Minimum Capital, 11668-11675 [2011-4413]
Download as PDF
11668
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mandates, the President’s priorities or
principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
USDA certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Public Law 96–534, as amended
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
USDA has determined that the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, as amended, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), do not apply to any collections of
information contained in this final rule
because any such collections of
information are made during the
conduct of administrative action
involving an agency against specific
individuals or entities. 5 CFR
1320.4(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1
circumstances (such as limited
availability of attorneys qualified to
handle certain types of proceedings), the
Department may adopt regulations
providing that attorney fees may be
awarded at a rate higher than $150 per
hour in some or all of the types of
proceedings covered by this part. The
Department will conduct any
rulemaking proceedings for this purpose
under the informal rulemaking
procedures of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
*
*
*
*
*
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2011–4423 Filed 3–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–90–P
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
Administrative practice and
procedure.
Accordingly, Title 7 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
12 CFR Part 932
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
PART 1—ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS
12 CFR Part 1225
1. The authority for part 1 continues
to read as follows:
Minimum Capital
RIN 2590–AA01
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart J—Procedures Relating to
Awards Under the Equal Access to
Justice Act in Proceedings Before the
Department
2. Amend § 1.186 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.186
Allowable fees and expenses.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In proceedings commenced on or
after the effective date of this paragraph,
no award for the fee of an attorney or
agent under the rules in this subpart
may exceed $150 per hour. No award to
compensate an expert witness may
exceed the highest rate at which the
Department pays expert witnesses,
which is set out at § 1.150 of this part.
However, an award also may include
the reasonable expenses of the attorney,
agent, or witness as a separate item, if
the attorney, agent, or witness ordinarily
charges clients separately for such
expenses.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 1.187 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1.187 Rulemaking on maximum rates for
attorney fees.
(a) If warranted by an increase in the
cost of living or by special
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:49 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Federal Housing Finance Board
and Federal Housing Finance Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final rule to
implement a provision of the Federal
Housing Enterprises Financial Safety
and Soundness Act, as amended, that
provides for a temporary increase in the
minimum capital level for the entities
regulated by FHFA—the Federal
National Mortgage Association, the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and the Federal Home Loan
Banks. The final rule establishes
standards for imposing a temporary
increase and for rescinding such an
increase, and a time frame for review of
such an increase.
DATES: This rule is effective April 4,
2011.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher T. Curtis, Senior Deputy
General Counsel,
Christopher.Curtis@fhfa.gov, (202) 414–
8947, or Jamie Schwing, Associate
General Counsel,
Jamie.Schwing@fhfa.gov, (202) 414–
3787, (not toll-free numbers), Federal
Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor,
1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC
20552. The telephone number for the
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
is (800) 877–8339.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Establishment of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency
The Housing and Economic Recovery
Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law 110–
289, 122 Stat. 2654, amended the
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) (Safety and
Soundness Act) to establish FHFA as an
independent agency of the Federal
Government. FHFA was established to
oversee the operations of the Federal
National Mortgage Association, the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (collectively, Enterprises),
and the Federal Home Loan Banks
(Banks) (collectively, regulated entities).
FHFA is to ensure that the regulated
entities operate in a safe and sound
manner including being capitalized
adequately; that their operations foster
liquid, efficient, competitive and
resilient national housing finance
markets; that they comply with the
Safety and Soundness Act and their
authorizing statutes, and with rules,
regulations, guidelines and orders
issued under those statutes; that they
carry out their missions through
activities authorized and consistent
with the Safety and Soundness Act and
their authorizing statutes; and that the
activities and operations of the entities
are consistent with the public interest.1
The regulated entities continue to
operate under regulations promulgated
by the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight and the Federal
Housing Finance Board, and the
relevant regulations of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
until such time as the existing
regulations are supplanted by
regulations promulgated by FHFA.2
B. The Bank System Generally
The twelve Banks are
instrumentalities of the United States
organized under the Federal Home Loan
Bank Act (Bank Act).3 See 12 U.S.C.
1423, 1432(a). The Banks are
cooperatives: Only members of a Bank
may purchase the capital stock of a
Bank, and only members or certain
eligible housing associates (such as state
housing finance agencies) may obtain
access to secured loans, known as
advances, or other products provided by
1 12
U.S.C. 4513.
1302 and 1312 of HERA.
3 Each Bank is generally referred to by the name
of the city in which it is located. The twelve Banks
are located in: Boston, New York, Pittsburgh,
Atlanta, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Des
Moines, Dallas, Topeka, San Francisco, and Seattle.
2 Sections
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
a Bank. See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(4),
1430(a), 1430(b). Each Bank is managed
by its own board of directors and serves
the public interest by enhancing the
availability of residential credit through
its member institutions. See 12 U.S.C.
1427. Any eligible institution (generally
a federally insured depository
institution or state-regulated insurance
company) may become a member of a
Bank if it satisfies certain criteria and
purchases a specified amount of the
Bank’s capital stock. See 12 U.S.C. 1424;
12 CFR part 1263.
As government-sponsored enterprises,
the Banks are granted certain privileges
under federal law. In light of those
privileges, the Banks typically can
borrow funds at spreads over the rates
on U.S. Treasury securities of
comparable maturity lower than most
other entities. The Banks pass along a
portion of their funding advantage to
their members—and ultimately to
consumers—by providing advances and
other financial services at rates that
would not otherwise be available to
their members. Consolidated obligations
(COs), consisting of bonds and discount
notes, are the principal funding source
for the Banks. The Office of Finance
issues all COs on behalf of the twelve
Banks. Although each Bank is primarily
liable for the portion of consolidated
obligations corresponding to the
proceeds received by that Bank, each
Bank is also jointly and severally liable
with the other eleven Banks for the
payment of principal and interest on all
COs. 12 CFR 966.9.
C. The Enterprises Generally
The Enterprises are chartered by
Congress for the purpose of establishing
secondary market facilities for
residential mortgages. See 12 U.S.C.
1716 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.
Congress established the Enterprises to
provide stability in the secondary
mortgage market for residential
mortgages, to respond appropriately to
the private capital market, to provide
ongoing assistance to the secondary
market for residential mortgages, and to
promote access to mortgage credit
throughout the nation. Id.
On September 6, 2008, the Director of
FHFA appointed FHFA as conservator
of the Enterprises in accordance with
the Safety and Soundness Act, as
amended by HERA. The Enterprises
remain under conservatorship at this
time. Although the Enterprises’
substantial market presence has been
important to restoring market stability,
neither company would be capable of
serving the mortgage market today
without the ongoing financial support
provided by the United States
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:37 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Department of Treasury. While reliance
on the Treasury Department’s backing
will continue until legislation produces
a final resolution to the Enterprises’
future, FHFA is monitoring the
activities of the Enterprises to: (a) Limit
their risk and exposure by avoiding new
lines of business; (b) ensure profitability
in their new books of business without
deterring market participation or
hindering market recovery; and (c)
minimize losses on the mortgages
already on their books.
D. The Proposed Rule
On February 8, 2010, FHFA published
in the Federal Register a proposed rule
that set forth standards and procedures
FHFA would employ to determine
whether to require or rescind a
temporary increase in the minimum
capital levels of a regulated entity or
entities pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4612(d).
The 60-day comment period closed on
April 9, 2010. See Federal Register 75
FR 6151 (February 8, 2010).
Section 1111 of HERA amended
section 1362 of the Safety and
Soundness Act to provide additional
authorities for FHFA regarding
minimum capital requirements. Section
1362(a) establishes a minimum capital
level for the Enterprises, while section
1362(b) incorporates the minimum
capital level for the Federal Home Loan
Banks established by the Federal Home
Loan Bank Act (Bank Act).4 The section
explicitly authorizes the Director, by
regulation, to provide for capital levels
higher than the minimum levels
specified for the Enterprises or the
Banks to promote safe and sound
operations.5 Also, section 1362(e)
provides for additional capital and
reserve requirements to be issued by
order or regulation with respect to a
product or activity.6 Section 1362(f)
provides for a periodic review of core
capital maintained by an Enterprise, the
amount of capital retained by the Banks
and the minimum capital levels set forth
for the regulated entities required under
this section.7
4 The Bank Act’s current minimum capital
requirements apply to the eleven banks that have
converted to the capital structure provided in the
Bank Act as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act of 1999, see Bank Act section 6(a)(2), 12 U.S.C.
1426(a)(2), but do not apply to the Federal Home
Loan Bank of Chicago. The Federal Home Loan
Bank of Chicago is subject to capital requirements
as set forth in a 2007 Cease and Desist Order, as
amended. See 74 FR 5597 (January 30, 2009). As a
result, the definition of ‘‘minimum capital level’’ as
set forth in the proposed regulation is structured to
take into account the current supervisory status of
the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago.
5 12 U.S.C. 4612(c).
6 Id. at (e).
7 Id. at (f).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11669
In addition, section 1362(d) provides
that the Director, by order, may
temporarily increase an established
minimum capital level, when the
Director determines ‘‘that such an
increase is necessary and consistent
with the prudential regulation and the
safe and sound operations of a regulated
entity.’’ 8 The section also provides that
the Director shall rescind the temporary
minimum capital level when the
Director determines circumstances no
longer justify the temporary level.9 To
implement section 1362(d), the Director
must issue regulations setting forth
standards for the imposition of a
temporary increase, standards and
procedures that will be used to make the
determination regarding rescission, and
a time frame for periodic review of any
temporary increase in the minimum
capital level to make a determination
regarding rescission.10
Section 1362(d) recognized the need
for the Director to be able to respond
when necessary to conditions affecting
a regulated entity by imposing an
appropriately higher capital
requirement in an expeditious manner.
The proposed rule also sets forth
procedures and standards as required in
the Safety and Soundness Act for a
temporary increase in the minimum
capital levels of the Enterprises or the
Banks, including a determination to
order an increase, to rescind all or part
of the increase, and the time for periodic
review of an increase as provided in
section 1362(d).
E. Consideration of Differences Between
the Banks and the Enterprises
Section 1201 of HERA (codified at 12
U.S.C. 4513(f)) requires the Director,
when promulgating regulations relating
to the Banks, to consider the following
differences between the Banks and the
Enterprises: Cooperative ownership
structure; mission of providing liquidity
to members; affordable housing and
community development mission;
capital structure; and joint and several
liability. The Director also may consider
any other differences that are deemed
appropriate. In preparing this final rule,
FHFA considered the differences
between the Banks and the Enterprises
as they relate to the above factors, and
determined that the rule is appropriate.
In particular, FHFA has evaluated the
relevance of the factors that are part of
the standard for determining that a
change in the minimum capital standard
is appropriate, and added a factor that
is unique to the Banks: The ratio of a
8 Id.
at (d)(1).
at (d)(2).
10 Id. at (d)(3).
9 Id.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
11670
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Bank’s market value of equity to the par
value of its capital stock. FHFA also
considered the Banks’ circumstances
when crafting the procedural elements
of the rule, including the relevance of
the Banks’ capital structure plans, and
concluded that the statutory
requirement that the Banks operate
under capital structure plans does not
require that a different rule be crafted
specifically for them, although a Bank’s
capital structure plan will undoubtedly
be relevant to the steps a Bank would
take to meet a new, increased minimum
capital level. As a tool supportive of
safety and soundness, the capital
authority conferred by the statute and
implemented in this regulation will,
overall, be supportive of the Banks’
unique structure and mission.
II. Final Rule
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
A. Comments
In the proposed rule, FHFA provided
for notice of a temporary increase in a
regulated entity’s minimum capital
requirement; standards for imposing a
temporary increase in minimum capital;
standards for rescission of a temporary
increase; timeframe for review of
temporary increase for the purpose of
rescission; requirements for written
plans to augment capital; and
promulgation of future guidance. FHFA
received a total of five comment letters
on the proposed rule. Comments were
received from the Federal Home Loan
Bank of Boston (Boston Bank); the
Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas
(Dallas Bank); the Federal Home Loan
Bank of San Francisco (San Francisco
Bank); a joint letter from the Federal
Home Loan Banks of Atlanta, Chicago,
Des Moines, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh,
Seattle and Topeka (Joint Bank Letter);
and a letter from a private citizen
(consisting of a one sentence statement
regarding ‘‘limitations on seller
financing’’ that was not germane to the
rulemaking).
FHFA has considered all of the
comments in developing the final rule.
FHFA accepted some of the
commenters’ recommendations and has
made changes in the final rule, although
the basic approach adopted in the
proposed rule remains the same. The
changes made in the final rule improve
upon the basic approach proposed by
FHFA by clarifying certain provisions
and by improving the structure of the
rule. Specific comments, FHFA’s
responses, and changes adopted in the
final rule are described in greater detail
below in the sections describing the
relevant rule provisions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:37 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
B. Final Rule Provisions
1. General Comment
Three Bank letters offered similar
comments regarding the application of
section 1201 of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA)
requiring the Director to consider the
differences between the Banks and the
Enterprises before promulgating
regulations, or taking formal or informal
actions of general applicability relating
to the Banks. The commenters noted
that the proposed rule does not indicate
whether the Director conducted the
review required under section 1201, and
lacks a statement to that effect, which
typically has been included in most
agency actions promulgated by FHFA.11
FHFA agrees with the commenters that
this rule is subject to HERA section
1201. As noted above, FHFA has
reviewed the rule in the context of the
differences enumerated in section 1201
and has determined that it is
appropriate.
The three Bank letters also suggest
that FHFA should consider separating
the requirements for temporary
increases for the Banks and the
Enterprises into separate rules. FHFA
did not agree with the commenters’
suggestion, as the rule has been crafted
taking into account the differences
between the regulated entities. As the
rule is structured, there is sufficient
regulatory flexibility to evaluate and
respond to the unique circumstances
that may impact one or more regulated
entities causing the Director to impose,
or rescind, a temporary increase.
Separating the proposed rule into two
rulemakings would not enhance FHFA’s
ability to respond to unique or
institution-specific circumstances.
2. Section 1225.2—Definitions
FHFA has adopted the definitions as
proposed. FHFA did not receive any
comments that addressed the proposed
definitions.
3. Section 1225.3—Procedures
All of the Banks commented on
proposed § 1225.3, which sets forth the
requirements for notice of a temporary
increase in the minimum capital
requirement. As a general matter, the
Banks objected to the length of the time
period for the notice of a temporary
increase in the minimum capital
requirement and the potential impact
the provision could have on existing
timelines built into each Bank’s capital
plan. The San Francisco Bank
11 Joint Bank Letter, section I., at 1–2; Boston
Bank Letter, section I., at 1; and Dallas Bank Letter,
section I., at 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
commented that ‘‘these time periods for
response and compliance with respect
to something so fundamentally critical
to a Bank as its capital level are
unrealistically short in light of the
possible strategic financial management
changes and other actions [a Bank] may
need to take in order to meet the
increased requirement * * * for
purposes of the Final Rule, a notice
period of at least 60 days, with at least
30 days to respond, is more
appropriate.’’ 12 The San Francisco Bank
also stated that the final rule should
indicate that the effective date of any
required increase should take into
account a Bank’s compliance with the
terms of its capital plan, including
applicable notice requirements, and that
the order should be subject to a more
formal procedure, including an
opportunity for a hearing under 12 CFR
Part 907.13
FHFA considered the comment and
did not make the requested changes.
The statutory provision is designed to
elicit an immediate response, if
necessary, by the subject institution to
an unusual condition. A Bank would be
able to address capital-plan issues in its
response to a temporary capital increase
notice; however, the terms of a capital
plan do not limit the Director’s power
under this statutory provision. A
hearing requirement would not be
consistent with the need for rapid
action, and is not provided in other
capital contexts, such as the prompt
corrective action (PCA) framework.14
Two of the Banks suggested that the
final rule cross-reference 12 CFR
1229.11 for requiring Banks to
temporarily increase minimum capital.
The Joint Bank Letter states: ‘‘In
promulgating 12 CFR Part 1229, the
FHFA recognized that the [Banks] are
limited in their ability to quickly raise
additional capital because of the
[Bank’s] cooperative capital stock
structure and capital plans. In light of
these limitations, the FHFA requires
12 San
Francisco Bank, section I., at 1.
Francisco Bank, section I., at 1–2. See also
Dallas Bank, section II., at 3, stating that ‘‘the final
rule should clarify whether the effective date for a
temporary minimum capital requirement refers to
the date on which [a Bank] is required to issue
additional capital stock to its members or the date
on which the [Bank] must implement the steps
under its capital plan that are required to impose
a change in the minimum stock requirement of that
[Bank’s] members * * *. The Dallas Bank suggests
that the notice period in the final rule take into
account that the [Banks] are bound to operate in
compliance with the terms of their capital plans
with respect to increases in their members’
minimum stock purchase requirement and that a
temporary increase in the minimum stock purchase
requirement may require an amendment to [a
Bank’s] capital plan.’’
14 Sections 1361–1369(D) of the Safety and
Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4611–4623).
13 San
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
undercapitalized and significantly
undercapitalized [Banks] to submit a
capital restoration plan * * *. We
believe that it would be helpful to apply
the same capital restoration plan
requirements to [a Bank] in the event
the FHFA temporarily increases the
minimum capital requirement,
particularly given the close interaction
of these two provisions of the
regulations.’’ 15
FHFA considered the comments and
determined that it would retain the
provision as proposed. FHFA
determined that the differences between
the PCA regulation and the proposed
rule reflect differences in the respective
statutory provisions. The PCA statute
sets out defined time periods for capital
restoration plans; section 1362(d) does
not, giving the Director discretion
regarding timing of increasing the
minimum capital requirement. The rule
seeks to retain that flexibility. However,
in response to the commenters’ more
general objection that the practicalities
of capital-raising by Federal Home Loan
Banks require a longer time period than
the notice and reply periods prescribed
in the rule, FHFA notes that the concept
of those periods is not necessarily that
the regulated entity be able to come into
compliance with the new requirement
within 30 days after notification by the
Director, but rather that the regulated
entity have an opportunity to respond to
the agency on the appropriateness of the
temporary increased capital level within
that period. Depending upon a
particular Federal Home Loan Bank’s
circumstances, there may be a period
between the setting of the new capital
level and the regulated entity’s
compliance with it during which the
regulated entity would be
undercapitalized and subject to the
statute’s restrictions on activities by
undercapitalized entities, notably
capital distributions. Similarly, if that
same entity is also determined to be
undercapitalized under the PCA capital
classification process—which also
proceeds on a 30-day notice (Safety and
Soundness Act section 1368(c))—it
would be subject to those restrictions
until its capital restoration plan is
approved and implemented. It is
appropriate that those restrictions apply
to an entity whose capital level is not
adequate to the risks to which it is
subject.
15 Joint Bank Letter, section II., at 3. See also
Boston Bank, section II., at 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:37 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
4. Section 1225.4(a)(1)—Current or
Anticipated Declines in the Value of
Assets Held
The Dallas Bank commented that
FHFA should clarify the ‘‘nature and
magnitude of the decline in the value of
assets that would warrant an order to
temporarily increase minimum capital
levels.’’ 16 According to the Dallas Bank,
current or anticipated declines in asset
values may not accurately reflect the
underlying economic value of the asset.
The Dallas Bank commented that a
temporary increase in minimum capital
in ‘‘instances of temporary illiquidity or
market volatility with respect to a
regulated entity’s assets could prove to
be harmful to the [Bank] and to its
membership given member sensitivity
and concerns regarding additional
capital calls.’’ 17
FHFA considered the comment and
did not make the requested change.
FHFA concluded that amending the
provision in the suggested manner
would not be feasible, as the provision
is meant to be applied on a case-by-case
basis. FHFA also notes that, with
respect to instances involving ‘‘illiquid
or volatile’’ markets, concerns regarding
potential harm caused by a proposed
capital increase could be addressed by
a regulated entity in its response to the
notice of a temporary increase in the
minimum capital requirement.
The Boston Bank also commented that
‘‘the concept of basing a temporary
increase in the minimum capital
requirements of [a Bank] on
‘anticipated’ declines is hard for us to
understand as it is generally recognized
that it is not possible to predict market
movements and future prices.’’ 18 The
Boston Bank suggested that FHFA
should limit the standard to current
‘‘decline[s] in the [market] value of
assets that would warrant an order to
temporarily increase minimum capital
levels.’’ 19
FHFA considered the comment and
concluded that since capital often acts
as a lagging indicator, delaying action
until a decline is recognized may be
inconsistent with the need for prompt
action. The proposed regulation would
provide FHFA with an additional
16 Dallas
Bank, section III.A., at 3.
See also San Francisco Bank, section II.A.,
at 2; and Joint Bank Letter, section III.A., at 4.
According to the Joint Comment Letter, the current
provision ‘‘could be pro-cyclical and lead to longlasting declines in membership and business
volume, further weakening the affected [Bank]. The
FHFA should consider clarifying the nature and
magnitude of the decline in the value of assets that
would warrant an order to temporarily increase
minimum capital levels.’’
18 Boston Bank, section III.A., at 3.
19 Id.
17 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11671
regulatory tool to address potential
problems that may arise as the result of
relying solely on a lagging indicator
such as capital. Certain assets on an
entity’s balance sheet are valued based
on historical cost and may not reflect all
available information as to the assets’
actual values. Therefore, FHFA has not
made the requested change.
Although FHFA did not adopt the
proposed comments, it ultimately
determined that it was appropriate to
remove the phrase ‘‘the amounts of a
regulated entity’s mortgage-backed
securities’’ to avoid singling out any
particular category of assets in the
provision.
5. Section 1225.4(a)(2)—Credit
(including Counterparty), Market,
Operational and Other Risks Facing a
Regulated Entity
FHFA did not receive comments on
this provision. However, the phrase ‘‘a
depreciation in the value of its capital
or assets, a decline in liquidity, or’’ was
removed from the provision. FHFA
determined that the language was
redundant, as declines in capital and
assets and concerns about liquidity are
addressed in § 1225.4(a)(1) and
§ 1225.4(a)(3), respectively.
6. Section 1225.4(a)(4)—Compliance
With Regulations, Written Orders or
Agreement
The Boston Bank commented that the
standard should apply only to ‘‘material
non-compliance with regulations,
written orders or agreements that
negatively impact [a Bank’s] financial
health or that are indicative of its
potential risk of failure.’’ The comment
further states that ‘‘Without clarification,
it would appear that any violation of
any regulation, order or agreement
could permit the FHFA to order [a Bank]
to increase temporary minimum capital
levels.’’ 20
FHFA considered the comment and
agreed that the standard should apply
only to material non-compliance with a
regulation, order, or agreement. FHFA
did not intend the provision to require
a capital increase in response to an
immaterial infraction. FHFA did not
agree with the Boston Bank comment
that the factor relate only to material
non-compliance with some regulations,
orders or agreements, those asserted to
negatively impact financial health,
because all material violations could
potentially have a negative impact on
financial health, if only because of the
remediation that might be required.
20 Boston Bank, section III.B., at 3. See also Dallas
Bank, section III.B., at 3–4; Joint Bank Letter,
section III.B., at 4; and San Francisco Bank, section
II.B., at 2.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
11672
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
7. Section 1225.4(a)(5)—Unsafe or
Unsound Operations or Practices, or
Circumstances That Reflect Unsafe and
Unsound Conduct by a Regulated Entity
FHFA removed this provision from
the final rule, as the remaining
standards address specific conditions
and practices. As well, to the extent that
an unsafe or unsound condition is
identified by the Director, FHFA
determined that § 1225.4(a)(9), Other
Conditions as Detailed by the Director,
would be a more appropriate vehicle for
responding to such a contingency.
8. Section 1225.4(a)(6)—Housing
Finance Market Conditions
The San Francisco Bank suggested
that the factor be deleted from the final
rule because it believes it to be vague
and that ‘‘the relevance of this factor to
a Regulated Entity’s capital level is
unclear, except to the extent that
housing finance market conditions
result in a decline in the value of
housing-related assets held by the
[Banks].’’ The comment also states that
this matter is already covered by Section
1225.4(a)(1).21
FHFA considered the comment and
decided to retain the provision as
proposed. Housing market conditions
other than asset values, such as market
volatility and prepayment risk, may
pose risks to a regulated entity that
could warrant holding additional
capital.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
9. Section 1225.4(a)(7)—Level of
Reserves or Retained Earnings
The Dallas Bank commented that
FHFA should focus on ‘‘the aggregate
capital levels of the [Bank]’’ as a more
accurate gauge of a Bank’s financial
health instead of focusing on specific
types of capital.22 The San Francisco
Bank suggested that the standard ‘‘be
expanded to ensure that, in addition to
considering reserves and retained
earnings in determining a Regulated
Entity’s financial health, the Finance
Agency is recognizing the Regulated
Entity’s demonstrated commitment and
actions toward building retained
earnings, and also is taking into
consideration the aggregate capital
levels of the Regulated Entity, which
provides a more accurate indication of
a Regulated Entity’s health or risk of
failure.’’ 23
FHFA did not agree with the
comment and will retain the provision
as proposed. Specific elements of
capital can have independent
significance. For example, retained
earnings are relevant to a Bank’s ability
to maintain the par value of its capital
stock, which is important to the
financial stability of a Federal Home
Loan Bank and of the System. Further,
while this provision is a factor, among
possible others, that may be used by the
Director to make a determination
regarding capital, it does not set a
specific requirement. Finally, with
respect to recognition of a Bank’s
commitment to build retained earnings,
such activity would most appropriately
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and
could be addressed in the Bank’s
response to a notice of capital increase.
10. Section 1225.4(a)(8)—Initiatives,
Operations, Products, or Practices That
Entail Heightened Risk
FHFA did not receive comment
regarding this provision. The provision
will be adopted as proposed.
11. Section 1225.4(a)(9)—The Ratio of
the Market Value of Equity to the Par
Value of Capital Stock
The Dallas Bank questioned the
inclusion of the MVE/PVCS ratio in the
proposed rule, stating: ‘‘In the final
capital classification rule issued just
eight months ago, the FHFA indicated it
would ‘continue to weigh whether it
would be appropriate to propose a
separate target for retained earnings
and/or MVE/PVCS, either as a standalone regulation or as part of any riskbased capital proposal. * * * We are
unaware of any subsequent FHFA
rulemaking, guidance, analysis or
pronouncements concerning the utility
and applicability of MVE/PVCS.’’ 24 The
Dallas Bank also noted that ‘‘neither the
[Banks], their member institutions nor
other stakeholders would be able to
determine ahead of time with any
certainty—perhaps not until after a
temporary order has been issued—how
the FHFA applies this factor on an
ongoing basis.’’ 25 The Bank also
requests that in the final rule, FHFA
‘‘detail its thinking, including the results
of any studies or analysis it has
conducted, on how this factor should be
defined and applied’’ or ‘‘use the release
of the final rule to provide clear
definitions and explanations of how this
factor may be applied.’’ 26
24 Dallas
21 San Francisco Bank, section II.C., at 2–3. See
also Joint Bank Letter, section III.C., at 4; and Dallas
Bank, section III.C., at 4.
22 Dallas Bank, section III.D., at 4. See also San
Francisco Bank, section II.D., at 3.
23 San Francisco Bank, section II.D., at 3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:37 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Bank, section III.E., at 4. See also Joint
Bank Letter III.D., at 4.
25 Dallas Bank, section III.E., at 4.
26 Id. See also Joint Bank Letter, section III.D., at
4 stating ‘‘[w]ithout analytically supported
guidance, it is difficult to judge fully the
appropriateness of using MVE/PVCS as a factor in
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Dallas Bank also expressed
concern with the MVE/PVCS ratio for
two reasons: (i) ‘‘The proposed rule does
not define ‘[the] market value of equity’’’
and (ii) ‘‘the rule places no parameters
or standards for the FHFA to use in
applying this ratio.’’ 27 The Joint
Comment Letter requested additional
information in the final rule regarding
FHFA’s ‘‘thinking, including the results
of any studies or analysis it has
conducted, on how this factor should be
defined and applied.’’ 28 The Joint Bank
Letter also indicated that FHFA should
‘‘define MVE (including during periods
of severe market illiquidity)’’ and
indicate ‘‘why it is appropriate to use
the MVE/PVCS ratio to determine
whether a [Bank’s] minimum capital
should be increased.’’ 29
The Joint Bank Letter asked FHFA to
address two specific questions:
(1) ‘‘Is MVE for purposes of the
temporary minimum capital regulation
defined as set forth in 12 CFR 932.5
* * * as the market value of total
capital (defined as Class A stock,
general allowance for losses, Class B
stock and retained earnings) or
otherwise?’’ and
(2) ‘‘Will MVE be defined in
accordance with the liquidation value,
or the going-concern value, of the
[Bank]?’’ 30
The Joint Bank Letter concludes with
an expression of general concern
regarding the use of MVE/PVCS as a
factor related to a temporary increase in
minimum capital without considering
the existing risk-based capital regime,
and the letter urges FHFA to consider
this standard in a separate rulemaking.31
The Boston Bank commented that
FHFA should ‘‘clarify the definition of
the market value of equity (MVE) by
reference to 12 CFR 932.5.’’ The Bank
also commented that it remained
‘‘generally concerned with using MVE/
PVCS as a factor for imposing a
temporary minimum capital increase
without consideration of the existing
risk-based capital regulatory framework
that already takes this relationship into
consideration to some extent in
establishing [a Bank’s] risk-based capital
requirements.’’ 32
The San Francisco Bank commented
that using an MVE/PVCS ratio could
result in a ‘‘double charging’’ effect on a
Bank. According to the San Francisco
Bank ‘‘the existing risk-based regulation
determining [a Bank’s] minimum capital
requirement.’’
27 Dallas Bank, section III.E., at 5.
28 Joint Bank Letter, section III.D., at 5.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 6.
32 Boston Bank, section III.C., at 3.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
already imposes an additional riskbased capital charge on any [Bank] that
has a market value of total capital less
than 85% of the book value of its total
capital, so that using an MVE/PVCS
ratio to impose an additional increase in
[a Bank’s] minimum capital requirement
would have the effect of ‘double
charging’ that [Bank] on the basis of the
same criteria.’’ 33 The San Francisco
Bank also stated that the proposed rule
does not define ‘‘market value of
equity.’’ The letter notes that ‘‘If the
Agency determines MVE with reference
to liquidation value, then we do not
believe that such a measure provides a
sound basis for increasing [a Bank’s]
minimum capital level. * * * Instead,
we encourage the Finance Agency to
develop an MVE model that reflects
certain going concern assumptions and
makes MVE determinations in the
context of other factors, including
market conditions.’’ 34 The San
Francisco Bank concluded with a
recommendation to establish
‘‘parameters or standards’’ surrounding
the use of the MVE/PVCS ratio.
According to the San Francisco Bank,
‘‘[t]here’s no indication * * * at what
level(s) the Director would consider it
appropriate to increase [a Bank’s]
minimum capital requirement based on
this ratio.’’ 35
FHFA considered and did not adopt
the Dallas Bank’s comment to provide
additional detail regarding the
application of the MVE/PVCS ratio.
FHFA concluded that the factor would
be applied on a case-by-case basis,
considering the specific circumstances
of a particular Bank. In instances where
a Bank has a low MVE/PVCS ratio, this
rule would serve as one reason, among
many, for a Bank to address the issue.
FHFA also considered the questions
posed by the Dallas Bank. FHFA
concluded that use of the MVE/PVCS
ratio is an important element in
assessing the financial health of an
institution. The use of the MVE/PVCS
ratio also provides a useful indicator of
capital strength in addition to capital
ratios that are based on generally
accepted accounting principles.
However, it is only one factor among a
number enumerated in the rule that the
Director may consider in assessing
whether a Bank should hold more
capital. That assessment is sufficiently
case-specific such that it is not feasible
to provide general rules or parameters
around the use of any particular factor.
With respect to the comment offered
in the Joint Bank Letter, FHFA does
33 San
Francisco Bank, section II.E., at 3.
34 Id.
35 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:37 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
intend that, for purposes of this factor,
the Director would look to market value
of equity as calculated by a Bank using
a method approved by the agency under
12 CFR 932.5. The issue of goingconcern versus liquidation value,
however, is an accounting issue that is
not applicable to the calculation of that
ratio. However, MVE/PVCS ratio is only
one factor among a number enumerated
in the rule that the Director may
consider in assessing whether a Bank
should hold more capital. That
assessment is sufficiently case-specific
that it is not feasible to provide general
rules or parameters around the use of
any particular factor. The Joint Bank
Letter also asked for a separate
rulemaking for the provision. FHFA did
not agree with the comment. FHFA
believes that a separate rulemaking to
address the existing risk-based capital
regime, including the role of MVE in it,
may be appropriate, but such a
rulemaking, unlike this rule, would not
address the need to address temporary
or unusual circumstances.
FHFA also considered the comment
offered by the Boston Bank regarding its
general concern regarding use of the
MVE/PVCS ratio as a factor for imposing
an increase. FHFA notes that any
decision to impose a temporary increase
in the minimum capital requirement
would consider the existing minimum
capital requirements. The MVE would
be used as one factor in evaluating the
financial condition of a Bank in the
event that a Bank’s existing capital
position is determined to be
insufficient.
Finally, FHFA considered the San
Francisco Bank’s comment regarding
establishment of standards and
parameters for the provision. FHFA
does not agree that standards or
parameters should be set around the use
of the MVE/PVCS ratio. It is not
necessary or appropriate to determine in
advance the significance of a shortfall of
this ratio in consideration of the other
factors identified in this rule. FHFA did
not adopt the Bank’s recommendation.
12. Section 1225.4(a)(10)—Other
Conditions as Detailed by the Director
The Joint Bank Letter suggested that
FHFA provide guidance on ‘‘what other
conditions might be relevant in
determining whether to impose
temporary increases in minimum capital
levels * * * and provide the [Banks] a
chance to comment on any new
proposed standards.’’ 36 FHFA
considered the comment and retained
36 Joint Bank Letter, section III.E., at 6. See also
Dallas Bank, section III.F., at 5; and San Francisco
Bank, section II.F., at 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11673
the provision as proposed. The purpose
of the provision is to address factors that
are unforeseeable under current
circumstances but that turn out to be
relevant at a later date. FHFA has
determined that a provision that allows
the agency to respond to unforeseen
circumstances without substantial delay
is prudent, reasonable, and necessary.
13. Section 1225.4(a)(11)—Written Plan
To Augment Capital
The Joint Bank Letter noted that the
requirement to submit a written plan to
augment capital is a procedural
requirement and not a standard or
factor. The Joint Bank Letter suggested
that the requirement be moved to a
different section of the rule.37 FHFA
agreed with the comment and the final
rule incorporates the provision in
§ 1225.3, regarding procedures.
14. Section 1225.4—Standards and
Factors
The San Francisco Bank commented
that standards regarding rescission of an
increase are not addressed. The letter
recommends reducing uncertainty in
the area by ‘‘addressing in the Proposed
Rule such critical issues as the size of
a fluctuation that would weigh
significantly in favor of the issuance or
rescission of a temporary order.’’ 38
FHFA considered the comment and
revised the section to add clarity to the
standards regarding rescission of an
increase. In addition, although FHFA
did not receive specific comment
regarding proposed § 1225.4(c), FHFA
determined that the provision clearly
addresses a procedural as opposed to
substantive matter. FHFA has
redesignated the provision as
§ 1225.3(e).
15. Section 1225.4(d)—Promulgation of
Future Guidance
Three Banks expressed concern
regarding proposed § 1255.4(d) detailing
the Director’s authority to issue
guidance regarding the regulation.39
Two Banks suggested that FHFA remove
§ 1225.4(d) from the regulation based on
concerns regarding application of the
Administrative Procedure Act.40 In the
alternative, the three Bank commenters
suggested that ‘‘to the extent that
guidance expands or adds substantive
detail to the existing regulation, it
37 Joint Bank Letter, section III.F., at 6. See also
Boston Bank, section III.D., at 4; and Dallas Bank,
section III.G., at 5.
38 San Francisco Bank, section II.E., at 3.
39 Joint Bank Letter, section IV., at 6; San
Francisco Bank, section III., at 4; and Dallas Bank,
section IV., at 6.
40 Dallas Bank, section IV., at 6–7; and Joint Bank
Letter, section IV., at 7.
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
11674
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
would be better for the guidance to be
issued as a formal rulemaking and
subject to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act, with
advance notice and an opportunity to
comment by the [Banks] and their
members.’’ 41 FHFA considered the
comment, but included the proposed
provision in the final rule. FHFA will
review each issue as it arises and take
appropriate action, including notice and
comment rulemaking, and promulgation
of guidance with or without comment,
depending on the nature of the issue.
FHFA has also redesignated this
provision as new § 1225.5 of the final
rule.
16. Sections 932.2 and § 932.3
FHFA is also amending the Banks’
capital regulations to remove § 932.2(b)
and § 932.3(b) which allowed the
regulator to raise the Banks’ capital
requirements for reasons of safety and
soundness. These specific regulations
were adopted pursuant to the Finance
Board’s general safety and soundness
authority under old section 2A(a)(3)(A)
of the Bank Act, a section which was
removed by HERA. Final Rule: Capital
Requirements for the Federal Home
Loan Banks, 66 FR 8262, 8282–83
(January 30, 2001). Given that FHFA is
adopting new part 1225 of its
regulations and the fact that the Safety
and Soundness Act as amended by
HERA provides specific authority under
which the Director may raise the Banks’
minimum capital requirements, FHFA
no longer views § 932.2(b) and
§ 932.3(b) as controlling and is removing
these provisions.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule does not contain any
collections of information pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore,
FHFA has not submitted any
information to the Office of
Management and Budget for Review.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
The final rule applies only to the
Banks and the Enterprises, which do not
come within the meaning of small
entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5. U.S.C.
650(b), FHFA certifies that this final
rule will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
41 See
e.g., San Francisco Bank, section III., at 4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:49 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
12 CFR Part 932
Credit, Federal Home Loan Banks,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
12 CFR Part 1225
Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal
National Mortgage Association, Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Capital, Filings, Minimum capital,
Procedures, Standards.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
the Supplementary Information, under
the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4526
and 4612, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency amends Chapters IX and XII of
Title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
Chapter IX—Federal Housing Finance
Board
PART 932—FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Revise the authority citation for part
932 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1426, 1440, 1443,
1446, 4513, 4526.
■
2. Revise § 932.2 to read as follows:
§ 932.2
Total capital requirement.
Each Bank shall maintain at all times:
(a) Total capital in an amount at least
equal to 4.0 percent of the Bank’s total
assets; and
(b) A leverage ratio of total capital to
total assets of at least 5.0 percent of the
Bank’s total assets. For purposes of
determining the leverage ratio, total
capital shall be computed by
multiplying the Bank’s permanent
capital by 1.5 and adding to this product
all other components of total capital.
■ 3. Revise § 932.3 to read as follows:
§ 932.3
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1225.3
1225.4
1225.5
List of Subjects
Risk-based capital requirement.
Each Bank shall maintain at all times
permanent capital in an amount at least
equal to the sum of its credit risk capital
requirement, its market risk capital
requirement, and its operations risk
capital requirement, calculated in
accordance with §§ 932.4, 932.5 and
932.6, respectively.
Chapter XII—Federal Housing Finance
Agency
Subchapter B—Entity Regulations
4. Add part 1225 to subchapter B to
read as follows:
■
PART 1225—MINIMUM CAPITAL—
TEMPORARY INCREASE
Sec.
1225.1
1225.2
PO 00000
Purpose.
Definitions.
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Procedures.
Standards and factors.
Guidances.
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4526 and 4612.
§ 1225.1
Purpose.
FHFA is responsible for ensuring the
safe and sound operation of regulated
entities. In furtherance of that
responsibility, this part sets forth
standards and procedures FHFA will
employ to determine whether to require
or rescind a temporary increase in the
minimum capital levels for a regulated
entity or entities pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
4612(d).
§ 1225.2
Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the term:
Enterprise means the Federal National
Mortgage Association or the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and
the term Enterprises means, collectively,
the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation.
Minimum capital level means the
lowest amount of capital meeting any
regulation or orders issued pursuant to
12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(2) and 12 U.S.C. 4612,
or any similar requirement established
for a Federal Home Loan Bank by
regulation, order or other action.
Regulated entity means—
(1) The Federal National Mortgage
Association and any affiliate thereof;
(2) The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and any affiliate thereof;
and
(3) Any Federal Home Loan Bank.
Rescission means a removal in whole
or in part of an increase in the
temporary minimum capital level.
§ 1225.3
Procedures.
(a) Information—(1) Information to
the regulated entity or entities. If the
Director determines, based on standards
enunciated in this part, that a temporary
increase in the minimum capital level is
necessary, the Director will provide
notice to the affected regulated entity or
entities 30 days in advance of the date
that the temporary minimum capital
requirement becomes effective, unless
the Director determines that an exigency
exists that does not permit such notice
or the Director determines a longer time
period would be appropriate.
(2) Information to the Government.
The Director shall inform the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, and
the Chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission of a temporary
increase in the minimum capital level
contemporaneously with informing the
affected regulated entity or entities.
(b) Comments. The affected regulated
entity or entities may provide comments
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
regarding or objections to the temporary
increase to FHFA within 15 days or
such other period as the Director
determines appropriate under the
circumstances. The Director may
determine to modify, delay, or rescind
the announced temporary increase in
response to such comments or objection,
but no further notice is required for the
temporary increase to become effective
upon the date originally determined by
the Director.
(c) Communication. The Director shall
transmit notice of a temporary increase
or rescission of a temporary increase in
the minimum capital level in writing,
using electronic or such other means as
appropriate. Such communication shall
set forth, at a minimum, the bases for
the Director’s determination, the
amount of increase or decrease in the
minimum capital level, the anticipated
duration of such increase, and a
description of the procedures for
requesting a rescission of the temporary
increase in the minimum capital level.
(d) Written plan. In making a finding
under this part, the Director may require
a written plan to augment capital to be
submitted on a timely basis to address
the methods by which such temporary
increase may be attained and the time
period for reaching the new temporary
minimum capital level.
(e) Time frame for review of
temporary increase for purpose of
rescission.—(1) Absent an earlier
determination to rescind in whole or in
part a temporary increase in the
minimum capital level for a regulated
entity or entities, the Director shall no
less than every 12 months, consider the
need to maintain, modify, or rescind
such increase.
(2) A regulated entity or regulated
entities may at any time request in
writing such review by the Director.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
§ 1225.4
Standards and factors.
(a) Standard for imposing a temporary
increase. In making a determination to
increase temporarily a minimum capital
requirement for a regulated entity or
entities, the Director will consider the
necessity and consistency of such an
increase with the prudential regulation
and the safe and sound operations of a
regulated entity. The Director may
impose a temporary minimum-capital
increase if consideration of one or more
of the following factors leads the
Director to the judgment that the current
minimum capital requirement for a
regulated entity is insufficient to
address the entity’s risks:
(1) Current or anticipated declines in
the value of assets held by a regulated
entity; the amounts of mortgage-backed
securities issued or guaranteed by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:37 Mar 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
regulated entity; and, its ability to
access liquidity and funding;
(2) Credit (including counterparty),
market, operational and other risks
facing a regulated entity, especially
where an increase in risks is foreseeable
and consequential;
(3) Current or projected declines in
the capital held by a regulated entity;
(4) A regulated entity’s material noncompliance with regulations, written
orders, or agreements;
(5) Housing finance market
conditions;
(6) Level of reserves or retained
earnings;
(7) Initiatives, operations, products, or
practices that entail heightened risk;
(8) With respect to a Bank, the ratio
of the market value of its equity to par
value of its capital stock where the
market value of equity is the value
calculated and reported by the Bank as
‘‘market value of total capital’’ under 12
CFR 932.5(a)(1)(ii)(A); or
(9) Other conditions as detailed by the
Director in the notice provided under
§ 1225.3.
(b) Standard for rescission of a
temporary increase. In making a
determination to rescind a temporary
increase in the minimum capital level
for a regulated entity or entities,
whether in full or in part, the Director
will consider the consistency of such a
rescission with the prudential
regulation and safe and sound
operations of a regulated entity. The
Director will rescind, in full or in part,
a temporary minimum capital increase
if consideration of one or more of the
following factors leads the Director to
the judgment that rescission of a
temporary minimum-capital increase for
a regulated entity is appropriate
considering the entity’s risks:
(1) Changes to the circumstances or
facts that led to the imposition of a
temporary increase in the minimum
capital levels;
(2) The meeting of targets set for a
regulated entity in advance of any
capital or capital-related plan agreed to
by the Director;
(3) Changed circumstances or facts
based on new developments occurring
since the imposition of the temporary
increase in the minimum capital level,
particularly where the original problems
or concerns have been successfully
addressed or alleviated in whole or in
part; or
(4) Such other standard as the
Director may consider as detailed by the
Director in the notice provided under
§ 1225.3.
§ 1225.5
Guidances.
The Director may determine, from
time to time, issue guidance to
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11675
elaborate, to refine or to provide new
information regarding standards or
procedures contained herein.
Dated: February 22, 2011.
Edward J. DeMarco,
Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance
Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011–4413 Filed 3–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 95
[Docket No. 30769; Amdt. No. 492]
IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous
Amendments
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This amendment adopts
miscellaneous amendments to the
required IFR (instrument flight rules)
altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or
direct routes for which a minimum or
maximum en route authorized IFR
altitude is prescribed. This regulatory
action is needed because of changes
occurring in the National Airspace
System. These changes are designed to
provide for the safe and efficient use of
the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.
DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March
10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420),
Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500
South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City,
OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box
25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone: (405) 954–4164.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95)
amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all
aircraft in flight over a specified route
or any portion of that route, as well as
the changeover points (COPs) for
Federal airways, jet routes, or direct
routes as prescribed in part 95.
SUMMARY:
The Rule
The specified IFR altitudes, when
used in conjunction with the prescribed
changeover points for those routes,
ensure navigation aid coverage that is
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11668-11675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4413]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
12 CFR Part 932
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1225
RIN 2590-AA01
Minimum Capital
AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board and Federal Housing Finance
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final
rule to implement a provision of the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, that provides for a
temporary increase in the minimum capital level for the entities
regulated by FHFA--the Federal National Mortgage Association, the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
The final rule establishes standards for imposing a temporary increase
and for rescinding such an increase, and a time frame for review of
such an increase.
DATES: This rule is effective April 4, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher T. Curtis, Senior Deputy
General Counsel, Christopher.Curtis@fhfa.gov, (202) 414-8947, or Jamie
Schwing, Associate General Counsel, Jamie.Schwing@fhfa.gov, (202) 414-
3787, (not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth
Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number
for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Establishment of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law
110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, amended the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.)
(Safety and Soundness Act) to establish FHFA as an independent agency
of the Federal Government. FHFA was established to oversee the
operations of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively, Enterprises), and the
Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) (collectively, regulated entities).
FHFA is to ensure that the regulated entities operate in a safe and
sound manner including being capitalized adequately; that their
operations foster liquid, efficient, competitive and resilient national
housing finance markets; that they comply with the Safety and Soundness
Act and their authorizing statutes, and with rules, regulations,
guidelines and orders issued under those statutes; that they carry out
their missions through activities authorized and consistent with the
Safety and Soundness Act and their authorizing statutes; and that the
activities and operations of the entities are consistent with the
public interest.\1\ The regulated entities continue to operate under
regulations promulgated by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight and the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the relevant
regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, until
such time as the existing regulations are supplanted by regulations
promulgated by FHFA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 12 U.S.C. 4513.
\2\ Sections 1302 and 1312 of HERA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Bank System Generally
The twelve Banks are instrumentalities of the United States
organized under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act).\3\ See 12
U.S.C. 1423, 1432(a). The Banks are cooperatives: Only members of a
Bank may purchase the capital stock of a Bank, and only members or
certain eligible housing associates (such as state housing finance
agencies) may obtain access to secured loans, known as advances, or
other products provided by
[[Page 11669]]
a Bank. See 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(4), 1430(a), 1430(b). Each Bank is
managed by its own board of directors and serves the public interest by
enhancing the availability of residential credit through its member
institutions. See 12 U.S.C. 1427. Any eligible institution (generally a
federally insured depository institution or state-regulated insurance
company) may become a member of a Bank if it satisfies certain criteria
and purchases a specified amount of the Bank's capital stock. See 12
U.S.C. 1424; 12 CFR part 1263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Each Bank is generally referred to by the name of the city
in which it is located. The twelve Banks are located in: Boston, New
York, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Des
Moines, Dallas, Topeka, San Francisco, and Seattle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As government-sponsored enterprises, the Banks are granted certain
privileges under federal law. In light of those privileges, the Banks
typically can borrow funds at spreads over the rates on U.S. Treasury
securities of comparable maturity lower than most other entities. The
Banks pass along a portion of their funding advantage to their
members--and ultimately to consumers--by providing advances and other
financial services at rates that would not otherwise be available to
their members. Consolidated obligations (COs), consisting of bonds and
discount notes, are the principal funding source for the Banks. The
Office of Finance issues all COs on behalf of the twelve Banks.
Although each Bank is primarily liable for the portion of consolidated
obligations corresponding to the proceeds received by that Bank, each
Bank is also jointly and severally liable with the other eleven Banks
for the payment of principal and interest on all COs. 12 CFR 966.9.
C. The Enterprises Generally
The Enterprises are chartered by Congress for the purpose of
establishing secondary market facilities for residential mortgages. See
12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. Congress established the
Enterprises to provide stability in the secondary mortgage market for
residential mortgages, to respond appropriately to the private capital
market, to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market for
residential mortgages, and to promote access to mortgage credit
throughout the nation. Id.
On September 6, 2008, the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as
conservator of the Enterprises in accordance with the Safety and
Soundness Act, as amended by HERA. The Enterprises remain under
conservatorship at this time. Although the Enterprises' substantial
market presence has been important to restoring market stability,
neither company would be capable of serving the mortgage market today
without the ongoing financial support provided by the United States
Department of Treasury. While reliance on the Treasury Department's
backing will continue until legislation produces a final resolution to
the Enterprises' future, FHFA is monitoring the activities of the
Enterprises to: (a) Limit their risk and exposure by avoiding new lines
of business; (b) ensure profitability in their new books of business
without deterring market participation or hindering market recovery;
and (c) minimize losses on the mortgages already on their books.
D. The Proposed Rule
On February 8, 2010, FHFA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that set forth standards and procedures FHFA would employ
to determine whether to require or rescind a temporary increase in the
minimum capital levels of a regulated entity or entities pursuant to 12
U.S.C. 4612(d). The 60-day comment period closed on April 9, 2010. See
Federal Register 75 FR 6151 (February 8, 2010).
Section 1111 of HERA amended section 1362 of the Safety and
Soundness Act to provide additional authorities for FHFA regarding
minimum capital requirements. Section 1362(a) establishes a minimum
capital level for the Enterprises, while section 1362(b) incorporates
the minimum capital level for the Federal Home Loan Banks established
by the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act).\4\ The section explicitly
authorizes the Director, by regulation, to provide for capital levels
higher than the minimum levels specified for the Enterprises or the
Banks to promote safe and sound operations.\5\ Also, section 1362(e)
provides for additional capital and reserve requirements to be issued
by order or regulation with respect to a product or activity.\6\
Section 1362(f) provides for a periodic review of core capital
maintained by an Enterprise, the amount of capital retained by the
Banks and the minimum capital levels set forth for the regulated
entities required under this section.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Bank Act's current minimum capital requirements apply to
the eleven banks that have converted to the capital structure
provided in the Bank Act as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of
1999, see Bank Act section 6(a)(2), 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(2), but do not
apply to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. The Federal Home
Loan Bank of Chicago is subject to capital requirements as set forth
in a 2007 Cease and Desist Order, as amended. See 74 FR 5597
(January 30, 2009). As a result, the definition of ``minimum capital
level'' as set forth in the proposed regulation is structured to
take into account the current supervisory status of the Federal Home
Loan Bank of Chicago.
\5\ 12 U.S.C. 4612(c).
\6\ Id. at (e).
\7\ Id. at (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, section 1362(d) provides that the Director, by order,
may temporarily increase an established minimum capital level, when the
Director determines ``that such an increase is necessary and consistent
with the prudential regulation and the safe and sound operations of a
regulated entity.'' \8\ The section also provides that the Director
shall rescind the temporary minimum capital level when the Director
determines circumstances no longer justify the temporary level.\9\ To
implement section 1362(d), the Director must issue regulations setting
forth standards for the imposition of a temporary increase, standards
and procedures that will be used to make the determination regarding
rescission, and a time frame for periodic review of any temporary
increase in the minimum capital level to make a determination regarding
rescission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at (d)(1).
\9\ Id. at (d)(2).
\10\ Id. at (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1362(d) recognized the need for the Director to be able to
respond when necessary to conditions affecting a regulated entity by
imposing an appropriately higher capital requirement in an expeditious
manner. The proposed rule also sets forth procedures and standards as
required in the Safety and Soundness Act for a temporary increase in
the minimum capital levels of the Enterprises or the Banks, including a
determination to order an increase, to rescind all or part of the
increase, and the time for periodic review of an increase as provided
in section 1362(d).
E. Consideration of Differences Between the Banks and the Enterprises
Section 1201 of HERA (codified at 12 U.S.C. 4513(f)) requires the
Director, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to
consider the following differences between the Banks and the
Enterprises: Cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing
liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development
mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. The
Director also may consider any other differences that are deemed
appropriate. In preparing this final rule, FHFA considered the
differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the
above factors, and determined that the rule is appropriate.
In particular, FHFA has evaluated the relevance of the factors that
are part of the standard for determining that a change in the minimum
capital standard is appropriate, and added a factor that is unique to
the Banks: The ratio of a
[[Page 11670]]
Bank's market value of equity to the par value of its capital stock.
FHFA also considered the Banks' circumstances when crafting the
procedural elements of the rule, including the relevance of the Banks'
capital structure plans, and concluded that the statutory requirement
that the Banks operate under capital structure plans does not require
that a different rule be crafted specifically for them, although a
Bank's capital structure plan will undoubtedly be relevant to the steps
a Bank would take to meet a new, increased minimum capital level. As a
tool supportive of safety and soundness, the capital authority
conferred by the statute and implemented in this regulation will,
overall, be supportive of the Banks' unique structure and mission.
II. Final Rule
A. Comments
In the proposed rule, FHFA provided for notice of a temporary
increase in a regulated entity's minimum capital requirement; standards
for imposing a temporary increase in minimum capital; standards for
rescission of a temporary increase; timeframe for review of temporary
increase for the purpose of rescission; requirements for written plans
to augment capital; and promulgation of future guidance. FHFA received
a total of five comment letters on the proposed rule. Comments were
received from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (Boston Bank); the
Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas (Dallas Bank); the Federal Home Loan
Bank of San Francisco (San Francisco Bank); a joint letter from the
Federal Home Loan Banks of Atlanta, Chicago, Des Moines, Indianapolis,
Pittsburgh, Seattle and Topeka (Joint Bank Letter); and a letter from a
private citizen (consisting of a one sentence statement regarding
``limitations on seller financing'' that was not germane to the
rulemaking).
FHFA has considered all of the comments in developing the final
rule. FHFA accepted some of the commenters' recommendations and has
made changes in the final rule, although the basic approach adopted in
the proposed rule remains the same. The changes made in the final rule
improve upon the basic approach proposed by FHFA by clarifying certain
provisions and by improving the structure of the rule. Specific
comments, FHFA's responses, and changes adopted in the final rule are
described in greater detail below in the sections describing the
relevant rule provisions.
B. Final Rule Provisions
1. General Comment
Three Bank letters offered similar comments regarding the
application of section 1201 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of
2008 (HERA) requiring the Director to consider the differences between
the Banks and the Enterprises before promulgating regulations, or
taking formal or informal actions of general applicability relating to
the Banks. The commenters noted that the proposed rule does not
indicate whether the Director conducted the review required under
section 1201, and lacks a statement to that effect, which typically has
been included in most agency actions promulgated by FHFA.\11\ FHFA
agrees with the commenters that this rule is subject to HERA section
1201. As noted above, FHFA has reviewed the rule in the context of the
differences enumerated in section 1201 and has determined that it is
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Joint Bank Letter, section I., at 1-2; Boston Bank Letter,
section I., at 1; and Dallas Bank Letter, section I., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three Bank letters also suggest that FHFA should consider
separating the requirements for temporary increases for the Banks and
the Enterprises into separate rules. FHFA did not agree with the
commenters' suggestion, as the rule has been crafted taking into
account the differences between the regulated entities. As the rule is
structured, there is sufficient regulatory flexibility to evaluate and
respond to the unique circumstances that may impact one or more
regulated entities causing the Director to impose, or rescind, a
temporary increase. Separating the proposed rule into two rulemakings
would not enhance FHFA's ability to respond to unique or institution-
specific circumstances.
2. Section 1225.2--Definitions
FHFA has adopted the definitions as proposed. FHFA did not receive
any comments that addressed the proposed definitions.
3. Section 1225.3--Procedures
All of the Banks commented on proposed Sec. 1225.3, which sets
forth the requirements for notice of a temporary increase in the
minimum capital requirement. As a general matter, the Banks objected to
the length of the time period for the notice of a temporary increase in
the minimum capital requirement and the potential impact the provision
could have on existing timelines built into each Bank's capital plan.
The San Francisco Bank commented that ``these time periods for response
and compliance with respect to something so fundamentally critical to a
Bank as its capital level are unrealistically short in light of the
possible strategic financial management changes and other actions [a
Bank] may need to take in order to meet the increased requirement * * *
for purposes of the Final Rule, a notice period of at least 60 days,
with at least 30 days to respond, is more appropriate.'' \12\ The San
Francisco Bank also stated that the final rule should indicate that the
effective date of any required increase should take into account a
Bank's compliance with the terms of its capital plan, including
applicable notice requirements, and that the order should be subject to
a more formal procedure, including an opportunity for a hearing under
12 CFR Part 907.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ San Francisco Bank, section I., at 1.
\13\ San Francisco Bank, section I., at 1-2. See also Dallas
Bank, section II., at 3, stating that ``the final rule should
clarify whether the effective date for a temporary minimum capital
requirement refers to the date on which [a Bank] is required to
issue additional capital stock to its members or the date on which
the [Bank] must implement the steps under its capital plan that are
required to impose a change in the minimum stock requirement of that
[Bank's] members * * *. The Dallas Bank suggests that the notice
period in the final rule take into account that the [Banks] are
bound to operate in compliance with the terms of their capital plans
with respect to increases in their members' minimum stock purchase
requirement and that a temporary increase in the minimum stock
purchase requirement may require an amendment to [a Bank's] capital
plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered the comment and did not make the requested changes.
The statutory provision is designed to elicit an immediate response, if
necessary, by the subject institution to an unusual condition. A Bank
would be able to address capital-plan issues in its response to a
temporary capital increase notice; however, the terms of a capital plan
do not limit the Director's power under this statutory provision. A
hearing requirement would not be consistent with the need for rapid
action, and is not provided in other capital contexts, such as the
prompt corrective action (PCA) framework.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Sections 1361-1369(D) of the Safety and Soundness Act (12
U.S.C. 4611-4623).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the Banks suggested that the final rule cross-reference 12
CFR 1229.11 for requiring Banks to temporarily increase minimum
capital. The Joint Bank Letter states: ``In promulgating 12 CFR Part
1229, the FHFA recognized that the [Banks] are limited in their ability
to quickly raise additional capital because of the [Bank's] cooperative
capital stock structure and capital plans. In light of these
limitations, the FHFA requires
[[Page 11671]]
undercapitalized and significantly undercapitalized [Banks] to submit a
capital restoration plan * * *. We believe that it would be helpful to
apply the same capital restoration plan requirements to [a Bank] in the
event the FHFA temporarily increases the minimum capital requirement,
particularly given the close interaction of these two provisions of the
regulations.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Joint Bank Letter, section II., at 3. See also Boston Bank,
section II., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered the comments and determined that it would retain
the provision as proposed. FHFA determined that the differences between
the PCA regulation and the proposed rule reflect differences in the
respective statutory provisions. The PCA statute sets out defined time
periods for capital restoration plans; section 1362(d) does not, giving
the Director discretion regarding timing of increasing the minimum
capital requirement. The rule seeks to retain that flexibility.
However, in response to the commenters' more general objection that the
practicalities of capital-raising by Federal Home Loan Banks require a
longer time period than the notice and reply periods prescribed in the
rule, FHFA notes that the concept of those periods is not necessarily
that the regulated entity be able to come into compliance with the new
requirement within 30 days after notification by the Director, but
rather that the regulated entity have an opportunity to respond to the
agency on the appropriateness of the temporary increased capital level
within that period. Depending upon a particular Federal Home Loan
Bank's circumstances, there may be a period between the setting of the
new capital level and the regulated entity's compliance with it during
which the regulated entity would be undercapitalized and subject to the
statute's restrictions on activities by undercapitalized entities,
notably capital distributions. Similarly, if that same entity is also
determined to be undercapitalized under the PCA capital classification
process--which also proceeds on a 30-day notice (Safety and Soundness
Act section 1368(c))--it would be subject to those restrictions until
its capital restoration plan is approved and implemented. It is
appropriate that those restrictions apply to an entity whose capital
level is not adequate to the risks to which it is subject.
4. Section 1225.4(a)(1)--Current or Anticipated Declines in the Value
of Assets Held
The Dallas Bank commented that FHFA should clarify the ``nature and
magnitude of the decline in the value of assets that would warrant an
order to temporarily increase minimum capital levels.'' \16\ According
to the Dallas Bank, current or anticipated declines in asset values may
not accurately reflect the underlying economic value of the asset. The
Dallas Bank commented that a temporary increase in minimum capital in
``instances of temporary illiquidity or market volatility with respect
to a regulated entity's assets could prove to be harmful to the [Bank]
and to its membership given member sensitivity and concerns regarding
additional capital calls.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Dallas Bank, section III.A., at 3.
\17\ Id. See also San Francisco Bank, section II.A., at 2; and
Joint Bank Letter, section III.A., at 4. According to the Joint
Comment Letter, the current provision ``could be pro-cyclical and
lead to long-lasting declines in membership and business volume,
further weakening the affected [Bank]. The FHFA should consider
clarifying the nature and magnitude of the decline in the value of
assets that would warrant an order to temporarily increase minimum
capital levels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered the comment and did not make the requested change.
FHFA concluded that amending the provision in the suggested manner
would not be feasible, as the provision is meant to be applied on a
case-by-case basis. FHFA also notes that, with respect to instances
involving ``illiquid or volatile'' markets, concerns regarding
potential harm caused by a proposed capital increase could be addressed
by a regulated entity in its response to the notice of a temporary
increase in the minimum capital requirement.
The Boston Bank also commented that ``the concept of basing a
temporary increase in the minimum capital requirements of [a Bank] on
`anticipated' declines is hard for us to understand as it is generally
recognized that it is not possible to predict market movements and
future prices.'' \18\ The Boston Bank suggested that FHFA should limit
the standard to current ``decline[s] in the [market] value of assets
that would warrant an order to temporarily increase minimum capital
levels.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Boston Bank, section III.A., at 3.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered the comment and concluded that since capital often
acts as a lagging indicator, delaying action until a decline is
recognized may be inconsistent with the need for prompt action. The
proposed regulation would provide FHFA with an additional regulatory
tool to address potential problems that may arise as the result of
relying solely on a lagging indicator such as capital. Certain assets
on an entity's balance sheet are valued based on historical cost and
may not reflect all available information as to the assets' actual
values. Therefore, FHFA has not made the requested change.
Although FHFA did not adopt the proposed comments, it ultimately
determined that it was appropriate to remove the phrase ``the amounts
of a regulated entity's mortgage-backed securities'' to avoid singling
out any particular category of assets in the provision.
5. Section 1225.4(a)(2)--Credit (including Counterparty), Market,
Operational and Other Risks Facing a Regulated Entity
FHFA did not receive comments on this provision. However, the
phrase ``a depreciation in the value of its capital or assets, a
decline in liquidity, or'' was removed from the provision. FHFA
determined that the language was redundant, as declines in capital and
assets and concerns about liquidity are addressed in Sec. 1225.4(a)(1)
and Sec. 1225.4(a)(3), respectively.
6. Section 1225.4(a)(4)--Compliance With Regulations, Written Orders or
Agreement
The Boston Bank commented that the standard should apply only to
``material non-compliance with regulations, written orders or
agreements that negatively impact [a Bank's] financial health or that
are indicative of its potential risk of failure.'' The comment further
states that ``Without clarification, it would appear that any violation
of any regulation, order or agreement could permit the FHFA to order [a
Bank] to increase temporary minimum capital levels.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Boston Bank, section III.B., at 3. See also Dallas Bank,
section III.B., at 3-4; Joint Bank Letter, section III.B., at 4; and
San Francisco Bank, section II.B., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered the comment and agreed that the standard should
apply only to material non-compliance with a regulation, order, or
agreement. FHFA did not intend the provision to require a capital
increase in response to an immaterial infraction. FHFA did not agree
with the Boston Bank comment that the factor relate only to material
non-compliance with some regulations, orders or agreements, those
asserted to negatively impact financial health, because all material
violations could potentially have a negative impact on financial
health, if only because of the remediation that might be required.
[[Page 11672]]
7. Section 1225.4(a)(5)--Unsafe or Unsound Operations or Practices, or
Circumstances That Reflect Unsafe and Unsound Conduct by a Regulated
Entity
FHFA removed this provision from the final rule, as the remaining
standards address specific conditions and practices. As well, to the
extent that an unsafe or unsound condition is identified by the
Director, FHFA determined that Sec. 1225.4(a)(9), Other Conditions as
Detailed by the Director, would be a more appropriate vehicle for
responding to such a contingency.
8. Section 1225.4(a)(6)--Housing Finance Market Conditions
The San Francisco Bank suggested that the factor be deleted from
the final rule because it believes it to be vague and that ``the
relevance of this factor to a Regulated Entity's capital level is
unclear, except to the extent that housing finance market conditions
result in a decline in the value of housing-related assets held by the
[Banks].'' The comment also states that this matter is already covered
by Section 1225.4(a)(1).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ San Francisco Bank, section II.C., at 2-3. See also Joint
Bank Letter, section III.C., at 4; and Dallas Bank, section III.C.,
at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered the comment and decided to retain the provision as
proposed. Housing market conditions other than asset values, such as
market volatility and prepayment risk, may pose risks to a regulated
entity that could warrant holding additional capital.
9. Section 1225.4(a)(7)--Level of Reserves or Retained Earnings
The Dallas Bank commented that FHFA should focus on ``the aggregate
capital levels of the [Bank]'' as a more accurate gauge of a Bank's
financial health instead of focusing on specific types of capital.\22\
The San Francisco Bank suggested that the standard ``be expanded to
ensure that, in addition to considering reserves and retained earnings
in determining a Regulated Entity's financial health, the Finance
Agency is recognizing the Regulated Entity's demonstrated commitment
and actions toward building retained earnings, and also is taking into
consideration the aggregate capital levels of the Regulated Entity,
which provides a more accurate indication of a Regulated Entity's
health or risk of failure.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Dallas Bank, section III.D., at 4. See also San Francisco
Bank, section II.D., at 3.
\23\ San Francisco Bank, section II.D., at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA did not agree with the comment and will retain the provision
as proposed. Specific elements of capital can have independent
significance. For example, retained earnings are relevant to a Bank's
ability to maintain the par value of its capital stock, which is
important to the financial stability of a Federal Home Loan Bank and of
the System. Further, while this provision is a factor, among possible
others, that may be used by the Director to make a determination
regarding capital, it does not set a specific requirement. Finally,
with respect to recognition of a Bank's commitment to build retained
earnings, such activity would most appropriately be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and could be addressed in the Bank's response to a
notice of capital increase.
10. Section 1225.4(a)(8)--Initiatives, Operations, Products, or
Practices That Entail Heightened Risk
FHFA did not receive comment regarding this provision. The
provision will be adopted as proposed.
11. Section 1225.4(a)(9)--The Ratio of the Market Value of Equity to
the Par Value of Capital Stock
The Dallas Bank questioned the inclusion of the MVE/PVCS ratio in
the proposed rule, stating: ``In the final capital classification rule
issued just eight months ago, the FHFA indicated it would `continue to
weigh whether it would be appropriate to propose a separate target for
retained earnings and/or MVE/PVCS, either as a stand-alone regulation
or as part of any risk-based capital proposal. * * * We are unaware of
any subsequent FHFA rulemaking, guidance, analysis or pronouncements
concerning the utility and applicability of MVE/PVCS.'' \24\ The Dallas
Bank also noted that ``neither the [Banks], their member institutions
nor other stakeholders would be able to determine ahead of time with
any certainty--perhaps not until after a temporary order has been
issued--how the FHFA applies this factor on an ongoing basis.'' \25\
The Bank also requests that in the final rule, FHFA ``detail its
thinking, including the results of any studies or analysis it has
conducted, on how this factor should be defined and applied'' or ``use
the release of the final rule to provide clear definitions and
explanations of how this factor may be applied.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Dallas Bank, section III.E., at 4. See also Joint Bank
Letter III.D., at 4.
\25\ Dallas Bank, section III.E., at 4.
\26\ Id. See also Joint Bank Letter, section III.D., at 4
stating ``[w]ithout analytically supported guidance, it is difficult
to judge fully the appropriateness of using MVE/PVCS as a factor in
determining [a Bank's] minimum capital requirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Bank also expressed concern with the MVE/PVCS ratio for
two reasons: (i) ``The proposed rule does not define `[the] market
value of equity''' and (ii) ``the rule places no parameters or
standards for the FHFA to use in applying this ratio.'' \27\ The Joint
Comment Letter requested additional information in the final rule
regarding FHFA's ``thinking, including the results of any studies or
analysis it has conducted, on how this factor should be defined and
applied.'' \28\ The Joint Bank Letter also indicated that FHFA should
``define MVE (including during periods of severe market illiquidity)''
and indicate ``why it is appropriate to use the MVE/PVCS ratio to
determine whether a [Bank's] minimum capital should be increased.''
\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Dallas Bank, section III.E., at 5.
\28\ Joint Bank Letter, section III.D., at 5.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Bank Letter asked FHFA to address two specific questions:
(1) ``Is MVE for purposes of the temporary minimum capital
regulation defined as set forth in 12 CFR 932.5 * * * as the market
value of total capital (defined as Class A stock, general allowance for
losses, Class B stock and retained earnings) or otherwise?'' and
(2) ``Will MVE be defined in accordance with the liquidation value,
or the going-concern value, of the [Bank]?'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Bank Letter concludes with an expression of general
concern regarding the use of MVE/PVCS as a factor related to a
temporary increase in minimum capital without considering the existing
risk-based capital regime, and the letter urges FHFA to consider this
standard in a separate rulemaking.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Bank commented that FHFA should ``clarify the definition
of the market value of equity (MVE) by reference to 12 CFR 932.5.'' The
Bank also commented that it remained ``generally concerned with using
MVE/PVCS as a factor for imposing a temporary minimum capital increase
without consideration of the existing risk-based capital regulatory
framework that already takes this relationship into consideration to
some extent in establishing [a Bank's] risk-based capital
requirements.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Boston Bank, section III.C., at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Bank commented that using an MVE/PVCS ratio could
result in a ``double charging'' effect on a Bank. According to the San
Francisco Bank ``the existing risk-based regulation
[[Page 11673]]
already imposes an additional risk-based capital charge on any [Bank]
that has a market value of total capital less than 85% of the book
value of its total capital, so that using an MVE/PVCS ratio to impose
an additional increase in [a Bank's] minimum capital requirement would
have the effect of `double charging' that [Bank] on the basis of the
same criteria.'' \33\ The San Francisco Bank also stated that the
proposed rule does not define ``market value of equity.'' The letter
notes that ``If the Agency determines MVE with reference to liquidation
value, then we do not believe that such a measure provides a sound
basis for increasing [a Bank's] minimum capital level. * * * Instead,
we encourage the Finance Agency to develop an MVE model that reflects
certain going concern assumptions and makes MVE determinations in the
context of other factors, including market conditions.'' \34\ The San
Francisco Bank concluded with a recommendation to establish
``parameters or standards'' surrounding the use of the MVE/PVCS ratio.
According to the San Francisco Bank, ``[t]here's no indication * * * at
what level(s) the Director would consider it appropriate to increase [a
Bank's] minimum capital requirement based on this ratio.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ San Francisco Bank, section II.E., at 3.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA considered and did not adopt the Dallas Bank's comment to
provide additional detail regarding the application of the MVE/PVCS
ratio. FHFA concluded that the factor would be applied on a case-by-
case basis, considering the specific circumstances of a particular
Bank. In instances where a Bank has a low MVE/PVCS ratio, this rule
would serve as one reason, among many, for a Bank to address the issue.
FHFA also considered the questions posed by the Dallas Bank. FHFA
concluded that use of the MVE/PVCS ratio is an important element in
assessing the financial health of an institution. The use of the MVE/
PVCS ratio also provides a useful indicator of capital strength in
addition to capital ratios that are based on generally accepted
accounting principles. However, it is only one factor among a number
enumerated in the rule that the Director may consider in assessing
whether a Bank should hold more capital. That assessment is
sufficiently case-specific such that it is not feasible to provide
general rules or parameters around the use of any particular factor.
With respect to the comment offered in the Joint Bank Letter, FHFA
does intend that, for purposes of this factor, the Director would look
to market value of equity as calculated by a Bank using a method
approved by the agency under 12 CFR 932.5. The issue of going-concern
versus liquidation value, however, is an accounting issue that is not
applicable to the calculation of that ratio. However, MVE/PVCS ratio is
only one factor among a number enumerated in the rule that the Director
may consider in assessing whether a Bank should hold more capital. That
assessment is sufficiently case-specific that it is not feasible to
provide general rules or parameters around the use of any particular
factor. The Joint Bank Letter also asked for a separate rulemaking for
the provision. FHFA did not agree with the comment. FHFA believes that
a separate rulemaking to address the existing risk-based capital
regime, including the role of MVE in it, may be appropriate, but such a
rulemaking, unlike this rule, would not address the need to address
temporary or unusual circumstances.
FHFA also considered the comment offered by the Boston Bank
regarding its general concern regarding use of the MVE/PVCS ratio as a
factor for imposing an increase. FHFA notes that any decision to impose
a temporary increase in the minimum capital requirement would consider
the existing minimum capital requirements. The MVE would be used as one
factor in evaluating the financial condition of a Bank in the event
that a Bank's existing capital position is determined to be
insufficient.
Finally, FHFA considered the San Francisco Bank's comment regarding
establishment of standards and parameters for the provision. FHFA does
not agree that standards or parameters should be set around the use of
the MVE/PVCS ratio. It is not necessary or appropriate to determine in
advance the significance of a shortfall of this ratio in consideration
of the other factors identified in this rule. FHFA did not adopt the
Bank's recommendation.
12. Section 1225.4(a)(10)--Other Conditions as Detailed by the Director
The Joint Bank Letter suggested that FHFA provide guidance on
``what other conditions might be relevant in determining whether to
impose temporary increases in minimum capital levels * * * and provide
the [Banks] a chance to comment on any new proposed standards.'' \36\
FHFA considered the comment and retained the provision as proposed. The
purpose of the provision is to address factors that are unforeseeable
under current circumstances but that turn out to be relevant at a later
date. FHFA has determined that a provision that allows the agency to
respond to unforeseen circumstances without substantial delay is
prudent, reasonable, and necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Joint Bank Letter, section III.E., at 6. See also Dallas
Bank, section III.F., at 5; and San Francisco Bank, section II.F.,
at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Section 1225.4(a)(11)--Written Plan To Augment Capital
The Joint Bank Letter noted that the requirement to submit a
written plan to augment capital is a procedural requirement and not a
standard or factor. The Joint Bank Letter suggested that the
requirement be moved to a different section of the rule.\37\ FHFA
agreed with the comment and the final rule incorporates the provision
in Sec. 1225.3, regarding procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Joint Bank Letter, section III.F., at 6. See also Boston
Bank, section III.D., at 4; and Dallas Bank, section III.G., at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Section 1225.4--Standards and Factors
The San Francisco Bank commented that standards regarding
rescission of an increase are not addressed. The letter recommends
reducing uncertainty in the area by ``addressing in the Proposed Rule
such critical issues as the size of a fluctuation that would weigh
significantly in favor of the issuance or rescission of a temporary
order.'' \38\ FHFA considered the comment and revised the section to
add clarity to the standards regarding rescission of an increase. In
addition, although FHFA did not receive specific comment regarding
proposed Sec. 1225.4(c), FHFA determined that the provision clearly
addresses a procedural as opposed to substantive matter. FHFA has
redesignated the provision as Sec. 1225.3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ San Francisco Bank, section II.E., at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Section 1225.4(d)--Promulgation of Future Guidance
Three Banks expressed concern regarding proposed Sec. 1255.4(d)
detailing the Director's authority to issue guidance regarding the
regulation.\39\ Two Banks suggested that FHFA remove Sec. 1225.4(d)
from the regulation based on concerns regarding application of the
Administrative Procedure Act.\40\ In the alternative, the three Bank
commenters suggested that ``to the extent that guidance expands or adds
substantive detail to the existing regulation, it
[[Page 11674]]
would be better for the guidance to be issued as a formal rulemaking
and subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,
with advance notice and an opportunity to comment by the [Banks] and
their members.'' \41\ FHFA considered the comment, but included the
proposed provision in the final rule. FHFA will review each issue as it
arises and take appropriate action, including notice and comment
rulemaking, and promulgation of guidance with or without comment,
depending on the nature of the issue. FHFA has also redesignated this
provision as new Sec. 1225.5 of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Joint Bank Letter, section IV., at 6; San Francisco Bank,
section III., at 4; and Dallas Bank, section IV., at 6.
\40\ Dallas Bank, section IV., at 6-7; and Joint Bank Letter,
section IV., at 7.
\41\ See e.g., San Francisco Bank, section III., at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sections 932.2 and Sec. 932.3
FHFA is also amending the Banks' capital regulations to remove
Sec. 932.2(b) and Sec. 932.3(b) which allowed the regulator to raise
the Banks' capital requirements for reasons of safety and soundness.
These specific regulations were adopted pursuant to the Finance Board's
general safety and soundness authority under old section 2A(a)(3)(A) of
the Bank Act, a section which was removed by HERA. Final Rule: Capital
Requirements for the Federal Home Loan Banks, 66 FR 8262, 8282-83
(January 30, 2001). Given that FHFA is adopting new part 1225 of its
regulations and the fact that the Safety and Soundness Act as amended
by HERA provides specific authority under which the Director may raise
the Banks' minimum capital requirements, FHFA no longer views Sec.
932.2(b) and Sec. 932.3(b) as controlling and is removing these
provisions.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule does not contain any collections of information
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to the Office
of Management and Budget for Review.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The final rule applies only to the Banks and the Enterprises, which
do not come within the meaning of small entities as defined in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5. U.S.C. 650(b), FHFA certifies
that this final rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 932
Credit, Federal Home Loan Banks, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
12 CFR Part 1225
Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Capital, Filings, Minimum
capital, Procedures, Standards.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Supplementary
Information, under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4526 and 4612, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency amends Chapters IX and XII of Title 12
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Chapter IX--Federal Housing Finance Board
PART 932--FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 932 to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1426, 1440, 1443, 1446, 4513, 4526.
0
2. Revise Sec. 932.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 932.2 Total capital requirement.
Each Bank shall maintain at all times:
(a) Total capital in an amount at least equal to 4.0 percent of the
Bank's total assets; and
(b) A leverage ratio of total capital to total assets of at least
5.0 percent of the Bank's total assets. For purposes of determining the
leverage ratio, total capital shall be computed by multiplying the
Bank's permanent capital by 1.5 and adding to this product all other
components of total capital.
0
3. Revise Sec. 932.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 932.3 Risk-based capital requirement.
Each Bank shall maintain at all times permanent capital in an
amount at least equal to the sum of its credit risk capital
requirement, its market risk capital requirement, and its operations
risk capital requirement, calculated in accordance with Sec. Sec.
932.4, 932.5 and 932.6, respectively.
Chapter XII--Federal Housing Finance Agency
Subchapter B--Entity Regulations
0
4. Add part 1225 to subchapter B to read as follows:
PART 1225--MINIMUM CAPITAL--TEMPORARY INCREASE
Sec.
1225.1 Purpose.
1225.2 Definitions.
1225.3 Procedures.
1225.4 Standards and factors.
1225.5 Guidances.
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4526 and 4612.
Sec. 1225.1 Purpose.
FHFA is responsible for ensuring the safe and sound operation of
regulated entities. In furtherance of that responsibility, this part
sets forth standards and procedures FHFA will employ to determine
whether to require or rescind a temporary increase in the minimum
capital levels for a regulated entity or entities pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
4612(d).
Sec. 1225.2 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the term:
Enterprise means the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and the term Enterprises means,
collectively, the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
Minimum capital level means the lowest amount of capital meeting
any regulation or orders issued pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1426(a)(2) and 12
U.S.C. 4612, or any similar requirement established for a Federal Home
Loan Bank by regulation, order or other action.
Regulated entity means--
(1) The Federal National Mortgage Association and any affiliate
thereof;
(2) The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and any affiliate
thereof; and
(3) Any Federal Home Loan Bank.
Rescission means a removal in whole or in part of an increase in
the temporary minimum capital level.
Sec. 1225.3 Procedures.
(a) Information--(1) Information to the regulated entity or
entities. If the Director determines, based on standards enunciated in
this part, that a temporary increase in the minimum capital level is
necessary, the Director will provide notice to the affected regulated
entity or entities 30 days in advance of the date that the temporary
minimum capital requirement becomes effective, unless the Director
determines that an exigency exists that does not permit such notice or
the Director determines a longer time period would be appropriate.
(2) Information to the Government. The Director shall inform the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
of a temporary increase in the minimum capital level contemporaneously
with informing the affected regulated entity or entities.
(b) Comments. The affected regulated entity or entities may provide
comments
[[Page 11675]]
regarding or objections to the temporary increase to FHFA within 15
days or such other period as the Director determines appropriate under
the circumstances. The Director may determine to modify, delay, or
rescind the announced temporary increase in response to such comments
or objection, but no further notice is required for the temporary
increase to become effective upon the date originally determined by the
Director.
(c) Communication. The Director shall transmit notice of a
temporary increase or rescission of a temporary increase in the minimum
capital level in writing, using electronic or such other means as
appropriate. Such communication shall set forth, at a minimum, the
bases for the Director's determination, the amount of increase or
decrease in the minimum capital level, the anticipated duration of such
increase, and a description of the procedures for requesting a
rescission of the temporary increase in the minimum capital level.
(d) Written plan. In making a finding under this part, the Director
may require a written plan to augment capital to be submitted on a
timely basis to address the methods by which such temporary increase
may be attained and the time period for reaching the new temporary
minimum capital level.
(e) Time frame for review of temporary increase for purpose of
rescission.--(1) Absent an earlier determination to rescind in whole or
in part a temporary increase in the minimum capital level for a
regulated entity or entities, the Director shall no less than every 12
months, consider the need to maintain, modify, or rescind such
increase.
(2) A regulated entity or regulated entities may at any time
request in writing such review by the Director.
Sec. 1225.4 Standards and factors.
(a) Standard for imposing a temporary increase. In making a
determination to increase temporarily a minimum capital requirement for
a regulated entity or entities, the Director will consider the
necessity and consistency of such an increase with the prudential
regulation and the safe and sound operations of a regulated entity. The
Director may impose a temporary minimum-capital increase if
consideration of one or more of the following factors leads the
Director to the judgment that the current minimum capital requirement
for a regulated entity is insufficient to address the entity's risks:
(1) Current or anticipated declines in the value of assets held by
a regulated entity; the amounts of mortgage-backed securities issued or
guaranteed by the regulated entity; and, its ability to access
liquidity and funding;
(2) Credit (including counterparty), market, operational and other
risks facing a regulated entity, especially where an increase in risks
is foreseeable and consequential;
(3) Current or projected declines in the capital held by a
regulated entity;
(4) A regulated entity's material non-compliance with regulations,
written orders, or agreements;
(5) Housing finance market conditions;
(6) Level of reserves or retained earnings;
(7) Initiatives, operations, products, or practices that entail
heightened risk;
(8) With respect to a Bank, the ratio of the market value of its
equity to par value of its capital stock where the market value of
equity is the value calculated and reported by the Bank as ``market
value of total capital'' under 12 CFR 932.5(a)(1)(ii)(A); or
(9) Other conditions as detailed by the Director in the notice
provided under Sec. 1225.3.
(b) Standard for rescission of a temporary increase. In making a
determination to rescind a temporary increase in the minimum capital
level for a regulated entity or entities, whether in full or in part,
the Director will consider the consistency of such a rescission with
the prudential regulation and safe and sound operations of a regulated
entity. The Director will rescind, in full or in part, a temporary
minimum capital increase if consideration of one or more of the
following factors leads the Director to the judgment that rescission of
a temporary minimum-capital increase for a regulated entity is
appropriate considering the entity's risks:
(1) Changes to the circumstances or facts that led to the
imposition of a temporary increase in the minimum capital levels;
(2) The meeting of targets set for a regulated entity in advance of
any capital or capital-related plan agreed to by the Director;
(3) Changed circumstances or facts based on new developments
occurring since the imposition of the temporary increase in the minimum
capital level, particularly where the original problems or concerns
have been successfully addressed or alleviated in whole or in part; or
(4) Such other standard as the Director may consider as detailed by
the Director in the notice provided under Sec. 1225.3.
Sec. 1225.5 Guidances.
The Director may determine, from time to time, issue guidance to
elaborate, to refine or to provide new information regarding standards
or procedures contained herein.
Dated: February 22, 2011.
Edward J. DeMarco,
Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-4413 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P