The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a second version of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C) Small Entity Compliance Guide. The updated version incorporates various changes to the HMDA rule that were issued in August 2017 and published in the September 13, 2017 Federal Register, which we reported on previously. One of the main changes incorporated in the revised Guide is the temporary increase in the threshold to report home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) from 100 to 500 transactions in each of the two proceeding calendar years. Based on the temporary increase, financial institutions originating 100 or more HELOCs but fewer than 500 in 2018 or 2019 would not be required to begin collecting and reporting HELOC data until January 1, 2020. However, the CFPB may take further action to amend the threshold.
Among the more than 20 bills that the House Financial Services Committee is scheduled to mark-up this Wednesday, October 11, is a bill to provide a “Madden fix” as well as several others relevant to consumer financial services providers.
These bills are the following:
- H.R. 3299, “Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017. In Madden, the Second Circuit ruled that a nonbank that purchases loans from a national bank could not charge the same rate of interest on the loan that Section 85 of the National Bank Act allows the national bank to charge. The bill would add the following language to Section 85 of the National Bank Act: “A loan that is valid when made as to its maximum rate of interest in accordance with this section shall remain valid with respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a third party, and may be enforced by such third party notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.”
This language is identical to language in a bill introduced in July 2017 by Democratic Senator Mark Warner as well as language in the Financial CHOICE Act and the Appropriations Bill that is also intended to override Madden. Like those bills, H.R. 3299 would add the same language (with the word “section” changed to “subsection” when appropriate) to the provisions in the Home Owners’ Loan Act, the Federal Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that provide rate exportation authority to, respectively, federal savings associations, federal credit unions, and state-chartered banks. In the view of Isaac Boltansky of Compass Point, the bill is likely to be enacted in this Congress.
- H.R. 2706, “Financial Institution Consumer Protection Act of 2017.” This bill is intended to prevent a recurrence of “Operation Chokepoint,” the federal enforcement initiative involving various agencies, including the DOJ, the FDIC, and the Fed. Initiated in 2012, Operation Chokepoint targeted banks serving online payday lenders and other companies that have raised regulatory or “reputational” concerns. The bill includes provisions that (1) prohibit a federal banking agency from (i) requesting or ordering a depository institution to terminate a specific customer account or group of customer accounts, or (ii) attempting to otherwise restrict or discourage a depository institution from entering into or maintaining a banking relationship with a specific customer or group of customers. unless the agency has a material reason for doing so and such reason is not based solely on reputation risk, and (2) require a federal banking agency that requests or orders termination of specific customer account or group of customer accounts to provide written notice to the institution and customer(s) that includes the agency’s justification for the termination. (In August 2017, the DOJ sent a letter to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in which it confirmed the termination of Operation Chokepoint. Acting Comptroller Noreika in remarks last month, in which he also voiced support for “Madden fix” legislation, indicated that the OCC had denounced Operation Choke Point.)
- H.R. 3072, “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold Act of 2017.” The bill would raise the asset threshold for banks subject to CFPB supervision from total assets of more than $10 billion to total assets of more than $50 billion.
- H.R. 1116, “Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017.” The bill includes a requirement that for any “regulatory action,” the CFPB, and federal banking agencies must consider the risk profile and business models of each type of institution or class of institutions that would be subject to the regulatory action and tailor the action in a manner that limits the regulatory compliance and other burdens based on the risk profile and business model of the institution or class of institutions involved. The bill also includes a look-back provision that would require the agencies to apply the bill’s requirements to all regulations adopted within the last seven years and revise any regulations accordingly within 3 years. A “regulatory action” would be defined as “any proposed, interim, or final rule or regulation, guidance, or published interpretation.”
- H.R. 2954, “Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.” The bill would amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to create exemptions from HMDA’s data collection and disclosure requirements for depository institutions (1) with respect to closed-end mortgage loans, if the institution originated fewer than 1,000 such loans in each of the two preceding years, and (2) with respect to open-end lines of credit, if the institution originated fewer than 2,000 such lines of credit in each of the two preceding years. (An amendment in the nature of a substitute would lower these thresholds to fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans and fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit.)
- H.R. 1699, “Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017.” The bill would amend the Truth in Lending Act and the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (SAFE Act) to generally exempt a retailer of manufactured housing from TILA’s “mortgage originator” definition and the SAFE Act’s “loan originator” definition. It would also increase TILA’s “high-cost mortgage” triggers for manufactured housing financing.
- H.R. 2396, “Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.” This bill would amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s requirements for providing an annual privacy notice. (An amendment in the nature of a substitute is expected to be offered.)
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently posted on its website updated versions of guidance in connection with the revisions to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rules that become effective on January 1, 2018.
The CFPB updated the key dates timeline, 2018 HMDA institutional coverage chart and 2018 HMDA transactional coverage chart to reflect the temporary increase in the threshold to report home equity lines of credit (HELOCs). In the original version of the revised HMDA rules, an institution that made at least 100 HELOCs in each of the prior two years would need to report HELOCs for the current reporting year. For example, an institution that made at least 100 HELOCs in each of 2016 and 2017 would have to collect and report data on HELOCs for 2018. As previously reported, the CFPB temporarily increased the threshold from 100 to 500 HELOCs for 2018 and 2019, and will assess the appropriate reporting threshold to be implemented in 2020.
In October 2015, the CFPB adopted significant changes to the rules under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Among the changes, the items of information to be collected and reported under HMDA are greatly expanded, with some items being specified by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act and others being added by the CFPB. The CFPB is now proposing policy guidance regarding what items of application-level information will be disclosed to the public. The comment deadline is November 24, 2017.
Currently, institutions that report HMDA data must publicly disclose their HMDA data on an application-level basis. HMDA requires the modification of data released to the public “for the purpose of protecting the privacy interests of mortgage applicants.” Currently, before disclosing application-level data, institutions remove the application or loan number, the date the application was received, and the date the institution took final action on the application. However, there are concerns that by combining the current publicly available HMDA data with other data sources, the identity of each applicant can be determined. As the applicant’s income is one data item that is publicly disclosed, there is a concern that the income of individual applicants can be determined.
Going forward, institutions will report HMDA data to the CFPB, and the CFPB will disclose HMDA data publicly, including application-level data for each institution. The significant expansion of HMDA data information made by the October 2015 revisions raised consumer privacy and related concerns associated with the public disclosure of the information. New data items include, among other items, the applicant’s age, income (which is currently reported), credit score, and debt-to-income ratio; the automated underwriting results; the property address; loan cost information; and, for denied applications, the principal denial reasons.
When the CFPB adopted the October 2015 revisions, it deferred making a decision on which elements of the expanded HMDA data would be reported on an application-level basis. However, the CFPB indicated that it would use a balancing test to decide what information to disclose publicly, and would allow public input on the information that it proposed to disclose. The CFPB advised that “[c]onsidering the public disclosure of HMDA data as a whole, applicant and borrower privacy interests arise under the balancing test only where the disclosure of HMDA data may both substantially facilitate the identification of an applicant or borrower in the data and disclose information about the applicant or borrower that is not otherwise public and may be harmful or sensitive.”
The CFPB proposes to make all of the HMDA data available to the public on an application-level basis, except as follows:
- The following information would not be disclosed to the public (the non-disclosure of the first three items is consistent with current disclosure practices):
- The universal loan identifier.
- The date the application was received or the date shown on the application form (whichever was reported).
- The date of the action taken on the application.
- The property address.
- The credit score(s).
- The NMLS identifier for the mortgage loan originator.
- The automated underwriting system result.
- The free form text fields for the following (the standard fields reported would be disclosed):
- The applicant’s race and ethnicity.
- The name and version of the credit scoring model.
- The principal reason(s) for denial.
- The automated underwriting system name.
- The CFPB proposes to disclose in a modified format the loan amount, age of the applicant, the applicant’s debt-to-income ratio, and the property value.
- For the loan amount, the CFPB proposes to disclose:
- The midpoint for the $10,000 interval into which the reported value falls, such as $115,000 for amounts of $110,000 to less than $120,000. (Currently, the loan amount is reported to the nearest $1,000.)
- Whether the reported loan amount exceeds the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conforming loan limit.
- For the age of the applicant, the CFPB proposes to disclose:
- Ages of applicants in the following ranges: Under 25, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and over 74.
- Whether the reported age is 62 or over. For purposes of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a person is considered elderly if they are age 62 or over.
- For the debt-to-income ratio, the CFPB proposes to disclose:
- The reported debt-to-income ratio for reported values of 40% to less than 50%, and other debt-to-income ratios in the following ranges: under 20%, 20% to less than 30%, 30% to less than 40%, 50% to less than 60% and 60% or higher.
- For the property value, the CFPB proposes to disclose the midpoint for the $10,000 interval into which the reported value falls, such as $115,000 for amounts of $110,000 to less than $120,000.
- For the loan amount, the CFPB proposes to disclose:
Although the loan amount will now be reported in the applicable $10,000 interval and not to the nearest $1,000, the concern is that the totality of the information that is publicly available will make it easier than it is today to determine the identity of the applicant. Thus, as proposed by the CFPB, there is a risk that a significant amount of information that consumers view as confidential will become publicly available. As a result, the CFPB will likely face intense criticism of its balancing of the privacy needs of consumers with the disclosure of HMDA data.
Additionally, because the increase in the amount of HMDA data elements means that the CFPB will now store very confidential consumer information in its records, data security concerns must be considered. The CFPB rebuffed data security concerns raised by parties commenting on the proposed HMDA data expansion, stating that it “has analyzed these industry comments carefully and has determined that any risks to applicant and borrower privacy created by the compilation and reporting of the data required under the final rule are justified by the benefits of the data in light of HMDA’s purposes even though its data security has been cited as being deficient.” While the CFPB was referring to a Government Accountability Office report finding issues with CFPB data security, as we have reported previously on several occasions the CFPB’s own Office of Inspector General has found deficiencies in CFPB data security. (See here, here and here.)
One must wonder why the CFPB views the collection and disclosure of expansive HMDA information as being more important than addressing privacy and data security risks to consumers.
On September 21, the CFPB finalized its proposal to amend Regulation B requirements related to the collection of consumer ethnicity and race information, in order to resolve the differences between Regulation B and revised Regulation C (the “Final Rule”). This Final Rule is effective on January 1, 2018, the same effective date for most of the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Final Rule. The amendment removing the existing “Uniform Residential Loan Application” form is effective January 1, 2022.
Generally, the amendments set forth in the Final Rule are being adopted as proposed. The Final Rule institutes four primary changes to Regulation B:
- Applicant Information Collection for Regulation B Creditors. The Final Rule gives persons who collect and retain race and ethnicity information in compliance with Regulation B the option of permitting applicants to self-identify using the disaggregated race and ethnicity categories required by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Aligning these rules allows HMDA-reporting entities to comply with Regulation B without further action, while entities that do not report under HMDA but record and retain race and ethnicity data under Regulation B may either use existing aggregated categories or the new disaggregated race and ethnicity categories. The flexibility may be helpful for institutions that move in and out of being a HMDA reporting entity.
- Applicant Information Collection for HMDA Reporters. The Final Rule allows creditors to collect ethnicity, race and sex information from mortgage applicants in certain cases where the creditor is not required to report under HMDA and Regulation C, including creditors that submit HMDA data even though not required to do so, and creditors that submitted HMDA data in any of the preceding five calendar years. This change also may benefit institutions move in and out of being a HMDA reporting entity, and institutions that may be uncertain about their reporting status.
- Regulation B Model Forms. The Final Rule removes the outdated 2004 Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA) as a model form, and provides a new, one-page data collection model form that can be used to collect the revised HMDA demographic data until the 2016 URLA prepared by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is implemented. As we reported previously, last year the CFPB added the 2016 URLA as a model form to Regulation B.
- Voluntary Collection Authorizations. The Final Rule authorizes a financial institution that is subject to only (1) the requirement to report closed-end loans, to voluntarily report home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), and (2) to the requirement to report HELOCs, to voluntarily report closed-end loans. Moreover, the CFPB is adopting two recommendations from industry commenters that were not contained in the proposed rule. First, a financial institution may collect applicant demographic information for dwelling-secured business loans that are not reportable because the loans are not for the purposes of home purchase, refinancing, or home improvement. Second, the Final Rule permits, but does not require, creditors to collect applicant demographic information from a second or additional co-applicant. The HMDA rule requires the collection of the information for the applicant and first co-applicant.
As expected, the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council (FFIEC) member agencies issued new data resubmission guidelines under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) effective for the 2018 data collection year. The change coincides with the substantial expansion of the HMDA data reporting fields that is effective January 1, 2018.
When examining an institution’s HMDA Loan Application Register (LAR), regulators will assess if the correction and resubmission of any data is required based on a review of a sample of reported loans. Currently for institutions that have a total of less than 100,000 loans or applications on their annual LAR, which is the vast majority of HMDA reporting institutions, (1) an institution must correct and resubmit its entire LAR if 10% or more or of the entries in the sample contain errors, and (2) an institution must correct and resubmit an individual data field in the LAR if there are errors in that field with 5% or more of the entries in the sample. An institution can be required to correct and resubmit data even if the 10% or 5% thresholds are not reached, if the errors would make analysis of the institution’s data unreliable. Regulators will first assess a smaller set of entries in a LAR, and if one or no errors are found they typically cease the verification process at that point.
Under the new guidelines, there are revised thresholds for requiring resubmission, and for assessing if a full review of the sample will be performed based on errors in the initial smaller set of loans. Assessment of the data will be conducted on an individual data field basis. The new testing sample sizes and thresholds are as follows:
For institutions with fewer than 30 LAR entries, the resubmission threshold is still 3, so the effective resubmission threshold percentage is higher than 10%. As is the case currently, even if the thresholds are not met an institution can be required to correct one or more data fields and resubmit one or more data fields in its HMDA LAR if examiners have a reasonable basis to believe that errors in the field or fields will likely make analysis of the HMDA data unreliable.
Under the revised guidelines, if an institution has a total of 1,000 entries on its LAR, the regulator would first review an initial sample of 35 loans. If the regulator finds two or more errors in a data field, the regulator would then review the full 79 loan sample. If four or more errors are found in any data field, the institution would be required to resubmit its LAR with the applicable data field corrected.
Unlike the current approach, under the new guidelines there are tolerances for certain data fields, and an error within the applicable tolerance will not be considered an error for either threshold. The tolerances are as follows:
- Date of Application: Three calendar days or less with regard to the date the application was received or date shown on application form and the date reported in the LAR.
- Loan Amount: One thousand dollars or less in the amount of the covered loan or loan applied for and the amount reported in the LAR.
- Date Action Taken: Three calendar days or less with regard to the date the action was taken and the date reported in the LAR, provided that the difference does not result in reporting data for the wrong calendar year.
- Income: Errors in rounding the gross annual income relied upon to the nearest thousand.
Subject to an exception, for purposes of the guidelines a “data field” generally refers to an individual HMDA Filing Instructions Guide (FIG) field, and such fields are identified by a distinct Data Field Number and Data Field Name. The July 2017 version of the FIG for data collected in 2018 is available here. The exception is for information on the ethnicity or race of an applicant or borrower, for which a data field consists of a group of FIG fields as follows:
- The Ethnicity of Applicant or Borrower data field group—comprised of six FIG fields with information on an applicant’s or borrower’s ethnicity (FIG Data Field Numbers 19-24);
- The Ethnicity of Co-Applicant or Co-borrower data field group—comprised of six FIG fields with information on a co-applicant’s or co-borrower’s ethnicity (FIG Data Field Numbers 25-30);
- The Race of Applicant or Borrower data field group—comprised of eight FIG fields with information on an applicant’s or borrower’s race (FIG Data Field Numbers 33-40); and
- The Race of Co-Applicant or Co-borrower data field group—comprised of eight FIG fields with information on a co-applicant’s or co-borrower’s race (FIG Data Field Numbers 41-48)
If one or more of the six data fields for such a data field group has errors, this would count as one error.
The CFPB issued HMDA Loan Scenarios on July 19, 2017 to provide additional guidance to the industry on reporting transactions under the revised HMDA rule, which has a January 1, 2018 effective date for most provisions.
The guidance includes loan scenarios for a single-family mortgage loan, multifamily mortgage loan, and home equity line of credit. For each scenario, the guidance reflects how the information about the transaction would be mapped to the required data fields, and then how the transaction would appear on the Loan Application Register in the pipe delimited format.
As we have previously reported, in October 2015 the CFPB adopted significant revisions to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule, most of which become effective January 1, 2018. Among the revisions, the reporting of home equity lines of credit under HMDA, which currently is voluntary, will become mandatory for both depository institutions and non-depository institutions that originated at least 100 home equity lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years.
The CFPB is now proposing to temporarily increase the threshold to the origination of 500 home equity lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. The temporary increase would apply for data collection years 2018 and 2019. The CFPB notes that through outreach it “has heard increasing concerns from community banks and credit unions that the challenges and costs of reporting open-end lending may be greater than the Bureau had estimated when adopting the 100-loan threshold. Additionally, the Bureau’s analysis of more recent data suggests changes in open-end origination trends that may result in more institutions reporting open-end lines of credit than was initially estimated.” The temporary increase will allow the CFPB to assess the appropriate threshold for smaller-volume lenders.
Comments on the proposal are due by July 31, 2017. The CFPB notes that at a later date it will issue a separate proposal with a longer notice and comment process to consider adjustments to the permanent threshold.
Based on the President’s executive order 13772 on The Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System, the American Bankers Association (ABA) submitted a white paper to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin that criticizes the revised Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule adopted by the CFPB.
The executive order requires the Treasury Secretary, based on the core principles laid out in the executive order, to identify the federal laws that promote and inhibit the regulation of the United States financial system. In the white paper, the ABA “offers these views” to the Treasury Secretary in relation to the executive order’s directive:
- Expanded data collection adds nothing but volumes of irrelevant data, distracting from achievement of HMDA’s purposes.
- Regulators have failed to protect expanded HMDA data from breaches of security and privacy.
- Expanded data collection will feed banker regulatory worries about meeting customer needs outside of the norm.
- Data expansion should be suspended until security and privacy concerns are fully addressed.
- Bureau regulatory expansion of data beyond the statute should be rescinded.
- Dodd-Frank expansion of HMDA data fields should be repealed.
The comment regarding security and privacy addresses industry concerns that (1) the greatly expanded nonpublic personal information on consumers presents data security risks and (2) the public release of various new HMDA data elements will result in nonpublic personal information on consumers becoming readily available to the public. As we have reported previously, the CFPB has provided little insight into its decision making on what data will be released, and does not appear to be too concerned with data security or privacy issues. The ABA notes that it is “concerned that the Bureau has not initiated a public rulemaking to address the significant consumer privacy dangers and data protection threats that the expanded HMDA data collection poses.” The ABA concerns are based on the “probability that manipulation of the expanded data points will make it easier for unfriendly parties to unmask identities of borrowers and their personal financial profiles, and the wholesale risks common to an age where harmful data breaches of government-held information are real, frequent, and therefore must be anticipated.”
We share the ABA’s concerns that the expanded HMDA data categories presents, both with regard to the risk of unauthorized access to the data, and the public release of various data elements by the CFPB.
On May 4 H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act (the Act) introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, obtained enough votes to move the bill on to the House of Representatives floor. The Act seeks to rollback or modify many of the regulatory and supervisory requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act.
On May 8, my colleague, Barbara Mishkin blogged about provisions of the bill that would overhaul the CFPB’s structure and authority, and a variety of other provisions. I will blog about the provisions in the bill that relate to mortgage origination and servicing. The passage of the bill in its current form would result in significant changes for that industry. The most significant changes are addressed below.
S.A.F.E. Act Transitional Authority. If certain conditions are met, the Act would create, under the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act, temporary authority for a loan originator to continue to originate loans in cases in which (1) a registered loan originator moves from a depository institution to a non-depository institution mortgage lender and (2) a licensed loan originator moves from a non-depository institution in one state to another non-depository institution in a different state. The temporary period would run from the date the loan originator submits an application for a license until the earlier of the date (1) the application is withdrawn, denied or granted, or (2) that is 120 days after submission of the application, if the application is listed in the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR) as being incomplete.
Points and Fees. The definition of points and fees for purposes of the Regulation Z ability to repay/qualified mortgage requirements and high-cost mortgage loan requirements would be revised to exclude charges for title examinations, title insurance or similar purposes, regardless of whether the title company is affiliated with the creditor. Currently, for such charges to be excluded from points and fees, the title company must not be an affiliate of the creditor. The Act also would make a conforming change to exclude escrowed amounts for insurance from points and fees. Currently, escrowed amounts for taxes are excluded from points and fees. Both changes were included in bills introduced in prior years that never were enacted.
Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage. The Act would create a safe harbor against lawsuits for failure to comply with the Regulation Z ability to repay requirements for mortgage loans made by depository institutions that are held in portfolio from the time of origination and comply with a limitation on prepayment penalties. Mortgage originators working for depository institutions would have a safe harbor from a related anti-steering provision if they informed the consumer that the institution intended to hold the loan in portfolio for the life of the loan.
Higher-Priced Mortgage Loan Escrow Requirements. The Act would exempt certain small creditors from the escrow account requirements under Regulation Z for higher-priced mortgage loans if the small creditor held the loan in portfolio for at least three years after origination. A creditor would qualify for the exemption if it has consolidated assets of $10 billion or less.
Small Servicer Exemption. For purposes of the exemption for small servicers from various servicing requirements, the Act would require an increase in the limit on loans serviced to be considered a small servicer. Currently the limit is 5,000 loans serviced by the servicer and its affiliates, and the servicer and its affiliates must be the creditor or assignee of all of the serviced loans. The Act would require the adoption of a limit of 20,000 loans serviced annually. The Act does not expressly refer to loans serviced by affiliates or whether the servicer and its affiliates must be the creditor or assignee of the loans.
HMDA Reporting Threshold. The revised Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule adopted by the CFPB establishes uniform volume thresholds to be a reporting institution at 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the prior two years or 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the prior two years. The uniform thresholds will become effective January 1, 2018, although the 25 loan threshold for closed-end mortgage loans became effective January 1, 2017 for depository institutions. The bill would increase the thresholds to 100 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the prior two years and 200 open-end lines of credit for each of the prior two years.
HMDA Information Privacy. The revised HMDA rule adopted by the CFPB significantly expands the data on the consumer and loan that must be collected and reported, including the credit score and age of the consumer. The mortgage industry has raised concerns about how much information the CFPB will make public under HMDA, as parties can use the publicly released data as well as other publicly available data to determine the identity of the consumer. The CFPB is still assessing what elements of the reported data it will release to the public. The Act would require the Comptroller General of the United States to study the issue and submit a report to Congress. The Act also would provide that reporting institutions are not required to make available to the public any information that was not required to be made available under HMDA immediately prior to the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act. This aspect of the Act does not address that, under the revised HMDA rule, the CFPB, and not each reporting institution, would make reported information available to the public.
It is likely that the H.R. 10 as currently structured will not be adopted, but various provisions may find their way into law. We will continue to monitor developments.