[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61186-61247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25635]



[[Page 61185]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 229

November 28, 2018

Part II





Federal Housing Finance Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





12 CFR Parts 1290 and 1291





Affordable Housing Program Amendments; Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 229 / Wednesday, November 28, 2018 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 61186]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

12 CFR Parts 1290 and 1291

RIN 2590-AA83


Affordable Housing Program Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or Agency) is 
amending its regulation addressing requirements for the Federal Home 
Loan Banks' (Banks) Affordable Housing Program (AHP or Program). The 
final rule amends the regulation to: Provide the Banks additional 
authority to allocate their AHP funds; authorize the Banks to establish 
separate competitive funds that target specific affordable housing 
needs in their districts; provide the Banks additional flexibility in 
designing their project selection scoring systems to address affordable 
housing needs in their districts; remove the requirement for retention 
agreements for owner-occupied units where the AHP subsidy is used 
solely for rehabilitation; provide for a calculation of household 
subsidy repayment amount that prioritizes return of the household's 
investment in the housing to the household; reduce administrative 
burdens related to calculating and obtaining household subsidy 
repayments based on net proceeds of the sale of a home; further align 
certain project monitoring requirements with those of other federal 
government funding programs; clarify the requirements for remediating 
AHP noncompliance; clarify certain operational requirements; and 
streamline and reorganize the regulation.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective on December 28, 
2018.
    Compliance dates: For applicable compliance dates, see the 
discussions under Sec. Sec.  1290.8 and 1291.2 in Section I. of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Wartell, Manager, Office of 
Housing and Community Investment, 202-649-3157, [email protected]; 
Marcea Barringer, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Housing and 
Community Investment, 202-649-3275, [email protected]; Marshall 
Adam Pecsek, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 202-649-3380, 
[email protected]; or Sharon Like, Managing Associate General 
Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 202-649-3057, [email protected]. 
These are not toll-free numbers. The mailing address is: Federal 
Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. 
The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing 
Impaired is 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Sections 1291.2 and 1290.8--Compliance Dates

    Section 1291.2 of the final rule provides generally, that through 
December 31, 2020, a Bank may comply with either the AHP regulation in 
effect immediately prior to this final rule's effective date, or this 
final rule. On and after January 1, 2021, a Bank must comply with this 
final rule. However, for the owner-occupied retention agreement 
requirements in Sec.  1291.15(a)(7), the final rule provides that 
through December 31, 2019, a Bank may comply with either Sec.  
1291.9(a)(7) of the AHP regulation in effect immediately prior to this 
final rule's effective date, or Sec.  1291.15(a)(7) of this final rule. 
On and after January 1, 2020, a Bank must comply with Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7) of the final rule. Regarding proxies for determining a 
subsequent purchaser's income, the final rule provides that a Bank 
shall comply with Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)(ii)(B) of the final rule on the 
date set forth in the FHFA guidance on proxies referenced therein.
    Similarly, Sec.  1290.8 of the final rule provides that through 
December 31, 2020, a Bank must comply with either prior part 1290 
(Community Support Requirements regulation) or this part 1290. On and 
after January 1, 2021, a Bank must comply with this part 1290.
    The proposed rule did not address effective or compliance dates. 
The Banks requested that the final rule not become effective for at 
least two years. They stressed that the proposed substantive changes to 
the regulation, especially the proposed outcome-based scoring 
framework, would require extensive changes to their existing scoring, 
information and reporting systems, as well as education and training of 
Bank staff, members, and potential project sponsors. Bank staff 
indicated that they would need to consult with their Bank Advisory 
Councils, boards of directors, and board committees on changes to their 
Program, including systems and procedures. They would need to seek 
approval by their boards of changes to their policies for their General 
Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, and for establishment of 
Targeted Funds, along with related changes to their AHP Implementation 
Plans and Targeted Community Lending Plans (TCLPs). The Banks typically 
hold their AHP funding rounds in the spring or summer of each year, and 
would need sufficient time to publish their revised AHP Implementation 
Plans and TCLPs, and announce their AHP funding allocations, well in 
advance of the start of that calendar year.
    In view of the publication of the final rule late in 2018, FHFA 
recognizes that it may not be feasible for the Banks to complete all of 
the above actions in time for implementation of revised Programs for 
2019 or 2020, even though the final rule does not adopt the proposed 
outcome-based scoring framework and instead adopts a scoring framework 
more similar to the existing scoring requirements of the Competitive 
Application Program. A January 1, 2021 compliance date for the final 
rule, thus, is warranted. However, there are certain changes in the 
final rule that will benefit households without requiring significant 
changes to the Banks' information systems and, therefore, can be 
implemented more quickly. In particular, the final rule establishes a 
compliance date of January 1, 2020 by which the Banks must implement 
the new owner-occupied retention agreement provisions in Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7), including the requirement to calculate AHP subsidy 
repayment based on net proceeds and household's investment (Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7)(v)), the de minimis subsidy repayment exception of $2,500 
or less (Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)(ii)(C)), and the elimination of the 
requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements for rehabilitation 
(Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)). Prior to January 1, 2020, or such earlier 
compliance date as the Bank elects, a Bank must continue to comply with 
the current regulation, including its requirement that subsidy be 
recovered only from ``net gain,'' a concept that in many respects 
resembles the more clearly articulated standards of ``net proceeds'' 
and ``household's investment'' in the final rule.
    Because some Banks may find it feasible to implement certain 
provisions of the final rule before the applicable compliance dates, 
such as the provisions benefiting households, provisions easing 
operational burdens, or provisions for the establishment of Targeted 
Funds, the final rule provides that a Bank may choose to comply with 
any provision of the final rule before the applicable compliance date. 
A Bank that chooses to comply with a specific provision before the 
applicable compliance date must also comply with all other provisions 
related to that specific provision in part 1291 and Sec.  1290.6. For 
example, if a Bank decides

[[Page 61187]]

to establish a Targeted Fund before January 1, 2021 pursuant to Sec.  
1291.20(b), the Bank must also comply with the funding allocation and 
phase-in requirements for Targeted Funds in Sec. Sec.  1291.20(b)(1) 
and 1291.12(c)(1), respectively, must amend its AHP Implementation Plan 
to include its requirements for the Targeted Fund pursuant to Sec.  
1291.13(b)(3), and must amend its Targeted Community Lending Plan to 
include the specific housing needs to be addressed by the Targeted Fund 
pursuant to Sec.  1290.6(a)(5)(vi).

II. Background

A. Overview of Current Program

    The Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires each Bank to 
establish a Program to provide subsidies for long-term, low- and 
moderate-income, owner-occupied and affordable rental housing. Each 
Bank is required to allocate annually 10 percent of its prior year's 
net income to fund its Program to help subsidize the purchase, 
construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and owner-
occupied housing. Homeowners and homebuyers receiving AHP subsidies 
must be low- or moderate-income (incomes at or below 80 percent of area 
median income (AMI)). For rental housing, at least 20 percent of the 
units must be occupied by very low-income households (incomes at or 
below 50 percent of AMI) and must be affordable (rents charged do not 
exceed 30 percent of income).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current AHP regulation authorizes the Banks to establish and 
administer two programs for awarding AHP subsidies: a mandatory 
Competitive Application Program (referred to in the proposed and final 
rules as the ``General Fund''); and an optional Homeownership Set-Aside 
Program.\2\ Each Bank must allocate annually at least 65 percent of its 
required annual AHP contribution to its Competitive Application 
Program, and may allocate annually up to the greater of $4.5 million or 
35 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to its Homeownership 
Set-Aside Program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 12 CFR part 1291.
    \3\ Where a Bank allocates the alternative maximum amount of 
$4.5 million to its Homeownership Set-Aside Program, the Bank may 
allocate less than 65 percent of its total AHP funds to its 
Competitive Application Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Competitive Application Program, members apply to the 
Banks for AHP subsidies on behalf of project sponsors, which are 
typically nonprofit affordable housing developers, but may include for-
profit organizations. The Banks are required to develop and implement a 
scoring system subject to requirements in the regulation, which serves 
as a mechanism for evaluating and selecting the project applications to 
receive AHP subsidies. Under the Homeownership Set-Aside Program, 
members apply to the Banks for grants, which are provided to low- or 
moderate-income homebuyers or homeowners for purchasing or 
rehabilitating homes.
    The AHP has played an important role in facilitating the Banks' 
support of their members' efforts to meet the affordable housing needs 
of their communities. Between 1990 and 2017, the Banks awarded 
approximately $5.8 billion in AHP subsidies to assist the financing of 
over 865,000 affordable housing units. AHP subsidies have proven 
particularly effective in leveraging additional public and private 
resources for funding affordable housing projects that present 
underwriting challenges, such as projects for homeless households and 
special needs populations. For example, project sponsors have used AHP 
funds in conjunction with a number of different federal and state 
funding sources, including Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC or tax 
credits), to develop rental housing for very low-income households. For 
2018, the Banks' combined required annual AHP contribution is 
approximately $384,310,000.

B. AHP Regulatory History

    FHFA and one of its predecessor agencies, the Federal Housing 
Finance Board (Finance Board), have engaged in numerous rulemakings 
over the years to revise, clarify, and streamline the AHP requirements 
as the Program has evolved and housing markets have changed. Successive 
rulemakings progressively devolved specific AHP application approval 
and governance authorities from the Finance Board to the Banks in order 
to enhance the ability of the Banks to address specific affordable 
housing needs in their respective districts.
    The genesis of the current AHP rulemaking was the Notice of 
Regulatory Review published in the Federal Register in 2013 requesting 
comment on FHFA's existing regulations for purposes of improving their 
effectiveness and reducing their burden. In response, the Banks jointly 
submitted a letter to FHFA commenting on the AHP and other FHFA 
regulations. The letter contended that prescriptive, outdated, or 
ambiguous provisions of the AHP regulation created inefficiencies and 
uncertain risk exposures, and recommended that FHFA review the 
regulation and consider clarifications and enhancements to further 
empower the Banks in the management of their Programs.
    In response to the Banks' recommendations, FHFA undertook a 
comprehensive review of the AHP regulation, including AHP issues on 
which FHFA had provided regulatory guidance. To further inform the 
review, FHFA conducted outreach with the Banks and a wide range of AHP 
stakeholders. The Banks and stakeholders uniformly expressed support 
for the AHP, and noted the critical role it plays in affordable housing 
initiatives throughout the country and its longstanding reputation as a 
well-managed program. At the same time, the Banks and stakeholders 
offered a number of specific recommendations to improve the operation 
of the AHP. The recommendations were directed largely at: (1) Expanding 
the Banks' authority to allocate their AHP funds; (2) providing the 
Banks authority to devise their own project selection methods, 
including the use of non-competitive processes; (3) clarifying the 
requirements for determining a project's need for AHP subsidy; (4) 
aligning the project monitoring requirements with those of other major 
funding sources; (5) clarifying the Banks' authorities to resolve 
project noncompliance; (6) clarifying certain operational requirements; 
and (7) codifying FHFA regulatory guidance in the regulation. Based on 
FHFA's analyses of the recommendations and its review of the Program, 
FHFA published a proposed rule to amend the AHP regulation, which is 
discussed below.

C. Proposed Rule

    On March 14, 2018, FHFA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM or proposed rule) in the Federal Register to amend the AHP 
regulation.\4\ Taking into account the Banks' and stakeholders' input 
and recommendations discussed above, the proposed rule would have 
significantly altered how the Banks approach and implement their AHP 
project selection responsibilities. The proposed rule would have 
replaced the current project selection scoring process, a front-end 
process that requires the Banks to allocate at least 50 percent of the 
total points for scoring applications to specific statutory and 
regulatory priorities set forth in the regulation, with a back-end 
process using a scoring process and ``outcome-based approach'' for 
project selection. Under the proposal, each Bank would have been

[[Page 61188]]

required to establish its own scoring system containing Bank-identified 
district housing needs priorities for awarding AHP subsidies, subject 
to meeting certain FHFA-prescribed outcome requirements for statutory 
and regulatory priorities set forth in the proposed rule. Each Bank 
would have been evaluated according to whether a certain percentage of 
its total AHP funds was awarded to projects or households that met the 
applicable priorities. The NPRM stated that the proposal would address 
many of the Banks' and stakeholders' concerns by providing the Banks 
greater flexibility to design their competitive application programs 
while continuing to ensure the programs fulfilled the statutory 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 83 FR 11344 (Mar. 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM also proposed additional options for the Banks to allocate 
their total annual AHP contributions. Each Bank would have been 
required to allocate at least 50 percent of its total annual AHP 
contribution to its General Fund, down from the current 65 percent. 
Each Bank also would have been authorized to allocate up to 40 percent 
of its required annual AHP contribution to a maximum of three 
``Targeted Funds,'' a new type of competitive application fund under 
the AHP, to address specific affordable housing needs within its 
district, subject to a phase-in period. In addition, the proposed rule 
would have increased the maximum percentage of a Bank's total annual 
AHP contribution that could be allocated to its Homeownership Set-Aside 
Program from 35 to 40 percent, with the existing alternate threshold of 
$4.5 million retained.
    The proposed rule also would have eliminated the current 
requirement for an owner-occupied unit retention agreement, under which 
AHP-assisted households must repay AHP subsidy to the Bank under 
certain circumstances if they sell or refinance their homes during the 
AHP five-year retention period. The NPRM discussed that this would ease 
the administrative burdens on the Banks of recovering subsidy 
repayments from households, and enhance households' ability to build 
wealth, which appear to outweigh the retention agreements' potential to 
deter rare instances of flipping.
    In addition, the proposed rule would streamline the 
responsibilities of the parties involved in monitoring projects for 
compliance with AHP income targeting and rent requirements by aligning 
the AHP project monitoring requirements with those of certain other 
government funding programs. For example, the proposal would remove 
certain back-up documentation requirements for the initial monitoring 
of AHP projects that have received LIHTC, and for initial and long-term 
monitoring of AHP projects that have received funding from certain 
other federal government programs.
    In addition, the proposed rule would clarify a number of 
operational responsibilities. For example, the proposed rule would 
clarify the process and responsibilities of the various parties for 
remediating AHP noncompliance. The proposed rule also would have 
clarified the process for determining a project's need for AHP subsidy.
    Finally, the proposed rule would streamline and reorganize the 
regulation to enhance its utility and readability.

D. Overview of Comments Received on the Proposed Rule

    The NPRM initially provided the public 60 days to submit comments 
on the proposed rule. The Agency received numerous requests from 
commenters to extend the comment period by an additional 30 days. FHFA 
also identified an error in the calculation of the outcome requirement 
in the proposed rule text and related preamble discussion. In response 
to the requests for an extension of the comment period and to correct 
the error in the outcome calculation and encourage comments on the 
corrected calculation, FHFA published a notice in the Federal Register 
containing the corrected calculation and extending the comment period 
by an additional 30 days.\5\ The extended comment period ended on June 
12, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 83 FR 19188 (May 2, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FHFA received 394 comment letters in response to the proposed rule. 
Of those letters, 251 expressed unique comments and recommendations, 
with the remaining 143 being form letters or requests to extend the 
original 60-day comment period. The Presidents of the eleven Banks 
submitted a joint comment letter. Nine Banks also submitted individual 
comment letters. FHFA received 16 comment letters from the Banks' 
boards of directors, Affordable Housing Advisory Councils (Bank 
Advisory Councils), and Community Investment Officers (CIOs). Eighteen 
members of Congress representing the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas co-signed a comment letter. A member 
of Congress representing the state of New Jersey also submitted a 
comment letter. FHFA received 99 letters from trade associations, 
nonprofit organizations, and state and local government organizations. 
Lenders such as banks, credit unions, and Community Development 
Financial Institutions (CDFIs) submitted 50 comment letters. Nonprofit 
and for-profit developers submitted 204 comment letters. Individuals 
submitted the remaining 13 comment letters.
    FHFA also held a number of webinars and meetings with Bank 
representatives and stakeholders to describe the content of the 
proposed rule, discuss issues raised by the proposed rule, and obtain 
clarifications of specific comments made in the letters.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Summaries of each of these meetings are available on FHFA's 
website at: https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Comment-List.aspx?RuleID=612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six proposals received the most comments: The outcome-based 
approach for project selection; the authority for the Banks to 
establish Targeted Funds; the increase in the maximum permissible 
annual funding allocation to a Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Program 
from 35 to 40 percent; the removal of the requirement for owner-
occupied retention agreements; a clarification of the ``cure-first'' 
requirement for project noncompliance; and the responsibility of the 
full board of directors to approve strategic AHP decisions. The 
comments on these six proposals and FHFA's decisions in the final rule 
are discussed in Section III., below. Comments on other provisions of 
the proposed rule are discussed under each applicable provision in the 
Section-by-Section Analysis in Section IV., below.

III. Discussion of Comments on Key Proposals and Decisions in the Final 
Rule

A. Proposed Outcome-Based Approach for Project Selection

    Final rule. The final rule does not adopt the proposal for an 
outcome-based framework for project selection. Instead, the final rule 
amends the current regulatory scoring framework for project selection 
to provide the Banks with additional flexibility in designing their 
project selection scoring systems to address affordable housing needs 
in their districts, similar to the recommendations made by the Banks in 
their joint comment letter, but with certain changes to reflect 
particular policy objectives.
    Current regulation. The current AHP regulation prescribes a 
scoring-based project selection system based on a 100-point scale, 
under which each Bank must allocate:
     At least 5 points each to two priorities derived from the 
statute (combined 10 points minimum);

[[Page 61189]]

     At least 5 points each to four regulatory priorities 
addressing specific housing needs set forth in the regulation, and at 
least 20 points for the regulatory priority for income targeting (a 
combined 40 points minimum for the five regulatory priorities).
     The remaining maximum of 50 points to one or more housing 
needs specified under the first Bank district priority (from 12 
eligible housing needs specified in the regulation, and to one or more 
housing needs in the Banks' districts selected by the Banks under the 
second Bank district priority (with at least 5 points allocated to each 
Priority).
    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would have authorized the Banks to 
design their own scoring systems, subject to an outcome-based framework 
under which a specified percentage of each Bank's total annual AHP 
funds would be required to be awarded to projects meeting specific 
outcome requirements established by FHFA in the proposed rule. As 
discussed in Section II.B. and C. above, the proposal was intended to 
address the Banks' and stakeholders' input on the AHP by providing the 
Banks greater flexibility to design their competitive application 
programs to meet their district housing needs while continuing to 
ensure the Programs fulfill the statutory requirements. The proposed 
outcome requirements would have included the three statutory priorities 
for: (1) Projects sponsored by a government or nonprofit entity; (2) 
use of donated or conveyed government property; and (3) purchase of 
homes by low- or moderate-income households. Each Bank would have been 
required to award at least 55 percent of its total AHP funds to 
projects meeting the donated or conveyed government properties priority 
or government or nonprofit sponsorship priority, and to award at least 
10 percent of its total AHP funds to households or projects meeting the 
priority for purchase of homes by low- or moderate-income households.
    In addition, the proposed outcome requirements would have included 
four regulatory priorities, with specified eligible housing needs 
included under each of the regulatory priorities, for: (1) Very low-
income targeting for rental units; (2) underserved communities and 
populations; (3) creating economic opportunity; and (4) affordable 
housing preservation. Each Bank would have been required to ensure that 
at least 55 percent of all rental units in rental projects receiving 
AHP awards were targeted to very low-income households (households with 
incomes at or below 50 percent AMI). In addition, each Bank would have 
been required to award at least 55 percent of its total AHP funds to 
projects, in the aggregate, meeting at least two of the three other 
regulatory priorities.
    The proposed rule would have permitted the Banks to re-rank the 
order of applications, by replacing a higher scoring application that 
does not contribute to meeting the outcome requirements with a lower 
scoring project that does, in order to enable the Banks to meet the 
outcome requirements. If a Bank failed to fulfill the outcome 
requirements, FHFA would have the authority to require the Bank to 
develop and implement a housing plan for addressing the Bank's 
noncompliance, or to order the Bank to reimburse its AHP Fund in the 
amount of funds necessary to address the dollar shortfall.
    Comments. A large majority of commenters addressed the proposed 
outcome-based framework for project selection. Most commenters, 
including several Banks, several trade associations, numerous lenders, 
many nonprofit and for-profit developers, and some members of Congress, 
expressed reservations about, or opposition to, the proposed approach. 
Many of these commenters asserted that the proposal was too 
prescriptive and complicated, and would result in unintended 
consequences, such as increased Program complexity, preferences for 
certain types of projects, and reduced transparency of the AHP. While 
not explicitly expressing support for the proposal, several commenters 
acknowledged the potential benefits of the proposed outcome-based 
approach. For example, a nonprofit intermediary recognized that the 
approach may facilitate the Banks' ability to increase the diversity of 
populations receiving AHP funds, as well as fulfill a broader range of 
district affordable housing needs. Several commenters, including a 
number of Banks, also acknowledged that the proposed regulatory 
priorities under the outcome-based approach were germane to the 
affordable housing needs of their districts.
    However, most of the commenters expressed concern that the proposal 
would or might restrict the Banks' and members' ability to address the 
particular housing needs of local communities, which some of these 
commenters described as a ``hallmark'' of the AHP, in favor of a 
national housing needs focus. Some Bank Advisory Councils also 
expressed concern that the proposal would diminish the role of the Bank 
Advisory Councils in identifying the affordable housing needs of the 
districts. Several commenters focused on the proposed percentages that 
the Banks would be required to meet under the outcome requirements, 
raising concerns that requiring mathematical calculations of dollar 
amounts and numbers of rental units would increase the Program's 
complexity. Many commenters, including the Banks, a Bank Advisory 
Council, and a trade association, strongly objected to the proposal to 
permit the Banks to re-rank the order of scored applications as a way 
to meet the proposed outcome requirements. Commenters expressed concern 
that the ability to re-rank scored applications would undermine the 
integrity, predictability, simplicity, and transparency of the AHP, and 
deter project sponsors from submitting applications to the Program.
    Numerous commenters, including the Banks, a trade association, and 
lenders, strongly opposed the proposed enforcement provisions for Bank 
noncompliance with the proposed outcome requirements. Commenters stated 
that requiring a Bank to reimburse its AHP Fund in the amount of any 
dollar shortfall would impose a ``penalty'' and ``undue and severe 
punishment'' on the Bank. A Bank noted that requiring such 
reimbursement would result in a Bank contributing annually more than 
the statutorily required 10 percent of its net income to its AHP for 
the particular year. Commenters also suggested that a reimbursement 
requirement would lead to reductions in the diversity of the projects 
awarded AHP funds, as the Banks would select conventional and 
unchallenging housing needs as part of their scoring systems in order 
to ensure fulfillment of the proposed outcome requirements and avoid 
having to reimburse their AHP Funds.
    The eleven Banks jointly submitted a proposal for project selection 
based on the current regulatory scoring system, with certain changes to 
the regulatory priorities and required minimum allocations of scoring 
points. The Banks' proposal is discussed further below under Sec.  
1291.26 (Scoring Criteria for the General Fund) in Section IV.
    Decision in the final rule. The final rule does not adopt the 
proposed outcome-based framework. Instead, the final rule amends the 
current regulatory scoring framework to provide the Banks with 
additional flexibility in designing their project selection scoring 
systems to address affordable housing needs in their districts, similar 
to the recommendations made by the Banks in their joint comment letter 
but with certain changes to reflect particular policy objectives. 
Revisions to the existing regulatory scoring system

[[Page 61190]]

include broader regulatory priorities encompassing more housing needs 
and additional discretion in allocating scoring points under the Bank 
district priority.
    FHFA's analyses of the Banks' awards in recent years indicate that 
most, if not all, of the Banks would have readily met the proposed 
outcome requirements, especially with the correction to the calculation 
of the proposed outcome requirement for the three regulatory 
priorities, while having increased flexibility to target district 
housing needs. However, the Banks and other commenters expressed 
concern about the proposed outcome requirements, especially the 
prospect of accountability for noncompliance with the outcome 
requirements and the potential to have to reimburse their AHP Funds for 
any dollar shortfall. Because FHFA has decided not to implement the 
proposed outcome-based approach, the proposed enforcement provisions 
for Bank noncompliance with the outcome requirements (proposed 
Sec. Sec.  1291.48 and 1291.49) are moot and, therefore, not adopted in 
the final rule.
    The Agency finds the Banks' proposal for project selection, which 
is based on both the current scoring system and specific regulatory 
priorities in the proposed rule, to be a reasonable approach, subject 
to certain changes to achieve specific policy objectives. The revised 
scoring-based framework in the final rule is discussed in Section IV. 
below, under Sec.  1291.25 (Scoring Methodologies), and Sec.  1291.26 
(Scoring Criteria for the General Fund).

B. Authority for the Banks To Establish Targeted Funds

    Final rule. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule 
authorizes the Banks to establish funds targeted to address specific 
affordable housing needs within their districts that are either unmet, 
have proven difficult to address through the Bank's General Fund, or 
align with objectives identified in their strategic plans (referred to 
as ``Targeted Funds'').
    The final rule requires the Banks to adopt and implement parameters 
to ensure that each Targeted Fund is designed to receive a sufficient 
number of applicants for the amount of AHP funds allocated to the 
Targeted Fund such that administration of each Targeted Fund results in 
a robust competitive scoring process. These parameters include 
requirements that a Bank must specify the particular type of affordable 
housing needs the Bank plans to address through any Targeted Funds in 
its TCLP, and that a Bank must publish its TCLP at least 90 days before 
the first day that applications may be submitted for that Targeted Fund 
(unless the Targeted Fund is specifically targeted to address a federal 
or state-declared disaster). Further, the final rule requires a Bank to 
establish a minimum of three scoring criteria for each Targeted Fund 
that assist the Bank in selecting the projects that meet the specified 
affordable housing needs to be addressed by the Targeted Fund. In 
addition, the final rule provides that a Bank may not allocate more 
than 50 points to any one scoring criterion. The final rule also 
implements a phase-in period for establishing Targeted Funds. A Bank 
would be limited initially to establishing one Targeted Fund to which 
it could allocate up to 20 percent of its total annual AHP funds. In 
the second year, the Bank could establish two Targeted Funds with a 
maximum allocation of 30 percent, and in the third year three Targeted 
Funds with a maximum allocation of 40 percent.
    Current regulation. The current regulation does not authorize a 
Bank to establish Targeted Funds.
    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would authorize the Banks to 
establish up to three competitive Targeted Funds, and to allocate a 
maximum of 40 percent of their total annual AHP funds to establish such 
Targeted Funds, subject to the phase-in requirements described above. 
The Banks would use these funds to address specific affordable housing 
needs within their districts that are unmet, have proven difficult to 
address through the existing General Fund, or align with objectives 
identified in their strategic plans. FHFA's intent in proposing this 
authority was to help address challenges the Banks experience when 
trying to target specific affordable housing needs within their 
districts, especially in a single AHP funding round. Banks report that 
the existing regulatory scoring requirements can affect their efforts 
to fully address affordable housing needs within their districts. 
Establishing a Targeted Fund with a dedicated funding allocation to a 
particular housing need would enable competitive projects serving that 
housing need to receive awards pursuant to the competitive process 
under that Targeted Fund, while other projects would receive awards 
under the General Fund, thereby serving multiple housing needs in the 
same AHP funding round. The Banks would be required to adopt and 
implement controls to ensure that each Targeted Fund is designed to 
receive sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount of AHP funds 
allocated to the Targeted Fund to enable the Bank to facilitate a 
genuinely competitive scoring process.
    Comments. FHFA received a mix of comments in support of and 
opposition to the proposal to authorize Targeted Funds. A nonprofit 
organization commented that Targeted Funds would enhance the 
interaction between a Bank's board of directors and its Bank Advisory 
Council. The commenter also noted that Targeted Funds would provide 
each Bank greater opportunities to address varying market needs, reach 
more underserved communities, and possibly expand the geographical 
footprint of its AHP. The Banks and several Bank Advisory Councils 
stated that Targeted Funds would prove beneficial by providing the 
Banks with the ability to target specific affordable housing needs 
within their districts. The Banks also commented that the use of 
Targeted Funds would provide additional flexibility and responsiveness 
to changing housing needs by permitting the Banks to establish and 
tailor separate scoring priorities. The Banks and Bank Advisory 
Councils stated, however, that implementation of the proposed outcome-
based framework would undermine the potential benefits of Targeted 
Funds. They also asserted that FHFA's proposed regulatory priorities 
under the outcome-based framework would drive the scoring process and 
overshadow the local needs of each district.
    Several commenters, including the Banks, Bank Advisory Councils, a 
trade association, and a policy organization, supported the proposed 
maximum 40 percent funding allocation for Targeted Funds. In contrast, 
a nonprofit advocacy organization and a government entity expressed 
concern that the proposal would lead to a decrease in funding for 
affordable rental housing. A nonprofit intermediary supported Targeted 
Funds, but recommended that the Banks be permitted to allocate an 
unspecified percentage that is less than 40 percent to their Targeted 
Funds to ensure that a majority of the Banks' AHP subsidies remain 
available under the General Fund to address a broad spectrum of 
affordable housing needs within each district. A nonprofit developer 
asserted that Targeted Funds would compel project sponsors to apply for 
AHP subsidy under both the General Fund and the Targeted Fund, 
resulting in costly compliance and administration expenses for the 
Banks, members, and project sponsors.
    The Banks expressed concern that the proposed regulatory language 
requiring each Bank to adopt and implement controls to ensure that each 
Targeted Fund receives sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount 
of AHP funds

[[Page 61191]]

allocated to the Targeted Fund is vague, complex, and undefined.
    Decision in the final rule. FHFA has considered the comments 
received on the proposal for Targeted Funds and continues to be 
persuaded that Targeted Funds may increase the flexibility of the Banks 
to emphasize multiple housing needs in a given year, thereby enhancing 
their ability to address specific affordable housing needs in their 
districts. The Agency also continues to be persuaded that the Banks 
should be permitted to allocate up to 40 percent of their total annual 
AHP funds to Targeted Funds. Although a number of commenters expressed 
concern that allocation of AHP funds to Targeted Funds would 
potentially reduce the total amount of AHP funds available for 
affordable rental housing, they offered no support to substantiate 
their concerns that the Banks would target their Targeted Funds for 
owner-occupied housing. The 40 percent limit would provide the Banks 
significant flexibility to allocate AHP subsidy to Targeted Funds, 
which could include Targeted Funds for owner-occupied housing or rental 
housing. In fact, the Banks indicated that they would likely use 
Targeted Funds for rental housing. The final rule requires that the 
Banks allocate at least 50 percent of their total annual AHP funds to 
the competitive General Fund. The final rule also allows a Bank to 
allocate up to 35 percent of its total annual AHP funds to optional, 
noncompetitive Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, which are discussed 
further under Sec.  1291.12 (Allocation of Required Annual AHP 
Contribution) below. Thus, the final rule ensures that the Banks award 
a majority of their AHP funds through competitive processes (for 
example, 50 percent for the General Fund plus 15 percent for Targeted 
Funds, or 65 percent for the General Fund).
    FHFA also considered the Banks' concerns about the proposed 
language that each Targeted Fund have controls for ensuring that it is 
designed to receive sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount of 
AHP funds allocated to the Targeted Fund. The requirement that the 
Targeted Fund be designed to receive sufficient numbers of applicants 
pertains to the scope and scoring methodology of the Targeted Fund, and 
is not a guarantee of the actual number of applicants received.
    FHFA also acknowledges the commenter's concern that project 
sponsors may feel compelled to submit applications for the same project 
to both the General Fund and any applicable Targeted Fund at a Bank. 
While the final rule does not prohibit applicants from applying to both 
Funds in the same year, FHFA does not anticipate this becoming a 
significant problem for the Banks and project sponsors due to the 
limited scope of Targeted Funds, and the time involved in completing 
multiple applications. The specific requirements in the final rule for 
establishing and administering Targeted Funds are discussed under Sec.  
1291.20(b)(1) in Section IV., below.

C. Proposed Increase in the Maximum Permissible Annual Funding 
Allocation for Homeownership Set-Aside Programs

    Final rule. In a change from the proposed rule, the final rule 
retains the current maximum permissible annual funding allocation of 35 
percent for Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. The final rule also 
retains the current alternate maximum permissible annual funding 
allocation of $4.5 million for such Programs.
    Current regulation. The current regulation authorizes each Bank, in 
its discretion, to allocate annually up to the greater of $4.5 million 
or 35 percent of the Bank's annual required AHP contribution for 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.
    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would have increased the current 
maximum permissible annual funding allocation for Homeownership Set-
Aside Programs from 35 to 40 percent, and would have retained the 
current alternate maximum permissible annual funding allocation of $4.5 
million. The NPRM noted that the current regulation allows the Banks to 
establish more than one Homeownership Set-Aside Program to address the 
homeownership needs of different populations, such as military veterans 
or disaster victims. FHFA stated that the increase in the maximum 
percentage allocation amount would enhance the ability of the Banks and 
their members to meet the demand for set-aside funds and provide more 
assistance to low- or moderate-income homebuyers and homeowners, 
including first-time homebuyers. FHFA also noted that the increase 
would assist Bank members by enhancing their ability to access a wider 
customer base, originate new mortgages for low- and moderate-income 
households, and fulfill their obligations under the federal Community 
Reinvestment Act.
    FHFA acknowledged that the increase could result in a smaller 
amount of funds allocated by the Banks to their competitive application 
programs, which could result in reduced funding for rental projects. 
However, FHFA considered the proposal to be reasonable given the 
significant demand for set-aside funds and stakeholder requests that 
the Agency provide the Banks additional flexibility to target specific 
housing needs in their districts.
    Comments. The commenters were divided over the proposal. The Banks, 
Bank Advisory Councils, several nonprofit organizations, and trade 
associations supported the proposal. Some nonprofit organizations and 
trade associations expressed support for the proposed amendments that 
would expand and enhance the reach of the Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs. One trade association supported the proposed increase, 
expressing the hope that it would help increase the supply of entry-
level homes, as well as improve the affordability of the homes. A 
nonprofit organization stated that the proposal would increase the 
number of low- and moderate-income homebuyers or homeowners that would 
be able to purchase or rehabilitate their homes. A trade association 
suggested that FHFA index the dollar cap for the $4.5 million alternate 
maximum allocation to address further erosion of the funds' purchasing 
power as mortgage rates and home prices rise.
    Numerous nonprofit organizations opposed the proposed increase on 
the basis that it would effectively reduce AHP funding for rental 
housing. Commenters noted the important role the AHP plays in 
supporting the preservation and expansion of rental properties for very 
low-income and extremely low-income households. A nonprofit 
organization cited data derived from the American Community Survey 
describing the Nation's significant shortage of affordable rental 
housing, including for extremely low-income households (incomes of less 
than 30 percent of AMI or less than the federal poverty line). Another 
nonprofit organization acknowledged the importance of promoting 
homeownership for lower income households, but opposed the proposed 
increase without an offsetting increase in funding for affordable 
rental projects, to help address the significant need for such housing 
nationwide. Several nonprofit organizations that advocate for the 
development of multifamily housing also opposed the proposal on the 
basis that a reduction in the amount the Banks must allocate to their 
General Funds would run counter to the promotion, development, and 
preservation of rental housing. One of the nonprofit organizations 
urged FHFA to maintain the existing funding allocation cap of 35 
percent because it ensures that a minimum 65 percent of each Bank's 
total annual AHP contribution is available to fund rental projects. The 
commenter also implied

[[Page 61192]]

that funding for the General Fund should have priority over funding for 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs because rental housing projects must 
address the accessibility needs of future residents, while single-
family homeownership programs do not.
    Decision in the final rule. In response to the commenters' concerns 
and the continued need for affordable rental housing, FHFA has decided 
to retain the existing maximum permissible funding allocation of 35 
percent of a Bank's required annual AHP contribution for Homeownership 
Set-Aside Programs. The final rule also retains the alternate $4.5 
million threshold.
    The continued need for affordable rental housing is supported by 
the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University in its 
annual overview of the housing conditions in the United States. The 
organization's report, The State of the Nation's Housing 2018, examined 
and assessed the Nation's progress in producing decent and affordable 
homes for all households.\7\ The report found that more than 38 million 
households in the U.S. have housing cost burdens that leave little 
income to pay for food, healthcare, and other basic necessities. The 
report determined that more than 11 million renters are severely cost 
burdened because they pay more than half their incomes for housing. The 
report also found that for every 100 extremely low-income renters, only 
35 rental units were affordable and available in 2016--a nationwide 
shortfall of more than 7.2 million units. Very low-income renter 
households also faced a shortfall of 56 affordable and available rental 
units per 100 households. The report concluded that conditions at the 
low end of the affordable housing rental market would probably remain 
exceptionally tight over the long term in the face of strong demand and 
diminishing supply.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 
State of the Nation's Housing 2018 (2018), available at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2018.pdf (last accessed 
11/15/2018).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the new authority for the Banks to establish 
Targeted Funds for homeownership or rental projects, the Banks may 
increase their focus on homeownership needs by establishing Targeted 
Funds for homeownership. This mitigates the need to increase the 
maximum permissible annual funding allocation for Homeownership Set-
Aside Programs.
    The final rule does not adopt the commenter's recommendation to 
index the alternate $4.5 million maximum threshold. FHFA has analyzed 
whether revisions to the $4.5 million limit would be necessary and 
concluded that the Banks' need for, or use of, the $4.5 million maximum 
is unlikely to change.
    The specific requirements for establishing, funding, and 
administering Homeownership Set-Aside Programs are discussed below in 
Sec. Sec.  1291.12 and 1291.40 through 1291.44 of Section IV.

D. Proposed Elimination of the Requirement for Owner-Occupied Retention 
Agreements

    Final rule. In a change from the proposed rule, the final rule 
eliminates the current requirement for owner-occupied retention 
agreements where households use the AHP subsidy solely for 
rehabilitation of a unit, but retains it in other circumstances.
    Current regulation. The current regulation requires owner-occupied 
retention agreements where a household uses the AHP subsidy for 
purchase, for purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, or solely 
for rehabilitation of a unit. Members must ensure that the AHP-assisted 
owner-occupied unit is subject to a five-year deed restriction or other 
legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism requiring that, in 
the case of a sale or refinancing of the unit prior to the end of the 
retention period, the household repays the Bank an amount equal to a 
pro rata share of the AHP subsidy that financed the purchase, 
construction, or rehabilitation of the unit, reduced for every year the 
household owned the unit, from any net gain realized upon the sale or 
refinancing, unless either the unit is purchased by a very low-, or 
low- or moderate-income household or, following a refinancing, the unit 
remains subject to a retention agreement or other appropriate mechanism 
as described in the regulation.
    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would have eliminated the 
retention agreement requirement for all owner-occupied units, 
regardless of how the subsidy was used by the household. The NPRM did 
not specifically address or request comment on whether the elimination 
of owner-occupied retention agreements should apply only where the AHP 
subsidy is used for rehabilitation without an accompanying purchase of 
the unit.
    FHFA noted in the NPRM that the purpose of retention agreements is 
to deter flipping of homes, and also discussed the moral hazard risk 
that may be associated with the use of subsidy intended to provide 
housing to low- or moderate-income households to flip properties. 
However, as also noted in the NPRM, homes purchased by AHP-assisted 
households are not typically located in neighborhoods with rapidly 
appreciating house prices that would encourage flipping, and most AHP-
assisted households do not sell their homes during the five-year 
retention period. Moreover, the NPRM indicated that the underlying 
policy of the AHP is to enable low- and moderate-income households to 
receive the benefits of homeownership, including appreciation in the 
value of their homes, which would weigh in favor of a reduction in the 
amount of subsidy repaid by the household when selling or refinancing 
the unit.
    Comments. The NPRM specifically requested comments on the 
advantages and disadvantages of the AHP owner-occupied retention 
agreement, whether eliminating it would impact FHFA's ability to ensure 
that AHP funds are being used for the statutorily intended purposes, 
whether there are ways to deter flipping other than a retention 
agreement, and whether the proposed increase in the maximum permissible 
grant to households from $15,000 to $22,000 under the Homeownership 
Set-Aside Program should impact the decision on whether to eliminate 
retention agreements.
    The majority of commenters who addressed the proposal to eliminate 
the requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements generally 
opposed it. A number of nonprofit advocacy organizations asserted that 
elimination of owner-occupied retention agreements would, by increasing 
homeowner equity, expose subsidy recipients to greater risks of fraud 
and abuse by predatory lenders and unscrupulous investors. These 
commenters also stated that the use of owner-occupied retention 
agreements has played an important role in preventing waste and abuse 
of AHP subsidies for homeownership.
    Several nonprofit organizations asserted that retention agreements 
play an important role in deterring property flipping. These commenters 
noted that organizations that provide access for homeownership 
opportunities to lower-income families frequently employ retention 
agreements, often in the form of subordinate liens. They stated that 
this strategy has proven extremely effective in protecting homeowners 
from predatory lenders and preventing the loss of homeowner equity and 
subsidies through flipping. They suggested that FHFA provide the Banks 
with discretion on whether to use retention agreements as the Banks 
deem appropriate, to ensure protection of homeowner equity and AHP 
subsidies. A state housing

[[Page 61193]]

agency emphasized the benefits of having owner-occupied retention 
agreements when recipients receive substantial amounts of grant funds. 
Although one of the Banks discounted property flipping as a substantial 
risk, the Bank stated that predatory lending does pose risks for AHP-
assisted households.
    A nonprofit organization commented that while flipping in the AHP 
may be rare, it is rare precisely because of the retention agreement 
and not because homes purchased by AHP-assisted households are not 
typically located in neighborhoods with rapidly appreciating housing 
prices, as FHFA indicated in the NPRM. The commenter stated that it has 
seen evidence of flipping and other forms of fraud (specifically, the 
use of ``straw buyers''), and that these material risks are largely 
unrecognized because of the effectiveness of retention agreements like 
those in the AHP.
    Several commenters, including all of the Banks and a number of 
nonprofit organizations, recommended that FHFA authorize the Banks to 
use retention agreements in their discretion, based on criteria 
determined by each Bank, which would enable the Banks to address the 
different housing markets both across and within their districts, 
differences in eligible uses of AHP grants (e.g., down payment, closing 
costs, rehabilitation), and grant amounts among the Banks' General 
Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. The Banks stated that their 
Bank Advisory Councils and boards of directors have the necessary 
experience, knowledge, and familiarity with local real estate markets 
to determine whether the need for retention agreements exists in each 
market. Several of the Banks indicated that, if given the discretion, 
they would choose not to use retention agreements.
    One Bank and a commercial lender specifically opposed requiring 
retention agreements where AHP subsidies are used for rehabilitation of 
units for elderly households and special needs households, such as 
persons with disabilities. The Bank noted that changes in circumstances 
related to households' ages or health could affect their need to sell 
their homes, and retention agreements requiring repayment of AHP 
subsidy upon sale would unduly burden these households.
    Decision in the final rule. In a significant change from the 
proposed rule, the final rule retains the current requirement for 
owner-occupied retention agreements where a household uses the AHP 
subsidy for purchase, or for purchase in conjunction with 
rehabilitation, of a unit, but eliminates the requirement for an owner-
occupied retention agreement where a household uses the AHP subsidy for 
rehabilitation without an accompanying purchase.
    Many of the commenters tied their strong support for owner-occupied 
retention agreements to their view that the agreements help deter 
flipping or other types of fraud, although neither supporting data nor 
studies were provided to support those views. Due to the volume of 
comments FHFA received, particularly from organizations with extensive 
experience with the AHP and similar programs that offer comparable 
homeownership assistance, FHFA is persuaded that retention agreements 
may play a relevant role in deterring abuse and flipping, as well as 
protecting homeowners from predatory schemes. The use of retention 
agreements in connection with AHP subsidies provided for home purchase, 
and rehabilitation with an accompanying purchase, aligns with 
approaches of other down payment assistance providers that require 
retention agreements for purchase of homes, including the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) HOME Investment 
Partnerships Program (HOME), certain private lenders, and state and 
local agencies. However, as further discussed below under Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7) in Section IV., the final rule adopts several 
requirements for owner-occupied retention agreements that are intended 
to ease the operational burdens on the Banks and members, and reduce 
the financial burden on AHP-assisted households, by minimizing the 
frequency and amount of AHP subsidy repayments by such households.
    In contrast, where the AHP subsidy is used solely for 
rehabilitation of homes, with no accompanying purchase, flipping of the 
homes is unlikely. Many of the recipients of AHP subsidy for 
rehabilitation are long-term homeowners, typically elderly households 
or persons with disabilities. These homeowners often need AHP funds for 
rehabilitation of their homes, such as installing a wheelchair ramp or 
repairing a leaky roof, to enable them to remain in their homes and, 
therefore, are less likely to move from their homes within a five-year 
period. In addition, the requirement to repay AHP subsidy may impose a 
financial burden on such households in the event that they are required 
to sell their homes to pay expenses associated with a change in life 
circumstances, such as the need to move to an assisted living facility 
or nursing home.

E. Clarification of the ``Cure-First'' Requirement for Project 
Noncompliance

    Final rule. The final rule adopts the sequence of remedial steps in 
the event of project noncompliance set forth in the proposed rule, with 
clarification of the ``cure-first'' step to indicate that a project 
sponsor or owner must make a reasonable effort to cure the 
noncompliance, and if the noncompliance cannot be cured within a 
reasonable period of time, the Bank must proceed to the next step of 
evaluating the project for a modification.
    Current regulation. The current regulation specifies three types of 
remedial actions to address AHP project noncompliance resulting from 
the actions or omissions of a project sponsor or project owner, but 
does not specify the order in which a Bank must pursue these remedies. 
The remedial actions are: (1) Cure by the project sponsor or owner of 
the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time; (2) modification 
of the terms of the approved AHP application; or (3) recovery of the 
AHP subsidy or settlement for less than the full amount of subsidy due. 
FHFA may require the Bank to reimburse its AHP Fund in the amount of 
the shortfall, unless: (1) The Bank has sufficient documentation 
showing that the sum agreed to be repaid under the settlement is 
reasonably justified, based on the facts and circumstances of the 
noncompliance; or (2) the Bank obtains a determination from FHFA that 
the sum agreed to be repaid under the settlement is reasonably 
justified, based on the facts and circumstances of the noncompliance.
    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would require the following 
sequence of remedial steps in the event of project noncompliance: (1) 
The project sponsor or owner must cure the noncompliance within a 
reasonable period of time; (2) if the project sponsor or owner cannot 
cure the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, the Bank 
must determine whether the circumstances of the noncompliance can be 
eliminated through a modification of the terms of the approved 
application under proposed Sec.  1291.27; and (3) if the circumstances 
of the noncompliance cannot be eliminated through a cure or 
modification, the Bank (or member if so delegated) shall make a demand 
on the project sponsor or owner for repayment of the full amount of the 
AHP not used in compliance with the AHP application commitments, and if 
that demand is unsuccessful, the member, in

[[Page 61194]]

consultation with the Bank, shall make reasonable efforts to collect 
the AHP subsidy from the project sponsor or owner, which may include 
settlement for less than the full amount due. The NPRM emphasized the 
importance of first requiring the project sponsor or owner to cure 
project noncompliance within a reasonable timeframe, stating that the 
objective of the AHP is to provide affordable housing for eligible 
households for the duration of the AHP retention period, so recovery of 
AHP subsidy should be the last resort. Cure of noncompliance is 
preferable to modification of the commitments in the AHP application or 
recovery of AHP subsidy as it holds the project sponsor to its AHP 
application commitments, which result in greater benefits to eligible 
households than if the commitments are reduced through modification or 
eliminated by recovery of the subsidy.
    The proposed rule also would have added a new section addressing 
remedial actions that FHFA could take if a Bank failed to comply with 
the proposed outcome requirements and FHFA determined that compliance 
was feasible. The proposed remedial authority would have included: 
Requiring the Bank to develop and implement a housing plan approved by 
FHFA; describing the specific actions the Bank will take to comply with 
the outcome requirements for the next calendar year; or requiring the 
Bank to reimburse its AHP Fund for the difference in the amount of AHP 
funds required to meet the outcome requirements and the amount the Bank 
actually awarded.
    Comments. The Agency received numerous comments expressing concern 
about the proposed ``cure-first'' requirement for addressing project 
noncompliance. Commenters asserted that the Banks can address 
compliance issues more effectively and efficiently through modification 
of the project's application commitments. The Banks and a nonprofit 
homeless services agency stated that the ``cure-first'' requirement 
might increase costs and delay disbursement of funds, and the nonprofit 
organization indicated that it could result in termination of a project 
in a tight housing market like Boston. Other commenters expressed 
concern that a ``cure-first'' requirement would force developers to 
make ``feigned attempts'' to cure unresolvable issues. A nonprofit 
developer asserted that the proposal for subsidy repayment would not 
take into account the cause of the failure of a project, including 
fires or earthquakes. The Bank Advisory Councils commented that some 
projects naturally meet the ``good cause'' requirement for modification 
because the project sponsors, owners, or members have no control over 
the noncompliance.
    A trade association stated that a ``cure-first'' requirement could 
cause problems for members that provide equity for projects or that 
have committed construction or permanent financing. A nonprofit 
organization commented that focusing on curing noncompliance first 
might result in displacement of residents from the project.
    Decision in the final rule. Modification of a project's AHP 
application commitments should not be the first option for a Bank to 
address project noncompliance. Inherent in a competitive application 
program is an award recipient's responsibility to fulfill the 
commitments in its application. A Bank should expect and require 
project sponsors or owners to make a reasonable effort to comply with 
their AHP application commitments before agreeing to modify a project. 
It is also preferable that recovery of AHP subsidy be the last option 
for curing noncompliance because the objective of the AHP is to provide 
affordable housing for eligible households for the duration of the AHP 
retention period. If subsidy is repaid for noncompliant units for the 
remainder of the AHP retention period, those units would no longer be 
subject to AHP income targeting and rent restrictions.
    Commenters described, and FHFA acknowledges, that there are cases 
where sound reasons exist for why a project sponsor or owner may be 
unable to meet its AHP application commitments. Further, there may be 
cases where project sponsors or owners cannot cure noncompliance 
because it is beyond their control to cure. However, commenters 
appeared to misread the language of the proposed ``cure-first'' 
provision to require project sponsors or owners to cure noncompliance 
regardless of the causes of the noncompliance, including noncompliance 
beyond their control to cure, thereby preventing the Banks from moving 
to modifications as a remedy for the noncompliance. This was not the 
intent of the proposed ``cure-first'' provision, as indicated by the 
language in the following paragraph of the proposed rule stating that 
``[i]f the project sponsor or project owner cannot cure the 
noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, the Bank shall 
determine whether the circumstances of the noncompliance can be 
eliminated through a modification . . . .'' If cure of the 
noncompliance is beyond the control of the project sponsor or owner, 
they may be unable to cure the noncompliance within a reasonable period 
of time. The project sponsor or owner does not have to try to cure 
noncompliance that is incurable; it would simply provide a reasonable 
written justification to the Bank indicating why it could not cure the 
noncompliance. If the justification is reasonable, the Bank would then 
evaluate whether it could approve a modification under the rule's 
modification requirements.
    In view of the apparent misunderstanding of the ``cure-first'' 
provision, FHFA has clarified the language in Sec. Sec.  1291.29(a)(1) 
and 1291.60(b)(1) of the final rule by adding that project sponsors or 
owners must ``make a reasonable effort'' to cure the noncompliance, and 
adding a statement immediately following that one that if the 
noncompliance cannot be cured within a reasonable period of time, the 
requirements for a modification in the next paragraph shall apply.
    Because the final rule does not adopt the proposed outcome-based 
scoring framework, the proposed remedial actions for failure to meet 
the outcome requirements are moot and, thus, not adopted in the final 
rule. Other remedies provisions related to AHP noncompliance are 
discussed below under Sec. Sec.  1291.60 through 1291.65 in Section IV.

F. Responsibility of Full Board of Directors for Strategic AHP 
Decisions

    Final rule. In a change from the proposed rule, the final rule 
retains the current authority for a Bank's board of directors to 
delegate to a board committee the responsibility to meet quarterly with 
the Bank Advisory Council, and to approve or disapprove applications 
for AHP subsidies and alternates. Consistent with the proposed rule, 
the final rule adopts the proposed prohibition on a Bank's board 
delegating to a board committee the responsibility to approve General 
Fund, Targeted Fund, and Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies, the 
AHP Implementation Plan, and the TCLP.
    Current regulation. The current regulation provides that a Bank's 
Advisory Council shall meet with representatives of the Bank's board of 
directors at least quarterly to provide advice on ways in which the 
Bank can better carry out its housing finance and community lending 
mission, and permits that responsibility to be delegated to a committee 
of the board but not to Bank officers or other Bank employees. The 
requirement for board representatives to meet quarterly with

[[Page 61195]]

the Bank Advisory Council is a Bank Act requirement.\9\ The current 
regulation also permits the board to delegate to a committee of the 
board, but not to Bank officers or other Bank employees, the 
responsibility to appoint the Bank Advisory Council members. In 
addition, the current regulation permits the board to delegate the 
responsibility for approving or disapproving AHP applications and 
alternates, and for adopting its AHP Implementation Plan, Homeownership 
Set-Aside Program, and conflict of interest policies, to a committee of 
the board, but not to Bank officers or other Bank employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would have extended the existing 
prohibition on the board delegating certain AHP responsibilities to 
Bank officers and other Bank employees to include a prohibition on 
delegating such responsibilities to board committees. Specifically, the 
full board, instead of a board committee, would have been required to 
meet quarterly with the Bank Advisory Council, to approve General Fund, 
Targeted Fund, and Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies, to approve 
and amend the AHP Implementation Plan and the TCLP, and to approve or 
disapprove applications for AHP subsidies and alternates. As stated in 
the NPRM, the goal of the proposed non-delegation provisions was to 
engage the full board in developing and adopting strategic decisions 
for the AHP, as part of the overall strategic planning of the Bank. 
FHFA noted that while it anticipated that the AHP responsibilities 
currently assigned to the board committees would remain largely 
unchanged in response to the proposal, the full board would have more 
engagement with board committee recommendations and decisions.
    Comments. A number of commenters disagreed with the Agency's 
rationale for encouraging full board engagement in AHP strategic 
responsibilities. They stated that involving more board members in the 
intricacies of AHP organizational planning and reporting would dilute 
the influence and housing expertise of the board committees tasked with 
AHP responsibilities. They stated that the proposal would create 
inefficiencies and could result in less integration of the board 
committees' contributions into the board's decisions on Bank housing 
activities than the existing practices employed by the Banks. One Bank 
stated that a board's ability to use board committees effectively, 
including the ability to delegate AHP responsibilities to a board 
committee, is a fundamental component of board governance best 
practices, and the proposal would be an unnecessary encroachment on the 
boards' ability to oversee Bank operations.
    Several Banks and their Bank Advisory Councils described the Banks' 
board committee structures and corporate governance principles to 
demonstrate that their full boards are fully engaged and aware of all 
AHP responsibilities and initiatives. A number of commenters stated 
that the Banks' AHP governance structures and processes work 
effectively, with the board housing committees providing reports to the 
full board. A Bank cited FHFA's regulation at 12 CFR 1239.3, which 
authorizes the Banks to model their corporate governance and 
indemnification practices on the Revised Model Business Corporation Act 
(RMBCA), as support for maintaining the existing AHP regulatory 
requirements concerning board delegations. The Bank also referred to 
FHFA's regulation at 12 CFR 1239.5, which permits the boards to appoint 
board committees to carry out much of the board's responsibilities. The 
Bank stated that under the RMBCA, the full board must consider only 
those activities that ``so substantially affect the rights of the 
shareholders or are so fundamental to the governance of the 
corporation.'' The Bank further stated that delegation is a fundamental 
concept of efficient and competent corporate governance.
    Numerous commenters opposed requiring a Bank's full board, rather 
than a committee of the board, to meet with the Bank's Advisory Council 
each quarter. The Banks focused on the challenges and inconveniences of 
requiring quarterly meetings of the full boards and Bank Advisory 
Councils. Some commenters stated that quarterly meetings with the full 
boards would be inefficient and unnecessarily costly, requiring Bank 
Advisory Council members to spend additional time away from their 
primary jobs in affordable housing and economic development.
    Commenters also expressed concern that the proposal would reduce 
the influence and expertise of the Bank Advisory Councils. They pointed 
out that the board members who are not on the board housing committees 
possess different areas of expertise and, as a result, may not have the 
backgrounds necessary to engage fully in housing policy discussions 
with the Bank Advisory Councils. Commenters noted that some Banks hold 
annual meetings of the full board and Bank Advisory Council members, 
and their board housing committees meet quarterly with the Bank 
Advisory Councils and provide reports on the meetings to the full 
board. Commenters also stated that the proposed approach would be more 
restrictive than the governing statutory provision, which requires each 
Bank's Advisory Council to meet quarterly with ``representatives of'' 
the board of directors.
    Decisions in the final rule. After considering the comments, FHFA 
has decided to retain in the final rule the current authority for the 
Bank's board to delegate to a board committee the responsibility to 
meet quarterly with the Bank's Advisory Council. FHFA is persuaded by 
the comments about the costs, inconveniences, and inefficiencies of 
holding the quarterly meetings with the full board, the value of 
quarterly off-site meetings with board committees, and the language in 
the statute referencing ``representatives of'' the board. The final 
rule also retains the authority for the Bank's board to delegate to a 
board committee the responsibility to approve or disapprove 
applications for AHP subsidies and alternates. Approval or disapproval 
of AHP applications is based on scoring rankings under the Bank's 
scoring system and not on strategic policy decisions.
    However, the Banks' full boards should be responsible for approving 
all strategic AHP policy decisions. Consistent with 12 CFR 1239.5, the 
board may rely on reports from board committees, but under the final 
rule, the authority to approve strategic policy decisions resides with 
the full board. As noted by commenters, the board committees, whose 
members have special housing expertise, perform an important role in 
the AHP strategic policymaking process by evaluating and developing 
policy recommendations, and FHFA expects their involvement in this 
process to continue. However, instead of the board committees approving 
strategic policy decisions on behalf of the full board, the board 
committees will need to report their policy recommendations to the full 
board for its approval or disapproval. The specific AHP strategic 
policy decisions that will need to be approved by the full board are 
approval of General Fund, Targeted Fund and Homeownership Set-Aside 
Program policies, and approval and amendment of the AHP Implementation 
Plan and the TCLP.

[[Page 61196]]

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Community Support Requirements Regulation

    This section discusses the final rule's changes to the current 
Community Support Requirements regulation.
Sec.  1290.6 Bank Community Support Programs
    Final rule. The final rule requires the Banks to identify in their 
TCLPs the housing needs the Banks plan to address in their AHPs, 
including the particular housing needs they plan to address through any 
Targeted Funds. The Banks must publish their TCLPs at least 90 days 
before the initial date for submission of applications for the 
application funding round for the specific Targeted Fund. Targeted 
Funds addressing federal- or state-declared disasters are exempt from 
the 90-day requirement.
    Current regulation. FHFA's current Community Support Requirements 
regulation requires the Banks to adopt annual TCLPs in conjunction with 
their responsibility to establish and maintain community support 
programs.\10\ The Banks' TCLPs must describe how each Bank plans to 
address identified credit needs and market opportunities in its 
district. The Banks are required to consult with their Bank Advisory 
Councils, members, housing associates, and public and private economic 
development organizations when developing and implementing their TCLPs. 
Although the Banks are required to provide an annual notice to their 
members about their community support programs, they are not required 
to make their TCLPs available to their members or to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 12 CFR 1290.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule. The proposed rule would amend Sec.  1290.6(a)(5) to 
enhance the function and usefulness of the TCLPs, as well as improve 
the TCLPs' connection to the Banks' strategies for implementing their 
AHPs. The proposal would require the Banks to identify and assess in 
their TCLPs the significant affordable housing needs in their 
districts, reflecting market research and supported by empirical data, 
and would have required the Banks to specify, from among those housing 
needs, the specific housing needs the Banks would address through their 
funding allocations and scoring criteria under their General Funds and 
any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, as set forth 
in their AHP Implementation Plans. The Banks would continue to be 
required to develop their TCLPs in conjunction with the stakeholders 
referenced above. The Banks would also be required to publish their 
TCLPs on their public websites within 30 days of approval by the Bank's 
board of directors, and at least six months before the beginning of the 
Plan year. Proposed Sec.  1291.20(b)(1) would have prohibited a Bank 
from establishing or administering a Targeted Fund unless at least 12 
months had passed since publication of its TCLP. The purpose of the 12-
month notice requirement was to provide potential project sponsor 
applicants with ample notice of the Banks' plans to target AHP awards 
to a narrower pool of potential applicants so that the project sponsors 
could prepare applications for submission to the Targeted Fund, with 
the goal being to generate sufficient numbers of applications for the 
Bank to be able to conduct a robust competitive scoring process for the 
Targeted Fund. The proposed rule would also prohibit a Bank's board of 
directors from delegating the responsibility for adopting or amending 
the TCLP to a committee of the board.
    Comments. FHFA specifically requested comments on the benefits of 
the proposed expansion of the contents of the TCLPs and their linkage 
to the AHP Implementation Plans. FHFA also requested comments on 
whether the proposed expansion would impede the Banks' ability to 
respond to disasters through the AHP. The commenters who responded to 
the proposal generally opposed it, stating that the proposed 
requirements would be overly prescriptive and burdensome. The Banks, a 
state government entity, and a nonprofit developer particularly 
criticized the seeming disconnect between the timing requirements for 
the TCLP and those of other sources of funding, such as housing finance 
agencies. Several commenters advised that the proposed 12-month and 6-
month notice periods would conflict with the Banks' need for 
flexibility in responding to disasters. One Bank calculated that it 
would take approximately one to two years of advance work to meet the 
required lead time in the proposed rule when factoring in time for 
conducting research, obtaining the necessary internal Bank approvals, 
and publishing the TCLP.
    The Banks commented that FHFA's proposed outcomes requirements for 
project selection would effectively establish each Bank's housing needs 
priorities, obviating any need to conduct market research, obtain 
empirical data, and expand the content of the TCLPs. Several Banks and 
a Bank Advisory Council expressed concern that the proposal could 
diminish the role of the Bank Advisory Councils, but indicated that it 
may add value to the process if FHFA abandoned the proposed outcomes 
requirements for project selection. The Banks and the Bank Advisory 
Councils also expressed concerns about the proposed requirement to 
obtain empirical data about the housing needs in the districts, which 
they viewed as diminishing the Bank Advisory Councils role in advising 
the Banks' boards of directors. Two Banks opposed the proposed 
notification requirement to obtain empirical data because gathering and 
assessing the data would prevent the Bank from responding quickly to 
use the AHP for disaster relief. A nonprofit affordable housing 
intermediary opposed the proposed requirement to obtain empirical data 
on the grounds that the requirement would add a burden to the Banks and 
would not prove useful in making decisions about how to direct AHP 
funding because of the extent of housing needs throughout districts. A 
national affordable housing policy and advocacy organization 
recommended that the Banks be required to consult with state housing 
finance agencies in developing their TCLPs.
    Decisions in the final rule. FHFA has considered the comments and 
remains of the opinion that the Banks's TCLPs should identify and 
assess the significant affordable housing needs in their districts. The 
changes to the current requirements for developing the TCLPs will help 
to ensure that the Banks identify such housing needs and guide the 
Banks in deciding how to design their AHPs.
    The final rule requires the Banks to identify, from among the 
affordable housing needs addressed in their TCLPs, the housing needs 
they plan to address through the Banks' AHP, and including the specific 
needs to be addressed by any Targeted Funds. This differs from the 
proposed rule, which would have required each Bank to identify in its 
TCLP the specific housing needs it planned to address through the 
Bank's funding allocations and scoring criteria under its General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs in its AHP 
Implementation Plan. FHFA had proposed that the Banks expand the scope 
and specificity of their TCLPs in conjunction with the outcome-based 
approach for project selection. Because the final rule does not adopt 
the outcome-based approach, there is no longer a need to require the 
Banks to include detailed information about their General Funds and 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs in their TCLPs.

[[Page 61197]]

    In addition, the final rule removes the proposed requirement that 
the Banks support the identification and assessment of significant 
affordable housing needs with empirical data, in response to 
commenters' concerns that this would be burdensome for Banks to 
implement. Many of the Banks were concerned that the word ``empirical'' 
implied that the Banks would be required to commission third-party 
studies to determine district affordable housing needs. However, the 
final rule continues to require that the Banks assess market research 
they conduct or obtain in order to identify significant affordable 
housing needs in their districts. Banks can also obtain information 
from their Advisory Councils to support their market research.
    The final rule continues to require the Banks to consult with their 
Bank Advisory Councils, members, housing associates, and public and 
private economic development organizations in developing their TCLPs, 
which should ensure a robust process for obtaining input on the TCLPs. 
In response to the comment that the Banks should also consult with 
state housing finance agencies in developing their TCLPs, those 
entities likely are housing associates, as defined under FHFA's General 
Definitions regulation,\11\ so the final rule makes no change to this 
language in the Community Support Requirements regulation. A Bank may 
also choose to consult with other parties not referenced in the 
regulation as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 CFR part 1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, FHFA agrees with commenters' concerns about the proposed 
six-month requirement for publishing the TCLPs. The commenters stated 
that the proposed six-month requirement would inhibit the Banks' 
abilities to respond to district affordable housing needs, including 
disasters, in a timely manner. The six-month requirement was proposed 
in conjunction with the Agency's proposal for an outcome-based 
framework for project selection. Under the proposed outcome-based 
approach, a Bank would have been required to identify in its TCLP the 
specific housing needs the Bank intended to address through its funding 
allocations and scoring criteria under its General Fund and any 
Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, as set forth in 
its AHP Implementation Plan. FHFA presumed that the Banks and other 
stakeholders would need additional time between the publication of the 
TCLPs and the beginning of the AHP application funding round to develop 
or revise AHP policies and procedures for inclusion in their AHP 
Implementation Plans, and conduct outreach to educate members, 
potential project sponsor applicants, and other AHP stakeholders about 
the Bank's revised scoring system. However, as discussed under Section 
III.A. above, the final rule does not adopt the proposed outcome-based 
approach. Therefore, there is no need to require the Banks to publish 
their TCLPs 12 months before the beginning of the TCLP year. Instead, 
the final rule requires the Banks to publish their TCLPs no later than 
the publication date of their AHP Implementation Plans. This should 
provide the Banks sufficient time to develop and publish their TCLPs, 
while underscoring the linkage between the TCLPs and the AHP 
Implementation Plans.
    As noted above, the proposed rule would have required a Bank 
planning to establish a Targeted Fund to publish its TCLP at least 12 
months before establishing and administering the Targeted Fund. FHFA 
finds commenters' concerns persuasive that this proposed timeframe 
would impede the Banks' ability to address pressing affordable housing 
needs, including natural disasters. Accordingly, the final rule sets 
the time period for publishing a TCLP that addresses the use of 
Targeted Funds as 90 days before the opening of the AHP application 
funding round, with an exemption for Targeted Funds addressing federal- 
or state-declared disasters, as they require expedited assistance. 
Because most Banks' TCLP years typically begin on January 1, the final 
rule does not tie the 90-day timeframe to January 1, which would result 
in the Banks having to publish their TCLPs by September 30 each year. 
Instead, the final rule ties the 90-day timeframe to the first day AHP 
applications can be submitted for the funding rounds for the Targeted 
Funds, which may be different dates throughout the year and be open for 
different lengths of time. This will provide the Banks more flexibility 
in administering their Targeted Funds. While significantly shorter than 
12 months, the 90-day timeframe should still provide potential 
applicants with sufficient notice of the Banks' plans for their 
Targeted Funds so that applicants can prepare applications for 
submission to the Targeted Funds, with the goal being to produce 
sufficient numbers of applications for the Banks to be able to conduct 
robust competitive scoring processes for their Targeted Funds.
    As discussed under Section III.F. above, the final rule adopts the 
proposal prohibiting a Bank's board of directors from delegating the 
responsibility for adopting or amending the TCLP to a committee of the 
board.
Sec.  1290.8 Compliance Dates
    The dates by which the Banks must comply with these revised 
provisions are discussed above in Section I.

Affordable Housing Program Regulation

Reorganization of the Current AHP Regulation

    The final rule adopts the proposed reorganization of the current 
AHP regulation, with some modifications to take into account certain 
changes from provisions in the proposed rule. The reorganization is 
intended to provide greater clarity for users of the AHP regulation. 
Current and new regulatory sections are grouped under new Subpart 
headings according to similar subject matter, resulting in renumbering 
of most sections of the current regulation. The numbering of the 
sections is not consecutive from Subpart to Subpart in order to reserve 
room within Subparts for the addition of new sections in the future, as 
necessary. FHFA received no comments on the proposed reorganization of 
the regulation.
    The following discusses each section of the final rule amending the 
current AHP regulation in the order the sections appear in the final 
rule.
Subpart A--General
Sec.  1291.1 Definitions
    As proposed, the final rule retains most of the definitions 
currently in Sec.  1291.1. The final rule revises some of the current 
definitions and adds definitions, which are discussed below in the 
context of the related regulatory amendments.
    In addition, as proposed, the final rule makes the following 
technical changes to certain definitions, which did not receive any 
comments:
     A definition of ``AHP'' is added, which means the 
Affordable Housing Program required to be established by the Banks 
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1430(j) and this part 1291.
     The definition of ``Homeownership Set-Aside Program'' 
indicates that establishment of such a program is in the Bank's 
discretion and is a noncompetitive program.
     The definition of ``net earnings of a Bank'' is revised by 
removing the requirement to deduct the Bank's annual contribution to 
the Resolution Funding Corporation, as the Banks are no longer required 
to make annual contributions to the Resolution Funding Corporation.
     In the definition of ``rental project,'' the term 
``manufactured housing'' is

[[Page 61198]]

changed to ``manufactured housing communities,'' which more accurately 
describes this type of housing in the context of rental projects.
     References to the ``competitive application program'' are 
changed to the General Fund and any Targeted Funds. References to 
``homeownership set-aside programs'' are capitalized.
    The final rule also makes the following technical revisions and an 
addition to the definitions for greater clarity, which were not 
included in the proposed rule:
     Changes ``funding period'' to ``funding round'' to reflect 
the terminology commonly used by the Banks and AHP stakeholders. Adds a 
definition of ``LIHTC'' to mean Low-Income Housing Tax Credits under 
section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 42).
     In the definition of ``visitable,'' the reference to ``2 
feet, 10 inches'' is changed to the equivalent ``34 inches,'' 
consistent with the use of ``inches'' later in the definition.
Sec.  1291.2 Compliance Dates
    The dates by which the Banks must comply with the revised AHP 
regulatory provisions are discussed above in Section I.
Subpart B--Program Administration and Governance
Sec.  1291.10 Required Annual AHP Contribution
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates current 
Sec.  1291.2(a) to Sec.  1291.10. Section 1291.10 contains the Bank Act 
requirement stating that each Bank shall contribute annually to its AHP 
10 percent of its net income for the preceding year, subject to a 
minimum annual combined contribution by all of the Banks of $100 
million.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(5)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1291.11 Temporary Suspension of AHP Contributions
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule retains current 
Sec.  1291.11 on the temporary suspension of AHP contributions without 
change. FHFA did not receive any comments on this provision.
Sec.  1291.12 Allocation of Required Annual AHP Contribution
    Allocation of AHP funds. Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  
1291.12(a) of the final rule requires each Bank to allocate annually at 
least 50 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to its General 
Fund, and Sec.  1291.12(c) permits each Bank to allocate up to 40 
percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution to 
up to three Targeted Funds. The current regulation requires that at 
least 65 percent of each Bank's required annual AHP contribution be 
allocated to its Competitive Application Program. As noted in Section 
III.B. above, the current regulation does not authorize the 
establishment of Targeted Funds.
    For the reasons identified above in Section III.C., Sec.  
1291.12(b) of the final rule retains the current limit that a Bank may 
allocate to its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs up to the greater of 
$4.5 million or 35 percent of its annual required AHP contribution. The 
proposed rule would have increased the 35 percent limit to 40 percent.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the proposed rule would reduce the 
current annual required allocation to a Bank's General Fund (i.e., 
Competitive Application Program) from 65 percent to 50 percent, but 
noted that the 50 percent threshold would still ensure that the Banks 
make at least half of their AHP funds available to address a broad 
spectrum of affordable housing needs within their districts through 
their General Funds. FHFA also stated in the NPRM that it is extremely 
important that a substantial portion of AHP funds continue to assist in 
the development of rental housing for lower income households given the 
need for more affordable rental housing throughout the Nation. The vast 
majority of awards under the Competitive Application Program serve 
rental housing. In 2017, the Banks awarded 90 percent of competitive 
funds to rental housing. The proposal would enable the Banks to target 
simultaneously additional specific affordable housing needs in their 
districts through the allocation of the remaining total AHP funds to 
Targeted Funds, as well as the optional Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs.
    Two nonprofit organizations that advocate for the development of 
affordable multifamily housing opposed any reduction in the minimum 
funding allocation to the General Fund because it would result in less 
funding for affordable rental projects. One of those commenters 
supported this position by referencing the NPRM discussion about the 
Banks' requests for additional funding allocation authority for 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, which the Banks find easier to 
administer than the General Funds.
    After considering the comments, FHFA has decided to adopt the 
proposed minimum 50 percent funding allocation requirement for the 
General Fund in the final rule. FHFA's decision not to increase the 
maximum percentage allocation for the optional Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs from 35 to 40 percent will continue to ensure that each Bank 
generally allocates a minimum of 65 percent of its total AHP funds to 
competitive application programs via the mandatory General Fund and any 
optional Targeted Funds.\13\ Overall, FHFA intends the final rule to 
provide the Banks greater flexibility to allocate their total annual 
AHP funds to address the affordable rental and homeownership needs 
within their districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ When a Bank allocates the alternate maximum amount of $4.5 
million to its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, the Bank may 
allocate, in the aggregate, less than 65 percent of its total AHP 
funds to its General Fund and any Targeted Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homeownership Set-Aside Programs
    One-third funding allocation requirement for first-time homebuyers 
or owner-occupied rehabilitation, or a combination of both.
    Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.12(b) of the final 
rule requires that at least one-third of a Bank's aggregate annual 
funding allocation to its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs be allocated 
to assist first-time homebuyers or households for owner-occupied 
rehabilitation, or a combination of both. The current regulation 
applies the one-third funding allocation requirement only to first-time 
homebuyers. In support of the proposal, FHFA noted in the NPRM that a 
substantial need for owner-occupied rehabilitation funds exists in many 
Bank districts, and the demand for such funds is likely to increase as 
the country's population ages.\14\ FHFA reasoned that expanding the 
scope of the one-third funding allocation requirement to include owner-
occupied rehabilitation could facilitate additional funding for home 
repairs and accessibility modifications for households including the 
elderly, persons with disabilities, and military veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 83 FR at 11348, citing Harvard Joint Center for Housing 
Studies, Housing America's Older Adults (Sept. 2, 2014), available 
at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs-housing_americas_older_adults_2014-ch4.pdf (last accessed on 11/15/
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Banks, Bank Advisory Councils, and an advocacy organization 
supported the proposal, stating that it would encourage the use of more 
Homeownership Set-Aside Program funds for owner-occupied rehabilitation 
at a time when the Banks have identified a substantial need for these 
funds.
    Two nonprofit organizations opposed the proposal, emphasizing the 
scarcity of resources for low- and moderate-income first-time 
homebuyers and noting that alternatives to AHP funding

[[Page 61199]]

exist for rehabilitation. One of these commenters recommended that FHFA 
establish a separate funding allocation requirement for owner-occupied 
rehabilitation to ensure that a portion of Homeownership Set-Aside 
Program funds are provided for this purpose, while allowing the Banks 
to continue to fulfill the one-third allocation requirement by 
providing set-aside funds to first-time homebuyers.
    Assisting first-time homebuyers is an important priority for the 
AHP, and the Banks' support for such homebuyers has greatly exceeded 
the required one-third funding allocation requirement. Since the 
inception of Homeownership Set-Aside Programs in 1995, over 80 percent 
of set-aside households have been first-time homebuyers. At the same 
time, a substantial need for owner-occupied rehabilitation funds exists 
in many Bank districts and the demand will likely increase over time. 
Expanding the scope of the one-third funding allocation requirement in 
the final rule to permit owner-occupied rehabilitation may help address 
this need by encouraging the Banks to increase their set-aside funding 
allocations for this purpose, while continuing to support the needs of 
first-time homebuyers. FHFA is not adopting the commenter's 
recommendation to establish a separate funding allocation requirement 
for owner-occupied rehabilitation, as this could limit the Banks' 
flexibility to determine how best to use their set-aside funds to meet 
the first-time homebuyer and owner-occupied rehabilitation needs within 
their districts.
    The final rule also adopts a proposed technical revision to clarify 
that the one-third funding allocation requirement applies to the amount 
of set-aside funds ``allocated'' by the Bank to such households, not to 
the amount of set-aside funds actually used by them, because the Bank 
cannot control whether sufficient numbers of such households ultimately 
request set-aside funds in a given year. If an insufficient number of 
such households request set-aside subsidies, any unused funds would be 
provided to non-first-time homebuyers, and a Bank will not be 
considered in violation of the funding allocation requirement as long 
as it allocated the required amount. FHFA received no comments on this 
proposed technical change.
    Phase-in funding allocation requirements for Targeted Funds. As 
proposed, Sec.  1291.12(c) of the final rule adopts a phase-in process 
for the allocation of funds to Targeted Funds in order to address the 
risks of Targeted Funds given their targeted nature. A Bank initially 
will be permitted to allocate up to 20 percent of its required annual 
AHP contribution to one Targeted Fund. This percentage limit increases 
to 30 and 40 percent in subsequent years, depending on the number of 
additional Targeted Funds established, up to a maximum of three 
Targeted Funds. The final rule makes a technical change to the 
references to the Targeted Funds being administered concurrently to 
refer to their administration in the same year instead. This change 
recognizes that the Banks may choose to administer their Targeted Funds 
at different times during the year. FHFA did not receive any comments 
on the proposed phase-in requirements for funding Targeted Funds. The 
phase-in requirements governing the number of Targeted Funds that a 
Bank may establish in any given year are discussed below under Sec.  
1291.20.
    Transfer of uncommitted Targeted Funds amounts. Proposed Sec.  
1291.12(c)(2) would have required a Bank to transfer any uncommitted 
Targeted Fund amounts to its General Fund for awards to alternates in 
the same calendar year. Section 1291.28(b) of the final rule makes 
approval of alternates under the General Fund and any Targeted Funds 
optional for a Bank pursuant to adoption of a Bank policy on approving 
alternates, and requires funding of the alternates if the Bank has such 
a policy and sufficient previously committed AHP subsidies become 
available within one year of application approval. Section 1291.70(b) 
of the final rule provides flexibility for the Banks to determine how 
to commit any uncommitted Targeted Fund amounts where the Bank does not 
have a policy to approve alternates under its General Fund or Targeted 
Funds.
    Acceleration of funding. Consistent with the proposed rule, the 
final rule relocates current Sec.  1291.2(b)(3), which contains the 
discretionary authority for a Bank to accelerate future required annual 
AHP contributions to its current year's Program, to Sec.  1291.12(d), 
with certain clarifying technical edits. FHFA did not receive any 
comments on the technical revisions.
    No delegation. As discussed in Section III.F. above and consistent 
with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.12(e) of the final rule prohibits a 
Bank's board of directors from delegating to a committee of the board, 
Bank officers, or other Bank employees the responsibility for adopting 
the policies for its General Fund and any Targeted Funds and 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. The prohibition on delegating to a 
committee of the board is an expansion of the current prohibition on 
delegating to Bank officers or other Bank employees.
Sec.  1291.13 Targeted Community Lending Plan; AHP Implementation Plan
    Targeted Community Lending Plan. As discussed in Sec.  1290.6 above 
and as proposed, the final rule amends Sec.  1290.6(a)(5) of the 
current Community Support Requirements regulation to require each Bank 
to identify and assess in its annual TCLP the significant affordable 
housing needs in its district that it plans to address through its AHP, 
as well as any specific affordable housing needs it plans to address 
through any Targeted Funds. In a change from the proposed rule, 
Sec. Sec.  1290.6(c) and 1291.13(a)(2) of the final rule require that 
if a Bank plans to establish a Targeted Fund, it must publish its TCLP 
at least 90 days prior to the opening of the application funding round 
for the Targeted Fund, unless the Targeted Fund addresses federal- or 
state-declared disasters. The final rule also provides that a Bank's 
TCLP must be published on or before the date of publication of its 
annual AHP Implementation Plan. A Bank is required to notify FHFA of 
any amendments to its TCLP within 30 days after their adoption by the 
Bank's board.
    AHP Implementation Plan. As proposed, the final rule relocates 
current Sec.  1291.3, which contains the requirements for the Banks' 
AHP Implementation Plans, to Sec.  1291.13(b), with changes to reflect 
the inclusion of new policies required under the final rule. The 
prohibition on delegating certain strategic responsibilities to a 
committee of the board is discussed below, as are certain requirements 
for the Plan meriting particular discussion.
    No delegation. As discussed in Section III.F. above and consistent 
with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.13(b) of the final rule prohibits a 
Bank's board of directors from delegating to a committee of the board, 
Bank officers, or other Bank employees, the responsibility to adopt, 
and make any amendments to, its AHP Implementation Plan. This is an 
expansion of the current prohibition on delegating such strategic 
responsibilities to Bank officers or other Bank employees.
    Requirements for each Fund (Sec.  1291.13(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5)). 
In the current regulation, each Bank must include in its AHP 
Implementation Plan its requirements for its Competitive Application 
Program, including its scoring guidelines, and any Homeownership Set-
Aside Programs. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule 
requires a Bank to include

[[Page 61200]]

those requirements in its AHP Implementation Plan for its General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. The final 
rule also requires a Bank to include in its AHP Implementation Plan, 
the Bank's application scoring tie-breaker policy, and any policies 
adopted by the Bank, in its discretion, for approving AHP application 
alternates for funding under its General Fund and any Targeted Funds.
    For any Targeted Funds, a Bank is required to include specific 
parameters that ensure that the Targeted Fund is designed to receive 
sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount of AHP funds allocated 
to the Fund to facilitate a robust competitive scoring process, as 
required in Sec.  1291.20(b)(2)(i). In a change from the proposed rule, 
the final rule does not require a Bank to include in its AHP 
Implementation Plan the specific funding allocation amounts for its 
General Fund and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs, including how the Bank will apportion the one-third funding 
allocation under its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. This will 
accommodate any potential timing issues a Bank may encounter that could 
delay its ability to identify the specific amounts of its funding 
allocations.
    Applications to multiple Funds (Sec.  1291.13(b)(4)). Consistent 
with the proposed rule, the final rule requires a Bank to include in 
its AHP Implementation Plan the Bank's policy on how it will determine 
under which Fund to approve a project that applies to more than one 
Fund and scores high enough to be approved under each of the Funds.
    Retention agreements (Sec.  1291.13(b)(6)). The final rule retains 
the current requirement that a Bank include its rental retention 
agreement requirements in its AHP Implementation Plan, and requires 
inclusion of the Bank's owner-occupied retention agreement requirements 
for households who use the AHP subsidy for purchase, or for purchase in 
conjunction with rehabilitation. Because the final rule eliminates the 
requirement for an owner-occupied retention agreement where the 
household uses the AHP subsidy solely for rehabilitation, nothing is 
required to be included in the AHP Implementation Plan regarding such 
agreements. This is a change from the proposed rule, which would have 
eliminated all owner-occupied retention agreements and, therefore, the 
requirement to address the agreements in the AHP Implementation Plan.
    Relocation plans for current occupants of rental projects (Sec.  
1291.13(b)(7)). The final rule includes a requirement that a Bank 
include in its AHP Implementation Plan the Bank's standards for 
approving a relocation plan for current occupants of rental projects 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.23(a)(2)(ii)(B).
    Optional Bank district eligibility requirements (Sec.  
1291.13(b)(8)). Consistent with the current requirement in Sec.  
1291.5(c)(15) and the proposed rule, the final rule requires a Bank to 
include in its AHP Implementation Plan any optional Bank district 
eligibility requirements adopted by the Bank pursuant to Sec.  
1291.24(c).
    Re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidy in same project (Sec.  
1291.13(b)(12)). In a change from the proposed rule, the final rule 
retains current Sec.  1291.3(a)(7), which requires a Bank to include 
its requirements for re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidy in its AHP 
Implementation Plan, if the requirements are adopted by the Bank 
pursuant to current Sec.  1291.8(f)(2), which is now Sec.  1291.64(b). 
The proposed rule would have deleted Sec.  1291.3(a)(7) because the 
requirements for owner-occupied retention agreements would have been 
eliminated in all cases, meaning there would be no repayments of AHP 
subsidy by households that could then be re-used under Sec.  
1291.8(f)(2). The final rule retains the current requirement for owner-
occupied retention agreements where the household uses the AHP subsidy 
for purchase, or purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, but not 
where the household uses the subsidy solely for rehabilitation. A 
household that uses the subsidy for purchase, or purchase in 
conjunction with rehabilitation, may be required to repay subsidy if 
the household sells or refinances the home within the AHP five-year 
retention period and none of the regulatory exceptions to subsidy 
repayment applies. Since the possibility of such subsidy repayments 
remains under the final rule, a Bank could adopt a subsidy re-use 
program under Sec.  1291.64(b). Accordingly, the Bank's requirements 
for re-use of repaid AHP subsidy under any Bank subsidy re-use program 
adopted pursuant to Sec.  1291.64(b) must be included in its AHP 
Implementation Plan.
Sec.  1291.14 Advisory Councils
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates current 
Sec.  1291.4, which addresses the membership requirements and duties of 
the Banks' Advisory Councils, to Sec.  1291.14, with the clarifications 
and change discussed below.
    Representatives of for-profit organizations. The Bank Act requires 
that each Bank appoint a Bank Advisory Council of persons drawn from 
``community and not-for-profit organizations'' actively involved in 
providing or promoting low- and moderate-income housing in its 
district.\15\ As proposed, Sec.  1291.14(a)(1) of the final rule 
clarifies that ``community organizations'' include for-profit 
organizations, which is consistent with existing Agency guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An organization that advocates on behalf of multifamily housing 
providers strongly endorsed including representatives of for-profit 
organizations on the Bank Advisory Councils, noting that such 
representation adds the voices of developers and owners with experience 
in affordable multifamily housing and increases the pool of applicants 
for the AHP.
    In contrast, several nonprofit organizations expressed concern that 
for-profit organization representation on the Bank Advisory Councils 
could dilute the representation and importance of nonprofit or mission-
driven organizations on the Bank Advisory Councils. The commenters 
urged FHFA to ensure that the Bank Advisory Councils are populated 
predominantly by nonprofit and public sector representatives, who have 
mission-driven commitments to serving the community.
    FHFA acknowledges the important role that nonprofit organizations 
play in addressing the housing needs of low- and moderate-income 
households throughout the country. Nonprofit, as well as for-profit and 
public sector, organizations all bring important affordable housing 
perspectives to the Bank Advisory Councils. In 2018, 56 percent of the 
total membership of all eleven Bank Advisory Councils represented 
nonprofit organizations, and 15 percent represented for-profit 
organizations. The rest of the membership represented consulting firms 
and government entities. For-profit organization representation is 
consistent with Sec.  1291.14(a)(3) of the final rule, which retains 
the current requirement in Sec.  1291.4(a)(3) for a diverse range of 
membership on the Bank Advisory Council such that representatives of no 
one group constitute an undue proportion of the membership, giving 
consideration to the size of the Bank's district and the diversity of 
low- and moderate-income housing and community lending needs and 
activities within the district.

[[Page 61201]]

    Recommendations on Bank Targeted Community Lending Plans. FHFA's 
Community Support Requirements regulation\16\ requires the Banks to 
consult with their Bank Advisory Councils and other groups in 
developing and implementing their TCLPs. As proposed, Sec.  
1291.14(d)(1)(ii)(A) of the final rule includes the parallel 
requirement for the Bank Advisory Councils to provide recommendations 
to the Banks on their TCLPs, and any amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 12 CFR 1290.6(a)(5)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No delegation. For the reasons discussed in Section III.F. above, 
the final rule does not adopt the proposed amendment requiring a Bank's 
full board of directors to meet quarterly with its Bank Advisory 
Council.
Sec.  1291.15 Agreements
    As proposed, the final rule relocates current Sec.  1291.9, which 
governs the AHP contractual agreements that must be in place between 
the Banks and members, and between the members and project sponsors or 
owners, to Sec.  1291.15. The final rule makes a number of changes and 
clarifications to the provisions in this section from those in the 
proposed rule, as discussed below.
    Notice to Bank of LIHTC project noncompliance (Sec.  
1291.15(a)(5)(ii)). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  
1291.15(a)(5)(ii) of the final rule adds a monitoring agreement 
requirement for notices of LIHTC project noncompliance that is not 
contained in the current regulation. The Banks' AHP agreements with 
their members must require the members' monitoring agreements with 
project owners to include a provision requiring the latter to agree to 
provide prompt written notice to the Bank if an LIHTC project is in 
noncompliance with the LIHTC income targeting or rent requirements 
during the AHP 15-year retention period. However, in a change from the 
proposed rule, the final rule only requires that such notice be 
provided where the LIHTC noncompliance is material and unresolved, 
which may trigger a tax benefit recapture event and repayment of some 
of the AHP subsidy. If tax benefits are recaptured from a project, it 
may impact the project's financial viability. A corresponding 
monitoring requirement that the Banks review the LIHTC noncompliance 
notices received from project owners during the AHP retention period is 
included in Sec.  1291.50(c)(1)(ii) of the final rule, as proposed.
    Consistent with the current regulation and proposed rule, the final 
rule does not require the Banks to conduct long-term monitoring of AHP 
projects that received LIHTCs during the AHP 15-year retention period. 
Noncompliance with LIHTC income-targeting and rent requirements has 
been the same as or substantially equivalent to noncompliance with AHP 
income-targeting and rent requirements. Although LIHTC project 
noncompliance is rare, instances of noncompliance with LIHTC income 
targeting or rent requirements can occur during the AHP retention 
period, which would mean that the projects' incomes or rents likely are 
also in noncompliance with similar AHP requirements. However, the 
noncompliance generally would not come to the attention of a Bank 
during the AHP retention period because the Banks do not monitor LIHTC 
projects.
    FHFA specifically requested comments on the practicality of the 
proposed notice requirement, and whether it should also be required in 
the event of noncompliance by projects with the income-targeting or 
rent requirements of the government housing programs discussed under 
Sec.  1291.50(c)(1)(ii) below.
    Several nonprofit intermediaries and an advocacy organization 
supported the proposed notice requirement as reasonable. A number of 
other commenters, including developers, a nonprofit affordable rental 
housing trade association, and an affordable housing developer, 
recommended that notice to the Banks only be required where the 
noncompliance is ``unresolved.'' The commenters noted that the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) requirements for notification of noncompliance 
result in the issuance of many notices for small, easily resolved 
operating issues, and only a small fraction of those notices remain 
unresolved for a substantial period of time. The notices that remain 
unresolved may involve projects with material noncompliance issues that 
could have an impact on the projects' financial viability. Commenters 
stated that the Banks should only be made aware of such material and 
unresolved problems.
    In contrast, the Banks opposed the proposal. One Bank stated that 
implementation of the proposal would be impracticable because the Banks 
must defer to the state housing finance agency or the IRS in cases of 
noncompliance. A trade association and a developer of housing with 
supportive services suggested that the proposal would have limited 
effect because LIHTC projects rarely become noncompliant due to the 
nature of the private equity investments. Another Bank and a nonprofit 
developer stated that project owners may not remember their obligation 
to report LIHTC noncompliance to the Bank under their AHP monitoring 
agreements. Finally, several commenters stated that the proposal would 
place an additional 15-year regulatory burden to monitor the projects 
on members and the original project sponsors even if they had 
transferred ownership of the project after project development.
    FHFA finds the comments about the infrequent instances of LIHTC 
project noncompliance and the minor nature of some of the noncompliance 
persuasive. The Banks do not need to receive notices of LIHTC 
noncompliance that will be easily resolved because these types of 
noncompliance will be cured within a reasonable period of time and do 
not jeopardize the long-term financial viability of the project. 
However, the Banks should be notified in the event of any material and 
unresolved noncompliance during the AHP 15-year retention period, which 
may trigger a tax benefit recapture event, so that the Bank can monitor 
the project's status and take remedial action as required by the AHP 
regulation. As noted above, the Banks likely would not become aware of 
material and unresolved noncompliance without notification because they 
do not monitor LIHTC projects during the retention period.
    Concerning the comments asserting that the proposal would impose an 
additional 15-year regulatory monitoring burden on members, FHFA notes 
that only project owners would be required to report noncompliance to 
the Bank.
    The final rule does not include a requirement that project sponsors 
or owners send notices to the Banks of noncompliance by projects with 
the requirements of the other specified government housing programs 
because a separate monitoring provision in the final rule addresses 
such noncompliance. Specifically, Sec.  1291.50(c)(1)(i) and (ii) 
requires the Banks to obtain information annually from project sponsors 
or owners on their projects' compliance with other government funding 
sources, as well as the projects' on-going financial viability, as part 
of ``enhanced certifications'' to the Banks.
    Owner-occupied retention agreements for purchase, or for purchase 
in conjunction with rehabilitation (Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)). For the 
reasons discussed in Section III.D. above, Sec.  1291.15(a)(7) of the 
final rule retains the current requirement for an owner-occupied 
retention agreement where the

[[Page 61202]]

household uses the AHP subsidy for purchase of a home, or for purchase 
of a home in conjunction with its rehabilitation, but eliminates the 
current requirement for an owner-occupied retention agreement where the 
household uses the AHP subsidy solely for rehabilitation of a home. The 
final rule makes accompanying conforming changes to various references 
to owner-occupied retention agreements throughout the final rule.
    Notice to Bank or Bank designee. Section 1291.15(a)(7)(i) of the 
final rule provides that the Bank, and in its discretion any designee 
of the Bank, shall be given notice of any sale, transfer, assignment of 
title or deed, or refinancing of an AHP-assisted unit during the AHP 
five-year retention period. This is a change from the current 
regulation, which requires notice to the Bank or its designee.
    FHFA requested comments in the proposed rule on whether owner-
occupied retention agreements, if retained in the final rule, should 
require that such notice be provided to both the Bank and its designee 
(typically the member), rather than to one or the other. FHFA indicated 
that such a requirement would facilitate Program operations by giving 
the Bank simultaneous notice with the Bank's designee (if the Bank has 
one), and could facilitate repayment of AHP subsidy to the Bank in 
cases where a member subsequently fails and is subject to receivership 
actions by other federal agencies.
    One Bank favored requiring notice to both parties, noting that it 
includes this requirement in its standard retention agreements as it is 
beneficial to the Bank to know that a sale or refinancing of the 
property has occurred. A nonprofit organization also favored requiring 
notice to both parties, stating that the minimal cost of the extra 
notice is worth the additional layer of oversight. Another Bank 
indicated that it includes a requirement for notice to the Bank in its 
retention agreements, but opposed requiring notice to a Bank designee, 
stating that this requirement might cause confusion as to who is 
responsible for calculating and providing a payoff in the event of a 
sale of the property.
    As the comments indicate, requiring notice to the Bank is sound 
practice to ensure that the Bank is aware of events that might trigger 
an obligation to recover AHP subsidy. Therefore, the final rule 
requires that the Banks receive such notice. However, FHFA is persuaded 
by the comments that requiring notice to both the Bank and a Bank 
designee could be disruptive to the Bank's established processes. Each 
Bank should have the discretion to determine whether to require notice 
to a designee as may be appropriate for that Bank's operations. 
Accordingly, the final rule allows a Bank to determine, in its 
discretion, whether to require notice to a designee of the Bank.
    Sale, transfer, or assignment. The final rule provides that the 
retention agreement applies not only to a sale of an owner-occupied 
unit, but also to a transfer or assignment of title or deed, during the 
retention period, as these forms of conveyance are the functional 
equivalent of sales.
    Calculation of AHP subsidy repayment based on net proceeds and 
household's investment. Consistent with Sec.  1291.9(a)(7) of the 
current regulation, Sec.  1291.15(a)(7) of the final rule requires an 
AHP-assisted household to repay a pro rata portion of the AHP subsidy 
if the unit is sold or refinanced during the five-year retention 
period, subject to certain exceptions. However, the final rule 
prescribes a ``net proceeds'' calculation for determining the amount of 
subsidy subject to recovery. This is a change from the current 
regulation, which requires repayment of a portion of AHP subsidy from 
any net gain realized upon sale or refinancing. The subsidy repayment 
calculation in the final rule also prioritizes return of the AHP-
assisted household's investment in the home to the household. The pro 
rata subsidy amount subject to repayment cannot exceed what is 
available from the net proceeds of the sale or refinancing.
    Although the current regulation does not define ``net gain,'' as 
FHFA noted in the proposed rule, a majority of the Banks calculate the 
net gain as the sales price minus the original purchase price, 
purchaser and seller paid closing costs, and capital improvement costs, 
and then apply the pro rata repayment requirement. Some of these Banks 
have also deducted the AHP subsidy amount from the original purchase 
price. Other Banks have calculated the subsidy repayment amount using 
net proceeds identified on the Closing Disclosure, by deducting the 
senior mortgage debt from the sales price and, depending on the Bank, 
crediting or not crediting the household with its investments in the 
home. Some of these Banks have also added the AHP subsidy amount to the 
total proceeds.
    Because the proposed rule would have eliminated the requirement for 
owner-occupied retention agreements in all cases, it did not propose a 
specific method in the rule text for calculating the repayment of AHP 
subsidy. However, the NPRM noted that FHFA reviewed the subsidy 
repayment requirements of other government housing programs, and in 
particular, HUD's HOME Program. The NPRM discussed the Owner Investment 
Returned First approach under the HOME Program which, if applicable to 
the AHP, would calculate net proceeds available for recapture as the 
sales price minus outstanding superior debt and seller paid costs, with 
the seller recovering its entire investment first from the net 
proceeds, the Bank then recovering the AHP subsidy on a pro rata basis, 
and any remaining net proceeds returned to the seller. FHFA requested 
comments on the merits and disadvantages of this approach and the net 
gain approach from the standpoint of the AHP-assisted households and 
the Banks, and whether there are other subsidy repayment approaches 
FHFA should consider if a retention agreement requirement were retained 
in the final rule.
    FHFA received a number of comments on whether it should require a 
net gain or net proceeds calculation for determining the AHP subsidy 
repayment amount. One Bank supported the use of the net gain 
calculation discussed in the NPRM as the appropriate basis for 
calculating a pro rata repayment. In support of this recommendation, 
however, the Bank cited the benefits of coordinating the AHP 
calculation methodology with those in other government programs, such 
as those used by HUD, without specifying these HUD programs. Because 
the NPRM specifically described only one HUD program--the HOME 
Program--in the context of the owner-occupied retention agreement 
repayment calculation, and the version of the HOME Program calculation 
described in the NPRM is more similar to the net proceeds approach than 
the net gain approach, this commenter appears to have mistaken the net 
proceeds and net gain calculations. Another Bank stated that the net 
gain calculation has been effective for AHP-assisted home sales, but 
noted that the calculation does not work effectively for AHP 
rehabilitation grants because the AHP-assisted homeowners are 
frequently elderly or disabled, have lived in their houses for decades, 
and generally are unable to recall or do not have documentation of the 
original purchase price of their homes, a necessary component of the 
net gain calculation. Several Banks indicated support for an approach 
that would minimize the need to obtain information from the AHP-
assisted households or third parties, noting that they have experienced 
frequent difficulty

[[Page 61203]]

obtaining original purchase prices of the homes.
    A nonprofit organization expressed support for using the net 
proceeds recapture approaches as prescribed under the HOME Program. The 
commenter characterized the HOME Program approach as fair, and 
emphasized the value of promoting alignment between multiple government 
subsidy sources often used together in projects. A nonprofit economic 
research organization supported using a net proceeds approach, with 
AHP-assisted households able to recover their capital improvement 
costs, noting that this could help incentivize such households to 
maintain their properties. A Bank similarly commented that a repayment 
calculation that allows for recovery by households of their capital 
improvement costs would incentivize households in distressed areas to 
invest in such improvements.
    The final rule eliminates the requirement for retention agreements 
for AHP subsidies used solely for rehabilitation. This change will 
eliminate the administrative burden on Banks and members of attempting 
to obtain subsidy repayments from households and also relieve a 
financial burden on those households. For owner-occupied retention 
agreements where the household used the AHP subsidy for purchase, or 
for purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, the final rule 
establishes a net proceeds calculation that addresses the above-
described concerns with the net gain approach.
    The subsidy repayment calculation in the final rule also 
prioritizes return of the AHP-assisted household's investment in the 
home to the household. Specifically, Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)(v) provides 
that the household shall repay the Bank the lesser of: (i) The AHP 
subsidy, reduced on a pro rata basis per month until the unit is sold, 
transferred, or its title or deed transferred, or is refinanced, during 
the AHP five-year retention period; or (ii) any net proceeds from the 
sale, transfer, or assignment of title or deed of the unit, or the 
refinancing, as applicable, minus the AHP-assisted household's 
investment. Section 1291.1 of the final rule defines ``net proceeds'' 
as the sales price minus reasonable and customary costs paid by the 
household and outstanding superior debt, or, in the case of a 
refinancing, the principal amount of the new mortgage minus reasonable 
and customary costs paid by the household and the principal amount of 
the refinanced mortgage. This calculation uses only information that is 
available from the settlement documents. The calculation also does not 
incorporate the subsidy originally provided to the AHP-assisted 
household, i.e., the subsidy is not added to the net proceeds or 
subtracted from any of the components of the net proceeds calculation. 
No AHP subsidy may be recovered by the Bank unless the net proceeds 
exceed the AHP-assisted household's investment.
    FHFA is persuaded by the commenters that the subsidy recovery 
calculation should account for the AHP-assisted household's investment 
in the home. Households invest resources in their homes in the form of 
down payments, transaction costs (such as broker's commission and title 
search fees), capital improvement costs, and repayment of senior 
mortgage principal. The household's investment should be retained and 
prioritized in light of the purpose of AHP subsidies to provide 
households with the benefits of homeownership. The ``household's 
investment'' is defined in Sec.  1291.1 to mean reasonable and 
customary transaction costs paid in connection with the purchase of the 
unit, down payment, cost of capital improvements made, and any mortgage 
principal repaid since the purchase of the unit until the time of sale 
or refinancing during the AHP five-year retention period where the 
household documents these costs to the Bank or its designee. For 
example, a household could produce documentation of its expenditures 
associated with the installation of a new roof.
    Consistent with Sec.  1291.9(a)(7)(ii) of the current regulation, 
the final rule requires that the AHP subsidy be reduced on a pro rata 
basis for the time that the household owned the unit until its sale or 
refinancing. However, whereas the current regulation provides generally 
for this reduction each year, the final rule requires a reduction each 
month, consistent with current Bank practice, as provided below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28NO18.000

    The final rule provides that the Bank shall recover the lesser of: 
(i) The pro rata subsidy amount; or (ii) the net proceeds minus the 
household's investment.
    Exception where the subsequent purchaser is low- or moderate-
income. Consistent with Sec.  1291.9(a)(7)(ii) of the current 
regulation, Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)(ii)(B) of the final rule provides an 
exception to the AHP subsidy repayment requirement if the AHP-assisted 
unit is sold to a low- or moderate-income household. However, in 
contrast to the current regulation, the final rule provides methods of 
evaluating the subsequent purchaser's income in the absence of actual 
documentation. In such cases, the Bank or its designee shall determine 
the subsequent purchaser's income using one or more proxies that are 
reliable indicators of the subsequent purchaser's income, which may be 
selected by the Bank pursuant to guidance that FHFA will issue on 
proxies and which must be included in the Bank's AHP Implementation 
Plan. The requirement will become effective upon issuance of the 
guidance.
    Neither the Bank nor its designee is required to request or obtain 
the subsequent purchaser's income, but must evaluate any income 
documentation if made available. As noted in the proposed rule, the 
subsequent purchaser of an AHP-assisted unit is under no obligation to 
provide income documentation to the Bank or member. This has made it 
difficult for the Banks and their members to determine subsequent 
purchasers' incomes in order to determine whether the subsidy repayment 
exception applies. The current regulation is silent on the use of 
proxies in evaluating a subsequent purchaser's income. At least one 
Bank, however, has applied a proxy, under limited circumstances, to 
evaluate subsequent purchasers' incomes, in light of these operational 
constraints.
    FHFA requested comments on what approaches should be specified in 
the retention agreement, if retained in the final rule, that would 
provide a reasonable basis to assume that the subsequent purchaser of 
an AHP-assisted unit is likely to be low- or moderate-income, including 
proxies that could serve this purpose such as

[[Page 61204]]

the following: Certification from the subsequent purchaser or a third 
party that the subsequent purchaser's income is at or below the low- or 
moderate-income limit; evidence that the subsequent purchaser is 
receiving direct homebuyer assistance from another government program 
with household income targeting requirements substantially equivalent 
to those of the AHP; purchase price of the AHP-assisted unit is less 
than the median home price in the area; the AHP-assisted unit is 
located in a census tract or block group where at least 51 percent of 
the households are low- or moderate-income; or Federal Housing 
Administration (FHA) or other underwriting standards indicate that the 
income required to purchase the AHP-assisted unit at the purchase price 
is low- or moderate-income.
    Commenters generally offered mixed opinions on the use of proxies, 
providing a variety of responses addressing which proxies would serve 
as acceptable methods for likely determining the income of the 
subsequent purchaser. A Bank supported the use of two proxies: Third-
party certifications; and evidence that the subsequent purchaser was 
receiving direct homebuyer assistance from another government program. 
The Bank noted that using median home price and census tract income 
data may not be reasonable approaches as these data points would not 
adequately recognize or track areas affected by gentrification. The 
Bank asserted that gentrification occurs gradually and that median 
sales price and census tract data would not reflect investor purchases 
and sales to new or higher-income populations.
    Another Bank supported the use of third-party certifications, 
evidence that the subsequent purchaser was receiving direct homebuyer 
assistance from another government program, and FHA or other 
underwriting standards. A nonprofit organization supported use of the 
latter two proxies.
    The nonprofit organization objected to the use of geographically-
based proxies, such as the purchase price of the AHP-assisted unit 
relative to area median home price, or location of the unit in a census 
tract or block group where at least 51 percent of the households are 
low- or moderate-income, because higher income homebuyers could 
purchase homes in low-income neighborhoods or census tracts. Another 
nonprofit organization stated that certain portions of distressed 
neighborhoods may be more upscale than nearby sections due to the 
presence of certain amenities, such as water features and golf courses. 
The commenter also opposed the use of third-party certifications, 
stating that it had witnessed significant unintended consequences of 
certification requirements in the context of FHA insurance and the 
foreclosure process.
    A nonprofit organization encouraged the use of person-based 
proxies, such as evidence that the homebuyer received down payment 
assistance or participated in first-time homebuyer programs or family 
self-sufficiency programs, rather than geographically-based proxies, 
stating that geographically-based proxies fail to account for 
gentrification. The commenter stated, however, that self-certification 
or certain types of third-party certification (by the loan originator, 
for example) would be adequate.
    One Bank expressed concern generally about the exception to the 
subsidy repayment requirement for sale to a low- or moderate-income 
purchaser, noting that the subsequent purchaser's income is not 
correlated to the AHP-assisted household's income. The Bank asserted 
that the subsidy repayment exception results in different treatment of 
similarly situated AHP-assisted households based on the subsequent 
purchaser's income. Another Bank objected to any requirement for a Bank 
or member to obtain sensitive income information from a subsequent 
purchaser with which neither institution has a contractual 
relationship.
    FHFA has considered the comments regarding the use of proxies in 
the AHP and determined that the use of certain proxies will help ensure 
that Banks and members are not requiring repayment of subsidy by AHP-
assisted households in cases where the subsequent purchaser is low- or 
moderate-income. Therefore, FHFA will require that Banks use one or 
more proxies that are reasonable indicators that the subsequent 
purchaser is likely a low- or moderate-income household, pursuant to 
Agency guidance. FHFA acknowledges commenters' discussions of the 
limitations of the proxies included in the NPRM. The Agency notes that 
as approximations, no proxy will be able to definitively determine the 
income of the subsequent purchaser.
    AHP subsidy repayment exception for de minimis subsidy amount. 
Section 1291.15(a)(7)(ii)(C) of the final rule provides for an 
exception to the AHP subsidy repayment requirement for AHP-assisted 
households where the amount of AHP subsidy subject to repayment 
pursuant to the calculation in Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)(v) is $2,500 or 
less. Under that provision, if the pro rata subsidy amount is $2,500 or 
less, calculation of net proceeds is unnecessary. The current 
regulation does not provide for an exception to the AHP subsidy 
repayment requirement for ``de minimis'' amounts of AHP subsidy subject 
to repayment.
    FHFA requested comments in the proposed rule on whether, if the 
owner-occupied retention agreement requirement were retained in the 
final rule, there should be an exception to AHP subsidy repayment where 
the amount of subsidy subject to repayment, after calculating the net 
proceeds or net gain, is $1,000 or less. A number of commenters 
specifically supported a $1,000 de minimis threshold. For example, a 
state government housing authority, an individual commenter, and a Bank 
stated that at a net gain of $1,000, the administrative cost of 
ensuring repayment generally exceeds the value of any recaptured AHP 
subsidy. A national nonprofit intermediary recommended a de minimis 
threshold of greater than $2,000, stating that this amount constitutes 
a reasonable balance between the need for sound Program stewardship and 
asset building for low- or moderate-income families. An affordable 
housing policy organization and a national trade organization 
recommended a de minimis threshold of at least $5,000. A nonprofit 
consumer organization supported FHFA establishing the de minimis 
threshold amount for the Banks, and suggested that it be adjusted using 
an inflator based on the Agency's house price index so that it remains 
reasonable as home prices escalate.
    The affordable housing policy organization stated that if the 
original AHP subsidy amount was $5,000 or less, there should be no 
subsidy repayment requirement, as such a small amount of subsidy would 
be unlikely to trigger flipping, and the transaction costs would 
nullify the value of the AHP subsidy. A community-based affordable 
housing financing organization and a community bank made a similar 
recommendation where the original AHP subsidy was $7,500 or less, or 
$10,000 or less, respectively, on the basis that the administrative 
expense was likely to exceed the value of the investment, and 
households should be entitled at a minimum to recover their required 
investment at the time of sale, net of AHP repayment so as not to 
impose financial injury.
    The Banks supported a ``de minimis'' threshold exception to the AHP 
subsidy repayment requirement, but recommended that the amount of the 
threshold be determined by each Bank

[[Page 61205]]

based on the specific facts and circumstances of its district, rather 
than set by FHFA in the regulation. One Bank stated that the Banks 
should be authorized to adjust the de minimis threshold over time to 
account for housing market fluctuations and inflation. Another Bank 
suggested that the Banks be permitted to establish a de minimis amount 
based on a percentage of the original AHP subsidy amount, rather than a 
fixed dollar amount, because of the variations in the size of AHP 
subsidy amounts provided by the different Banks. A nonprofit 
organization recommended requiring each Bank to establish a de minimis 
threshold based on the Bank's and its members' actual administrative 
costs for assigning a lien on a property and calculating repayments of 
subsidy. The commenter stated that applying a de minimis threshold 
would avoid economic waste, but that support of a prescribed amount was 
impossible without further data.
    FHFA has considered the comments and has decided to establish a de 
minimis threshold of $2,500 in the final rule. As discussed in the NPRM 
and underscored by the comments, establishing a de minimis threshold of 
$2,500 may deter flipping of AHP-assisted units, while at the same time 
minimize the financial burden on low- or moderate-income households of 
having to repay AHP subsidy if they sell their homes during the AHP 
retention period. The underlying policy of the AHP has always been that 
the purpose of the AHP subsidy is to enable low- or moderate-income 
households to receive the benefits of homeownership including 
appreciation in the value of their homes and, thus, to minimize any AHP 
subsidy repayments. A $2,500 threshold will also reduce the 
administrative obligations of the Banks and members associated with 
recovering AHP subsidies.
    In response to the comments to adopt a de minimis threshold greater 
than $1,000, FHFA analyzed Bank data for set-aside grants awarded to 
households in 2012 and subsequently repaid during the five-year 
retention period ending in 2017. The data indicate that 1,080 grants of 
a total 10,203 set-aside grants awarded in 2012 were repaid during that 
time period. FHFA queried the data to determine how many of those 
grants would have been subject to de minimis thresholds of $2,000 or 
$2,500. The Agency's analysis revealed that at a $2,000 de minimis 
threshold, 683 of the 1,080 repaid grants, which is approximately 2 out 
of every 3 repaid grants, or 65 percent, would have been exempted from 
repayment. At a $2,500 de minimis threshold, 783 of the 1,080 repaid 
grants, which is approximately 3 out of every 4 repaid grants, or 
approximately 73 percent, would have been exempted from repayment.
    Based on this data, FHFA has decided to set the de minimis 
threshold exception for AHP subsidy repayment at $2,500. This will 
result in fewer households subject to subsidy recapture, thereby 
enabling households to benefit more from appreciation in the value of 
their homes, and reduce the Banks' operational expenses associated with 
the subsidy repayment process. FHFA set the de minimis threshold at a 
fixed dollar amount, rather than a percentage that varies based upon 
the grant amount, for ease of implementation by the Banks, members, and 
households. FHFA considered requiring each Bank to establish a de 
minimis threshold based on the actual administrative costs incurred by 
the Bank and its members for assigning liens on properties and 
calculating subsidy repayments, but did not receive any comments or 
other information quantifying the actual administrative costs that FHFA 
could evaluate. FHFA also opted not to index the de minimis threshold 
to an inflator based upon the Agency's house price index, in order to 
provide a definitive de minimis threshold for AHP stakeholders. 
However, FHFA may consider adjusting the de minimis threshold in the 
future to account for house price fluctuations and Bank use of the new 
authority to establish higher set-aside grant amounts per household.
    Other exceptions to subsidy repayment. Consistent with Sec.  
1291.9(a)(7)(ii) of the current regulation, Sec.  1291.9(a)(7)(ii) of 
the final rule provides that the obligation to repay a pro rata portion 
of the AHP subsidy amount upon sale or refinancing does not apply if 
the unit was assisted with a permanent mortgage loan funded by an AHP 
subsidized advance. Also consistent with the current regulation, the 
final rule provides an exception to repayment obligation if, following 
a refinancing, the unit continues to be subject to a deed restriction 
or other legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism.
    Termination of AHP subsidy repayment obligation. Section 
1291.15(a)(7)(iv) of the final rule clarifies that the obligation to 
repay AHP subsidy to a Bank terminates not only after any event of 
foreclosure, but also after transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure, 
assignment of an FHA mortgage to HUD, or death of the owner(s) of the 
unit. This is consistent with guidance FHFA has provided to the Banks 
clarifying that transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure is the 
functional equivalent of foreclosure, facilitating coordination of the 
AHP with FHA requirements, and clarifying that the heirs of the AHP-
assisted homeowner are not subject to any AHP subsidy repayment 
obligation upon the death of such homeowner.
    The proposed rule requested comments on whether this clarification 
should be made in the final rule if FHFA retained the current 
requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements in the final rule. 
The Banks and a trade organization favored including the clarifying 
language in the final rule. One Bank stated that the clarification 
would be useful for members and project sponsors using the AHP Bank in 
that it would help the Banks resolve ongoing issues with homebuyers 
using FHA loans as the underwriters flag the loans if this language is 
missing from the AHP retention agreements. The Bank also indicated that 
elderly owners are sometimes reluctant to sign the AHP retention 
agreement for fear that the potential AHP subsidy repayment obligation 
will fall on their beneficiaries upon their death(s).
    Retention agreements for rental projects. The final rule retains 
Sec.  1291.9(a)(8) of the current regulation, which contains the 
requirement for AHP 15-year retention agreements for rental projects, 
with several changes that are discussed below. Current Sec.  
1291.9(a)(8) provides that if a rental project is sold or refinanced 
during the 15-year retention period, the full amount of the AHP subsidy 
must be repaid to the Bank, unless certain exceptions apply.
    Notice to the Bank or Bank designee. In a change from the current 
regulation and proposed rule, the final rule provides that the 
retention agreement for rental projects shall include a requirement 
that notice of a sale or refinancing of the rental project during the 
AHP 15-year retention period be provided to the Bank and, in its 
discretion, to a designee of the Bank. This is consistent with the 
change made for owner-occupied retention agreements discussed above. 
The current regulation requires that such notice be provided to the 
Bank or its designee. The proposed rule would have provided that the 
notice be provided to both the Bank and its designee. The NPRM stated 
that requiring notice to both the Bank and its designee (typically a 
member) would facilitate Program operations by giving the Bank 
simultaneous notice with the Bank's designee (if the Bank has one), and 
could facilitate repayment of AHP

[[Page 61206]]

subsidy to the Bank in cases where a member subsequently fails and is 
subject to receivership actions by other federal agencies.
    A Bank and a nonprofit intermediary supported the proposal. The 
Bank stated that owners of multifamily properties often do not have 
other incentives to provide the Bank or its member with notice, and 
without notice to the Bank, the Bank might find it difficult to know 
the identity of the acquiring owner in the case of a sale, or whether 
the subsidy should remain with the property or the Bank should request 
repayment. A nonprofit lender recommended providing the Banks 
discretion regarding whether to require that project owners provide the 
notice to the Banks or designees. Two Banks opposed any change in the 
notice requirement because they address issues directly with the 
project sponsor. One Bank also stated that providing notice to the 
member may be viewed as imposing additional obligations on the member, 
which could discourage members' use of the AHP.
    For the same reasons discussed above under the owner-occupied 
retention agreements, the final rule requires that notice be provided 
to the Bank and, in its discretion, to a designee of the Bank.
    Sale, transfer, or assignment. Consistent with proposed Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7), Sec.  1291.15(a)(8) of the final rule clarifies that the 
retention agreement applies not only to a sale of the rental project, 
but also to a transfer or assignment of title or deed, during the AHP 
15-year retention period, as these forms of conveyance are the 
functional equivalent of sales. FHFA received no comments on this 
provision.
    Project sponsor qualifications. The final rule relocates current 
Sec.  1291.5(c)(10) on project sponsor qualifications to Sec.  
1291.15(b)(2), and makes a number of changes from the proposed rule. 
Specifically, the final rule requires the Banks to evaluate the 
qualifications of, and any covered misconduct by, the project sponsor 
at AHP application, and prior to each AHP subsidy disbursement. The 
Bank's AHP subsidy application form and AHP subsidy disbursement form 
(or other related documents) must include a requirement for the project 
sponsor to certify to this effect. The Banks will not be required to 
evaluate the qualifications and any misconduct of the project sponsor's 
affiliates and team members, including general contractors, as 
proposed. The final rule does not include the proposed rule's 
references to the project sponsor's affiliates and team members, 
including general contractors, in the sponsor qualifications and 
Agreements sections, as proposed, because the definition of ``sponsor'' 
is not being expanded to include such parties.
    Section 1291.1 of the current regulation defines the ``sponsor'' of 
a project as a nonprofit, for-profit, or public entity meeting one of 
four specific criteria. Section 1291.5(c)(10) provides that for a 
project to be eligible to receive AHP subsidy, the project sponsor must 
be qualified and able to perform its responsibilities as committed to 
in its AHP application. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (g)(3) of Sec.  1291.5 
require a Bank to verify that the project meets its AHP application 
commitments at AHP application, and prior to each disbursement of AHP 
subsidy to the project, respectively.
    The proposed rule would retain the definition of ``sponsor'' in 
current Sec.  1291.1, but would have revised Sec.  1291.5(c)(10) by 
extending the qualifications requirement to the project sponsor's 
affiliates and team members, including the general contractor. Thus, at 
AHP application, and prior to each AHP subsidy disbursement to a 
project, a Bank would have been required to determine whether the 
project sponsor, as well as all of its affiliates and team members, are 
qualified to perform the AHP project application commitments. The 
proposed rule would have added a requirement in the Agreements section 
of the regulation that, at AHP application, and prior to each 
disbursement of AHP subsidy to the project, the project sponsor must 
certify, or respond to specific questions about, whether it and its 
affiliates and team members have engaged in any misconduct as defined 
in FHFA's Suspended Counterparty Program regulation or by the Bank. The 
Bank's AHP subsidy application form and subsidy disbursement forms, or 
other related forms, would have been be required to include the 
qualifications criteria and certification or questions about any 
misconduct to be completed by the project sponsor.
    Commenters who responded to this issue overwhelmingly opposed the 
proposal. A nonprofit intermediary commented that evaluating the 
qualifications of the general contractor and its team members at AHP 
application would be problematic because the project sponsor has yet to 
identify them at the AHP application stage. The nonprofit intermediary 
and a wide diversity of other commenters noted that project sponsors 
often select the general contractors after all funding sources are 
committed to the project and the project is ready to move forward to 
loan closings and construction. The nonprofit intermediary also stated 
that other financing sources frequently require that project sponsors 
conduct rigorous bidding processes in selecting general contractors, 
making a parallel evaluation by the Banks of the general contractors' 
qualifications unnecessary and overly burdensome.
    The Bank Advisory Councils urged FHFA to maintain the current 
regulatory requirement for project sponsor qualifications and require 
that project sponsors certify compliance with the FHFA's Suspended 
Counterparty Program regulation only prior to AHP subsidy disbursement. 
The Bank Advisory Councils stated their preference for the Banks to be 
able to rely on the due diligence and capacity review by other funders 
of project sponsors and their affiliates and team members. The Bank 
Advisory Councils noted that the Banks currently have processes in 
place to monitor project progress and the project sponsor's 
performance.
    The Banks asserted that requiring that the Banks' assessment of 
project sponsor capacity include compliance with FHFA's Suspended 
Counterparty Program regulation by all parties is unnecessary. They 
stated that the Banks lack privity of contract with general contractors 
and other parties and, therefore, cannot compel them to disclose such 
information. The Banks emphasized this point in particular with respect 
to owner-occupied rehabilitation grants that involve multiple 
contractors. They also commented that other funding sources perform due 
diligence reviews of the general contractor.
    A Bank pointed out that while the term ``sponsor'' is defined in 
the current regulation and proposed rule as a nonprofit, for-profit, or 
public entity meeting one of four specified criteria, the proposal 
states in Sec.  1291.15(b)(2) that ``a project sponsor includes all 
affiliates and team members such as the general contractor.'' The Bank 
stated that if the term ``sponsor'' is intended to include affiliates 
and team members, the Bank would need to consider whether its AHP 
subsidy collection efforts and settlements in the event of project 
noncompliance could extend beyond the assets of the project sponsor to 
include those of the project sponsor's affiliates and team members. A 
nonprofit intermediary noted that the proposed rule did not provide 
guidance on the definitions of ``affiliate'' and ``team member.''
    A nonprofit developer commented that the proposal would ``cut out'' 
team members that have yet to establish a track record in the industry 
from AHP

[[Page 61207]]

participation. Likewise, a housing authority stated that the proposal 
has the potential to unreasonably exclude, or discriminate against, AHP 
applicants with new or less tested team members, but who possess 
sufficient overall strength as a team to be successful.
    FHFA's intent for the proposal was to ensure that, in addition to 
the project sponsor, the project sponsor's affiliates and team members 
have the necessary qualifications to perform the AHP application 
commitments. The proposal was also intended to enable a Bank to 
identify any misconduct by the project sponsor and any affiliates or 
team members so that the Bank could determine whether it should accept 
the project sponsor's AHP application or approve requests from the 
project sponsor for AHP subsidy disbursement. Banks would have the 
latitude to define ``misconduct'' to include types of misconduct beyond 
those specifically addressed by FHFA in the Suspended Counterparty 
Program regulation. Therefore, if a Bank subsequently determined that a 
project sponsor's certification was false and that the project sponsor 
or its affiliates and team members were not qualified to perform the 
AHP application commitments, the Bank would have a contractual basis to 
cancel the project sponsor's AHP application and deny its requests for 
disbursement of AHP subsidy. The Bank would also have a basis to reject 
future AHP applications from the project sponsor, or to reject AHP 
applications that include the project sponsor's affiliates or team 
members, on the basis that the project sponsor is not qualified to 
carry out its AHP responsibilities.
    As noted by the commenters, however, project sponsors generally 
have not selected their general contractors at the time of AHP 
application. Thus, it would be impossible for project sponsors to 
evaluate and certify as to the qualifications and any misconduct of 
their general contractors and the general contractors' subcontractors 
at the time of AHP application. Concerning the comments on the Banks' 
lack of privity with the general contractors and that an evaluation by 
the Banks of the general contractors' qualifications parallel to that 
of other funders is unnecessary, FHFA notes that it did not propose 
that the Banks evaluate or underwrite directly the general contractors' 
qualifications, but rather that the Banks obtain certifications from 
the project sponsors on their general contractors' qualifications. The 
Agency's decision not to adopt the proposed requirement for evaluation 
of the general contractor's qualifications should alleviate commenters' 
concerns that projects with less experienced team members would be 
excluded where the project team as a whole possesses the capacity to 
successfully develop the project.
    Accordingly, the final rule requires the Banks to obtain a 
certification from the project sponsor of only its own qualifications 
and lack of misconduct at the time of AHP application and at AHP 
subsidy disbursement.
    The final rule makes two clarifications to the proposed rule 
language. First, it changes the reference to ``misconduct'' to 
``covered misconduct'' to reflect the terminology in the Suspended 
Counterparty Program regulation. Second, it states that if a Bank 
adopts its own definition of ``covered misconduct,'' that definition 
must incorporate the definition of ``covered misconduct'' in the 
Suspended Counterparty Program regulation at a minimum.
    Application to existing AHP agreements. The final rule relocates 
Sec.  1291.9(c) of the current regulation to Sec.  1291.15(c), and 
revises the provision to make it applicable only to existing AHP 
agreements where the Bank is a party. The provisions of the AHP 
regulation, as amended from time to time, are deemed incorporated into 
all such agreements. This amendment recognizes that FHFA regulates the 
Banks and not third parties. FHFA will provide guidance, as necessary, 
for specific situations where a Bank is not a party to existing AHP 
agreements and questions arise as to applicability of AHP amendments to 
those agreements.
Sec.  1291.16 Conflicts of Interest
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates current 
Sec.  1291.10, which addresses conflicts of interest regarding 
financial interests of Bank directors, Bank employees, Bank Advisory 
Council members, and their family members, unchanged to Sec.  1291.16. 
FHFA did not propose any changes to this section.
    A Bank commented that the terms ``financial interest'' and ``family 
member'' were overly broad and should be defined in accordance with 
comparable terms in FHFA's regulation governing conflict of interest 
policies for Bank directors.\17\ The Bank identified several ordinary 
course financial transactions that it said should not be considered 
``financial interests'' for AHP conflict of interest purposes because 
they would not be expected to motivate Bank directors, Bank employees, 
or Bank Advisory Council members to influence decisions by the Bank 
regarding the evaluation, approval, funding, monitoring, or any 
remedial process for an AHP project. Examples cited included the 
purchase of an insurance product, an investment in a 401(k) account, 
and a retirement pension plan. FHFA notes that the scope of the AHP 
conflict of interest policy provision in Sec.  1291.16 is limited to 
financial interests ``in projects'' that are the subject of a pending 
or approved AHP application and, thus, does not apply to the types of 
routine transactions cited by the Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 12 CFR 1261.11(f)(1), (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart C--General Fund and Targeted Funds
Sec.  1291.20 Establishment of Programs
    General Fund. Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  
1291.20(a)(1) of the final rule replaces current Sec.  1291.5(a) by 
requiring each Bank to establish a General Fund pursuant to the 
requirements of this part. ``General Fund'' is the new term for the 
current ``Competitive Application Program.''
    Eligibility requirements. Consistent with the current regulation, 
Sec.  1291.20(a)(2) of the final rule provides that a Bank may not 
adopt eligibility requirements for its General Fund except as 
specifically authorized in the regulation.
    FHFA did not receive comments on these provisions.
    Targeted Funds. As proposed, Sec.  1291.20(b)(1) of the final rule 
provides that a Bank may establish, in its discretion, a maximum of 
three Targeted Funds, on a phased-in basis, to address specified 
affordable housing needs in its district. Targeted Funds are further 
discussed above under Section III.B. and Sec.  1291.12(c)(1) (phase-in 
of funding allocations).
    Proposed Sec.  1291.20(b) would have prohibited a Bank from 
establishing a Targeted Fund unless at least 12 months had passed since 
the publication of the Bank's TCLP. The final rule addresses the timing 
of the establishment of Targeted Funds in Sec.  1291.13(d) and (e), and 
in Sec.  1290.6(c) of the Community Support Requirements regulation. 
Comments received on the proposed timing requirements are addressed 
under Sec.  1290.6 above.
    The final rule establishes the phase-in requirements for a Bank's 
establishment of Targeted Funds. A Bank may establish one Targeted Fund 
in the first year that it establishes a Targeted Fund. If a Bank has 
previously administered at least one Targeted Fund in any preceding 
year, a Bank may establish two Targeted Funds. If a Bank has previously 
administered two Targeted Funds in any preceding year, it may

[[Page 61208]]

establish three Targeted Funds. The phase-in requirements help ensure 
that a Bank has demonstrated its ability to manage the risks associated 
with administering more than one competitive program in a year.
    Eligibility requirements. As discussed above under Section III.B., 
Sec.  1291.20(b)(2) of the final rule adopts the proposed requirement 
that the Banks adopt and implement parameters (referred to as 
``controls'' in the proposed rule), as specified in their AHP 
Implementation Plans, for ensuring that each Targeted Fund is designed 
to receive sufficient numbers of applicants for the amount of AHP funds 
allocated to the Targeted Fund to facilitate a robust (referred to as 
``genuinely'' in the proposed rule) competitive scoring process. In 
addition, as with General Funds, the final rule provides that the Banks 
may not adopt eligibility requirements for their Targeted Funds except 
as specifically authorized in the regulation.
    The Banks questioned whether this proposed requirement was designed 
to measure sufficiency in terms of a Bank's approach in soliciting 
applications, or based on the number of applications actually received. 
Two of those Banks suggested that the measurement be based on the 
structure of the Targeted Fund and not on the actual number of 
applications received. FHFA notes that the language stating that the 
Targeted Fund is ``designed to receive sufficient number of 
applicants'' indicates that the requirement pertains to the scope and 
scoring methodology of the Targeted Fund, and is not a guarantee of the 
actual number of applications received. Therefore, no change to this 
language is made in the final rule.
Sec.  1291.21 Eligible Applicants
    Member applicants. As proposed, the final rule relocates the 
eligibility requirement for member applicants in Sec.  1291.5(b)(2) of 
the current regulation to Sec.  1291.21(a), without changes except that 
the reference to the ``competitive application program'' is replaced 
with references to the General Fund and any Targeted Funds established 
by the Bank. FHFA did not receive any comments on this provision.
    Project sponsor qualifications. As proposed, the final rule 
relocates the eligibility requirements in Sec.  1291.5(c)(10) of the 
current regulation for project sponsors applying for AHP funds in 
conjunction with members to Sec.  1291.21(b). The final rule retains 
the current requirement that a project sponsor must be qualified and 
able to perform its responsibilities. As further discussed under Sec.  
1291.15(b)(2) above, the final rule does not include the proposal to 
extend the qualifications requirement to include the project sponsor's 
affiliates and team members, including general contractors.
Sec.  1291.22 Funding Rounds; Application Process
    As proposed, the final rule relocates the funding round and 
application process requirements in Sec.  1291.5(b)(1), (b)(3), and 
(b)(4) of the current regulation to Sec.  1291.22. The final rule 
substitutes the term ``rounds'' for ``periods'' to reflect common usage 
among the Banks and AHP stakeholders. FHFA did not receive any comments 
on this section.
Sec.  1291.23 Eligible Projects
    Eligibility requirements. Consistent with the proposed rule, new 
Sec.  1291.23 of the final rule sets forth the eligibility requirements 
for AHP projects, and comprises a number of provisions related to what 
constitutes an eligible project in Sec.  1291.5(c) of the current 
regulation. This section includes the eligibility requirements for 
owner-occupied and rental housing projects, projects that are or are 
not occupied, project feasibility, timing of AHP subsidy use, retention 
agreements for owner-occupied and rental projects, and compliance with 
fair housing laws. In a change from the proposed rule, the current 
eligibility requirement for a five-year retention agreement for owner-
occupied projects in Sec.  1291.5(c)(9)(i) where the AHP subsidy is 
used for purchase, or purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, is 
retained in Sec.  1291.23(d)(1) of the final rule, as discussed in 
Section III.D. above.
    Tenant income qualification in rental projects. Section 
1291.23(a)(2)(ii) of the final rule provides that, in order for an 
occupied rental project to satisfy the income targeting commitments in 
the AHP application at initial occupancy after completion of the 
purchase or rehabilitation, the project must have a relocation plan for 
current occupants that is approved by one of the project's federal, 
state, or local government funders, or a reasonable relocation plan 
that is otherwise approved by the Bank according to standards included 
in its AHP Implementation Plan. The proposed rule would have required a 
relocation plan approved by one of the project's primary funders.
    Under the current regulation, for rental projects that are not 
occupied at the time of application and are approved for AHP subsidy, 
the households must have incomes meeting the income targeting 
commitments in the approved AHP application upon initial occupancy of 
the rental units. For projects involving the purchase or rehabilitation 
of rental housing that are occupied at the time of AHP application, the 
households must have incomes meeting the income targeting commitments 
in the approved AHP application at the time of the AHP application. The 
purpose of qualifying current occupants' incomes at the time of AHP 
application is to discourage displacement of occupants whose incomes 
are higher than the income commitments in the approved AHP application.
    FHFA specifically requested comments on how to encourage 
preservation of rental projects through the AHP while discouraging 
displacement of current occupants with incomes higher than those 
targeted in the AHP application, including whether the proposed 
requirement for a relocation plan approved by the primary funder of the 
project is reasonable. A state agency and a bank supported the proposed 
requirement for submission of a relocation plan, stating that it would 
provide adequate protection of tenants from displacement. A trade 
organization recommended that the Banks have discretion to either 
establish such a policy or to defer to policies established for other 
subsidy programs assisting the project.
    Several other commenters and a Bank noted that there may be cases 
where review by the Bank may be necessary to determine whether a 
relocation plan provides adequate tenant protections and assistance. A 
nonprofit intermediary recommended that the Banks have discretion to 
evaluate the appropriateness of tenant protections in the context of 
the local market. Another Bank, a CDFI, and a nonprofit developer 
stated that for multifamily preservation projects that have no 
relocation plans because they lack government funding or their primary 
funders are commercial banks, the Bank should have authority to approve 
a relocation plan. The Bank reported that in 15 percent of its rental 
rehabilitation projects, AHP funds and the projects' replacement 
reserves were the only sources of funds and, thus, the projects were 
not subject to relocation plans approved under a government program.
    The majority of commenters that addressed this issue, including 
nonprofit intermediaries, trade associations, a lender, and nonprofit 
developers, recommended that FHFA require the Banks to apply either a 
``next tenant'' policy or a ``grandfather'' policy to existing tenants 
who exceed the AHP income commitments in order to avoid displacement of 
those tenants from the

[[Page 61209]]

project. Under a ``next tenant'' policy, the project's current tenant 
income mix would not be evaluated at the time of AHP application, but 
the project owner would be required to rent the unit, when it becomes 
vacant, of a tenant not meeting the AHP income commitments to a tenant 
who meets those commitments. In contrast, a ``grandfather'' policy 
would deem tenants in previously or currently-income restricted units 
who were income-eligible at the time they moved in but whose incomes 
subsequently exceed the income-eligibility thresholds, as income-
eligible under the AHP. Two commenters stated that a ``grandfather'' 
policy would be consistent with HUD requirements, which prohibit the 
permanent relocation of existing residents in many preservation 
transactions, as well as with proposed legislative changes to LIHTC 
policy and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee's 
regulations. One commenter stated that without use of a ``grandfather'' 
policy, preservation projects financed through HUD Sections 202 and 
236, and the Rental Assistance Demonstration program, would be 
disadvantaged in the AHP application process. Another commenter 
recommended that the relocation requirement for currently assisted 
properties be consistent with other federal program requirements.
    After considering the comments, FHFA is adopting in the final rule 
the proposal to allow income qualification of current occupants at 
initial occupancy after completion of the purchase or rehabilitation, 
at the Bank's discretion provided there is a relocation plan for 
current occupants that is approved by one of the project's federal, 
state, or local government funders, or a reasonable relocation plan for 
current occupants that is otherwise approved by the Bank. By requiring 
that the relocation plan be government-approved, or otherwise approved 
by the Bank subject to a reasonableness standard, as opposed to any 
relocation plan approved by one of the project's primary funders, the 
final rule helps ensure that the relocation plan meets standards for 
adequate relocation protections and assistance to tenants. Allowing a 
Bank to approve a reasonable relocation plan also responds to the 
commenters' concerns about projects where there is no government-
approved relocation plan, or where the Bank has determined that some 
types of relocation plans typically approved in its district may not 
provide adequate tenant relocation protections.
    FHFA acknowledges the value in the commenters' recommendations that 
the Banks be allowed to ``grandfather'' existing tenants based on their 
incomes when they moved into the project. However, FHFA has not 
included this recommendation in the final rule because the income 
targeting requirements for other federal and state programs could 
differ substantially from the AHP income targeting requirements (e.g., 
targeting units at 60 percent, 65 percent, or 80 percent AMI, as 
opposed to the AHP income targeting requirement of 50 percent AMI for 
at least 20 percent of the units in the rental project).
    FHFA is also not adopting commenters' recommendations for a ``next-
tenant'' policy in the final rule. While the approach would avoid 
displacement of current tenants not meeting the AHP income targeting 
commitments, it could be a number of years before these tenants move 
out of the building and AHP income-eligible tenants replace them, 
meaning the project would not be serving AHP-income eligible households 
for some period of time. In addition, the practice could increase the 
income-targeting monitoring burden on the Banks and project sponsors.
Sec.  1291.24 Eligible Uses
    Eligible uses of AHP subsidy. Consistent with the proposed rule, 
Sec.  1291.24(a) of the final rule groups together a number of 
provisions in Sec.  1291.5(c) of the current regulation related to 
eligible uses of AHP subsidy. These include: use of the AHP subsidy for 
purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of owner-occupied or rental 
housing; determinations of the need for the AHP subsidy, including 
sponsor-provided permanent financing; reasonable project costs 
determinations; reasonable financing costs determinations; eligible 
counseling costs; eligible refinancing; optional Bank district 
eligibility requirements; and calculation of the AHP subsidy. The 
provisions and any changes are discussed below.
    Need for AHP subsidy. The final rule relocates the need for AHP 
subsidy eligibility requirement in Sec.  1291.5(c)(2) of the current 
regulation to Sec.  1291.24(a)(3), but does not adopt the proposed 
changes. FHFA plans instead to separately address the need for subsidy 
determination.
    The current regulation requires that rental projects establish 
their eligibility for AHP subsidy by demonstrating: (1) A need for the 
AHP subsidy; (2) developmental and operational feasibility; and (3) 
project cost reasonableness. The regulation states that the estimated 
sources of funds for a project must equal its estimated uses of funds, 
as reflected in the project's development budget. Where the project's 
uses of funds exceed its sources of funds (excluding the AHP subsidy), 
the difference is the project's need for AHP subsidy, which is the 
maximum amount the project may receive.
    As discussed in the NPRM, Banks and various stakeholders have 
asserted that the current regulatory language, as well as preamble 
language from an earlier AHP rulemaking, indicate that, for rental 
projects, the Banks are only required to review the project's 
development budget and not its operating pro forma in determining its 
need for AHP subsidy. The NPRM noted that FHFA's long-standing policy 
has been that the Banks review both the project development budget and 
the operating pro forma in making this determination.
    In an effort to address any misunderstandings or differences in 
views about the process and requirements for determining a rental 
project's need for AHP subsidy, the proposed rule would have required 
the Banks to review the project's operating pro forma, in addition to 
the development budget, consistent with FHFA's long-standing policy. As 
discussed in the NPRM, a Bank must review a rental project's 
development budget to determine whether a funding gap exists between 
the sources and uses of funds. Review of the project's operating pro 
forma enables the Bank to assess the reasonableness of the project's 
projected cash flow, which could have an impact on the Bank's 
assessment of the need for AHP subsidy. For example, a debt coverage 
ratio or cash flow amount that exceeds the Bank's feasibility standards 
could indicate that the project does not need the full amount of AHP 
subsidy requested because it will have sufficient funds from ongoing 
operations to repay the debt associated with developing the rental 
project. If so, the project may be able to supplant part, or all, of 
the AHP subsidy through other means.
    The NPRM included proposed guidance for evaluating that a project's 
cash flow and costs are reasonable, and how the Banks should perform 
the need for subsidy analysis in cases where: (1) Capitalized reserves 
exceed the Bank's project cost guidelines; (2) the project provides 
supportive services; and (3) the cash flow or debt coverage ratio 
exceeds the Bank's project cost guidelines.
    Numerous commenters, including the Banks, nonprofit advocacy 
organizations and intermediaries, trade associations, and nonprofit and 
for-profit developers,

[[Page 61210]]

expressed views about the proposed regulatory change and guidance for 
determining the need for subsidy. A majority of the commenters opposed 
requiring the Banks to review a project's operating pro forma in 
addition to its development budget. A common concern raised was that 
the proposal could lead to cancellation of AHP subsidy awards due to a 
lack of need for the subsidy, negatively impacting individual projects 
and the overall Program. The commenters acknowledged the value of the 
operating pro forma in assessing the financial viability of a rental 
project, but not in determining the project's need for subsidy. The 
commenters emphasized that having a strong cash flow at some point 
during a project's lifecycle does not indicate that the project can 
borrow more funds or attract additional grant funding. One nonprofit 
affordable housing intermediary stressed that because AHP funds play a 
subordinate role in the production and financing of affordable housing, 
FHFA should not require the Banks to assess independently the 
reasonableness of a rental project's cash flow. The commenter stated 
that the Banks should be permitted to rely on cash flow and debt 
service parameters established by first position lenders and equity 
sources. The commenter and a nonprofit housing developer recommended 
that FHFA issue guidance encouraging the Banks to leverage the 
underwriting processes of other funding sources when making a need for 
subsidy determinations at application or at initial monitoring. One of 
the commenters also suggested that FHFA allow the Banks to rely on 
certifications by the project owner that the AHP funds were needed, or 
to structure AHP awards as loans or repayable grants that the project 
could repay from cash flow if funds remained.
    For rental projects providing supportive services, the proposed 
guidance in the NPRM recognized the challenges associated with the 
analysis of these projects since, under the Bank Act and the AHP 
regulation, AHP subsidy may not be used to fund supportive services 
expenses. The NPRM stated that the Banks should require a separate 
supportive services budget that captures income and expenses for all 
supportive services activities to ensure that the project can 
reasonably offer them. The NPRM indicated that for projects where a 
government entity provides operating subsidies that fund both housing 
operating costs and supportive services and the operating subsidies 
cannot be readily bifurcated, the operating pro forma should capture 
the supportive services income and expenses. The Banks and many other 
commenters stated that requiring creation of an operating pro forma for 
housing and a separate one for supportive services could result in an 
inaccurate accounting of costs. They recommended that supportive 
services expenses be treated as standard operating expenses and, 
therefore, included in the operating pro forma.
    The comments received in response to the proposed regulatory change 
and guidance reflect significant differences between the commenters' 
understanding of, and experience implementing, the requirement for 
determining need for subsidy and the Agency's rationale for addressing 
and clarifying the requirement. In light of these differences, the 
final rule does not adopt the proposed regulatory requirement for the 
Banks to review the operating pro forma in determining the need for AHP 
subsidy, and the proposed guidance is not included in the final rule 
preamble. Instead, FHFA plans to separately address the need for 
subsidy determination.
    Sponsor-provided permanent financing to homeowners. As proposed, 
the final rule relocates the requirements in Sec.  1291.5(c)(2)(ii) of 
the current regulation for sponsor-provided permanent financing to 
Sec.  1291.24(a)(3)(ii) with no changes from the current regulation. 
FHFA expects to initiate a rulemaking on this subject in the near 
future.
    The current regulation provides that when a Bank determines the 
need for AHP subsidy in homeownership projects where the sponsor 
extends permanent financing to the homebuyer, the sponsor's cash 
contribution (which is included in the project's cash sources of funds) 
shall include the present value of any payments the sponsor is to 
receive from the buyer, including any cash down payment from the buyer, 
plus the present value of any purchase note the sponsor holds on the 
unit. If the note carries a market interest rate commensurate with the 
credit quality of the buyer, 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 shall be determined using 
the market rate to discount the cash flows.
    Prior to the issuance of the proposed rule, some Banks and AHP 
stakeholders requested that FHFA eliminate this provision, citing the 
complexity of the calculation. Others suggested that the regulation 
should treat sponsors like revolving loan funds, on the basis that 
their financing model operates essentially as a revolving loan fund. 
FHFA specifically requested comments in the proposed rule on whether 
the current AHP requirements for sponsor-provided permanent financing 
are reasonable, including whether the sponsors have a need for AHP 
subsidy in light of their particular financing model, and whether the 
current method in the regulation for determining their need for AHP 
subsidy understates or overstates the amount of AHP subsidy needed. 
FHFA also requested comments on whether the regulation should consider 
sponsors using this financing model to be revolving loan funds and, if 
so, whether they should be subject to current or different AHP 
revolving loan fund requirements.
    A national intermediary and a number of its affiliates opposed the 
current AHP regulatory requirements for sponsor-provided permanent 
financing. They stated that the AHP regulation does not require any 
other lender to disclose how it obtains funds to lend to a homebuyer 
and that this is an unfair burden placed solely on sponsor-provided 
permanent mortgage lenders. Commenters stated that, from a practical 
and examination standpoint, the AHP subsidy must be disclosed on the 
Closing Disclosure, which shows the face value of the mortgage loan and 
demonstrates the pass through of the AHP grant to the homebuyer. The 
national intermediary further stated that the regulatory requirement 
was intended to show that due to lending money at a below market 
interest rate, the AHP subsidy is needed as a source for the discounted 
loan (present value of the loan). The commenter asserted, however, that 
since the ``present value loan amount'' is not on the Closing 
Disclosure, this creates an additional document for these organizations 
to create that is burdensome and provides no additional value to the 
Banks in evaluating the need for AHP subsidy.
    In view of the comments and the value of receiving further input on 
these issues, FHFA has not adopted any changes to these requirements in 
the final rule and intends to conduct rulemaking in the near future on 
sponsor-provided permanent financing.
    Prohibited uses of AHP subsidy. As in the proposed rule, Sec.  
1291.24(b) of the final rule includes the prohibited uses of AHP 
subsidy set forth in Sec.  1291.5(c)(16) of the current regulation. 
These prohibited uses are: certain prepayment fees imposed by a Bank; 
fees imposed by a Bank for cancellation of a subsidized advance 
commitment; and processing fees charged by members

[[Page 61211]]

for providing AHP direct subsidies to a project.
    As proposed, Sec.  1291.24(b)(4) of the final rule adds that, 
consistent with current practice, capitalized reserves, periodic 
deposits to reserve accounts, operating expenses, and supportive 
services expenses are not eligible uses of AHP subsidy. The Banks 
concurred that supportive services expenses are not an eligible use of 
AHP subsidy. No comments were received on the other prohibited uses of 
AHP subsidy.
    Optional Bank district eligibility requirements--maximum subsidy 
limits. As proposed, Sec.  1291.24(c) of the final rule retains Sec.  
1291.5(c)(15) of the current regulation, which authorizes a Bank to 
establish limits on the maximum amount of AHP subsidy available per 
member, per project, or per project unit in a single AHP funding round, 
and adds that a Bank may establish a maximum subsidy limit per project 
sponsor. This change and other changes are discussed below.
    Maximum subsidy limit per member each year. As proposed, the final 
rule removes the reference in the current regulation to ``per member 
each year'' as unnecessary because it can be factored into the subsidy 
limit per member in a single AHP funding round, especially as no Bank 
currently conducts more than one AHP funding round per year.
    Maximum subsidy limit per project sponsor. As proposed, the final 
rule revises the current regulation to allow a Bank to adopt a maximum 
subsidy limit per project sponsor in a single AHP funding round. A Bank 
might choose to establish such a limit in order to provide 
opportunities for smaller or less experienced project sponsors to 
compete successfully for AHP subsidies. On the other hand, a project 
sponsor limit could prevent worthy projects developed by larger, more 
experienced project sponsors from receiving AHP subsidy. FHFA 
specifically requested comments in the NPRM on the potential advantages 
and disadvantages of allowing the Banks to impose a maximum subsidy 
limit per project sponsor.
    One Bank supported the proposal on the basis that it would reduce 
the concentration of AHP awards in a small number of project sponsors. 
Several other commenters provided mixed or qualified views on the 
proposal. A Bank stated that a project sponsor subsidy limit could 
provide an opportunity for other types of project sponsors to 
participate, but it could also restrict project sponsors with otherwise 
competitive applications from receiving AHP awards. A trade association 
stated that a project sponsor subsidy limit could limit Bank exposure 
to risk associated with a single project sponsor and encourage 
diversification of project sponsors, but because project sponsors 
differ substantially in size, scale, geographic scope, capacity, and 
internal controls, individual AHP applications should be evaluated 
based on their merits without an arbitrary project sponsor subsidy 
limit. The commenter recommended that the Banks establish any project 
sponsor subsidy limit as a percentage of total AHP awards, so that it 
is high enough to allow a project sponsor to receive multiple awards in 
a single AHP funding round. A nonprofit affordable housing intermediary 
likewise supported awarding AHP subsidy based on the merits of 
individual applications, but acknowledged that having a project sponsor 
subsidy limit would make the AHP subsidy available to more project 
sponsors.
    Other commenters opposed providing the Banks discretion to adopt 
project sponsor subsidy limits. A nonprofit affordable housing 
intermediary commented that the Banks can have a much greater impact if 
they award AHP subsidy based on the merits of individual applications 
rather than setting an arbitrary maximum subsidy limit per project 
sponsor. Two nonprofit developers stated that the proposed project 
sponsor subsidy limit would penalize project sponsors that have 
multiple projects that score well and are eligible for subsidy awards. 
A trade organization stated that the proposed project sponsor subsidy 
limit would allow less qualified projects and project sponsors to 
benefit at the expense of better qualified projects and project 
sponsors whose applications exceed the subsidy limit, thereby eroding 
the transparency of the application approval process.
    After consideration of the comments, FHFA has decided to adopt the 
proposal in the final rule. Each Bank should have discretion to 
determine whether the benefits of establishing a project sponsor 
subsidy limit in its district outweigh its potential disadvantages, 
based on factors such as the characteristics of their project sponsor 
applicant pools, the record of accomplishment of experienced and less 
experienced project sponsors in receiving AHP subsidy awards, and the 
housing needs of the district.
    Number of maximum subsidy limits per Fund. Consistent with Agency 
guidance for the current Competitive Application Program and with the 
proposed rule, the final rule provides that a Bank may establish only 
one maximum AHP subsidy limit per member, per project, or per project 
unit for the General Fund and for each Targeted Fund, which shall apply 
to all applicants to the specific Fund. This requirement also applies 
to the newly authorized maximum subsidy limit per project sponsor. The 
purpose of this requirement is to ensure consistency, clarity, and a 
level playing field for all applicants to a specific Fund, and avoid 
administrative burdens for the Banks if they were permitted to 
determine different subsidy limits for different regions or types of 
projects.
    As proposed, the final rule further provides that the maximum AHP 
subsidy limit per project or per project unit may differ for each Fund. 
FHFA's intent in providing this flexibility is to allow the Banks to 
establish maximum subsidy limits for each Fund that addresses the 
specific characteristics of project applicants for that Fund. For 
instance, a Bank may want to establish a higher maximum subsidy limit 
per project for a Targeted Fund focused on certain geographies or 
development types in light of differences in housing development costs, 
such as high-cost areas or projects where most units contain three or 
more bedrooms to accommodate larger households. FHFA did not receive 
any comments on this proposal.
    Applications to multiple Funds--subsidy amount. Consistent with the 
proposed rule, Sec.  1291.24(d) of the final rule provides that if an 
AHP application for a project is submitted to more than one Fund at the 
same time, the application for each Fund must be for the same amount of 
AHP subsidy. This will ensure that the project demonstrates the same 
need for AHP subsidy in each application. If a project sponsor applies 
for a different amount of AHP subsidy in each application, the Bank 
would communicate with the sponsor to determine which subsidy amount 
the Bank should evaluate for both applications. Otherwise, it would 
raise questions about whether the project would be over-subsidized if 
awarded the higher amount of subsidy. FHFA did not receive any comments 
on this proposal.
Sec.  1291.25 Scoring Methodologies
    As discussed in Section III.A. above, the final rule does not adopt 
the proposed outcome-based framework and instead revises the scoring-
based project selection framework in the current regulation for the 
General Fund. New Sec.  1291.25 addresses scoring methodologies for 
evaluating applications under the General Fund and Targeted Funds. 
Section 1291.25 retains much of the content in current

[[Page 61212]]

Sec.  1291.5(d)(1) through (4), with certain modifications discussed 
below. The requirements for the scoring criteria for the General Fund 
and Targeted Funds are included in new Sec. Sec.  1291.26 and 1291.27, 
respectively.
    Written scoring methodologies. Section 1291.25(a)(1) of the final 
rule establishes requirements for the Banks' scoring methodologies that 
are generally comparable to current Sec.  1291.5(d)(1) with changes to 
reflect the Banks' new authority to administer Targeted Funds. 
Consistent with the current regulation, a Bank's scoring methodologies 
must be written, and a Bank may not adopt additional scoring criteria 
or scoring points allocations except as specifically authorized by the 
regulation. Consistent with proposed Sec.  1291.25(a), the final rule 
provides that the scoring methodology for each Fund may be different.
    Scoring points allocations. Section 1291.25(a)(2)(i) of the final 
rule establishes scoring points allocation requirements for the General 
Fund. Consistent with current Sec.  1291.5(d)(2) and proposed Sec.  
1291.25(b), the final rule requires that a Bank allocate 100 points 
among the relevant scoring criteria. However, as discussed in Section 
III.A. above, the final rule revises the current minimum scoring points 
allocation requirements. Specifically, while the income targeting 
scoring criterion must still be allocated at least 20 points, and the 
remaining scoring criteria must still be allocated at least 5 points 
each, if a Bank adopts a scoring criterion for home purchase by low- or 
moderate-income households as an optional scoring criterion, the Bank 
may allocate fewer than the full 5 points to it, with the remainder of 
such points allocated to one or a combination of the other scoring 
criteria other than to the Bank district priorities scoring criterion. 
The scoring points allocation requirements are further discussed in 
connection with specific scoring criteria under Sec.  1291.26 below.
    In addition, as proposed, the final rule provides that if a Bank 
adopts a scoring criterion under its Bank district priority for housing 
located in the Bank's district, the Bank may not allocate points to the 
scoring criterion in a way that excludes all out-of-district projects 
from its General Fund. This provision strengthens the statement in the 
preamble to the 2006 AHP final rule that a Bank should not use the 
scoring criterion in this way by explicitly prohibiting the allocation 
of points in such way. FHFA did not receive comments on this provision.
    For Targeted Funds, as proposed, Sec.  1291.25(a)(2)(ii) of the 
final rule requires a Bank to allocate 100 points among all of the 
scoring criteria adopted by the Bank for the Targeted Fund. The final 
rule adds a requirement that a Bank may not allocate more than 50 
points to any one scoring criterion for a Targeted Fund in order to 
ensure that applications are evaluated in a competitive process, taking 
all of the scoring criteria into account.
    Scoring tied applications. Section 1291.25(c) of the final rule 
adopts, as proposed, a requirement that each Bank establish and 
implement, as necessary, a scoring tie-breaker policy to address the 
case of two or more applications to its General Fund or any Targeted 
Fund receiving identical scores in the same AHP funding round and there 
is insufficient AHP subsidy to approve all of the tied applications but 
sufficient subsidy to approve at least one of them. The specific 
requirements in the final rule for the scoring tie-breaker policy are 
consistent with guidance FHFA has provided to the Banks and with the 
proposed rule, except that the final rule provides that the approval of 
tied applications as alternates is only applicable if the Bank has 
adopted a written policy to approve alternates for funding under the 
applicable Fund. Approval of alternates is discussed further under 
Sec.  1291.28(b) below. FHFA did not receive comments on this 
provision.
Sec.  1291.26 Scoring Criteria for the General Fund
    Final rule. In a significant change from the proposed rule, and as 
discussed in Section III.A. above, the final rule does not adopt the 
proposed outcome-based framework for project selection, and instead 
revises the scoring-based project selection framework in the current 
regulation. The scoring-based framework in the final rule incorporates 
housing needs priorities from the current regulation and the proposed 
rule, and provides the Banks with additional discretion in the 
selection of Bank district housing needs than is provided in the 
current regulation.
    Current regulation. The current regulation prescribes a scoring-
based project selection system based on a 100-point scale. Under the 
current system, each Bank must allocate at least five points to each of 
two scoring criteria reflecting priorities in the Bank Act--use of 
donated or conveyed government-owned or other properties, and 
sponsorship by a nonprofit organization or government entity. Each Bank 
must allocate at least 40 points collectively to five scoring criteria 
reflecting FHFA regulatory priorities--20 points to income targeting, 
and five points each to housing for homeless households, promotion of 
empowerment, AHP subsidy per unit, and community stability. Of the 
remaining 50 points, a minimum of 5 points must be allocated to each of 
two Bank district priority categories: The first Bank district 
priority, for which a Bank selects one or more housing needs from 12 
eligible housing needs specified in the regulation; and the second Bank 
district priority addressing one or more housing needs in the Bank's 
district, as defined by the Bank, with the Bank permitted to select an 
eligible housing need from the first Bank district priority provided it 
is different from the housing needs selected by the Bank under the 
second Bank district priority. The current regulation, thus, 
establishes a 50-50 distribution of points that must be allocated to: 
(i) The combination of statutory and regulatory priorities; and (ii) 
the combination of first and second Bank district priorities.

[[Page 61213]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28NO18.001

    Proposed rule. As discussed in in Section III.A. above, the 
proposed rule would have replaced the current scoring-based framework 
with an outcome-based approach which would have included four 
regulatory priorities for: (1) Very low-income targeting for rental 
units; (2) underserved communities and populations; (3) creating 
economic opportunity; and (4) affordable housing preservation, with 
examples of eligible housing needs specified under the latter three 
regulatory priorities.
    Comments. The Banks jointly submitted an alternative proposal for 
project selection that retains the current scoring-based system, with 
certain changes to the regulatory priorities and required minimum 
scoring allocations, as described below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28NO18.002


[[Page 61214]]


    Statutory priorities. The Banks' proposal retains the following 
statutory priorities as mandatory scoring priorities, consistent with 
the current regulation and proposed rule: (1) Projects sponsored by a 
government or nonprofit entity; and (2) projects using donated or 
conveyed government property. The Banks' proposal adds a scoring 
criterion for the Bank Act priority for the purchase of homes by low- 
or moderate-income households,\18\ which a Bank would be required to 
implement if it does not allocate at least 10 percent of its total 
annual required AHP contribution to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. 
Each of the statutory priorities is allocated a minimum of 5 points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory priorities. The Banks' proposal also includes five 
regulatory priorities, each of which must be allocated a minimum of 5 
points, except that income targeting must be allocated at least 15 
points, resulting in a combined minimum allocation of 35 points. These 
priorities generally include the four regulatory priorities in the 
proposed rule, but with some modifications to the specific eligible 
housing needs included under those regulatory priorities. The fifth 
regulatory priority is community stability, which the Banks' proposal 
retains, with limited revisions, from the current regulation. The 
Banks' proposal does not retain the current scoring criterion for AHP 
subsidy per unit. The Banks' proposed minimum allocation of 35 points 
for the regulatory priorities is a reduction from the 40 points the 
current regulation requires the Banks to allocate to the regulatory 
priorities therein. In FHFA's view, this proposed five-point reduction 
in the number of points allocated to regulatory priorities would not 
significantly impact whether FHFA has met its statutory requirement to 
establish priorities for the use of the AHP subsidies.\19\ The Banks' 
proposal further supports this conclusion because it maintains the 
current 50-50 point allocation between statutory/regulatory priorities 
and Bank district priorities, as further discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(9)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Banks' proposal retains certain standards in the 
current scoring criteria. The proposal retains the current 60 percent 
maximum scoring standard for targeting very low-income households as 
part of the income targeting priority. The Bank's proposal also retains 
the current minimum threshold of 20 percent for the number of units in 
a project that must target homeless or special needs households in 
order to receive points, and includes a minimum 20 percent threshold 
for projects serving other targeted populations, in contrast to the 50 
percent minimum threshold for these populations in the proposed rule. 
In addition, the Banks' proposal makes slight changes to the types of 
populations included under the special needs and other targeted 
populations categories, discussed further below. Finally, the Banks' 
proposal provides for the Banks to define the terms ``rural area'' and 
``affordable housing preservation,'' as currently allowed, and to 
define ``residential economic diversity,'' rather than use the current 
regulatory definition. The proposed rule would have required the Banks 
to use FHFA's Duty to Serve definitions of those terms.
    Bank district priorities. The Banks' proposal permits the Banks to 
allocate the remaining maximum of 50 points to priorities that address 
affordable housing needs in the Bank's district that the Bank has not 
otherwise adopted in its scoring framework.
    Additional comments received from the Banks and other commenters on 
specific scoring criteria proposed by FHFA are discussed below.
    Decision in final rule. FHFA finds the Banks' proposal to be a 
reasonable approach for project selection, subject to certain changes 
in response to various comments received and to achieve specific policy 
objectives. Accordingly, the final rule adopts a scoring-based 
framework based on the current regulation that incorporates many 
features from the Banks' proposal--significantly, the statutory 
priorities in the current regulation, an additional statutory priority 
for home purchases by low- or moderate-income households, the proposed 
regulatory priorities for income targeting, underserved communities and 
populations, creating economic opportunity, and affordable housing 
preservation (in conjunction with community stability), and a Bank 
district priority as in the current regulation. The regulatory 
priorities incorporate the regulatory priorities in the current 
regulation but are broader in scope. The statutory and regulatory 
priorities, and related comments received, are discussed further below.

[[Page 61215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28NO18.003

    Statutory priorities for government properties and project 
sponsorship (Sec.  1291.26(a), (b)). The scoring framework in the final 
rule retains the statutory priorities for the use of donated or 
conveyed government properties and for projects sponsored by a 
nonprofit organization or government entity. A for-profit developer 
commented that retention of these scoring criteria would greatly limit 
participation in the program by affordable housing providers. A CDFI 
opposed land donation as a scoring criterion, questioning its utility 
in the current affordable housing environment. A nonprofit developer 
stated that donated land is available to it on very few occasions. A 
Bank Advisory Council stated that at the time Congress enacted the Bank 
Act amendments authorizing the AHP, there were significant government-
held, real estate-owned inventories and proposed military base 
closures, but that government properties are now rarely a factor in the 
funding of affordable housing projects, illustrating the need for 
regulatory flexibility. Several CDFIs commented that revolving loan 
fund programs typically do not score well under this criterion.
    FHFA acknowledges, as it did in the NPRM, that in the Program's 
experience, a relatively limited number of projects have satisfied the 
government properties priority, and the Agency expects that to 
continue. However, because the use of government-owned properties is a 
priority specified in the Bank Act, FHFA is retaining it as a scoring 
criterion in the project selection framework in the final rule.
    Similarly, sponsorship of a project by a nonprofit organization or 
government entity is a priority specified in the Bank Act and, 
therefore, is also retained as a scoring criterion in the project 
selection framework in the final rule. The Banks award a majority of 
AHP awards through their Competitive Application Programs to projects 
with nonprofit or government entity sponsors. Continued support of 
these types of project sponsors is important because they have a long 
record of using AHP subsidies to support affordable housing.
    Statutory priority for purchase of homes by low- or moderate-income 
households (Sec.  1291.26(c)). The project selection framework in the 
final rule adds a statutory priority for the purchase of homes by low- 
or moderate-income households that a Bank must adopt if it does not 
allocate at least 10 percent of its total required annual AHP 
contribution to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. This requirement is 
consistent with the Banks' proposal for project selection.
    Proposed Sec.  1291.48(b) would have required that, each year, each 
Bank award at least 10 percent of its annual required AHP contribution 
to low- or moderate-income households, or to projects targeting such 
households, for the purchase by such households of homes under any or 
some combination of the Bank's General Fund, any Targeted Funds, and 
any Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. As discussed in the NPRM, this 
priority is consistent with the priority in the Bank Act for the 
purchase of homes by low- or moderate-income families. FHFA 
specifically requested comments on whether 10 percent of a Bank's total 
annual required AHP contribution constitutes sufficient prioritization 
for this home purchase priority, or whether the percentage should be 
higher or lower. A number of commenters expressed differing views over 
the proposed 10 percent figure. A Bank stated that it would establish 
an appropriate prioritization, while the Banks opposed it as overly 
prescriptive and difficult to meet in high cost areas.
    The scoring criterion in the final rule responds to commenters' 
concerns that the proposed 10 percent allocation to a Bank's 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs would be too restrictive. In areas of 
Bank districts where the cost of homeownership is very high, 
comparatively fewer low- or moderate- income households would be able 
to afford to purchase homes, even if funds for down payment and closing 
costs were available to them from a Homeownership Set-Aside Program. A 
Bank with such high cost areas in its district, thus, may prefer not to 
allocate funds to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs and to support 
instead the development of rental units as the most impactful use of 
its AHP subsidies. The final rule enables the Banks to address such 
situations by providing them the option to adopt the scoring criterion 
for home purchase by low- or moderate-income households in lieu of 
allocating at least 10 percent of their AHP funds

[[Page 61216]]

to Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. FHFA expects that such a scoring 
criterion will have an impact, even in the absence of a set-aside 
program.
    Regulatory priority for income targeting (Sec.  1291.26(d)). The 
scoring framework in the final rule retains the current regulatory 
priority for targeting very low- and low- or moderate-income 
households, including the specific scoring methodology for targeting 
these households. The final rule continues the current required 
allocation of at least 20 points for this priority, in contrast to the 
Banks' proposal to reduce the minimum point allocation to 15 points.
    Proposed Sec.  1291.48(c) would have established an outcome 
requirement for a regulatory priority for very low-income targeting for 
rental units. Each Bank would have been required to ensure that each 
year, at least 55 percent of all rental units in rental projects 
receiving AHP awards under the Bank's General Fund and any Targeted 
Funds are reserved for very low-income households (households with 
incomes at or below 50 percent AMI). FHFA specifically requested 
comments on this proposed requirement, including whether the proposed 
55 percent threshold, the applicability solely to rental units, and 
income-targeting at 50 percent AMI were appropriate.
    Commenters generally opposed the proposal. The Banks, a Bank 
Advisory Council, and two trade and policy organizations expressed 
concern that this requirement would fail to recognize the benefits of 
mixed-income occupancy projects, which allow developers to cross-
subsidize units. A nonprofit intermediary stated that the income 
targeting standards should align with LIHTC income targeting standards. 
The Banks' project selection proposal retains the standard for 
targeting very low- and low- or moderate-income households set forth in 
the current regulation, which, for rental projects, requires the Banks 
to award the maximum income targeting score to projects that reserve 60 
percent of the units for households with incomes at or below 50 percent 
AMI.
    As discussed under Section III.A. above, the final rule does not 
adopt the proposed outcome-based scoring framework, including this 
proposed very low-income targeting regulatory priority. Instead, 
consistent with the Banks' project selection proposal, the final rule 
retains the current scoring criterion for income targeting in order to 
continue the AHP's important role in addressing the housing needs of 
very low- as well as low- or moderate-income households. Retaining the 
existing 20-point minimum allocation for income targeting also 
emphasizes the AHP's role in this regard. At the same time, the final 
rule retains the current 60 percent of units standard, which is 
intended to encourage the awarding of more points to mixed-income 
housing. The income targeting standards in the regulation cannot be 
changed to align completely with the LIHTC income targeting standards 
because the Bank Act's standards are different.
    Regulatory priorities for underserved communities and populations, 
creating economic opportunities, and community stability including 
affordable housing preservation.
    The final rule adopts three regulatory priorities, each of which 
comprises a number of specified eligible housing needs, some of which 
are scoring criteria in the current regulation. The specified eligible 
housing needs are examples of the kinds of housing needs a Bank may 
choose to adopt under each regulatory priority and are not 
exclusionary. A Bank may choose to adopt other housing needs under the 
regulatory priority that are similar in nature to those specified under 
the regulatory priority. FHFA may also specify additional eligible 
housing needs under the regulatory priorities by separate guidance, as 
new housing needs arise. A Bank must adopt at least one housing need as 
a scoring criterion under each of the three regulatory priorities.
    FHFA's research to develop the housing priorities in the proposed 
rule leads it to believe that these three regulatory priorities 
represent the most pressing housing needs currently facing the Nation, 
while providing the Banks sufficient flexibility to meet future housing 
needs. The three regulatory priorities and examples of their eligible 
housing needs are discussed below.
Regulatory Priority for Underserved Communities and Populations (Sec.  
1291.26(e))
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule adopts a 
regulatory priority for underserved communities and populations, 
including the following eligible housing needs described in further 
detail below: Housing for homeless households; housing for special 
needs populations; housing for other targeted populations; housing in 
rural areas; and rental housing for extremely low-income households. 
FHFA may also identify other specific housing needs as eligible under 
this regulatory priority by separate guidance, as new housing needs 
arise.
    Housing for homeless households (Sec.  1291.26(e)(1)). As proposed, 
the final rule includes housing for homeless households as an eligible 
housing need under the underserved communities and populations 
regulatory priority. In contrast to the current regulation, the final 
rule makes adoption of a housing for homeless households scoring 
criterion optional rather than mandatory. In a change from the proposed 
rule, the final rule retains the current minimum threshold for the 
number of units that must be reserved for homeless households at 20 
percent in order for a project to receive points. The proposed rule 
would have increased the minimum threshold to 50 percent to encourage 
projects dedicated to serving the needs of those households. FHFA 
specifically requested comments on whether this proposed increase would 
be appropriate.
    Commenters overwhelmingly opposed the proposed increase in the 
minimum threshold. A number of commenters raised project development 
concerns with the proposal, such as difficulties in securing a project 
site or project financing. A Bank Advisory Council stated that a 
minimum 50 percent threshold would be very challenging for project 
sponsors to meet given the lack of operating subsidies available for 
homeless housing and special needs housing. A Bank and its Bank 
Advisory Council emphasized that a minimum 50 percent threshold would 
not align with current housing models or the requirements of other 
funders that also fund AHP projects, especially since many housing 
finance agencies require that a maximum of 25 or 30 percent of the 
units in a project target homeless households. A number of 
representatives of a nonprofit developer stated that a specific project 
would not have been able to overcome community opposition if it had 
been required to reserve 50 percent of its units for homeless 
households. A number of nonprofit housing developers asserted that many 
homeownership projects, even those serving specified populations, would 
find it difficult to meet a 50 percent threshold as these populations 
often find it difficult to qualify for homeownership opportunities.
    FHFA is persuaded by the commenters that increasing the current 
minimum 20 percent threshold for homeless households to 50 percent 
could create difficulties for the financing of such projects, 
particularly in states or localities with limited designated funding 
sources for such households. The Agency also recognizes that the 
development of such projects at a 50 percent threshold level may face 
community opposition. Therefore, the final rule retains the current 
minimum

[[Page 61217]]

threshold of 20 percent for homeless households.
    Housing for special needs (Sec.  1291.26(e)(2)). As proposed, the 
final rule includes housing for special needs populations as an 
eligible housing need under the underserved communities and populations 
regulatory priority. The current regulation includes housing for 
special needs populations as an optional eligible housing need under 
the first Bank district priority. As in the current regulation and 
proposed rule, the final rule includes the following as eligible 
special needs populations under this scoring criterion: The elderly; 
persons recovering from physical abuse or alcohol or drug abuse; 
persons with HIV/AIDS; persons with disabilities; and housing that is 
visitable by persons with physical disabilities who are not occupants 
of such housing. In addition, as proposed, the final rule expands the 
eligible special needs populations from those in the current regulation 
to include: Formerly incarcerated persons; victims of domestic 
violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking; and 
unaccompanied youth.
    However, in a change from the proposed rule, the final rule retains 
the current minimum threshold of 20 percent for the number of units 
that must be reserved for special needs populations in order for a 
project to receive scoring points. FHFA specifically requested comments 
on whether this proposed increase, which was intended to encourage 
projects dedicated to serving special needs populations, would be 
appropriate. In addition, in contrast to the proposed rule, which would 
have required projects with units serving special needs populations to 
provide supportive services or access to supportive services for the 
specific special needs population served, the final rule does not 
require projects to provide such services or access to such services in 
order to receive points under this scoring criterion.
    One commenter supported the proposed increase in the minimum 
threshold from 20 to 50 percent, stating that significant evidence 
documents that people with disabilities prefer to live in housing 
designed to address their specific needs, rather than being dispersed 
through a mixed-occupancy project. Commenters otherwise overwhelmingly 
opposed the proposed increase in the minimum threshold. A Bank Advisory 
Council stated that a minimum 50 percent threshold would be very 
challenging for project sponsors to meet given the lack of operating 
subsidies available for special needs. A Bank and its Advisory Council 
emphasized that a minimum 50 percent threshold would not align with 
current housing models or the requirements of other funders that also 
fund AHP projects, especially since, according to these commenters, 
many housing finance agencies require that a maximum of 25 or 30 
percent of the units in a project target special needs. Numerous 
commenters also questioned whether the proposed increase in the 
threshold would be consistent with other applicable federal law 
governing the housing integration of persons with disabilities.\20\ A 
nonprofit intermediary indicated that, since 2015, one-third of its 
AHP-funded supportive housing projects targeted less than 50 percent of 
their units to supportive housing. The commenter indicated that this 
portion of its portfolio provided needed housing units for households 
who benefited from the provision of supportive housing units. The 
commenter stated that increasing the threshold to 50 percent could 
diminish the flexibility developers need, impeding supportive housing 
development in some communities. A number of nonprofit housing 
developers asserted that many homeownership projects, even those 
serving specified populations, would find it difficult to meet a 50 
percent threshold as special populations often find it difficult to 
qualify for homeownership opportunities. An advocacy organization that 
focuses on the housing needs of people with disabilities opposed the 
proposed 50 percent threshold for housing for people with disabilities, 
stating that it would result in isolation of such individuals from 
other populations. The commenter recommended that FHFA consider 
adopting a maximum limit of 25 percent of the number of units within a 
project that could be reserved for occupancy by the applicable targeted 
population, citing HUD's Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program 
as a federal program reflecting this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 28 CFR 35.130(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons discussed under the homeless households 
scoring criterion above, the final rule retains the current minimum 
threshold of 20 percent for special needs households. The final rule 
does not adopt the commenter's recommendation to establish a maximum 25 
percent limit on the number of units in a project that could be 
reserved for occupancy by persons with disabilities because it would 
unnecessarily constrain Banks in districts that can accommodate 
projects with a higher threshold.
    Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement that 
projects provide supportive services, or access to supportive services, 
for special needs populations in order to receive points under this 
scoring criterion. As discussed in the NPRM, this requirement was 
proposed because these populations have special needs associated with 
their particular life circumstances that could be addressed by targeted 
supportive services. An advocacy organization focused on addressing the 
needs of persons with disabilities urged that the final rule provide 
project sponsors with discretion to offer supportive services and 
provide residents with disabilities individual choice in how and from 
whom they access services. The Banks' project selection proposal does 
not require provision of, or access to, supportive services for special 
needs populations. One Bank, in support of the Banks' project selection 
proposal, stated that many housing providers do not provide on-site 
supportive services, and another Bank stated that, among those 
providers who do provide supportive services, many may not continue to 
do so in the future. Several Banks recommended that the final rule 
leave the decision on whether supportive services are appropriate for 
particular projects to the discretion of affordable housing developers.
    FHFA notes that the proposed rule would not have required the 
provision of supportive services but merely ``access to'' those 
services. Nevertheless, FHFA finds the comments on supportive services 
persuasive and has not included a supportive services requirement in 
the final rule. The final rule, instead, authorizes the Banks, in their 
discretion, to adopt a supportive services requirement for specific 
special needs populations identified by the Bank.
    Other commenters provided input on the specific special needs 
populations proposed for inclusion under this scoring criterion. An 
advocacy organization that focuses on addressing the needs of people 
with disabilities supported including people with disabilities as an 
underserved population under the special needs scoring criterion. An 
intermediary that focuses on supportive housing supported the inclusion 
of: Formerly incarcerated persons; victims of domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and unaccompanied youth. No 
commenter objected to the inclusion of any of the populations specified 
in the proposed rule.
    Accordingly, the final rule includes the eligible special needs 
populations specified in the proposed rule. As

[[Page 61218]]

discussed in the NPRM, the reference to ``persons with AIDS'' in the 
current regulation is updated to ``persons with HIV/AIDS'' to more 
closely align it with common nomenclature and in recognition of the 
fact that persons with HIV experience comparable housing needs to 
persons with AIDS. The term ``mentally or physically disabled persons'' 
in the current regulation similarly is updated to ``persons with 
disabilities'' to reflect more commonly acceptable terminology. As 
discussed in the NPRM, persons with disabilities are included under 
this scoring criterion because they benefit from housing features such 
as wheelchair-accessibility or enhancements for visual or hearing 
impairments.
    Housing for other targeted populations (Sec.  1291.26(e)(3)). As 
proposed, the final rule includes housing for other targeted 
populations as an eligible housing need under the underserved 
communities and populations regulatory priority. Generally consistent 
with the proposed rule, the final rule includes the following as 
eligible ``other targeted populations:'' Agricultural workers; military 
veterans; Native Americans; households requiring large units; and 
kinship care households, because of the significant housing needs these 
populations face, as discussed in the NPRM. In a technical change from 
the proposed rule, as discussed further below, the final rule replaces 
the term ``multigenerational households'' with ``kinship care 
households,'' and removes the category of persons with disabilities, 
which are covered under the special needs scoring criterion. In 
addition, for the same reasons discussed under the homeless households 
and special needs scoring criteria above, the final rule does not adopt 
the proposed increase in the number of units reserved for occupancy by 
the relevant targeted population from 20 to 50 percent. FHFA 
specifically requested comments on whether this proposed increase, 
which was intended to encourage projects dedicated to serving other 
targeted populations, would be appropriate. The final rule also does 
not include the qualifying phrase ``not necessarily with supportive 
services'' that was in the proposed rule because, as discussed under 
the special needs scoring criterion above, the final rule does not 
adopt a supportive services requirement for that scoring criterion.
    FHFA received several comments on this proposed scoring category, 
including comments on the types of targeted populations that should be 
included. A nonprofit affordable housing intermediary strongly 
supported the inclusion of the specified other targeted populations as 
a regulatory priority, noting that many of the specified populations 
reside in rural communities. The commenter also recommended that FHFA 
narrow the targeting of housing for Native Americans to housing for 
Native Americans on or near federally recognized tribal lands, stating 
that this is where housing needs are most acute for this population. 
The Banks' proposal for project selection replaces the term ``Native 
Americans'' with ``Native Peoples,'' to ensure that the category 
includes Native Alaskan and Hawaiian populations. The Banks' proposal 
eliminates the multigenerational household category. Multiple Banks 
characterized the term ``multigenerational'' as ambiguous, expressing 
concern that the proposed rule would prioritize housing that 
accommodates only parents and children.
    As proposed, the final rule includes Native Americans as a specific 
eligible targeted population under this scoring category, in view of 
their significant housing needs, as discussed in the NPRM. The final 
rule continues to use the term ``Native Americans'' because it is 
commonly used in other programs. Under this scoring category, a Bank 
may also include Native Alaskan and Native Hawaiian populations, at its 
discretion. The Agency acknowledges the acute housing needs of Native 
Americans on or near federally recognized tribal lands, but also 
recognizes that Bank districts vary in the degree to which they contain 
federally recognized tribal lands. The broader definition in the final 
rule gives the Banks discretion to best target AHP subsidies to meet 
the housing needs of Native American populations in their districts.
    Regarding multigenerational households, such as grandparents 
raising grandchildren, the NPRM explained that such households may have 
a need for special housing that includes, for example, features of 
elderly projects (e.g., handrails in bathrooms and hallways), as well 
as features of family housing (e.g., outdoor play spaces). To better 
describe the intended population in response to the comments, the final 
rule replaces the term ``multigenerational household'' with the term 
``kinship care.'' Kinship care households are defined as households in 
which children are in the care of cohabitating relatives, such as 
grandparents, aunts, or uncles, or cohabitating close family friends.
    Housing in rural areas (Sec.  1291.26(e)(4)). Consistent with the 
proposed rule, the final rule includes housing in rural areas as an 
eligible housing need under the underserved communities and populations 
regulatory priority, in light of the significant and particularized 
housing needs experienced by rural households, as discussed in the 
NPRM. However, unlike the proposed rule, which would have defined 
``rural area'' according to the definition in FHFA's Duty to Serve 
regulation, the final rule follows the approach of the current 
regulation and allows each Bank to adopt its own definition of ``rural 
area.'' That definition, like the Bank's Program in general, would have 
to be reasonable, and would be subject to FHFA examination.
    A trade association and two nonprofit affordable housing 
intermediaries specifically supported the proposed inclusion of rural 
housing as a specified need in the Program. One of the intermediaries 
commented that its partners, largely comprising rural community-based 
housing providers, found that their applications for AHP funds are less 
competitive than in the past. The commenter suggested that rural 
applicants do not score as well as urban or suburban applicants, whose 
projects are of a larger scale and whose borrowers may have higher 
incomes and greater access to financial services. Several commenters 
provided input on the proposed definition of ``rural area.'' The 
nonprofit intermediary stated that, though it regards local government 
entities and communities as best equipped to define rural areas, it 
supported the proposed definition as a comprehensive and structured 
classification for rural areas under the AHP. It characterized the 
proposed definition as an enhancement that relies on a more accurate 
definition of rural territory and that minimizes misclassification of 
projects in suburban or exurban areas.
    In contrast, a Bank and its Bank Advisory Council asserted that the 
proposed definition is overly restrictive within metropolitan areas 
because it excludes small towns that are truly rural in character. 
These commenters also stated that the AHP would not be able to 
maximally coordinate with USDA programs, as there are areas eligible 
for USDA assistance under USDA's definition of ``rural area'' that 
would be excluded under the proposed definition. In their proposal for 
project selection, the Banks recommended that each Bank have the 
authority to define ``rural area.'' One Bank commented that the 
proposed definition would be overly complicated for purposes of the 
AHP. The Bank indicated that the Banks designed their project selection 
proposal

[[Page 61219]]

to provide each Bank with flexibility to adopt its own definition so 
that each Bank could align its standards with those used by other state 
and local affordable housing financing sources that fund AHP projects.
    FHFA is persuaded by commenters' concerns about the definition of 
``rural area'' in the proposed rule. The Agency's aim of aligning, 
where appropriate, AHP definitions with those in other FHFA programs 
such as the Duty to Serve Program was not intended to constrain each 
Bank's flexibility to coordinate with other funding sources in 
responding to housing needs within its district. Continuing to give the 
Banks discretion to define ``rural area'' will allow them to align 
their Programs with other local and state funding programs for 
affordable housing. Accordingly, and consistent with the current 
regulation, the final rule authorizes each Bank to establish its own 
definition of ``rural area.''
    Rental housing for extremely low-income households (Sec.  
1291.26(e)(5)). As proposed, the final rule includes housing for 
extremely low-income households as an eligible housing need under the 
underserved communities and populations regulatory priority, in light 
of the severe affordable housing challenges faced by such households, 
as discussed in the NPRM. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final 
rule adds a definition of ``extremely low-income household'' in Sec.  
1291.1 to mean a household with an income at or below 30 percent AMI. 
In a change from the proposed rule, the final rule authorizes each Bank 
to define its own minimum threshold for the percentage of units 
reserved for extremely low-income households that a project must meet 
in order to qualify for points under this scoring criterion. The 
proposed rule would have set this minimum threshold at 20 percent. FHFA 
specifically requested comments on whether the proposed 20 percent 
minimum threshold is appropriate.
    Several housing policy organizations, a CDFI, and two nonprofit 
developers generally supported this proposed scoring criterion. A 
nonprofit developer supported the scoring criterion but encouraged FHFA 
to allow AHP-funded projects targeting extremely low-income occupants 
to adjust their income targeting and rent restrictions in the event the 
project sponsor, through no fault of its own, loses its project-based 
operating subsidy. One of the housing policy organizations acknowledged 
the benefits of targeting extremely low-income households, but asserted 
that a minimum 20 percent threshold could be difficult to meet in 
states that do not have local or state rental housing development 
resources and access to federal project-based rental assistance 
programs. The commenter suggested use of a sliding points scale to 
encourage projects that target more units to extremely low-income 
people, up to a maximum of 20 or 25 percent of the units in a project, 
rather than establishing a minimum of 20 percent of the units. A 
nonprofit intermediary recommended a sliding points scale of up to 100 
percent of the units in a project.
    Other commenters opposed the proposed minimum 20 percent threshold. 
A Bank commented that it may render smaller projects financially 
infeasible. A CDFI trade organization stated that while targeting units 
for extremely low-income households is important, a minimum 20 percent 
threshold would create incentives for concentrations of populations of 
extremely low-income households, which would decrease residential 
economic diversity. A CDFI opposed a minimum 20 percent threshold on 
the grounds that projects that overestimate the number of extremely 
low-income units they can support may face financial instability. A 
trade organization supported the goal of targeting extremely low-income 
households, but stated that a minimum 20 percent threshold would not be 
feasible because the amount of AHP subsidy would generally be 
insufficient to offset the reduction in rents required to serve such 
households. The Banks stated that some projects may not be able to 
secure rent subsidies to support a minimum 20 percent threshold, making 
the projects financially infeasible.
    The Banks' proposal on project selection does not include a scoring 
priority for housing for extremely low-income households. One Bank 
stated that the Banks could address this housing need under their Bank 
district priority scoring criterion, and that including a scoring 
criterion for housing for extremely low-income households would overlap 
with the scoring criterion for housing for other targeted populations. 
Another Bank stated that a scoring criterion for housing for extremely 
low-income households would be redundant with the income targeting 
scoring criterion. Multiple Banks expressed doubt that a project 
meeting a 20 percent threshold for extremely low-income households 
could demonstrate financial feasibility.
    In summary, most commenters acknowledged the importance of 
targeting extremely low-income households, but objected to the proposed 
minimum 20 percent threshold. After consideration of the comments on 
the proposed threshold, including the recommendation for a sliding 
scale that would allow projects with some extremely low-income units 
but less than 20 percent to receive points, FHFA is persuaded that a 20 
percent threshold may be too high in most circumstances. FHFA notes 
that the differing comments on the proposed threshold may stem from the 
differences in the financial viability of projects with extremely low-
income units in different local housing markets. Therefore, in order to 
encourage targeting of extremely low-income households while providing 
adequate discretion to the Banks to take into account differences in 
housing markets among the Banks, the final rule includes a scoring 
criterion for projects targeting such households but also authorizes 
the Banks to establish their own minimum thresholds for the number of 
units a project is required to reserve for such households in order for 
the project to receive scoring points.
    FHFA notes that most Banks have not allocated scoring points for 
projects specifically targeting extremely low-income households, which 
suggests that including this housing need under the underserved 
communities and populations regulatory priority would not be redundant. 
FHFA also notes that housing for extremely low-income households is an 
optional scoring category in the final rule, which Banks may choose to 
adopt in addition to the mandatory regulatory priority for income 
targeting for very low-income households.
Regulatory Priority for Creating Economic Opportunity (Sec.  
1291.26(f))
    As proposed, the final rule adopts a regulatory priority for 
creating economic opportunity, including the following eligible housing 
needs as scoring criteria: promotion of empowerment and residential 
economic diversity. FHFA may also identify other specific housing needs 
that facilitate economic opportunity as eligible under this regulatory 
priority by separate guidance, as new housing needs arise. The eligible 
housing needs are discussed further below.
    Promotion of empowerment (Sec.  1291.26(f)(1)). Consistent with the 
proposed rule, the final rule includes promotion of empowerment as an 
eligible housing need under the creating economic opportunity 
regulatory priority. In contrast to the current regulation, promotion 
of empowerment would be an optional rather than a mandatory scoring 
criterion. As

[[Page 61220]]

proposed, the final rule retains the eligible empowerment services 
included in Sec.  1291.5(d)(5)(v) of the current regulation. For the 
reasons discussed in the NPRM and comments discussed below, the final 
rule adds the following empowerment services not included in the 
current regulation: Childcare; adult daycare services; afterschool 
care; tutoring; health services, including mental health and behavioral 
health services; and workforce preparation and integration.
    A nonprofit intermediary that focuses on supportive housing 
strongly supported the addition of health services as an eligible 
empowerment activity. The commenter urged that the final rule include 
an explicit reference to mental and behavioral health services, which 
are mentioned in the case study cited in the NPRM. FHFA concurs in the 
importance of mental and behavioral health services and has added a 
reference to these services in connection with health services in the 
final rule. Consistent with the proposed rule, the reference to 
``welfare to work'' in the current regulation is updated to ``workforce 
preparation and integration'' to broaden the scope beyond households 
receiving public assistance to include initiatives providing skills to 
those entering or re-entering the workforce. FHFA received no comments 
addressing any of the other proposed additions to the promotion of 
empowerment scoring criterion.
    Residential economic diversity (Sec.  1291.26(f)(2)). As proposed, 
the final rule includes residential economic diversity as an eligible 
housing need under the regulatory priority for creating economic 
opportunity. The current regulation includes residential economic 
diversity as an optional scoring criterion under the first Bank 
district priority. The proposed rule would have revised the current 
definition of residential economic diversity to reflect the definition 
in FHFA's Duty to Serve regulation. The final rule adopts a modified 
version of the Duty to Serve definition that provides discretion to the 
Banks in defining certain component terms thereof, as further discussed 
below.
    The proposed rule would have defined ``residential economic 
diversity'' as the financing of either affordable housing in a high 
opportunity area, or mixed-income housing in an area of concentrated 
poverty, with those terms defined in accordance with the Duty to Serve 
regulation and Evaluation Guidance. FHFA received a number of comments 
opposing adoption of the Duty to Serve definition. Two Banks and a Bank 
Advisory Council preferred to have discretion to adopt their own 
definitions in order to be able to align their Programs with the 
economic characteristics of their districts. One Bank recommended that 
FHFA expand the definition to explicitly include the development of 
mixed-income housing in middle- and high-income neighborhoods, in 
addition to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, in order to provide 
the Banks flexibility to respond to the best evidence on the impact of 
living in high opportunity areas for low-income families. The Banks' 
proposal on project selection allows each Bank to define ``high 
opportunity area,'' and allows mixed-income housing in any area that 
the Bank designates. The Banks indicated that they prefer flexibility 
to align the residential economic diversity standards with those of 
state and local funders.
    FHFA agrees with the comments that requiring use of the Duty to 
Serve definition for residential economic diversity under the AHP, 
especially the component definition of ``high opportunity area,'' could 
limit the extent to which the Bank are able to align their Programs, 
where appropriate, with residential economic diversity standards of 
state and local funders. The final rule, therefore, allows each Bank to 
define ``high opportunity area.'' In addition, FHFA is persuaded that 
mixed-income housing may, in certain Bank districts and under some 
circumstances, be beneficial in middle- and high-income neighborhoods. 
Accordingly, the final rule does not adopt the proposed requirement 
that the mixed-income housing be located in an area of concentrated 
poverty, and instead provides discretion to the Banks to designate the 
areas in which the mixed-income housing must be located.
Regulatory Priority for Community Stability Including Affordable 
Housing Preservation (Sec.  1291.26(g))
    In a change from the proposed rule, the final rule adopts community 
stability, including affordable housing preservation, as a regulatory 
priority. Community stability is a mandatory scoring criterion in the 
current regulation, but was not included as a regulatory priority in 
the proposed rule. Section 1291.5(d)(5)(ix) of the current regulation 
provides that a project may receive points under this scoring criterion 
if it promotes community stability, such as by rehabilitating vacant or 
abandoned properties, being an integral part of a neighborhood 
stabilization plan approved by a unit of state or local government, and 
not displacing low- or moderate-income households, or if such 
displacement will occur, assuring that such households will be assisted 
to minimize the impact of such displacement. The final rule adds, as an 
example of the types of projects that promote community stability, 
projects that preserve affordable housing. The final rule further 
modifies the current community stability scoring criterion by replacing 
the term ``neighborhood stabilization plan'' with ``community 
development or economic development strategy,'' and providing that such 
a strategy may be approved by an instrumentality of government. The 
final rule also retains the above-described non-displacement provision 
from the current regulation. In a change from the proposed rule, the 
final rule does not provide examples illustrating the types of projects 
that may be considered affordable housing preservation.
    The proposed rule would have specified two eligible housing needs 
under the proposed affordable housing preservation regulatory priority: 
Affordable rental housing preservation and affordable homeownership 
preservation. Affordable rental housing preservation would have 
included housing needs such as: Existing affordable housing in need of 
rehabilitation as indicated by deteriorating physical condition, high 
vacancy rates, or poor financial performance; affordable rental housing 
with energy or water efficiency improvements (meeting the requirements 
in the Duty to Serve regulation); projects that received funding from 
certain government affordable rental housing programs specified under 
the Duty to Serve regulation, i.e., HUD Section 8, Section 236, Section 
221(d)(4), Section 202, and Section 811 programs; McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance; USDA Section 515; LIHTC; or other state or local 
affordable housing programs comparable to the foregoing housing 
programs. Affordable homeownership preservation would have included 
owner-occupied rehabilitation, shared equity programs, owner-occupied 
housing with energy or water efficiency improvements (meeting the 
requirements in the Duty to Serve regulation), or other housing finance 
strategies to preserve homeownership. A Bank has discretion under the 
final rule to include any of these types of housing needs under its 
community stability scoring criterion.
    In addition, the final rule provides that FHFA may also identify 
other mechanisms for affordable rental housing preservation or 
affordable homeownership preservation as eligible

[[Page 61221]]

under this regulatory priority by separate guidance, as new housing 
needs arise.
    A Bank commented that including affordable housing preservation as 
a regulatory priority would provide substantial encouragement to 
address this pressing need effectively. Other commenters indicated that 
the proposed affordable housing preservation definition is too narrow. 
A number of nonprofit developers stated that the proposed regulatory 
priority would apply only in very limited circumstances to affordable 
homeownership projects such as those where the AHP sponsor is engaged 
in owner-occupied rehabilitation or permanent affordability strategies. 
The commenters asserted that, although the types of affordable 
homeownership preservation identified in the proposed rule are viable 
and important strategies in many areas of the country, they may not be 
the most impactful or appropriate for many communities in each of the 
Banks' districts. The Bank Advisory Councils and a Bank noted that the 
proposed affordable housing preservation regulatory priority would not 
include projects that repurpose or adapt non-housing properties, such 
as former schools, industrial properties, or commercial properties, 
which would be covered under the current community stability scoring 
criterion. The Banks' proposal for project selection includes separate 
regulatory priorities for affordable housing preservation and community 
stability.
    FHFA notes that the proposed regulatory priority for affordable 
housing preservation would have allowed the Banks to adopt other types 
of affordable housing preservation needs similar to those specified in 
the regulatory priority. However, FHFA acknowledges that replacing the 
current community stability scoring criterion with affordable housing 
preservation would have omitted strategies outside of affordable 
housing preservation that are important for addressing community 
stability, such as adaptive re-use and the development of infill 
housing that are included under the current community stability scoring 
criterion. Because affordable housing preservation is an important 
strategy for achieving community stability, the final rule adopts a 
regulatory priority for community stability that specifically includes 
affordable housing preservation. FHFA is not retaining the proposed 
definition of affordable housing preservation, which referenced 
specific programs and strategies included in the Duty to Serve 
regulation, in order to provide the Banks flexibility to include those 
or other housing needs under affordable housing preservation to meet 
the specific housing needs of their districts.
Current Regulatory Priority for Subsidy per Unit
    As proposed, the final rule eliminates the current mandatory 
scoring criterion for AHP subsidy per unit. This criterion favors more 
highly leveraged projects, such as LITHC projects and other large 
rental projects, where the AHP award is a smaller percentage of the 
total project development budget. A Bank may want to encourage AHP 
awards to projects that may not be able to leverage as much funding 
from other sources and, therefore, need deeper subsidy from the AHP. 
Eliminating this scoring criterion provides the Banks with more 
discretion to target the types of projects that best meet the housing 
needs in their districts. The Banks' proposal for project selection 
also eliminates this scoring criterion. Under the final rule, a Bank, 
in its discretion, could choose to include AHP subsidy per unit as a 
scoring criterion under its Bank district priorities category.
Bank District Priorities (Sec.  1291.26(h))
    The final rule adopts a cumulative minimum points allocation of 50 
points for the statutory and regulatory priorities, consistent with the 
cumulative minimum points allocation required for the statutory and 
regulatory priorities in the current regulation. The final rule permits 
the Banks to allocate the remaining maximum 50 points to affordable 
housing needs in the Banks' districts selected by the Banks. This is a 
modified version of the current regulation, which has two scoring 
categories of Bank district priorities. Under the first Bank district 
priority, a Bank must choose one or more housing needs from 12 
specified eligible housing needs. Under the second Bank district 
priority, a Bank adopts one or more housing needs in the Bank's 
district identified by the Bank, which must be different from those 
chosen by the Bank under its first Bank district priority. The final 
rule essentially combines the current first and second Bank district 
priorities into one category under which a Bank may adopt specific 
district housing needs, for a maximum of 50 points. This will provide 
the Banks with additional flexibility to tailor their General Funds to 
meet specific housing needs in their districts.
Sec.  1291.27 Scoring Criteria for Targeted Funds
    Section 1291.27 of the final rule sets forth general requirements 
for scoring criteria for Targeted Funds. For each Targeted Fund 
established by a Bank, the Bank must include a minimum of three 
different scoring criteria, as established by the Bank, that allow the 
Bank to select applications that meet the specific affordable housing 
need or needs being addressed by the Targeted Fund. This requirement 
for at least three scoring criteria is consistent with the Banks' 
comment on the scoring criteria for Targeted Funds and is a change from 
the proposed rule, which did not include this requirement. As discussed 
under Sec.  1291.25 above, the maximum points allocation for a single 
scoring criterion under a Targeted Fund is 50 points. These 
requirements should promote a robust competitive scoring process under 
the Targeted Fund.
Sec.  1291.28 Approval of AHP Applications Under the General Fund and 
Targeted Funds
    AHP application approvals generally. Consistent with the 
application approval requirements in the current regulation, the final 
rule provides generally that a Bank's board of directors shall approve 
(i.e., award) applications for AHP subsidy under the General Fund and 
any Targeted Funds that meet all of the applicable AHP eligibility 
requirements in descending order, starting with the highest scoring 
application until the total funding amount for the particular AHP 
funding round, except for any amount insufficient to fund the next 
highest scoring application, has been approved. Exceptions to this 
process, as proposed, are discussed below.
    AHP application alternates. Section 1291.28(b) of the final rule 
provides the Banks with discretion to approve a specified number, as 
determined by the Bank in its discretion, of the next highest scoring 
applications as alternates eligible for funding, and may approve any 
tied applications as alternates eligible for funding pursuant to Sec.  
1291.28(c)(2), when any previously committed AHP subsidies become 
available, pursuant to a written policy established by the Bank. If a 
Bank has established such a policy for approving alternates for funding 
and sufficient previously committed AHP subsidies become available 
within one year of application approval, the Bank is required to 
approve the designated alternates for funding within that one-year 
period. This is a change from the current regulation, which requires a 
Bank to approve at least the next four highest scoring applications in 
the General Fund as alternates, but gives the Bank the option whether 
to approve the designated alternates for funding if

[[Page 61222]]

previously committed AHP subsidies become available within one year of 
application approval. The final rule is consistent with the proposed 
requirement that the Banks fund the General Fund alternates within one 
year of approval if any previously committed AHP subsidies become 
available, but requires this only where the Bank has adopted a policy 
to approve alternates for funding. The final rule also links approval 
of tied applications as alternates, pursuant to Sec.  1291.28(c)(2), to 
establishment by a Bank of a written policy for approval of alternates 
for funding. In addition, the final rule applies the above requirements 
applicable to the approval of General Fund alternates to the approval 
of Targeted Fund alternates. The proposed rule would have given the 
Banks discretion regarding the approval and funding of Targeted Fund 
alternates.
    The purpose of FHFA's proposal to require funding of alternates 
under the General Fund within one year of approval if previously 
committed AHP funds become available was to ensure that the Banks award 
the AHP funds to alternates in the General Fund rather than selecting 
General Fund alternates but transferring AHP funds from the General 
Fund to the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Programs or Targeted Funds 
instead. The Banks and a trade association opposed the proposal, noting 
that projects approved as alternates typically seek additional funding 
sources or change the scope of the development if approved as 
alternates, which may significantly change the structure of the 
projects. They pointed out that a mandatory funding requirement for 
such projects would require the Banks to first re-underwrite the 
projects to determine their satisfaction with the AHP eligibility 
requirements, including the need for AHP subsidy, which would increase 
the burden and costs to the Banks and the project sponsors. The Banks 
further stated that the proposal could require the Banks to fund 
alternates that do not serve the housing needs prioritized in the 
Banks' TCLPs or the proposed outcome requirements. The Banks and their 
Bank Advisory Councils urged FHFA to continue allowing the Banks the 
discretion to approve alternates for the General Fund, and to provide 
similar discretion to approve alternates for any Targeted Funds 
established by the Banks.
    FHFA finds relevant the comments that previously committed AHP 
subsidies often do not become available until well after the conclusion 
of the AHP funding round, by which time alternates' applications may no 
longer reflect the current structure of the projects or their funding 
needs. Projects may also have received funding from other sources in 
the meantime to substitute for the AHP funding requested. The projects, 
thus, may no longer meet the AHP eligibility requirements, including 
the need for AHP subsidy, or may need to be re-scored due to the 
changes in the projects' structures and funding. Requiring re-
underwriting, as well as possible re-scoring, of these projects may be 
unnecessary and burdensome in such circumstances. In addition, the 
Banks should not have to select alternates if they do not intend to 
fund these projects. Accordingly, the final rule revises the current 
regulation to make the approval of alternates discretionary rather than 
mandatory for the Banks, pursuant to a written policy established by 
the Bank, and to require the Bank to approve such alternates for 
funding within one year of approval if any previously committed AHP 
subsidies become available but only if the Bank has a policy to approve 
alternates for funding.
    Where a Bank does not adopt a policy to approve alternates for its 
General Fund or any Targeted Funds, the Bank may use previously 
committed AHP subsidies that become available under the applicable Fund 
to address other district affordable housing needs through the Banks' 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs or project modifications, as currently 
permitted, or through any Bank Targeted Funds. This may benefit Banks, 
for example, that wish to establish a Targeted Fund to address a 
federal- or state-declared disaster. It may also benefit Banks 
receiving requests for subsidy to assist households under their 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs that exceed the current maximum annual 
allowable funding allocation of 35 percent, which is retained in the 
final rule.
    Tied applications. As discussed above under the scoring tie-breaker 
policies in Sec. Sec.  1291.25(c) and 1291.28(c)(2) of the final rule, 
where there is insufficient AHP subsidy to approve all tied 
applications for the General Fund or a Targeted Fund, and the Bank has 
a written policy to approve alternates for funding under the applicable 
Fund, the Bank must approve a tied application as an alternate if it 
does not prevail under the Bank's scoring tie-breaker methodology, or 
is tied with another application but requested more subsidy than the 
amount of AHP funds that remain to be awarded under the Fund. This is 
consistent with current FHFA guidance to the Banks for their General 
Funds except that it is only required, under the final rule, where the 
Bank has a written policy to approve alternates.
    Applications to multiple Funds--approval under one Fund. Section 
1291.28(d) of the final rule provides that if an application for the 
same project is submitted to more than one Fund at a Bank in a calendar 
year and the application scores high enough to be approved under each 
Fund, the Bank shall approve the application under only one of the 
Funds pursuant to the Bank's policy established in its AHP 
Implementation Plan. For example, a Bank's policy could provide that 
any project that is competitive under multiple Funds will be approved 
under the General Fund. The proposed rule referred to submission of an 
application for the same project in an AHP funding round. The final 
rule changes this to a calendar year to take into account that Banks 
may hold separate funding rounds for their General Fund and Targeted 
Funds at different times in a calendar year. No comments were received 
on this proposal.
    No re-ranking of scored applications and alternates. As discussed 
in Section III.A. above, the final rule does not adopt the proposal to 
allow the Banks, in their discretion, to re-rank scored applications 
and alternates, in light of FHFA's determination not to adopt the 
proposed outcomes framework in the final rule.
    No delegation. The final rule retains the provision in the current 
regulation prohibiting a Bank's board of directors from delegating to 
Bank officers or other Bank employees the responsibility to approve or 
disapprove the AHP subsidy applications, as well as alternates. Since 
the final rule provides that the Banks are no longer required to 
approve alternates, the final rule states that the delegation 
prohibition is applicable to the approval of alternates only if a Bank 
has a written policy to approve alternates for funding under its 
General Fund or any Targeted Fund. The final rule does not adopt the 
proposed prohibition on delegation by the Bank's board to a committee 
of the board because the approval of AHP applications is not a 
strategic policy decision. Comments received on delegation are covered 
in the previous discussion of comments on the other proposed prohibited 
delegations in Section III.F. above.
Sec.  1291.29 Modifications of Approved AHP Applications
    The final rule relocates the provisions on modifications of 
approved AHP applications from current Sec.  1291.5(f) to Sec.  
1291.29, with a number of clarifying and other changes.

[[Page 61223]]

    Approval of modifications. Consistent with the proposed rule, the 
final rule provides that if the requirements for a modification are 
satisfied, the Bank must approve the modification request, unless the 
request is for an increase in AHP subsidy, which a Bank may approve in 
its discretion. The final rule is a change from the current regulation, 
which allows for Bank discretion in approving all modification 
requests. If a project re-scores successfully in its original funding 
round and all of the other modification requirements are satisfied, 
there should be no reason for the Bank not to approve the modification. 
FHFA did not receive any comments on removing discretionary approvals.
    Cure of noncompliance. The final rule provides that before a Bank 
may approve a modification request, it must first request that the 
project sponsor or owner make a reasonable effort to cure any AHP 
noncompliance within a reasonable period of time. This provision 
includes clarifying language in response to comments on the proposed 
language, and is consistent with similar clarifying language made in 
the ``waterfall'' provisions for remedying project noncompliance 
discussed under Sec.  1291.60 below. Comments on the cure of 
noncompliance language are discussed under Sec.  1291.60 below.
    Re-scoring of application. Consistent with the current regulation, 
Sec.  1291.29(a)(3) of the final rule provides that in order to be 
approved for a modification, the application, as reflective of the 
changes requested, must continue to score high enough to have been 
approved in the AHP funding round in which it was originally scored and 
approved by the Bank. In response to questions that have arisen as to 
what it means to score high enough where a Bank also approved 
applications as alternates during the original AHP funding round, the 
proposed rule would have clarified that the application must continue 
to score as high as the lowest ranking alternate that was not simply 
designated as an alternate but approved for funding by the Bank in the 
application's original AHP funding round. Because the final rule allows 
a Bank to approve alternates for funding in its discretion pursuant to 
a written policy adopted by the Bank, the final rule states that the 
lowest ranking alternate approved for funding by the Bank is the 
applicable standard where the Bank has a written policy to approve 
alternates for funding. FHFA did not receive any comments on this 
proposed standard.
    Good cause. Consistent with the current regulation and proposed 
rule, the final rule continues to require that there be good cause for 
a modification, with the Bank's analysis and justification for the 
modification documented in writing. As proposed, the final rule 
clarifies that remediation of project noncompliance is not, in and of 
itself, good cause for a modification. As discussed below under Sec.  
1291.60 (Remedial Actions for Project Noncompliance), the final rule 
adds that the written analysis and justification for good cause must 
include why a cure of noncompliance was not successful or attempted.
    A Bank provided comments on the good cause determination for 
modifying a project. The Bank noted that it considered remediation of 
project noncompliance, by itself, to be good cause for modification. 
The Bank stressed that a project that remains eligible for an award in 
its original AHP funding round after the modification should be 
eligible for a modification without having to cure noncompliance first, 
notwithstanding the changes made after application approval. The Bank 
emphasized the need to preserve the AHP's ability to accept and adapt 
to a project's needs. The Bank cited potential changes to green 
initiatives or the number of units reserved for homeless households 
that may or may not impact the project's budget or financing 
commitments, as examples of the types of changes justifying good cause 
for a modification. The Bank contended that a cure-first requirement 
would add unnecessary administrative costs for the Banks, the project 
sponsors, and the members when the projects are eligible for project 
modifications in any case based on their scoring, feasibility, and need 
for subsidy.
    FHFA is not persuaded by the Bank's comments. Remediation of 
project noncompliance is not, in and of itself, good cause for a 
modification. There must be other reasonable justification for the 
modification, such as a change in market conditions, loss of committed 
funding to subsidize project rents, or loss of a major employer in the 
community that makes it difficult to find households at the incomes 
committed to in the project's AHP application to occupy the targeted 
units in the project. Otherwise, there would be less of an incentive to 
cure noncompliance if project sponsors knew they could simply request a 
modification of the project terms to no longer be in noncompliance. The 
final rule adds that the written analysis and justification for good 
cause must include why a cure of noncompliance was not successful or 
attempted.
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule also makes 
technical changes to the language in Sec.  1291.29(b)(1) to clarify any 
ambiguity about the requirement that requests for subsidy increase 
modifications must also meet the requirements for approval applicable 
to other modifications in Sec.  1291.29(a).
Sec.  1291.30 Procedures for Funding
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates the 
procedures for AHP funding from Sec.  1291.5(g) of the current 
regulation to Sec.  1291.30, with several changes.
    Cancellation of AHP application approvals. The final rule clarifies 
in Sec.  1291.30(b) and (c) that if a Bank cancels any AHP application 
approvals due to lack of progress towards draw-down and use of the AHP 
subsidies or noncompliance with AHP eligibility requirements, the 
requirement to make the AHP subsidies available to other AHP-eligible 
projects also includes the option to make the subsidies available to 
other AHP-eligible households.
    Compliance upon disbursement of AHP subsidies. The final rule 
removes the reference to a change in the need for AHP subsidy in Sec.  
1291.30(c). This language is superfluous because as the rule states, at 
each disbursement of AHP subsidy, a project must meet all eligibility 
requirements, which include the need for AHP subsidy.
    Notification under subsidy re-use programs. As discussed under 
Sec. Sec.  1291.13 above and 1291.64(b) below, in a change from the 
proposed rule, the final rule retains the current regulatory provision 
enabling a Bank to adopt, in its discretion, a program allowing re-use 
of AHP subsidy repayments in the same project. Accordingly, Sec.  
1291.30(f) of the final rule also retains current Sec.  1291.5(g)(6), 
which requires project sponsor notification to the Bank and the member 
of the re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidy where the Bank has 
authorized such re-use.
    Bank board duties and delegation. As proposed, the final rule 
eliminates current Sec.  1291.5(h), which addresses Bank board duties 
and delegations, as these duties and delegations are addressed 
elsewhere in the final rule.
Sec.  1291.31 Lending and Re-Lending of AHP Direct Subsidy by Revolving 
Loan Funds
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.5(c)(13) of the current 
regulation, which addresses the requirements for lending and re-lending 
of AHP direct subsidies by revolving loan funds to Sec.  1291.31,

[[Page 61224]]

without change except as related to the elimination of the requirement 
for a retention agreement for owner-occupied rehabilitation in the 
final rule. The revolving loan fund provisions were designed for 
lending and re-lending of the AHP subsidy by distinct projects in 
specific locations, or for pipelines of expected projects meeting 
specific criteria that the revolving loan fund anticipates funding and 
that would be specified in its AHP application. Under the regulation, 
the revolving loan fund may be scored on the specific criteria it 
establishes in its AHP application for its pipeline of projects, 
without having to actually identify specific projects in the AHP 
application.
    To assist in anticipated future rulemaking on revolving loan funds 
under the AHP, FHFA specifically requested comments in the NPRM on why 
certain AHP scoring criteria have been difficult to meet, how the AHP 
retention periods could be satisfied, how AHP subsidy would be repaid 
in the event of project noncompliance, how the revolving loan fund can 
demonstrate a need for AHP subsidy, and the potential positive or 
negative impacts of eliminating the owner-occupied retention agreement 
requirement for revolving loan funds.
    A nonprofit affordable housing intermediary expressed general 
support for increased use of AHP funds by revolving loan funds. A trade 
association for CDFIs stated that it would be particularly interested 
in working with FHFA and the Banks on expanding the use and impact of 
revolving loan funds. A Bank indicated that revolving loan funds can 
help meet the rehabilitation needs of owner-occupied units.
    Several CDFIs and Banks commented that identifying specific project 
locations or addresses in AHP applications is problematic for revolving 
loan funds. One of the Banks stated that revolving loan fund 
applications cannot score sufficient points in categories tied to 
geography, inclusion of donated properties, economic diversity, or 
income targeting because the revolving loan funds cannot commit with 
certainty to the characteristics of a project or household as specific 
addresses or households are often unknown by the revolving loan fund at 
the time of AHP application.
    A CDFI and a Bank suggested that applications for revolving loan 
funds should describe a pipeline of potential projects rather than 
discrete projects. Another CDFI suggested developing a scoring system 
based on a commitment to impact and homebuyer benefit, rather than on 
specific property addresses. The commenter also recommended 
establishing separate scoring criteria within the AHP scoring framework 
for revolving loan funds.
    Two Banks reported not having received revolving loan fund 
applications for the AHP and encouraged FHFA to engage in a separate 
rulemaking for revolving loan funds. One of the Banks indicated that it 
was not aware of any revolving loan funds in the market that meet the 
current AHP regulatory requirements, and that it did not know how to 
make the AHP more amenable to revolving loan funds. The other Bank 
stated that the proposed outcome requirements would not necessarily 
facilitate the use of revolving loan funds.
    In response to FHFA's request for comment, FHFA received several 
comments on whether organizations using sponsor-provided permanent 
financing models should be considered to be revolving loan funds. A 
national nonprofit opposed this, stating that it uses this model and 
would likely be excluded from competitive AHP Funds if it were treated 
exclusively as a revolving loan fund under any future AHP regulation. A 
Bank stated that, by definition, there are similarities between 
revolving loan funds and sponsor-provided permanent financing models 
since the funds of each are recycled on an ongoing basis. The Bank 
stated, however, that unlike a revolving loan fund, sponsor-provided 
permanent financing models are project specific and have readily 
available information that can be vetted during the application 
process.
    FHFA is unclear on how to interpret the comments on identifying 
specific property locations in AHP applications. As discussed in the 
NPRM and above, the current regulation allows a Bank to score a 
revolving loan fund based on the specific criteria it establishes in 
its AHP application for its pipeline of projects, without having to 
actually identify specific projects in the AHP application. FHFA will 
consider the comments received on this issue, as well as comments 
received in response to its anticipated future rulemaking, in 
determining the treatment of revolving loan funds under the AHP 
regulation.
Sec.  1291.32 Use of AHP Subsidy in Loan Pools
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.5(c)(14) of the current 
regulation, which addresses the requirements for use of AHP subsidies 
in loan pools, to Sec.  1291.32, with a change to remove the 
requirement for retention agreements for owner-occupied rehabilitation 
in current Sec.  1291.5(c)(14)(iii).
    The current regulation establishes specific conditions under which 
a Bank may provide AHP subsidies under its Competitive Application 
Program for the origination of first mortgage loans or rehabilitation 
loans with subsidized interest rates to AHP-eligible household through 
a purchase commitment by an entity that will purchase and pool the 
loans. As stated in the NPRM, FHFA is not aware that any loan pools 
meeting these conditions have applied for AHP subsidy since adding the 
regulatory authority in 2006. FHFA is also not aware of any loan pools 
of this type currently existing in the housing market. FHFA 
specifically requested comments in the NPRM on whether there are loan 
pools currently operating in the market that meet the conditions in the 
regulation, how the loan pools are addressing current housing market 
needs, and the potential positive or negative impacts of eliminating 
the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement for loan pools. FHFA 
received only one comment on this section, from a Bank, which stated 
that it had no experience with loan pools meeting the AHP requirements.
    FHFA anticipates engaging in a future rulemaking on loan pools with 
respect to the AHP, and will consider comments received in response to 
such rulemaking in determining the treatment of loan pools under the 
AHP regulation.
Subpart D--Homeownership Set-Aside Programs
Sec.  1291.40 Establishment of Programs
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.6(a) of the current regulation 
on the Bank establishment of Homeownership Set-Aside Programs to Sec.  
1291.40. As proposed, the final rule states that these programs are 
optional by adding that a Bank may establish such programs ``in its 
discretion.'' The final rule does not include the proposed requirement 
that a Bank's analyses for establishing such programs be included in 
its TCLP, as previously discussed under Sec.  1290.6 (Bank Community 
Support Programs).
Sec.  1291.41 Eligible Applicants
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.6(b) of the current regulation 
on eligible member applicants to Sec.  1291.41, without change. No 
comments were received on this provision.
Sec.  1291.42 Eligibility Requirements
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.6(c) of the current regulation 
on the eligibility requirements for Homeownership Set-Aside Programs to 
Sec.  1291.42, with several changes, as proposed.
    Adoption of additional eligibility requirements. Consistent with 
informal

[[Page 61225]]

guidance provided by FHFA to the Banks and the proposed rule, the final 
rule clarifies that the Banks may not adopt eligibility requirements 
under their Homeownership Set-Aside Programs beyond those set forth in 
this section, except those related to household eligibility pursuant to 
Sec.  1291.42(b)(3). No comments were received on this proposed 
clarification.
    One-third funding allocation requirement--first-time homebuyers or 
owner-occupied rehabilitation--conforming change. As discussed above 
under Sec.  1291.12(b) (funding allocation for Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs), the final rule requires that at least one-third of a Bank's 
annual Homeownership Set-Aside Program funding allocation be for first-
time homebuyers or households receiving set-aside funds for owner-
occupied rehabilitation, or a combination of both. The final rule adds 
conforming language in Sec.  1291.42(b)(3) for households receiving 
set-aside funds for owner-occupied rehabilitation.
    Maximum grant limit. Consistent with the proposed rule, the final 
rule authorizes the Banks to provide, through their members, set-aside 
grants of up to $22,000 per household, subject to annual upward 
adjustment in accordance with FHFA's House Price Index (HPI). This is a 
change from the current regulation, which authorizes set-aside grants 
of up to $15,000 per household and does not provide for annual HPI 
adjustments. The purpose of the increase in the subsidy limit is to 
respond to increases in the costs associated with buying or 
rehabilitating homes in high cost areas, as well as the high costs of 
certain types of rehabilitation. It will also bring the subsidy limit 
in line with changes in the HPI since 2002, when the regulation 
established the $15,000 subsidy limit. The HPI upward adjustments will 
account for future house price increases, negating any need for 
periodic revisions of the subsidy limit by regulation. FHFA will notify 
the Banks annually of the maximum subsidy amount based on the HPI.
    A number of commenters generally supported raising the subsidy 
limit per household from $15,000 to $22,000. Some of the commenters 
provided reasons for their support that were cited by FHFA in the NPRM, 
specifically, that the proposed increase would provide additional 
flexibility, benefit homeowners in high-cost areas, and support owner-
occupied rehabilitation and aging in place. The Banks, nonprofit 
organizations, and a CDFI supported the proposed annual upward HPI 
adjustments. The Banks stated that because the adjustment would measure 
average price fluctuations in the single-family housing market, it 
would provide insight to the Banks about whether they should increase 
their individual subsidy limit in housing markets that are becoming 
less affordable.
    A state agency cautioned that the proposed increase in the subsidy 
limit could augment purchasers' ability to buy bigger houses, resulting 
in fewer grant recipients overall. A trade association stated that 
raising the raising the subsidy limit while also removing the 
requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements, as proposed, could 
increase the likelihood of the AHP subsidy being misused.
    As discussed in the NPRM and above, the purpose of the increase in 
the subsidy limit is to respond to increases in the costs associated 
with buying or rehabilitating homes in high cost areas, as well as the 
high costs of certain types of rehabilitation generally. The increase 
also brings the subsidy limit in line with changes in the HPI since 
2002. The HPI shows that $15,000 in January 2002 has approximately the 
same buying power as $21,500 today. FHFA acknowledges commenters' 
concern that Bank adoption of the proposed higher subsidy limit could 
result in fewer households receiving set-aside subsidies. However, 
because most Banks have established subsidy limits below the current 
$15,000 limit, FHFA believes that an increase in the subsidy limit to 
$22,000 is not likely to result in a significant overall reduction in 
the number of households assisted by the Banks under their set-aside 
programs.
    Owner-occupied retention agreements. As discussed under Section 
III.D. above, the proposed rule would have eliminated the requirement 
for all owner-occupied retention agreements. The owner-occupied 
retention agreement requirement for households assisted with set-aside 
funds in current Sec.  1291.6(c)(5), thus, would have been eliminated. 
Because the final rule retains the requirement for owner-occupied 
retention agreements where the AHP subsidy is used for purchase, or for 
purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, the retention agreement 
requirement for such uses of AHP subsidy is retained in Sec.  
1291.42(e) of the final rule.
Sec.  1291.43 Approval of AHP Applications
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.6(d) of the current regulation, 
which addresses the approval of set-aside applications in accordance 
with the Banks' criteria governing the allocation of funds, to Sec.  
1291.43, without substantive change.
Sec.  1291.44 Procedures for Funding
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.6(e) of the current regulation, 
which addresses the procedures for set-aside funding, to Sec.  1291.44, 
without substantive change.
Subpart E--Outcome Requirements for Statutory and Regulatory Priorities
    FHFA proposed a number of benchmarks for demonstrating compliance 
with the proposed outcome-based approach for project selections. As 
discussed in Section III.A. above, FHFA has decided not to adopt the 
proposed outcome-based approach t project selection in the final rule. 
Accordingly, the provisions in proposed Subpart E are not adopted in 
the final rule.
Subpart E--Monitoring
Sec.  1291.50 Monitoring Under the General Fund and Targeted Funds
    Initial monitoring of AHP projects receiving LIHTC. Consistent with 
the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.50(a)(3)(i) of the final rule streamlines 
the initial monitoring requirements for LIHTC projects that also 
receive AHP subsidy. The final rule retains the current initial 
monitoring requirement that the Banks review certifications from LIHTC 
project sponsors that the residents' incomes and the rents comply with 
the income-targeting and rent commitments in the approved AHP 
application. It also includes a requirement, consistent with Bank 
practice, that the Banks review the LIHTC project's rent rolls, which 
include each household's income and rent. However, the final rule 
removes the current requirement that the Banks review other back-up 
documentation on household incomes and rents at initial monitoring for 
LIHTC projects. The final rule also streamlines the language of the 
LIHTC monitoring provisions as proposed.
    The proposed rule requested comments on whether this proposed 
streamlining of the Banks' initial monitoring requirements for LIHTC 
projects is reasonable, taking into consideration the risks of 
noncompliance and the costs of project monitoring. Commenters who 
commented on this proposal overwhelmingly supported it. A nonprofit 
affordable housing intermediary, a trade group, and the Banks stated 
generally that the proposal is reasonable and would not add any 
operational risks.
    In 2017, 51 percent of AHP projects received LIHTC, similar to the 
percentage of AHP projects that received LIHTC in the previous several 
years. Thus, any amendments to the LIHTC

[[Page 61226]]

monitoring requirements will impact the Banks and many project sponsors 
and members that participate in the AHP. As discussed further in the 
NPRM, it is reasonable to allow the Banks to rely on the monitoring by 
the state-designated tax credit allocation agencies of AHP-assisted 
LIHTC projects because the LIHTC income, rent, and long-term retention 
period requirements have been substantially equivalent to those of the 
AHP, the tax credit allocation agencies monitor the projects, and LIHTC 
projects rarely go out of compliance with the income and rent 
requirements. Further, multiple parties retain a strong incentive to 
monitor LIHTC projects for income and rent compliance. LIHTC project 
owners bear responsibility for ensuring that their projects comply with 
the program's income, rent, and retention period requirements. The 
owners face severe consequences for noncompliance, which serve as a 
substantial deterrent to noncompliance. Because LIHTC investors cannot 
receive the benefits of the tax credits for units that are not in 
compliance, LIHTC project owners guarantee to their investors that 
their projects will remain in compliance, or the project owners must 
repay investors the amount of tax credits lost plus any penalties or 
interest levied by the IRS.
    The Banks currently are permitted to review LIHTC back-up 
documentation at initial monitoring on a risk basis. Given the low 
risks of noncompliance by LIHTC projects, the Banks can establish 
review schedules for the back-up documentation that are not especially 
burdensome. Although the administrative burdens on the project sponsors 
to provide, and the Banks to review, LIHTC back-up documentation (other 
than rent rolls) at initial monitoring may not be significant, 
eliminating this requirement will benefit the Banks and project 
sponsors by reducing their administrative costs.
    Initial and long-term monitoring of AHP projects funded by certain 
other government programs specified in FHFA guidance. As proposed, 
Sec.  1291.50(a)(3)(i) of the final rule provides that, for AHP 
projects funded by certain other government programs specified in 
separate FHFA guidance, the Banks will only be required to review 
project sponsor certifications and rent rolls, and not any other back-
up documentation, at initial monitoring. For long-term monitoring, 
Sec.  1291.50(c)(1)(ii) of the final rule provides that the Banks will 
only be required to review annual project sponsor certifications on 
incomes and rents for such projects, and will not be required to review 
any back-up documentation for incomes and rents, including rent rolls. 
FHFA guidance will include government programs that have the same or 
substantially equivalent rent, income, and retention period 
requirements as the AHP, very low occurrences of noncompliance with 
those requirements, and monitoring entities that have demonstrated and 
continue to demonstrate their ability to monitor the programs. FHFA 
will update the guidance as appropriate to remain current with federal 
program developments.
    The FHFA guidance initially will specify the following federal 
government programs, which meet the standards outlined above, as 
eligible for the streamlined monitoring:
    [cir] HUD Section 202 Program for the Elderly;
    [cir] HUD Section 811 Program for Housing the Disabled;
    [cir] USDA Section 515 Rural Multifamily Program; and
    [cir] USDA Section 514 Farmworker Multifamily Program.
    In 2017, approximately two-thirds of AHP projects received funding 
from other federal programs. As further discussed in the NPRM, FHFA 
reviewed the extent to which AHP projects also receive subsidies from 
HUD and USDA programs to assess the extent to which the Banks could 
reasonably rely on HUD and USDA monitoring for these projects. In 2017, 
24 percent of AHP projects received HOME Program financing, 8 percent 
received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and 9 percent 
received other federal financing, including from USDA. FHFA then 
analyzed the HUD and USDA programs to determine which programs have 
substantially equivalent rent, income, and retention requirements to 
the AHP, very low noncompliance rates, and where the monitoring entity 
has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate effective monitoring of a 
respective program. The Agency determined that the four programs noted 
above meet these standards. FHFA has not identified other programs that 
meet these standards at this time. The proposed rule requested comments 
on whether this proposed reduction of the Banks' initial and long-term 
monitoring requirements for AHP projects funded by certain other 
government programs is reasonable, taking into consideration the risks 
of noncompliance and the costs of project monitoring. Many commenters, 
including trade groups, intermediaries, and nonprofit developers 
supported reliance on the monitoring of other federal funders of AHP 
projects. The Banks similarly supported the proposed changes to the 
initial and long-term monitoring requirements that would align them 
with the monitoring requirements of other federal programs, stating 
that they present very little risk. An intermediary supported reduced 
monitoring for projects involving USDA Section 514 and Section 515 
properties because it would decrease regulatory and reporting burden. A 
CDFI supported reduced monitoring because it decreases the final burden 
on project sponsors, members, and the Banks.
    A nonprofit organization opposed reduction to the monitoring 
requirements for income and rental validation at initial monitoring. 
The commenter stated that projects are most likely to go out of 
compliance during the initial lease-up phase, and that Bank review at 
initial monitoring would likely ensure that the project remained 
compliant in the long term. The commenter did not identify any specific 
information to justify its position. Two policy organizations 
encouraged FHFA to continue to evaluate other federal programs such as 
HOME, CDBG, Rental Assistance Demonstration, and Section 8 Project-
Based Rental Assistance, to determine whether the programs could be 
included in the guidance.
    It is reasonable to allow the Banks to conduct less monitoring of 
AHP projects funded by any of the four programs to be included in the 
FHFA guidance, given the low noncompliance risk to the AHP due to the 
overlap of the AHP monitoring requirements with USDA and HUD's 
monitoring practices, the substantially equivalent income, rent and 
retention requirements, and the programs' very low noncompliance rates. 
Eliminating the requirement to provide and review back-up documentation 
(other than rent rolls) for such projects at initial monitoring, and 
eliminating the requirement to provide and review any back-up 
documentation (including rent rolls) for such projects during long-term 
monitoring, will also benefit project sponsors and the Banks by 
reducing their administrative costs, albeit modestly for the Banks.\21\ 
In addition, aligning the AHP monitoring requirements for such projects 
with USDA's monitoring may encourage more USDA-funded projects to apply 
for AHP funds, thus increasing the proportion of rural families served 
by the AHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Banks have an average of 260 AHP rental projects per 
Bank in long-term monitoring, where monitoring reasonably be reduced 
through a risk-based monitoring plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FHFA will continue to assess the programs recommended by the 
commenters, as well as other possible

[[Page 61227]]

programs, and may add programs in the guidance as appropriate. Programs 
will be removed from the guidance when they no longer meet the 
standards for inclusion in the guidance.
    Enhanced long-term monitoring certifications. Consistent with the 
proposed rule, Sec.  1291.50(c)(1)(i) of the final rule codifies 
existing Bank best practices that require submission by project 
sponsors of annual project certifications during the AHP 15-year 
retention period to include not only the household income and rent 
information, but also information addressing the on-going financial 
viability of the project, such as whether the project is current on 
property taxes and loan payments, its vacancy rate, and whether it is 
in compliance with its commitments to other funding sources.
    As discussed in the NPRM, during long-term monitoring, the Banks 
are required to monitor projects for compliance with the household 
income targeting and rent commitments in their AHP applications. This 
information may not reveal operational and viability challenges the 
projects are experiencing. By obtaining additional information from 
project sponsors about the project, the Banks may be able to work with 
other funders to address project concerns and any noncompliance, 
including attempting remediation through workout strategies or recovery 
of AHP subsidies for noncompliance. The requirement for enhanced 
certifications modestly increases the reporting requirements for 
project sponsors and Banks that are not currently requiring such 
enhanced certifications. FHFA did not receive any comments on the 
proposed enhanced certifications.
    Notice requirement for LIHTC project noncompliance during AHP long-
term retention period. As discussed under Sec.  1291.15(a)(5)(ii) 
above, the final rule requires the Banks to include in their AHP 
monitoring agreements with members, and for members to include in their 
agreements with project owners, a requirement that project owners 
provide prompt written notice to the Bank if an AHP-assisted LIHTC 
project is in material and unresolved noncompliance with LIHTC 
household income targeting or rent requirements at any time during the 
AHP 15-year retention period. Section 1291.50(c)(1)(ii) of the final 
rule includes a corresponding monitoring requirement that the Banks 
must review LIHTC noncompliance notices received from project owners 
during the 15-year retention period, which will make the Banks aware of 
any material and unresolved noncompliance so that they can take 
remedial or other actions regarding the project as appropriate.
    Risk factors and other monitoring. Consistent with the current 
regulation and proposed rule, Sec.  1291.50(c)(2)(i) of the final rule 
requires that a Bank's written monitoring policies take risk factors 
into account. The final rule adds project sponsor performance as one of 
the risk factors that Banks may take into account because previous 
compliance history may be a useful criterion for Banks to consider in 
developing their monitoring policies.
Sec.  1291.51 Monitoring Under Homeownership Set-Aside Programs
    The final rule relocates the monitoring provisions for the 
Homeownership Set-Aside Program from current Sec.  1291.7(b) to Sec.  
1291.51. The proposed rule would have removed the requirement in 
current Sec.  1291.7(b)(ii) for verifying that AHP-assisted owner-
occupied units are subject to retention agreements because it would 
have eliminated the requirement for owner-occupied retention 
agreements. However, as discussed in Section III.D. above, the final 
rule eliminates the requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements 
only where the household uses the AHP subsidy solely for owner-occupied 
rehabilitation. Accordingly, the final rule retains the current 
verification requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements where 
the households uses the AHP subsidy for purchase of the unit, or for 
purchase of the unit in conjunction with rehabilitation.
Subpart F--Remedial Actions for Noncompliance
    The final rule relocates the provisions on remedial actions for AHP 
noncompliance from Sec.  1291.8 of the current regulation to Subpart F. 
As proposed, the final rule addresses each type of noncompliance--
project sponsor or owner, member, or Bank--in a separate section so 
that the responsibilities and potential liabilities of each party are 
clear. As proposed, the final rule also makes substantive changes to 
the order in which certain remedial actions must be taken, with certain 
clarifications to the provision on curing noncompliance. The changes 
are further discussed below.
Sec.  1291.60 Remedial Actions for Project Noncompliance
    Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.60 of the final rule 
addresses remedial actions for AHP project noncompliance. The language 
is revised and streamlined to provide greater clarity on the scope of 
the section and the responsibilities of the parties. As discussed 
extensively in Section III.E. above, the final rule adopts certain 
substantive changes by establishing a sequence of remedial steps for a 
Bank to follow before recovering AHP subsidy. The final rule also 
clarifies factors for Bank consideration in determining whether to 
accept less than the full amount of AHP subsidy due. Because the final 
rule is not adopting the proposed outcome-based requirements, the final 
rule does not adopt proposed Sec.  1291.65, which would have provided 
for a number of remedial actions that FHFA could take to address Bank 
noncompliance with the outcome requirements, including housing plans 
and reimbursement of the AHP Fund.
    The changes in the final rule that are not discussed in Section 
III.E. above, are discussed below.
    Scope. Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.60 of the 
final rule sets forth the requirements applicable to the Banks in the 
event of noncompliance by an AHP-assisted project with its AHP 
application commitments and the requirements of the AHP regulation, 
including any use of AHP subsidy by the project sponsor or owner for 
purposes other than those committed to in the AHP application. As 
proposed, the final rule clarifies that this section does not apply to 
individual AHP-assisted households, or to the sale or refinancing by 
such households of their homes, as there is no ongoing Bank monitoring 
of households once they purchase their homes, and sale or refinancing 
during the AHP five-year retention period is not considered 
noncompliance.
    Elimination of project noncompliance. Section 1291.60(b) of the 
final rule establishes a sequence of remedial steps for a Bank to 
follow before recovering AHP subsidy, as discussed below.
    Cure of noncompliance (Sec.  1291.60(b)(1)). To address concerns 
that the proposed cure-first requirement might compel project sponsors 
or owners to continue to attempt curative efforts when project 
noncompliance cannot be cured, the final rule includes clarifying 
language applying a reasonableness standard for the level of these 
efforts. This clarification in the final rule codifies practices Banks 
generally follow now.
    Project modification (Sec.  1291.60(b)(2)). As proposed, the final 
rule further provides that if the project noncompliance cannot be cured 
within a reasonable period of time, the Bank shall determine whether 
the circumstances of the noncompliance

[[Page 61228]]

can be eliminated through a project modification under Sec.  1291.29, 
and if so, the Bank must approve the modification request (except for 
modifications requests for AHP subsidy increases, whose approval 
remains discretionary for the Banks).
    Reasonable collection efforts, including settlement (Sec.  
1291.60(c)). Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.60(c)(1) of 
the final rule provides that if the circumstances of a project's 
noncompliance cannot be eliminated through a cure or modification, the 
Bank, or the member if delegated the responsibility, must first make a 
demand on the project sponsor or owner for repayment of the full amount 
of the AHP subsidy not used in compliance with the commitments in the 
AHP application or the AHP regulation. This is intended to ensure that 
the Banks attempt to recover all of the subsidy due before considering 
settlements. This provision also clarifies that if the noncompliance is 
occupancy by over-income households, the amount of AHP subsidy due is 
calculated based on the number of units in noncompliance, the length of 
the noncompliance, and the portion of the AHP subsidy attributable to 
the noncompliant units.
    Section 1291.60(c)(2) of the final rule specifies that if the 
demand for repayment of the full amount of subsidy due is unsuccessful, 
then the Bank, or the member if delegated the responsibility and in 
consultation with the Bank, is required to make reasonable efforts to 
collect the subsidy from the project sponsor or owner, which may 
include settlement for less than the full amount of subsidy due. As 
proposed, the final rule clarifies that members would carry out these 
efforts in consultation with the Bank, consistent with current 
practice.
    The final rule also retains the proposal to clarify that the facts 
and circumstances to consider in determining whether to settle include 
not only the degree of culpability of the noncomplying parties and the 
extent of the Bank's or member's collection efforts, as provided in the 
current regulation, but also the financial capacity of the project 
sponsor or owner, assets securing the AHP subsidy, and other assets of 
the project sponsor or owner. FHFA specifically requested comments on 
whether the facts and circumstances included in the proposed rule are 
appropriate for consideration during reasonable collection efforts, and 
whether there are other factors that should be considered.
    The Banks, a Bank Advisory Council, a trade association, and a 
nonprofit organization opposed the proposal on several different bases. 
The Banks stated that the facts and circumstances in the proposed rule 
were worthy but represented just a few of the considerations used in 
the subsidy recapture process. The Banks requested, therefore, that 
FHFA not codify the factors in the regulation, but rather allow each 
Bank to evaluate the fact-specific scenarios of a subsidy recapture and 
settlement process based on its own guidelines.
    A Bank Advisory Council and a nonprofit organization stated that 
expanding the requirements of reasonable collection efforts to include 
the Bank's review of the financial capacity and assets of both the 
project sponsor and project owner would increase the Bank's 
administrative burden. The commenters stated that the proposal could 
decrease the number of project sponsors, project owners, and members 
willing to submit applications for AHP subsidy. Several commenters 
warned that the proposed requirements regarding the repayment of AHP 
subsidy would require project sponsors to act as guarantors, 
responsible for repaying all or a portion of the AHP subsidy due to 
noncompliance. A Bank and a trade association opposed the proposal, 
stating that it would effectively make AHP funds recourse obligations 
of the project sponsor and project owner, although affordable rental 
housing financing, particularly for LIHTC projects, is normally 
nonrecourse, and was not appropriate.
    Settlement represents the last resort in a series of steps that a 
Bank initiates to remedy a project's noncompliance, in cases where the 
noncompliance cannot be eliminated through a cure or modification and 
the demand for full repayment of the AHP subsidy is unsuccessful. It is 
reasonable, in these rare instances, for a Bank to take into account 
the financial capacity and assets of both the project sponsor and owner 
to determine whether they have the ability to repay a portion of the 
AHP subsidy. The Bank would not require repayment of subsidy if they do 
not have resources to do so. The requirement for the project sponsor or 
owner to repay all or a portion of the AHP subsidy in the case of 
noncompliance that cannot be resolved through a cure or modification is 
a longstanding requirement of the AHP and, therefore, is unlikely to 
decrease the number of applications for AHP subsidy. For these reasons, 
the final rule retains the proposed clarifications described above.
    As proposed, the final rule also eliminates current Sec.  
1291.8(d)(2), which provided the Banks the option of seeking FHFA's 
prior approval for a proposed subsidy settlement. As discussed in the 
NPRM, only one Bank has used this option and it was for two similar 
cases. The Banks may enter into subsidy settlements, in their 
discretion, provided the settlements are supported by reasonable 
justifications. The Banks have made these types of business decisions 
for many years without seeking prior FHFA approval. Moreover, the final 
rule further clarifies the factors the Banks should consider in 
deciding whether to settle with a project sponsor or project owner. 
FHFA did not receive any comments on this provision.
Sec.  1291.61 Recovery of Subsidy for Member Noncompliance
    Section 1291.61 of the final rule addresses member noncompliance, 
which is addressed in Sec.  1291.8(b)(1) of the current regulation. The 
final rule clarifies the language to focus on noncompliance with a 
member's AHP application or the AHP regulation as a result of the 
member's actions or omissions, consistent with similar language 
applicable to the Banks and project sponsors in the current regulation 
and Subpart F, rather than on impermissible use of the subsidy by the 
member. FHFA did not receive any comments on this section.
Sec.  1291.62 Bank Reimbursement of AHP Fund
    As proposed, the final rule relocates Sec.  1291.8(e) of the 
current regulation, which addresses circumstances where a Bank is 
required to reimburse its AHP fund, to Sec.  1291.62, with no 
substantive changes. FHFA did not receive any comments on this section.
Sec.  1291.63 Suspension and Debarment
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates Sec.  
1291.8(g) of the current regulation, which addresses suspension or 
debarment of members, project sponsors, or project owners, to Sec.  
1291.63, without change. FHFA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
Sec.  1291.64 Use of Repaid AHP Subsidies
    Use of repaid AHP subsidies for other AHP-eligible projects or 
households. Consistent with the proposed rule, Sec.  1291.64 of the 
final rule includes Sec.  1291.8(f)(1) of the current regulation, which 
provides that AHP subsidy repaid to a Bank under the AHP regulation 
must be made available by the Bank for other AHP-eligible projects. As 
proposed, the final rule also clarifies that the repaid subsidy may 
also be

[[Page 61229]]

made available by the Bank for AHP-eligible households.
    Re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidies in the same project. The 
final rule retains Sec.  1291.8(f)(2) of the current regulation, which 
provides for re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidies in the same project, 
in the Bank's discretion. The proposed rule would have eliminated the 
requirement for owner-occupied retention agreements in all cases, 
meaning no AHP subsidy would be repaid by households if they sold their 
homes during the five-year AHP retention period, rendering the ability 
to re-use repaid subsidy in the project moot. The final rule retains 
the owner-occupied retention agreement requirement where the household 
uses the subsidy for purchase of the unit, or purchase of the unit in 
conjunction with rehabilitation, but not where the household uses the 
subsidy solely for rehabilitation. Thus, there remains the possibility 
for repayments of subsidy by households if they sell their homes during 
the five-year retention period and none of the regulatory exceptions to 
subsidy repayment applies. FHFA did not receive any comments on this 
re-use of repaid subsidies provision.
Sec.  1291.65 Transfer of Program Administration
    The final rule relocates Sec.  1291.8(h) of the current regulation, 
which addresses transfer of a Bank's Program to another Bank in the 
event of mismanagement of its Program, to Sec.  1291.65, with no 
changes. The proposed rule did not propose any changes to this 
provision, and no comments were received on it.
Removal of Obsolete Provision
    As proposed, the final rule rescinds current Sec.  1291.8(i) 
because the provision refers to a now-repealed Finance Board regulatory 
provision that was intended to establish a formal process for review by 
the Board of Directors of the Finance Board of certain types of 
supervisory decisions, which FHFA opted not to adopt.\22\ Though it is 
not directly comparable to the repealed Finance Board provision, FHFA's 
Ombudsman regulation provides an avenue for the Banks to present 
complaints and appeals to the Agency about their regulation or 
supervision.\23\ FHFA did not receive any comments on this proposed 
rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 12 CFR 907.9.
    \23\ See 12 CFR part 1213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart G--Affordable Housing Reserve Fund
Sec.  1291.70 Affordable Housing Reserve Fund
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule relocates Sec.  
1291.12 of the current regulation, which addresses the requirements for 
an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund, to Sec.  1291.70. The final rule 
revises the current provision by requiring that amounts remaining 
unused or uncommitted at year-end are deemed to be used or committed 
if, in combination with AHP funds that have been returned to the Bank 
or de-committed from canceled projects, they are insufficient to fund: 
(1) AHP application alternates in the Bank's final funding round of the 
year for its General Fund or any Targeted Funds, if the Bank has a 
policy to approve alternates for funding under such Funds; (2) pending 
applications for funds under any Bank Homeownership Set-Aside Programs; 
and (3) project modifications for AHP subsidy increases approved by the 
Bank. The proposed rule would have prioritized the General Fund and 
then any Targeted Funds. The final rule does not adopt this proposed 
change in order to provide the Banks with flexibility on how to use 
such funds. FHFA did not receive any comments on this proposed 
revision. FHFA notes that in the history of the Program, there has 
never been a need to establish an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.

V. Consideration of Differences Between the Banks and the Enterprises

    Section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety 
and Soundness Act of 1992 requires the Director of FHFA, when 
promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the 
differences between the Banks and the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac) as they relate to the Banks' cooperative ownership 
structure, mission of providing liquidity to members, affordable 
housing and community development mission, capital structure, and joint 
and several liability. The final rule applies only to the Banks. It 
amends the current AHP regulation to revise the scoring criteria 
governing the selection of AHP award recipients; provide additional 
authority to the Banks regarding certain Program operations, streamline 
project monitoring requirements, clarify various parties' 
responsibilities regarding AHP noncompliance, eliminate the requirement 
for retention agreements for AHP subsidy used to rehabilitate owner-
occupied units without an accompanying purchase, and clarify certain 
operational requirements. In preparing this final rule, the Director 
considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as 
they relate to the above factors, and determined that the amendments in 
the final rule are positive for the affordable housing mission of the 
Banks and neutral regarding the other statutory factors. FHFA requested 
comments in the NPRM regarding whether differences related to those 
factors should result in any revisions to the proposed rule. No 
significant relevant comments were received.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) \24\ requires that 
Federal agencies, including FHFA, consider the impact of paperwork and 
other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under the 
PRA and the implementing regulations of the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), no agency may conduct or sponsor, and no person is 
required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. Part 1291 contains six information 
collections (ICs) relating to the Banks' AHPs, which have been approved 
by OMB under the PRA and assigned control number 2590-0007 (entitled 
``Affordable Housing Program''; expires Mar. 31, 2020). The final rule 
modifies some of the information collection requirements in part 1291 
and makes other changes to the regulation that affect the reporting and 
recordkeeping burdens imposed by the regulation. FHFA has submitted the 
proposed and final rules and an analysis of the revised ICs to OMB for 
review and has requested approval of a three-year extension of control 
number 2590-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    As revised by the final rule, part 1291 contains six ICs: (1) 
Competitive applications for AHP subsidy under General Funds and 
Targeted Funds; (2) compliance submissions for approved General Fund 
and Targeted Fund projects at AHP subsidy disbursement; (3) 
modification requests for approved General Fund and Targeted Fund 
projects; (4) initial monitoring submissions for approved General Fund 
and Targeted Fund projects; (5) long-term monitoring submissions for 
approved General Fund and Targeted Fund projects; and (6) Homeownership 
Set-Aside Program applications and certifications. These ICs are 
substantially the same as the six currently-approved ICs in existing 
part 1291, although ICs #1 through #5 have

[[Page 61230]]

been re-titled to refer to the Banks' ``General Fund and Targeted Fund 
projects'' instead of their ``Competitive Application Program 
projects.'' Under the final rule (as under the proposed rule), projects 
funded under the Banks' General Funds and Targeted Funds will be 
subject to a competitive application process and to requirements 
regarding subsidy disbursements, modification requests, and initial and 
long-term monitoring that are similar to those that apply to the Banks' 
Competitive Application Programs.
    As required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to 
the proposed rule included a PRA statement setting forth FHFA's burden 
estimates for the six ICs, as revised by the proposed rule, and 
requested public comments on those estimates and on the reporting and 
recordkeeping burdens that would be imposed by the rule.\25\ The PRA 
statement also detailed, for each IC, how FHFA arrived at its burden 
estimate, the effect of the proposed rule on the scope of the IC and 
the burden estimate, and how the collected information would be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 83 FR at 11370-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In compliance with 5 CFR 1320.11(b), FHFA submitted the proposed 
rule and an analysis of the revised ICs to OMB for review 
simultaneously with the publication of the proposed rule. On June 6, 
2018, OMB issued a Notice of Action (NOA) to FHFA, pursuant to 5 CFR 
1320.11(c), stating that OMB had not yet approved the revised ICs and 
that the terms of the prior renewal of the control number remained in 
effect. The NOA instructed FHFA to address all comments received in 
response to the proposed rule's PRA statement. Under 5 CFR 1320.11(f), 
FHFA must explain how any IC contained in the final rule responds to 
any comments received from OMB or the public and must identify and 
explain any modifications made in the final rule, or explain why it 
rejected the comments. Aside from the NOA filed by OMB, FHFA received 
no comments in response to the PRA statement in the proposed rule.
    Although not generated by PRA comments or concerns, there are a 
number of substantive differences between the proposed and final rules, 
as detailed above. While some of these differences touch upon 
information collection requirements, FHFA has concluded that the only 
difference that will have a material effect on the paperwork burden 
imposed by the final rule is the decision not to adopt the proposed 
increase, from 35 to 40 percent, in the maximum percentage of AHP funds 
Banks may allocate to their Homeownership Set-Aside programs. In 
estimating the paperwork burden that IC #6 would have imposed under the 
proposed rule, FHFA anticipated that the increase in the maximum 
allocation percentage, in combination with generally higher Bank 
incomes, would lead the average annual number of Homeownership Set-
Aside Program applications and certifications to increase 
significantly, to 15,000 from the 13,000 that FHFA had estimated in 
connection with the prior renewal of the control number. This led FHFA 
to estimate that the average annual burden imposed by IC #6 would 
increase from 65,000 to 75,000 hours under the proposed rule. Because 
the final rule does not implement the proposed maximum allocation 
percentage increase, however, FHFA now anticipates that the Banks will 
receive an average of only 13,260 Homeownership Set-Aside Program 
applications and certifications annually. This figure represents a two 
percent increase from the most recent estimate of 13,000, to reflect a 
slightly higher level of Homeownership Set-Aside Program activity 
arising from anticipated higher Bank incomes over the next three years. 
As a result of this change, FHFA has modified its burden estimate for 
revised IC #6 downward to 66,300 hours from the 75,000 hours reflected 
in the proposed rule's PRA statement (a decrease of 8,700 hours).
    Aside from the modification of the burden estimate for IC #6 
discussed above, the burden estimates for, and material details 
regarding, each revised IC remain as described in the PRA statement for 
the proposed rule. The final burden estimates for revised part 1291 
appear below.

B. Burden Estimates for Respondents

    FHFA estimates that the average total burden that will be imposed 
upon Bank members and AHP project sponsors and owners annually over the 
next three years by the six ICs in revised part 1291 will be 118,905 
hours. This represents an increase of 3,155 total hours over the 
estimate of 115,750 hours made in connection with the most recent 
renewal of the OMB control number. The burden estimate for each IC and 
the manner in which the estimate was calculated are set forth below.
1. Competitive Applications for AHP Subsidy Under General Funds and 
Targeted Funds
    FHFA estimates that Banks will receive an annual average of 1,485 
competitive applications for subsidy from Bank members on behalf of 
project sponsors and owners under their General Funds and Targeted 
Funds over the next three years and that it will take an average of 24 
hours to prepare and submit each application, resulting in an estimated 
annual average burden of 35,640 hours for IC #1.
2. Compliance Submissions for Approved General Fund and Targeted Fund 
Projects at AHP Subsidy Disbursement
    FHFA estimates that the Banks will receive an annual average of 715 
submissions over the next three years from Bank members and project 
sponsors verifying that projects approved under the Banks' General 
Funds and Targeted Funds continue to comply with the regulatory 
eligibility requirements and all commitments made in the approved AHP 
applications at the time of subsidy disbursement and that it will take 
an average of one hour to prepare each submission, resulting in an 
estimated annual average burden of 715 hours for IC #2.
3. Modification Requests for Approved General Fund and Targeted Fund 
Projects
    FHFA estimates that Banks will receive an annual average of 290 
requests from Bank members and project sponsors for modifications to 
projects that have been approved under the Banks' AHP competitive 
application programs over the next three years and that it will take an 
average of 2.5 hours to prepare each request, resulting in an estimated 
annual average burden of 725 hours for IC #3.
4. Initial Monitoring Submissions for Approved General Fund and 
Targeted Fund Projects
    FHFA estimates that Banks will receive an annual average of 510 
submissions from Bank members and project sponsors of documentation 
required by the Banks as part of their initial monitoring of in-
progress and recently completed projects approved under their General 
Funds and Targeted Funds over the next three years and that it will 
take an average of 4.5 hours to prepare each submission, resulting in 
an estimated annual average burden of 2,295 hours for IC #4.
5. Long-Term Monitoring Submissions for Approved General Fund and 
Targeted Fund Projects
    FHFA estimates that Banks will receive an annual average of 4,900 
submissions from Bank members and project sponsors of documentation 
required by the Banks as part of their long-term monitoring of 
completed projects approved under their General

[[Page 61231]]

Funds and Targeted Funds over the next three years and that it will 
take an average of 2.7 hours to prepare each submission, resulting in 
an estimated annual average burden of 13,230 hours for IC #5.
6. Homeownership Set-Aside Program Applications and Certifications
    FHFA estimates that Banks will receive from Bank members an annual 
average of 13,260 applications and required certifications for AHP 
direct subsidies under their Homeownership Set-Aside Programs and that 
it will take an average of 5 hours to prepare each submission, 
resulting in an estimated annual average burden of 66,300 hours for IC 
#6.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act \26\ requires that a regulation that 
has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, small businesses, or small organizations must include an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's 
impact on small entities. Such an analysis need not be undertaken if 
the agency has certified that the regulation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\27\ FHFA has considered the impact of the final rule under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The General Counsel of FHFA certifies 
that the final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation 
applies to the Banks, which are not small entities for purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \27\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    In accordance with the Congressional Review Act,\28\ FHFA has 
determined that this final rule is not a major rule and has verified 
this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 1290

    Banks and banking, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, 
Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 1291

    Community development, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, 
Low- and moderate-income housing, Mortgages, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the Preamble, FHFA amends parts 1290 and 
1291 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1290--COMMUNITY SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1290 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1430(g).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1290.6 by revising paragraph (a)(5) and adding paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1290.6  Bank community support programs.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Include an annual Targeted Community Lending Plan approved by 
the Bank's board of directors and subject to modification. The Bank's 
board of directors shall not delegate to a committee of the board, Bank 
officers, or other Bank employees the responsibility to adopt or amend 
the Targeted Community Lending Plan. The Targeted Community Lending 
Plan shall:
    (i) Reflect market research conducted in the Bank's district;
    (ii) Describe how the Bank will address identified credit needs and 
market opportunities in the Bank's district for targeted community 
lending;
    (iii) Be developed in consultation with (and may only be amended 
after consultation with) its Advisory Council and with members, housing 
associates, and public and private economic development organizations 
in the Bank's district;
    (iv) Establish quantitative targeted community lending performance 
goals;
    (v) Identify and assess significant affordable housing needs in its 
district that will be addressed through its Affordable Housing Program 
under 12 CFR part 1291, reflecting market research conducted or 
obtained by the Bank; and
    (vi) For any Targeted Funds established by the Bank under its 
Affordable Housing Program, specify, from among the identified 
affordable housing needs, the particular affordable housing needs the 
Bank plans to address through such Targeted Funds.
* * * * *
    (c) Public access. A Bank shall publish its current Targeted 
Community Lending Plan on its publicly available website, and shall 
publish any amendments to its Targeted Community Lending Plan on the 
website within 30 days after the date of their adoption by the Bank's 
board of directors. If a Bank plans to establish any Targeted Funds 
under its Affordable Housing Program, the Bank must publish its 
Targeted Community Lending Plan (as amended) on the website on or 
before the date of publication of its annual Affordable Housing Program 
Implementation Plan, and at least 90 days before the first day that 
applications may be submitted to the Targeted Fund, unless the Targeted 
Fund is specifically targeted to address a federal- or state-declared 
disaster.

0
3. Add Sec.  1290.8 to read as follows:


Sec.  1290.8  Compliance dates.

    From December 28, 2018 to December 31, 2020, a Bank shall comply 
with either prior part 1290 (in 12 CFR part 1290 (January 1, 2018 
edition)) or this part 1290. On and after January 1, 2021, a Bank shall 
comply with this part 1290.

PART 1291--FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS' AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM

0
4. Revise part 1291 to read as follows:

PART 1291--FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS' AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM

Subpart A--General
Sec.
1291.1 Definitions.
1291.2 Compliance dates.
Subpart B--Program Administration and Governance
1291.10 Required annual AHP contribution.
1291.11 Temporary suspension of AHP contributions.
1291.12 Allocation of required annual AHP contribution.
1291.13 Targeted Community Lending Plan; AHP Implementation Plan.
1291.14 Advisory Councils.
1291.15 Agreements.
1291.16 Conflicts of interest.
Subpart C--General Fund and Targeted Funds
1291.20 Establishment of programs.
1291.21 Eligible applicants.
1291.22 Funding rounds; application process.
1291.23 Eligible projects.
1291.24 Eligible uses.
1291.25 Scoring methodologies.
1291.26 Scoring criteria for the General Fund.
1291.27 Scoring criteria for Targeted Funds.
1291.28 Approval of AHP applications under the General Fund and 
Targeted Funds.
1291.29 Modifications of approved AHP applications.
1291.30 Procedures for funding.
1291.31 Lending and re-lending of AHP direct subsidy by revolving 
loan funds.
1291.32 Use of AHP subsidy in loan pools.

[[Page 61232]]

Subpart D--Homeownership Set-Aside Programs
1291.40 Establishment of programs.
1291.41 Eligible applicants.
1291.42 Eligibility requirements.
1291.43 Approval of AHP applications.
1291.44 Procedures for funding.
Subpart E--Monitoring
1291.50 Monitoring under General Fund and Targeted Funds.
1291.51 Monitoring under Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.
Subpart F--Remedial Actions for Noncompliance
1291.60 Remedial actions for project noncompliance.
1291.61 Recovery of subsidy for member noncompliance.
1291.62 Bank reimbursement of AHP fund.
1291.63 Suspension and debarment.
1291.64 Use of repaid AHP subsidies.
1291.65 Transfer of Program administration.
Subpart G--Affordable Housing Reserve Fund
1291.70 Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1430(j).

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1291.1  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Affordable means that:
    (1) The rent charged to a household for a unit that is to be 
reserved for occupancy by a household with an income at or below 80 
percent of the median income for the area, does not exceed 30 percent 
of the income of a household of the maximum income and size expected, 
under the commitment made in the AHP application, to occupy the unit 
(assuming occupancy of 1.5 persons per bedroom or 1.0 persons per unit 
without a separate bedroom); or
    (2) The rent charged to a household, for rental units subsidized 
with Section 8 assistance under 42 U.S.C. 1437f or subsidized under 
another assistance program where the rents are charged in the same way 
as under the Section 8 program, if the rent complied with this 
definition at the time of the household's initial occupancy and the 
household continues to be assisted through the Section 8 or another 
assistance program, respectively.
    AHP means the Affordable Housing Program required to be established 
by the Banks pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1430(j) and this part.
    AHP project means a single-family or multifamily housing project 
for owner-occupied or rental housing that has been awarded or has 
received AHP subsidy under a Bank's General Fund and any Targeted 
Funds.
    Cost of funds means, for purposes of a subsidized advance, the 
estimated cost of issuing Bank System consolidated obligations with 
maturities comparable to that of the subsidized advance.
    Direct subsidy means an AHP subsidy in the form of a direct cash 
payment.
    Eligible household means a household that meets the income limits 
and other requirements specified by a Bank for its General Fund and any 
Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, provided that:
    (1) In the case of owner-occupied housing, the household's income 
may not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area; and
    (2) In the case of rental housing, the household's income in at 
least 20 percent of the units may not exceed 50 percent of the median 
income for the area.
    Eligible project means a project eligible to receive AHP subsidy 
pursuant to the requirements of this part.
    Extremely low-income household means a household that has an income 
at or below 30 percent of the median income for the area, with the 
income limit adjusted for household size in accordance with the 
methodology of the applicable median income standard selected from 
those enumerated in the definition of ``median income for the area,'' 
unless such median income standard has no household size adjustment 
methodology.
    Family member means any individual related to a person by blood, 
marriage, or adoption.
    Funding round means a time period, as determined by a Bank, during 
which the Bank accepts AHP applications for subsidy under its General 
Fund and any Targeted Funds.
    General Fund means a program that each Bank is required to 
establish and under which the Bank approves (i.e., awards) applications 
for AHP subsidy through a competitive application scoring process and 
disburses the subsidy, pursuant to the requirements of this part.
    Homeownership Set-Aside Program means a program established by a 
Bank, in its discretion, under which the Bank approves (i.e., awards) 
applications for AHP direct subsidy through a noncompetitive process 
developed by the Bank and disburses the subsidy, pursuant to the 
requirements of this part.
    Household's investment means the following, to the extent paid by 
the household and documented (in the Closing Disclosure or other 
settlement statement, if applicable, or elsewhere) to the Bank or its 
designee:
    (1) Reasonable and customary costs paid by the household in 
connection with the purchase of the unit (including real estate 
broker's commission, attorney's fees, and title search fees);
    (2) Any down payment paid in connection with the household's 
purchase of the unit;
    (3) The cost of any capital improvements made after the household's 
purchase of the unit until the time of the subsequent sale, transfer, 
assignment of title or deed, or refinancing; and
    (4) The amount of principal on any mortgage senior to the AHP 
subsidy lien or other legally enforceable AHP subsidy repayment 
obligation repaid by the household.
    LIHTC means Low-Income Housing Tax Credits under section 42 of the 
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 42).
    Loan pool means a group of mortgage or other loans meeting the 
requirements of this part that are purchased, pooled, and held in 
trust.
    Low- or moderate-income household means a household that has an 
income of 80 percent or less of the median income for the area, with 
the income limit adjusted for household size in accordance with the 
methodology of the applicable median income standard selected from 
those enumerated in the definition of ``median income for the area,'' 
unless such median income standard has no household size adjustment 
methodology.
    Median income for the area means one or more of the following 
median income standards as determined by a Bank, after consultation 
with its Advisory Council, in its AHP Implementation Plan:
    (1) The median income for the area, as published annually by HUD;
    (2) The median income for the area obtained from the Federal 
Financial Institutions Examination Council;
    (3) The applicable median family income, as determined under 26 
U.S.C. 143(f) (Mortgage Revenue Bonds) and published by a state agency 
or instrumentality;
    (4) The median income for the area, as published by the United 
States Department of Agriculture; or
    (5) The median income for an applicable definable geographic area, 
as published by a federal, state, or local government entity, and 
approved by FHFA, at the request of a Bank, for use under the AHP.
    Multifamily building means a structure with five or more dwelling 
units.
    Net earnings of a Bank means the net earnings of a Bank for a 
calendar year before declaring or paying any dividend under section 16 
of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1436). For purposes of this part,

[[Page 61233]]

``dividend'' includes any dividends on capital stock subject to a 
redemption request even if under GAAP those dividends are treated as an 
``interest expense.''
    Net proceeds means:
    (1) In the case of a sale, transfer, or assignment of title or deed 
of an AHP-assisted unit by a household during the AHP five-year 
retention period, the sales price minus reasonable and customary costs 
paid by the household in connection with the transaction (including 
real estate broker's commission, attorney's fees, and title search 
fees) and outstanding debt superior to the AHP subsidy lien or other 
legally enforceable AHP subsidy repayment obligation;
    (2) In the case of a refinancing of an AHP-assisted unit by a 
household during the AHP five-year retention period, the principal 
amount of the new mortgage minus reasonable and customary costs paid by 
the household in connection with the transaction (including attorney's 
fees and title search fees) and the principal amount of the refinanced 
mortgage.
    Owner-occupied project means, for purposes of a Bank's General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds, one or more owner-occupied units in a single-
family or multifamily building, including condominiums, cooperative 
housing, and manufactured housing.
    Owner-occupied unit means a dwelling unit occupied by the owner of 
the unit. Housing with two to four dwelling units consisting of one 
owner-occupied unit and one or more rental units is considered a single 
owner-occupied unit.
    Program means the Affordable Housing Program established pursuant 
to this part.
    Rental project means, for purposes of a Bank's General Fund and any 
Targeted Funds, one or more dwelling units for occupancy by households 
that are not owner-occupants, including overnight and emergency 
shelters, transitional housing for homeless households, mutual housing, 
single-room occupancy housing, and manufactured housing communities.
    Retention period means:
    (1) Five years from closing for an AHP-assisted owner-occupied unit 
where the AHP subsidy is used for purchase of the unit or for purchase 
in conjunction with rehabilitation of the unit; and
    (2) Fifteen years from the date of completion for a rental project.
    Revolving loan fund means a capital fund established to make 
mortgage or other loans whereby loan principal is repaid into the fund 
and re-lent to other borrowers.
    Single-family building means a structure with one to four dwelling 
units.
    Sponsor means a not-for-profit or for-profit organization or public 
entity that:
    (1) Has an ownership interest (including any partnership interest), 
as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, in a rental 
project;
    (2) Is integrally involved, as defined by the Bank in its AHP 
Implementation Plan, in an owner-occupied project, such as by 
exercising control over the planning, development, or management of the 
project, or by qualifying borrowers and providing or arranging 
financing for the owners of the units;
    (3) Operates a loan pool; or
    (4) Is a revolving loan fund.
    Subsidized advance means an advance to a member at an interest rate 
reduced below the Bank's cost of funds by use of a subsidy.
    Subsidy means:
    (1) A direct subsidy, provided that if a direct subsidy is used to 
write down the interest rate on a loan extended by a member, sponsor, 
or other party to a project, the subsidy must equal the net present 
value of the interest foregone from making the loan below the lender's 
market interest rate; or
    (2) The net present value of the interest revenue foregone from 
making a subsidized advance at a rate below the Bank's cost of funds.
    Targeted Fund means a program established by a Bank, in its 
discretion, to address specific affordable housing needs within its 
district that are unmet, have proven difficult to address through its 
General Fund, or align with objectives identified in its strategic 
plan, under which the Bank approves (i.e., awards) applications for AHP 
subsidy through a competitive application scoring process developed by 
the Bank and disburses the subsidy, pursuant to the requirements of 
this part.
    Very low-income household means a household that has an income at 
or below 50 percent of the median income for the area, with the income 
limit adjusted for household size in accordance with the methodology of 
the applicable median income standard selected from those enumerated in 
the definition of ``median income for the area,'' unless such median 
income standard has no household size adjustment methodology.
    Visitable means, in either owner-occupied or rental housing, at 
least one entrance is at-grade (no steps) and approached by an 
accessible route such as a sidewalk, and the entrance door and all 
interior passage doors are at least 34 inches wide, offering 32 inches 
of clear passage space.


Sec.  1291.2  Compliance dates.

    (a) General January 1, 2021 compliance date. Except as provided in 
paragraph (b) of this section, from December 28, 2018 to December 31, 
2020, a Bank shall comply with either prior part 1291 (in 12 CFR part 
1291 (January 1, 2018 edition)) or this part 1291, and on and after 
January 1, 2021, a Bank shall comply with this part 1291.
    (b) January 1, 2020 compliance date for owner-occupied retention 
agreements; exception for adoption of proxies. From December 28, 2018 
to December 31, 2019, a Bank shall comply with either prior Sec.  
1291.9(a)(7) (in 12 CFR part 1291 (January 1, 2018 edition)) or Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7), and on and after January 1, 2020, a Bank shall comply 
with Sec.  1291.15(a)(7), except that a Bank shall comply with Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7)(ii)(B) on the date set forth in the FHFA guidance on 
proxies referenced therein.

Subpart B--Program Administration and Governance


Sec.  1291.10  Required annual AHP contribution.

    Each Bank shall contribute annually to its Program the greater of:
    (a) 10 percent of the Bank's net earnings for the previous year; or
    (b) That Bank's pro rata share of an aggregate of $100 million to 
be contributed in total by the Banks, such proration being made on the 
basis of the net earnings of the Banks for the previous year, except 
that the required annual AHP contribution for a Bank shall not exceed 
its net earnings in the previous year.


Sec.  1291.11  Temporary suspension of AHP contributions.

    (a) Request to FHFA. If a Bank finds that the contributions 
required pursuant to Sec.  1291.10 are contributing to the financial 
instability of the Bank, the Bank may apply in writing to FHFA for a 
temporary suspension of such contributions.
    (b) Director review--(1) Financial instability. In determining the 
financial instability of a Bank, the Director shall consider such 
factors as:
    (i) Severely depressed Bank earnings;
    (ii) A substantial decline in Bank membership capital; and
    (iii) A substantial reduction in Bank advances outstanding.
    (2) Limitations on grounds for suspension. The Director shall not 
suspend a Bank's annual AHP contributions if it determines that the 
Bank's reduction in earnings is due to:

[[Page 61234]]

    (i) A change in the terms of advances to members that is not 
justified by market conditions;
    (ii) Inordinate operating and administrative expenses; or
    (iii) Mismanagement.


Sec.  1291.12  Allocation of required annual AHP contribution.

    Each Bank, after consultation with its Advisory Council and 
pursuant to written policies adopted by the Bank's board of directors, 
shall meet the following requirements for allocation of its required 
annual AHP contribution.
    (a) General Fund. Each Bank shall allocate annually at least 50 
percent of its required annual AHP contribution to provide funds to 
members through a General Fund established and administered by the Bank 
pursuant to the requirements of this part.
    (b) Homeownership Set-Aside Programs. A Bank may, in its 
discretion, allocate annually, in the aggregate, up to the greater of 
$4.5 million or 35 percent of its required annual AHP contribution to 
provide funds to members participating in Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs established and administered by the Bank pursuant to the 
requirements of this part, provided that at least one-third of the 
Bank's aggregate annual set-aside allocation to such programs is 
allocated to assist first-time homebuyers or households for owner-
occupied rehabilitation, or a combination of both.
    (c) Targeted Funds--phase-in requirements for funding allocations. 
Unless otherwise directed by FHFA and subject to the phase-in 
requirements for the number of Targeted Funds in Sec.  1291.20(b), a 
Bank may, in its discretion, allocate annually, up to:
    (1) 20 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP 
contribution to any Targeted Funds;
    (2) 30 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP 
contribution to any Targeted Funds, provided that it allocated at least 
20 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution 
to one or more Targeted Funds in any preceding year; or
    (3) 40 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP 
contribution to any Targeted Funds, provided that it allocated at least 
30 percent, in the aggregate, of its required annual AHP contribution 
to one or more Targeted Funds in any preceding year.
    (d) Acceleration of funding. A Bank may, in its discretion, 
accelerate to its current year's Program from future required annual 
AHP contributions an amount up to the greater of $5 million or 20 
percent of its required annual AHP contribution for the current year. 
The Bank may credit the amount of the accelerated contribution against 
required AHP contributions under this part 1291 over one or more of the 
subsequent five years.
    (e) No delegation. A Bank's board of directors shall not delegate 
to a committee of the board, Bank officers, or other Bank employees the 
responsibility for adopting the Bank's policies for its General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.


Sec.  1291.13  Targeted Community Lending Plan; AHP Implementation 
Plan.

    (a) Targeted Community Lending Plan--(1) Identification of housing 
needs. Pursuant to the requirements of 12 CFR 1290.6(a)(5)(v) and (vi), 
a Bank's annual Targeted Community Lending Plan adopted under its 
community support program shall, among other things, identify the 
significant affordable housing needs in its district that will be 
addressed through its AHP, as well as any specific affordable housing 
needs it plans to address through any Targeted Funds as set forth in 
its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (2) Public access. A Bank shall publish its current Targeted 
Community Lending Plan on its publicly available website, and shall 
publish any amendments to its Targeted Community Lending Plan on the 
website within 30 days after the date of their adoption by the Bank's 
board of directors. If a Bank plans to establish any Targeted Funds 
under its AHP, the Bank must publish its Targeted Community Lending 
Plan (as amended) on the website on or before the date of publication 
of its annual AHP Implementation Plan, and at least 90 days before the 
first day that applications may be submitted to the Targeted Fund, 
unless the Targeted Fund is specifically targeted to address a federal- 
or state-declared disaster.
    (3) Notification of Plan amendments to FHFA. A Bank shall notify 
FHFA of any amendments to its Targeted Community Lending Plan within 30 
days after the date of their adoption by the Bank's board of directors.
    (b) AHP Implementation Plan. Each Bank's board of directors, after 
consultation with its Advisory Council, shall adopt a written AHP 
Implementation Plan, and shall not amend the AHP Implementation Plan 
without first consulting its Advisory Council. The Bank's board of 
directors shall not delegate to Bank officers or other Bank employees 
the responsibility for such prior consultations with the Advisory 
Council, and shall not delegate to a committee of the board, Bank 
officers, or other Bank employees the responsibility for adopting or 
amending the AHP Implementation Plan. The AHP Implementation Plan shall 
set forth, at a minimum:
    (1) The applicable median income standard or standards adopted by 
the Bank consistent with the definition of ``median income for the 
area'' in Sec.  1291.1.
    (2) For the General Fund established by the Bank pursuant to Sec.  
1291.20(a), the Bank's requirements for the General Fund, including the 
Bank's scoring methodology, including its scoring tie-breaker policy 
adopted pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1291.25(c) and 1291.28(c), and any 
policy on approving AHP application alternates for funding pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  1291.25(c)(6) and 1291.28(b).
    (3) For each Targeted Fund established by the Bank, if any, 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.20(b), the Bank's requirements for the Targeted 
Fund, including the Bank's scoring methodology for each Fund, including 
its scoring tie-breaker policy adopted pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1291.25(c) and 1291.28(c), and any policy on approving AHP application 
alternates for funding pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1291.25(c)(6) and 
1291.28(b), and the parameters adopted pursuant to Sec.  1291.20(b)(2).
    (4) The Bank's policy on how it will determine under which Fund to 
approve an application for the same project that is submitted to more 
than one Fund at a Bank in a calendar year and scores high enough to be 
approved under each Fund, pursuant to Sec.  1291.28(d).
    (5) For each Homeownership Set-Aside Program established by the 
Bank, if any, pursuant to Sec.  1291.40, the Bank's requirements for 
the program, including the Bank's application and subsidy disbursement 
methodology.
    (6) The Bank's retention agreement requirements for projects and 
households under its General Fund, any Targeted Funds, and any 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, pursuant to Sec.  1291.15(a)(7) and 
(8), including the proxy or proxies selected by the Bank for 
determining a subsequent purchaser's income pursuant to FHFA guidance 
under Sec.  1291.15(a)(7)(ii)(B).
    (7) The Bank's standards for approving a relocation plan for 
current occupants of rental projects pursuant to Sec.  
1291.23(a)(2)(ii)(B).
    (8) Any optional Bank district eligibility requirements adopted by 
the Bank pursuant to Sec.  1291.24(c).
    (9) The Bank's requirements for funding revolving loan funds, if 
adopted by the Bank pursuant to Sec.  1291.31;

[[Page 61235]]

    (10) The Bank's requirements for funding loan pools, if adopted by 
the Bank pursuant to Sec.  1291.32;
    (11) The Bank's requirements for monitoring under its General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  1291.50 and 1291.51.
    (12) The Bank's requirements, including time limits, for re-use of 
repaid AHP direct subsidy in the same project, if adopted by the Bank 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.64(b).
    (c) Advisory Council review. Prior to the amendment of a Bank's AHP 
Implementation Plan, the Bank shall provide its Advisory Council an 
opportunity to review the document, and the Advisory Council shall 
provide its recommendations to the Bank's board of directors for its 
consideration.
    (d) Notification of Plan amendments to FHFA. A Bank shall notify 
FHFA of any amendments made to its AHP Implementation Plan within 30 
days after the date of their adoption by the Bank's board of directors.
    (e) Public access. A Bank shall publish its current AHP 
Implementation Plan on its publicly available website, and shall 
publish any amendments to the AHP Implementation Plan on the website 
within 30 days after the date of their adoption by the Bank's board of 
directors.


Sec.  1291.14  Advisory Councils.

    (a) Appointment. (1) Each Bank's board of directors shall appoint 
an Advisory Council of 7 to 15 persons who reside in the Bank's 
district and are drawn from community and not-for-profit organizations 
that are actively involved in providing or promoting low- and moderate-
income housing, and community and not-for-profit organizations that are 
actively involved in providing or promoting community lending, in the 
district. Community organizations include for-profit organizations.
    (2) Each Bank shall solicit nominations for membership on the 
Advisory Council from community and not-for-profit organizations 
pursuant to a nomination process that is as broad and as participatory 
as possible, allowing sufficient time for responses.
    (3) The Bank's board of directors shall appoint Advisory Council 
members from a diverse range of organizations so that representatives 
of no one group constitute an undue proportion of the membership of the 
Advisory Council, giving consideration to the size of the Bank's 
district and the diversity of low- and moderate-income housing and 
community lending needs and activities within the district.
    (b) Terms of Advisory Council members. Pursuant to policies adopted 
by the Bank's board of directors, Advisory Council members shall be 
appointed by the Bank's board of directors to serve for terms of three 
years, which shall be staggered to provide continuity in experience and 
service to the Advisory Council, except that Advisory Council members 
may be appointed to serve for terms of one or two years solely for 
purposes of reconfiguring the staggering of the three-year terms. No 
Advisory Council member may be appointed to serve for more than three 
full consecutive terms. An Advisory Council member appointed to fill a 
vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of his or her 
predecessor in office.
    (c) Election of officers. Each Advisory Council shall elect from 
among its members a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and any other 
officers the Advisory Council deems appropriate.
    (d) Duties--(1) Meetings with the Banks. (i) The Advisory Council 
shall meet with representatives of the Bank's board of directors at 
least quarterly to provide advice on ways in which the Bank can better 
carry out its housing finance and community lending mission, including, 
but not limited to, advice on the low- and moderate-income housing and 
community lending programs and needs in the Bank's district, and on the 
use of AHP subsidies, Bank advances, and other Bank credit products for 
these purposes.
    (ii) The Advisory Council's advice shall include recommendations 
on:
    (A) The Bank's Targeted Community Lending Plan, and any amendments 
thereto, pursuant to 12 CFR 1290.6(a)(5)(iii);
    (B) The amount of AHP funds to be allocated to the Bank's General 
Fund and any Targeted Funds and Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, 
including how the set-aside funds should be apportioned under the one-
third funding allocation requirement in Sec.  1291.12(b);
    (C) The AHP Implementation Plan and any subsequent amendments 
thereto;
    (D) The Bank's scoring methodologies, related definitions, and any 
additional optional district eligibility requirements for the General 
Fund and any Targeted Funds; and
    (E) The eligibility requirements and any priority criteria for any 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.
    (2) Summary of AHP applications. The Bank shall comply with 
requests from the Advisory Council for summary information regarding 
AHP applications from prior funding rounds.
    (3) Annual analysis; public access. (i) Each Advisory Council 
annually shall submit to FHFA by May 1 its analysis of the low- and 
moderate-income housing and community lending activity of the Bank by 
which it is appointed.
    (ii) Within 30 days after the date the Advisory Council's annual 
analysis is submitted to FHFA, the Bank shall publish the analysis on 
its publicly available website.
    (e) Expenses. The Bank shall pay Advisory Council members' travel 
expenses, including transportation and subsistence, for each day 
devoted to attending meetings with representatives of the board of 
directors of the Bank and meetings requested by FHFA.
    (f) No delegation. A Bank's board of directors shall not delegate 
to Bank officers or other Bank employees the responsibility to appoint 
persons as members of the Advisory Council or to meet with the Advisory 
Council at the quarterly meetings required by the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 
1430(j)(11)).


Sec.  1291.15  Agreements.

    (a) Agreements between Banks and members. A Bank shall have in 
place with each member receiving an AHP subsidized advance or AHP 
direct subsidy an agreement or agreements containing, at a minimum, the 
following provisions, where applicable:
    (1) Notification of member. The member has been notified of the 
requirements of this part as they may be amended from time to time, and 
all Bank policies relevant to the member's approved application for AHP 
subsidy.
    (2) AHP subsidy pass-through. The member shall pass on the full 
amount of the AHP subsidy to the project or household, as applicable, 
for which the subsidy was approved.
    (3) Use of AHP subsidy--(i) Use of AHP subsidy by the member. The 
member shall use the AHP subsidy in accordance with the terms of the 
member's approved application for the subsidy and the requirements of 
this part.
    (ii) Use of AHP subsidy by the project sponsor or owner. The member 
shall have in place an agreement with each project sponsor or owner in 
which the project sponsor or owner agrees to use the AHP subsidy in 
accordance with the terms of the member's approved application for the 
subsidy and the requirements of this part.
    (4) Repayment of AHP subsidies in case of noncompliance--(i) 
Noncompliance by the member. The member shall repay AHP subsidies to 
the Bank in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  1291.61.

[[Page 61236]]

    (ii) Noncompliance by a project sponsor or owner--(A) Agreement. 
The member shall have in place an agreement with each project sponsor 
or owner in which the project sponsor or owner agrees to repay AHP 
subsidies to the member or the Bank in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  1291.60.
    (B) Recovery of AHP subsidies. The member shall recover from the 
project sponsor or owner and repay to the Bank AHP subsidies in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  1291.60 (if applicable).
    (5) Project monitoring--(i) Monitoring by the member. The member 
shall comply with the monitoring requirements applicable to it, as 
established by the Bank in its monitoring policies pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  1291.50 and 1291.51.
    (ii) Agreement; LIHTC noncompliance notice. The member shall have 
in place an agreement with each project sponsor and owner, in which the 
project sponsor and owner agree to comply with the monitoring 
requirements applicable to such parties, as established by the Bank in 
its monitoring policies pursuant to Sec.  1291.50. The member's 
agreement shall also include an agreement by the project owner to 
provide prompt written notice to the Bank if the project also received 
LIHTC and the project is in material and unresolved noncompliance with 
the LIHTC income targeting or rent requirements at any time during the 
AHP 15-year retention period.
    (6) Transfer of AHP obligations--(i) To another member. The member 
shall make best efforts to transfer its obligations under the approved 
application for AHP subsidy to another member in the event of its loss 
of membership in the Bank prior to the Bank's final disbursement of AHP 
subsidies.
    (ii) To a nonmember. If, after final disbursement of AHP subsidies 
to the member, the member undergoes an acquisition or a consolidation 
resulting in a successor organization that is not a member of the Bank, 
the nonmember successor organization assumes the member's obligations 
under its approved application for AHP subsidy, and where the member 
received an AHP subsidized advance, the nonmember assumes such 
obligations until prepayment or orderly liquidation by the nonmember of 
the subsidized advance.
    (7) Owner-occupied units--required provisions for retention 
agreements. The member shall ensure that where a household receives AHP 
subsidy for purchase, or purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, 
of an owner-occupied unit, the unit is subject to a deed restriction or 
other legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism requiring 
that:
    (i) Notice. The Bank, and in its discretion any designee of the 
Bank, shall be given notice of any sale, transfer, assignment of title 
or deed, or refinancing of the unit by the household occurring during 
the AHP five-year retention period;
    (ii) Repayment of subsidy; exceptions. In the case of a sale, 
transfer, assignment of title or deed, or refinancing of the unit by 
the household during the retention period, the amount of AHP subsidy 
calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(7)(v) of this section shall 
be repaid to the Bank, unless one of the following exceptions applies:
    (A) The unit was assisted with a permanent mortgage loan funded by 
an AHP subsidized advance;
    (B) The subsequent purchaser, transferee, or assignee is a low- or 
moderate-income household, as determined by the Bank. For any sale, 
transfer, or assignment that occurs after the date established by FHFA 
in guidance on the use of proxies, the Bank or its designee shall 
determine the household's income using one or more proxies that are 
reliable indicators of the subsequent purchaser's income, which may be 
selected by the Bank pursuant to the FHFA guidance and shall be 
included in the Bank's AHP Implementation Plan, unless documentation 
demonstrating that household's actual income is available. The Bank or 
its designee is not required to request or obtain such documentation, 
but must use it in lieu of a proxy if available;
    (C) The amount of the AHP subsidy that would be required to be 
repaid in accordance with the calculation in paragraph (a)(7)(v) of 
this section is $2,500 or less; or
    (D) Following a refinancing, the unit continues to be subject to a 
deed restriction or other legally enforceable retention agreement or 
mechanism described in this paragraph (a)(7);
    (iii) Subsidy repayments to Bank, member, or project sponsor. In 
the case of a direct subsidy, such repayment of AHP subsidy shall be 
made:
    (A) To the Bank. If the Bank has not authorized re-use of the 
repaid AHP subsidy or has authorized re-use of the repaid subsidy but 
not retention of such repaid subsidy by the member or project sponsor 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.64(b) of this part, or has authorized retention 
and re-use of such repaid subsidy by the member or project sponsor 
pursuant to such section and the repaid subsidy is not re-used in 
accordance with the requirements of the Bank and such section; or
    (B) To the member or project sponsor. To the member or project 
sponsor for re-use by such member or project sponsor, if the Bank has 
authorized retention and re-use of such subsidy by the member or 
project sponsor pursuant to Sec.  1291.64(b);
    (iv) Termination of subsidy repayment obligation. The obligation to 
repay AHP subsidy to the Bank shall terminate after any event of 
foreclosure, transfer by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, an assignment of 
a Federal Housing Administration first mortgage to HUD, or death of the 
AHP-assisted homeowner; and
    (v) Calculation of AHP subsidy repayment based on net proceeds and 
household's investment. The Bank shall be repaid the lesser of:
    (A) The AHP subsidy, reduced on a pro rata basis per month until 
the unit is sold, transferred, or its title or deed transferred, or is 
refinanced, during the AHP five-year retention period; or
    (B) Any net proceeds from the sale, transfer, or assignment of 
title or deed of the unit, or the refinancing, as applicable, minus the 
AHP-assisted household's investment.
    (8) Rental projects--required provisions for retention agreements. 
The member shall ensure that an AHP-assisted rental project is subject 
to a deed restriction or other legally enforceable retention agreement 
or mechanism requiring that:
    (i) Income and rent commitments. The project's rental units, or 
applicable portion thereof, must remain occupied by and affordable for 
households with incomes at or below the levels committed to be served 
in the approved AHP application for the duration of the AHP 15-year 
retention period;
    (ii) Notice. The Bank, and in its discretion any designee of the 
Bank, shall be given notice of any sale, transfer, assignment of title 
or deed, or refinancing of the project by the project owner occurring 
during the retention period;
    (iii) Repayment of subsidy; exceptions. In the case of a sale, 
transfer, assignment of title or deed, or refinancing of the project by 
the project owner during the retention period, the full amount of the 
AHP subsidy received by the project owner shall be repaid to the Bank, 
unless one of the following exceptions applies:
    (A) The project continues to be subject to a deed restriction or 
other legally enforceable retention agreement or mechanism 
incorporating the income-eligibility and affordability restrictions 
committed to in the

[[Page 61237]]

approved AHP application for the duration of the AHP 15-year retention 
period; or
    (B) If authorized by the Bank, in its discretion, the households 
are relocated, due to the exercise of eminent domain, or for expansion 
of housing or services, to another property that is made subject to a 
deed restriction or other legally enforceable retention agreement or 
mechanism incorporating the income-eligibility and affordability 
restrictions committed to in the approved AHP application for the 
remainder of the AHP 15-year retention period; and
    (iv) Termination of income and rent restrictions. The income-
eligibility and affordability restrictions applicable to the project 
shall terminate after any foreclosure.
    (9) Lending of AHP direct subsidies. If a member or a project 
sponsor lends AHP direct subsidy to a project, any repayments of 
principal and payments of interest received by the member or the 
project sponsor must be paid forthwith to the Bank, unless the direct 
subsidy is being both lent and re-lent by a revolving loan fund 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.31(d).
    (10) Special provisions where members obtain AHP subsidized 
advances--(i) Repayment schedule. The term of an AHP subsidized advance 
shall be no longer than the term of the member's loan to the project 
funded by the advance, and at least once in every 12-month period, the 
member shall be scheduled to make a principal repayment to the Bank 
equal to the amount scheduled to be repaid to the member on its loan to 
the project in that period.
    (ii) Prepayment fees. Upon a prepayment of an AHP subsidized 
advance, the Bank shall charge a prepayment fee only to the extent the 
Bank suffers an economic loss from the prepayment.
    (iii) Treatment of loan prepayment by project. If all or a portion 
of the loan or loans financed by an AHP subsidized advance are prepaid 
by the project to the member, the member may, at its option, either:
    (A) Repay to the Bank that portion of the advance used to make the 
loan or loans to the project, and be subject to a fee imposed by the 
Bank sufficient to compensate the Bank for any economic loss the Bank 
experiences in reinvesting the repaid amount at a rate of return below 
the cost of funds originally used by the Bank to calculate the interest 
rate subsidy incorporated in the advance; or
    (B) Continue to maintain the advance outstanding, subject to the 
Bank resetting the interest rate on that portion of the advance used to 
make the loan or loans to the project to a rate equal to the cost of 
funds originally used by the Bank to calculate the interest rate 
subsidy incorporated in the advance.
    (b) Agreements between Banks and project sponsors or owners--(1) 
Repayment of subsidies. A Bank may have in place an agreement with each 
project sponsor or owner, in which the project sponsor or owner agrees 
to repay AHP subsidies directly to the Bank in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  1291.60.
    (2) Project sponsor qualifications. A Bank's AHP subsidy 
application form and AHP subsidy disbursement form for each subsidy 
disbursement (or other related documents) must include a requirement 
for the project sponsor to provide a certification that it meets the 
project sponsor qualifications criteria established by the Bank and 
that it has not engaged in, and is not engaging in, covered misconduct 
as defined in FHFA's Suspended Counterparty Program regulation (12 CFR 
part 1227), or as defined by the Bank, provided the Bank's definition 
incorporates the definition in 12 CFR part 1227 at a minimum.
    (c) Application to existing AHP agreements. The requirements of 
section 10(j) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1430(j)) and the provisions of 
this part, as amended, are incorporated into all AHP agreements between 
a Bank and any member, project sponsor, or project owner receiving AHP 
subsidies under the General Fund and any Targeted Funds, and between a 
Bank and any member or unit owner under any Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs. To the extent the requirements of this part are amended from 
time to time, such agreements are deemed to incorporate the amendments 
to conform to any new requirements of this part. No amendment to this 
part shall affect the legality of actions taken prior to the effective 
date of such amendment.


Sec.  1291.16  Conflicts of interest.

    (a) Bank directors and employees. (1) Each Bank's board of 
directors shall adopt a written policy providing that if a Bank 
director or employee, or such person's family member, has a financial 
interest in, or is a director, officer, or employee of an organization 
involved in, a project that is the subject of a pending or approved AHP 
application, the Bank director or employee shall not participate in or 
attempt to influence decisions by the Bank regarding the evaluation, 
approval, funding, monitoring, or any remedial process for such 
project.
    (2) If a Bank director or employee, or such person's family member, 
has a financial interest in, or is a director, officer, or employee of 
an organization involved in, an AHP project such that he or she is 
subject to the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, such 
person shall not participate in or attempt to influence decisions by 
the Bank regarding the evaluation, approval, funding, monitoring, or 
any remedial process for such project.
    (b) Advisory Council members. (1) Each Bank's board of directors 
shall adopt a written policy providing that if an Advisory Council 
member, or such person's family member, has a financial interest in, or 
is a director, officer, or employee of an organization involved in, a 
project that is the subject of a pending or approved AHP application, 
the Advisory Council member shall not participate in or attempt to 
influence decisions by the Bank regarding the approval for such 
project.
    (2) If an Advisory Council member, or such person's family member, 
has a financial interest in, or is a director, officer, or employee of 
an organization involved in, an AHP project such that he or she is 
subject to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, such 
person shall not participate in or attempt to influence decisions by 
the Bank regarding the approval for such project.
    (c) No delegation. A Bank's board of directors shall not delegate 
to Bank officers or other Bank employees the responsibility to adopt 
the conflict of interest policies required by this section.

Subpart C--General Fund and Targeted Funds


Sec.  1291.20  Establishment of programs.

    (a) General Fund--(1) Establishment. A Bank shall establish a 
General Fund pursuant to the requirements of this part.
    (2) Eligibility requirements. A Bank may not adopt eligibility 
requirements for its General Fund except as specifically authorized in 
this part.
    (b) Targeted Funds--(1) Establishment; number of Targeted Funds and 
funding allocation amounts. A Bank may establish, in its discretion, up 
to three Targeted Funds to address specified affordable housing needs 
in its district pursuant to the phase-in funding allocation 
requirements in Sec.  1291.12(c)(1), the following phase-in 
requirements for the number of Targeted Funds unless otherwise directed 
by FHFA, and any other applicable requirements of this part:
    (i) One Targeted Fund;
    (ii) Two Targeted Funds to be administered in the same calendar 
year,

[[Page 61238]]

provided that the Bank administered at least one Targeted Fund in any 
preceding year; or
    (iii) Three Targeted Funds to be administered in the same calendar 
year, provided that the Bank administered at least two Targeted Funds 
in any preceding year.
    (2) Eligibility requirements. (i) A Bank shall adopt and implement 
parameters, which shall be included in its AHP Implementation Plan, for 
ensuring that each Targeted Fund is designed to receive sufficient 
numbers of applicants for the amount of AHP funds allocated to the 
Targeted Fund to enable the Bank to facilitate a robust competitive 
scoring process.
    (ii) A Bank may not adopt eligibility requirements for its Targeted 
Funds except as specifically authorized in this part.


Sec.  1291.21  Eligible applicants.

    (a) Member applicants. A Bank shall accept applications for AHP 
subsidy under its General Fund and any Targeted Funds only from 
institutions that are members of the Bank at the time the application 
is submitted to the Bank.
    (b) Project sponsor qualifications--(1) In general. A project 
sponsor must be qualified and able to perform its responsibilities as 
committed to in the application for AHP subsidy funding the project.
    (2) Revolving loan fund. Pursuant to written policies adopted by a 
Bank's board of directors, a revolving loan fund sponsor that intends 
to use AHP direct subsidy in accordance with Sec.  1291.31 shall:
    (i) Provide audited financial statements that its operations are 
consistent with sound business practices; and
    (ii) Demonstrate the ability to re-lend AHP subsidy repayments on a 
timely basis and track the use of the AHP subsidy.
    (3) Loan pool. Pursuant to written policies adopted by a Bank's 
board of directors, a loan pool sponsor that intends to use AHP subsidy 
in accordance with Sec.  1291.32 shall:
    (i) Provide evidence of sound asset/liability management practices;
    (ii) Provide audited financial statements that its operations are 
consistent with sound business practices; and
    (iii) Demonstrate the ability to track the use of the AHP subsidy.


Sec.  1291.22   Funding rounds; application process.

    (a) Funding rounds. A Bank may accept applications from proposed 
projects for AHP subsidy under its General Fund and any Targeted Funds 
during a specified number of funding rounds each year, as determined by 
the Bank.
    (b) Submission of applications. Except as provided in Sec.  
1291.29(a), a Bank shall require applications for AHP subsidy to 
contain information sufficient for the Bank to:
    (1) Determine that the proposed AHP project meets the eligibility 
requirements of this part; and
    (2) Evaluate the application pursuant to the scoring methodology 
adopted by the Bank pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1291.25, 1291.26, and 
1291.27, as applicable.
    (c) Review of applications submitted. Except as provided in Sec.  
1291.29(b), a Bank shall review the applications for AHP subsidy to 
determine that the proposed AHP project meets the eligibility 
requirements of this part, and shall evaluate the applications pursuant 
to the Bank's scoring methodology adopted pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1291.25, 1291.26, and 1291.27, as applicable.


Sec.  1291.23  Eligible projects.

    Projects receiving AHP subsidies pursuant to a Bank's General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds must meet the following eligibility 
requirements:
    (a) Owner-occupied or rental housing. The AHP subsidy shall be used 
exclusively for:
    (1) Owner-occupied housing. The purchase, construction, or 
rehabilitation of an owner-occupied project for very low-income or low- 
or moderate-income households, where the housing is to be used as the 
household's primary residence. A household must have an income meeting 
the income targeting commitments in the approved AHP application at the 
time it is qualified by the project sponsor for participation in the 
project;
    (2) Rental housing. The purchase, construction, or rehabilitation 
of a rental project, where at least 20 percent of the units in the 
project are occupied by and affordable for very low-income households.
    (i) Projects that are not occupied. For a rental project that is 
not occupied at the time the AHP application is submitted to the Bank 
for approval, a household must have an income meeting the income 
targeting commitments in the approved AHP application upon initial 
occupancy of the rental unit.
    (ii) Projects that are occupied. (A) Except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, for a rental project involving 
purchase or rehabilitation that is occupied at the time the AHP 
application is submitted to the Bank for approval, a household must 
have an income meeting the income targeting commitments in the approved 
AHP application at the time of such submission.
    (B) If the project has a relocation plan for current occupants that 
is approved by one of its federal, state, or local government funders, 
or a reasonable relocation plan for current occupants that is otherwise 
approved by the Bank according to standards included in the Bank's AHP 
Implementation Plan, a household may have an income meeting the income 
targeting commitments upon initial occupancy of the rental unit after 
completion of the purchase or rehabilitation.
    (b) Project feasibility--(1) Developmental feasibility. The project 
must be likely to be completed and occupied, based on relevant factors 
contained in the Bank's project feasibility guidelines, including, but 
not limited to, the development budget, market analysis, and project 
sponsor's experience in providing the requested assistance to 
households.
    (2) Operational feasibility of rental projects. A rental project 
must be able 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.
    (c) Timing of AHP subsidy use. Some or all of the AHP subsidy must 
be likely to be drawn down by the project or used by the project to 
procure other financing commitments within 12 months of the date of 
approval of the application for AHP subsidy funding the project.
    (d) Retention agreements--(1) Owner-occupied projects. Each AHP-
assisted unit in an owner-occupied project for which the AHP subsidy 
was used for purchase, or for purchase in conjunction with 
rehabilitation, of the unit by the AHP-assisted household, is, or is 
committed to be, subject to a five-year retention agreement described 
in Sec.  1291.15(a)(7).
    (2) Rental projects. AHP-assisted rental projects are, or are 
committed to be, subject to a 15-year retention agreement as described 
in Sec.  1291.15(a)(8).
    (e) Fair housing. The project, as proposed, must comply with 
applicable federal and state laws on fair housing and housing 
accessibility, including, but not limited to, the Fair Housing Act, the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1969, and must demonstrate 
how the project will be affirmatively marketed.

[[Page 61239]]

Sec.  1291.24  Eligible uses.

    (a) Eligible uses of AHP subsidy. AHP subsidies shall be used only 
for:
    (1) Owner-occupied housing. The purchase, construction, or 
rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.
    (2) Rental housing. The purchase, construction, or rehabilitation 
of rental housing.
    (3) Need for AHP subsidy--(i) Review of project development budget. 
The project's estimated sources of funds shall equal its estimated uses 
of funds, as reflected in the project's development budget. The 
difference between the project's sources of funds (excluding AHP 
subsidy) and uses of funds is the project's need for AHP subsidy, which 
is the maximum amount of AHP subsidy the project may receive. A Bank, 
in its discretion, may permit a project's sources of funds to include 
or exclude the estimated market value of in-kind 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.
    (ii) Cash sources of funds. A project's cash sources of funds shall 
include any cash contributions by the sponsor, any cash from sources 
other than the sponsor, and estimates of funds the project sponsor 
intends to obtain from other sources but which have not yet been 
committed to the project. In the case of homeownership projects where 
the sponsor extends permanent financing to the homebuyer, the sponsor's 
cash contribution shall include the present value of any payments the 
sponsor is to receive from the buyer, which shall include any cash down 
payment from the buyer, plus the present value of any purchase note the 
sponsor holds on the unit. If the note carries a market interest rate 
commensurate with the credit quality of the buyer, 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 
shall be determined using the market rate to discount the cash flows.
    (iii) Cash uses. A project's cash uses are the actual outlay of 
cash needed to pay for materials, labor, and acquisition or other costs 
of completing the project. Cash costs do not include in-kind donations, 
voluntary professional labor or services, or sweat equity.
    (4) Project costs--(i) In general. (A) Taking into consideration 
the geographic location of the project, development conditions, and 
other non-financial household or project characteristics, a Bank shall 
determine that a project's costs, as reflected in the project's 
development budget, are reasonable, in accordance with the Bank's 
project cost guidelines.
    (B) For purposes of determining the reasonableness of a developer's 
fee for a project as a percentage of total development costs, a Bank 
may, in its discretion, include estimates of the market value of in-
kind donations and volunteer professional labor or services (excluding 
the value of sweat equity) committed to the project as part of the 
total development costs.
    (ii) Cost of property and services provided by a member. The 
purchase price of property or services, as reflected in the project's 
development budget, sold to the project by a member providing AHP 
subsidy to the project, or, in the case of property, upon which such 
member holds a mortgage or lien, may not exceed the market value of 
such property or services as of the date the purchase price was agreed 
upon. In the case of real estate owned property sold to a project by a 
member providing AHP subsidy to the project, or property sold to the 
project upon which the member holds a mortgage or lien, the market 
value of such property is deemed to be the ``as-is'' or ``as-
rehabilitated'' value of the property, whichever is appropriate. That 
value shall be reflected in an independent appraisal of the property 
performed by a state certified or licensed appraiser, as defined in 12 
CFR 564.2(j) and (k), within 6 months prior to the date the Bank 
disburses AHP subsidy to the project.
    (5) Financing costs. The rate of interest, points, fees, and any 
other charges for all loans that are made for the project in 
conjunction with the AHP subsidy shall not exceed a reasonable market 
rate of interest, points, fees, and other charges for loans of similar 
maturity, terms, and risk.
    (6) Counseling costs. Counseling costs, provided:
    (i) Such costs are incurred in connection with counseling of 
homebuyers who actually purchase an AHP-assisted unit; and
    (ii) The cost of the counseling has not been covered by another 
funding source, including the member.
    (7) Refinancing. Refinancing of an existing single-family or 
multifamily mortgage loan, provided that the refinancing produces 
equity proceeds and such equity proceeds up to the amount of the AHP 
subsidy in the project shall be used only for the purchase, 
construction, or rehabilitation of housing units meeting the 
eligibility requirements of this part.
    (8) Calculation of AHP subsidy. (i) Where an AHP direct subsidy is 
provided to a project to write down the interest rate on a loan 
extended by a member, sponsor, or other party to a project, the net 
present value of the interest foregone from making the loan below the 
lender's market interest rate shall be calculated as of the date the 
application for AHP subsidy is submitted to the Bank, and subject to 
adjustment under Sec.  1291.30(d).
    (ii) Where an AHP subsidized advance is provided to a project, the 
net present value of the interest revenue foregone from making a 
subsidized advance at a rate below the Bank's cost of funds shall be 
determined as of the earlier of the date of disbursement of the 
subsidized advance or the date prior to disbursement on which the Bank 
first manages the funding to support the subsidized advance through its 
asset/liability management system, or otherwise.
    (b) Prohibited uses of AHP subsidy. AHP subsidy may not be used to 
pay for:
    (1) Certain prepayment fees. Prepayment fees imposed by a Bank on a 
member for a subsidized advance that is prepaid, unless:
    (i) The project is in financial distress that cannot be remedied 
through a project modification pursuant to Sec.  1291.29;
    (ii) The prepayment of the subsidized advance is necessary to 
retain the project's affordability and income targeting commitments;
    (iii) Subsequent to such prepayment, the project will continue to 
comply with the terms of the approved AHP application and the 
requirements of this part for the duration of the original retention 
period;
    (iv) Any unused AHP subsidy is returned to the Bank and made 
available for other AHP projects or households; and
    (v) The amount of AHP subsidy used for the prepayment fee may not 
exceed the amount of the member's prepayment fee to the Bank;
    (2) Cancellation fees. Cancellation fees and penalties imposed by a 
Bank on a member for a subsidized advance commitment that is canceled;
    (3) Processing fees. Processing fees charged by members for 
providing AHP direct subsidies to a project; or
    (4) Reserves and certain expenses. Capitalized reserves, periodic 
deposits to reserve accounts, operating expenses, or supportive 
services expenses.
    (c) Optional Bank district eligibility requirements. A Bank may 
require a project receiving AHP subsidies to meet one or more of the 
following additional eligibility requirements adopted by the Bank's 
board of directors and included

[[Page 61240]]

in its AHP Implementation Plan after consultation with its Advisory 
Council:
    (1) AHP subsidy limits. A requirement that the amount of AHP 
subsidy requested for the project does not exceed limits established by 
the Bank as to the maximum amount of AHP subsidy available per member, 
per project sponsor, per project, or per project unit in a single AHP 
funding round. A Bank may establish only one maximum subsidy limit per 
member, per sponsor, per project, or per project unit for the General 
Fund and for each Targeted Fund, which shall apply to all applicants to 
the specific Fund, but the maximum subsidy limit per project or per 
project unit may differ among the Funds; or
    (2) Homebuyer or homeowner counseling. A requirement that a 
household must complete a homebuyer or homeowner counseling program 
provided by, or based on one provided by, an organization recognized as 
experienced in homebuyer or homeowner counseling, respectively.
    (d) Applications to multiple Funds--subsidy amount. If an 
application for a project is submitted to more than one Fund at the 
same time, the application for each Fund must be for the same amount of 
AHP subsidy.


Sec.  1291.25  Scoring methodologies.

    (a)(1) Written scoring methodologies. A Bank shall establish a 
written scoring methodology for its General Fund and for any Targeted 
Fund setting forth the Bank's scoring point allocations as required in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, scoring criteria adopted pursuant to 
the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1291.26 and 1291.27, as applicable, and 
related definitions. The scoring methodology for each Fund may be 
different. A Bank shall not adopt scoring points allocations or scoring 
criteria for its General Fund and any Targeted Funds except as 
specifically authorized under this paragraph (a)(1) and Sec. Sec.  
1291.26 and 1291.27, respectively.
    (2) Scoring points allocations--(i) General Fund. A Bank shall 
allocate 100 points among all of the scoring criteria adopted by the 
Bank for its General Fund pursuant to Sec.  1291.26. The scoring 
criterion for targeting in Sec.  1291.26(d) shall be allocated at least 
20 points. The remaining scoring criteria shall be allocated at least 5 
points each, except that if a Bank adopts the scoring criterion for 
home purchase by low- or moderate-income households in Sec.  1291.26(c) 
as an optional scoring criterion, the Bank may allocate fewer than the 
full 5 points to it, with the remainder of such points allocated to one 
or a combination of the other scoring criteria in Sec.  1291.26 other 
than to the scoring criterion for Bank district priorities in Sec.  
1291.26(h). If a Bank adopts a scoring criterion under its Bank 
district priorities for housing located in the Bank's district, the 
Bank may not allocate points to the scoring criterion in a way that 
excludes all out-of-district projects from its General Fund.
    (ii) Targeted Funds. A Bank shall allocate 100 points among all of 
the scoring criteria adopted by the Bank for each Targeted Fund 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.27. A Bank may not allocate more than 50 points 
to any one scoring criterion for a Targeted Fund.
    (3) Fixed-point and variable-point scoring criteria. A Bank shall 
designate each scoring criterion as either a fixed-point or a variable-
point criterion, defined as follows:
    (i) Fixed-point scoring criteria are those that cannot be satisfied 
in varying degrees and are either satisfied or not, with the total 
number of points allocated to the criterion awarded by the Bank to an 
application meeting the criterion; and
    (ii) Variable-point criteria are those where there are varying 
degrees to which an application can satisfy the criteria, with the 
number of points that may be awarded to an application for meeting the 
criterion varying, depending on the extent to which the application 
satisfies the criterion, based on a fixed scale or on a scale relative 
to the other applications being scored. A Bank shall designate the 
targeting scoring criterion in Sec.  1291.26(d) as a variable-point 
criterion.
    (b) Satisfaction of scoring criteria. A Bank shall award scoring 
points to applications to a particular Fund based on satisfaction of 
the scoring criteria in the Bank's scoring methodology for that Fund.
    (c) Scoring tied applications. A Bank shall establish and 
implement, as necessary, a scoring tie-breaker policy to address the 
case of two or more applications to its General Fund or any Targeted 
Fund receiving identical scores in the same AHP funding round and there 
is insufficient AHP subsidy to approve all of the tied applications but 
sufficient subsidy to approve one of them. A Bank shall meet the 
following requirements in establishing its scoring tie-breaker policy:
    (1) The Bank shall consult with its Advisory Council prior to 
adoption of its policy;
    (2) The Bank shall adopt the policy in advance of an AHP funding 
round and include it in its AHP Implementation Plan;
    (3) The policy shall include the methodology used to break a 
scoring tie, which may differ for each Fund, and which shall be drawn 
from the particular Fund's scoring criteria adopted in the Bank's AHP 
Implementation Plan;
    (4) The scoring tie-breaker methodology shall be reasonable, 
transparent, verifiable, and impartial;
    (5) The scoring tie-breaker methodology shall be used solely to 
break a scoring tie and may not affect the eligibility of the 
applications, including financial feasibility, or their scores and 
resultant rankings;
    (6) The Bank shall approve a tied application as an alternate 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.28(b) if the application does not prevail under 
the scoring tie-breaker methodology, or if the application is tied with 
another application but requested more subsidy than the amount of AHP 
funds that remain to be awarded, if the Bank has a written policy to 
approve alternates for funding under the applicable Fund; and
    (7) The Bank shall document in writing its analysis and results for 
each use of the scoring tie-breaker methodology.


Sec.  1291.26  Scoring criteria for the General Fund.

    A Bank shall adopt in its scoring methodology for its General Fund 
all of the following categories of scoring criteria, including at least 
one housing need under each of paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of this 
section, except that a Bank is not required to adopt the scoring 
criterion for homeownership by low- or moderate-income households in 
paragraph (c) of this section if the Bank allocates at least 10 percent 
of its required annual AHP contribution to any Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs, and a Bank is not required to adopt the scoring criterion for 
Bank district priorities in paragraph (h) of this section:
    (a) Use of donated or conveyed government-owned or other 
properties. The financing of housing using a significant proportion, as 
defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, of:
    (1) Land or units donated or conveyed by the federal government or 
any agency or instrumentality thereof; or
    (2) Land or units donated or conveyed by any other party for an 
amount significantly below the fair market value of the property, as 
defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (b) Sponsorship by a not-for-profit organization or government 
entity. Project sponsorship by a not-for-profit organization, a state 
or political subdivision of a state, a state housing agency, a local 
housing authority, a

[[Page 61241]]

Native American Tribe, an Alaskan Native Village, or the government 
entity for Native Hawaiian Home Lands.
    (c) Home purchase by low- or moderate-income households. The 
financing of home purchases by low- or moderate-income households.
    (d) Income targeting. The extent to which a project provides 
housing for very low- and low- or moderate-income households, as 
follows:
    (1) Rental projects. An application for a rental project shall be 
awarded the maximum number of points available under this scoring 
criterion if 60 percent or more of the units in the project are 
reserved for occupancy by households with incomes at or below 50 
percent of the median income for the area. Applications for projects 
with less than 60 percent of the units reserved for occupancy by 
households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income for 
the area shall be awarded points on a declining scale based on the 
percentage of units in a project that are reserved for households with 
incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income for the area, and 
on the percentage of the remaining units reserved for households with 
incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for the area.
    (2) Owner-occupied projects. Applications for owner-occupied 
projects shall be awarded points based on a declining scale to be 
determined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, taking into 
consideration percentages of units and targeted income levels.
    (3) Separate scoring. For purposes of this scoring criterion, 
applications for owner-occupied projects and rental projects may be 
scored separately.
    (e) Underserved communities and populations. The financing of 
housing for underserved communities or populations, by addressing one 
or more of the following specific housing needs:
    (1) Housing for homeless households. The financing of rental 
housing, excluding overnight shelters, reserving at least 20 percent of 
the units for homeless households, the creation of transitional housing 
for homeless households permitting a minimum of 6 months occupancy, or 
the creation of permanent owner-occupied housing reserving at least 20 
percent of the units for homeless households, with the term ``homeless 
households'' defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (2) Housing for special needs populations. The financing of housing 
in which at least 20 percent of the units are reserved for households 
with specific special needs, such as: The elderly; persons with 
disabilities; formerly incarcerated persons; persons recovering from 
physical abuse or alcohol or drug abuse; victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault or stalking; persons with HIV/AIDS; or 
unaccompanied youth; or the financing of housing that is visitable by 
persons with physical disabilities who are not occupants of such 
housing. A Bank may, in its discretion, adopt a requirement that 
projects provide supportive services, or access to supportive services, 
for specific special needs populations identified by the Bank in order 
for the project to receive scoring points under this paragraph (e)(2).
    (3) Housing for other targeted populations. The financing of 
housing in which at least 20 percent of the units are reserved for 
households specifically in need of housing, such as agricultural 
workers, military veterans, Native Americans, households requiring 
large units, or kinship care households in which children are in the 
care of cohabitating relatives, such as grandparents, aunts or uncles, 
or cohabitating close family friends.
    (4) Housing in rural areas. The financing of housing located in a 
rural area, as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (5) Rental housing for extremely low-income households. The 
financing of rental housing in which a minimum percentage of the units, 
as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, are reserved for 
extremely low-income households. Points awarded under this criterion 
shall be awarded in addition to any points awarded for income targeting 
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, such that the points awarded to 
a project under this criterion and the income targeting criterion, 
combined, may exceed the maximum number of possible points awarded 
under the income targeting criterion.
    (6) Other. The financing of other housing addressing specific 
housing needs of underserved communities or populations as FHFA may 
provide by guidance.
    (f) Creating economic opportunity. The financing of housing that 
facilitates economic opportunity for the residents by addressing one or 
more of the following specific housing needs:
    (1) Promotion of empowerment. The provision of housing in 
combination with a program offering services that assist residents in 
attaining life skills or moving toward better economic opportunities, 
such as: Employment; education; training; homebuyer, homeownership or 
tenant counseling; child care; adult daycare services; afterschool 
care; tutoring; health services, including mental health and behavioral 
health services; resident involvement in decision making affecting the 
creation or operation of the project; or workforce preparation and 
integration.
    (2) Residential economic diversity. The financing of either 
affordable housing in a high opportunity area, or mixed-income housing 
in an area designated by the Bank, with those terms defined and area 
designated by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (3) Other. The financing of other housing that facilitates economic 
opportunity as FHFA may provide by guidance.
    (g) Community stability, including affordable housing preservation. 
The promotion of community stability, such as by preserving affordable 
housing, rehabilitating vacant or abandoned properties, or being an 
integral part of a community revitalization or economic development 
strategy approved by a unit of state or local government or 
instrumentality thereof, and not displacing low- or moderate-income 
households, or if such displacement will occur, assuring that such 
households will be assisted to minimize the impact of such 
displacement.
    (h) Bank district priorities. The satisfaction of one or more 
housing needs in the Bank's district, as defined by the Bank in its AHP 
Implementation Plan, that the Bank has not otherwise adopted under this 
section.


Sec.  1291.27  Scoring criteria for Targeted Funds.

    A Bank shall adopt in its scoring methodology for each Targeted 
Fund established by the Bank at least three different scoring criteria, 
as determined by the Bank in its discretion, that allow the Bank to 
select applications that meet the specific affordable housing need or 
needs being addressed by the Targeted Fund.


Sec.  1291.28  Approval of AHP applications under the General Fund and 
Targeted Funds.

    (a) Approval of AHP applications. Subject to the requirements in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, a Bank shall approve 
applications for AHP subsidy under its General Fund and any Targeted 
Funds that meet all of the applicable AHP eligibility requirements in 
this part in descending order, starting with the highest scoring 
application until the total funding amount for the particular AHP 
funding round, except for any amount insufficient to fund the next 
highest scoring application, has been approved.

[[Page 61242]]

    (b) AHP application alternates. For the General Fund and any 
Targeted Funds, the Bank also may, in its discretion, approve a 
specified number, as determined by the Bank, of the next highest 
scoring applications as alternates eligible for funding, and may 
approve any tied applications as alternates eligible for funding 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, if any previously 
committed AHP subsidies become available, pursuant to a written policy 
on approving alternates for funding established by the Bank and 
included in the Bank's AHP Implementation Plan. If a Bank has 
established such a policy for approving alternates for funding and 
sufficient previously committed AHP subsidies become available within 
one year of application approval, the Bank shall approve the designated 
alternates for funding within that one-year period.
    (c) Tied applications. (1) Where two or more applications to a 
General Fund or Targeted Fund have identical scores in the same AHP 
funding round and there is insufficient AHP subsidy to approve all of 
the tied applications but sufficient subsidy to approve one of them, a 
Bank shall approve the tied application that prevails under the Bank's 
scoring tie-breaker methodology in its policy adopted pursuant to Sec.  
1291.25(c).
    (2) A tied application that does not prevail under the Bank's 
scoring tie-breaker methodology, or is tied with another application 
but requested more subsidy than the amount of AHP funds that remain to 
be awarded under the Fund, shall be approved as an alternate for 
funding if the Bank has a written policy to approve alternates for 
funding under the Fund.
    (d) Applications to multiple Funds--approval under one Fund. If an 
application for the same project is submitted to more than one Fund at 
a Bank in a calendar year and the application scores high enough to be 
approved under each Fund, the Bank shall approve the application under 
only one of the Funds pursuant to the Bank's policy established in its 
AHP Implementation Plan.
    (e) No delegation. A Bank's board of directors may not delegate to 
Bank officers or other Bank employees the responsibility to approve or 
disapprove the AHP subsidy applications, as well as any alternates 
under the Bank's General Fund and any Targeted Fund if the Bank has a 
written policy to approve alternates for funding under such Fund.


Sec.  1291.29  Modifications of approved AHP applications.

    (a) Modification procedure. If, prior to or after final 
disbursement of funds to a project from all funding sources, in order 
to remedy noncompliance or receive additional subsidy, there is or will 
be a change in the project that would change the score that the project 
application received in the AHP funding round in which it was 
originally scored and approved, had the changed facts been operative at 
that time, a Bank shall approve in writing a request for a modification 
to the terms of the approved application, provided that:
    (1) The Bank first requests that the project sponsor or owner make 
a reasonable effort to cure any noncompliance within a reasonable 
period of time, and the noncompliance could not be cured within a 
reasonable period of time;
    (2) The project, incorporating any such changes, would meet the 
eligibility requirements of this part;
    (3) The application, as reflective of such changes, continues to 
score high enough to have been approved in the AHP funding round in 
which the application was originally scored and approved by the Bank, 
which is as high as the lowest ranking alternate approved for funding 
by the Bank if the Bank has a written policy to approve alternates for 
funding; and
    (4) There is good cause for the modification, which may not be 
solely remediation of noncompliance, and the analysis and justification 
for the modification, including why a cure of noncompliance was not 
successful or attempted, are documented by the Bank in writing.
    (b) AHP subsidy increases; no delegation--(1) AHP subsidy 
increases. A Bank's board of directors may, in its discretion, approve 
or disapprove requests for modifications involving an increase in AHP 
subsidy in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (2) No delegation. The authority to approve or disapprove requests 
for modifications involving an increase in AHP subsidy shall not be 
delegated by the Bank's board of directors to Bank officers or other 
Bank employees.


Sec.  1291.30  Procedures for funding.

    (a) Disbursement of AHP subsidies to members. (1) A Bank may 
disburse AHP subsidies only to institutions that are members of the 
Bank at the time they request a draw-down of the subsidies.
    (2) If an institution with an approved application for AHP subsidy 
loses its membership in a Bank, the Bank may disburse AHP subsidies to 
a member of such Bank to which the institution has transferred its 
obligations under the approved AHP application, or the Bank may 
disburse AHP subsidies through another Bank to a member of that Bank 
that has assumed the institution's obligations under the approved AHP 
application.
    (b) Progress towards use of AHP subsidy. A Bank shall establish and 
implement policies, including time limits, for determining whether 
progress is being made towards draw-down and use of AHP subsidies by 
approved projects, and whether to cancel AHP application approvals for 
lack of such progress. If a Bank cancels any AHP application approvals 
due to lack of such progress, the Bank shall make the AHP subsidies 
available for other AHP-eligible projects or households.
    (c) Compliance upon disbursement of AHP subsidies. A Bank shall 
establish and implement policies for determining, prior to its initial 
disbursement of AHP subsidy for an approved project, and prior to each 
subsequent disbursement, that the project meets the eligibility 
requirements of this part and all obligations committed to in the 
approved AHP application. If a Bank cancels any AHP application 
approvals due to noncompliance with eligibility requirements of this 
part, the Bank shall make the AHP subsidies available for other AHP-
eligible projects or households.
    (d) Changes in approved AHP subsidy amount where a direct subsidy 
is used to write down prior to closing the principal amount or interest 
rate on a loan. If a member is approved to receive AHP direct subsidy 
to write down prior to closing the principal amount or the interest 
rate on a loan to a project, and the amount of AHP subsidy required to 
maintain the debt service cost for the loan decreases from the amount 
of AHP subsidy initially approved by the Bank due to a decrease in 
market interest rates between the time of approval and the time the 
lender commits to the interest rate to finance the project, the Bank 
shall reduce the AHP subsidy amount accordingly. If market interest 
rates rise between the time of approval and the time the lender commits 
to the interest rate to finance the project, the Bank, in its 
discretion, may increase the AHP subsidy amount accordingly.
    (e) AHP outlay adjustment. If a Bank reduces the amount of AHP 
subsidy approved for a project, the amount of such reduction shall be 
returned to the Bank's AHP fund. If a Bank increases the amount of AHP 
subsidy approved for a project, the amount of such increase shall be 
drawn first from any currently uncommitted or repaid AHP

[[Page 61243]]

subsidies and then from the Bank's required AHP contribution for the 
next year.
    (f) Project sponsor notification of re-use of repaid AHP direct 
subsidy. Prior to disbursement by a project sponsor of AHP direct 
subsidy repaid to and retained by such project sponsor pursuant to a 
subsidy re-use program authorized by the Bank under Sec.  1291.64(b), 
the project sponsor shall provide written notice to the member and the 
Bank of its intent to disburse the repaid AHP subsidy to a household 
satisfying the requirements of this part and the commitments made in 
the approved AHP application.


Sec.  1291.31  Lending and re-lending of AHP direct subsidy by 
revolving loan funds.

    Pursuant to written policies established by a Bank's board of 
directors after consultation with its Advisory Council, a Bank, in its 
discretion, may provide AHP direct subsidy under its General Fund or 
any Targeted Funds 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, provided the 
following requirements are met:
    (a) Submission of application. (1) An application for AHP subsidy 
under this section shall include the revolving loan fund's criteria for 
the initial lending of the subsidy, identification of and information 
on a specific proposed AHP project if required in the Bank's 
discretion, the revolving loan fund's criteria for subsequent lending 
of subsidy principal and interest repayments, and any other information 
required by the Bank.
    (2) The information in the application shall be sufficient for the 
Bank to:
    (i) Determine that the criteria for the initial lending of the 
subsidy, the specific proposed project if applicable, and the criteria 
for subsequent lending of subsidy principal and interest repayments, 
meet the eligibility requirements of Sec.  1291.23; and
    (ii) Evaluate the criteria for the initial lending of the subsidy, 
and the specific proposed project if applicable, pursuant to the 
scoring methodology established by the Bank pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1291.25, 1291.26, and 1291.27, as applicable.
    (b) Review of application. A Bank shall review the application for 
AHP subsidy to determine that the criteria for the initial lending of 
the subsidy, the specific proposed project if applicable, and the 
criteria for subsequent lending of subsidy principal and interest 
repayments, meet the eligibility requirements of Sec.  1291.23, and 
shall evaluate the criteria for the initial lending of the subsidy and 
the specific proposed project, if applicable, pursuant to the scoring 
methodology established by the Bank pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1291.25, 
1291.26, and 1291.27, as applicable.
    (c) Initial lending of subsidy. (1) The revolving loan fund's 
initial lending of the AHP subsidy shall meet the eligibility 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, shall be to projects or 
households meeting the commitments in the approved application for AHP 
subsidy, and shall be subject to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1291.15 
and 1291.50, respectively.
    (2) If an owner-occupied unit or project funded under this 
paragraph (c) is in noncompliance with the commitments in the approved 
AHP application, or is sold or refinanced prior to the end of the 
applicable AHP retention period, the required amount of AHP subsidy 
shall be repaid to the revolving loan fund in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  1291.15(a)(7), 1291.15(a)(8), and 1291.60, and the revolving 
loan fund shall re-lend such repaid subsidy, excluding the amounts of 
AHP subsidy principal already repaid to the revolving loan fund, to 
another owner-occupied unit or project meeting the initial lending 
requirements of this paragraph (c) for the remainder of the retention 
period.
    (d) Subsequent lending of AHP subsidy principal and interest 
repayments. (1) AHP subsidy principal and interest repayments received 
by the revolving loan fund from the initial lending of the AHP direct 
subsidy shall be re-lent by the revolving loan fund in accordance with 
the requirements of this paragraph (d), except that the revolving loan 
fund, in its discretion, may provide part or all of such repayments as 
nonrepayable grants to eligible projects in accordance with the 
requirements of this paragraph (d).
    (2) The revolving loan fund's subsequent lending of AHP subsidy 
principal and interest repayments shall be for the purchase, 
construction, or rehabilitation of owner-occupied projects for 
households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for 
the area, or of rental projects where at least 20 percent of the units 
are occupied by and affordable for households with incomes at or below 
50 percent of the median income for the area, and shall meet all other 
eligibility requirements of this paragraph (d).
    (3) A Bank may, in its discretion, require the revolving loan 
fund's subsequent lending of subsidy principal and interest repayments 
to be subject to retention period, monitoring, and recapture 
requirements, as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (e) Return of unused AHP subsidy. The revolving loan fund shall 
return to the Bank any AHP subsidy that will not be used according to 
the requirements in this section.


Sec.  1291.32  Use of AHP subsidy in loan pools.

    Pursuant to written policies established by a Bank's board of 
directors after consultation with its Advisory Council, a Bank, in its 
discretion, may provide AHP subsidy under its General Fund or any 
Targeted Funds for the origination of first mortgage or rehabilitation 
loans with subsidized interest rates to AHP-eligible households through 
a purchase commitment by an entity that will purchase and pool the 
loans, provided the following requirements are met:
    (a) Eligibility requirements. The loan pool sponsor's use of the 
AHP subsidies shall meet the requirements under this section, and shall 
not be used for the purpose of providing liquidity to the originator or 
holder of the loans, or paying the loan pool's operating or secondary 
market transaction costs.
    (b) Forward commitment. (1) The loan pool sponsor shall purchase 
the loans pursuant to a forward commitment that identifies the loans to 
be originated with interest-rate reductions as specified in the 
approved application for AHP subsidy to households with incomes at or 
below 80 percent of the median income for the area. Both initial 
purchases of loans for the AHP loan pool and subsequent purchases of 
loans to substitute for repaid loans in the pool shall be made pursuant 
to the terms of such forward commitment and subject to time limits on 
the use of the AHP subsidy as specified by the Bank in its AHP 
Implementation Plan and the Bank's agreement with the loan pool 
sponsor, which shall not exceed one year from the date of approval of 
the AHP application.
    (2) As an alternative to using a forward commitment, the loan pool 
sponsor may purchase an initial round of loans that were not originated 
pursuant to an AHP-specific forward commitment, provided that the 
entities from which the loans were purchased are required to use the 
proceeds from the initial loan purchases within time limits on the use 
of the AHP subsidy as specified by the Bank in its AHP Implementation 
Plan and the Bank's agreement with the loan pool sponsor, which shall 
not exceed one year from the date of approval of the AHP application. 
The proceeds shall be used by such entities to assist households

[[Page 61244]]

that are income-eligible under the approved AHP application during 
subsequent rounds of lending, and such assistance shall be provided in 
the form of a below-market AHP-subsidized interest rate as specified in 
the approved AHP application.
    (c) Each AHP-assisted owner-occupied unit and rental project 
receiving AHP direct subsidy or a subsidized advance shall be subject 
to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1291.15, 1291.50, and 1291.60, 
respectively.
    (d) Where AHP direct subsidy is being used to buy down the interest 
rate of a loan or loans from a member or other party, the loan pool 
sponsor shall use the full amount of the AHP direct subsidy to buy down 
the interest rate on a permanent basis at the time of closing on such 
loan or loans.

Subpart D--Homeownership Set-Aside Programs


Sec.  1291.40  Establishment of programs.

    A Bank may establish, in its discretion, one or more Homeownership 
Set-Aside Programs pursuant to the requirements of this part.


Sec.  1291.41   Eligible applicants.

    A Bank shall accept applications for AHP direct subsidy under its 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs only from institutions that are 
members of the Bank at the time the application is submitted to the 
Bank.


Sec.  1291.42  Eligibility requirements.

    A Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Programs shall meet the 
eligibility requirements set forth in this section. A Bank may not 
adopt additional eligibility requirements for its Homeownership Set-
Aside Programs except for eligible households pursuant to paragraph (b) 
of this section.
    (a) Member allocation criteria. AHP direct subsidies shall be 
provided to members pursuant to allocation criteria established by the 
Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan.
    (b) Eligible households. Members shall provide AHP direct subsidies 
only to households that:
    (1) Have incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for 
the area at the time the household is accepted for enrollment by the 
member in the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, with such time 
of enrollment by the member defined by the Bank in its AHP 
Implementation Plan;
    (2) Complete a homebuyer or homeowner counseling program provided 
by, or based on one provided by, an organization experienced in 
homebuyer or homeowner counseling, in the case of households that are 
first-time homebuyers; and
    (3) Are first-time homebuyers or households receiving AHP subsidy 
for owner-occupied rehabilitation, in the case of households receiving 
subsidy pursuant to the one-third set-aside funding allocation 
requirement in Sec.  1291.12(b), and meet such other eligibility 
criteria that may be established by the Bank in its AHP Implementation 
Plan, such as a matching funds requirement, homebuyer or homeowner 
counseling requirement for households that are not first-time 
homebuyers, or criteria that give priority for the purchase or 
rehabilitation of housing in particular areas or as part of a disaster 
relief effort.
    (c) Maximum grant limit. Members shall provide AHP direct subsidies 
to households as a grant, in an amount up to a maximum established by 
the Bank, not to exceed $22,000 per household, which limit shall adjust 
upward on an annual basis in accordance with increases in FHFA's House 
Price Index (HPI). In the event of a decrease in the HPI, the subsidy 
limit shall remain at its then-current amount until the HPI increases 
above the subsidy limit, at which point the subsidy limit shall adjust 
to that higher amount. FHFA will notify the Banks annually of the 
maximum subsidy limit, based on the HPI. A Bank may establish a 
different maximum grant limit, up to the maximum grant limit, for each 
Homeownership Set-Aside Program it establishes. A Bank's maximum grant 
limit for each such program shall be included in its AHP Implementation 
Plan, which limit shall apply to all households in the specific program 
for which it is established.
    (d) Eligible uses of AHP direct subsidy. Households shall use the 
AHP direct subsidies to pay for down payment, closing cost, counseling, 
or rehabilitation assistance in connection with the household's 
purchase or rehabilitation of an owner-occupied unit, including a 
condominium or cooperative housing unit or manufactured housing, to be 
used as the household's primary residence.
    (e) Retention agreement. An owner-occupied unit purchased, or 
purchased in conjunction with rehabilitation, using AHP direct subsidy, 
shall be subject to a five-year retention agreement described in Sec.  
1291.15(a)(7).
    (f) Financial or other concessions. The Bank may, in its 
discretion, require members and other lenders to provide financial or 
other concessions, as defined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation 
Plan, to households in connection with providing the AHP direct subsidy 
or financing to the household.
    (g) Financing costs. The rate of interest, points, fees, and any 
other charges for all loans made in conjunction with the AHP direct 
subsidy shall not exceed a reasonable market rate of interest, points, 
fees, and other charges for loans of similar maturity, terms, and risk.
    (h) Counseling costs. The AHP direct subsidies may be used to pay 
for counseling costs only where:
    (1) Such costs are incurred in connection with counseling of 
homebuyers who actually purchase an AHP-assisted unit; and
    (2) The cost of the counseling has not been covered by another 
funding source, including the member.
    (i) Cash back to household. A member may provide cash back to a 
household at closing on the mortgage loan in an amount not exceeding 
$250, as determined by the Bank in its AHP Implementation Plan, and a 
member shall use any AHP direct subsidy exceeding such amount that is 
beyond what is needed at closing for closing costs and the approved 
mortgage amount as a credit to reduce the principal of the mortgage 
loan or as a credit toward the household's monthly payments on the 
mortgage loan.


Sec.  1291.43  Approval of AHP applications.

    A Bank shall approve applications for AHP direct subsidy under its 
Homeownership Set-Aside Programs in accordance with the Bank's criteria 
governing the allocation of funds.


Sec.  1291.44  Procedures for funding.

    (a) Disbursement of AHP direct subsidies to members. (1) A Bank may 
disburse AHP direct subsidies under its Homeownership Set-Aside 
Programs only to institutions that are members of the Bank at the time 
they request a draw-down of the subsidies.
    (2) If an institution with an approved application for AHP direct 
subsidy loses its membership in a Bank, the Bank may disburse AHP 
direct subsidies to a member of such Bank to which the institution has 
transferred its obligations under the approved AHP application, or the 
Bank may disburse AHP direct subsidies through another Bank to a member 
of that Bank that has assumed the institution's obligations under the 
approved AHP application.
    (b) Reservation of Homeownership Set-Aside Program subsidies. A 
Bank shall establish and implement policies for reservation of set-
aside subsidies for households enrolled in the Bank's Homeownership 
Set-Aside Programs. The policies shall provide that set-aside

[[Page 61245]]

subsidies be reserved no more than two years in advance of the Bank's 
time limit in its AHP Implementation Plan for draw-down and use of the 
subsidies by the household and the reservation of subsidies be made 
from the allocation for the Homeownership Set-Aside Programs for the 
year in which the Bank makes the reservation.
    (c) Progress towards use of AHP direct subsidy. A Bank shall 
establish and implement policies, including time limits, for 
determining whether progress is being made towards draw-down and use of 
the AHP direct subsidies by eligible households, and whether to cancel 
AHP application approvals for lack of such progress. If a Bank cancels 
any AHP application approvals due to lack of such progress, it shall 
make the AHP direct subsidies available for other applicants for AHP 
direct subsidies under the Homeownership Set-Aside Programs or for 
other AHP-eligible projects.

Subpart E--Monitoring


Sec.  1291.50  Monitoring under the General Fund and Targeted Funds.

    (a) Initial monitoring policies for owner-occupied and rental 
projects. A Bank shall adopt written policies pursuant to which the 
Bank shall monitor each AHP owner-occupied project and rental project 
approved under its General Fund and any Targeted Funds prior to, and 
within a reasonable period of time after, project completion to verify, 
at a minimum, satisfaction of the requirements in this section.
    (1) Satisfactory progress. The Bank shall determine that:
    (i) The project is making satisfactory progress towards completion, 
in compliance with the commitments made in the approved AHP 
application, Bank policies, and the requirements of this part; and
    (ii) Following completion of the project, satisfactory progress is 
being made towards occupancy of the project by eligible households.
    (2) Project sponsor or owner certification, rent roll and other 
documentation; backup and other project documentation. Within a 
reasonable period of time after project completion, the Bank shall 
review a certification from the project sponsor or owner, the project 
rent roll (which includes household incomes and rents), and any other 
documentation to verify that the project meets the following 
requirements, at a minimum:
    (i) The AHP subsidies were used for eligible purposes according to 
the commitments made in the approved AHP application;
    (ii) The household incomes and rents comply with the income 
targeting and rent commitments made in the approved AHP application;
    (iii) The project's costs were reasonable in accordance with the 
Bank's project cost guidelines, and the AHP subsidies were necessary 
for the completion of the project as currently structured, as 
determined pursuant to Sec.  1291.24(a)(4);
    (iv) Each AHP-assisted unit of an owner-occupied project and rental 
project is subject to an AHP retention agreement that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  1291.15(a)(7) and (8), respectively; and
    (v) The services and activities committed in the approved AHP 
application have been provided.
    (3) Back-up and other project documentation. The Bank's written 
monitoring policies shall include requirements for:
    (i) Bank review within a reasonable period of time after project 
completion of back-up project documentation regarding household incomes 
and rents (not including the rent roll) maintained by the project 
sponsor or owner, except for projects that received funds from other 
federal, state or local government entities whose programs meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section as specified 
in separate FHFA guidance, or projects that have also been allocated 
LIHTC; and
    (ii) Maintenance and Bank review of other project documentation in 
the Bank's discretion.
    (4) Sampling plan. The Bank shall not use a sampling plan to select 
the projects to be monitored under this paragraph (a), but may use a 
reasonable risk-based sampling plan to review the back-up project 
documentation.
    (b) Long-term monitoring--reliance on other governmental monitoring 
for certain rental projects. For completed AHP rental projects that 
also received funds from federal, state, or local government entities 
other than LIHTC, a Bank may, in its discretion, for purposes of long-
term AHP monitoring under its General Fund and any Targeted Funds, rely 
on the monitoring by such entities of the income targeting and rent 
requirements applicable under their programs, provided that the Bank 
can show that:
    (1) The compliance profiles regarding income targeting, rent, and 
retention period requirements of the AHP and the other programs are 
substantively equivalent;
    (2) The entity has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate its 
ability to monitor the project;
    (3) The entity agrees to provide reports to the Bank on the 
project's incomes and rents for the full 15-year AHP retention period; 
and
    (4) The Bank reviews the reports from the monitoring entity to 
confirm that they comply with the Bank's monitoring policies.
    (c) Long-term monitoring policies for rental projects. In cases 
where a Bank does not rely on monitoring by a federal, state, or local 
government entity pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, pursuant 
to written policies established by the Bank, the Bank shall monitor 
completed AHP rental projects approved under its General Fund and any 
Targeted Funds, commencing in the second year after project completion 
through the AHP 15-year retention period, to verify, at a minimum, 
satisfaction of the requirements in this section.
    (1) Annual project sponsor or owner certifications; backup and 
other project documentation. A Bank's written monitoring policies shall 
include requirements for:
    (i) Bank review of annual certifications by project sponsors or 
owners to the Bank that household incomes and rents are in compliance 
with the commitments made in the approved AHP application during the 
AHP 15-year retention period, along with information on the ongoing 
financial viability of the project, including whether the project is 
current on its property taxes and loan payments, its vacancy rate, and 
whether it is in compliance with its commitments to other funding 
sources;
    (ii) Bank review of back-up project documentation regarding 
household incomes and rents, including the rent rolls, maintained by 
the project sponsor or owner, except for projects that also received 
funds from other federal, state or local government entities whose 
programs meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section as specified in separate FHFA guidance, or projects that have 
been allocated LIHTC, provided that the Bank shall review any LIHTC 
noncompliance notices received from project owners pursuant to Sec.  
1291.15(a)(5)(ii) during the AHP 15-year retention period; and
    (iii) Maintenance and Bank review of other project documentation in 
the Banks' discretion.
    (2) Risk factors and other monitoring--(i) Risk factors; other 
monitoring. A Bank's written monitoring policies shall take into 
account risk factors such as the amount

[[Page 61246]]

of AHP subsidy in the project, type of project, size of project, 
location of project, sponsor experience and performance, and any 
monitoring of the project provided by a federal, state, or local 
government entity.
    (ii) Risk-based sampling plan. A Bank may use a reasonable, risk-
based sampling plan to select the rental projects to be monitored under 
this paragraph (c), and to review the back-up and any other project 
documentation. The risk-based sampling plan and its basis shall be in 
writing.
    (d) Annual adjustment of targeting commitments. For purposes of 
determining compliance with the targeting commitments in an approved 
AHP application for both initial and long-term AHP monitoring purposes 
under a Bank's General Fund and any Targeted Funds, such commitments 
shall be considered to adjust annually according to the current 
applicable median income data. A rental unit may continue to count 
toward meeting the targeting commitment of an approved AHP application 
as long as the rent charged to a household remains affordable, as 
defined in Sec.  1291.1, for the household occupying the unit.


Sec.  1291.51  Monitoring under Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.

    (a) Adoption and implementation. Pursuant to written policies 
adopted by a Bank, the Bank shall monitor compliance with the 
requirements of its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs, including 
monitoring to determine, at a minimum, whether:
    (1) The AHP subsidy was provided to households meeting all 
applicable eligibility requirements in Sec.  1291.42(b) and the Bank's 
Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies; and
    (2) All other applicable eligibility requirements in Sec.  1291.42 
and the Bank's Homeownership Set-Aside Program policies are met, 
including that the AHP-assisted units are subject to retention 
agreements, as required under Sec.  1291.15(a)(7), where the AHP 
subsidy was used for purchase of the unit, or for purchase of the unit 
in conjunction with rehabilitation.
    (b) Member certifications; back-up and other documentation. The 
Bank's written monitoring policies shall include requirements for:
    (1) Bank review of certifications by members to the Bank, prior to 
disbursement of the AHP subsidy, that the subsidy will be provided in 
compliance with all applicable eligibility requirements in Sec.  
1291.42;
    (2) Bank review of back-up documentation regarding household 
incomes maintained by the member; and
    (3) Maintenance and Bank review of other documentation in the 
Bank's discretion.
    (c) Sampling plan. The Bank may use a reasonable sampling plan to 
select the households to be monitored, and to review the back-up and 
any other documentation received by the Bank, but not the member 
certifications required in paragraph (b) of this section. The sampling 
plan and its basis shall be in writing.

Subpart F--Remedial Actions for Noncompliance


Sec.  1291.60  Remedial actions for project noncompliance.

    (a) Scope. This section sets forth the requirements applicable to 
the Banks in the event of noncompliance by an AHP-assisted project with 
the commitments made in its application for AHP subsidies and the 
requirements of this part, including any use of AHP subsidy by the 
project sponsor or owner for purposes other than those committed to in 
the AHP application. This section does not apply to individual AHP-
assisted households or to the sale or refinancing by such households of 
their homes.
    (b) Elimination of project noncompliance--(1) Cure. In the event of 
project noncompliance, the Bank shall request that the project sponsor 
or owner make a reasonable effort to cure the noncompliance within a 
reasonable period of time. If the noncompliance cannot be cured within 
a reasonable period of time, the requirements for project modification 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall apply. If the noncompliance 
is cured within a reasonable period of time, the Bank shall not require 
the project sponsor or owner to repay AHP subsidy to the Bank.
    (2) Project modification. If the project sponsor or owner cannot 
cure the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, the Bank 
shall determine whether the circumstances of the noncompliance can be 
eliminated through a modification of the terms of the AHP application 
pursuant to Sec.  1291.29. When the circumstances of the noncompliance 
can be eliminated through a modification, the Bank shall approve the 
modification and shall not require the project sponsor or owner to 
repay AHP subsidy to the Bank.
    (c) Reasonable collection efforts--(1) Demand for repayment. If the 
circumstances of a project's noncompliance cannot be eliminated through 
a cure or modification, the Bank, or the member if delegated the 
responsibility, shall make a demand on the project sponsor or owner for 
repayment of the full amount of the AHP subsidy not used in compliance 
with the commitments in the AHP application or the requirements of this 
part (plus interest, if appropriate). If the noncompliance is occupancy 
by households with incomes exceeding the income-targeting commitments 
in the AHP application, the amount of AHP subsidy due is calculated 
based on the number of units in noncompliance, the length of the 
noncompliance, and the portion of the AHP subsidy attributable to the 
noncompliant units.
    (2) Settlement. (i) If the demand for repayment of the full amount 
due is unsuccessful, the Bank, or the member if delegated the 
responsibility and in consultation with the Bank, shall make reasonable 
efforts to collect the subsidy from the project sponsor or owner, which 
may include settlement for less than the full amount due, taking into 
account factors such as the financial capacity of the project sponsor 
or owner, assets securing the AHP subsidy, other assets of the project 
sponsor or owner, the degree of culpability of the project sponsor or 
owner, and the extent of the Bank's or member's collection efforts.
    (ii) The settlement with the project sponsor or owner must be 
supported by sufficient documentation showing that the sum agreed to be 
repaid under the settlement is reasonably justified, based on the facts 
and circumstances of the noncompliance, including any factors in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section that were considered in reaching 
the settlement.


Sec.  1291.61  Recovery of subsidy for member noncompliance.

    A Bank shall recover from a member the amount of any AHP subsidy 
(plus interest, if appropriate) not used in compliance with the 
commitments in the member's AHP application or the requirements of this 
part as a result of the actions or omissions of the member.


Sec.  1291.62  Bank reimbursement of AHP fund.

    (a) By the Bank. A Bank shall reimburse its AHP fund in the amount 
of any AHP subsidies (plus interest, if appropriate) not used in 
compliance with the commitments in an AHP application or the 
requirements of this part as a result of the actions or omissions of 
the Bank.
    (b) By FHFA order. FHFA may order a Bank to reimburse its AHP fund 
in an appropriate amount upon determining that:

[[Page 61247]]

    (1) The Bank has failed to reimburse its AHP fund as required under 
paragraph (a) of this section; or
    (2) The Bank has failed to recover the full amount of AHP subsidy 
due from a project sponsor, project owner, or member pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  1291.60 and 1291.61, and has not shown that 
such failure is reasonably justified, considering factors such as those 
in Sec.  1291.60(c)(2)(i).


Sec.  1291.63  Suspension and debarment.

    (a) At a Bank's initiative. A Bank may suspend or debar a member, 
project sponsor, or project owner from participation in the Program if 
such party shows a pattern of noncompliance, or engages in a single 
instance of flagrant noncompliance, with the terms of an approved 
application for AHP subsidy or the requirements of this part.
    (b) At FHFA's initiative. FHFA may order a Bank to suspend or debar 
a member, project sponsor, or project owner from participation in the 
Program if such party shows a pattern of noncompliance, or engages in a 
single instance of flagrant noncompliance, with the terms of an 
approved application for AHP subsidy or the requirements of this part.


Sec.  1291.64  Use of repaid AHP subsidies.

    (a) Use of repaid AHP subsidies for other AHP-eligible projects or 
households. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 
amounts of AHP subsidy, including any interest, repaid to a Bank 
pursuant to this part shall be made available by the Bank for other 
AHP-eligible projects or households.
    (b) Re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidies in same project--(1) 
Requirements. AHP direct subsidy, including any interest, repaid to a 
member or project sponsor, as applicable, under a Bank's General Fund 
and any Targeted Funds may be repaid by such parties to the Bank for 
subsequent disbursement to and re-use by such parties, or retained by 
such parties for subsequent re-use, as authorized by the Bank, in its 
discretion, after consultation with its Advisory Council, in its AHP 
Implementation Plan, provided all of the following requirements are 
satisfied:
    (i) The member or the project sponsor originally provided the AHP 
direct subsidy as down payment, closing cost, rehabilitation, or 
interest rate buy down assistance to an eligible household for 
purchase, or for purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, of an 
owner-occupied unit pursuant to an approved AHP application;
    (ii) The AHP direct subsidy, including any interest, was repaid to 
the member or project sponsor as a result of a sale, transfer, or 
assignment of title or deed of the unit prior to the end of the 
retention period to a subsequent purchaser that is not a low- or 
moderate-income household; and
    (iii) The repaid AHP direct subsidy is made available by the member 
or project sponsor, within the period of time specified by the Bank in 
its AHP Implementation Plan, to another AHP-eligible household for 
purchase, or for purchase in conjunction with rehabilitation, of an 
owner-occupied unit in the same project in accordance with the terms of 
the approved AHP application.
    (2) No delegation. A Bank's board of directors shall not delegate 
to Bank officers or other Bank employees the responsibility to adopt 
any Bank policies on re-use of repaid AHP direct subsidies in the same 
project pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.


Sec.  1291.65  Transfer of Program administration.

    Without limitation on other remedies, FHFA, upon determining that a 
Bank has engaged in mismanagement of its Program, may designate another 
Bank to administer all or a portion of the first Bank's annual AHP 
contribution, for the benefit of the first Bank's members, under such 
terms and conditions as FHFA may prescribe.

Subpart G--Affordable Housing Reserve Fund


Sec.  1291.70  Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.

    (a) Deposits. If a Bank fails to use or commit the full amount it 
is required to contribute to the Program in any year pursuant to Sec.  
1291.10(a), 90 percent of the unused or uncommitted amount shall be 
deposited by the Bank in an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund established 
and administered by FHFA. The remaining 10 percent of the unused and 
uncommitted amount retained by the Bank should be fully used or 
committed by the Bank during the following year, and any remaining 
portion shall be deposited in the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.
    (b) Use or commitment of AHP funds. Approval of applications for 
AHP funds from members sufficient to exhaust the amount a Bank is 
required to contribute pursuant to Sec.  1291.10(a) shall constitute 
use or commitment of funds. Amounts remaining unused or uncommitted at 
year-end are deemed to be used or committed if, in combination with AHP 
funds that have been returned to the Bank or de-committed from canceled 
projects, they are insufficient to fund:
    (1) AHP application alternates in the Bank's final funding round of 
the year for its General Fund or any Targeted Funds, if the Bank has a 
policy to approve alternates for funding under such Funds;
    (2) Pending applications for funds under the Bank's Homeownership 
Set-Aside Programs, if any; and
    (3) Project modifications for AHP subsidy increases approved by the 
Bank pursuant to the requirements of this part.
    (c) Carryover of insufficient amounts. Such insufficient amounts as 
described in paragraph (b) of this section shall be carried over by the 
Bank for use or commitment in the following year in its General Fund, 
any Targeted Funds, or any Homeownership Set-Aside Programs.

    Dated: November 16, 2018.
Melvin L. Watt,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-25635 Filed 11-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8070-01-P