Federal Register: October 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 194)

DOCID: FR Doc 06-8492

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 12 CFR Part 951

RIN ID: RIN 3069-AB26

DOCUMENT ID: [No. 2006-17]

NOTICE: Part III

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Affordable Housing Program Amendments

DATES: The final rule is effective on January 1, 2007.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is amending its Affordable Housing Program regulation to remove prescriptive requirements, clarify certain operational requirements, provide additional discretionary authority in certain areas, remove certain authorities, and otherwise streamline and reorganize the regulation.

SUMMARY:

Federal Housing Finance Board,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

I. Background

Section 10(j)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires each Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) to establish an affordable housing program (AHP), the purpose of which is to enable Bank members to provide subsidized financing for longterm, low and moderate income, owneroccupied and affordable rental housing. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(1). The AHP has played an important role in facilitating Bank support of their members' efforts to meet the housing needs of their communities. The strength of the AHP lies in its capacity to leverage additional public and private resources for housing. Since the inception of the program in 1990, the Banks have awarded more than $2.5 billion in AHP subsidies to assist nearly 472,000 housing units. Seventy percent of the units receiving AHP subsidies were for very low income households. AHP subsidies have proven effective in financing projects that present underwriting challenges, such as projects for the homeless and special needs populations, which may include persons with disabilities and the elderly. The AHP also has been used effectively in conjunction with LowIncome Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC or tax credits), which are important funding sources for rental housing for verylow income households.

The AHP also serves as an important resource for low or moderate income homeowners and firsttime homebuyers. From 1990 through 2005, the program assisted in the financing of over 126,000 owneroccupied units under the Banks' competitive application programs, and over 47,000 units under their homeownership setaside programs. Some of the units address specific housing needs, such as expanding homeownership opportunities for underserved households.

II. Proposed Rule

The Finance Board's regulation implementing the AHP provisions of the Bank Act is codified at 12 CFR part 951. The regulation generally has reflected a prescriptive approach, which was appropriate for rules implementing a newly created program. As the program has matured, the Finance Board periodically has revised the AHP regulation, to provide greater authority to the Banks in managing their individual programs and codify lessons learned through oversight of the Banks' operation of their programs. The Finance Board believes, based in part on its review of the AHP on a Systemwide level, Report of the Horizontal Review of the Affordable Housing Programs of the Federal Home Loan Banks (March 15, 2005) (Horizontal Review), that there are a number of areas in which it can revise the regulation to provide for additional enhancement of the program.\1\ Accordingly, on December 28, 2005, the Finance Board published proposed amendments to the AHP in the Federal Register for a 120day comment period, which closed on April 27, 2006. See 70 FR 76938 (Dec. 28, 2005). The Finance Board received a total of 59 comment letters on the proposed rule, representing 61 commenters.\2\ Commenters included: All 12 Banks; 4 Bank Affordable Housing Advisory Councils; 3 Bank members; 13 trade associations; 9 notforprofit housing developers; 5 housing advocacy and assistance organizations; 3 State housing finance agencies; 3 forprofit housing developers; 3 community development financial institutions; 3 individuals; 2 wholesale financial intermediary and assistance organizations; and 1 secondary market entity for home purchase and rehabilitation mortgages. The Finance Board has considered all of the comments it received on the proposed rule, and has determined to adopt a final rule amending the AHP, with a number of revisions to the proposed rule, as further discussed below. Comments received that were relevant to the issues raised in the proposed rule are discussed below. Comments that raised issues beyond the scope of the proposed rule are not addressed in this final rule, but may be considered by the Finance Board at a future date.
\1\ The Horizontal Review is available on the Housing Programs page of the Finance Board's Web site: http://www.fhfb.gov/Default.aspx?Page=47 .
\2\ Letters from 2 of the Banks also incorporate the comments of those Banks' respective Affordable Housing Advisory Councils. III. Analysis of the Final Rule

As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule, the amendments to the AHP regulation are intended to address the following principal changes.

1. The final rule incorporates additional definitions into the regulation at Sec. 951.1. These definitions establish the precise meaning of key terms that are used in the regulation.

2. The final rule reorganizes the regulatory text so that operational provisions relating to the competitive application program and the homeownership setaside program, respectively, are fully contained within separate sections of the regulation. Section 951.5 addresses the competitive application program, while Sec. 951.6 addresses the homeownership setaside program. The reorganization is intended to make it easier for program sponsors and other interested parties to understand the individual operation of the competitive application and homeownership setaside programs.

3. The final rule authorizes the Banks, in their discretion, to provide AHP direct subsidies under the competitive application program for eligible projects and households involving both the lending of the subsidy and subsequent relending of subsidy principal and interest repayments by a revolving loan fund. This change is intended to expand the eligible means of supporting affordable housing through the program.

4. The final rule specifies the conditions under which a Bank, in its discretion, may provide AHP subsidy under the competitive application program to loan pools. This change is intended to provide additional clarity for Banks that may wish to use such
[[Page 59263]]
funding vehicles to support affordable housing through the program.

5. The final rule eliminates the existing discretionary authority for a Bank to prohibit applications for AHP subsidy for projects located outside a Bank's district. This change is in response to the expansion of interstate banking, which has resulted in many Bank members operating in markets outside a Bank's district boundaries. However, in response to comments received, the final rule retains the current discretionary scoring preference for indistrict projects under the First District Priority, and continues to allow a Bank to adopt such a scoring preference under its Second District Priority.

6. In response to comments received, the final rule retains the Banks' current authority to draw on AHP funds from the subsequent year to fund the current year's AHP, but limits the amount that may be drawn to an amount up to the greater of $2 million or 20 percent of the Bank's annual required AHP contribution for the current year, which the Bank would deduct from the annual required AHP contribution for the subsequent year. This change responds to the fact that Banks have, at times, found this authority to be useful for addressing housing needs in their districts.

7. The final rule removes provisions in the regulation that would increase annually the maximum allowable dollar amount of a Bank's allocation to its homeownership setaside program, and maximum allowable dollar amount drawn on the subsequent year's allocation under a Bank's homeownership setaside and competitive application program, based on the annual inflation rate. This change addresses the potential for inflation to increase the allocation of AHP contributions to the homeownership setaside program relative to the competitive application program.

8. The final rule replaces certain prescriptive monitoring requirements in the current regulation, which detail specific monitoring and control processes with which a Bank must comply, with broadly stated monitoring objectives to be accomplished through the Bank's adoption and implementation of written monitoring policies for its competitive application and homeownership setaside programs.

These principal changes relative to the current rule, and other provisions of the final rule, including significant changes from the proposed rule, are discussed in greater detail below.

A. Definitions: Sec. 951.1

Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule revises certain of the existing AHP definitions and defines a number of other terms that are used throughout the regulation. See 12 CFR 951.1. New definitions are discussed below in the context of specific regulatory requirements. The more substantive changes are described below.

Affordable. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule revises the existing definition of ``affordable'' by adding a reference, consistent with the AHP statutory term, to ``rent charged to a household,'' which is defined to mean the rent that is actually paid by the household occupying the unit. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(13)(D). The change clarifies the existing regulatory language, which could be read to mean the amount of rent charged by the owner for the unit, which would be greater than the rent actually paid by the occupants if the occupants receive financial assistance for rent payments from other sources. One commenter supported the proposed revision, noting that the change acknowledges an important distinction between unit rent and the household's rent payment.

The final rule also adds a new paragraph (2) to address rents charged for units that are subsidized with lowincome housing assistance under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 program, see 42 U.S.C. 1437f, as well as rents under other assistance programs that are charged in the same way as under the Section 8 program. This provision is intended to clarify that rents charged to a household under such programs will be deemed to be ``affordable'' for AHP purposes, even if the rent increases after initial occupancy, if the rent complied with the AHP definition of ``affordable'' upon initial household occupancy and thereafter the household continues to be assisted through the program. This provision is applicable for purposes of the annual adjustment of targeting commitments after initial occupancy under Sec. 951.7(a)(5) of the final rule (which is redesignated from current Sec. Sec. 951.10(d) and 951.11(b)).

The proposed rule would have applied this paragraph (2) only to the Section 8 program. Several commenters supported the change, with 1 commenter adding that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Rental Assistance Program, at 7 CFR part 3560, charges rents in the same way as Section 8, and recommending that rents under that program be included in the AHP provision. The Finance Board believes that the commenter's suggestion has merit, and that the provision should include not only rents under the USDA program, but rents under any other assistance program that are charged in the same way as under the Section 8 program. Accordingly, the final rule adopts the proposed language as expanded to include rents under other assistance programs that are charged in the same way as under the Section 8 program.

AHP project. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule adds a new definition``AHP project''that applies to both owneroccupied and rental projects that have been awarded or have received AHP subsidy through the competitive application program. This is intended to codify existing practice and clarify that the term ``project'' does not apply to direct subsidies, i.e., grants, to households made pursuant to the homeownership setaside program. The term applies to both singlefamily and multifamily projects. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule also makes conforming changes to the definitions of ``owner occupied project'' and ``rental project.'' Several commenters supported the proposed changes.

Low or moderateincome household and very lowincome household. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule amends the household size adjustment provisions in paragraph (3) of the existing definition of ``low or moderateincome household'' (and similarly for the definition of ``very lowincome household) by changing the household size adjustment from an optional to a mandatory requirement, provided that if the source for the area median income data has no methodology to adjust the household income limit for household size, the Bank is not required to make such an adjustment. The existing regulation defines ``low or moderateincome household'' to mean a household that has an income of 80 percent or less of the median income for the area, with the income limit adjusted for family (i.e., household) size, in a Bank's discretion, in accordance with the methodology of the applicable median income standard. The change in the final rule is intended to bring the AHP into conformance with other federal programs that adjust for household size. Several commenters supported the proposed change, stating that it would ensure consistency when the AHP is used with other federal programs.

As discussed below, the final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, also relocates certain provisions of the existing definitions relating to when a
[[Page 59264]]
household's income must be determined, to Sec. Sec. 951.5(c)(1)(i) and (ii) and 951.6(c)(2)(i) for the competitive application program and the homeownership setaside program, respectively.

Median income for the area. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule removes the language ``for purposes of that entity's housing programs'' in the existing definition of ``median income for the area,'' which will enable the Finance Board to approve, upon a Bank's request, median income standards from sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, that publish median income data but do not have their own housing programs. The existing definition lists a number of median income standards that a Bank may adopt for purposes of determining household income eligibility. See 12 CFR 951.1. The regulation also provides that a Bank may request Finance Board approval for use of a median income for any definable geographic area, as published by a federal, state, or local government entity for purposes of that entity's housing programs. One commenter supported the change, citing the additional flexibility it would provide.

Owneroccupied project and rental project. The final rule adopts the proposed amendments to the existing definitions of ``owneroccupied project'' and ``rental project'' by clarifying that they apply only to the competitive application program, and by deleting language requiring the project to involve ``the purchase, construction, or
rehabilitation'' of owneroccupied housing or rental housing, respectively. That requirement is relocated to the provisions addressing the eligibility requirements for the use of AHP subsidy, at Sec. 951.5(c)(1)(i) and (ii). No commenters addressed these technical changes.

The proposed rule also would have added manufactured housing to the types of owneroccupied housing, and emergency shelters and singleroom occupancy (SRO) housing as types of rental housing, which are explicitly referenced in the rule. In all cases, these types of housing have been eligible under the AHP since its inception, and the proposed rule sought to clarify this fact in the proposed language. However, some commenters misunderstood the proposed changes as indicating that these types of housing currently are not eligible for AHP funding. Based on the comments, the Finance Board has determined that the eligibility of manufactured housing should be further clarified as eligible for all AHP funding, including owneroccupied and rental projects under the competitive application program and owneroccupied units under the homeownership setaside programs. Accordingly, the final rule adds the term ``manufactured housing'' not only to the definition of ``owneroccupied project'' but also to the definition of ``rental project'' and to the provision on eligible uses of AHP direct subsidy under the homeownership setaside program (Sec. 951.6(c)(4)). However, as noted by 1 commenter, whether manufactured housing is treated as an owneroccupied unit or a rental project depends on the actual use of the AHP subsidy.\3\
\3\ See, e.g., Finance Board Regulatory Interpretation 2000RI 04 (May 26, 2000) (available in the FOIA Reading Room on the Finance Board Web site at http://www.fhfb.gov/Default.aspx?Page=59& [fxsp0]ListYear=2000&[fxsp0]ListCategory=8#8\200

0).

Several commenters suggested that the Finance Board restrict the types of manufactured housing that would be eligible housing under the AHP, for example, by requiring that the housing be on a permanent foundation. The Finance Board recognizes the benefits of placing a manufactured home on a permanent foundation. However, the Finance Board is not adopting such a requirement, because the various types of manufactured housing provide different and significant sources of affordable housing stock, including temporary shelters during an emergency following a natural disaster.

Retention period. The final rule revises the proposed definition of ``retention period'' to provide that, in the case of rehabilitated units that currently are occupied by the owner and do not involve a closing, the retention period shall commence on the date established by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.

The proposed rule would have provided that the retention period commenced on the date of completion of the rehabilitation. One commenter supported the proposal, while a number of commenters opposed it, pointing out that it can be difficult to determine with specificity the date that rehabilitation of an already owneroccupied unit is complete. The comments indicated that Banks have adopted different dates for the commencement of the retention period, based on local rehabilitation and real estate practices, and suggested that the Banks be given the discretion to establish the date. The Finance Board finds merit in the commenters' suggestions and, consequently, has revised the language in the final rule to require a Bank to specify in its AHP Implementation Plan the date that the retention period commences for rehabilitated units that are currently occupied by the owner and do not involve a closing.

Sponsor. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule amends the existing definition of ``sponsor'' by requiring a Bank to define in its AHP Implementation Plan the terms ``ownership interest'' and ``integrally involved,'' which are part of the definition of ``sponsor.'' Under the existing definition, a Bank must consider a ``sponsor'' to include any entity that has an ownership interest in a rental project, regardless of how small or temporary such ownership interest is. Requiring a Bank to define ``ownership interest'' in its AHP Implementation Plan would allow the Bank to address concerns that some rental project sponsors may manipulate ownership interests in order to receive points as notforprofit sponsors under the competitive application program's scoring system. Several commenters agreed that the proposal would address concerns about sponsors that are only nominally or initially involved in a project. Commenters concurred with the Finance Board that the proposal would allow the Banks to address projects that attempt to ``game'' the scoring system by using minimally involved notforprofit sponsors to get points under the scoring criterion for sponsorship by a notforprofit or government entity.

Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule also expands the definition of ``sponsor'' to include revolving loan funds or entities that operate loan pools. Those terms are used for purposes of implementing amendments to the competitive application program rules that address revolving loan funds and loan pools, respectively.

Subsidy. The final rule adopts the proposed revisions to the existing definition of ``subsidy.'' Specifically, the provisions specifying the dates as of which the amount of the subsidy is to be determined are deleted, and the substance of those provisions is incorporated into Sec. 951.5(c)(12), which sets forth the eligibility requirements relating to the competitive application program. In addition, the term ``homeownership setaside funds'' is removed from the definition of ``subsidy'' because homeownership setaside funds are direct subsidies, which are included within the definition of ``subsidy.'' No commenters addressed these technical changes. B. Required Annual AHP Contributions; Allocation of Contributions: Sec. 951.2

Required annual contribution: Sec. 951.2(a). Under the Bank Act, each
[[Page 59265]]
Bank annually must contribute to its AHP an amount equal to the greater of 10 percent of the Bank's previous year's net income or such prorated amount as is required to assure that the aggregate contribution of the 12 Banks is no less than $100 million. 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(5)(C); 12 CFR 951.2. The pro rata allocation method has not been needed since the Banks' annual contributions based on the 10 percent of income formula have exceeded $100 million. Nonetheless, consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.2(a)(2) of the final rule revises the existing provision to clarify that if the pro rata allocation method is used in any future year, the required annual contribution for any Bank shall not exceed its net earnings for the previous year. This primarily is intended as a safety and soundness measure to avoid the possibility that a Bank might otherwise be required to contribute an amount in excess of its income, thereby reducing its regulatory capital. Several commenters supported the change.

Net earnings of a Bank: Sec. 951.1. Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.1 of the final rule revises the existing definition of ``net earnings of a Bank'' to clarify existing practice with respect to how a Bank's earnings are defined for purposes of calculating its required AHP contribution. See 12 CFR 951.1. Each Bank must present its financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (GAAP). The application of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity (SFAS 150), requires the Banks to classify capital stock subject to a mandatory redemption request as a liability on the statement of condition and requires that they treat the dividends on capital stock subject to a mandatory redemption request as interest expense on the statement of income. The Bank Act provisions related to the AHP provide that each Bank shall make an annual contribution equal to 10 percent of its net earnings for the previous year after reduction for any payment required under 12 U.S.C. 1441b (the Resolution Funding Corporation obligations) and before declaring any dividend. 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(8). Because the Bank Act requires that the AHP contribution be calculated before the declaration of dividends, net earnings for purposes of calculating the AHP contribution should not be reduced by any dividend declaration, including those associated with mandatorily redeemable stock, even though those dividends are treated as interest expense in the calculation of GAAP net income. One commenter supported the change.

Allocation of contributions: Sec. 951.2(b). Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates the allocation of contributions provisions for the competitive application program and homeownership setaside program in existing Sec. 951.3(a) to Sec. 951.2(b), as they relate to the requirements for AHP contributions, which are set forth in Sec. 951.2. No comments addressed this technical change.

AHP subsidies are disbursed through a Bank's competitive application program and its homeownership setaside program. Under the existing regulation, a Bank may set aside annually up to the greater of $3 million or 25 percent of its annual required AHP contribution to provide funds to members through its homeownership setaside programs. See 12 CFR 951.3(a)(1)(i). If member demand in a given year exceeds the AHP subsidy amount available for that year, a Bank may allot (or accelerate) additional amounts from the subsequent year's AHP contribution, up to the greater of $3 million or 25 percent of the Bank's annual required AHP contribution for the following year, to the current year's homeownership setaside program.

In addition to those amounts, under the current regulation, a Bank may set aside annually up to the greater of $1.5 million or 10 percent of its annual required AHP contribution to fund a homeownership set aside program to be used solely to provide financial assistance to firsttime homebuyers. See 12 CFR 951.3(a)(1)(ii). If member demand for that homeownership setaside program exceeds the amount of available AHP subsidy for a particular year, a Bank may allot an additional amount from the subsequent year's AHP contribution, up to the greater of $1.5 million or 10 percent of the Bank's annual required AHP contribution for the subsequent year, to the current year's firsttime homebuyer setaside program. Under the competitive application program, a Bank currently may allot up to the greater of $3 million or 25 percent of its annual required AHP contribution for the subsequent year, to the current year's competitive application program. These maximum allowable dollar amounts are adjusted annually by the Finance Board to reflect any percentage increase in the preceding year's Consumer Price Index (CPI). See 12 CFR 951.3(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2).

Removal of CPI adjustment provisions. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule removes the existing provision authorizing an annual CPI adjustment of the caps on the dollar amounts, including amounts allotted from the subsequent year, that may be allocated to the homeownership setaside programs, principally because it has the potential over time to increase disproportionately the amounts allocated to the homeownership setaside programs versus the competitive application program. See 12 CFR 951.3(a)(1)(iii). In addition, the provision authorizing a CPI adjustment of any amount allotted from the subsequent year under the competitive application program, as provided under existing Sec. 951.3(a)(2), is eliminated. Several commenters supported the changes, with 1 commenter stating that the changes are needed to ensure some parity between the homeownership setaside and competitive application programs.

Consolidation of separate homeownership setaside program authorities: Sec. 951.2(b)(2). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.2(b)(2) of the final rule retains the maximum allowable aggregate allocation of AHP dollars to the homeownership setaside programs, i.e., the greater of $4.5 million or 35 percent of a Bank's annual required AHP contribution, but eliminates the firsttime homebuyer setaside program authority as a separate and distinct authority. See 12 CFR 951.3(a)(1). The final rule replaces the existing separate firsttime homebuyer setaside program provision with a requirement that at least onethird of a Bank's aggregate annual homeownership setaside allocation be targeted for firsttime homebuyers, which reflects a comparable commitment to firsttime homebuyers. The Finance Board understands that most of the Banks currently dedicate a substantial portion of their general homeownership setaside allocation to firsttime homebuyers before allocating funds under the separate homeownership setaside authority that specifically targets firsttime homebuyers. Therefore, the Finance Board believes the change will simplify the regulation without causing a material change in the allocation of homeownership setaside funds to firsttime homebuyers.

A number of commenters supported the change. One commenter requested clarification on whether onethird of any amount allocated and not actually disbursed by a Bank for its homeownership setaside programs in a given year must be targeted to firsttime homebuyers. Consistent with current practice, the ``allocation'' language in the rule makes clear that the onethird
[[Page 59266]]
requirement applies to the amount allocated and not to the amount actually disbursed.

Several commenters suggested that the onethird allocation include households displaced by natural disasters, rather than be limited to firsttime homebuyers. The Banks may use their remaining allocation of homeownership setaside funding to assist households displaced by natural disasters. In addition, a Bank may request a waiver from the Finance Board to use its firsttime homebuyer allocation for other purposes.

Additional funding authority: Sec. 951.2(b)(3). Section 951.2(b)(3) of the final rule revises the proposal by providing that a Bank may draw on AHP funds from the subsequent year to fund the current year's AHP, up to an amount equal to the greater of $2 million or 20 percent of the Bank's annual required AHP contribution for the current year. The Bank would deduct the amount from the annual required AHP contribution for the subsequent year. The proposed rule would have removed the 2 existing provisions authorizing such allotment for the competitive application and homeownership setaside programs. See 12 CFR 951.3(a)(1)(i) and (ii) and (a)(2). The Banks have not often used this authority, although 1 or 2 Banks may do so in a year. The existing authority may present operational difficulties because it may require the Banks to project future earnings in order to determine how much they may allot to the current year, and these projections may fall short. Basing the authority on the known amount of the current year's contribution eliminates uncertainty about the maximum permissible amount that the Bank may allot from the subsequent year's required AHP contribution to the current year's AHP funding levels.

A number of commenters supported eliminating this authority from the homeownership setaside and competitive application programs, citing operational difficulties. However, a Bank and its Advisory Council stated that the Bank has not found the authority to be difficult to administer. A number of other commenters favored retaining the authority, stating that it has been an important tool for the Banks to meet housing demand and to respond to the need for emergency owner occupied housing and rehabilitation following natural disasters. Commenters also noted that some Banks have used the authority to ensure some minimum availability of AHP funding when reduced Bank earnings cause a significant decrease in AHP contributions in a given year. Several commenters suggested that the Finance Board retain the authority provision but further limit the amount of AHP funds that may be allotted from the subsequent year.

Based on the comments, the Finance Board recognizes that the authority may be helpful for Banks in responding to housing needs in their districts and the need for emergency housing and rehabilitation following natural disasters, but believes that the authority should be limited in scope and calculated based on the current year's required AHP contribution to minimize potential operational and compliance difficulties with the subsequent year's allocation requirement. A Bank could request a waiver from the Finance Board of the funding limits in the event that those limits are not sufficient to address specific housing needs in the Bank's district. Consequently, the final rule allows a Bank to allot AHP funds from the subsequent year to fund the current year's AHP, up to an amount equal to the greater of $2 million or 20 percent of its annual required AHP contribution for the current year, which the Bank would deduct from its annual required AHP contribution for the subsequent year.

C. AHP Implementation Plan: Sec. 951.3

Adoption of Plan: Sec. 951.3(a). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.3(a) of the final rule reorganizes and streamlines requirements for a Bank's AHP Implementation Plan to conform them to amendments to other parts of the AHP regulation. See 12 CFR 951.3(b). The changes to the specific program operating requirements for AHP Implementation Plans are discussed elsewhere in this preamble in the context of the particular operating requirements. The final rule also adopts the proposed requirement that the AHP Implementation Plan include the Banks' retention agreement requirements.

A number of commenters supported the changes to the requirements for the AHP Implementation Plan, but expressed concern that they would require a Bank to include all of its policies and procedures in its Plan, which would make for a cumbersome document and complicate the Bank's process for amending the policies and procedures. The Finance Board intends that a Bank's program requirements, such as its scoring guidelines, but not its implementing operating procedures, be included in the Plan. A Bank may reference its operating procedures in the Plan so that AHP participants will be aware of their existence and make them available upon request.

Notification of Plan amendments: Sec. 951.3(c). Section 951.3(c) of the final rule adopts the proposed requirement that a Bank notify the Finance Board within 30 days of amending its AHP Implementation Plan. Several commenters supported the change.

Public access: Sec. 951.3(d). Section Sec. 951.3(d) of the final rule adopts the proposed requirement that a Bank make the amended AHP Implementation Plan publicly available through its Web site within 30 days after adoption of the amendments. Under the current rule, the Bank must submit all amendments to the Finance Board and make its AHP Implementation Plan available to members of the public upon request. See 12 CFR 951.3(b)(4), (b)(5). Making the AHP Implementation Plan available through the Banks' Web sites is intended to provide the public with easy access to important information about the AHP, as well as to promote greater transparency and accountability in the program. A number of commenters supported the change as increasing transparency and accountability and noted that most of the Banks have now placed their AHP Implementation Plans on their Web sites.

D. Advisory Councils: Sec. 951.4

The final rule makes a number of revisions to the existing provisions addressing the Advisory Councils of the Banks, many of which are intended to clarify, but not change the substance of, the existing rule. See 12 CFR 951.4. The provisions that have a substantive effect are described below.

Terms of Advisory Council members: Sec. 951.4(b). Section 951.4(b) of the final rule adopts the proposed requirement that each Bank adopt policies governing the appointment process for Advisory Council members. In addition, the final rule requires each Bank to appoint Advisory Council members to terms of 3 years, except that a Bank may appoint members for terms of 1 or 2 years as a transitional measure solely for purposes of achieving the necessary staggering of the 3year terms.

Proposed Sec. 951.4(b) would have required each Bank to appoint members to terms of ``up to'' 3 years. This proposal was intended to enhance the effectiveness of the Advisory Councils by lessening the likelihood that the terms of more than onethird of the Advisory Council members will expire in any 1 year, by allowing the Banks to appoint as a transitional measure some individuals to terms of 1 or 2 years as a means of ensuring an appropriate balance of experience and service among members of the Advisory
[[Page 59267]]
Council as a whole while achieving appropriate staggering of terms. Under the current rule, the Banks must appoint members of the Advisory Council to 3year terms. See 12 CFR 951.4(d).

A number of commenters supported the proposal, stating that it would allow for better balance of expiring terms and provide greater continuity of the Advisory Council membership. Other commenters raised concerns that the proposal would allow the Banks as a routine matter to appoint Advisory Council members to terms of 1 year and 2 years in addition to 3 years, creating positions of unequal power and resulting in greater turnover and loss of members with AHP knowledge and expertise. The Finance Board's intent in proposing the change was to allow the Banks the flexibility to appoint members to shorter terms when necessary as a transitional measure to reconfigure the staggering of the 3year terms on the Advisory Councils. Although the Banks originally set staggering of the 3year terms beginning in January 1998, when the current AHP regulation became effective, the Banks have found it necessary to reset the staggering from time to time. The Finance Board has acted on a number of Bank requests, through waivers or noaction letters, to allow the Banks to readjust staggering by appointing some members to terms of less than 3 years. The Finance Board recognizes the concerns of the commenters, but also recognizes the need of the Banks for flexibility to stagger the Advisory Council member terms. Consequently, the language is revised in the final rule to provide that Advisory Council terms shall be for 3 years, except that a Bank may appoint members for terms of 1 or 2 years as a transitional measure solely for purposes of achieving the necessary staggering of the 3year terms.

Election of officers: Sec. 951.4(c). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.4(c) of the final rule imposes on the Advisory Council an affirmative obligation to elect certain officers, which is intended to ensure that each Advisory Council has in place a chairman and vice chairman. The current rule permits, but does not require, election of such officers. See 12 CFR 951.4(e). Several commenters supported the change.

Duties: Meetings with the Banks: Sec. 951.4(d)(1)(ii). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.4(d)(1)(ii) of the final rule revises the duties of the Advisory Council principally by adding a list of specific matters on which the Advisory Council must provide recommendations to the Bank's board of directors. See 12 CFR 951.4(f)(1). Those matters include: The relative allocation of AHP subsidies between the competitive application and homeownership set aside programs; the AHP Implementation Plan; eligibility criteria for each program; scoring criteria and related definitions for the competitive application program; and any priority criteria for the homeownership setaside program. A number of commenters supported the changes, stating they would strengthen communication among the Bank's board, the Advisory Council, and the public.

Annual Advisory Council analysis; public access: Sec. 951.4(d)(3). Section 951.4(d)(3)(i) of the final rule adopts the proposed extension of the deadline by which the Advisory Council must submit its annual analysis of the Bank's low and moderateincome housing and community lending activity to the Finance Board from March 1 to May 1. See 12 CFR 951.4(f)(3). The proposed change in the due date was intended to respond to requests received from some of the Advisory Councils, which meet at least quarterly, for additional time after the end of each calendar year to prepare, review, and approve their report. A number of commenters supported the change in the due date, with 1 commenter stating that it would offer the Advisory Council a better opportunity to summarize the accomplishments of the year.

Section 951.4(d)(3)(ii) of the final rule adopts the proposed requirement that each Bank publish the Advisory Council analysis on its publicly available Web site within 30 days of its submission to the Finance Board. Making the Advisory Councils' analyses available to the public through the Banks' Web sites is intended to promote greater transparency and accountability in the Banks' AHP and in the work of the Banks' Advisory Councils. A number of commenters supported the change, stating that it would increase transparency and accountability.

No delegation: Sec. 951.4(f). Section 951.4(f) of the final rule prohibits a Bank's board of directors from delegating to Bank officers or other Bank employees its responsibility for appointing Advisory Council members and meeting with the Advisory Council at the quarterly meetings required by the Bank Act. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11). This provision is intended to ensure that each board of directors fulfills its statutory obligations with regard to its interaction with the Advisory Council and is consistent with findings of the Finance Board's Horizontal Review, which indicated that in general the Bank boards could improve their interactions with their Advisory Councils. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11); Horizontal Review at 23.

Several commenters supported the proposal, stating that it would improve the Bank board's understanding of affordable housing issues. A Bank and its Advisory Council opposed the proposal, believing it would add to the duties and responsibilities of the Bank's board and apply to Advisory Council meetings beyond the quarterly meetings with the Bank's board that are required by the Bank Act. It was not the Finance Board's intent to prohibit Bank staff from meeting with the Advisory Councils at times other than the Bank boards' quarterly meetings with the Advisory Councils. Consequently, the language is revised in the final rule to clarify that the prohibited delegation applies only to the statutorilyrequired quarterly meetings between the Banks' boards and their Advisory Councils.

E. Competitive Application Program: Sec. 951.5

Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule consolidates existing regulatory provisions governing the operation of the competitive application program into a single section of the AHP rule Sec. 951.5. Under the current regulation, some of those provisions are located in different sections of the regulation. A number of commenters supported the proposed reorganization, streamlining, and consolidation of the regulatory provisions. Commenters stated that these technical revisions would be helpful for the Banks, members, and sponsors in understanding the specific requirements of the competitive application and homeownership setaside programs. The principal revisions to the existing regulatory structure are described below.

Removal of optional nonmember applicants provision: Sec. 951.5(b)(2). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.5(b)(2) of the final rule eliminates the current discretionary authority for a Bank to accept AHP applications from institutions that are not members of the Bank, but that have applied for membership. See 12 CFR 951.6(b)(1). A trade association opposed the proposed change, stating that the AHP offers an incentive for nonmember institutions to join the Banks and the current regulatory provision remains an important membership recruitment tool for the Banks. The Finance Board notes that the AHP would remain a membership recruitment tool under the final rule as the institution can apply for AHP funds once it is a member. [[Page 59268]]

A Bank opposed the proposal, stating that where a member that intends to submit AHP applications on behalf of sponsors is merged into a nonmember, and the nonmember intends to apply for Bank membership, the proposal would prohibit the nonmember from continuing the process of submitting to the Bank the AHP applications for those sponsors for an imminent funding round. The Bank noted that this would result in the AHP activities of the nonmember being prohibited for as much as 180 days. See 12 CFR 925.24(b). The Finance Board believes that such an event would be rare, and the Bank has alternatives to address the matter so that the sponsors could compete for funding at that time, such as by assisting the sponsors in identifying another member to submit the application.

Eligibility requirements: Sec. 951.5(c). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.5(c) of the final rule sets out the eligibility requirements that apply in connection with the receipt of AHP subsidies under the competitive application program.

Timing of household incomeeligibility determination: Sec. 951.5(c)(1). Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates the current provisions on timing of household income eligibility from the definitions of ``low or moderateincome household'' and ``very lowincome household'' in Sec. 951.1 to Sec. 951.5(c)(1). In addition, consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule incorporates into this section, without change, the requirements in the existing definitions of ``owneroccupied project'' and ``rental project'' that the AHP subsidy be used for the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of owneroccupied or rental housing.

Need for subsidy: Sec. 951.5(c)(2). The final rule permits a Bank, in its discretion, to permit a project's sources of funds to include or exclude the estimated market value of inkind donations and voluntary professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity), provided that the project's uses of funds also include or exclude, respectively, the value of such estimates. The existing regulation requires that, for purposes of determining a project's eligibility, the project must demonstrate a need for the subsidy, based on its estimated total sources and uses of funds. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(2). The proposed rule would have maintained this requirement, but would have eliminated a related requirement that the estimated sources and uses of funds analysis include estimates of the market value of inkind donations and volunteer professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity) as sources of funds. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(2)(i)(B). By focusing the analysis on cash sources and uses, the sponsor can streamline the analysis, as noncash contributions are exactly offset by the amount of noncash expenses they cover and, therefore, cancel out of the comprehensive sources and uses of funds analysis. For example, a contribution of materials (inkind) is a source that reduces the need for cash payments by exactly its value. The Finance Board stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule that experience since 1998 indicated that estimates of noncash costs generally do not affect the amount of subsidy needed for a project, and that eliminating this requirement also would obviate the need for Regulatory Interpretation 1999RI03 (Jan. 26, 1999),\4\ which already had eliminated this requirement for selfhelp homeownership projects involving such noncash costs.
\4\ 1999RI03 is available in the FOIA Reading Room on the Finance Board Web site at http://www.fhfb.gov/Default.aspx?Page=59&ListCategory=8#8.

One commenter opposed the proposal, stating that if estimates of noncash costs generally do not affect the amount of subsidy needed for a project, then it should not matter whether or not a project includes noncash sources and uses in its development budget, and the rule should leave it to the Bank's discretion whether the development budget may include such items. This commenter stated that sponsors must make these estimates as line items in their budgets for funding from certain federal programs such as LowIncome Housing Tax Credits and Community Development Block Grants, and the regulation should not require them to do separate budgets for the AHP. The Finance Board finds the comment persuasive. Accordingly, the final rule provides a Bank with the discretion to determine whether estimates of market value of inkind donations and voluntary professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity) may be a required component in determining a project's source of funds along with the identical value included as a use of funds.

Section 951.5(c)(2)(ii) of the final regulation also includes a requirement for how a selfhelp homeownership sponsor that provides permanent financing must account for the value of cash payments that it will receive from the purchaser of the home when determining the sponsor's cash sources of funds. Several commenters were concerned that rescinding 1999RI03 also would remove a provision relating to the determination of cash sources of funds for such sponsors. The Regulatory Interpretation provides that, in performing the cash sources and uses of funds analysis, the sponsor's cash contribution must include the present value, rather than the face value, of any payments the sponsor is to receive from the homebuyer, i.e., any cash down payment from the buyer plus the present value of any belowmarket purchase note the sponsor holds on the unit. If such a note carries a market interest rate commensurate with the credit quality of the borrower (market rate), the present value of the note equals the face value of the note. If the note carries an interest rate below the market rate, the present value of the note can be determined using the market rate to discount the cash flows.

The commenters stated that, without the provision in 1999RI03, such sponsors would be required to include the face value of the mortgage payments received rather than the discounted amount, which would result in the development budget for these types of projects showing cash sources of funds in excess of cash uses, i.e., no need for AHP subsidy, thereby making such projects ineligible to receive AHP subsidy. The Finance Board concurs that the provision related to the use of the net present value should continue to apply to sponsor financed selfhelp housing, and the final rule codifies the 1999RI03 provision in Sec. 951.5(c)(2)(ii).

The final rule also adopts the proposal that would make the need for subsidy requirement independent of the project developmental and operational feasibility requirements. These feasibility requirements are separate assessments and, therefore, should not be linked to the need for subsidy requirement. The Finance Board stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule that this change also may have the effect of more competition by smaller projects and projects with higher production or operating costs, such as projects with services or more common space, and several commenters agreed that this could be a result of the proposed change.

Project costs: Sec. 951.5(c)(3). Section 951.5(c)(3)(i) of the final rule adopts the proposed clarification that the determination of project costs is a separate eligibility requirement, and removes an existing requirement that project costs be ``customary'' and [[Page 59269]]
determined according to ``industry standards'' in accordance with the Bank's project feasibility guidelines. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(2)(ii). In lieu of that requirement, a Bank is still required to establish feasibility and cost guidelines as a basis for evaluating project costs, but must determine whether an individual project's costs are reasonable by taking into account the geographic location of the project, development conditions, and other nonfinancial household or project characteristics, such as housing for the elderly or for persons with disabilities, which affect the project's costs. The changes are intended to make the eligibility review process more adaptive to projects such as those serving special needs populations, and other projects that may require special architectural features or other amenities appropriate to their location.

Several commenters supported the proposal as providing additional flexibility for a Bank to assess project costs based on the characteristics of individual projects, taking into consideration factors that could increase costs in determining whether a project's costs are reasonable. Some commenters stated, however, that the proposed language could be read to require a Bank's feasibility guidelines to reflect a variety of characteristics for different project types. This was not the intent of the proposal. Accordingly, the language in the final rule is reworded to state that the Bank's feasibility guidelines themselves need not include characteristics for different project types.

As discussed above under Need for Subsidy, the proposed rule would have eliminated the existing provision in Sec. 951.5(b)(2)(i)(B) that requires, for purposes of a Bank's sources and uses of funds analysis, that the Bank include as sources of funds estimates of the market value of inkind donations and volunteer professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity) committed to the project. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(2)(i)(B). Several commenters objected that removal of this provision would result in payment of a lower developer's fee where the fee is calculated as a percentage of the project's total development costs, as the total development costs amount would be lower. One commenter stated that this consequence would be particularly difficult for small, notforprofit housing producers, especially in rural areas, that rely on income from the developer's fee for their continuing operations. Commenters stated that the Banks should be given discretion to include inkind donations and volunteer professional labor or services as part of total development costs in the budget. The Finance Board believes the comments have merit. Accordingly, Sec. 951.5(c)(3)(i)(B) of the final rule allows a Bank to include estimates of the market value of inkind donations and volunteer professional labor or services (excluding the value of sweat equity) in total development costs for purposes of calculating the developer's fee. The Bank would continue to be required to determine, after calculating the fee, that it is a reasonable fee pursuant to the Bank's project cost guidelines, as required by Sec. 951.5(c)(3)(i)(A) of the final rule.

Project feasibility: Sec. 951.5(c)(4). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.5(c)(4) of the final rule separates the 2 aspects of project feasibilitydevelopmental feasibility of a project and, in the case of rental housing, operational feasibility of the project over timeand defines the terms. These 2 types of project feasibility are not differentiated in the existing rule. Section 951.5(c)(4)(i) requires that a project be developmentally feasible, which is defined as the likelihood that the project will be completed and occupied, based on relevant factors contained in the Bank's project feasibility guidelines, including the project's development budget, market analysis, and the sponsor's experience in providing the requested assistance to households. Section 951.5(c)(4)(ii) requires that a rental project be operationally feasible, which is defined as the ability of the project to operate in a financially sound manner, in accordance with the Bank's project feasibility guidelines, as projected in the project's operating pro forma.

A Bank and its Advisory Council supported the proposal, stating that it would allow the Banks more flexibility in addressing project needs based on a variety of factors that can influence development costs and operational budgets.

Financing costs: Sec. 951.5(c)(5). Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule makes a technical change by relocating the provision regarding interest rates, points, fees, and other charges for loans financing the project from existing Sec. 951.5(b)(2)(iii) to Sec. 951.5(c)(5) of the final rule. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(2)(iii). The final rule also clarifies that this provision applies to loans made for the project in conjunction with the AHP subsidy.

Refinancing: Sec. 951.5(c)(8). Section 951.5(c)(8) of the final rule adopts a proposed technical change regarding the use of AHP subsidies in connection with a refinancing of a project. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(6). The change clarifies that refinancing is permitted only if it generated equity proceeds and if the proceeds are used to purchase, construct, or rehabilitate eligible housing units. The change also clarifies that the requirement regarding use of the equity proceeds applies only to an amount of equity proceeds that is at least equal to the amount of AHP subsidy in the project. No comments addressed this technical change.

Project sponsor qualifications: Sec. 951.5(c)(10). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.5(c)(10)(ii) and (iii) of the final rule revises existing Sec. 951.5(b)(8) by requiring a Bank to adopt written policies regarding the project sponsor qualifications for revolving loan funds and loan pools. See 12 CFR 951.5(b)(8). These issues are discussed separately below under the sections addressing use of the AHP subsidy by revolving loan funds and loan pools.

Calculation of AHP subsidy: Sec. 951.5(c)(12). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec. 951.5(c)(12) of the final rule, which relates to the calculation of the AHP subsidy, incorporates, without change, the existing provisions regarding the time at which the calculation of subsidy is to be made, which currently is included as part of the definition of ``subsidy'' in Sec. 951.1. No comments addressed this technical change.

Lending and relending of AHP direct subsidy by revolving loan funds: Sec. 951.5(c)(13). General requirements: Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule authorizes a Bank, in its discretion, to provide AHP direct subsidy under its competitive application program for eligible projects and households involving both the lending of the subsidy and subsequent lending of subsidy principal and interest repayments by a revolving loan fund. The final rule further provides that both the initial loans made by the revolving loan fund, as well as any subsequent loans made with amounts received from repayments of the initial loans, would have to meet AHP eligibility requirements, as applicable depending on whether the subsidy is used for initial lending or for subsequent lending, as discussed below. The revolving loan fund also would have to assure that the initial loans are made to projects and households that meet the commitments made in the approved AHP application, and that they will be met for the full AHP retention period. In order to exercise this authority, a Bank would have to consult with its Advisory Council and then adopt written policies governing
[[Page 59270]]
the disbursement of the AHP direct subsidy through this type of entity.

A number of commenters supported allowing the Banks to provide AHP direct subsidy to revolving loan funds as proposed, stating that it could maximize the impact of the direct subsidy because using loans rather than grants allows the financial benefit of the subsidy to be leveraged many times over. One commenter stated that it would meet a need for small, flexibleterm loans for a broad range of purposes. Another commenter stated that it would benefit rural areas that are losing affordable housing, as revolving loan funds are better able to match the capital needs of smaller scale, scatteredsite development efforts typical in rural areas.

Other commenters opposed the proposal, stating that it would be unworkable because of difficulties with scoring, monitoring and compliance. A commenter stated that lending the AHP direct subsidy would erode the value of the AHP grants. Several commenters stated that revolving loan funds charge interest or fees that increase project costs, thereby effectively reducing the amount of AHP subsidy passing through to the project, and projects that cannot support debt service would not be able to benefit from revolving loan funds using direct subsidy as loan principal instead of grants. The Finance Board acknowledges these potential concerns, but notes that under the regulation no Bank would be obligated to accept applications from a revolving loan fund. The authority in the rule is permissive, not mandatory. The Finance Board believes that revolving loan funds can provide opportunities for the benefits of the AHP to reach harderto serve populations, such as those in rural areas or those with special needs. By allowing revolving loan funds to lend and relend direct subsidy, the regulation will enable entities specializing in community development lending to leverage additional funds for lowincome borrowers, or bring added value to the services provided by notfor profit corporations and local governments, and provide technical assistance that can contribute to project success and help develop capacity of small, notforprofit housing producers.

As noted previously, Sec. 951.1 of the final rule expands the definition of ``sponsor'' to specify revolving loan funds in the list of eligible sponsors. Section 951.1 of the final rule defines a ``revolving loan fund'' as a capital fund established to make mortgage or other loans whereby loan principal is repaid into the fund and re lent to other borrowers. Commenters questioned whether members would qualify as revolving loan funds under the rule, noting that if members could not qualify, the rule would give revolving loan funds an unfair competitive advantage over members in access to AHP funds. Members are eligible to apply for AHP subsidy as revolving loan funds if they meet the definition of ``revolving loan fund'' and the project sponsor qualifications requirement in the final rule.

The Finance Board notes that revolving loan funds currently can and do apply as sponsors under the competitive application program for AHP subsidy for funding specified projects. Under Sec. 951.5(c)(13)(i) of the final rule, in a Bank's discretion, a revolving loan fund would be able to apply for direct subsidy to lend to a specified or an unspecified project (or projects) meeting the requirements of the competitive application program and to relend repayments of that subsidy to subsequent projects that meet certain minimum eligibility requirements. A number of commenters stated that it was not clear how an application for an unspecified project could meet the eligibility requirements for project feasibility and project costs. To address these issues, Sec. 951.5(c)(13)(i) and (ii) of the final rule provides that an application for an unspecified project to be funded through a revolving loan fund must include the revolving loan fund's criteria for lending of the subsidy, including its project cost and project feasibility guidelines, which the Bank will evaluate according to the AHP eligibility requirements, including the Bank's project cost and project feasibility guidelines. See Sec. 951.5(c)(3) and (c)(4) of final rule. Pursuant to Sec. 951.7(a)(1) of the final rule, upon initial monitoring of the actual project(s) funded with the initial lending of subsidy, the Bank will have to determine that the actual project costs were reasonable in accordance with the Bank's project cost guidelines, and that the subsidy was needed in accordance with Sec. 951.5(c)(2).

Section 951.5(c)(13)(ii) of the final rule provides that a Bank shall review an application from a revolving loan fund to evaluate the project or criteria for the initial lending of the subsidy, as applicable, pursuant to the Bank's scoring guidelines. Some commenters questioned how an application for an unspecified project(s) could be scored against other applications for projects. Under Sec. 951.5(c)(13)(i), an application with nonspecific project(s) would have to propose how the project(s) will meet various applicable scoring criteria and, if approved, the revolving loan fund would have to ensure that the actual project or projects eventually funded with the initial lending of subsidy would meet those scoring criteria. If, upon initial monitoring of the project, the Bank found that the project did not meet the scoring criteria and could not be modified under Sec. 951.5(f), then the revolving loan fund would have to repay the AHP subsidy to the Bank. Many revolving loan funds operating for the purpose of financing housing for very low and low or moderateincome households either restrict their funding to projects with certain requirements, such as housing for the elderly, or

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Charles E. McLean, Associate Director, Office of Supervision, mcleanc@fhfb.gov or 2024082537; Sylvia C. Martinez, Senior Advisor, Office of Supervision, martinezs@fhfb.gov or 2024082825; Melissa L. Allen, Program Analyst, Office of Supervision,
allenm@fhfb.gov or 2024082524; or Sharon B. Like, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of General Counsel, likes@fhfb.gov or 2024082930. You can send regular mail to the Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington DC 20006.

Top Searches

Popular Sites

Common CFR Searches