after the temporary extension expires in 2022 will
avoid imposing one-time costs of reporting open-end lines of credit on
institutions originating between 100 and 199 open-end lines of credit.
The Bureau estimates that setting the permanent threshold at 200 rather
than 100 open-end lines of credit will exclude 401 institutions from
reporting open-end lines of credit starting in 2022. According to the
Bureau's estimates, about 309 of those 401 financial institutions are
low-complexity tier 3 open-end reporters, about 92 are moderate-
complexity tier 2 open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier
1 reporters.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ For an explanation of the Bureau's assumptions in
assigning institutions to tiers 1, 2, and 3, see supra note 85 and
infra part VII.D.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau recognizes that, as a small financial institution
commenter discussed, financial institutions may process applications
for open-end lines of credit in different departments and on different
systems than those used for closed-end loans. Many institutions that
would have had to report with a threshold of 100 after the extension of
the temporary threshold of 500 expires in 2022 do not currently report
open-end lines of credit. These institutions might have to develop
completely new reporting infrastructures to comply with mandatory
reporting if the threshold of 100 lines of credit were to take effect,
including new training, software, and policies and procedures. As a
result, these institutions would incur one-time costs to create
processes and systems for reporting open-end lines of credit in
addition to the one-time costs to modify processes and systems used for
reporting other mortgage products.
As explained in part VII below, the Bureau estimates that
increasing the
[[Page 28380]]
threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit starting in 2022
will result in a one-time cost savings of approximately $3,000 for low-
complexity tier 3 reporters and $250,000 for moderate-complexity tier 2
reporters, for an aggregate savings of about $23.9 million in avoided
one-time costs associated with reporting open-end lines of credit.\121\
The Bureau determines that avoiding the burden on smaller institutions
of implementing open-end reporting, which as commenters noted could
involve setting up entirely new reporting infrastructures distinct from
those used for closed-end mortgage loans, is justified by the limited
decrease in open-end data that will be reported under this final rule,
as discussed in more detail above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ As discussed in more detail in part VII below, the Bureau
has supplemented its analyses from the May 2019 Proposal with 2018
HMDA data. These data allow the Bureau to develop estimates based on
the total number of open-end loan/application register records,
rather than the number of open-end originations. As a result, the
Bureau has assigned more of the estimated 401 institutions affected
by the increase in the threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of
credit to the tier 2 category and fewer to the tier 3 category as
compared to the May 2019 Proposal. This increase in the estimated
number of affected tier 2 institutions results in a higher estimated
aggregate one-time cost savings associated with the threshold
increase than the Bureau's estimate of $3.8 million in the May 2019
Proposal. For information about the HMDA data used in developing and
supplementing the Bureau estimates, see infra part VII.E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing cost reduction from permanent threshold of 200. The
increase in the open-end threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of
credit starting in 2022 will permanently relieve institutions that
originate between 100 and 199 open-end lines of credit of the ongoing
costs associated with reporting open-end lines of credit that they
might otherwise incur if the threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit
established in the 2015 HMDA Rule were to take effect. As noted above,
many industry commenters expressed how costly and resource-intensive
HMDA compliance can be on an ongoing basis for smaller institutions.
As discussed in more detail in part VII below, the Bureau estimates
that increasing the permanent threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines
of credit will result in annual ongoing cost savings of approximately
$4,300 for low-complexity tier 3 institutions eligible for the EGRRCPA
partial exemption and $21,900 for moderate-complexity tier 2
institutions eligible for the EGRRCPA partial exemption. For the low-
complexity tier 3 and moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions that are
not eligible for the EGRRCPA partial exemption, the Bureau estimates
that the increase in the permanent threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit will result in annual ongoing cost savings of
approximately $8,800 and $44,700, respectively. The Bureau estimates
that the increase in the permanent threshold will result in aggregate
savings on the ongoing operational costs associated with open-end lines
of credit of about $3.7 million per year starting in 2022.\122\ The
Bureau recognizes that the estimated ongoing costs savings associated
with increasing the permanent threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines
of credit are less than they would have been absent the relief provided
by the EGRRCPA. Nonetheless, the Bureau determines that these ongoing
cost savings, coupled with the one-time cost savings discussed above,
will provide meaningful burden reduction to smaller institutions that
would have been covered at the threshold of 100 open-end lines of
credit but will be excluded from open-end reporting under this final
rule. Avoiding the imposition of such costs for these affected
institutions will also limit any potential for cost increases to
borrowers or other disruptions in open-end lending that could result
from HMDA coverage, as discussed by some commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ As noted above, as compared to the May 2019 Proposal the
Bureau now assigns more of the estimated 401 institutions affected
by the increase in the threshold from 100 to 200 to the tier 2
category and fewer to the tier 3 category. As a result, the Bureau's
estimated aggregate savings on ongoing operational costs associated
with the threshold increase is higher than the Bureau's estimate of
$2.1 million in the May 2019 Proposal. For information about the
HMDA data used in developing and supplementing the Bureau estimates,
see infra part VII.E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed above, the Bureau amends Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and comments 2(g)-3 and -5, to set the open-end
institutional coverage threshold for depository institutions at 200,
effective January 1, 2022.
2(g)(2) Nondepository Financial Institution
HMDA extends reporting responsibilities to certain nondepository
institutions, defined as any person engaged for profit in the business
of mortgage lending other than a bank, savings association, or credit
union.\123\ HMDA section 309(a) authorizes the Bureau to adopt an
exemption for covered nondepository institutions that are comparable
within their respective industries to banks, savings associations, and
credit unions with $10 million or less in assets in the previous fiscal
year.\124\ HMDA sections 303(3)(B) and 303(5) require persons other
than banks, savings associations, and credit unions that are ``engaged
for profit in the business of mortgage lending'' to report HMDA data.
As the Bureau stated in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau interpreted
these provisions, as the Board did, to evince the intent to exclude
from coverage institutions that make a relatively small volume of
mortgage loans.\125\ In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau interpreted
``engaged for profit in the business of mortgage lending'' to include
nondepository institutions that originated at least 25 closed-end
mortgage loans or 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years. Due to the questions raised about potential
risks posed to applicants and borrowers by nondepository institutions
and the lack of other publicly available data sources about
nondepository institutions, the Bureau believed that requiring
additional nondepository institutions to report HMDA data would better
effectuate HMDA's purposes. The Bureau estimated in 2015 that these
changes to institutional coverage could result in HMDA coverage for up
to an additional 450 nondepository institutions. The Bureau stated in
the 2015 HMDA Rule its belief that it was important to increase
visibility into the lending practices of nondepository institutions
because of their history of making riskier loans than depository
institutions, including their role in the financial crisis and lack of
available data about the mortgage lending practices of lower-volume
nondepository institutions. The Bureau also stated that expanded
coverage of nondepository institutions would ensure more equal
visibility into the practices of nondepository institutions and
depository institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ HMDA section 303(5) (defining ``other lending
institutions'').
\124\ HMDA section 309(a), 12 U.S.C. 2808(a).
\125\ 80 FR 66128, 66153 (Oct. 28, 2015) (citing 54 FR 51356,
51358-59 (Dec. 15, 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau has now determined that
higher thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of
credit will more appropriately cover nondepository institutions that
``are engaged for profit in the business of mortgage lending'' and
maintain visibility into the lending practices of such institutions.
2(g)(2)(ii)(A)
Regulation C implements HMDA's coverage criteria for nondepository
institutions in Sec. 1003.2(g)(2). The Bureau revised the coverage
criteria for nondepository institutions in the 2015 HMDA Rule by
requiring such
[[Page 28381]]
institutions to report HMDA data if they met the statutory location
test and exceeded either the closed-end or open-end thresholds.\126\ In
the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) and related commentary to raise the closed-end
threshold for nondepository institutions to either 50 or,
alternatively, 100 closed-end mortgage loans. For the reasons discussed
below, the Bureau is amending Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(ii)(A) and related
commentary to raise the threshold to 100 closed-end mortgage loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Prior to the 2015 HMDA Rule, for-profit nondepository
institutions that met the location test only had to report if: (1)
In the preceding calendar year, the institution originated home
purchase loans, including refinancings of home purchase loans, that
equaled either at least 10 percent of its loan-origination volume,
measured in dollars, or at least $25 million; and (2) On the
preceding December 31, the institution had total assets of more than
$10 million, counting the assets of any parent corporation; or in
the preceding calendar year, the institution originated at least 100
home purchase loans, including refinancings of home purchase loans.
12 CFR 1003.2 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background on Closed-End Mortgage Loan Threshold for Institutional
Coverage of Nondepository Institutions
After issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
heard concerns that lower-volume institutions experience significant
burden with the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans.\127\
Various industry stakeholders advocated for an increase to the closed-
end threshold in order to reduce burden on additional lower-volume
financial institutions. In light of the concerns raised by industry
stakeholders, the Bureau proposed to raise the closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions and indicated that it was considering
whether a higher threshold would more appropriately cover nondepository
institutions that ``are engaged for profit in the business of mortgage
lending'' and maintain visibility into the lending practices of such
institutions. The Bureau sought comment on whether an increase to the
threshold would more appropriately balance the benefits and burdens of
covering lower-volume nondepository institutions based on their closed-
end lending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ The Bureau temporarily raised the threshold for open-end
lines of credit in the 2017 HMDA Rule because of concerns based on
new information that the estimates the Bureau used in the 2015 HMDA
Rule may have understated the burden that open-end reporting would
impose on smaller institutions if they were required to begin
reporting on January 1, 2018. However, the Bureau declined to raise
the threshold for closed-end mortgage loans and stated that in
developing the 2015 HMDA Rule, it had robust data to make a
determination about the number of transactions that would be
reported with a threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans as well as
the one-time and ongoing costs to industry. 82 FR 43088, 43095-96
(Sept. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau proposed two alternatives to the closed-end mortgage
loan threshold, and both proposed alternatives would have maintained a
uniform closed-end threshold for depository and nondepository
institutions.\128\ The Bureau sought specific comment on how the
proposed increase to the closed-end threshold would affect the number
of nondepository institutions required to report data on closed-end
mortgage loans, the significance of the data that would not be
available as a result of the proposed increase to the closed-end
threshold, and the reduction in burden that would result from the
proposed increase to the closed-end threshold for nondepository
institutions that would not be required to report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ For a discussion on the proposed closed-end coverage
threshold for depository institutions, see the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received on Closed-End Threshold for Institutional Coverage
for Nondepository Institutions
As mentioned above, commenters typically discussed the closed-end
threshold without distinguishing between the threshold applicable to
depository institutions under Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and the
threshold applicable to nondepository institutions under Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A). Comments received regarding the Bureau's proposal
to increase the closed-end threshold are discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above.
Final Rule
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau is
finalizing the closed-end threshold for nondepository institutions at
100 in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Bureau has considered the
comments received in response to the May 2019 Proposal and updated
estimates in determining the appropriate threshold. As discussed below,
the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to interpret ``engaged for
profit in the business of mortgage lending'' to include nondepository
institutions that originated at least 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
each of the two preceding calendar years and that doing so will
effectuate the purposes of HMDA and facilitate compliance. The Bureau
believes that increasing the closed-end threshold to 100 will provide
meaningful burden relief for lower-volume nondepository institutions
while maintaining sufficient reporting to achieve HMDA's purposes. The
final rule's uniform loan-volume threshold applicable to depository and
nondepository institutions also maintains the simplicity of this aspect
of the reporting regime, thereby facilitating compliance.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The 2015 HMDA Rule simplified the reporting regime by
establishing a uniform loan-volume threshold applicable to
depository and nondepository institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the section-by-section analysis of Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above, a few developments have affected the Bureau's
analyses of the costs and benefits associated with the closed-end
threshold for depository and nondepository institutions since the 2015
HMDA Rule was issued. The Bureau has gathered extensive information
regarding stakeholders' experience with the 2015 HMDA Rule through
comments received in this rulemaking and other feedback. As described
above, the Bureau has heard that financial institutions have
encountered significant burdens in complying with the 2015 HMDA Rule,
and the Bureau is particularly concerned about the increased burdens
faced by smaller institutions. Additionally, the Bureau now has access
to HMDA data from 2018, which was the first year that financial
institutions collected data under the 2015 HMDA Rule, and has used
these data in updating and confirming the estimates included in this
final rule. With the benefit of this additional information about the
2015 HMDA Rule and the new data to supplement the Bureau's analyses,
the Bureau is now in a better position to assess both the benefits and
burdens of the reporting required under the 2015 HMDA Rule.
The Bureau has considered the appropriate closed-end threshold for
nondepository institutions in light of these developments and the
comments received. The Bureau determines that the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans for nondepository institutions provides
sufficient information on closed-end mortgage lending to serve HMDA's
purposes and maintains uniformity with the closed-end threshold for
depository institutions established in this rule, while appropriately
reducing ongoing costs that smaller nondepository institutions are
incurring under the current threshold. These considerations are
discussed in turn below, and additional explanation of the Bureau's
cost estimates is provided in the Bureau's analysis under Dodd-Frank
Act section 1022(b) in part VII.E.2 below.
[[Page 28382]]
Effect on Market Coverage
Similar to the estimates in the section-by-section analysis of
Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A), the Bureau developed estimates for
nondepository institution coverage at varying thresholds. Using
multiple data sources, including recent HMDA data \130\ and Call
Reports, the Bureau developed estimates for the two thresholds the
Bureau proposed in the alternative, 50 and 100, as well as the
thresholds of 250 and 500, which many commenters suggested the Bureau
consider.\131\ These estimates compare coverage under these thresholds
to coverage under the current threshold of 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ The Bureau stated in the May 2019 Proposal that it
intended to review the 2018 HMDA data more closely in connection
with this rulemaking once the 2018 submissions were more complete.
The estimates reflected in this final rule are based on the HMDA
data collected in 2017 and 2018 as well as other sources. These
estimates are discussed further in the analysis under Dodd-Frank Act
section 1022(b) in part VII below.
\131\ Except for the estimates provided at the census tract
level, the estimates provided for potential thresholds in this
section cover only nondepository institutions. Estimates for
depository institutions are described in the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). For estimates that are
comprehensive of depository and nondepository institutions, see part
VII.E.2 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the estimates described above for the closed-end
threshold for depository institutions, many of the estimates provided
for the closed-end threshold for nondepository institutions differ
slightly from the initial estimates provided in the May 2019 Proposal.
The estimates in this final rule update the initial estimates provided
in the May 2019 Proposal using the 2018 HMDA data, which were not
available at the time the Bureau developed the May 2019 Proposal. For
the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau used HMDA data from 2016 and 2017
with a two-year look-back period covering calendar years 2016 and 2017
to estimate potential reporters and projected the lending activities of
financial institutions using their 2017 HMDA data as proxies. In
generating the updated estimates provided in this final rule, the
Bureau used data from 2017 and 2018 with a two-year look-back period
covering calendar years 2017 and 2018 to estimate potential reporters
and has projected the lending activities of financial institutions
using their 2018 data as proxies. In addition, for the estimates
provided in the May 2019 Proposal and in this final rule, the Bureau
restricted the projected reporters to only those that actually reported
data in the most recent year of HMDA data considered (2017 for the May
2019 Proposal and 2018 for this final rule).\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ The Bureau recognizes that the coverage estimates
generated using this restriction may omit certain financial
institutions that should have reported but did not report in the
most recent HMDA reporting year. However, the Bureau applied this
restriction to ensure that institutions included in its coverage
estimates are in fact financial institutions for purposes of
Regulation C because it recognizes that institutions might not meet
the Regulation C definition of financial institution for reasons
that are not evident in the data sources that it utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on covered nondepository institutions and reportable
originations. As discussed above, many commenters opposed increasing
the closed-end threshold because of concerns that there would be less
data with which to evaluate whether HMDA's statutory purposes are being
met. However, the Bureau's analysis indicates that the proposed
thresholds of either 50 or 100 closed-end mortgage loans will maintain
sufficient reporting to achieve HMDA's purposes.
If the threshold were increased to 50 closed-end mortgage loans,
the Bureau estimates that approximately 720 out of approximately 740
nondepository institutions covered under the current threshold of 25
(or approximately 97 percent) would continue to be required to report
HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau estimates
that if the threshold were increased from 25 to 50, this would result
in about 99.97 percent of closed-end mortgage loan originations
currently reported or approximately 3.428 million total closed-end
mortgage loan originations, under current market conditions, that would
continue to be reported by nondepository institutions.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 50, about 683 out of
about 697 nondepository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 98 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and over 99 percent
or approximately 3.44 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in greater detail in
part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the estimates between the May
2019 Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau estimates that with the closed-end threshold set at 100
under the final rule, approximately 680 out of approximately 740
nondepository institutions covered under the current threshold of 25
(or approximately 92 percent) will continue to be required to report
HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further, the Bureau estimates
that when the final rule increases the threshold to 100, about 99.9
percent of originations of closed-end mortgage loans currently reported
or approximately 3.425 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans reported by nondepository institutions, under current
market conditions, will continue to be reported.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 100, about 661 out of
about 697 nondepository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 95 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and over 99 percent
or approximately 3.44 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in greater detail in
part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the estimates between the May
2019 Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau also generated estimates for closed-end thresholds
higher than the ones the Bureau proposed, as many commenters suggested
that the Bureau consider thresholds higher than proposed. These
estimates reflect the decrease in the number of nondepository
institutions that would be required to report HMDA data and the
resulting decrease in the HMDA data that would be reported becomes more
pronounced at thresholds higher than 100. For example, if the closed-
end threshold were set at 250, the Bureau estimates that approximately
590 out of approximately 740 nondepository institutions covered under
the current threshold of 25 (or approximately 80 percent) would
continue to be required to report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage
loans. Further, the Bureau estimates that if the threshold were
increased from 25 to 250 loans, this would result in about 99.4 percent
of closed-end mortgage loan originations currently reported or
approximately 3.408 million total closed-end mortgage loan
originations, under current market conditions, that would continue to
be reported by nondepository institutions.\135\ If the closed-end
[[Page 28383]]
threshold were set at 500, the Bureau estimates that approximately 480
out of approximately 740 nondepository institutions covered under the
current threshold of 25 (or approximately 65 percent) would continue to
be required to report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans. Further,
the Bureau estimates that if the threshold were increased from 25 to
500 loans, this would result in about 98.2 percent of closed-end
mortgage loan originations currently reported or approximately 3.367
million total closed-end mortgage loan originations, under current
market conditions, that would continue to be reported by nondepository
institutions.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 250, about 573 out of
about 697 nondepository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 82 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and about 99 percent
or approximately 3.42 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in greater detail in
part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the estimates between the May
2019 Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
\136\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 500, about 477 out of
about 697 nondepository institutions covered under the current
threshold of 25 (or approximately 68 percent) would continue to
report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans, and about 98 percent
or approximately 3.38 million total originations of closed-end
mortgage loans in current market conditions reported by depository
institutions under the current Regulation C coverage criteria would
continue to be reported. As explained above and in greater detail in
part VII.E.2 below, the differences in the estimates between the May
2019 Proposal and this final rule are mostly due to updates made to
incorporate the newly available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau recognizes the importance of maintaining data about the
lending practices of nondepository institutions. The Bureau also
acknowledges the concerns raised by commenters that setting the
threshold higher than 25 will result in less data, but the Bureau
believes that the modest decrease in data at the threshold of 100
(estimated at less than one percent of data currently reported) will
not undermine enforcement of fair lending laws or regulators' ability
to identify potentially discriminatory lending through HMDA data. The
Bureau believes that retaining approximately 99.9 percent of the data
that would be reported under the current threshold of 25 will result in
nondepository institutions reporting sufficient HMDA data to enable the
public and regulators to monitor risks posed by nondepository
institutions.
Effect on HMDA data at the local level. The Bureau recognizes that
any loan-volume threshold will affect individual markets differently,
depending on the extent to which smaller creditors service individual
markets and the market share of those creditors. For the proposal and
this final rule, the Bureau reviewed estimates at varying closed-end
thresholds to examine the potential effect on available data at the
census tract level. The estimates of the effect on reportable HMDA data
at the census tract level are discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) above. Based on the Bureau's
review of the estimates, the Bureau believes that an increase to the
closed-end threshold from 25 to 100 will result in sufficient data at
the local level, including with respect to rural and low-to-moderate
income census tracts, to further HMDA's purposes.
Specific types of data. As mentioned in the section-by-section
analysis in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A), a number of commenters expressed
concerns about the impact that an increase to the closed-end threshold
would have on HMDA data regarding specific types of loan products, such
as loans for multifamily housing and manufactured housing. The Bureau
believes that data on these types of loan products will still be
available at the threshold of 100 set by this final rule. For example,
the Bureau estimates that with the closed-end threshold increased from
25 to 100 under the final rule, approximately 87 percent of multifamily
loan applications and originations will continue to be reported by
depository and nondepository institutions combined, when compared to
the current threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in today's market
conditions. Regarding the effect on manufactured housing data, the
Bureau estimates that at a threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans,
approximately 96 percent of loans and applications related to
manufactured housing will continue to be reported by depository and
nondepository institutions combined, when compared to the current
threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans in today's market conditions.
The Bureau's estimates indicate that a significant number of
multifamily housing and manufactured housing loans and applications
under today's market conditions will continue to be reported under the
final rule's threshold of 100.
Ongoing Cost Reduction From Threshold of 100
As noted above, small financial institutions and trade associations
commented on the cost of HMDA reporting, suggesting that compliance
costs have had an impact on the ability of small financial institutions
to serve their communities. For the May 2019 Proposal and this final
rule, the Bureau developed estimates for depository and nondepository
institutions combined to determine the savings in annual ongoing costs
at various thresholds.\137\ The Bureau estimates that if the closed-end
threshold were set at 50, institutions that originate between 25 and 49
closed-end mortgage loans would save approximately $3.7 million per
year in total annual ongoing costs relative to the current threshold of
25.\138\ The Bureau estimates that with the threshold of 100 closed-end
mortgage loans established by the final rule, institutions that
originate between 25 and 99 closed-end mortgage loans will save
approximately $11.2 million per year, relative to the current threshold
of 25.\139\ With a threshold of 250 or 500 closed-end mortgage loans,
the Bureau estimates that institutions would save approximately $27.2
million and $45.4 million, respectively, relative to the current
threshold of 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ These cost estimates reflect the combined ongoing
reduction in costs for depository and nondepository institutions.
These estimates also take into account the enactment of the EGRRCPA,
which created partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements that
certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions
may use, and reflect updates made to the cost estimates since the
May 2019 Proposal. See part VII.E.2 below for a more comprehensive
discussion of the cost estimates.
\138\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 50, the aggregate
savings on the operational costs associated with reporting closed-
end mortgage loans would be approximately $2.2 million per year. As
explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this
final rule are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly
available 2018 HMDA data.
\139\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased from 25 to 100, the aggregate
savings on the operational costs associated with reporting closed-
end mortgage loans would be approximately $8.1 million per year. As
explained above and in greater detail in part VII.E.2 below, the
differences in the estimates between the May 2019 Proposal and this
final rule are mostly due to updates made to incorporate the newly
available 2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau concludes that increasing the closed-end threshold to
100 will provide meaningful burden reduction for lower-volume
nondepository institutions, while maintaining sufficient reporting to
achieve HMDA's purposes. In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau expressed
concern that if it were to set the threshold higher than 100, the
resulting decrease into the visibility of the lending practices of
nondepository institutions might hamper the ability of the public and
regulators to monitor risks posed to consumers by those nondepository
institutions.\140\ The Bureau maintains the same concern under this
final rule based on its analysis of various closed-end thresholds using
more recent estimates. For example, if the Bureau were to set the
closed-end threshold for nondepository institutions at 500 as
[[Page 28384]]
suggested by a number of commenters, while an estimated 98.2 percent of
closed-end mortgage originations currently reported under today's
market conditions would continue to be reported, there would be data
reported about the lending patterns of only 65 percent of nondepository
institutions that are reporters under the current threshold of 25. The
Bureau is concerned that an increase to the closed-end threshold higher
than 100 could hamper the ability of the public and regulators to
monitor risks posed to consumers by nondepository institutions. In
comparison, with the Bureau finalizing the closed-end threshold at 100,
an estimated 99.9 percent of nondepository closed-end mortgage
originations currently reported under today's market conditions will
continue to be reported, and there will be data reported about 92
percent of nondepository institutions relative to the current threshold
of 25. The Bureau's estimates suggest that, at the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans established by the final rule, the cost
savings for financial institutions will be meaningful while maintaining
substantial HMDA data for analysis at the national and local
levels.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 80 FR 66128, 66281 (Oct. 28, 2015).
\141\ These cost estimates reflect the combined ongoing
reduction in costs for depository and nondepository institutions.
These estimates also take into account the enactment of the EGRRCPA,
which created partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements that
certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions
may now use. See part VII.E.2 below for a more comprehensive
analysis on cost estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its analysis, the Bureau believes it is reasonable to
interpret ``engaged for profit in the business of mortgage lending'' to
include nondepository institutions that originated at least 100 closed-
end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years. The
Bureau determines that this final rule's amendments to Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) will also effectuate the purposes of HMDA by
ensuring significant coverage of nondepository mortgage lending. A
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans also facilitates compliance
with HMDA by reducing burden on smaller institutions and excluding
nondepository institutions that are not engaged for profit in the
business of mortgage lending. In addition, the final rule's uniform
loan-volume threshold applicable to depository and nondepository
institutions maintains the simplicity of this aspect of the reporting
regime, thereby facilitating compliance.\142\ For the reasons stated
above, the Bureau is amending Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(A) to adjust the
closed-end threshold to 100. As discussed in part VI.A below, the
change to the closed-end threshold will take effect on July 1, 2020, to
provide more immediate relief to affected institutions.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ The 2015 HMDA Rule established the uniform loan-volume
threshold applicable to depository and nondepository institutions to
simplify the reporting regime.
\143\ See section VI for a discussion of the effective dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2(g)(2)(ii)(B)
The 2015 HMDA Rule established a coverage threshold of 100 open-end
lines of credit in Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) as part of the definition
of nondepository financial institution. As discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above, the
2017 HMDA Rule amended Sec. Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B)
and 1003.3(c)(12) and related commentary to raise temporarily the
threshold to 500 open-end lines of credit for calendar years 2018 and
2019.\144\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to extend to
January 1, 2022, Regulation C's temporary threshold of 500 open-end
lines of credit for institutional and transactional coverage of both
depository and nondepository institutions. The Bureau also proposed to
increase the permanent threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of
credit at the end of the extension. In the 2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
extended for two years the temporary open-end institutional coverage
threshold for nondepository institutions in Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B).
The Bureau is now finalizing as proposed the increase in the permanent
threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit effective January 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ 82 FR 43088, 43095 (Sept. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, commenters typically discussed the open-end
threshold without distinguishing between the threshold applicable to
depository institutions under Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and the
threshold applicable to nondepository institutions under Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). Comments received regarding the proposed increase
in the permanent open-end threshold are discussed in the section-by-
section analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B).
According to the Bureau's estimates, nondepository institutions
account for only a small percentage of the institutions and loans in
the open-end line of credit market.\145\ Table 4 in the Bureau's
analysis under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) in part VII.E.3 below
provides coverage estimates for nondepository institutions at the
permanent threshold of 200 open-end lines of credit that the Bureau is
finalizing. Under the permanent threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit, the Bureau estimates that about 48,000 open-end lines of credit
or approximately 84 percent of nondepository open-end origination
volume will be reported by approximately 25 nondepository institutions
or about 11 percent of all nondepository institutions providing open-
end lines of credit. By comparison, the Bureau estimates that if the
permanent threshold were set at 100 open-end lines of credit, about
51,000 lines of credit or approximately 89 percent of nondepository
open-end origination volume would be reported by approximately 42
nondepository institutions or about 19 percent of all nondepository
institutions providing open-end lines of credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See infra part VII.E.3 at table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed in the section-by-section analysis of
Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), and to ensure the thresholds are consistent
for depository and nondepository institutions, the Bureau is finalizing
as proposed an increase to Regulation C's permanent open-end threshold
upon expiration of the current temporary open-end threshold. This final
rule increases to 200 the permanent open-end line of credit threshold
for institutional coverage of nondepository institutions in Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) effective January 1, 2022. This amendment to the
open-end threshold for institutional coverage of nondepository
institutions in Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) conforms to the amendments
that the Bureau is finalizing with respect to the permanent open-end
threshold for institutional coverage of depository institutions in
Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and the permanent open-end threshold for
transactional coverage in Sec. 1003.3(c)(12).
Pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a) as discussed
above, the Bureau is finalizing an increase to the permanent threshold
for open-end lines of credit in Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B). Based on its
analysis, the Bureau believes it is reasonable to interpret ``engaged
for profit in the business of mortgage lending'' to include
nondepository institutions that originated at least 200 open-end lines
of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. The Bureau
determines that this final rule's amendments to Sec.
1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) will also effectuate the purposes of HMDA by
ensuring significant coverage of nondepository mortgage lending. This
increase to the permanent threshold also facilitates compliance with
HMDA by reducing burden on smaller institutions and excluding
nondepository institutions that are not engaged for
[[Page 28385]]
profit in the business of mortgage lending. The Bureau determines that
the reasons provided for changing the permanent threshold for
depository institutions in the section-by-section analysis of Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above apply to the permanent threshold for
nondepository institutions as well. Additionally, the increase in the
permanent threshold in Sec. 1003.2(g)(2)(ii)(B) to 200 open-end lines
of credit will promote consistency, and thereby facilitate compliance,
by subjecting nondepository institutions to the same threshold that
applies to the depository institutions that make up the majority of the
open-end line of credit market.
Section 1003.3 Exempt Institutions and Excluded and Partially Exempt
Transactions
3(c) Excluded Transactions
3(c)(11)
Section 1003.3(c)(11) provides an exclusion from the requirement to
report closed-end mortgage loans for institutions that originated fewer
than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding
calendar years. This transactional coverage threshold complements the
closed-end mortgage loan reporting threshold included in the definition
of financial institution in Sec. 1003.2(g). In the May 2019 Proposal,
the Bureau proposed to increase Regulation C's closed-end threshold for
institutional and transactional coverage from 25 to either 50 or 100.
Comments regarding the proposed increase to the closed-end coverage
threshold are discussed in the section-by-section analysis of Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A). For the reasons discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A), the Bureau is now increasing
Regulation C's closed-end threshold for institutional and transactional
coverage from 25 to 100. Therefore, the Bureau is finalizing the
amendments it proposed to Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and comments 3(c)(11)-1
and -2 to increase the closed-end threshold for transactional coverage
from 25 to 100, with minor clarifying changes.\146\ These amendments
conform to the related changes the Bureau is finalizing with respect to
the closed-end threshold for institutional coverage in Sec. 1003.2(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ In light of the new closed-end and open-end thresholds
adopted in this final rule, the final rule makes minor changes in
comment 3(c)(11)-1 to adjust the years and loan volumes in examples
that illustrate how the thresholds work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not part of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau is also
finalizing additional related amendments to Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and
comment 3(c)(11)-2 to ensure that institutions affected by the
threshold increase have the option to report data collected in 2020
should they choose to do so. As discussed in part VI.A below, the
change to the closed-end threshold will take effect on July 1, 2020.
The Bureau selected this effective date to ensure that the relief
provided in this final rule is available quickly to affected
institutions, after a number of industry commenters expressed support
for a mid-year effective date. However, a number of commenters also
noted that institutions may have difficulty making changes to their
HMDA operations and might need time to implement changes in response to
the final rule. For example, a State trade association that expressed
support for a mid-year effective date noted that there may be
operational issues that make it difficult for institutions to avail
themselves of the threshold increase in mid-year and requested that the
Bureau allow a transition period for any institution that may need
additional time. The Bureau also recognizes that, since 2020 data
collection is already underway, some affected institutions may wish to
report the HMDA data that they have collected. The Bureau believes that
voluntary reporting of 2020 closed-end data from such institutions
would be beneficial to the HMDA dataset, as long as the data are
submitted for the entire calendar year.
The Bureau is amending Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2
to allow institutions newly excluded by the final rule the option to
report their 2020 closed-end data. Specifically, the Bureau is amending
Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) to clarify that, for purposes of information
collection in 2020, ``financial institution'' as used in the discussion
of optional reporting in Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) includes an institution
that was a financial institution as of January 1, 2020. Thus, for
purposes of information collection in 2020, an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1, 2020, may collect, record,
report, and disclose information, as described in Sec. Sec. 1003.4 and
.5, for closed-end mortgage loans excluded under Sec. 1003.3(c)(11),
as though they were covered loans, provided that the institution
complies with such requirements for all applications for closed-end
mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it
originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that
otherwise would have been covered loans during calendar year 2020. The
amendment to comment 3(c)(11)-2 clarifies that an institution that was
a financial institution as of January 1, 2020, but is not a financial
institution on July 1, 2020, because it originated fewer than 100
closed-end mortgage loans in either 2018 or 2019 is not required in
2021 to report, but may report, applications for, originations of, or
purchases of closed-end mortgage loans for calendar year 2020 that are
excluded transactions because the institution originated fewer than 100
closed-end mortgage loans in either 2018 or 2019. The amendment to
comment 3(c)(11)-2 further clarifies that an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1, 2020, and chooses to report such
excluded applications for, originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans in 2021 must report all such applications for closed-end
mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it
originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that
otherwise would be covered loans for all of calendar year 2020. These
amendments thus permit an institution that was a financial institution
as of January 1, 2020, but is not a financial institution on July 1,
2020, because it originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either 2018 or 2019 to report voluntarily in 2021 its closed-end HMDA
data collected in 2020, as long as the institution reports such closed-
end data for the full calendar year 2020.\147\ The Bureau believes that
these amendments are appropriate to ensure that institutions newly
excluded by the mid-year increase in the closed-end threshold in this
final rule have the option to report their 2020 closed-end data should
they choose to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Section 1003.3(c)(11) (both currently and as revised) and
comment 3(c)(11)-2 permit a financial institution whose closed-end
mortgage loans are excluded by Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) to report
voluntarily its closed-end data, as long as the financial
institution reports such closed-end data for the full calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in part VI below, the amendments to increase the
closed-end threshold, including the amendments to Sec. 1003.3(c)(11)
and comment 3(c)(11)-2 permitting optional reporting of data collected
in 2020, take effect on July 1, 2020. Because the deadline for
reporting of data collected in 2020 (voluntary or otherwise) is March
1, 2021, the amendments to Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2
relating to optional reporting of data collected in 2020 will no longer
be necessary after 2021. To streamline Regulation C, the final rule
therefore removes these amendments effective January 1, 2022.
3(c)(12)
As adopted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, Sec. 1003.3(c)(12) provides an
exclusion
[[Page 28386]]
from the requirement to report open-end lines of credit for
institutions that did not originate at least 100 such loans in each of
the two preceding calendar years. This transactional coverage threshold
complements the open-end threshold included in the definition of
financial institution in Sec. 1003.2(g), which sets forth Regulation
C's institutional coverage. The 2017 HMDA Rule replaced ``each'' with
``either'' in Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and (12) to correct a drafting error
and to ensure that the exclusions provided in Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and
(12) mirror the loan-volume thresholds for financial institutions in
Sec. 1003.2(g).\148\ As discussed in more detail in the section-by-
section analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g), in the 2017 HMDA Rule the Bureau
also amended Sec. Sec. 1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12) and related
commentary to raise temporarily the open-end threshold in those
provisions to 500 lines of credit for calendar years 2018 and
2019.\149\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to extend to
January 1, 2022, Regulation C's current temporary open-end threshold
for institutional and transactional coverage of 500 open-end lines of
credit and then to increase the permanent threshold from 100 to 200
open-end lines of credit upon the expiration of the proposed extension
of the temporary threshold. The Bureau stated in the 2019 HMDA Rule
that it intended to address in a separate final rule in 2020 the May
2019 Proposal's proposed amendment to the permanent threshold for open-
end lines of credit. Comments regarding the proposed permanent increase
in the open-end threshold are discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ 82 FR 43088, 43102 (Sept. 13, 2017).
\149\ Id. at 43095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed in the section-by-section analysis of
Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), the Bureau is now finalizing as proposed the
increase in the permanent threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit,
effective January 1, 2022. To align the permanent increase in the open-
end threshold for institutional coverage in Sec. 1003.2(g) with the
transactional coverage threshold, the Bureau is also finalizing the
permanent increase in the open-end threshold for transactional coverage
in Sec. 1003.3(c)(12) and comments 3(c)(12)-1 and -2, as proposed,
with minor changes for clarity.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ In addition to finalizing the proposed changes to comment
3(c)(12)-1, the final rule makes minor changes in comment 3(c)(12)-1
to adjust the years and loan volumes in an example that illustrates
how the open-end line of credit threshold works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Effective Dates
In consideration of comments received and for the reasons discussed
below, the Bureau is finalizing the increase in the closed-end
threshold to 100 effective July 1, 2020,\151\ and the adjustment to the
permanent open-end threshold to 200 effective January 1, 2022, when the
current temporary open-end threshold expires.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ As explained below, institutions that are subject to
HMDA's closed-end requirements prior to the effective date but that
do not meet the new closed-end threshold for calendar year 2020 as
of July 1, 2020 are relieved of the obligation to collect, record,
and report data for their 2020 closed-end mortgage loans effective
July 1, 2020.
\152\ As explained below, the amendments to the open-end
threshold apply to covered loans and applications with respect to
which final action is taken beginning on January 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Closed-End Threshold
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend Sec. Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A) and 1003.3(c)(11) and related
commentary to raise the closed-end threshold for institutional and
transactional coverage effective January 1, 2020. In the July 2019
Reopening Notice the agency issued in 2019, the Bureau explained that,
due to the reopening of the comment period on the closed-end threshold,
it would not be possible to finalize any change to the closed-end
threshold in time to take effect on the Bureau's originally proposed
effective date of January 1, 2020. The Bureau therefore requested
additional comment on the appropriate effective date for any change to
the closed-end threshold, should the Bureau decide to finalize a
change. The Bureau specifically requested comment on the costs and
benefits of a mid-year effective date during 2020 versus a January 1,
2021 effective date. With respect to the alternative of a mid-year
effective date during 2020, the Bureau also requested comment on the
costs and benefits of specific days of the week or times of the month,
quarter, or year for a new closed-end threshold to take effect and
whether there are any other considerations that the Bureau should
address in a final rule if it were to adopt a mid-year effective date.
Most commenters did not address the effective date question, and
those that did expressed differing views. A number of banks requested
an immediate effective date upon publication of the final rule and
requested elimination of any reporting requirement for 2020 data
collected prior to that date to provide more immediate regulatory
relief. These commenters also asked that the Bureau clarify in the
final rule that applications taken prior to a mid-year effective date,
which would no longer be HMDA reportable after the threshold increase
but for which demographic information was collected, do not violate the
demographic collection rules in Regulations B and C. In a joint comment
letter, a group of trade associations urged the Bureau to finalize the
rule before March 1, 2020 (the deadline for reporting data that
financial institutions collected in 2019) and have it take immediate or
even retroactive effect. A State trade association that supports a mid-
year effective date noted that there may be operational issues that
make it difficult for institutions to avail themselves of the threshold
increase in mid-year and requested that the Bureau allow a transition
for any institution that may need additional time. Other commenters,
including at least one bank, a State credit union league, and a joint
comment submitted on behalf of consumer groups, civil rights groups,
and other organizations, favored a January 1, 2021 effective date.
These commenters noted that institutions may have difficulty making
changes quickly and that implementing changes at the beginning of the
year makes data more consistent and minimizes confusion.
The Bureau has considered the comments received and concludes that
a mid-year effective date for the closed-end threshold is appropriate
to provide burden relief quickly to institutions that would have to
report under the threshold of 25 closed-end mortgage loans but will not
have to report under the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans.\153\ The amendments relating to the closed-end threshold in
Sec. Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A) and 1003.3(c)(11) and
related commentary are effective on July 1, 2020.\154\ Thus, in
calendar year 2020, an institution could have been subject to HMDA's
closed-end requirements as of January 1, 2020 because it originated at
least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in 2018 and 2019 and meets all of
the other requirements under Sec. 1003.2(g), but no longer subject to
HMDA's closed-end requirements as of July 1, 2020 (a newly excluded
institution) because it originated fewer than 100 closed-end
[[Page 28387]]
mortgage loans during 2018 or 2019. The final rule relieves newly
excluded institutions of the obligation to collect, record, and report
data for their 2020 closed-end mortgage loans effective July 1, 2020.
Newly excluded institutions may cease collecting 2020 data for closed-
end mortgage loans as of July 1, 2020. Pursuant to Sec. 1003.4(f),
newly excluded institutions must still record data on a loan/
application register for the first quarter of 2020 by 30 calendar days
after the end of the first quarter. They will not, however, be required
to record closed-end data for the second quarter of 2020 because the
deadline under Sec. 1003.4(f) for recording such data falls after July
1, 2020. Because newly excluded institutions collecting HMDA data in
2020 would not otherwise report those data until early 2021, the final
rule also relieves newly excluded institutions of the obligation to
report by March 1, 2021 data collected in 2020 on closed-end mortgage
loans (including closed-end data collected in 2020 before July 1,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ The Bureau declines, however, the suggestion of some
commenters that the rule should take immediate or even retroactive
effect. The Bureau believes that the roughly 75-day period between
the final rule's issuance and effective date will provide time for
affected institutions to review the final rule and adjust their
operations in accordance with it.
\154\ As explained below, the final rule also reverses the
amendments relating to optional reporting of 2020 data in Sec.
1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2 effective January 1, 2022
because those amendments will have become obsolete by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau appreciates that some newly excluded institutions will
need to continue to collect certain data due to other regulatory
requirements or may wish to continue collecting data for other reasons.
For example, Regulation B includes an independent requirement to
collect information regarding the applicant's ethnicity, race, sex,
marital status, and age where the credit sought is primarily for the
purchase or refinancing of a dwelling that is or will be the
applicant's principal residence and will secure the credit.\155\
Institutions may also decide to continue collecting after the effective
date for other reasons--for example, in order to assess whether they
will be subject to HMDA data collection requirements in 2021 or to
continue monitoring their own operations. As noted above, some
commenters indicated that many smaller institutions might not be able
to change their collection practices quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ 12 CFR 1002.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accommodate such institutions, the amendments to Sec.
1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2 permit an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1, 2020 but is not a financial
institution on July 1, 2020 because it originated fewer than 100
closed-end mortgage loans in 2018 or 2019 to report voluntarily in 2021
its closed-end HMDA data collected in 2020, as long as the institution
reports such closed-end data for the full calendar year 2020.\156\
These changes take effect with the other closed-end changes on July 1,
2020 and are discussed in more detail in the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.3(c)(11). Because the deadline for reporting of
2020 data (voluntary or otherwise) is in 2021, the final rule also
removes the amendments to Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2
relating to optional reporting of 2020 data effective January 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Section 1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2 (both
currently and as revised) permit a financial institution whose
closed-end mortgage loans are excluded by Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) to
report voluntarily its closed-end data, as long as the financial
institution reports such closed-end data for the full calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, a number of industry commenters asked that the
Bureau clarify in its final rule that applications taken prior to a
mid-year effective date, which would no longer be HMDA reportable after
the threshold increase but for which demographic information was
collected, do not violate the rules governing demographic information
collection in Regulations B and C. Newly excluded institutions do not
violate Regulation B or C by collecting demographic information about
applicants before the effective date in accordance with their legal
obligations under Regulation C as that regulation is in effect before
the effective date. As noted above, even after the effective date,
creditors will still be required under Regulation B to collect
information regarding ethnicity, race, sex, marital status, and age
where the credit sought is primarily for the purchase or refinancing of
a dwelling that is or will be the applicant's principal residence and
will secure the credit.\157\ The Bureau recognizes that some newly
excluded institutions may also continue collecting demographic
information for other loans in 2020 after the effective date--for
example, if they need additional time to update their systems and forms
and to retrain employees or if they decide to continue collecting for
the full year and report 2020 data voluntarily in accordance with Sec.
1003.3(c)(11) and comment 3(c)(11)-2. Although Regulation B, 12 CFR
1002.5(b), prohibits creditors from inquiring about the race, color,
religion, national origin, or sex of a credit applicant except under
certain circumstances, the Bureau notes that even after the effective
date, applicable exceptions in Regulation B will permit newly excluded
institutions \158\ to collect information in 2020 about the ethnicity,
race, and sex of applicants for loans that would have been covered
loans absent this final rule.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 12 CFR 1002.13.
\158\ As used here, a newly excluded institution means an
institution that was subject to HMDA's closed-end requirements as of
January 1, 2020 because it originated at least 25 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2018 and 2019 and met all of the other
requirements under Sec. 1003.2(g) but is no longer subject to
HMDA's closed-end requirements as of July 1, 2020 due to the final
rule's change to the closed-end threshold.
\159\ For example, Sec. 1002.5(a)(4)(iii) permits creditors
that submitted HMDA data for any of the preceding five calendar
years but that are not currently a financial institution to collect
information regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of applicants for
loans that would otherwise be covered loans if not excluded by Sec.
1003.3(c)(11) or (12). Section 1002.5(a)(4)(i) permits creditors
that are currently financial institutions due to their open-end
originations to collect information regarding the ethnicity, race,
and sex of an applicant for a closed-end mortgage loan that is an
excluded transaction under Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) if they either: (1)
Report data concerning such closed-end mortgage loans and
applications, or (2) reported closed-end HMDA data for any of the
preceding five calendar years. Additionally, Sec. 1002.5(a)(4)(iv)
permits a ``creditor that exceeded an applicable loan volume
threshold in the first year of the two-year threshold period
provided in 12 CFR 1003.2(g), 1003.3(c)(11), or 1003.3(c)(12)'' to
collect in the second year information regarding the ethnicity,
race, and sex of an applicant for a loan that would otherwise be a
covered loan if not excluded by Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) or (12). In the
unusual circumstances present here, where Regulation C's closed-end
threshold is changing in the middle of 2020, the Bureau interprets
``an applicable loan volume threshold'' as used in Sec.
1002.5(a)(4)(iv) to include, even after the July 1, 2020 effective
date, 25 closed-end mortgage loans for the year 2019 during the
2019-2020 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Open-End Threshold
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau proposed to amend Sec. Sec.
1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and 1003.3(c)(12) and related
commentary to extend to January 1, 2022, the current temporary open-end
threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit and then to set the threshold
permanently at 200 open-end lines of credit beginning in calendar year
2022. In the 2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau finalized as proposed the two-
year extension of the temporary open-end threshold, effective January
1, 2020. In this final rule the Bureau is adjusting the permanent open-
end threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit. For these amendments,
the Bureau is finalizing the effective date of January 1, 2022, as
proposed, to coincide with the expiration of the current temporary
open-end threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit. As explained below,
the amendments to the open-end threshold apply to covered loans and
applications with respect to which final action is taken beginning
January 1, 2022.
Consistent with feedback provided by industry stakeholders in
connection with the 2015 HMDA Rule and the 2017 HMDA Rule, a number of
commenters indicated in response to the May 2019 Proposal that a long
implementation period is necessary when coverage changes result in new
institutions
[[Page 28388]]
having reporting obligations under HMDA. A few trade associations and
industry commenters suggested the Bureau adopt a transition period or
good-faith efforts standard for compliance with HMDA requirements in
consultation with other regulators.
The Bureau determines that the period of more than 20 months
between this final rule's issuance and the January 1, 2022 effective
date for the adjustment to the open-end threshold will provide newly
covered financial institutions with sufficient time to revise and
update policies and procedures, implement any necessary systems
changes, and train staff before beginning to collect open-end data in
2022. As the Bureau explained in the 2019 HMDA Rule, the two-year
extension of the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit
ensures that institutions that will be required to report under the new
permanent threshold that takes effect in 2022 will have time to adapt
their systems and prepare for compliance.
Under the permanent open-end threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit, beginning in calendar year 2022, financial institutions that
originated at least 200 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding calendar years must collect and record data on their open-end
lines of credit pursuant to Sec. 1003.4 and report such data by March
1 of the following calendar year pursuant to Sec. 1003.5(a)(i). As
noted above, this requirement applies to covered loans and applications
with respect to which final action is taken on or after January 1,
2022. For example, if a financial institution described in Sec.
1003.2(g) originated at least 200 open-end lines of credit each year in
2020 and 2021 and takes final action on an application for an open-end
line of credit on February 15, 2022, the financial institution must
collect and record data on that application and report such data by
March 1, 2023. This is true regardless of when the financial
institution received the application.\160\ However, if an institution
originated fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in either of the two
preceding calendar years, that institution is not required to collect,
record, or report data on its open-end lines of credit for that
calendar year. For example, if an institution originated at least 200
open-end lines of credit in 2020 but fewer than 200 open-end lines of
credit in 2021, that institution does not need to collect, record, or
report any data on open-end lines of credit for which it takes final
action in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ The Bureau understands that final action taken on an
application may occur in a different year than the application date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b) Analysis
The Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and
impacts of the final rule.\161\ In developing the final rule, the
Bureau has consulted with or offered to consult with the prudential
regulators (the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency), the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of
Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade
Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding, among
other things, consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic
objectives administered by such agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Specifically, section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act
calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of
a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the
potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial
products or services; the impact on depository institutions and
credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described
in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and the impact on consumers
in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in greater detail elsewhere throughout this
supplementary information, in this rulemaking the Bureau is amending
Regulation C, effective July 1, 2020, to increase the threshold for
reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans to 100 originated
closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding years. In
addition, the Bureau is amending Regulation C to set the open-end
threshold at 200 originated open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years beginning in calendar year 2022.
A. Provisions To Be Analyzed
The final rule contains regulatory or commentary language
(provisions). The discussion below considers the benefits, costs, and
impacts of the following sets of major provisions of the final rule to:
1. Increase the threshold for reporting data about closed-end
mortgage loans from 25 to 100 originations in each of the two preceding
calendar years, effective July 1, 2020; and
2. Set the threshold for reporting data about open-end lines of
credit at 200 originations in each of the two preceding calendar years,
effective January 1, 2022.
With respect to each major provision, the discussion below
considers the benefits, costs, and impacts to consumers and covered
persons. The discussion also addresses comments the Bureau received on
the proposed Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) analysis, as well as
certain other comments on the benefits or costs of the relevant
provisions of the May 2019 Proposal that the Bureau is finalizing in
this rule, when doing so is helpful to understanding the Dodd-Frank Act
section 1022(b) analysis. Some commenters that mentioned the benefits
or costs of a provision of the May 2019 Proposal in the context of
commenting on the merits of that provision are addressed in the
relevant section-by-section analysis, above. In this respect, the
Bureau's discussion under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) is not limited
to this discussion in part VII of the final rule.
B. Baselines for Consideration of Costs and Benefits
The Bureau has discretion in any rulemaking to choose an
appropriate scope of analysis with respect to potential benefits,
costs, and impacts and an appropriate baseline.
For the purposes of this analysis, references to the ``first set of
provisions'' in this final rule are to those that increase the
threshold for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans from 25 to
100 originations in each of the two preceding calendar years, effective
July 1, 2020. Under current Regulation C, absent this final rule,
financial institutions that originated no fewer than 25 closed-end
mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years and meet
other reporting criteria are required to report their closed-end
activity under HMDA; furthermore, depository institutions and credit
unions that originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each
of the two preceding calendar years are generally exempt under the
EGRRCPA from reporting certain data points under HMDA. That is the
baseline adopted for this set of provisions throughout the analyses
presented below.
For the purposes of this analysis, references to the ``second set
of provisions'' in this final rule are to those that set the threshold
for reporting data about open-end lines of credit at 200 originations
in each of the two preceding calendar years, effective January 1, 2022.
In the 2019 HMDA Rule, the Bureau granted two-year temporary relief
(specifically, for 2020 and 2021) for financial institutions that did
not originate at least 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
[[Page 28389]]
preceding calendar years. The 2019 HMDA Rule provides that, absent any
future rulemaking, the open-end threshold will revert to 100 open-end
lines of credit starting in 2022, as established in the 2015 HMDA Rule.
This final rule sets the threshold for reporting data about open-end
lines of credit at 200 originations in each of the two preceding
calendar years, effective January 1, 2022. Meanwhile, the EGRRCPA's
partial exemption for open-end lines of credit of eligible insured
depository institutions and insured credit unions took effect on May
24, 2018. Therefore, for the consideration of benefits and costs of
this second set of provisions the Bureau is adopting a baseline in
which the open-end threshold starting in year 2022 is reset at 100
open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years,
with some depository institutions and credit unions partially exempt
under the EGRRCPA.
The Bureau notes that the May 2019 proposal's analysis relied on
three separate baselines for each of the three sets of provisions in
the proposal. With regard to the provision to increase the closed-end
threshold from 25 to 100, the Bureau had explained that the appropriate
baseline for this provision is a post-EGRRCPA world in which eligible
financial institutions under the EGRRCPA are already partially exempt
from the reporting of certain data points for closed-end mortgage
loans. And with regard to the provision to set the permanent open-end
threshold at 200, the Bureau had adopted a baseline in which the open-
end coverage threshold starting in year 2020 is reset at 100 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years with some
depository institutions and credit unions partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA. But for the purpose of this final rule, with the 2019 HMDA
Rule already having incorporated the EGRRCPA changes and finalized the
two-year extension of the temporary open-end threshold, the Bureau can
simplify by using a baseline that includes the 2019 HMDA Rule for the
two provisions being finalized now, with the closed-end analysis using
July 1, 2020 as the baseline, and the open-end analysis using January
1, 2022 as the baseline.
C. Coverage of the Final Rule
Both sets of provisions relieve certain financial institutions from
HMDA's requirements for data points regarding closed-end mortgage loans
or open-end lines of credit that they originate or purchase, or for
which they receive applications, as described further in each section
below. The final rule affects all financial institutions below certain
thresholds as discussed in detail below.
D. Basic Approach of the Bureau's Consideration of Benefits and Costs
and Data Limitations
This discussion relies on data that the Bureau has obtained from
industry, other regulatory agencies, and publicly available sources.
However, as discussed further below, the Bureau's ability to fully
quantify the potential costs, benefits, and impacts of this final rule
is limited in some instances by a scarcity of necessary data.
1. Benefits to Covered Persons
This final rule relates to the institutions and transactions that
are excluded from HMDA's reporting requirements. Both sets of
provisions in this final rule will reduce the regulatory burdens on
covered persons while also decreasing the data reported to serve the
statute's purposes. Therefore, the benefits of these provisions to
covered persons are mainly the reduction of the costs to covered
persons relative to the compliance costs the covered persons would have
to incur under each baseline scenario.
The Bureau's 2015 HMDA Rule, as well as the 2014 proposed rule for
the 2015 HMDA Rule and the material provided to the Small Business
Review Panel leading to the 2015 HMDA Rule, presented a basic framework
of analyzing compliance costs for HMDA reporting, including ongoing
costs and one-time costs for financial institutions. Based on the
Bureau's then study of the HMDA compliance process and costs, with the
help of additional information gathered and verified through the Small
Business Review Panel process, the Bureau classified the operational
activities that financial institutions use for HMDA data collection and
reporting into 18 discrete compliance ``tasks'' which can be grouped
into four ``primary tasks.'' \162\ Recognizing that the cost per loan
of complying with HMDA's requirements differs by financial institution,
the Bureau further identified seven key dimensions of compliance
operations that were significant drivers of compliance costs, including
the reporting system used, the degree of system integration, the degree
of system automation, the compliance program, and the tools for
geocoding, performing completeness checks, and editing. The Bureau
found that the compliance operations of financial institutions tended
to have similar levels of complexity across all seven dimensions. For
example, if a given financial institution had less system integration,
then it tended to use less automation and less complex tools for
geocoding. Financial institutions generally did not use less complex
approaches on one dimension and more complex approaches on another. The
small entity representatives validated this perspective during the
Small Business Review Panel meeting convened under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ These tasks include: (1) Data collection: Transcribing
data, resolving reportability questions, and transferring data to
HMDA Management System (HMS); (2) Reporting and resubmission:
Geocoding, standard annual edit and internal checks, researching
questions, resolving question responses, checking post-submission
edits, filing post-submission documents, creating modified loan/
application register, distributing modified loan/application
register, distributing disclosure statement, and using vendor HMS
software; (3) Compliance and internal audits: Training, internal
audits, and external audits; and (4) HMDA-related exams: Examination
preparation and examination assistance.
\163\ See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., ``Final Report of the
Small Business Review Panel on the CFPB's Proposals Under
Consideration for the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
Rulemaking'' 22, 37 (Apr. 24, 2014), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_report_hmda_sbrefa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau realizes that costs vary by institution due to many
factors, such as size, operational structure, and product complexity,
and that this variance exists on a continuum that is impossible to
fully represent. To consider costs in a practical and meaningful way,
in the 2015 HMDA Rule the Bureau adopted an approach that focused on
three representative tiers of financial institutions. In particular, to
capture the relationships between operational complexity and compliance
cost, the Bureau used the seven key dimensions noted above to define
three broadly representative financial institutions according to the
overall level of complexity of their compliance operations. Tier 1
denotes a representative financial institution with the highest level
of complexity, tier 2 denotes a representative financial institution
with a moderate level of complexity, and tier 3 denotes a
representative financial institution with the lowest level of
complexity. For each tier, the Bureau developed a separate set of
assumptions and cost estimates.
Table 1 below provides an overview of all three representative
tiers across the seven dimensions of compliance operations: \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ The Bureau notes this description has taken into account
the operational improvements the Bureau has implemented regarding
HMDA reporting since issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule and differs slightly
from the original taxonomy in the 2015 HMDA Rule that reflected the
technology at the time of the study.
[[Page 28390]]
Table 1--Types of HMDA Reporters \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3 FIs tend to . . . Tier 2 FIs tend to . . . Tier 1 FIs tend to . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems....................... Enter data in Excel loan/ Use LOS and HMS; Submit Use multiple LOS, central
application register data via the HMDA SoR, HMS; Submit data
Formatting Tool. Platform. via the HMDA Platform.
Integration................... (None).................... Have forward integration Have backward and forward
(LOS to HMS). integration; Integration
with public HMDA APIs.
Automation.................... Manually enter data into Loan/application register Loan/application register
loan/application register file produced by HMS; file produced by HMS;
Formatting Tool; review review edits in HMS and high automation
and verify edits in the HMDA platform; verify compiling file and
HMDA Platform. edits via HMDA Platform. reviewing edits; verify
edits via the HMDA
platform.
Geocoding..................... Use FFIEC tool (manual)... Use batch processing..... Use batch processing with
multiple sources.
Completeness Checks........... Check in HMDA Platform Use LOS, which includes Use multiple stages of
only. completeness checks. checks.
Edits......................... Use FFIEC Edits only...... Use FFIEC and customized Use FFIEC and customized
edits. edits run multiple
times.
Compliance Program............ Have a joint compliance Have basic internal and Have in-depth accuracy
and audit office. external accuracy audit. and fair lending audit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FI is ``financial institution''; LOS is ``Loan Origination System''; HMS is ``HMDA Data Management
Software''; SoR is ``System of Record.''
For a representative institution in each tier, in the 2015 HMDA
Rule the Bureau produced a series of estimates of the costs of
compliance, including the ongoing costs that financial institutions
incurred prior to the implementation of the 2015 HMDA Rule, and the
changes to the ongoing costs due to the 2015 HMDA Rule. The Bureau
further provided the breakdown of the changes to the ongoing costs due
to each major provision in the 2015 HMDA Rule, which includes the
changes to the scope of the institutional coverage, the change to the
scope of the transactional coverage, the revisions to the existing data
points (as before the 2015 HMDA Rule) and the addition of new data
points by the 2015 HMDA Rule.
For the impact analysis in this final rule, the Bureau is utilizing
the cost estimates provided in the 2015 HMDA Rule for the
representative financial institution in each of the three tiers, with
some updates, mainly to reflect the inflation rate. In addition, for
the financial institutions eligible for partial exemptions under the
EGRRCPA, the Bureau is making updates to align the partially exempt
data points (and data fields used to report these data points) with the
cost impact analyses discussed in the impact analyses for the 2015 HMDA
Rule. The Bureau's analyses below also take into account the
operational improvements that have been implemented by the Bureau
regarding HMDA reporting since the issuance of the 2015 HMDA Rule. The
details of such analyses are contained in the following sections
addressing the two sets of provisions of this final rule.
The Bureau received a number of comments relating to the benefits
to covered persons of the May 2019 Proposal, both in response to the
original proposal and in response to the July 2019 Reopening Notice,
and it has considered these comments in finalizing this rule. Many
industry commenters reported that they expend substantial resources on
HMDA compliance that they could instead use for other purposes or that
they have structured their lines of business to ensure they are not
required to report under HMDA. Some cited, for example, the burden of
establishing procedures, purchasing reporting software, and training
staff to comply with HMDA, and noted that compliance can be
particularly difficult for smaller institutions with limited staff. A
trade association commented that the Bureau's estimates do not account
for the reduction in examination burdens and the resources diverted to
HMDA compliance from other more productive activities. It also asserted
that the Bureau's burden analysis did not properly address data
security costs associated with HMDA collection and reporting. Another
trade association suggested that the three-tiered approach to
estimating costs does not seem to account for the unique challenges of
adapting business and multifamily lending to HMDA regulations and HMDA
reporting infrastructure designed with single-family consumer mortgage
lending in mind.
In their comments, consumer groups, civil rights groups, and other
nonprofit organizations stated that Federal agency fair lending and CRA
exams will become more burdensome for Federal agencies and the HMDA-
exempt lenders since the agencies will now have to ask for internal
data from the lenders instead of being able to use the HMDA data. They
also noted that smaller-volume lenders already benefit from the
EGRRCPA's partial exemptions and stated that almost all of the data
that such institutions must report under HMDA would already need to be
collected to comply with other statutes like the Truth in Lending Act,
to sell loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or to acquire Federal
Housing Administration insurance for loans. A nonprofit organization
that does HMDA-related research commented that it is hard to imagine
that a bank would not keep an electronic record of its lending, even if
it were not subject to HMDA reporting.
The Bureau has considered these comments and concludes, as it did
in the 2019 HMDA Rule, that they do not undermine the Bureau's approach
or cost parameters used in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal. For
example, the activities that many industry commenters described as
burdensome--including scrubbing data, training personnel, and preparing
for HMDA-related examinations--are consistent with and captured by the
18 discrete compliance ``tasks'' that the Bureau identified through its
study of the HMDA compliance process and costs in the 2015 HMDA
rulemaking. As part of its analysis, the Bureau also recognized that
costs vary by institution due to many factors, such as size,
operational structure, and product complexity, and adopted a tiered
framework to capture
[[Page 28391]]
the relationships between operational complexity and compliance cost.
While some products are more costly than others to report, the three-
tiered framework uses representative institutions to capture this type
of variability and estimate overall costs of HMDA reporting. In
estimating compliance costs associated with HMDA reporting through this
framework, the Bureau also recognized that much of the information
required for HMDA reporting is information that financial institutions
would need to collect, retain, and secure as part of their lending
process, even if they were not subject to HMDA reporting. The Bureau
therefore does not believe that the comments received provide a basis
for departing from the approach for analyzing costs and benefits for
covered persons used in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal.
The next step of the Bureau's consideration of the reduction of
costs for covered persons involved aggregating the institution-level
estimates of the cost reduction under each set of provisions up to the
market-level. This aggregation required estimates of the total number
of potentially impacted financial institutions and their total number
of loan/application register records. The Bureau used a wide range of
data in conducting this task, including recent HMDA data,\165\ Call
Reports, and Consumer Credit Panel data. These analyses were
challenging, because no single data source provided complete coverage
of all the financial institutions that could be impacted and because
there is varying data quality among the different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ The majority of the analyses in part VI of the May 2019
Proposal were conducted prior to the official submission deadline of
the 2018 HMDA data on March 1, 2019, and 2017 was the most recent
year of HMDA data the Bureau used for the analyses presented in the
May 2019 Proposal. For this part of the final rule, the Bureau has
supplemented the analyses with the 2018 HMDA data. The majority of
the analyses for this final rule were conducted prior to the
official submission deadline of the 2019 HMDA data on March 2, 2020.
As of the date of issuance of this final rule, the Bureau is
processing the 2019 HMDA loan/application register submissions and
checking data quality, and some financial institutions are
continuing to revise and resubmit their 2019 HMDA data. Accordingly,
the Bureau has not considered the 2019 HMDA data in the analyses for
this final rule. The Bureau notes the market may fluctuate from year
to year, and the Bureau's rulemaking is not geared towards such
transitory changes on an annual basis but is instead based on larger
trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To perform the aggregation, the Bureau mapped the potentially
impacted financial institutions to the three tiers described above. For
each of the provisions analyzed, the Bureau assumed none of the changes
would affect the high-complexity tier 1 reporters. The Bureau then
assigned the potentially impacted financial institutions to either tier
2 or tier 3. In doing so, the Bureau relied on two constraints: (1) The
estimated number of impacted institutions in tiers 2 and 3, combined,
must equal the estimated number of impacted institutions for the
applicable provision, and (2) the number of loan/application register
records submitted annually by the impacted financial institutions in
tiers 2 and 3, combined, must equal the estimated number of loan/
application register records for the applicable provision. As in the
2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau assumed for closed-end reporting that a
representative low-complexity tier 3 financial institution has 50
closed-end mortgage loan HMDA loan/application register records per
year and a representative moderate-complexity tier 2 financial
institution has 1,000 closed-end mortgage loan HMDA loan/application
register records per year. Similarly, the Bureau assumed for open-end
reporting that a representative low-complexity tier 3 financial
institution has 150 open-end HMDA loan/application register records per
year and a representative moderate-complexity tier 2 financial
institution has 1,000 open-end HMDA loan/application register records
per year. Constraining the total number of impacted institutions and
the number of impacted loan/application register records across tier 2
and tier 3 to the aggregate estimates thus enables the Bureau to
calculate the approximate numbers of impacted institutions in tiers 2
and 3 for each set of provisions.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ See supra note 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplying the impact estimates for representative financial
institutions in each tier by the estimated number of impacted
institutions, the Bureau arrived at the market-level estimates.
2. Costs to Covered Persons
In general, and as discussed in part VII.D.1 above, both sets of
provisions in this final rule will reduce the ongoing operational costs
associated with HMDA reporting for the affected covered persons. In the
interim, it is possible that to adapt to the rule, covered persons may
incur certain one-time costs. Such one-time costs are mostly related to
training and system changes in covered persons' HMDA reporting/loan
origination systems. Based on the Bureau's outreach to industry,
however, the Bureau believes that such one-time costs are fairly small.
Commenters did not indicate that covered persons who would be excluded
completely from reporting HMDA data would incur significant costs,
either for closed-end mortgage loans or for open-end lines of credit,
or both.
3. Benefits to Consumers
Having generated estimates of the changes in ongoing costs and one-
time costs to covered financial institutions, the Bureau then can
attempt to estimate the potential pass-through of such cost reduction
from these institutions to consumers, which could benefit consumers and
affect credit access. According to economic theory, in a perfectly
competitive market where financial institutions are profit maximizers,
the affected financial institutions would pass on to consumers the
marginal, i.e., variable, cost savings per application or origination,
and absorb the one-time and increased fixed costs of complying with the
rule. The Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule the impacts on the
variable costs of the representative financial institutions in each
tier due to various provisions of that rule. Similarly, the estimates
of the pass-through effect from covered persons to consumers due to the
provisions under this rule are based on the relevant estimates of the
changes to the variable costs in the 2015 HMDA Rule with some updates.
The Bureau notes that the market structure in the consumer mortgage
lending markets may differ from that of a perfectly competitive market
(for instance due to information asymmetry between lenders and
borrowers) in which case the pass-through to the consumers would most
likely be smaller than the pass-through under the perfect competition
assumption.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ The further the market moves away from a perfectly
competitive market, the smaller the pass-through would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau requested additional comments
on the potential pass-through from financial institutions to consumers
due to the reduction in reporting costs. A trade association commented
that it believed that the proposed higher thresholds will move mortgage
markets to more perfect competition. It suggested that institutions
that currently manage their origination volumes to stay below HMDA
reporting thresholds will be incentivized to increase operations and
that, by being able to offer savings on fees and pricing, and by being
more competitive due to lower productions costs, smaller banks will be
able to enter the mortgage market at more profitable levels. However,
as the Bureau noted in the 2019 HMDA Rule, this comment did
[[Page 28392]]
not provide specific estimates that the Bureau can utilize in refining
the analyses.
4. Cost to Consumers
HMDA is a sunshine statute. The purposes of HMDA are to provide the
public with loan data that can be used: (i) To help determine whether
financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their
communities; (ii) to assist public officials in distributing public-
sector investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it
is needed; and (iii) to assist in identifying possible discriminatory
lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.\168\ The
provisions in this final rule, as adopted, lessen the reporting
requirements for excluded financial institutions by relieving them of
the obligation to report all data points related to either closed-end
mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit. As a sunshine statute
regarding data reporting and disclosure, most of the benefits of HMDA
are realized indirectly. With less data required to be collected and
reported under HMDA, the HMDA data available to serve HMDA's statutory
purposes will decline.\169\ However, to quantify the reduction of such
benefits to consumers presents substantial challenges. The Bureau
sought comment on the magnitude of the loss of HMDA benefits from these
changes to the available data and/or methodologies for measuring these
effects in the May 2019 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ 12 CFR 1003.1(b).
\169\ The changes in this final rule will reduce public
information regarding whether financial institutions are serving the
needs of their communities. To the extent that these data are used
for other purposes, the loss of data could result in other costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau received a number of comments emphasizing the loss of
HMDA benefits from decreased information lenders would report under
HMDA were the May 2019 Proposal to be finalized. For example, a group
of 148 local and national organizations stated that raising reporting
thresholds will lead to another round of abusive and discriminatory
lending similar to abuses that occurred in the years before the
financial crisis. These commenters also stated that the general public,
researchers, and Federal agencies will have an incomplete picture of
lending trends in thousands of census tracts and neighborhoods if
affected institutions no longer report HMDA data. Additionally, a State
attorney general stated that the May 2019 Proposal failed to fully
account for the harms that would be imposed by the proposal, including
the costs to States in losing access to helpful data. However, as the
Bureau noted in the 2019 HMDA Rule, none of these commenters provided
specific quantifiable estimates of the loss of benefits from decreased
information lenders would report under HMDA.
The Bureau acknowledges that quantifying and monetizing benefits of
HMDA to consumers would require identifying all possible uses of HMDA
data, establishing causal links to the resulting public benefits, and
then quantifying the magnitude of these benefits. For instance,
quantification would require measuring the impact of increased
transparency on financial institution behavior, the need for public and
private investment, the housing needs of communities, the number of
financial institutions potentially engaging in discriminatory or
predatory behavior, and the number of consumers currently being
unfairly disadvantaged and the level of quantifiable damage from such
disadvantage. Similarly, for the impact analyses of this final rule,
the Bureau is unable to readily quantify the loss of some of the HMDA
benefits to consumers with precision, both because the Bureau does not
have the data to quantify all HMDA benefits and because the Bureau is
not able to assess completely how this final rule will reduce those
benefits.
In light of these data limitations, the discussion below generally
provides a qualitative (not quantitative) consideration of the costs,
i.e., the potential loss of HMDA benefits to consumers from the rule.
E. Potential Benefits and Costs to Consumers and Covered Persons
1. Overall Summary
In this section, the Bureau presents a concise, high-level table
summarizing the benefits and costs considered in the remainder of the
discussion. This table is not intended to capture all details and
nuances that are provided both in the rest of the analysis and in the
section-by-section discussion above. Instead, it provides an overview
of the major benefits and costs of the final rule, including the
provisions to be analyzed, the baseline chosen for each set of
provisions, the sub-provisions to be analyzed, the implementation dates
of the sub-provisions, the annual savings on the operational costs of
covered persons due to the sub-provisions, the impact on the one-time
costs of covered persons due to the sub-provision, and generally how
the provisions in the final rule affect HMDA's benefits.
Table 2--Overview of Major Potential Benefits and Costs of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings on annual Loss of data
Provisions to be analyzed Baseline Baseline threshold New threshold Implementation date operational costs Impact on one time costs coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Closed-end Mortgage 2015 and 2017 HMDA 25 originations in 100 originations Effective July 1, 2020. $6.4 M................... Negligible............... Complete exclusion
Loan Coverage Threshold. Rules, EGRRCPA, each of two in each of two of reporting of
2019 HMDA Rule. preceding preceding approximately
calendar years. calendar years. 1,700 reporters
with about
112,000 closed-
end mortgage
loans.
Increasing Open-end Line of 2015 and 2017 HMDA 100 originations 200 originations Effective January 1, $3.7 M................... Savings of $23.9 M....... Complete exclusion
Credit Coverage Threshold. Rules, EGRRCPA, in each of two in each of two 2022. of reporting of
2019 HMDA Rule. preceding preceding approximately 400
calendar years. calendar years. reporters with
about 69,000 open-
end line of
credit
originations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28393]]
2. Provisions to Increase the Closed-End Threshold
Scope of the Provisions
The final rule increases the thresholds for reporting data about
closed-end mortgage loans so that financial institutions originating
fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding
calendar years are excluded from HMDA's requirements for closed-end
mortgage loans effective July 1, 2020.
The 2015 HMDA Rule requires institutions that originated at least
25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar
years and meet all other reporting criteria to report their closed-end
mortgage applications and loans. The EGRRCPA provides a partial
exemption for insured depository institutions and insured credit unions
that originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the
two preceding years and do not have certain less than satisfactory CRA
examination ratings. This section considers the provisions in the final
rule that increase the closed-end loan threshold to 100 so that only
financial institutions that originated at least 100 closed-end mortgage
loans in each of the two preceding years must report data on their
closed-end mortgage applications and loans under HMDA.
Using data from various sources, including past HMDA submissions,
Call Reports, Credit Union Call Reports, Summary of Deposits, and the
National Information Center, the Bureau applied all current HMDA
reporting requirements, including Regulation C's existing complete
regulatory exclusion for institutions that originated fewer than 25
closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding calendar
years, and estimates that currently there are about 4,860 financial
institutions required to report their closed-end mortgage loans and
applications under HMDA. Together, these financial institutions
originated about 6.3 million closed-end mortgage loans in calendar year
2018. The Bureau observes that the total number of institutions that
were engaged in closed-end mortgage lending in 2018, regardless of
whether they met all HMDA reporting criteria, was about 11,600, and the
total number of closed-end mortgage originations in 2018 was about 7.2
million. In other words, under the current 25 closed-end loan
threshold, about 41.9 percent of all mortgage lenders are required to
report HMDA data, and they account for about 87.8 percent of all
closed-end mortgage originations in the country. The Bureau estimates
that among those 4,860 financial institutions that are currently
required to report closed-end mortgage loans under HMDA, about 3,250
insured depository institutions and insured credit unions are partially
exempt for closed-end mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA, and thus are
not required to report a subset of the data points currently required
by Regulation C for these transactions.
The Bureau stated in the May 2019 Proposal that it intended to
review the 2018 HMDA data more closely in connection with this
rulemaking once the 2018 submissions were more complete. The Bureau
released the national loan level dataset for 2018 and the Bureau's
annual overview of residential mortgage lending based on HMDA data
\170\ (collectively the 2018 HMDA Data) in August 2019, and reopened
the comment period on aspects of the May 2019 Proposal until October
15, 2019, to give commenters an opportunity to comment on the 2018 HMDA
Data. The estimates reflected in this final rule are based on the HMDA
data collected in 2017 and 2018 as well as other sources. The Bureau
notes that the estimates provided above update the initial estimates
provided in the May 2019 Proposal with the 2018 HMDA data.\171\ In
particular, as the 2018 HMDA data analyses were not available at the
time when the Bureau developed the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau used
HMDA data from 2016 and 2017 with a two-year look-back period in
calendar years 2016 and 2017 for its estimates of potential reporters
and projected the lending activities of financial institutions using
their 2017 activities as proxies. In generating the updated estimates
for this final rule, the Bureau has used HMDA data from 2017 and 2018
with a two-year look-back period in calendar years 2017 and 2018 for
its estimates of potential reporters and projected the lending
activities of financial institutions using their 2018 activities as
proxies. In addition, for the estimates provided in the May 2019
Proposal and in this final rule, the Bureau restricted the projected
reporters to only those that actually reported data in the most
recently available year of HMDA data (2017 for the May 2019 proposal
and 2018 for this final rule).\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ The Bureau's overview is available in two articles. Bureau
of Consumer Fin. Prot., ``Data Point: 2018 Mortgage Market Activity
and Trends: A First Look at the 2018 HMDA Data'' (Aug. 2019),
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/data-point-2018-mortgage-market-activity-and-trends/; Bureau of Consumer
Fin. Prot., ``Introducing New and Revised Data Points in HMDA:
Initial Observations from New and Revised Data Points in 2018 HMDA''
(Aug. 2019), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/introducing-new-revised-data-points- hmda/.
\171\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that there
were about 4,960 financial institutions required to report their
closed-end mortgage loans and applications under HMDA. Together,
these financial institutions originated about 7.0 million closed-end
mortgage loans in calendar year 2017. The Bureau observed that the
total number of financial institutions that were engaged in closed-
mortgage lending in 2017, regardless of whether they met all HMDA
reporting criteria, was about 12,700, and the total number of
closed-end mortgage originations in 2017 was about 8.2 million. The
Bureau estimated then that under the current threshold of 25 closed-
end mortgage loans, about 39 percent of all mortgage lenders were
required to report HMDA data, and they accounted for about 85.6
percent of all closed-end mortgage originations in the country;
among those 4,960 financial institutions that were required to
report closed-end mortgage loans under HMDA, about 3,300 insured
depository institutions and insured credit unions were partially
exempt for closed-end mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA and the 2018
HMDA Rule.
\172\ The Bureau recognizes that the estimates generated using
this restriction may omit certain financial institutions that should
have reported but did not report in the most recent HMDA reporting
year. However, the Bureau applied this restriction to ensure that
institutions included in its estimates are in fact financial
institutions for purposes of Regulation C because it recognizes that
institutions might not meet the Regulation C definition of financial
institution for reasons that are not evident in the data sources
that it reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau estimates that when the closed-end threshold increases
to 100 under this final rule, the total number of financial
institutions required to report closed-end mortgage loans will drop to
about 3,160, a decrease of about 1,700 financial institutions compared
to the current level. These 1,700 newly excluded institutions
originated about 112,000 closed-end mortgage loans in 2018. The Bureau
estimates that there will be about 6.2 million closed-end mortgage loan
originations reported under the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans, which will account for about 86.3 percent of all closed-end
mortgage loan originations in the entire mortgage market. The Bureau
further estimates that about 1,630 of the 1,700 newly excluded closed-
end reporters that will be excluded under the threshold of 100 closed-
end mortgage loans are eligible for a partial exemption for closed-end
mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA.
The Bureau notes that the estimates presented above update the
corresponding estimates from the May 2019 Proposal \173\ for the
reasons
[[Page 28394]]
explained above, reflecting more recent data. The updated estimates
overall are consistent with the Bureau's analysis in the May 2019
Proposal and continue to support the Bureau's view regarding the
impacts of a threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if the
closed-end threshold were increased to 100, the total number of
financial institutions that would be required to report closed-end
mortgage loans would drop to about 3,240, a decrease of about 1,720
financial institutions compared to the current level. These 1,720
newly excluded institutions originated about 147,000 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2017. There would be about 6.87 million closed-end
mortgage loan originations reported under the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans, which would account for about 83.7
percent of all closed-end mortgage originations in the entire
mortgage market.
The Bureau further estimated that all but about 50 of the 1,720
newly excluded closed-end mortgage loan reporters that would be
excluded under the proposed threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans would be eligible for a partial exemption for closed-end
mortgage loans as provided by the EGRRCPA and the 2018 HMDA Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 below shows the Bureau's estimates of the number of closed-
end reporters that would be required to report under various potential
thresholds, and the number of closed-end originations reported by these
financial institutions, both in total and broken down by whether they
are depository institutions or non-depository institutions, and among
depository institutions whether they are partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau provided a similar
table that included a breakdown of reporters by agency. For the
final rule, as more relevant here, the Bureau has instead used this
table to summarize the Bureau's estimates broken down by whether the
reporters are depository institutions or non-depository institutions
and, among depository institutions, whether they are partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA.
Table 3--Estimated Number of Closed-End Reporters and Closed-End Mortgage Loans Reported Under Various
Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depository institution
Non-depository --------------------------------
Threshold institution Not partially Partially Total
exempt exempt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25:
# of Reporters............................ 740 870 3,250 4,860
# of Reported Loans (in thousands)........ 3,429 2,419 475 6,323
50
# of Reporters............................ 720 870 2,530 4,120
# of Reported Loans (in thousands)........ 3,428 2,419 443 6,290
100
# of Reporters............................ 680 860 1,620 3,160
# of Reported Loans (in thousands)........ 3,425 2,417 369 6,211
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits to Covered Persons
The final rule's complete exclusion from closed-end mortgage
reporting for institutions that originated fewer than 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in either of the two preceding calendar years conveys a
direct benefit to the excluded covered persons by reducing the ongoing
costs of having to report closed-end mortgage loans and applications
that were previously required.
In the impact analysis of the 2015 HMDA Rule, prior to the adoption
of the changes in the 2015 HMDA Rule and implementation of the Bureau's
operational improvements, the Bureau estimated that the annual
operational costs for financial institutions of reporting under HMDA
were approximately $2,500 for a representative low-complexity tier 3
financial institution with a loan/application register size of 50
records; $35,600 for a representative moderate-complexity tier 2
financial institution with a loan/application register size of 1,000
records; and $313,000 for a representative high-complexity tier 1
financial institution with a loan/application register size of 50,000
records. The Bureau estimated that accounting for the operational
improvements, the net impact of the 2015 HMDA Rule on ongoing
operational costs for closed-end reporters would be approximately
$1,900, $7,800, and $20,000 \175\ per year, for representative low-,
moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively.
This means that with all components of the 2015 HMDA Rule implemented
and accounting for the Bureau's operational improvements, the estimated
annual operational costs for closed-end mortgage reporting would be
approximately $4,400 for a representative low-complexity tier 3
reporter, $43,400 for a representative moderate-complexity tier 2
reporter, and $333,000 for a representative high-complexity tier 1
reporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ This does not include the costs of quarterly reporting for
financial institutions that have annual origination volume greater
than 60,000. Those quarterly reporters are all high-complexity tier
1 institutions, and the Bureau estimates none of the quarterly
reporters will be excluded under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of this final rule, updating the above numbers to
account for inflation, the Bureau estimates that if a financial
institution is required to report under the 2015 HMDA Rule and is not
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, the savings on the annual
operational costs from not reporting any closed-end mortgage data under
the final rule is as follows: approximately $4,500 for a representative
low-complexity tier 3 institution, $44,700 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution, and $343,000 for a
representative high-complexity tier 1 institution. On the other hand,
the Bureau estimates that if a financial institution is eligible for a
partial exemption on its closed-end mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA,
the annual savings in the ongoing costs from the partial exemption
alone would be approximately $2,300 for a representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution, $11,900 for a representative moderate-complexity
tier 2 institution and $33,900 for a representative high-complexity
tier 1 institution. Therefore, the Bureau estimates that if a financial
institution is required to report under the 2015 HMDA Rule, but is
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, the savings in the annual
operational costs from not reporting any closed-end mortgage data would
be as follows: approximately $2,200 for a representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution, $32,800 for a representative moderate-complexity
tier 2 institution, and $309,000 for a representative high-complexity
tier 1 institution. These estimates have already been adjusted for
inflation.
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau specifically
requested information relating to the costs financial institutions
incurred in collecting and reporting 2018 data in compliance with the
2015 HMDA Rule. The Bureau stated this information might be valuable in
estimating costs in
[[Page 28395]]
the Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) analysis issued with the final rule.
The Bureau received a number of comments regarding the costs of
collecting and reporting data in compliance with the 2015 HMDA Rule.
Among the comments that provided specific cost estimates of compliance,
most are related to closed-end reporting. The degree of details of such
comments vary. Some provided the estimates of HMDA operational costs in
dollar terms, some provided estimates of hours employees spent on each
loan/application register record on average, some provided the cost of
purchasing software, some provided consulting and auditing costs, and
some provided the number of loan/application register records they
processed while others did not.
The Bureau has reviewed these cost estimates provided in comments
and compared them with the Bureau's estimates of HMDA operational costs
using the three representative tier approach. Most of these commenters
had low loan/application register volume similar to the representative
tier 3 financial institutions. For example, one small financial
institution commented that it was spending approximately $12,000 in
employee expenses alone to generate its loan/application register or
approximately $68 to $100 per loan/application register record. Based
on the information provided by this commenter, the Bureau estimates the
annual loan/application register size for this commenter is between 175
and 200 records, which is close to the Bureau's assumption for a
representative low-complexity tier 3 financial institution in the
estimates provided in the 2015 HMDA Rule. Specifically, the Bureau
estimated that for a representative low-complexity tier 3 financial
institution with 50 HMDA loan/application register records, the total
ongoing costs with operational improvements the Bureau has implemented
since issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule would be about $4,400, or about $88
per loan/application register record. Overall, the cost and hourly
estimates provided by the commenters vary. Figure 1 plots the average
costs per loan/application register record (on the vertical axis)
against the number of loan/application register records (on vertical
axis) for the low-complexity tier 3 financial institutions that
provided cost estimates in their comments and that the Bureau was able
to match to their 2018 HMDA loan/application register records. Other
than a few outliers, they are all within the reasonable range that the
Bureau anticipated and close to (though not exactly equal to) the
Bureau's cost estimates for representative low-complexity tier 3
institutions. The Bureau notes that variation of operational costs
among different financial institutions is not surprising. As the Bureau
recognized in the 2015 HMDA Rule and the May 2019 Proposal, costs vary
by institution due to many factors, such as size, operational
structure, and product complexity, and that is the reason the Bureau
adopted a tiered framework to capture the relationships between
operational complexity and compliance cost. The three-tiered framework
uses representative institutions to capture this type of variability
and estimate overall costs of HMDA reporting.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12MY20.177
[[Page 28396]]
The Bureau has considered the comments it received on compliance
costs and concludes that they do not undermine the Bureau's approach or
cost parameters used in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal. The Bureau
therefore does not believe that the comments received provide a basis
for departing from the approach for analyzing costs for covered persons
used in part VI of the May 2019 Proposal.
Using the methodology discussed above in part VI.D.1, the Bureau
estimates that with the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans
under the final rule, about 1,700 institutions will be completely
excluded from reporting closed-end mortgage data compared to the
current level. About 1,630 of the 1,700 are eligible for the partial
exemption for closed-end mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA.
Approximately 1,640 of these newly-excluded institutions are depository
institutions, and approximately 60 are nondepository institutions.
The Bureau estimates that, of the approximately 1,630 institutions
that are (1) required to report closed-end mortgage loans under the
2015 HMDA Rule, (2) partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, and (3)
completely excluded under the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans, about 1,560 are similar to the representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution and about 70 are similar to the representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution. Of the approximately 70
remaining institutions that are required to report closed-end mortgage
data under the 2015 HMDA Rule and are not partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA but will be completely excluded under the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans, about 60 are similar to the representative
low-complexity tier 3 institution and about 10 are similar to the
representative moderate-complexity tier 2 institution.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ The Bureau estimated in the May 2019 Proposal that
approximately 1,720 institutions would be newly excluded from the
closed-end reporting under the proposed 100 loan threshold, of which
about 1,670 are already partially exempt under EGRRCPA, and among
those 1,670 financial institutions, about 1,540 are low-complexity
tier 3 institutions and 130 are moderate-complexity tier 2
institutions. The Bureau also estimated in the May 2019 Proposal
that of the approximately 50 remaining institutions that are
required to report closed-end mortgage data under the 2015 HMDA Rule
and are not partially exempt under the EGRRCPA but would be
completely excluded under the threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage
loans, about 45 are similar to the representative low-complexity
tier 3 institution and about 5 are similar to the representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institution. These estimates are updated
in the final rule and presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the estimates of the savings of annual ongoing costs for
closed-end reporting per representative institution, grouped by whether
or not it is partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, and the estimated tier
distribution of these financial institutions that will be excluded
under the 100 closed-end loan threshold, the Bureau estimates that the
total savings in the annual ongoing costs from HMDA reporting by
excluded firms that are already partially exempt for closed-end
mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA will be about $5.9 million. The Bureau
also estimates that the total savings in the annual ongoing costs from
HMDA reporting by fully excluded firms that are not eligible for a
partial exemption under the EGRRCPA will be about $0.5 million.
Together the annual savings in the operational costs of firms newly
excluded under the threshold of 100 closed-end loans will be about $6.4
million.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ The Bureau estimated in the May 2019 Proposal that the
total savings in the annual ongoing costs from HMDA reporting by
excluded firms that are already partially exempt for closed-end
mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA would be about $7.7 million. The
Bureau also estimated that the total savings in the annual ongoing
costs from HMDA reporting by fully excluded firms that are not
eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA would be about
$0.4 million. The Bureau estimated that together the annual savings
in the operational costs of firms newly excluded under the threshold
of 100 closed-end loans would be about $6.4 million. These estimates
are updated in the final rule and presented here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Considered: 50 Closed-End Threshold
The threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans adopted in this
final rule is one of the two alternative closed-end thresholds that the
Bureau proposed in the May 2019 Proposal. The other alternative
threshold proposed in the May 2019 Proposal was 50.
The Bureau estimates that if the closed-end threshold were
increased to 50, the total number of financial institutions that would
be required to report closed-end mortgage loans would drop to about
4,120, a decrease of about 740 financial institutions compared to the
current level at 25. The 740 institutions that would be excluded
originated about 33,000 closed-end mortgage loans in 2018. There would
be about 6.29 million closed-end mortgage originations reported under
the alternative threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage loans that the
Bureau considered, which would account for about 87.4 percent of all
closed-end mortgage loan originations in the entire mortgage market.
The Bureau further estimates that about 720 of the 740 closed-end
mortgage reporters that would be excluded under the alternative
threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage loans would be eligible for a
partial exemption for closed-end mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA.
The Bureau estimates that, of the approximately 720 financial
institutions that are (1) required to report closed-end mortgage loans
under the 2015 HMDA Rule, (2) partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, and
(3) completely excluded under the alternative threshold of 50 closed-
end mortgage loans, about 710 are similar to the representative low-
complexity tier 3 institution and about 10 are similar to the
representative moderate-complexity tier 2 institution. Of the
approximately 20 remaining financial institutions that are required to
report closed-end mortgage loans under the 2015 HMDA Rule and are not
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA but would be completely excluded
under the alternative threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage loans, all
are similar to the representative low-complexity tier 3 institution.
As described above, the Bureau first estimates the savings of
annual ongoing costs for closed-end reporting per representative
institution, grouped by whether or not it is partially exempt for
closed-end reporting under the EGRRCPA, and the tier distribution of
these institutions that would be excluded under the alternative
threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage loans. Using that information, the
Bureau then estimates that, under the alternative threshold of 50
closed-end mortgage loans, the total savings in annual ongoing costs
from HMDA reporting by fully excluded institutions that are already
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA would be about $1.9 million, and the
total savings in the annual ongoing costs from HMDA reporting by fully
excluded firms that are not eligible for a partial exemption under the
EGRRCPA would be about $0.1 million. Together the annual savings in the
operational costs of firms excluded under the alternative threshold of
50 closed-end mortgage loans would be about $2.0 million.
The Bureau notes the estimates provided above for the alternative
threshold of 50 update the estimates for the proposed threshold of 50
in the May 2019 Proposal for the reasons explained above.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that with
the proposed threshold of 50 closed-end mortgage loans, about 760
institutions would be completely excluded from reporting closed-end
mortgage data compared to the current level. All but about 20 of
these 760 institutions would be eligible for a partial exemption
under the EGRRCPA and the 2018 HMDA Rule. The Bureau estimated then
that, of the approximately 740 financial institutions that are (1)
required to report closed-end mortgages under the 2015 HMDA Rule,
(2) partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, and (3) completely excluded
under the proposed 50 loan threshold, about 727 were similar to the
representative low-complexity tier 3 institution and about 13 were
similar to the representative moderate-complexity tier 2
institution. Of the approximately 20 remaining financial
institutions that are required to report closed-end mortgages under
the 2015 HMDA Rule and are not partially exempt under the EGRRCPA
but would be completely excluded under the proposed threshold of 50
closed-end mortgage loans, about 19 were similar to the
representative low-complexity tier 3 institution and only one was
similar to the representative moderate-complexity tier 2
institution. The Bureau estimated that the total savings in annual
ongoing costs from HMDA reporting by fully excluded institutions
that are already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA would be about
$2 million, and the total savings in the annual ongoing costs from
HMDA reporting by fully excluded firms that previously were not
eligible for a partial exemption under the EGRRCPA would be about
$140,000. Together the annual savings in the operational costs of
firms excluded under the proposed threshold of 50 closed-end
mortgage loans would be about $2.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28397]]
The Bureau further notes that, because the Bureau is finalizing the
closed-end threshold at 100 instead of 50, the covered persons will
realize additional annual savings in their operational costs of about
$4.4 million.
Costs to Covered Persons
It is possible that, like any new regulation or revision to an
existing regulation, financial institutions will incur certain one-time
costs adapting to the changes to the regulation. Based on the Bureau's
outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau understands that most of these
one-time costs consists of interpreting and implementing the regulatory
changes and not from purchasing software upgrades or turning off the
existing reporting functionality that the newly excluded institutions
already built or purchased prior to the new changes taking effect.
The Bureau sought comments on any costs to institutions that would
be newly excluded under either of the alternative proposed increases to
the closed-end threshold. No commenter expressed concern that the costs
for newly excluded reporters would be substantial.
Benefits to Consumers
Having generated estimates of the reduction in ongoing costs on
covered financial institutions due to the increase in the closed-end
loan threshold, the Bureau then attempts to estimate the potential
pass-through of such cost reduction from these institutions to
consumers, which could benefit consumers and affect credit access.
According to economic theory, in a perfectly competitive market where
financial institutions are profit maximizers, the affected financial
institutions would pass on to consumers the marginal, i.e., variable,
cost savings per application or origination, and absorb the one-time
and increased fixed costs of complying with the rule.
The Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the final rule
would increase variable costs by $23 per closed-end mortgage
application for representative low-complexity tier 3 institutions and
$0.20 per closed-end mortgage application for representative moderate-
complexity tier 2 institutions. The Bureau estimated that prior to the
2015 HMDA Rule, the variable costs of HMDA reporting were about $18 per
closed-end mortgage application for representative low-complexity tier
3 institutions and $6 per closed-end mortgage application for
representative moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions. For purposes of
this final rule, adjusting the above numbers for inflation, the Bureau
estimates the savings on the variable cost per closed-end application
for a representative low-complexity tier 3 financial institution that
is not partially exempt under the EGRRCPA but excluded from closed-end
reporting under this final rule will be about $42 per application; the
savings on the variable cost per application for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 financial institution that is not partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA but excluded from closed-end reporting under
the final rule will be about $6.40 per application.
The Bureau estimates that the partial exemption for closed-end
mortgage loans under the EGRRCPA for eligible insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions reduces the variable costs of
HMDA reporting by approximately $24 per closed-end mortgage application
for representative low-complexity tier 3 institutions, $0.68 per
closed-end mortgage application for representative moderate-complexity
tier 2 institutions, and $0.05 per closed-end mortgage application for
representative high-complexity tier 1 institutions. The savings on the
variable cost per application for a representative low-complexity tier
3 financial institution that is partially exempt under the EGRRCPA and
also fully excluded from closed-end reporting under the final rule will
be about $18.30 per application. The savings on the variable cost per
application for a representative moderate-complexity tier 2 financial
institution that is partially exempt under the EGRRCPA and fully
excluded from closed-end reporting under the final rule will be about
$5.70 per application. These are the cost reductions that excluded
institutions under the final rule might pass through to consumers,
assuming the market is perfectly competitive. This potential reduction
in the expense consumers face when applying for a mortgage will be
amortized over the life of the loan and may represent a very small
amount relative to the cost of a mortgage loan. As a point of
reference, the median total loan costs for closed-end mortgages was
$6,056 according to the 2018 HMDA Data.\179\ The Bureau notes that the
market structure in the consumer mortgage lending market may differ
from that of a perfectly competitive market (for instance due to
information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers) in which case the
pass-through to the consumers would most likely be smaller than the
pass-through under the perfect competition assumption.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., ``Introducing New and
Revised Data Points in HMDA: Initial Observations from New and
Revised Data Points in 2018 HMDA'' (Aug. 2019), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/introducing-new-revised-data-points- hmda/.
\180\ The further the market moves away from a perfectly
competitive market, the smaller the pass-through would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Consumers
The increase in the closed-end threshold to 100 loans will relieve
excluded financial institutions from the reporting requirements for all
closed-end mortgage loans and applications. As a result, HMDA data on
these institutions' closed-end mortgage loans and applications will no
longer be available to regulators, public officials, and members of the
public. The decreased data about excluded institutions may lead to
adverse outcomes for some consumers. For instance, HMDA data, if
reported, could help regulators and public officials better understand
the type of funds that are flowing from lenders to consumers and
consumers' needs for mortgage credit. The data may also help improve
the processes used to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns
and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. A State attorney general
commenter expressed concern that the May 2019 Proposal did not fully
account for these costs, including the costs to States in losing access
to helpful data, while a consumer organization commenter stated that
the public would face an increased burden in understanding and
accurately mapping the flow of credit. The Bureau did not, however,
receive any comments that quantify the losses.
The Bureau recognizes that the costs to consumers from increasing
the
[[Page 28398]]
threshold to 100 loans will be higher than it would be if the Bureau
were to increase the threshold to 50 loans. The Bureau currently lacks
sufficient data to quantify these costs other than the estimated
numbers of covered loans and covered institutions under the two
alternative proposed thresholds, as discussed above and reported in
Table 3.
3. Provisions to Increase the Open-End Threshold
Scope of the Provisions
The final rule will permanently set the threshold for reporting
data about open-end lines of credit at 200 open-end lines of credit in
each of the two preceding calendar years starting in 2022.
The 2015 HMDA Rule generally requires financial institutions that
originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years to report data about their open-end lines of credit and
applications. The 2017 HMDA Rule temporarily increased the open-end
threshold to 500 open-end lines of credit for two years, and the 2019
HMDA Rule extended the temporary threshold for two additional years.
Thus, only financial institutions that originated at least 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two preceding years are subject to
HMDA's requirements for their open-end lines of credit for 2018 through
2021. The EGRRCPA generally provides a partial exemption for insured
depository institutions and insured credit unions that originated fewer
than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding years
and do not have certain less than satisfactory CRA examination ratings.
However, for 2018 through 2021, all insured depository institutions and
insured credit unions that are eligible for a partial exemption for
open-end lines of credit by the EGRRCPA are also fully excluded from
HMDA's requirements for their open-end lines of credit. Absent this
final rule, starting in 2022 the open-end threshold would have reverted
to 100, and eligible institutions that exceeded the threshold of 100
open-end lines of credit would have been able to use the EGRRCPA's
open-end partial exemption if they originated fewer than 500 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two preceding years. Thus, the
appropriate baseline for the consideration of benefits and costs of the
change to the open-end threshold is a situation in which the open-end
threshold is set at 100 for each of two preceding years for data
collection starting in 2022, with a partial exemption threshold of 500
open-end lines of credit.
The Bureau has used multiple data sources, including credit union
Call Reports, Call Reports for banks and thrifts, HMDA data, and
Consumer Credit Panel data, to develop estimates about open-end
originations for lenders that offer open-end lines of credit and to
assess the impact of various thresholds on the number of reporters and
on market coverage under various scenarios.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ In general, credit union Call Reports provide the number
of originations of open-end lines of credit secured by real estate
but exclude lines of credit in the first-lien status. Call Reports
for banks and thrifts report only the balance of the home-equity
lines of credit at the end of the reporting period but not the
number of originations in the period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part VI of the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that if
the threshold were set at 100 open-end lines of credit, the number of
reporters would be about 1,014, who in total originated about 1.41
million open-end lines of credit, representing about 88.7 percent of
all originations and 15.3 percent of all lenders in the market. In
comparison, if the threshold were set at 200 open-end lines of credit,
the Bureau estimated that the number of reporters would be about 613,
who in total originated about 1.34 million open-end lines of credit. In
terms of market coverage, this would represent about 84.2 percent of
all originations and 9.2 percent of all lenders in the open-end line of
credit market. In other words, if the threshold were increased to 200,
in comparison to the default baseline where the threshold was set at
100 in 2022, the Bureau estimated that the number of institutions
affected would be about 401, who in total originated about 69,000 open-
end lines of credit. Among those 401 institutions, the Bureau estimated
that about 378 already qualify for a partial exemption for their open-
end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA and in total they originate about
61,000 open-end lines of credit.
As the 2018 HMDA data analyses were not available at the time of
the May 2019 Proposal, 2017 was the most recent year of HMDA data the
Bureau used for the analyses in the May 2019 Proposal. For this part of
the final rule, the Bureau has supplemented the analyses with the 2018
HMDA data now available. In the 2018 HMDA data, which used an open-end
reporting threshold of 500, about 957 reporters actually reported any
open-end line of credit transactions. In total, these institutions
reported about 1.15 million open-end originations, which is close to
what the Bureau projected in its estimate of 1.23 million originations
to be reported in the May 2019 Proposal. Even though the number of
open-end reporters in the 2018 HMDA data (957) is greater than the
number the Bureau forecasted would be required to report (333) in the
May 2019 Proposal, only 307 of the institutions that reported open-end
transactions in the 2018 HMDA data actually reported greater than 500
open-end originations, which is close to the Bureau's projection that
there would be 333 required open-end reporters with a reporting
threshold of 500. The Bureau's projection in the May 2019 Proposal for
the temporary threshold of 500 open-end originations was based on the
projected number of open-end reporters whose open-end origination
volumes were greater than 500 in each of the preceding two years (which
is how the HMDA reporting requirements are structured), and not on the
volume from the current HMDA activity year. In addition, that
projection cannot account for the number of reporters who would report
voluntarily even though they are not required to do so. Given these
factors, it is possible that some lenders with open-end line of credit
origination volumes exceeding 500 in both 2016 and 2017 originated
fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in 2018, but were nevertheless
required to report their 2018 data under the HMDA reporting
requirements. On the other hand, it is also possible that some
reporters opted to report their open-end lending activities in the 2018
HMDA data even though they were not required to report. Regardless,
these 2018 open-end reporters with a reported origination volume of
fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in 2018 are not required to
collect data on their open-end activity in 2020 after the two-year
temporary extension of the 500 open-end threshold of the 2019 HMDA Rule
took effect, based on the two-year look-back period for the reporting
requirements. Therefore, the Bureau believes that its estimates of the
number of impacted institutions provided in the May 2019 Proposal were
and are reasonable and consistent with the actual number of open-end
reporters in the 2018 HMDA data.
[[Page 28399]]
Moreover, there are two additional considerations that support the
Bureau's continued reliance in this final rule on its estimates on
open-end coverage under various thresholds developed in the May 2019
Proposal. First, the permanent threshold of 200 open-end lines of
credit starting in 2022 adopted in this final rule is lower than the
temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit that was in effect
for the 2018 HMDA data. Hence, most institutions that originated fewer
than 500 open-end lines of credit but at least 200 open-end lines of
credit likely were not captured by the 2018 HMDA data, but they would
have been required to report if the threshold had been set at 200.
Second, the HMDA reporting requirements consider a two-year look-back
period, and only 2018 HMDA data analyses were available as of the time
of this final rule's development. For these reasons, the Bureau
believes that its estimates of open-end coverage under various
thresholds developed for the May 2019 Proposal continue to provide the
most reliable estimates for this final rule.
On the other hand, because the number of open-end applications was
not available in any data sources prior to the 2018 HMDA data, in past
HMDA rulemakings related to open-end reporting, the Bureau relied on
the projected number of originations as a proxy for the number of loan/
application register records for the analyses. With the 2018 HMDA data
reported, the Bureau now can evaluate the impact of the final rule
using the projected loan/application register records instead of
projected originations for the first time. Because most of the data
points under HMDA are required for all loan/application register
records, not just originated loans, the Bureau has updated the
estimates of cost and cost savings for open-end lines of credit based
on the number of loan/application register records instead of
originations. The Bureau's coverage estimates, however, continue to be
based on originations because the thresholds are based on origination
volume, and thus, as noted immediately above, the estimates previously
provided continue to be reasonable. The analyses below have been
supplemented to reflect the new 2018 HMDA data that includes
applications, originations, and purchased loans. Table 4 below shows
the estimated number of reporters of open-end lines of credit, their
estimated origination volume, and the market share under thresholds of
100, 200 and 500 open-end lines of credit.\182\ The Bureau notes that
the threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit is the baseline of the
analyses adopted for purposes of this final rule, the threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit is the threshold adopted under the final rule,
and the threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit is the temporary
threshold in place for 2020 and 2021 under the 2019 HMDA Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau provided a similar
table that included a breakdown of open-end reporters by agency. For
the final rule, as more relevant here, the Bureau has instead
included the breakdown by depository institution versus non-
depository institution.
Table 4--Estimated Number of Open-End Reporters and Open-End Lines of
Credit Reported under Various Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Threshold
Open-end Lines of Credit Universe --------------------------
100 200 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Loans (in 1000's):
All....................... 1,590 1,410 1,341 1,233
Market Coverage................... ......... 88.7% 84.4% 77.6%
Type:
Banks & Thrifts........... 880 814 787 753
Credit Unions............. 653 545 506 437
Non-DIs................... 57 51 48 44
# of Institutions:
All....................... 6,615 1,014 613 333
Type:
Banks & Thrifts........... 3,819 391 212 113
Credit Unions............. 2,578 581 376 205
Non-DIs................... 218 42 25 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits to Covered Persons
The increase in the permanent threshold from 100 to 200 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years starting in
2022, conveys a direct benefit to covered persons that originated fewer
than 200 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding years
but originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two
preceding years in reducing the ongoing costs of having to report their
open-end lines of credit. The Bureau estimates that increasing the
permanent threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit will relieve
approximately 384 depository institutions and approximately 17 non-
depository institutions from reporting open-end lines of credit as
compared to having the threshold decrease to 100.
The Bureau estimates that, with the threshold increased to 200 as
compared to decreasing to 100 starting in 2022, about 401 financial
institutions will be excluded from reporting open-end lines of credit
starting in 2022. About 378 of those 401 financial institutions are
eligible for the partial exemption for open-end lines of credit under
the EGRRCPA, and about 23 of them are not eligible for the partial
exemption for open-end lines of credit because in one of the preceding
two years their open-end origination volume exceeded 500. Of the 378
institutions that are already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA but
will be fully excluded from open-end reporting starting in 2022 under
this final rule, the Bureau estimates that about 301 are low-complexity
tier 3 open-end reporters, about 77 are moderate-complexity tier 2
open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1 reporters. In
addition, of the 23 institutions that are not eligible for the partial
exemption under the EGRRCPA but will be fully excluded from open-
[[Page 28400]]
end reporting starting in 2022 under this final rule, the Bureau
estimates that about 8 are low-complexity tier 3 open-end reporters,
about 15 are moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end reporters, and none
are high-complexity tier 1 reporters.\183\ Using the estimates of
savings on ongoing costs for open-end lines of credit for
representative financial institutions, grouped by whether the lender is
already eligible for the partial exemption under the EGRRCPA, as
described above, the Bureau estimates that by increasing the threshold
to 200 open-end lines of credit starting in 2022, the excluded
financial institutions that are already partially exempt under the
EGRRCPA will receive an aggregate reduction in operational cost
associated with open-end lines of credit of about $3.0 million per year
starting in 2022, while the excluded financial institutions that are
not already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA will receive an
aggregate reduction in operational cost associated with open-end lines
of credit of about $0.7 million per year starting in 2022. In total,
increasing the threshold from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit will
result in savings in the operational costs associated with open-end
lines of credit of about $3.7 million per year starting in 2022.\184\
The increase in the threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit starting
in calendar year 2022, as compared to having the threshold revert to
100, also conveys a direct benefit to covered persons that originated
fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding
years but originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of
the two preceding years in removing the one-time costs of having to
report their open-end lines of credit, had the reporting threshold
decreased to 100 according to the 2017 HMDA Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ The Bureau notes that more reporters are estimated to be
in tier 2 in this updated analysis in the final rule than the number
of reporters that the Bureau estimated to be in tier 2 in the May
2019 Proposal. This is mainly due to the fact that the Bureau now is
able to supplement new information from the 2018 HMDA data, which
allows the Bureau to conduct the estimates based on the number of
open-end loan/application register records rather than the number of
originations. Each institution is estimated to have more loan/
application register records than in the May 2019 Proposal, because
the Bureau is considering applications as well as originations, thus
more institutions that were previously assigned to the tier 3
category are shifted into the tier 2 category.
\184\ In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated that the
annual savings on operational costs would be about $1.8 million if
the open-end threshold were increased from 100 to 200 in 2022. The
higher estimate presented above for the final rule is mainly due to
the fact that the Bureau now is able to supplement new information
from the 2018 HMDA data, which allows the Bureau to conduct the
estimates based on the number of open-end loan/application register
records rather than the number of originations, resulting in more
affected moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions and higher
operational cost savings. Although the estimated total cost
reduction is higher than it was in the proposal based on the
additional 2018 HMDA data, the overall analysis is consistent with
the Bureau's methodology and conclusions from the May 2019 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Bureau's understanding that most of the financial
institutions that were temporarily excluded for 2018 through 2021 under
the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit established in
the 2017 HMDA Rule and 2019 HMDA Rule have not fully prepared for open-
end reporting because they have been waiting for the Bureau to decide
on the permanent open-end reporting threshold that will apply after the
temporary threshold expires in 2022. Under the baseline in this impact
analysis, absent this final rule, some of those financial institutions
would have to start reporting their open-end lines of credit starting
in 2022, and hence incur one-time costs to create processes and systems
for open-end lines of credit. If the proposal to increase the open-end
threshold to 200 starting in 2022 were not finalized, financial
institutions that originated fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in
either of the two preceding years but originated at least 100 open-end
lines of credit in each of the two preceding years would eventually
have incurred one-time costs of having to report their open-end lines
of credit, once the reporting threshold reverted to the permanent
threshold of 100.
As noted in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau recognizes that many
financial institutions, especially larger and more complex
institutions, process applications for open-end lines of credit in
their consumer lending departments using procedures, policies, and data
systems separate from those used for closed-end loans. In the 2015 HMDA
Rule, the Bureau assumed that the one-time costs for reporting
information on open-end lines of credit required under the 2015 HMDA
Rule would be roughly equal to 50 percent of the one-time costs of
reporting information on closed-end mortgages. This translates to one-
time costs of about $400,000 and $125,000 for open-end reporting for
representative high- and moderate-complexity financial institutions,
respectively, that will be required to report open-end lines of credit
while also reporting closed-end mortgage loans. This assumption
accounted for the fact that reporting open-end lines of credit will
require some new systems, extra start-up training, and new compliance
procedures and manuals, while recognizing that some fixed, one-time
costs would need to be incurred anyway in making systemic changes to
bring institutions into compliance with Regulation C and could be
shared with closed-end lines of business. The assumption was consistent
with the Bureau's estimate that an overwhelming majority of open-end
reporters would also be reporting simultaneously closed-end mortgage
loans and applications. In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau also assumed
that the additional one-time costs of open-end reporting would be
relatively low for low-complexity tier 3 financial institutions because
they are less reliant on information technology systems for HMDA
reporting and may process open-end lines of credit on the same system
and in the same business unit as closed-end mortgage loans. Therefore,
for low-complexity tier 3 financial institutions, the Bureau had
assumed that the additional one-time cost created by open-end reporting
is minimal and is derived mostly from new training and procedures
adopted for the overall changes in the 2015 HMDA Rule.
In the proposal leading to the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau asked for
public comments and specific data regarding the one-time cost of
reporting open-end lines of credit. Although some commenters on that
proposal provided generic feedback on the additional burden of
reporting data on these products, very few provided specific estimates
of the potential one-time costs of reporting open-end lines of credit.
After issuing the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau heard anecdotal reports
that one-time costs to begin reporting information on open-end lines of
credit could be higher than the Bureau's estimates in the 2015 HMDA
Rule. In the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau indicated that it had
reviewed the 2015 estimates and believed that the one-time cost
estimates for open-end lines of credit provided in 2015, if applied to
the proposed rule, would most likely be underestimates, for two
reasons.
First, in developing the one-time cost estimates for open-end lines
of credit in the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau had envisioned that there
would be cost sharing between the line of business that conducts open-
end lending and the line of business that conducts closed-end lending
at the corporate level, as the implementation of open-end reporting
that became mandatory under the 2015 HMDA Rule would coincide with the
implementation of the changes to closed-end reporting under the 2015
HMDA Rule. For instance, the resources of the corporate compliance
department and information technology department could be shared and
utilized simultaneously across different lines of
[[Page 28401]]
business within the same lender in its efforts to set up processes and
systems adapting to the 2015 HMDA Rule. Therefore, the Bureau assumed
the one-time cost due to open-end reporting would be about one-half of
the one-time costs due to closed-end reporting, in order to both
reasonably count for the costs for reporting open-end lines of credit
and avoid double counting. However, as the Bureau noted in the May 2019
Proposal, circumstances have somewhat changed since the 2015 HMDA Rule.
The 2017 HMDA Rule temporarily increased the open-end lines of credit
threshold from 100 to 500 for two years (2018 and 2019). The 2019 HMDA
Rule further extended the temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of
credit for two additional years (2020 and 2021). Thus, there will be a
considerable lag between the implementation of closed-end reporting
changes under the 2015 HMDA Rule and the implementation of mandatory
open-end reporting for those open-end lenders that have been
temporarily excluded under the 2017 HMDA Rule and the 2019 HMDA Rule,
but will be required to comply with HMDA's requirements for their open-
end lines of credit starting in 2022 with the 200 origination threshold
taking effect. As a result, the efficiency gain from one-time cost
sharing between the closed-end and open-end reporting that was
envisioned in the cost-benefit analysis of the 2015 HMDA Rule likely
will not be applicable, if some of the temporarily excluded open-end
reporters under the 2017 HMDA Rule and the 2019 HMDA Rule were to start
preparing for open-end reporting several years after the implementation
of closed-end changes.
Therefore, the Bureau now believes the one-time costs of starting
to report information on open-end lines of credit, if the financial
institution is to start reporting open-end lines of credit in 2022 and
beyond, will be higher than the Bureau's initial estimates of one-time
costs of open-end reporting provided in the 2015 HMDA Rule. Thus, for
this impact analysis, the Bureau assumes for a representative moderate-
complexity tier 2 open-end reporter that the one-time costs of starting
open-end reporting in 2022 will be approximately equal to the one-time
cost estimate for closed-end reporting that the Bureau estimated in the
2015 HMDA Rule, instead of being about one half of the one-time cost
estimate for closed-end reporting. This translates to about $250,000
per representative moderate-complexity tier 2 open-end reporter,
instead of $125,000 as the Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule
regarding the one-time costs of open-end reporting. This is the case
regardless of whether the open-end reporters also report closed-end
mortgage loans under HMDA. The Bureau notes that the moderate-
complexity tier 2 financial institutions that will be permanently
excluded from open-end reporting under this final rule will no longer
have to incur such one-time costs.
Second, the temporary threshold that the 2017 HMDA Rule and 2019
HMDA Rule established delayed open-end reporting for those low-
complexity tier 3 financial institutions that originated between 100
and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding years.
This delay means that those institutions would have had to incur the
one-time costs to restart the training process for staff directly
responsible for open-end data collection and reporting and update
compliance procedures and manuals if the open-end threshold had
reverted to 100 starting in 2022. In the 2015 HMDA Rule, the Bureau
estimated the total one-time cost estimate for low-complexity tier 3
financial institutions would be approximately $3,000 regardless of
whether the financial institution reports open-end lines of credit.
Under this final rule, the Bureau thus assumes that the low-complexity
tier 3 financial institutions that will be completely excluded from
open-end reporting will be able to avoid incurring a one-time cost of
about $3,000.
The Bureau estimates that, with the permanent threshold increased
to 200 starting in 2022 as compared to reverting to 100, about 401 more
institutions will be excluded from reporting open-end lines of credit
starting in 2022. About 309 of those 401 institutions are low-
complexity tier 3 open-end reporters, about 92 are moderate-complexity
tier 2 open-end reporters, and none are high-complexity tier 1
reporters. Using the estimates of savings on one-time costs for open-
end lines of credit for representative financial institutions discussed
above, the Bureau estimates that with the increase in the threshold to
200 open-end lines of credit starting in 2022, the excluded
institutions will receive an aggregate savings in avoided one-time cost
associated with open-end lines of credit of about $23.9 million. This
is an upward revision from the estimated savings of about $3.7 million
in avoided one-time costs in the May 2019 Proposal, mainly because the
Bureau has supplemented its analysis with new information from the 2018
HMDA data. As discussed above, these data allow the Bureau to develop
estimates based on the total number of open-end loan/application
register records rather than the number of open-end originations, and
as a result the Bureau has shifted more affected institutions from tier
3 to tier 2. The overall analysis, however, is consistent with the
Bureau's methodology and conclusions from the May 2019 Proposal.
Costs to Covered Persons
Like any new regulation or revision to the existing regulations,
financial institutions may incur certain one-time costs adapting to the
changes to the regulation. Based on the Bureau's outreach to
stakeholders, the Bureau understands that most of such one-time costs
would result from interpreting and implementing the regulatory changes,
not from purchasing software upgrades or turning off the existing
reporting functionality that the excluded institutions already built or
purchased prior to the new changes taking its effect.
The Bureau sought comment on the costs and benefits to institutions
that the rule would exclude pursuant to the proposed increases to the
open-end threshold. No commenter expressed concern that the costs for
newly excluded reporters would be substantial.
Benefits to Consumers
Having generated estimates of the reduction in ongoing costs on
covered financial institutions due to the increase in the open-end
threshold, the Bureau then attempts to estimate the potential pass-
through of such cost reduction from the lenders to consumers, which
could benefit consumers and affect credit access. According to economic
theory, in a perfectly competitive market where financial institutions
are profit maximizers, the affected financial institutions would pass
on to consumers the marginal, i.e., variable, cost savings per
application or origination, and absorb the one-time and increased fixed
costs of complying with the rule.
The Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Rule that the rule would
increase variable costs by $41.50 per open-end line of credit
application for representative low-complexity tier 3 institutions and
$6.20 per open-end line of credit application for representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions. If the market is perfectly
competitive, all of these savings on variable costs by the excluded
open-end reporters could potentially be passed through to the
consumers. These expenses will be amortized over the life of a loan and
may represent a negligible reduction in the cost of a mortgage loan. As
a point of reference, the median loan amount of
[[Page 28402]]
open-end lines of credit (excluding reverse mortgages) in the 2018 HMDA
data was $75,000.\185\ The Bureau notes that the market structure in
the consumer mortgage lending market may differ from that of a
perfectly competitive market (for instance due to information asymmetry
between lenders and borrowers) in which case the pass-through to the
consumers would most likely be smaller than the pass-through under the
perfect competition assumption.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., ``Introducing New and
Revised Data Points in HMDA: Initial Observations from New and
Revised Data Points in 2018 HMDA'' (Aug. 2019), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/introducing-new-revised-data-points-hmda/.
\186\ The further the market moves away from a perfectly
competitive market, the smaller the pass-through would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Consumers
Setting the permanent open-end threshold at 200 starting in 2022
will reduce the open-end data submitted under HMDA. As a result, HMDA
data on these institutions' open-end lines of credit and applications
will no longer be available to regulators, public officials, and
members of the public. The decreased data concerning affected financial
institutions may lead to adverse outcomes for some consumers. For
instance, reporting data on open-end line of credit applications and
originations and on certain demographic characteristics of applicants
and borrowers could help the regulators and public officials better
understand the type of funds that are flowing from lenders to consumers
and consumers' need for mortgage credit. Open-end line of credit data
that may be relevant to underwriting decisions may also help improve
the processes used to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns
and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. The Bureau has no quantitative
data that can sufficiently measure the magnitude of any such impact of
setting the permanent open-end threshold at 200. Additionally, the
Bureau sought comment on the costs to consumers associated with the
proposed increase to the open-end threshold but did not receive any
comments that quantify the losses.
F. Potential Specific Impacts of the Final Rule
1. Depository Institutions and Credit Unions With $10 Billion or Less
in Total Assets, as Described in Section 1026
As discussed above, the final rule will increase the threshold for
reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans from 25 to 100
originations in both of the preceding two calendar years and increase
the permanent threshold for reporting data about open-end lines of
credit from 100 to 200 open-end lines of credit in both of the
preceding two calendar years starting in 2022.
Both sets of provisions focus on burden reduction for smaller
institutions. Therefore, the Bureau believes that the benefits of this
final rule to depository institutions and credit unions with $10
billion or less in total assets will be similar to the benefit to
creditors as a whole, as discussed above.
For the closed-end threshold provision, the Bureau estimates that
for depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion in
assets or less that would have been required to report under the 2015
HMDA Rule, and are not partially exempt under the EGRRCPA, the savings
on the annual operational costs from being excluded from closed-end
reporting under the proposal will be approximately $4,500 for a
representative low-complexity tier 3 institution, $44,700 for a
representative moderate-complexity tier 2 institution, and $343,000 for
a representative high-complexity tier 1 institution that fall below the
threshold of 100. For depository institutions and credit unions with
$10 billion in assets or less that would have been required to report
under the 2015 HMDA Rule, but are partially exempt under the EGRRCPA,
the Bureau estimates the savings on the annual operational costs from
not reporting any closed-end mortgage data under the final rule will be
approximately $2,200 for a representative low-complexity tier 3
institution, $32,800 for a representative moderate-complexity tier 2
institution, and $309,000 for a representative high-complexity tier 1
institution. For purposes of this final rule, the Bureau estimates that
about 1,640 of the approximately 1,700 institutions that will be
excluded by the reporting threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans
are small depository institutions or credit unions with assets at or
below $10 billion, and all but three of them are already partially
exempt under the EGRRCPA. About 1,560 of them are similar to
representative low-complexity tier 3 institution, with the rest being
moderate-complexity tier 2 institutions. Combined, the annual savings
on operational costs for depository institutions and credit unions with
$10 billion or less in assets newly excluded under the threshold of 100
closed-end mortgage loans will be about $6.0 million.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ In comparison, in the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that about 1,666 of the approximately 1,720 institutions
that would be excluded from the proposed alternative 100 loan
closed-end reporting threshold were small depository institutions or
credit unions with assets at or below $10 billion, and all but two
of them were already partially exempt under the EGRRCPA. About 1,573
of them are similar to representative low-complexity tier 3
institution, with the rest being moderate-complexity tier 2
institutions. Due to a transcription error, the Bureau indicated in
the May 2019 Proposal that, combined, the annual saving on
operational costs for depository institutions and credit unions with
$10 billion or less in assets newly excluded under the proposed
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans would be about $4.8
million; however, upon review, the Bureau has determined that that
estimate should instead have been $6.7 million based on the analysis
in the May 2019 Proposal. As noted above, using the 2018 HMDA data,
the Bureau now estimates that there will be approximately $6.0
million estimated savings in annual operational costs under
threshold of 100 closed-end mortgage loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the open-end threshold provisions, the Bureau estimates that
for depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion in
assets or less that will not have to report open-end lines of credit
under the final rule, the reduction in annual ongoing operational costs
for the excluded institutions not eligible for the partial exemption
for open-end lines of credit under the EGRRCPA will be approximately
$8,800, $44,700, and $281,000 per year, for representative low-,
moderate-, and high-complexity financial institutions, respectively.
The Bureau estimates that the reduction in annual ongoing operational
costs for excluded institutions already partially exempt for open-end
lines of credit under the EGRRCPA will be approximately $4,300,
$21,900, and $138,000 annually, for representative low-, moderate-, and
high-complexity financial institutions, respectively. The Bureau
estimates that about 378 of the approximately 401 institutions that
will be excluded from open-end reporting starting in 2022 under the
final rule are small depository institutions or credit unions with
assets at or below $10 billion, and about 372 of them are already
partially exempt under the EGRRCPA. Combined, the Bureau estimates that
the annual saving on operational costs for depository institutions and
credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets newly excluded from
open-end reporting under the threshold of 200 open-end lines of credit
in this final rule would be about $3.5. million per year starting in
2022. Using the estimates of savings on one-time costs for open-end
lines of credit for representative financial institutions discussed
above, the Bureau estimates that by increasing the open-end
[[Page 28403]]
threshold to 200 starting in 2022, the excluded depository institutions
and credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets will receive an
aggregate savings in avoided one-time costs associated with open-end
lines of credit of about $20.9 million.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ In comparison, in the May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau
estimated that the annual saving on operational costs for depository
institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets
newly excluded from open-end reporting under the threshold of 200
open-end lines of credit would be about $19. million. Also, in the
May 2019 Proposal, the Bureau estimated the aggregate savings in
avoided one-time cost associated with the threshold of 200 open-end
lines of credit would be $3.8 million. The increases in the
estimated cost savings in this final rule for both annual ongoing
costs and one-time costs are due to the fact that the Bureau's
updated estimates are able to incorporate the number of applications
instead of originations based on information supplemented by the
2018 HMDA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Impact of the Provisions on Consumers in Rural Areas
The final rule will not directly impact consumers in rural areas.
However, as with all consumers, consumers in rural areas may be
impacted indirectly. This would occur if financial institutions serving
rural areas are HMDA reporters (in which case the final rule will lead
to decreased information in rural areas) and if these institutions pass
on some or all of the cost reduction to consumers (in which case, some
consumers could benefit).
Recent research suggests that financial institutions that primarily
serve rural areas are generally not HMDA reporters.\189\ The Housing
Assistance Council (HAC) suggests that the current asset and geographic
coverage criteria already in place disproportionately exempt small
lenders operating in rural communities. For example, HAC uses 2009 Call
Report data to show that approximately 700 FDIC-insured lending
institutions had assets totaling less than the HMDA institutional
coverage threshold and were headquartered in rural communities. These
institutions, which would not be HMDA reporters, may represent one of
the few sources of credit for many rural areas. Some research also
suggests that limited HMDA data are currently reported for rural areas,
especially areas further from Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs).\190\ If a large portion of the rural housing market is serviced
by financial institutions that are already not HMDA reporters, any
indirect impact of the changes on consumers in rural areas would be
limited, as the changes directly involve none of those financial
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ See, e.g., Keith Wiley, ``What Are We Missing? HMDA Asset-
Excluded Filers,'' Hous. Assistance Council (2011), https://ruralhome.org/storage/documents/smallbanklending.pdf; Lance George &
Keith Wiley, ``Improving HMDA: A Need to Better Understand Rural
Mortgage Markets,'' Hous. Assistance Council (2010), https://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/notehmdasm.pdf.
\190\ See Robert B. Avery et al., ``Opportunities and Issues in
Using HMDA Data,'' 29 J. of Real Est. Res. 352 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, although some research suggests that HMDA currently does
not cover a significant number of financial institutions serving the
rural housing market, HMDA data do contain information for some covered
loans involving properties in rural areas. These data can be used to
estimate the number of HMDA reporters servicing rural areas, and the
number of consumers in rural areas that might potentially be affected
by the changes to Regulation C. For this analysis, the Bureau uses non-
MSA areas as a proxy for rural areas, with the understanding that
portions of MSAs and non-MSAs may contain urban and rural territory and
populations. In 2018, 4,773 HMDA reporters reported applications or
purchased loans for property located in geographic areas outside of an
MSA. In total, these 5,207 financial institutions reported 1,562,399
applications or purchased loans for properties in non-MSA areas. This
number provides an upper-bound estimate of the number of consumers in
rural areas that could be impacted indirectly by the changes. In
general, individual financial institutions report small numbers of
covered loans from non-MSAs, as approximately 76 percent reported fewer
than 100 covered loans from non-MSAs.
Following microeconomic principles, the Bureau believes that
financial institutions will pass on reduced variable costs to future
mortgage applicants, but absorb one-time costs and increased fixed
costs if financial institutions are profit maximizers and the market is
perfectly competitive.\191\ The Bureau defines variable costs as costs
that depend on the number of applications received. Based on initial
outreach efforts, the following five operational steps affect variable
costs: Transcribing data, resolving reportability questions,
transferring data to an HMS, geocoding, and researching questions. The
primary impact of the final rule on these operational steps is a
reduction in time spent per task. Overall, the Bureau estimates that
the impact of the final rule on variable costs per application is to
reduce variable costs by no more than $42 for a representative low-
complexity tier 3 financial institution, $6 for a representative
moderate-complexity tier 2 financial institution, and $3 for a
representative high-complexity tier 1 financial institution.\192\ The
4,773 financial institutions that serviced rural areas could attempt to
pass these reduced variable costs on to all future mortgage customers,
including the estimated 1.6 million consumers from rural areas.
Amortized over the life of the loan, this expense likely represents a
negligible reduction in the cost of a mortgage loan. The Bureau notes
that the market structure in the consumer mortgage lending market may
differ from that of a perfectly competitive market (for instance due to
information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers) in which case the
pass-through to the consumers would most likely be smaller than the
pass-through under the perfect competition assumption.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ If markets are not perfectly competitive or financial
institutions are not profit maximizers, then what financial
institutions pass on may differ. For example, they may attempt to
pass on one-time costs and increases in fixed costs, or they may not
be able to pass on variable costs.
\192\ These cost estimates represent the highest estimates among
the estimates presented in previous sections and form the upper
bound of possible savings.
\193\ The further the market moves away from a perfectly
competitive market, the smaller the pass-through would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rural market may differ from non-rural markets in terms of
market structure, demand, supply, and competition level. For instance,
local or community banks may be more likely to serve some rural markets
than national lenders. Therefore, consumers in rural areas may
experience benefits and costs from the final rule that are different
than those experienced by consumers in general. To the extent that the
impacts of the final rule on creditors differ by type of creditor, this
may affect the costs and benefits of the final rule on consumers in
rural areas.
The Bureau also recognizes, as discussed in the section-by-section
analysis of Sec. 1003.2(g) above, that rural and low-to-moderate
income census tracts will lose proportionately more data as the
threshold increases than other areas. However, the Bureau currently
lacks sufficient data to quantify the impact of this decrease in data.
VIII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act \194\ as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
[[Page 28404]]
1996 \195\ (RFA) requires each agency to consider the potential impact
of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small
governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations.\196\ The
RFA defines a ``small business'' as a business that meets the size
standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the
Small Business Act.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
\195\ Public Law 104-21, section 241, 110 Stat. 847, 864-65
(1996).
\196\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The term `` `small organization' means
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field, unless an agency
establishes [an alternative definition under notice and comment].''
5 U.S.C. 601(4). The term `` `small governmental jurisdiction' means
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand, unless an agency establishes [an alternative
definition after notice and comment].'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\197\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The Bureau may establish an alternative
definition after consulting with the Small Business Administration
and providing an opportunity for public comment. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) 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.\198\ The Bureau also is subject to certain additional
procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult
with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which
an IRFA is required.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\199\ 5 U.S.C. 609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, this final rule increases the threshold for
reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans from 25 to 100
originations in each of the two preceding calendar years and sets the
permanent open-end threshold at 200 originations when the temporary
threshold of 500 originations expires in 2022. The section 1022(b)(2)
analysis above describes how this final rule reduces the costs and
burdens on covered persons, including small entities. Additionally, as
described in the analysis above, a small entity that is in compliance
with the law at such time when this final rule takes effect does not
need to take any additional action to remain in compliance other than
choosing to switch off all or parts of reporting systems and functions.
Based on these considerations, the final rule does not have a
significant economic impact on any small entities.
Accordingly, the Director hereby certifies that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Thus, neither an FRFA nor a small business review panel
is required for this final rule.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies are generally required to seek the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for information collection
requirements prior to implementation. The collections of information
related to Regulation C have been previously reviewed and approved by
OMB and assigned OMB Control number 3170-0008. Under the PRA, the
Bureau may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a person is not required to respond to an information
collection unless the information collection displays a valid control
number assigned by OMB. The Bureau has determined that this final rule
would not impose any new or revised information collection requirements
(recordkeeping, reporting or disclosure requirements) on covered
entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of
information requiring OMB approval under the PRA.
X. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,\200\ the Bureau will
submit a report containing this rule and other required information to
the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to the rule's published effective
date. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated
this rule as not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Signing Authority
The Director of the Bureau, having reviewed and approved this
document is delegating the authority to electronically sign this
document to Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for
purposes of publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1003
Banks, Banking, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12
CFR part 1003, as follows:
PART 1003--HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE (REGULATION C)
0
1. The authority citation for part 1003 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
0
2. Effective July 1, 2020, Sec. 1003.2 is amended by revising
paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 1003.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at
least 100 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from this
part pursuant to Sec. 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (c)(13); or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at
least 100 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from this
part pursuant to Sec. 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (c)(13); or
* * * * *
0
3. Effective July 1, 2020, Sec. 1003.3 is amended by revising
paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 1003.3 Exempt institutions and excluded and partially exempt
transactions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(11) A closed-end mortgage loan, if the financial institution
originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the
two preceding calendar years; a financial institution (including, for
purposes of information collected in 2020, an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1, 2020) may collect, record,
report, and disclose information, as described in Sec. Sec. 1003.4 and
1003.5, for such an excluded closed-end mortgage loan as though it were
a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with
such requirements for all applications for closed-end mortgage loans
that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and
closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that otherwise would have
been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action
is taken on the excluded closed-end mortgage loan;
* * * * *
0
4. Effective July 1, 2020, supplement I to part 1003 is amended as
follows:
0
a. Under Section 1003.2--Definitions, revise 2(g) Financial
Institution.
[[Page 28405]]
0
b. Under Section 1003.3--Exempt Institutions and Excluded and Partially
Exempt Transactions, under 3(c) Excluded Transactions, revise Paragraph
3(c)(11).
The revisions read as follows:
Supplement I to Part 1003--Official Interpretations
* * * * *
Section 1003.2--Definitions
* * * * *
2(g) Financial Institution
1. Preceding calendar year and preceding December 31. The
definition of financial institution refers both to the preceding
calendar year and the preceding December 31. These terms refer to
the calendar year and the December 31 preceding the current calendar
year. For example, in 2021, the preceding calendar year is 2020, and
the preceding December 31 is December 31, 2020. Accordingly, in
2021, Financial Institution A satisfies the asset-size threshold
described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if its assets exceeded the
threshold specified in comment 2(g)-2 on December 31, 2020.
Likewise, in 2021, Financial Institution A does not meet the loan-
volume test described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) if it originated
fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans during either 2019 or 2020.
2. Adjustment of exemption threshold for banks, savings
associations, and credit unions. For data collection in 2020, the
asset-size exemption threshold is $47 million. Banks, savings
associations, and credit unions with assets at or below $47 million
as of December 31, 2019, are exempt from collecting data for 2020.
3. Merger or acquisition--coverage of surviving or newly formed
institution. After a merger or acquisition, the surviving or newly
formed institution is a financial institution under Sec. 1003.2(g)
if it, considering the combined assets, location, and lending
activity of the surviving or newly formed institution and the merged
or acquired institutions or acquired branches, satisfies the
criteria included in Sec. 1003.2(g). For example, A and B merge.
The surviving or newly formed institution meets the loan threshold
described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) if the surviving or newly
formed institution, A, and B originated a combined total of at least
500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar
years. Likewise, the surviving or newly formed institution meets the
asset-size threshold in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if its assets and the
combined assets of A and B on December 31 of the preceding calendar
year exceeded the threshold described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(i).
Comment 2(g)-4 discusses a financial institution's responsibilities
during the calendar year of a merger.
4. Merger or acquisition--coverage for calendar year of merger
or acquisition. The scenarios described below illustrate a financial
institution's responsibilities for the calendar year of a merger or
acquisition. For purposes of these illustrations, a ``covered
institution'' means a financial institution, as defined in Sec.
1003.2(g), that is not exempt from reporting under Sec. 1003.3(a),
and ``an institution that is not covered'' means either an
institution that is not a financial institution, as defined in Sec.
1003.2(g), or an institution that is exempt from reporting under
Sec. 1003.3(a).
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The surviving or
newly formed institution meets all of the requirements necessary to
be a covered institution. No data collection is required for the
calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an
institution that meets all of the requirements necessary to be a
covered institution). When a branch office of an institution that is
not covered is acquired by another institution that is not covered,
and the acquisition results in a covered institution, no data
collection is required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered
merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a
new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the
merger, data collection is required for covered loans and
applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that
was previously covered and is optional for covered loans and
applications handled in offices of the merged institution that was
previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch
office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is
optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired
branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not
covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving
institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For
the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for
covered loans and applications handled in offices of the previously
covered institution that took place prior to the merger. After the
merger date, data collection is optional for covered loans and
applications handled in the offices of the institution that was
previously covered. When an institution remains not covered after
acquiring a branch office of a covered institution, data collection
is required for transactions of the acquired branch office that take
place prior to the acquisition. Data collection by the acquired
branch office is optional for transactions taking place in the
remainder of the calendar year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The surviving or newly
formed institution is a covered institution. Data collection is
required for the entire calendar year of the merger. The surviving
or newly formed institution files either a consolidated submission
or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered
institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data
collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger.
Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either
institution.
5. Originations. Whether an institution is a financial
institution depends in part on whether the institution originated at
least 100 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding
calendar years or at least 500 open-end lines of credit in each of
the two preceding calendar years. Comments 4(a)-2 through -4 discuss
whether activities with respect to a particular closed-end mortgage
loan or open-end line of credit constitute an origination for
purposes of Sec. 1003.2(g).
6. Branches of foreign banks--treated as banks. A Federal branch
or a State-licensed or insured branch of a foreign bank that meets
the definition of a ``bank'' under section 3(a)(1) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(a)) is a bank for the purposes
of Sec. 1003.2(g).
7. Branches and offices of foreign banks and other entities--
treated as nondepository financial institutions. A Federal agency,
State-licensed agency, State-licensed uninsured branch of a foreign
bank, commercial lending company owned or controlled by a foreign
bank, or entity operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal
Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 601 and 611 (Edge Act and agreement
corporations) may not meet the definition of ``bank'' under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act and may thereby fail to satisfy the
definition of a depository financial institution under Sec.
1003.2(g)(1). An entity is nonetheless a financial institution if it
meets the definition of nondepository financial institution under
Sec. 1003.2(g)(2).
* * * * *
Section 1003.3--Exempt Institutions and Excluded and Partially
Exempt Transactions
* * * * *
3(c) Excluded Transactions
* * * * *
Paragraph 3(c)(11)
1. General. Section 1003.3(c)(11) provides that a closed-end
mortgage loan is an excluded transaction if a financial institution
originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the
two preceding calendar years. For example, assume that a bank is a
financial institution in 2021 under Sec. 1003.2(g) because it
originated 600 open-end lines of credit in 2019, 650 open-end lines
of credit in 2020, and met all of the other requirements under Sec.
1003.2(g)(1). Also assume that the bank originated 75 and 90 closed-
end mortgage loans in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The open-end
lines of credit that the bank originated or purchased, or for which
it received applications, during 2021 are covered loans and must be
reported, unless they otherwise are excluded transactions under
Sec. 1003.3(c). However, the closed-end mortgage loans that the
bank originated or purchased, or for which it received applications,
during 2021 are excluded transactions under Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and
need not be reported. See comments 4(a)-2 through -4 for guidance
about the activities that constitute an origination.
2. Optional reporting. A financial institution may report
applications for, originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans that are excluded transactions because the financial
institution originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar years. However, a financial
institution that chooses to report such excluded applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closed-end mortgage loans must
report all such
[[Page 28406]]
applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-
end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans
that it purchases that otherwise would be covered loans for a given
calendar year. Note that applications which remain pending at the
end of a calendar year are not reported, as described in comment
4(a)(8)(i)-14. An institution that was a financial institution as of
January 1, 2020 but is not a financial institution on July 1, 2020
because it originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
2018 or 2019 is not required in 2021 to report, but may report,
applications for, originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans for calendar year 2020 that are excluded transactions
because the institution originated fewer than 100 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2018 or 2019. However, an institution that was a
financial institution as of January 1, 2020 and chooses to report
such excluded applications for, originations of, or purchases of
closed-end mortgage loans in 2021 must report all such applications
for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage
loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it
purchases that otherwise would be covered loans for all of calendar
year 2020.
* * * * *
0
5. Effective January 1, 2022, Sec. 1003.2, as amended at 84 FR 57946,
October 29, 2019, is further amended by revising paragraphs
(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) to read as follows:
Sec. 1003.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at
least 200 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part
pursuant to Sec. 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at
least 200 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part
pursuant to Sec. 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
* * * * *
0
6. Effective January 1, 2022, Sec. 1003.3, is amended by revising
paragraph (c)(11) and as amended at 84 FR 57946, October 29, 2019, is
further amended by revising paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:
Sec. 1003.3 Exempt institutions and excluded and partially exempt
transactions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(11) A closed-end mortgage loan, if the financial institution
originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the
two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect,
record, report, and disclose information, as described in Sec. Sec.
1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded closed-end mortgage loan as
though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution
complies with such requirements for all applications for closed-end
mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it
originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that
otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during
which final action is taken on the excluded closed-end mortgage loan;
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution
originated fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in either of the two
preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record,
report, and disclose information, as described in Sec. Sec. 1003.4 and
1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were
a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with
such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit
that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and
open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have
been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action
is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit; or
* * * * *
0
7. Effective January 1, 2022, supplement I to part 1003, as amended at
84 FR 57946, October 29, 2019, is further amended as follows:
0
a. Under Section 1003.2--Definitions, revise 2(g) Financial
Institution; and
0
b. Under Section 1003.3--Exempt Institutions and Excluded and Partially
Exempt Transactions, under 3(c) Excluded Transactions, revise
Paragraphs 3(c)(11) and 3(c)(12).
The revisions read as follows:
Supplement I to Part 1003--Official Interpretations
* * * * *
Section 1003.2--Definitions
* * * * *
2(g) Financial Institution
1. Preceding calendar year and preceding December 31. The
definition of financial institution refers both to the preceding
calendar year and the preceding December 31. These terms refer to
the calendar year and the December 31 preceding the current calendar
year. For example, in 2021, the preceding calendar year is 2020, and
the preceding December 31 is December 31, 2020. Accordingly, in
2021, Financial Institution A satisfies the asset-size threshold
described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if its assets exceeded the
threshold specified in comment 2(g)-2 on December 31, 2020.
Likewise, in 2021, Financial Institution A does not meet the loan-
volume test described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) if it originated
fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans during either 2019 or 2020.
2. [Reserved]
3. Merger or acquisition--coverage of surviving or newly formed
institution. After a merger or acquisition, the surviving or newly
formed institution is a financial institution under Sec. 1003.2(g)
if it, considering the combined assets, location, and lending
activity of the surviving or newly formed institution and the merged
or acquired institutions or acquired branches, satisfies the
criteria included in Sec. 1003.2(g). For example, A and B merge.
The surviving or newly formed institution meets the loan threshold
described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) if the surviving or newly
formed institution, A, and B originated a combined total of at least
200 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar
years. Likewise, the surviving or newly formed institution meets the
asset-size threshold in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(i) if its assets and the
combined assets of A and B on December 31 of the preceding calendar
year exceeded the threshold described in Sec. 1003.2(g)(1)(i).
Comment 2(g)-4 discusses a financial institution's responsibilities
during the calendar year of a merger.
4. Merger or acquisition--coverage for calendar year of merger
or acquisition. The scenarios described below illustrate a financial
institution's responsibilities for the calendar year of a merger or
acquisition. For purposes of these illustrations, a ``covered
institution'' means a financial institution, as defined in Sec.
1003.2(g), that is not exempt from reporting under Sec. 1003.3(a),
and ``an institution that is not covered'' means either an
institution that is not a financial institution, as defined in Sec.
1003.2(g), or an institution that is exempt from reporting under
Sec. 1003.3(a).
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The surviving or
newly formed institution meets all of the requirements necessary to
be a covered institution. No data collection is required for the
calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an
institution that meets all of the requirements necessary to be a
covered institution). When a branch office of an institution that is
not covered is acquired by another institution that is not covered,
and the acquisition results in a covered institution, no data
collection is required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered
merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a
new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the
merger, data collection is required for covered loans and
applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that
was previously covered and is optional for covered loans and
applications handled in offices of the merged institution that was
previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch
office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is
optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired
[[Page 28407]]
branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not
covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving
institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For
the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for
covered loans and applications handled in offices of the previously
covered institution that took place prior to the merger. After the
merger date, data collection is optional for covered loans and
applications handled in the offices of the institution that was
previously covered. When an institution remains not covered after
acquiring a branch office of a covered institution, data collection
is required for transactions of the acquired branch office that take
place prior to the acquisition. Data collection by the acquired
branch office is optional for transactions taking place in the
remainder of the calendar year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The surviving or newly
formed institution is a covered institution. Data collection is
required for the entire calendar year of the merger. The surviving
or newly formed institution files either a consolidated submission
or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered
institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data
collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger.
Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either
institution.
5. Originations. Whether an institution is a financial
institution depends in part on whether the institution originated at
least 100 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding
calendar years or at least 200 open-end lines of credit in each of
the two preceding calendar years. Comments 4(a)-2 through -4 discuss
whether activities with respect to a particular closed-end mortgage
loan or open-end line of credit constitute an origination for
purposes of Sec. 1003.2(g).
6. Branches of foreign banks--treated as banks. A Federal branch
or a State-licensed or insured branch of a foreign bank that meets
the definition of a ``bank'' under section 3(a)(1) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(a)) is a bank for the purposes
of Sec. 1003.2(g).
7. Branches and offices of foreign banks and other entities--
treated as nondepository financial institutions. A Federal agency,
State-licensed agency, State-licensed uninsured branch of a foreign
bank, commercial lending company owned or controlled by a foreign
bank, or entity operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal
Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 601 and 611 (Edge Act and agreement
corporations) may not meet the definition of ``bank'' under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act and may thereby fail to satisfy the
definition of a depository financial institution under Sec.
1003.2(g)(1). An entity is nonetheless a financial institution if it
meets the definition of nondepository financial institution under
Sec. 1003.2(g)(2).
* * * * *
Section 1003.3--Exempt Institutions and Excluded and Partially
Exempt Transactions
* * * * *
3(c) Excluded Transactions
* * * * *
Paragraph 3(c)(11)
1. General. Section 1003.3(c)(11) provides that a closed-end
mortgage loan is an excluded transaction if a financial institution
originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the
two preceding calendar years. For example, assume that a bank is a
financial institution in 2022 under Sec. 1003.2(g) because it
originated 300 open-end lines of credit in 2020, 350 open-end lines
of credit in 2021, and met all of the other requirements under Sec.
1003.2(g)(1). Also assume that the bank originated 75 and 90 closed-
end mortgage loans in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The open-end
lines of credit that the bank originated or purchased, or for which
it received applications, during 2022 are covered loans and must be
reported, unless they otherwise are excluded transactions under
Sec. 1003.3(c). However, the closed-end mortgage loans that the
bank originated or purchased, or for which it received applications,
during 2022 are excluded transactions under Sec. 1003.3(c)(11) and
need not be reported. See comments 4(a)-2 through-4 for guidance
about the activities that constitute an origination.
2. Optional reporting. A financial institution may report
applications for, originations of, or purchases of closed-end
mortgage loans that are excluded transactions because the financial
institution originated fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in
either of the two preceding calendar years. However, a financial
institution that chooses to report such excluded applications for,
originations of, or purchases of closed-end mortgage loans must
report all such applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it
receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-
end mortgage loans that it purchases that otherwise would be covered
loans for a given calendar year. Note that applications which remain
pending at the end of a calendar year are not reported, as described
in comment 4(a)(8)(i)-14.
Paragraph 3(c)(12)
1. General. Section 1003.3(c)(12) provides that an open-end line
of credit is an excluded transaction if a financial institution
originated fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in either of the
two preceding calendar years. For example, assume that a bank is a
financial institution in 2022 under Sec. 1003.2(g) because it
originated 100 closed-end mortgage loans in 2020, 175 closed-end
mortgage loans in 2021, and met all of the other requirements under
Sec. 1003.2(g)(1). Also assume that the bank originated 175 and 185
open-end lines of credit in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The closed-
end mortgage loans that the bank originated or purchased, or for
which it received applications, during 2022 are covered loans and
must be reported, unless they otherwise are excluded transactions
under Sec. 1003.3(c). However, the open-end lines of credit that
the bank originated or purchased, or for which it received
applications, during 2022 are excluded transactions under Sec.
1003.3(c)(12) and need not be reported. See comments 4(a)-2 through
-4 for guidance about the activities that constitute an origination.
2. Optional reporting. A financial institution may report
applications for, originations of, or purchases of open-end lines of
credit that are excluded transactions because the financial
institution originated fewer than 200 open-end lines of credit in
either of the two preceding calendar years. However, a financial
institution that chooses to report such excluded applications for,
originations of, or purchases of open-end lines of credit must
report all such applications for open-end lines of credit which it
receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end
lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would be covered
loans for a given calendar year. Note that applications which remain
pending at the end of a calendar year are not reported, as described
in comment 4(a)(8)(i)-14.
* * * * *
Laura Galban,
Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2020-08409 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P