[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81405-81409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32531]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1252
RIN 2590-AA22
Portfolio Holdings
AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; response to comments on the interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final
regulation that will govern the portfolio holdings of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac (collectively, the Enterprises) during the pendency of the
conservatorships. The final regulation adopts FHFA's interim final rule
on portfolio holdings, without change. See 74 FR 5609, January 30,
2009. That interim rule adopted the portfolio limits specified in each
Enterprise's Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (PSPA) with the
Department of the Treasury (Treasury) as the regulation limits.
Specifically, it provides that each Enterprise comply with the
portfolio limits contained in the respective PSPAs, as they may be
amended from time to time. The interim regulation also stipulated that
the regulation is to be in effect until amended or the Enterprises are
no longer subject to the PSPAs.
DATES: Effective December 28, 2010, the interim final rule published on
January 30, 2009 (74 FR 5609), which was effective January 30, 2009, is
confirmed as final.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ming-Yuen Meyer-Fong, Office of the
General Counsel, (202) 414-3798, or Valerie Smith, Office of Policy
Analysis and Research, (202) 414-3770, Federal Housing Finance Agency,
1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339. For more
information on this Final Regulation, see the
[[Page 81406]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Federal Housing Finance Agency and Recent Legislation
On July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA)
(Pub. L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2564) was signed into law. Among other
things, HERA established FHFA as a new independent agency and
transferred the supervisory and oversight responsibilities for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight (OFHEO) to FHFA. HERA amended the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act),
Public Law 102-550 (codified at 12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.). The Safety and
Soundness Act required FHFA to establish criteria, by regulation,
governing the portfolio holdings of the Enterprises. 12 U.S.C. 4624.
The purpose of such regulation is to ensure that the portfolio holdings
are backed by sufficient capital and consistent with the mission and
the safe and sound operations of the Enterprises. 12 U.S.C. 4624(a). In
establishing criteria governing the portfolio holdings of the
Enterprises, the Safety and Soundness Act directed FHFA to consider the
ability of the Enterprises to provide a liquid secondary market through
securitization activities, the portfolio holdings in relation to the
overall mortgage market, and adherence to standards of prudential
management and operations established by FHFA in accordance with
section 1313B of the Safety and Soundness Act. 12 U.S.C. 4624. The
Safety and Soundness Act further required that any criteria governing
Enterprise portfolio holdings ensure that such holdings be consistent
with the Enterprises' mission, which includes facilitating the
financing of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families
in a manner consistent with their overall public purposes. 12 U.S.C.
4624(a); 12 U.S.C. 4501(7).
B. The Enterprises, Generally
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises
(GSEs) chartered by Congress for the purposes of establishing secondary
market facilities for residential mortgages. 12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq.
(Fannie Mae Charter Act) and 12 U.S.C. 1451, et seq. (Freddie Mac
Corporation Act). Specifically, Congress established the Enterprises to
provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages,
respond appropriately to the private capital market, provide ongoing
assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages, and
promote access to mortgage credit throughout the country. 12 U.S.C.
4624(b).
The Enterprises grew rapidly during the late 1990s into the early
2000's--nearly doubling their combined net holdings of mortgage assets
from 1996 to 1999 and more than tripling those net holdings from 1996
to 2002. Accounting and other internal control issues caused the
Enterprises to slow the growth of, and in the case of Fannie Mae,
shrink, their mortgage asset portfolios after 2003. Because of
increased operational risk, OFHEO, predecessor to FHFA, imposed on each
Enterprise a 30 percent capital surcharge, and in mid-2006, the
Enterprises agreed to cap the growth of their mortgage portfolio
holdings due to their accounting, internal control, and risk management
weaknesses.
At the end of 2009, the Enterprises had combined assets of just
over $1.7 trillion and combined mortgage assets of approximately $1.5
trillion. At that time, the Enterprises guaranteed the credit risk of
mortgage loans backing nearly $3.9 trillion of mortgage-backed
securities (MBS). In total, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned and
guaranteed approximately 46.7 percent of the nation's residential
mortgage debt outstanding as of the end of 2009.
C. Establishment of the Conservatorships
The U.S. housing markets began deteriorating in mid-2007, and the
deterioration continued throughout 2008. The price volatility and
liquidity problems in financial markets that ensued led to sizeable
credit and market losses at both Enterprises, depletion of their
capital, and an inability of the Enterprises to raise new capital and
to access debt markets in their customary way. Significant safety and
soundness issues and risk that the Enterprises would be unable to
fulfill their missions caused FHFA, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve, on September 6, 2008, to place the Enterprises
into conservatorship. By board approval, each Enterprise consented to
the appointment of a conservator. The goals of FHFA in placing the
Enterprises into conservatorship included enhancing the capacity of
each Enterprise to fulfill its mission of providing liquidity and
stability to the mortgage markets and mitigating the systemic risk
which each poses and which had contributed to instability in mortgage
and broader financial markets.
Critical to the establishment of the conservatorships were the
actions taken at the same time by the Treasury--consistent with its
authority granted in HERA--to provide ongoing financial support to the
Enterprises to ensure they remain active participants in the
marketplace. Upon establishment of conservatorships for the
Enterprises, FHFA acting on behalf of each Enterprise entered into
separate PSPAs with the Treasury on September 7, 2008. The PSPAs
prevent Enterprise capital from being exhausted and are the cornerstone
of the financial support that the Treasury is providing to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Under the PSPAs, each Enterprise's business operations
was fortified through an initial commitment by the Treasury to acquire
up to $100 billion of senior preferred stock in each Enterprise as
necessary to ensure that the Enterprise avoids a negative net worth,
determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
In return for the support provided through the PSPAs, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac provided certain compensation to the Treasury and
accepted various restrictions. The compensation to the Treasury
initially included the issuance by each Enterprise of $1 billion in
senior preferred stock and warrants for the purchase of common stock
representing 79.9 percent of its outstanding common stock. In addition,
the Enterprises agreed to limitations on their business activities. In
particular, while the PSPAs do not restrict how each Enterprise can
increase its net MBS outstanding (MBS held by others), they initially
limited the growth of each Enterprise's mortgage asset portfolio to a
maximum balance of $850 billion at the end of 2009. Thereafter, the
PSPAs stipulated that the mortgage asset portfolios must shrink by at
least 10 percent per year until each Enterprise's holdings of mortgage
assets reached a balance of $250 billion, at which point, no further
reduction would be required by the PSPA.
The PSPAs were amended in September 2008 and in May 2009. The
latter amendment, among other things, doubled Treasury's funding
commitment to each Enterprise to $200 billion from $100 billion, and
increased the size of each Enterprise's mortgage asset portfolio
allowed under the PSPAs by $50 billion to $900 billion. The revised and
amended PSPAs left unchanged the requirement that after December 31,
2009, the portfolio holdings of each Enterprise be reduced by at least
10 percent per year from the amount of mortgage assets held at the
[[Page 81407]]
close of the preceding year until each Enterprise's portfolio holdings
of mortgage assets reached a size of $250 billion.
To further solidify Treasury support for the Enterprises and the
role they continue to play in the housing and mortgage markets during
the current crisis, the Treasury and FHFA, on December 24, 2009, again
amended the PSPAs.\1\ That amendment let stand the maximum allowable
amount of mortgage assets each Enterprise could own on December 31,
2009--$900 billion. However, the covenant requiring the Enterprises to
reduce their mortgage assets was revised such that it is based on the
maximum amount that they were permitted to own as of December 31 of the
immediately preceding calendar year, rather than the amounts they
actually owned at that time. As revised, beginning on December 31, 2010
and each year thereafter, each Enterprise is required to reduce its
mortgage assets to at most 90 percent of the maximum allowable amount
each was permitted to own as of December 31 of the immediately
preceding calendar year, until the amount of their respective mortgage
assets reaches $250 billion, at which point, no further reduction is
required by the PSPA. As noted in FHFA's February 2, 2010 letter to the
leaders of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial
Services Committee on the status and future of the conservatorship, the
amendment to the portfolio limits provides the Enterprises with
flexibility to purchase delinquent loans out of guaranteed mortgage-
backed securities pools as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Besides amending the provisions relating to the Enterprises'
portfolios, the Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (Second Amendment to PSPA) also
increased the Treasury's funding commitment to each Enterprise.
Specifically, the definition of ``maximum amount'' was amended to
mean ``as of any date of determination, the greater of (a)
$200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars), or (b)
$200,000,000,000 plus the cumulative total of Deficiency Amounts
determined for calendar quarters in calendar years 2010, 2011, and
2012, less any Surplus Amount determined as of December 31, 2012,
and in the case of either (a) or (b), less the aggregate amount of
funding under the Commitment prior to such date.'' Second Amendment
to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
(Terms and Conditions, para. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the establishment of the conservatorships, the combined
losses at the two Enterprises depleted all of their capital and
required them to draw $150.8 billion of senior preferred stock pursuant
to the PSPAs through September 2010. By providing a capital backstop to
the Enterprises, the Treasury's commitment under the PSPAs effectively
eliminated any mandatory triggering of receivership and ensures that
the Enterprises have the ability to fulfill their financial obligations
and perform their statutory mission without increasing their systemic
risk.
D. Interim Final Rule
On January 30, 2009, FHFA published in the Federal Register an
interim final regulation which added new subchapter C of part 1252 to
12 CFR Chapter XII. See 74 FR 5609. The interim final regulation
adopted, by reference, the portfolio holdings criteria established in
the PSPAs, as may be amended from time to time. The establishment of
criteria governing Enterprise portfolio holdings in the PSPAs in the
interim final rule represented an exercise of authority consistent with
the authority granted by Congress under section 1369E of the Safety and
Soundness Act. FHFA's goals for the conservatorship include fortifying
the capacity of the Enterprises to support the secondary mortgage
market. The initial criteria for Enterprise portfolio holdings
established in the PSPAs provided the Enterprises with some immediate
capacity to provide stability and liquidity to the secondary mortgage
market, while mitigating systemic risk, and facilitating Enterprise
efforts to achieve a balance between their mission and safe and sound
operations in the intermediate term. The February PSPA amendments
provided some additional capacity to address market conditions. The
December PSPA amendments provided additional flexibility to allow for
the purchase of delinquent mortgages. Despite having some additional
capacity to grow their retained portfolios since the establishment of
the conservatorships, the primary source of Enterprise retained
portfolio purchases has been delinquent mortgages. The Enterprises
remain on track to be below the $810 billion retained portfolio limit
as of December 31, 2010. The retained portfolio reduction provided for
in the PSPAs avoids the need for potentially destabilizing liquidation
in the near term, while ensuring that in the future the potential for
systemic risk associated with these portfolios is reduced.
The interim final regulation also solicited comments on the overall
interim final rule and to a series of questions that relate to
portfolio holdings when the Enterprises are no longer subject to their
respective PSPAs. Specifically, the interim final rule raised a number
of general questions related to the benefits of the Enterprises'
purchases and holdings of mortgage assets and the risks, including
systemic risk, posed by the mortgage asset holdings, and the mission-
related need for the portfolios. The interim final rule also posed
specific questions related to the size, composition, and funding of the
Enterprises' mortgage asset portfolios.
Finally, the interim final rule solicited comments on a series of
general questions related to the Enterprises' holding of non-mortgage
assets as well as specific questions on the size and composition of the
non-mortgage assets portfolios. While the portfolio holdings criteria
set forth in the PSPAs do not address Enterprise holdings of non-
mortgage assets, FHFA noted in the interim final regulation the need
for the Enterprises to maintain adequate levels of liquidity in order
to carry out their day-to-day operating activities. Adequate levels of
liquidity strengthen the Enterprises' ability to meet their statutory
mission of providing stability and liquidity to the secondary mortgage
market, during good times and during periods of market stress, without
incurring extraordinary financing costs.
The comment period for the interim final rule closed on June 1,
2009; eight (8) comment letters were received. Those letters are
available at the FHFA Web site, http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=89&ListNumber=5&ListID=278&ListYear=2009&SortBy=#278.
II. Discussion of Comments
FHFA requested comments on all aspects of the interim final rule as
well as comments on the issues and questions set forth in the preamble
concerning criteria governing Enterprise portfolio holdings that will
apply when the Enterprises are no longer subject to the PSPAs. In
response to that request, FHFA received eight (8) comment letters.
Commenters represented trade and special interest groups of various
sectors of the housing and mortgage markets. There were no comments
from researchers, policymakers, lawmakers, or Enterprise competitors or
counterparties.
Two comments included discussion of the interim final regulation.
The majority (five) of the public comments included responses to the
questions posed regarding Enterprise portfolio holdings when the
Enterprises are no longer subject to the PSPAs. Only two (2) commenters
touched on Enterprise portfolio holdings while the Enterprises are in
conservatorship. One commenter suggested strategies for reengineering
the nation's mortgage finance system. In general, commenters were
silent on
[[Page 81408]]
questions regarding the Enterprises' non-mortgage portfolio holdings.
While FHFA considered all comments received, it is important to
note that the final rule is based on the fact that the Enterprises are
in conservatorship, and that the question of their future status has
not yet been resolved.
A. Comments Relating to the Questions Posed in the Interim Final
Rulemaking
Several commenters argued that the mortgage asset portfolios of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were beneficial because of the limited or
lack of access to secondary markets for certain mortgage products. One
commenter noted in particular, the absence of a secondary mortgage
market for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages and argued that holding
those mortgages in portfolio is the only way of providing liquidity to
that segment of the mortgage market.
Commenters also responded to FHFA's question concerning the ability
of the Enterprises to fulfill their mission without the mortgage
portfolios. One commenter stated that the Enterprises, through the
1990s, had fulfilled their mission without portfolios. Some others,
however, thought that some portfolio capacity is necessary to provide
price stability and liquidity during periods of market stress. A number
of commenters expressed concern about the implication of shrinking the
portfolios on, for instance, multifamily and some non-standard loans.
Several commenters argued that the Enterprises' purchase of
mortgage assets should vary over the credit cycle or conditions in the
secondary markets. One commenter suggested that the portfolios should
be viewed as a ``safety valve'' for providing liquidity when secondary
market conditions are adverse or mortgage credit conditions drive away
other lending sources.
Relative to the question about the type of mortgage assets the
Enterprises should be allowed to hold, one commenter saw little
rationale for allowing the Enterprises to hold their own, Ginnie Mae,
or private-label mortgage-backed securities (MBS), except during
periods of market illiquidity. That commenter suggested that the
portfolios should generally be used only to meet mission goals that
cannot be met though securitization.
With respect to the question concerning the use of portfolio
holdings criteria and the capital regulations and other supervisory
tools to address the Enterprises' exposure to additional risk posed by
their holdings, one commenter suggested that FHFA establish risk-based
capital requirements to cover all portfolio activities. Another
commenter suggested that the Enterprises' capital requirements be
calibrated in such a manner as to provide incentives for the
Enterprises to minimize their portfolio holdings. Still another
commenter urged that the Enterprises be held to similar portfolio
capitalization standards as commercial banks, noting also that loans
held, which have interest rate and credit risk, should be
differentiated from loans sold as MBS, which primarily have credit risk
for the Enterprises.
Given that the future status of the Enterprises is not yet
resolved, FHFA has determined that it is premature to establish
criteria or to address the substantive questions raised in the
supplementary information to the interim final rule at this stage.
There is currently no resolution as to the necessary reforms for the
housing finance system or to the question of what form the Enterprises
will take if or when they emerge from conservatorship. These issues
affect the appropriate regulatory framework. Given these fundamental
unresolved issues, the final rule adopts the portfolio limits set forth
in the PSPAs. FHFA may revisit the rule when circumstances warrant.
B. Comments Relating to the Interim Final Rule
The commenters raised several issues relating to the interim final
rule. In one instance, a commenter suggested incorporating the Treasury
portfolio limits by restating them in the rule itself, rather than
reference the PSPAs. The commenter expressed concern over not knowing
how long the PSPAs would remain in effect and over the lack of public
notice and comment when the PSPAs are modified or terminated. The
commenter noted that the May 2009 amendment to the PSPAs increasing the
portfolio limits to $900 billion for each Enterprise was accomplished
without notice and comment. Accordingly, the commenter suggested
specifying the portfolio limits in the regulation, which would provide
an opportunity for public notice and comment when modifications are
made to those portfolio limits, and would ensure that limits remain in
place should the PSPAs terminate.
FHFA determined that the proposed change is not necessary or
prudent at this time. Section 1369E of the Safety and Soundness Act, as
amended by section 1109 of HERA, provides for regulatory portfolio
criteria governing the Enterprises as self-sustaining, privately
managed and owned companies, and does not specifically address an
Enterprise's portfolio holdings when the Enterprise is in
conservatorship. Currently, both Enterprises are in conservatorship and
require regular Treasury capital infusions under the PSPAs to remain
solvent.
The circumstances of the portfolio regulation are such that it is
not reasonable to interpret the Safety and Soundness Act's portfolio
provision as requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to change
the portfolio limits when the Enterprises are in conservatorship and
supported by Treasury infusions of capital. The principal concerns of
the statute are safety and soundness, capital adequacy, and limiting
systemic risk posed by the Enterprises' retained portfolios. Those
concerns are addressed in conservatorship through the vehicles of the
PSPAs and FHFA's on-going oversight of the Enterprises' risk management
practices. Under the PSPAs, the Treasury provides capital, while
enumerated significant business decisions require Treasury approval.
While the Enterprises are operating under conservatorship, FHFA
maintains continual oversight of the risk management practices
associated with the Enterprises' retained portfolios, even more
directly than it does in its capacity as regulator. In terms of
systemic risk, the PSPAs prescribe an orderly reduction in the
portfolios, reducing risk to the Enterprises while at the same time
providing market stability by not requiring a too-rapid sell-off of
portfolio assets. In addition, allowing room within the portfolio
limits for repurchases of delinquent mortgages from outstanding MBS is
necessary for loan modifications, which also contribute to overall
market stability. Balancing these competing needs in a time of market
stress such as the present requires greater flexibility in portfolio
management than notice-and-comment rulemaking permits, and therefore in
these circumstances, when the Enterprises are in conservatorship, we do
not interpret the statute as requiring it. Accordingly, the final
regulation retains the language from the interim final regulation.
Another commenter suggested that, pursuant to HERA, FHFA establish
a formal process of reviewing the Enterprises' portfolio holdings and a
mechanism for adjusting the portfolio limits based on such reviews.
Such a process would allow formal periodic adjustment of the portfolio
parameters in response to conditions in the market. Related to the
process of adjusting the portfolio parameters, a third commenter
expressed concern over the 10 percent
[[Page 81409]]
reduction in the Enterprise portfolios after December 31, 2009. This
commenter asks for greater flexibility during times of crisis. FHFA
monitors the Enterprises' portfolios through supervisory and
conservatorship channels. If market conditions dictate a need to
consider the portfolio reduction provisions in the PSPAs, FHFA will
take the appropriate actions to seek amendments to the PSPAs. FHFA thus
concludes no change to the interim final rule in this regard is
necessary at this time.
III. Final Rule
FHFA adopts the portfolio holdings criteria established by the
PSPAs, as may be amended from time to time, as the standard governing
the holding of mortgage assets by the Enterprises. Under the PSPAs,
which currently have the same portfolio holdings criteria for both
Enterprises, beginning on December 31, 2010, and each year thereafter,
each Enterprise is required to reduce its mortgage assets to 90 percent
of the maximum allowable amount it was permitted to hold as of December
31 of the immediately preceding calendar year, until the maximum amount
of the mortgage assets owned by each Enterprise reaches $250 billion.
Thus, the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets that each
Enterprise may own as of December 31, 2010, is $810 billion.
This regulation will remain in effect until amended or the
Enterprises are no longer subject to the PSPAs. Amendments to the
portfolio limits and criteria on the limits can be made by amendment of
the PSPAs. Under the final regulation, the Enterprises are to comply
with the PSPA portfolio limits as amended from time to time.
While the final regulatory criteria incorporate the PSPAs'
portfolio limits as agreed upon by the Treasury and FHFA as
conservator, the Safety and Soundness Act provides that the Director
monitor the portfolio of each Enterprise and authorizes the Director to
order an Enterprise to dispose of or acquire any asset under terms and
conditions to be determined by the Director, if the Director determines
that such action is consistent with the purposes of the Safety and
Soundness Act or the authorizing statute of the Enterprise. 12 U.S.C.
4624(c).
IV. Section by Section Analysis
Section 1252.1
Section 1252.1 adopts the portfolio holdings criteria established
by the PSPAs, as they may be amended from time to time, as the standard
for this rule.
Under the current PSPAs, which have the same portfolio holdings
criteria for both Enterprises, an Enterprise may hold mortgage assets
up to $900 billion as of December 31, 2009. Starting on December 31,
2010, the Enterprise portfolio limits will decrease annually by 10
percent from the maximum limit in the preceding year until the limit
reaches a level of $250 billion, at which point, no further decrease is
currently required. Adjustments could be made to those criteria by
amendment of the PSPAs.
Compliance with the PSPAs is necessary to ensure that each
Enterprise receives adequate capital to support its ongoing business
operations. FHFA's goals for the conservatorship include strengthening
Enterprise capacity to support the secondary mortgage market. The
criteria for Enterprise portfolio holdings established in the PSPAs
provided the Enterprises capacity to provide stability and liquidity to
the secondary mortgage market (including the purchase of delinquent
mortgages), while mitigating systemic risk, and facilitating Enterprise
efforts to achieve a balance between their mission and safe and sound
operations in the intermediate term. The retained portfolio reduction
provided for in the PSPAs avoids the need for potentially destabilizing
liquidation in the near term, while ensuring that in the future the
potential for systemic risk associated with these portfolios is
reduced.
FHFA's establishment of PSPA portfolio criteria as its regulatory
criteria represents an exercise of authority consistent with the
authority granted by Congress under section 1369E of the Safety and
Soundness Act.
Section 1252.2
Section 1252.2 addresses the effective duration of the interim
rule. FHFA expects these regulations to be effective until any
amendment or until the Enterprises are no longer subject to the terms
and obligations of the PSPAs.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The regulation does not contain any collections of information
pursuant to the Paperwork reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to the Office
of Management and Budget for review.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The regulation applies only to the Enterprises, which do not come
within the meaning of small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore, in accordance
with section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), FHFA, hereby,
certifies that the regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1252
Government-sponsored enterprises, Mortgages, Portfolio holdings.
PART 1252--PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS
Authority and Issuance
0
Therefore, the Federal Housing Finance Agency hereby adopts the interim
final rule, published at 74 FR 5609 (January 30, 2009) as final without
change.
Dated: December 17, 2010.
Edward J. DeMarco,
Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-32531 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P