Quiero saber acerca de...

41784

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules
proposals legal basis please refer to Section II.C, entitled Proposed Rule.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

The Proposed Rule The FDIC is proposing to amend the rules governing deposit insurance coverage for deposits maintained at IDIs by mortgage servicers. Generally, the proposed amendment would provide consistent deposit insurance treatment for all MSA deposit balances held to satisfy principal and interest obligations to a lender, regardless of whether those funds are paid into the account by borrowers, or paid into the account by another party such as the servicer in order to satisfy a periodic obligation to remit principal and interest due to the lender. The composition of an MSA
attributable to principal and interest payments would include mortgage servicers advances of principal and interest funds on behalf of delinquent borrowers, and collections by a servicer such as foreclosure proceeds. The proposed rule would make no change to the deposit insurance coverage provided for mortgage servicing accounts comprised of payments from mortgagors of taxes and insurance premiums. For a more detailed discussion of the proposed rule please refer to Section II.C, entitled Proposed Rule.
Small Entities Affected Based on the March 31, 2021 Call Report data, the FDIC insures 4,987
depository institutions, of which 3,431
are considered small entities for the purposes of RFA. Of the 3,431 small IDIs, 491 IDIs 14.3 percent report holding mortgage servicing assets, which indicates that they service mortgage loans and could thus be affected by the proposed rule. However, mortgage servicing accounts may be maintained at small IDIs that do not themselves service mortgage loans. The FDIC does not know how many IDIs that are small entities are recipients of mortgage servicing account deposits, but believes that most such entities are not because there are relatively few mortgage servicers.87 Therefore, the FDIC estimates that the number of small IDIs potentially affected by the proposed rule, if adopted, would be between 491
and 3,431, but believes that the number is close to the lower end of the range.
As noted in Section III.A, titled Expected Effects, the FDIC does not have detailed data on MSAs that would 87 According to the U.S. Census Bureau within the Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation NAICS 522390 national industry where mortgage servicers are captured there were 3,595 firms in 2018, relative to the 37,627 firms in the Credit Intermediation and Related Activities subsector NAICS 522.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Aug 02, 2021

Jkt 253001

allow the FDIC to reliably estimate the number of MSAs maintained at IDIs that would be affected by the proposed rule, or any potential change in the total amount of insured deposits. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of small IDIs that would be potentially affected by the proposed rule.

alternative. Were the FDIC to not propose the revisions, then in the event of an IDIs failure the current rules could result in delayed access to certain funds in an MSA that have been aggregated and insured to a mortgage servicer, or to the extent that aggregated funds insured to a servicer exceed the insurance limit, loss of such funds.

Expected Effects The proposed rule would directly affect the level of deposit insurance coverage for certain funds within MSAs.
If enacted, the proposed rule is likely to benefit a servicer compelled by the terms of a pooling and servicing agreement to advance principal and interest funds to note holders when a borrower is delinquent, and therefore the servicer has not received such funds from the borrower. In the event that the IDI hosting the MSA for the servicer fails, the proposal reduces the likelihood that the funds advanced by the servicer are uninsured, and thereby facilitates access to, and helps avoids losses of, those funds. As previously discussed, the FDIC does not have detailed data on MSAs held at IDIs, pooling and servicing agreements for outstanding mortgage loans, or servicer payments into MSAs that would allow the FDIC to reliably estimate the number of, and volume of funds within, MSAs maintained at IDIs that would be affected by the proposed rule.
Further, the proposed rule is likely to benefit a small IDI who is hosting an MSA for a servicer that is compelled by the terms of a pooling and servicing agreement to advance principal and interest funds to note holders on behalf of delinquent borrowers by increasing the volume of insured funds. In the event that the small IDI enters into a troubled condition, the proposed rule could marginally increase the stability of MSA deposits from such servicers, thereby increasing the general stability of funding.
Based on the preceding information the FDIC believes that the proposed rule, if enacted, is unlikely to have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

Other Statutes and Federal Rules The FDIC has not identified any likely duplication, overlap, and/or potential conflict between this proposal and any other federal rule.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in this RFA section. In particular, would the proposal have any significant effects on small entities that the FDIC has not identified?

Alternatives Considered The FDIC is proposing revisions to the deposit insurance rules for MSAs to advance the objectives discussed above.
The FDIC considered the status quo alternative to not revise the existing rules for MSAs and not propose the revisions. However, for reasons previously stated in Section II.B, entitled Background and Need for Rulemaking, the FDIC considers the proposed rule to be a more appropriate
PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
44 U.S.C. 35013521 states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget OMB control number. The FDIC has determined that this proposed rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, collections of information under section 3504h of the Paperwork Reduction Act PRA.
Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB
for review. The FDIC invites comment on its PRA determination.
D. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 RCDRIA
requires that the Federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements of new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations.88 Subject to certain exceptions, new regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall 88 12

E:FRFM03AUP1.SGM

U.S.C. 4802a.

03AUP1