Suspended Counterparty Program, 47077-47084 [2023-14723]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
A consumer inquiry or complaint
regarding a valuation would generally
occur after the financial institution has
conducted its initial appraisal or
evaluation review and resolved any
issues identified. Given this timing, a
consumer may provide specific and
verifiable information that may not have
been available or considered when the
initial valuation and review were
performed. Regardless of how the
request for an ROV is initiated, a request
could be resolved through a financial
institution’s independent valuation
review or other processes to ensure
credible appraisals and evaluations.
An ROV request may include
consideration of comparable properties
not previously identified, property
characteristics, or other information
about the property that may have been
incorrectly reported or not previously
considered, which may affect the value
conclusion. To resolve deficiencies,
including those related to potential
discrimination, financial institutions
can communicate relevant information
to the original preparer of the valuation
and, when appropriate, request an ROV.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Complaint Resolution Process
Financial institutions can capture
consumer feedback regarding potential
valuation deficiencies through existing
complaint resolution processes. The
complaint resolution process may
capture complaints and inquiries about
the financial institution’s products and
services offered across all lines of
business, including those offered by
third parties, as well as complaints from
various channels (such as letters, phone
calls, in person, transmittal from
regulators, third-party valuation service
providers, emails, and social media).
Depending on the nature and volume,
appraisal and other valuation-based
complaints and inquiries can be an
important indicator of potential risks
and risk management weaknesses.
Appropriate policies, procedures, and
control systems can adequately address
the monitoring, escalating, and
resolving of complaints including a
determination of the merits of the
appraiser or person who prepared the evaluation.
An institution should implement adequate internal
controls to ensure that such communications do not
result in any coercion or undue influence on the
appraiser or person who performed the evaluation.
Addressing significant deficiencies in the appraisal
that could not be resolved with the original
appraiser by obtaining a second appraisal or relying
on a review that complies with Standards Rule 3
of USPAP and is performed by an appropriately
qualified and competent State certified or licensed
appraiser prior to the final credit decision.
Replacing evaluations prior to the credit decision
that do not provide credible results or lack
sufficient information to support the final credit
decision.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:20 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
complaint and whether a financial
institution should initiate an ROV.
Examples of Policies, Procedures, and
Control Systems
Financial institutions may consider
developing risk-based ROV-related
policies, procedures, control systems,
and complaint processes that identify,
address, and mitigate the risk of
deficient valuations, including
valuations that involve prohibited
discrimination, and that:
• Consider ROVs as a possible
resolution for consumer complaints
related to residential property
valuations.
• Consider whether any information
or other process requirements related to
a consumer’s request for a financial
institution to initiate an ROV create
unreasonable barriers or discourage
consumers from requesting an ROV.
• Establish a process that provides for
the identification, management,
analysis, escalation, and resolution of
valuation related complaints across all
relevant lines of business, from various
channels and sources (such as letters,
phone calls, in person, regulators, thirdparty service providers, emails, and
social media).
• Establish a process to inform
consumers how to raise concerns about
the valuation sufficiently early enough
in the underwriting process for any
errors or issues to be resolved before a
final credit decision is made. This may
include suggesting to consumers the
type of information they may provide
when communicating with the financial
institution about potential valuation
deficiencies.
• Identify stakeholders and clearly
outline each business unit’s roles and
responsibilities for processing an ROV
request (e.g., loan origination,
processing, underwriting, collateral
valuation, compliance, customer
experience or complaints).
• Establish risk-based ROV systems
that route the request to the appropriate
business unit (e.g., ROV requests that
allege discrimination could be routed to
the appropriate compliance, legal, and
appraisal review staff that have the
requisite skills and authority to research
and resolve the request).
• Establish standardized processes to
increase the consistency of
consideration of requests for ROVs:
Æ Use clear, plain language in notices
to consumers of how they may request
the ROV;
Æ Use clear, plain language in ROV
policies that provide a consistent
process for the consumer, appraiser, and
internal stakeholders;
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47077
Æ Establish guidelines for the
information the financial institution
may need to initiate the ROV process;
Æ Establish timelines in the
complaint or ROV process for when
milestones need to be achieved;
Æ Establish guidelines for when a
second appraisal could be ordered and
who assumes the cost; and
Æ Establish protocols for
communicating the status of the
complaint or ROV and results to
consumers.
• Ensure relevant lending and
valuation related staff, inclusive of third
parties (e.g., appraisal management
companies, fee-appraisers, mortgage
brokers, and mortgage servicers) are
trained to identify deficiencies
(inclusive of prohibited discriminatory
practices) through the valuation review
process.
VI. CFPB Signing Authority
The Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, Rohit
Chopra, having reviewed and approved
this document, is delegating the
authority to electronically sign this
document to Laura Galban, CFPB
Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of
publication in the Federal Register.
Michael J. Hsu,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.
By order of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
Dated at Washington, DC, on June 1, 2023.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union
Administration.
Laura Galban,
Federal Register Liaison, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023–12609 Filed 7–20–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P;
7535–01–P; 4810–AM–P
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1227
RIN 2590–AB23
Suspended Counterparty Program
Federal Housing Finance
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) is proposing to amend
the existing Suspended Counterparty
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
47078
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Program (SCP) regulation. FHFA
proposes to expand the categories of
covered misconduct on which a
suspension could be based to include
sanctions arising from certain forms of
civil enforcement. The proposed rule
would also eliminate the requirement
that any final suspension order be
preceded by a proposed suspension
order, but only when the suspension is
based on an administrative sanction.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments on the proposed rule,
identified by regulatory information
number (RIN) 2590–AB23, by any one of
the following methods:
• Agency Website: www.fhfa.gov/
open-for-comment-or-input.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. If
you submit your comment to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also
send it by email to FHFA at
RegComments@fhfa.gov to ensure
timely receipt by FHFA. Include the
following information in the subject line
of your submission: Comments/RIN
2590–AB23.
• Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand
delivery address is: Clinton Jones,
General Counsel, Attention: Comments/
RIN 2590–AB23, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street
SW, Washington, DC 20219. Deliver the
package at the Seventh Street entrance
Guard Desk, First Floor, on business
days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
• U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service,
Federal Express, or Other Mail Service:
The mailing address for comments is:
Clinton Jones, General Counsel,
Attention: Comments/RIN 2590–AB23,
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400
Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC
20219. Please note that all mail sent to
FHFA via U.S. Mail is routed through a
national irradiation facility, a process
that may delay delivery by
approximately two weeks. For any timesensitive correspondence, please plan
accordingly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marshall Adam Pecsek, Assistant
General Counsel, at (202) 649–3380 (not
a toll-free number), marshall.pecsek@
fhfa.gov. For TTY/TRS users with
hearing and speech disabilities, dial 711
and ask to be connected to any of the
contact numbers above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The SCP requires a regulated entity—
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and any affiliate thereof,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
the Federal National Mortgage
Association and any affiliate thereof
(individually, an Enterprise and
together, the Enterprises), and any
Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank)—to
submit a report to FHFA if it becomes
aware that an individual or institution
with which it does business has been
found within the past three years to
have committed certain forms of
misconduct. FHFA may issue proposed
and final suspension orders based on
the reports it has received from the
regulated entities or based on other
information. FHFA offers the affected
individual or institution and the
regulated entities an opportunity to
respond to any proposed suspension
order. FHFA may issue a final
suspension order if FHFA determines
that the underlying misconduct is of a
type that would be likely to cause
significant financial or reputational
harm to a regulated entity. Final
suspension orders direct the regulated
entities to cease or refrain from doing
business with the suspended
counterparties, subject to terms as
provided in the orders.
The reporting that is required under
the SCP is authorized by sections 1313
and 1314 of the Federal Housing
Enterprises Financial Safety and
Soundness Act of 1992, as amended
(Safety and Soundness Act). Section
1314(a) of the Safety and Soundness Act
authorizes FHFA to require the
regulated entities to submit regular
reports on their activities and
operations, as the Director considers
appropriate. See 12 U.S.C. 4514(a).
The orders issued under the SCP fall
within FHFA’s general supervisory
authority over the regulated entities,
and specifically its authority under
sections 1313, 1313B, and 1319G of the
Safety and Soundness Act. Section
1313B of the Safety and Soundness Act
authorizes FHFA to establish standards,
by regulation or guideline, for each
regulated entity regarding prudential
management of risks. See 12 U.S.C.
4513b. The Director may also require by
order that the regulated entities take any
action that will best carry out the
purposes of that section. See 12 U.S.C.
4513(b)(2)(B)(iii). Section 1319G(a) of
the Safety and Soundness Act
authorizes FHFA to issue any
regulations, guidelines, or orders
necessary to ensure that the purposes of
the Safety and Soundness Act and the
Enterprise charter acts are
accomplished. See 12 U.S.C. 4526(a).
Finally, section 1313(a)(2) of the Safety
and Soundness Act authorizes FHFA to
exercise such incidental powers as may
be necessary in the supervision and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulation of each regulated entity. See
12 U.S.C. 4513(a)(2).
FHFA established the SCP in June
2012 by letter to the regulated entities.
The requirements and procedures for
the SCP were generally codified at 12
CFR part 1227 by the interim final rule
published on October 23, 2013. 78 FR
63007. FHFA amended the SCP
regulation via final rule published on
December 23, 2015. 80 FR 79675.
II. Analysis of Proposed Rule
A. Civil Enforcement
The SCP regulation authorizes
suspension only if the applicable
counterparty has committed covered
misconduct, as that term is defined at 12
CFR 1227.2.1 ‘‘Covered misconduct’’ is
defined to include ‘‘administrative
sanctions’’ and ‘‘convictions,’’ each of
which is also defined at 12 CFR 1227.2.2
The definition of ‘‘conviction’’ is
limited solely to judgments of guilt of
criminal offense, or certain other
dispositions that are the functional
equivalent of such judgments. The
standards reflected in these definitions
have allowed FHFA to significantly
reduce the risks to which the regulated
entities are exposed, by prohibiting
them from doing business with
counterparties that have committed
various offenses, including but not
limited to mortgage fraud. However, in
FHFA’s experience of administering the
SCP, it has determined that this
standard is too narrow; specifically, it
does not authorize suspension of
counterparties that have been found to
have committed various forms of
1 ‘‘Covered misconduct’’ is defined, in relevant
part, to mean ‘‘[a]ny conviction or administrative
sanction within the past three (3) years if the basis
of such action involved fraud, embezzlement, theft,
conversion, forgery, bribery, perjury, making false
statements or claims, tax evasion, obstruction of
justice, or any similar offense, in each case in
connection with a mortgage, mortgage business,
mortgage securities or other lending product.’’ 12
CFR 1227.2 (definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’).
2 ‘‘Administrative sanction’’ is defined to mean
‘‘debarment or suspension imposed by any Federal
agency, or any similar administrative action that
has the effect of limiting the ability of a person to
do business with a Federal agency, including
Limited Denials of Participation, Temporary
Denials of Participation, or settlements of proposed
administrative sanctions if the terms of the
settlement restrict the person’s ability to do
business with the Federal agency in question.’’ Id.
(definition of ‘‘administrative sanction’’).
‘‘Conviction’’ is defined as follows: ‘‘(1) [a]
judgment or any other determination of guilt of a
criminal offense by any court of competent
jurisdiction, whether entered upon a verdict or
plea; or (2) [a]ny other resolution that is the
functional equivalent of a judgment of guilt of a
criminal offense, including probation before
judgment and deferred prosecution. A disposition
without the participation of the court is the
functional equivalent of a judgment only if it
includes an admission of guilt.’’ Id. (definition of
‘‘conviction’’).
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
misconduct in the context of civil
enforcement actions. Counterparties
determined to have committed certain
forms of misconduct in the context of
civil enforcement actions may pose a
significant risk to the regulated entities,
even though their conduct might not
rise to the level of criminal sanction, or
might rise to this level, but the relevant
criminal enforcement authority has
declined to prosecute or has yet to
prosecute.
To address this limitation in the SCP
regulation, the proposed rule would
amend the definition of ‘‘conviction’’ at
§ 1227.2 to include an order or judgment
by a Federal or state agency or court in
a civil matter to which a Federal or state
agency or government, or private citizen
asserting claims on behalf of the
government, is a party, constituting or
including a finding that the person
committed one of the offenses
enumerated in the definition of
‘‘covered misconduct’’—e.g., fraud,
embezzlement, etc. FHFA intends the
expansion of the SCP suspension
authority to cover civil enforcement
actions to be applied broadly, to all
manner of civil enforcement
proceedings, including civil
enforcement actions before a court in
the relevant judicial branch—e.g., a
court organized under Article III of the
United States Constitution in the
Federal system or state equivalent—
those before an administrative body
convened by the issuing agency (e.g.,
agency enforcement action presided
over by an administrative law judge), as
well as actions properly undertaken by
a private citizen on behalf of the Federal
or a state government (e.g., qui tam
actions under the False Claims Act).
In addition, the proposed
amendments would also include
findings that a counterparty knowingly
committed a material breach of contract.
Certain, although possibly not all, of the
enumerated offenses in the definition of
‘‘covered misconduct’’ have analogs in a
non-criminal context (e.g., fraud);
hence, the proposed amendment to the
definition of ‘‘conviction’’ would simply
incorporate, via reference, those
enumerated offences. However, a
counterparty’s breach of contract, which
generally would not be criminally
actionable, may pose a significant risk to
the regulated entities, particularly
knowing, material breaches. These two
qualifiers—‘‘knowing’’ and ‘‘material,’’
which generally relate to intent and
significance, respectively—are
appropriate insofar as FHFA’s authority
should be limited to those types of
breaches that are likely to evince a risk
of significant financial or reputation
harm to the regulated entities, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
otherwise threaten their safe and sound
operation. Selection of this standard is
prompted by the authority provided at
42 U.S.C. 1437z–1, under which the
United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) may
impose monetary penalties under the
Section 8 program for certain knowing,
material contractual violations,
including the failure under a Section 8
contract ‘‘to provide decent, safe, and
sanitary housing.’’ 42 U.S.C. 1437z–
1(b)(2)(A). However, the proposed rule
would not merely authorize FHFA to
suspend business where the
counterparty has been found by HUD or,
pursuant to judicial review of HUD final
agency action, a federal court, to have
knowingly committed a material breach
under a Section 8 contract, but any
finding by relevant authority in the
context of civil enforcement actions
where a counterparty has been found to
have committed such a breach under
any contract. Given the otherwise
applicable restrictions under the SCP—
most notably the requirement that
covered misconduct occur in
connection with a mortgage, mortgage
business, etc. or in connection with the
management or ownership of real
property (a proposed revision separately
addressed in section II.C.1 below)—the
risk of any such breach to the regulated
entities is apparent and it would be
appropriate to authorize suspension in
event of such a breach, not only those
for which penalties are authorized
under 42 U.S.C. 1437z–1.
This amendment would also include
resolutions that are the equivalent of the
above-referenced judgments or orders—
e.g., consent orders—regardless of
whether the resolution includes an
admission of misconduct by the subject
counterparty. The current SCP
regulation authorizes suspension where
the covered misconduct is the
disposition of a criminal offense that is
the functional equivalent of a judgment
of guilt (e.g., deferred prosecution
agreement). However, it also provides
that ‘‘[a] disposition without the
participation of the court is the
functional equivalent of a judgment
only if it includes an admission of
guilt.’’ 12 CFR 1227.2 (par. (2) of
definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’).
The proposed rule would not establish
such a restriction with respect to civil
enforcement. In FHFA’s experience,
admissions of misconduct in the context
of civil enforcement are uncommon.
Imposing such a restriction on
suspensions based on settled civil
enforcement actions would significantly
hinder the SCP’s purpose. FHFA is not
proposing to eliminate the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47079
corresponding restriction in the context
of criminal enforcement, because FHFA
does not wish the SCP to have chilling
effect on such dispositions. However, in
the civil context, where the stakes for
the applicable counterparties may be
lower and where the costs of any such
chilling effects would therefore be more
limited, FHFA has determined that it is
appropriate to permit suspension where
enforcement claims are resolved
without admission of misconduct.
Accordingly, for the aforementioned
reasons, the proposed rule would
amend the definition of ‘‘conviction’’ in
§ 1227.2 to include an order or judgment
by a Federal or state agency or court in
a civil matter to which a Federal or state
agency or government, or private citizen
asserting claims on behalf of the
government, is a party, constituting or
including a finding that the respondent
committed one of the offenses
enumerated in the definition of
‘‘covered misconduct’’ or knowingly
committed a material breach of contract,
or any other resolution that is the
functional equivalent of such a
judgment or order, such as a consent
order, regardless of whether it includes
any admission of misconduct.
B. Administrative Sanctions
1. Immediate Suspension Orders
The SCP regulation establishes a
series of procedures governing the
issuance of a final order of suspension.
FHFA must first issue a proposed order
of suspension and provide the relevant
counterparty and each regulated entity
an opportunity to respond. Only then
does the regulation authorize issuance
of a final suspension order, and any
such suspension order may not be
effective sooner than 45 days after
signature by the suspending official.
Although these procedures are
appropriate under most circumstances,
ensuring that affected counterparties
and the regulated entities are given the
opportunity to provide FHFA with
relevant information prior to issuance of
a final suspension order, and that the
regulated entities are provided adequate
time to cease transactions with the
relevant counterparties, there are
circumstances under which these
procedures excessively constrain FHFA.
Specifically, FHFA has determined
that these procedures should be
modified where the covered misconduct
is an administrative sanction, which is
defined to mean ‘‘debarment or
suspension imposed by any Federal
agency, or any similar administrative
action that has the effect of limiting the
ability of a person to do business with
a Federal agency, including Limited
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
47080
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Denials of Participation, Temporary
Denials of Participation, or settlements
of proposed administrative sanctions if
the terms of the settlement restrict the
person’s ability to do business with the
Federal agency in question.’’ 12 CFR
1227.2 (definition of ‘‘administrative
sanction’’). Accordingly, where the
covered misconduct is an administrative
sanction, the proposed rule would add
new § 1227.11 allowing FHFA to issue
a suspension order—designated as an
‘‘immediate suspension order’’—that is
effective as early as the date signed by
the suspending official and without first
issuing a proposed suspension order.
Because FHFA does not conduct
independent fact-finding investigations
or adjudications in response to
discovery of covered misconduct, it
must defer to the judgment of thirdparty authorities (e.g., a criminal court).
A proposed suspension order provides
an important opportunity for subject
counterparties and regulated entities to
provide information that FHFA might
find relevant in determining whether to
issue a final suspension order, including
but not limited to information that the
subject counterparty believes would
undermine one or more of the factual
determinations on which the order is
based. FHFA believes, however, that
where another Federal agency has
concluded that a counterparty’s right to
do business with the government should
be limited, particular deference to that
conclusion is warranted. In addition,
whereas a conviction represents a
judgment by a court of competent
jurisdiction that a counterparty has
engaged in certain forms of
misconduct—or the functional
equivalent of such a judgment—an
administrative sanction reflects a
specific determination by a Federal
agency that the subject counterparty’s
right to do business with the Federal
government should be limited or
prohibited. Given FHFA’s obligation to
protect the safe and sound operation of
the regulated entities and the authority
under the SCP to restrict the entities’
rights to conduct business with third
parties, such determinations by Federal
agencies are of unique significance.
Accordingly, FHFA has determined that
where the covered misconduct is based
on an administrative sanction, it should
be authorized to restrict the relevant
counterparty’s business with the
regulated entities without excessive
delay.
This amendment would, of course,
not preclude FHFA from adhering to the
current procedures and issuing a
proposed suspension order where an
immediate suspension order is
authorized, but would merely provide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
the Agency with additional flexibility to
timely respond to the discovery of
covered misconduct as appropriate.
Similarly, the amendments would not
require that immediate suspension
orders be effective upon signature by the
suspending official. FHFA expects that
there would be circumstances under
which such an effective date would be
unduly disruptive to the regulated
entities, who may require additional
time to wind down business with the
relevant counterparties. The proposed
amendment would simply permit FHFA
to issue an immediate suspension order
that is effective upon signature by the
suspending official where necessary and
appropriate to protect the safe and
sound operation of the regulated
entities, without the burden of the 45day requirement, but would also permit
issuance of an immediate suspension
order effective at some future date
specified in the order. In addition,
subject counterparties and the regulated
entities would have the opportunity to
provide a response for FHFA’s
consideration. However, whereas this
response period precedes the effective
date of a final suspension order under
the current procedures, the proposed
rule would allow for issuance of an
immediate suspension order with an
effective date preceding the deadline by
which a response must be provided. The
procedures governing issuance of an
immediate suspension order, including
but not limited to those governing the
content of the order and notice, are
described in more detail in section II C
below.
Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180,
subpart G provides agencies with the
authority, pursuant to implementing
regulations promulgated by those
agencies, to issue immediately effective
orders of suspension without advance
notice or an opportunity for hearing,
pending resolution of a related
proceeding (e.g., debarment
proceeding). This suspension is
generally meant to be temporary,
pending outcome of the related
proceeding, although it may be
superseded by a more permanent
sanction (e.g., debarment). See 2 CFR
180.760.
Due to the comparatively limited
procedural protections afforded to
counterparties subject to such
suspensions, FHFA has determined that
it would be appropriate to vacate
suspension orders based on an
administrative sanction imposed
without prior notice and opportunity to
present an opposition, once those orders
are no longer in effect. The proposed
rule would allow for a request to vacate,
which FHFA would grant upon a
finding that these conditions have been
satisfied. The rule would require that
the request be initiated by the subject
counterparty and include such
information as is necessary for FHFA to
determine that the conditions are
satisfied. The procedures governing
vacation of such suspension orders are
described in more detail in the sectionby-section passage immediately below.
2. Request To Vacate
The proposed rule would add new
§ 1227.12, establishing procedures
allowing for the vacation of a final
suspension order where the
administrative sanction was imposed
under authority that does not guarantee
advance notice or an opportunity to
present an opposition before the
sanction is imposed. As noted above,
FHFA does not conduct investigations
or adjudicate facts regarding subject
counterparties’ conduct. Rather, FHFA
relies on findings made by other
authorities. Accordingly, FHFA’s
suspension authority is generally
limited to judgments by authorities
issued with certain procedural
protections in place—e.g., notice and
hearing opportunity in criminal
proceedings. Under certain
circumstances, however, a Federal
agency may issue an administrative
sanction without such protections.
Specifically, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to
Agencies on Government-wide
1. § 1227.2 Definitions
As discussed above in section II.A,
the proposed rule would amend the
definition of ‘‘conviction’’ to include an
order or judgment by a Federal or state
agency or court in a civil matter to
which a Federal or state agency or
government, or private citizen asserting
claims on behalf of the government, is
a party, constituting or including a
finding that the respondent committed
one of the offenses enumerated in the
definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ or
knowingly committed a material breach
of contract, or any other resolution that
is the functional equivalent of such a
judgment or order, such as a consent
order, regardless of whether it includes
any admission of misconduct.
In addition, the proposed rule would
amend the definition of ‘‘covered
misconduct’’ to include misconduct in
connection with the management or
ownership of real property. Real
property management is a significant
function performed by certain regulated
entity counterparties, particularly
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Section-by-Section Analysis
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
participants in Enterprise multifamily
loan transactions. Misconduct in
connection with real property
management or ownership—e.g.,
submission of fraudulent reports in
connection with real property
management service contracts, failure to
maintain safe housing in accordance
with assisted housing contracts, etc.—
demonstrates a potential risk to the
regulated entities, even in the absence of
a close nexus between the misconduct
and financing (e.g., mortgage origination
fraud).
Accordingly, the proposed rule would
amend paragraph (1) of the definition of
‘‘covered misconduct’’ to read ‘‘[a]ny
conviction or administrative sanction
within the past three (3) years if the
basis of such action involved fraud,
embezzlement, theft, conversion,
forgery, bribery, perjury, making false
statements or claims, tax evasion,
obstruction of justice, or any similar
offense, in each case in connection with
a mortgage, mortgage business, mortgage
securities or other lending product, or in
connection with the management or
ownership of real property.’’
2. § 1227.11 Immediate Suspension
Order
For the reasons provided above in
section II B, the proposed rule would
establish a new § 1227.11 governing the
issuance of immediate suspension
orders. Paragraph (a) would establish
the grounds under which such an order
could be issued; specifically, such an
order would be issued where the subject
counterparty committed covered
misconduct, the basis of which is an
administrative sanction, and where the
covered misconduct is of a type that
would be likely to cause significant
financial or reputational harm to a
regulated entity or otherwise threaten
the safe and sound operation of a
regulated entity. This second
requirement mirrors the corresponding
standard, found in §§ 1227.5(b)(2) and
1227.6(a)(2), authorizing issuance of
proposed and final suspension orders,
respectively.
Paragraph (b) would establish the
factors that FHFA may consider when
determining whether to issue an
immediate suspension order. It
incorporates, by reference, the factors
that FHFA may consider when
determining whether to issue a final
suspension order enumerated at
§ 1227.6(c).
Paragraph (c) would establish
procedures governing issuance of an
immediate suspension order, which
generally correspond to those currently
governing issuance of proposed and
final suspension orders. It would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
provide that, where the suspending
official makes a determination to
suspend a person under § 1227.11, the
suspending official must issue an
immediate suspension order to each
regulated entity, mirroring similar
requirements provided with respect to
final suspension orders at § 1227.6(f)(1).
It would establish requirements for the
content of the required order,
incorporating by reference the content
requirements for a final suspension
order at § 1227.6(f)(2); however, whereas
a final suspension order must include a
discussion of any relevant information
submitted by the respondent or
regulated entities, because an immediate
suspension order is not preceded by a
notice of proposed suspension that
would provide the respondent or
regulated entities with the opportunity
to provide such information prior to
issuance, reference to this information
would be omitted in § 1227.11(c).
Paragraph (c) would also require that
FHFA provide each respondent and
regulated entity with a notice of the
immediate suspension order and
establish requirements for the content of
the notice, incorporating by reference
analogous requirements governing
issuance of proposed suspension orders
at § 1227.5(d) and (e). These elements
include, but are not limited to,
information instructing the subject
counterparty on how to provide a
response.
Paragraph (d) would provide that the
effective date of the immediate
suspension order be included in the
order, as is the case with respect to final
suspension orders. However, whereas
final suspension orders may be effective
no sooner than 45 days after signature
by the suspending official, immediate
suspension orders may be effective
immediately upon signature.
Paragraph (e) would establish
requirements for the written record and
would provide for FHFA’s evaluation of
information provided by respondents
and regulated entities following
issuance of an immediate suspension
order. The proposed rule would require
that the written record include any
material submitted by the respondent
and any material submitted by the
regulated entities, as well as any other
material that was considered by the
suspending official in making the
determination, including any
information related to the factors in
paragraph (b) of this section. It would
specify that FHFA may independently
obtain information relevant to the
suspension determination for inclusion
in the written record.
As discussed above in section II.B, in
contrast to a proposed suspension order,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47081
which is issued in anticipation of the
issuance of a final suspension order and
which will not be effective until after
the deadline for response has passed, an
immediate suspension order may be
effective before such a deadline, and is
not issued in anticipation of a
subsequent order. Nevertheless, FHFA
welcomes input from respondent and
regulated entities in response to an
immediate suspension order.
Accordingly, paragraph (e) would
provide that FHFA will consider any
material submitted by the respondent
and regulated entities by the deadline
provided in the notice and document its
determination whether or not to vacate
or modify the terms of the immediate
suspension order. The rule would
provide that if FHFA elects to vacate or
modify the terms of an immediate
suspension order, notice will be
provided to the respondent and
regulated entities, and a modified order,
as applicable, will replace the
immediate suspension order on FHFA’s
website. However, if FHFA declines to
vacate or modify the terms of the
immediate suspension order, no notice
of this determination would be
provided, and the immediate
suspension order would persist until it
is later modified or vacated, or expires
per the terms of the order.
Finally, paragraph (f) would specify,
as is noted above, that an immediate
suspension order has the full force and
effect of a final suspension order. FHFA
acknowledges that the addition of a new
category of order might create confusion
among certain members of the public,
but expects that this can be addressed
through the text of the immediate
suspension order itself and
accompanying notice—e.g., in contrast
to a notice of proposed suspension,
which by historical practice notes that
the referenced proposed order is only
proposed and will not go into effect
unless finalized, a notice of immediate
suspension would read that the
referenced order will go into effect on
the identified effective date.
Nevertheless, to more explicitly clarify
what might otherwise be unclear,
paragraph (f) distinguishes immediate
from proposed suspension orders,
providing that the former has the full
force and effect of a final suspension
order.
3. § 1227.12 Request To Vacate
The proposed rule would add new
§ 1227.12 to provide respondents
subject to an immediate suspension
order with the opportunity to request
that FHFA vacate the order under
certain circumstances. Paragraph (a)
would provide the general grounds that
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
47082
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
must be satisfied in order for FHFA to
grant the request. These include that: (i)
the covered misconduct on which the
suspension order was based does not
include a conviction; (ii) each
administrative sanction on which the
order was based was imposed pursuant
to authority that does not guarantee
prior notice and a prior opportunity to
present an opposition; and (iii) each
administrative sanction on which the
order was based is no longer in effect.
Paragraph (b) would establish
requirements for the content of a request
to vacate. A request must include: (i) a
copy of the final order of suspension for
which the request to vacate applies; (ii)
documentation from the agency
imposing the administrative sanction
citing the authority under which the
sanction was imposed; (iii)
documentation from the agency
imposing the administrative sanction
demonstrating that the sanction is no
longer in effect; and (iv) all existing,
proposed, or prior exclusions under
regulations implementing Executive
Order 12549 and all similar actions
taken by Federal, state, or local
agencies, including administrative
agreements that affect only those
agencies. This information would allow
FHFA to determine whether the
preconditions that would be established
in paragraph (a) are satisfied.
Paragraph (c) would establish
requirements for FHFA’s review of the
request and any response. It would
provide that FHFA must approve a
request to vacate if it has been presented
with evidence sufficient to demonstrate
that the preconditions in paragraph (a)
have been satisfied, unless FHFA
discovers covered misconduct that has
not formed the basis for a previously
issued order of suspension, provided
that the covered misconduct is of a type
that would be likely to cause significant
financial or reputational harm to a
regulated entity or otherwise threaten
the safe and sound operation of a
regulated entity. Discovery of this
additional covered misconduct may
justify denial of the request, and any
denial of a request to vacate would be
regarded as final agency action and
would not be appealable to the Director.
Under these circumstances—i.e., where
the administrative sanction initially
justifying the suspension is no longer in
effect but where continuation of the
suspension is justified by discovery of
additional covered misconduct—the
public suspension order would not
reflect all of the grounds on which the
suspension’s continuation is based.
FHFA regards this as a negligible
concern, however. By necessity, the
immediate suspension order would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
have satisfied the appropriate regulatory
requirements upon issuance, and both
the respondent and regulated entities
would have had an opportunity to
respond to the order. In addition, the
proposed rule would require that FHFA
timely notify the respondent of its
decision and that a denial of the
vacation request specify the reasons for
the denial, which would include
identification of the additional covered
misconduct.
Paragraph (d) would specify that a
request to vacate under § 1227.12 is
distinct from a request for
reconsideration under § 1227.9. A
respondent may, for example, submit a
request to vacate an immediate
suspension order concurrently with a
request for consideration, in which case
FHFA would evaluate each
independently. If FHFA were to
determine that the request to vacate
should be granted, then the request for
reconsideration would be rendered
moot. If, however, FHFA were to
determine that the request to vacate
should be denied, because the necessary
preconditions have not been satisfied, it
may still grant a request for
reconsideration based on the standard
provided in § 1227.9(c). The time
constraints governing requests for
reconsideration would not apply to
requests to vacate.
4. Miscellaneous Provisions
The proposed rule would amend
§ 1227.6(a) to specify that a final
suspension order may be issued only if
preceded by a proposed suspension
order, pursuant to the requirements of
§ 1227.5. Although this is implicitly
apparent under the current regulation, it
would be appropriate, in light of the
proposed addition of immediate
suspension order authority, to explicitly
provide the circumstances under which
a final suspension order may be issued.
Finally, the proposed rule would make
a series of conforming revisions
throughout part 1227 to include a
reference to immediate suspension
orders, where the SCP regulation
currently only references final
suspension orders—e.g., the
requirement, found at § 1227.8(a), that
FHFA publish final suspension orders
on its website. These amended
provisions are: §§ 1227.1(c); 1227.2
(definitions of ‘‘respondent,’’
‘‘suspending official’’ and
‘‘suspension’’); 1227.3(a); and 1227.8
section heading, paragraphs (a) and
(b)(3).
D. Solicitation of Comments
FHFA solicits comments on every
aspect of this proposed rule. However,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FHFA solicits input in particular with
respect to the following questions:
1. Should the scope of misconduct
included in the definition of ‘‘covered
misconduct’’ be expanded beyond what
is being proposed? If so, what additional
forms of misconduct should be
included?
2. Should the illustrative list of forms
of misconduct—e.g., fraud,
embezzlement, etc.—provided in the
definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ be
otherwise changed? If so, what should
be added or removed?
3. Should the regulation be amended
to allow for suspension based on
specific additional sanctions imposed
by other Federal agencies, including but
not limited to sanctions that restrict a
counterparty’s rights to participate in
federally insured mortgage programs—
e.g., the Federal Housing
Administration’s revocation of a
mortgagee’s right to participate in
mortgage insurance programs under
Title I or Title II of the National Housing
Act—regardless of whether the
underlying misconduct was related to
fraud, embezzlement, etc.?
4. Should FHFA be authorized to
issue immediate suspension orders only
with a prospective effective date (e.g.,
ten days after signature by the
suspending official)? If so, how long
after signature by the suspending
official?
III. Consideration of Differences
Between the Banks and the Enterprises
Section 1313(f) of the Safety and
Soundness Act requires FHFA, when
promulgating regulations relating to the
Banks, to consider the differences
between the Enterprises and the Banks
with respect to the Banks’: cooperative
ownership structure; mission of
providing liquidity to members;
affordable housing and community
development mission; capital structure;
joint and several liability; and any other
differences FHFA considers appropriate.
See 12 U.S.C. 4513(f). In preparing this
proposed rule, FHFA considered the
differences between the Banks and the
Enterprises as they relate to the above
factors and determined that the Banks
should not be treated differently from
the Enterprises for purposes of the
proposed rule.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not contain
any information collection requirement
that requires the approval of OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not
submitted any information to OMB for
review.
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a
regulation that has a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, small
businesses, or small organizations must
include an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis describing the regulation’s
impact on small entities. FHFA need not
undertake such an analysis if the agency
has certified that the regulation will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities (5
U.S.C. 605(b)). FHFA has considered the
impact of the proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. FHFA
certifies that the proposed rule, if
adopted as a final rule, would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because the proposed rule is applicable
only to the regulated entities, which are
not small entities for purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1227
Administrative practice and
procedure, Federal home loan banks,
Government-sponsored enterprises,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
the Preamble, FHFA proposes to amend
part 1227 of chapter XII of title 12 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
§ 1227.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Conviction * * *
(3) An order or judgment by a Federal
or state agency or court in a civil matter
to which a Federal or state agency or
government, or private citizen asserting
claims on behalf of the government, is
a party, constituting or including a
finding that the respondent committed
one of the offenses enumerated in the
definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ or
knowingly committed a material breach
of contract, or any other resolution that
is the functional equivalent of such a
judgment or order, such as a consent
order, regardless of whether it includes
any admission of misconduct.
Covered misconduct * * *
(1) Any conviction or administrative
sanction within the past three (3) years
if the basis of such action involved
fraud, embezzlement, theft, conversion,
forgery, bribery, perjury, making false
statements or claims, tax evasion,
obstruction of justice, or any similar
offense, in each case in connection with
a mortgage, mortgage business, mortgage
securities or other lending product, or in
connection with the management or
ownership of real property.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1227.3
[Amended]
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4513b, 4514,
4526.
3. Amend § 1227.3(a) by removing the
word ‘‘a’’ after the word ‘‘issue’’ and
adding, in its place, the words ‘‘an
immediate or’’.
■ 4. Amend § 1227.6(a) by adding a new
first sentence in the introductory text to
read as follows:
§ 1227.1
§ 1227.6
■
PART 1227—SUSPENDED
COUNTERPARTY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 1227
continues to read as follows:
■
[Amended]
2. Amend § 1227.1(c) by adding the
words ‘‘or immediate’’ after ‘‘Request for
an exception to a final’’.
■ 3. Amend § 1227.2 as follows:
■ a. In the definition of ‘‘Conviction’’:
■ i. In paragraph (1), by removing the
word ‘‘or’’ after the ‘‘;’’;
■ ii. In paragraph (2), by removing the
‘‘.’’ and adding the word ‘‘; or’’ after the
words ‘‘admission of guilt’’; and
■ iii. by adding paragraph (3).
■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Covered
misconduct’’ by revising paragraph (1).
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Respondent’’
by adding ‘‘, immediate,’’ after the
words ‘‘subject of a proposed’’;
■ d. In the definition of ‘‘Suspending
official’’ by adding ‘‘, immediate’’ after
the words ‘‘sign proposed’’;
■ e. In the definition of ‘‘Suspension’’
by removing the word ‘‘a’’ after the term
‘‘pursuant to’’ and adding in its place
the words ‘‘an immediate or’’.
■
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
The addition and revision read as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
Final suspension order.
(a) Grounds for issuance. A final
suspension order may be issued only if
preceded by a proposed suspension
order, pursuant to the requirements of
§ 1227.5. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1227.8
[Amended]
5. Amend § 1227.8 by:
a. Adding the words ‘‘and immediate’’
after the word ‘‘final’’ in the section
heading and paragraph (a);
■ b. Adding the words ‘‘or immediate’’
after the word ‘‘final’’ in paragraph
(b)(3).
■ 6. Add § 1227.11 to read as follows:
■
■
§ 1227.11
Immediate suspension order.
(a) Grounds for issuance. A
suspending official may issue an
immediate suspension order with
respect to a person if, based solely on
the written record, the suspending
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47083
official determines that there is
adequate evidence that:
(1) The person engaged in covered
misconduct, the basis for which is an
administrative sanction; and
(2) The covered misconduct is of a
type that would be likely to cause
significant financial or reputational
harm to a regulated entity or otherwise
threaten the safe and sound operation of
a regulated entity.
(b) Factors that may be considered by
the suspending official. In determining
whether or not to issue an immediate
suspension order with respect to a
person where the grounds for
suspension are satisfied, the suspending
official may also consider any factors
that the suspending official determines
may be relevant in light of the
circumstances of the particular case,
including but not limited to any of the
applicable factors enumerated in
§ 1227.6(c).
(c) Issuance of an immediate
suspension order—(1) General. If the
suspending official makes a
determination to suspend a person
under this section, the suspending
official shall issue an immediate
suspension order to each regulated
entity regarding the respondent.
(2) Content of immediate suspension
order. The immediate suspension order
must include a statement of the
suspension determination and
supporting grounds and each of the
elements described in § 1227.6(f)(2)(ii)
through (iv).
(3) Notice to respondent required. The
suspending official shall provide
prompt written notice to the respondent
of the immediate suspension order
issued to the regulated entities with
respect to such respondent. It must be
delivered pursuant to the requirements
provided in § 1227.5(e).
(4) Content of notice. The notice of an
immediate suspension order shall
include the elements prescribed for
notice of a proposed suspension order
established in § 1227.5(d), except that
wherever the term ‘‘proposed’’ appears
in § 1227.5(d), it shall be construed to
mean ‘‘immediate.’’
(d) Effective date. An immediate
suspension order shall take effect on the
date specified in the order, which may
be as early as the date that the order is
signed.
(e) Written record and post-issuance
evaluation. The written record shall
include any material submitted by the
respondent and any material submitted
by the regulated entities, as well as any
other material that was considered by
the suspending official in making the
determination, including any
information related to the factors in
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
47084
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
paragraph (b) of this section. FHFA may
independently obtain information
relevant to the suspension
determination for inclusion in the
written record. FHFA will consider any
material submitted by the respondent
and regulated entities by the deadline
provided in the notice and document its
determination whether or not to vacate
or modify the terms of the immediate
suspension order. If FHFA elects to
vacate or modify the terms of an
immediate suspension order, notice will
be provided to the respondent and
regulated entities, and a modified order,
as applicable, will replace the
immediate suspension order on FHFA’s
website. If FHFA declines to vacate or
modify the terms of the immediate
suspension order, no notice of this
determination will be provided, and the
immediate suspension order will persist
until it is later modified or vacated, or
expires per the terms of the order.
(f) Relationship to final suspension
order. An immediate suspension order
has the same force and effect of a final
suspension order, subject to the terms
and conditions presented in the order.
■ 7. Add § 1227.12 to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 1227.12
Request to vacate.
(a) Grounds. A respondent subject to
an immediate suspension order may
petition FHFA for a request to vacate the
order if each of the following conditions
is met:
(1) The covered misconduct on which
the order was based does not include a
conviction;
(2) Each administrative sanction on
which the order was based was imposed
pursuant to authority that does not
guarantee prior notice and a prior
opportunity to present an opposition;
and
(3) Each administrative sanction on
which the order was based is no longer
in effect.
(b) Content of request. A request to
vacate a final suspension order that
satisfies each of the conditions provided
in this paragraph (b) does not preclude
FHFA from requesting additional
information from the respondent. The
request must include:
(1) A copy of the final order of
suspension for which the request to
vacate applies;
(2) Documentation from the agency
imposing the administrative sanction
citing the authority under which the
sanction was imposed;
(3) Documentation from the agency
imposing the administrative sanction
demonstrating that the sanction is no
longer in effect; and
(4) All existing, proposed, or prior
exclusions under regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:29 Jul 20, 2023
Jkt 259001
implementing Executive Order 12549
and all similar actions taken by Federal,
state, or local agencies, including
administrative agreements that affect
only those agencies.
(c) Decision and response. FHFA will
vacate the final order of suspension if it
has been presented with documentation
demonstrating that each of the
conditions in paragraph (a) of this
section has been satisfied, unless FHFA
is aware of any other covered
misconduct that has not formed the
basis for a previously issued order of
suspension, which may justify denying
the request to vacate if the covered
misconduct is of a type that would be
likely to cause significant financial or
reputational harm to a regulated entity
or otherwise threaten the safe and sound
operation of a regulated entity. FHFA
will notify the respondent of its
decision in a timely manner. If FHFA
denies the request, its response will
specify the reasons for the denial. Any
such rejection shall not be appealable to
the Director and shall constitute final
agency action.
(d) Relationship to requests for
reconsideration. A request to vacate a
final suspension order issued under this
section is distinct from a request for
reconsideration issued under § 1227.9.
AGENCY:
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by September 5,
2023.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA–2023–
1503; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, any
comments received, and other
information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information identified
in this NPRM, contact Epic Aircraft,
LLC, 22590 Nelson Road, Bend, OR
97701; phone: (541) 639–4603; email:
info@epicaircraft.com; website:
epicaircraft.com.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO
64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call (817) 222–5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Caldejon, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712;
phone: (206) 231–3534; email:
Anthony.V.Caldejon@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Epic Aircraft, LLC Model E1000
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by improperly rigged flap
position switches. This proposed AD
would require installing a secondary
full position limit switch to the flap
system, installing a switch ramp on the
flap actuator, and modifying the take-off
position switch rigging. The FAA is
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2023–1503; Project Identifier AD–
2023–00197–A’’ at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
Sandra L. Thompson,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023–14723 Filed 7–20–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2023–1503; Project
Identifier AD–2023–00197–A]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Epic Aircraft,
LLC Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47077-47084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1227
RIN 2590-AB23
Suspended Counterparty Program
AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to
amend the existing Suspended Counterparty
[[Page 47078]]
Program (SCP) regulation. FHFA proposes to expand the categories of
covered misconduct on which a suspension could be based to include
sanctions arising from certain forms of civil enforcement. The proposed
rule would also eliminate the requirement that any final suspension
order be preceded by a proposed suspension order, but only when the
suspension is based on an administrative sanction.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments on the proposed rule,
identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AB23, by any one
of the following methods:
Agency Website: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your
comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email
to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by FHFA.
Include the following information in the subject line of your
submission: Comments/RIN 2590-AB23.
Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand delivery address is:
Clinton Jones, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AB23,
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC
20219. Deliver the package at the Seventh Street entrance Guard Desk,
First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or
Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Clinton Jones,
General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AB23, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. Please
note that all mail sent to FHFA via U.S. Mail is routed through a
national irradiation facility, a process that may delay delivery by
approximately two weeks. For any time-sensitive correspondence, please
plan accordingly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marshall Adam Pecsek, Assistant
General Counsel, at (202) 649-3380 (not a toll-free number),
[email protected]. For TTY/TRS users with hearing and speech
disabilities, dial 711 and ask to be connected to any of the contact
numbers above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The SCP requires a regulated entity--the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and any affiliate thereof, the Federal National Mortgage
Association and any affiliate thereof (individually, an Enterprise and
together, the Enterprises), and any Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank)--to
submit a report to FHFA if it becomes aware that an individual or
institution with which it does business has been found within the past
three years to have committed certain forms of misconduct. FHFA may
issue proposed and final suspension orders based on the reports it has
received from the regulated entities or based on other information.
FHFA offers the affected individual or institution and the regulated
entities an opportunity to respond to any proposed suspension order.
FHFA may issue a final suspension order if FHFA determines that the
underlying misconduct is of a type that would be likely to cause
significant financial or reputational harm to a regulated entity. Final
suspension orders direct the regulated entities to cease or refrain
from doing business with the suspended counterparties, subject to terms
as provided in the orders.
The reporting that is required under the SCP is authorized by
sections 1313 and 1314 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended (Safety and Soundness
Act). Section 1314(a) of the Safety and Soundness Act authorizes FHFA
to require the regulated entities to submit regular reports on their
activities and operations, as the Director considers appropriate. See
12 U.S.C. 4514(a).
The orders issued under the SCP fall within FHFA's general
supervisory authority over the regulated entities, and specifically its
authority under sections 1313, 1313B, and 1319G of the Safety and
Soundness Act. Section 1313B of the Safety and Soundness Act authorizes
FHFA to establish standards, by regulation or guideline, for each
regulated entity regarding prudential management of risks. See 12
U.S.C. 4513b. The Director may also require by order that the regulated
entities take any action that will best carry out the purposes of that
section. See 12 U.S.C. 4513(b)(2)(B)(iii). Section 1319G(a) of the
Safety and Soundness Act authorizes FHFA to issue any regulations,
guidelines, or orders necessary to ensure that the purposes of the
Safety and Soundness Act and the Enterprise charter acts are
accomplished. See 12 U.S.C. 4526(a). Finally, section 1313(a)(2) of the
Safety and Soundness Act authorizes FHFA to exercise such incidental
powers as may be necessary in the supervision and regulation of each
regulated entity. See 12 U.S.C. 4513(a)(2).
FHFA established the SCP in June 2012 by letter to the regulated
entities. The requirements and procedures for the SCP were generally
codified at 12 CFR part 1227 by the interim final rule published on
October 23, 2013. 78 FR 63007. FHFA amended the SCP regulation via
final rule published on December 23, 2015. 80 FR 79675.
II. Analysis of Proposed Rule
A. Civil Enforcement
The SCP regulation authorizes suspension only if the applicable
counterparty has committed covered misconduct, as that term is defined
at 12 CFR 1227.2.\1\ ``Covered misconduct'' is defined to include
``administrative sanctions'' and ``convictions,'' each of which is also
defined at 12 CFR 1227.2.\2\ The definition of ``conviction'' is
limited solely to judgments of guilt of criminal offense, or certain
other dispositions that are the functional equivalent of such
judgments. The standards reflected in these definitions have allowed
FHFA to significantly reduce the risks to which the regulated entities
are exposed, by prohibiting them from doing business with
counterparties that have committed various offenses, including but not
limited to mortgage fraud. However, in FHFA's experience of
administering the SCP, it has determined that this standard is too
narrow; specifically, it does not authorize suspension of
counterparties that have been found to have committed various forms of
[[Page 47079]]
misconduct in the context of civil enforcement actions. Counterparties
determined to have committed certain forms of misconduct in the context
of civil enforcement actions may pose a significant risk to the
regulated entities, even though their conduct might not rise to the
level of criminal sanction, or might rise to this level, but the
relevant criminal enforcement authority has declined to prosecute or
has yet to prosecute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Covered misconduct'' is defined, in relevant part, to mean
``[a]ny conviction or administrative sanction within the past three
(3) years if the basis of such action involved fraud, embezzlement,
theft, conversion, forgery, bribery, perjury, making false
statements or claims, tax evasion, obstruction of justice, or any
similar offense, in each case in connection with a mortgage,
mortgage business, mortgage securities or other lending product.''
12 CFR 1227.2 (definition of ``covered misconduct'').
\2\ ``Administrative sanction'' is defined to mean ``debarment
or suspension imposed by any Federal agency, or any similar
administrative action that has the effect of limiting the ability of
a person to do business with a Federal agency, including Limited
Denials of Participation, Temporary Denials of Participation, or
settlements of proposed administrative sanctions if the terms of the
settlement restrict the person's ability to do business with the
Federal agency in question.'' Id. (definition of ``administrative
sanction''). ``Conviction'' is defined as follows: ``(1) [a]
judgment or any other determination of guilt of a criminal offense
by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered upon a
verdict or plea; or (2) [a]ny other resolution that is the
functional equivalent of a judgment of guilt of a criminal offense,
including probation before judgment and deferred prosecution. A
disposition without the participation of the court is the functional
equivalent of a judgment only if it includes an admission of
guilt.'' Id. (definition of ``conviction'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this limitation in the SCP regulation, the proposed rule
would amend the definition of ``conviction'' at Sec. 1227.2 to include
an order or judgment by a Federal or state agency or court in a civil
matter to which a Federal or state agency or government, or private
citizen asserting claims on behalf of the government, is a party,
constituting or including a finding that the person committed one of
the offenses enumerated in the definition of ``covered misconduct''--
e.g., fraud, embezzlement, etc. FHFA intends the expansion of the SCP
suspension authority to cover civil enforcement actions to be applied
broadly, to all manner of civil enforcement proceedings, including
civil enforcement actions before a court in the relevant judicial
branch--e.g., a court organized under Article III of the United States
Constitution in the Federal system or state equivalent--those before an
administrative body convened by the issuing agency (e.g., agency
enforcement action presided over by an administrative law judge), as
well as actions properly undertaken by a private citizen on behalf of
the Federal or a state government (e.g., qui tam actions under the
False Claims Act).
In addition, the proposed amendments would also include findings
that a counterparty knowingly committed a material breach of contract.
Certain, although possibly not all, of the enumerated offenses in the
definition of ``covered misconduct'' have analogs in a non-criminal
context (e.g., fraud); hence, the proposed amendment to the definition
of ``conviction'' would simply incorporate, via reference, those
enumerated offences. However, a counterparty's breach of contract,
which generally would not be criminally actionable, may pose a
significant risk to the regulated entities, particularly knowing,
material breaches. These two qualifiers--``knowing'' and ``material,''
which generally relate to intent and significance, respectively--are
appropriate insofar as FHFA's authority should be limited to those
types of breaches that are likely to evince a risk of significant
financial or reputation harm to the regulated entities, or otherwise
threaten their safe and sound operation. Selection of this standard is
prompted by the authority provided at 42 U.S.C. 1437z-1, under which
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may
impose monetary penalties under the Section 8 program for certain
knowing, material contractual violations, including the failure under a
Section 8 contract ``to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing.''
42 U.S.C. 1437z-1(b)(2)(A). However, the proposed rule would not merely
authorize FHFA to suspend business where the counterparty has been
found by HUD or, pursuant to judicial review of HUD final agency
action, a federal court, to have knowingly committed a material breach
under a Section 8 contract, but any finding by relevant authority in
the context of civil enforcement actions where a counterparty has been
found to have committed such a breach under any contract. Given the
otherwise applicable restrictions under the SCP--most notably the
requirement that covered misconduct occur in connection with a
mortgage, mortgage business, etc. or in connection with the management
or ownership of real property (a proposed revision separately addressed
in section II.C.1 below)--the risk of any such breach to the regulated
entities is apparent and it would be appropriate to authorize
suspension in event of such a breach, not only those for which
penalties are authorized under 42 U.S.C. 1437z-1.
This amendment would also include resolutions that are the
equivalent of the above-referenced judgments or orders--e.g., consent
orders--regardless of whether the resolution includes an admission of
misconduct by the subject counterparty. The current SCP regulation
authorizes suspension where the covered misconduct is the disposition
of a criminal offense that is the functional equivalent of a judgment
of guilt (e.g., deferred prosecution agreement). However, it also
provides that ``[a] disposition without the participation of the court
is the functional equivalent of a judgment only if it includes an
admission of guilt.'' 12 CFR 1227.2 (par. (2) of definition of
``covered misconduct''). The proposed rule would not establish such a
restriction with respect to civil enforcement. In FHFA's experience,
admissions of misconduct in the context of civil enforcement are
uncommon. Imposing such a restriction on suspensions based on settled
civil enforcement actions would significantly hinder the SCP's purpose.
FHFA is not proposing to eliminate the corresponding restriction in the
context of criminal enforcement, because FHFA does not wish the SCP to
have chilling effect on such dispositions. However, in the civil
context, where the stakes for the applicable counterparties may be
lower and where the costs of any such chilling effects would therefore
be more limited, FHFA has determined that it is appropriate to permit
suspension where enforcement claims are resolved without admission of
misconduct.
Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, the proposed rule
would amend the definition of ``conviction'' in Sec. 1227.2 to include
an order or judgment by a Federal or state agency or court in a civil
matter to which a Federal or state agency or government, or private
citizen asserting claims on behalf of the government, is a party,
constituting or including a finding that the respondent committed one
of the offenses enumerated in the definition of ``covered misconduct''
or knowingly committed a material breach of contract, or any other
resolution that is the functional equivalent of such a judgment or
order, such as a consent order, regardless of whether it includes any
admission of misconduct.
B. Administrative Sanctions
1. Immediate Suspension Orders
The SCP regulation establishes a series of procedures governing the
issuance of a final order of suspension. FHFA must first issue a
proposed order of suspension and provide the relevant counterparty and
each regulated entity an opportunity to respond. Only then does the
regulation authorize issuance of a final suspension order, and any such
suspension order may not be effective sooner than 45 days after
signature by the suspending official. Although these procedures are
appropriate under most circumstances, ensuring that affected
counterparties and the regulated entities are given the opportunity to
provide FHFA with relevant information prior to issuance of a final
suspension order, and that the regulated entities are provided adequate
time to cease transactions with the relevant counterparties, there are
circumstances under which these procedures excessively constrain FHFA.
Specifically, FHFA has determined that these procedures should be
modified where the covered misconduct is an administrative sanction,
which is defined to mean ``debarment or suspension imposed by any
Federal agency, or any similar administrative action that has the
effect of limiting the ability of a person to do business with a
Federal agency, including Limited
[[Page 47080]]
Denials of Participation, Temporary Denials of Participation, or
settlements of proposed administrative sanctions if the terms of the
settlement restrict the person's ability to do business with the
Federal agency in question.'' 12 CFR 1227.2 (definition of
``administrative sanction''). Accordingly, where the covered misconduct
is an administrative sanction, the proposed rule would add new Sec.
1227.11 allowing FHFA to issue a suspension order--designated as an
``immediate suspension order''--that is effective as early as the date
signed by the suspending official and without first issuing a proposed
suspension order.
Because FHFA does not conduct independent fact-finding
investigations or adjudications in response to discovery of covered
misconduct, it must defer to the judgment of third-party authorities
(e.g., a criminal court). A proposed suspension order provides an
important opportunity for subject counterparties and regulated entities
to provide information that FHFA might find relevant in determining
whether to issue a final suspension order, including but not limited to
information that the subject counterparty believes would undermine one
or more of the factual determinations on which the order is based. FHFA
believes, however, that where another Federal agency has concluded that
a counterparty's right to do business with the government should be
limited, particular deference to that conclusion is warranted. In
addition, whereas a conviction represents a judgment by a court of
competent jurisdiction that a counterparty has engaged in certain forms
of misconduct--or the functional equivalent of such a judgment--an
administrative sanction reflects a specific determination by a Federal
agency that the subject counterparty's right to do business with the
Federal government should be limited or prohibited. Given FHFA's
obligation to protect the safe and sound operation of the regulated
entities and the authority under the SCP to restrict the entities'
rights to conduct business with third parties, such determinations by
Federal agencies are of unique significance. Accordingly, FHFA has
determined that where the covered misconduct is based on an
administrative sanction, it should be authorized to restrict the
relevant counterparty's business with the regulated entities without
excessive delay.
This amendment would, of course, not preclude FHFA from adhering to
the current procedures and issuing a proposed suspension order where an
immediate suspension order is authorized, but would merely provide the
Agency with additional flexibility to timely respond to the discovery
of covered misconduct as appropriate. Similarly, the amendments would
not require that immediate suspension orders be effective upon
signature by the suspending official. FHFA expects that there would be
circumstances under which such an effective date would be unduly
disruptive to the regulated entities, who may require additional time
to wind down business with the relevant counterparties. The proposed
amendment would simply permit FHFA to issue an immediate suspension
order that is effective upon signature by the suspending official where
necessary and appropriate to protect the safe and sound operation of
the regulated entities, without the burden of the 45-day requirement,
but would also permit issuance of an immediate suspension order
effective at some future date specified in the order. In addition,
subject counterparties and the regulated entities would have the
opportunity to provide a response for FHFA's consideration. However,
whereas this response period precedes the effective date of a final
suspension order under the current procedures, the proposed rule would
allow for issuance of an immediate suspension order with an effective
date preceding the deadline by which a response must be provided. The
procedures governing issuance of an immediate suspension order,
including but not limited to those governing the content of the order
and notice, are described in more detail in section II C below.
2. Request To Vacate
The proposed rule would add new Sec. 1227.12, establishing
procedures allowing for the vacation of a final suspension order where
the administrative sanction was imposed under authority that does not
guarantee advance notice or an opportunity to present an opposition
before the sanction is imposed. As noted above, FHFA does not conduct
investigations or adjudicate facts regarding subject counterparties'
conduct. Rather, FHFA relies on findings made by other authorities.
Accordingly, FHFA's suspension authority is generally limited to
judgments by authorities issued with certain procedural protections in
place--e.g., notice and hearing opportunity in criminal proceedings.
Under certain circumstances, however, a Federal agency may issue an
administrative sanction without such protections. Specifically, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on
Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part
180, subpart G provides agencies with the authority, pursuant to
implementing regulations promulgated by those agencies, to issue
immediately effective orders of suspension without advance notice or an
opportunity for hearing, pending resolution of a related proceeding
(e.g., debarment proceeding). This suspension is generally meant to be
temporary, pending outcome of the related proceeding, although it may
be superseded by a more permanent sanction (e.g., debarment). See 2 CFR
180.760.
Due to the comparatively limited procedural protections afforded to
counterparties subject to such suspensions, FHFA has determined that it
would be appropriate to vacate suspension orders based on an
administrative sanction imposed without prior notice and opportunity to
present an opposition, once those orders are no longer in effect. The
proposed rule would allow for a request to vacate, which FHFA would
grant upon a finding that these conditions have been satisfied. The
rule would require that the request be initiated by the subject
counterparty and include such information as is necessary for FHFA to
determine that the conditions are satisfied. The procedures governing
vacation of such suspension orders are described in more detail in the
section-by-section passage immediately below.
C. Section-by-Section Analysis
1. Sec. 1227.2 Definitions
As discussed above in section II.A, the proposed rule would amend
the definition of ``conviction'' to include an order or judgment by a
Federal or state agency or court in a civil matter to which a Federal
or state agency or government, or private citizen asserting claims on
behalf of the government, is a party, constituting or including a
finding that the respondent committed one of the offenses enumerated in
the definition of ``covered misconduct'' or knowingly committed a
material breach of contract, or any other resolution that is the
functional equivalent of such a judgment or order, such as a consent
order, regardless of whether it includes any admission of misconduct.
In addition, the proposed rule would amend the definition of
``covered misconduct'' to include misconduct in connection with the
management or ownership of real property. Real property management is a
significant function performed by certain regulated entity
counterparties, particularly
[[Page 47081]]
participants in Enterprise multifamily loan transactions. Misconduct in
connection with real property management or ownership--e.g., submission
of fraudulent reports in connection with real property management
service contracts, failure to maintain safe housing in accordance with
assisted housing contracts, etc.--demonstrates a potential risk to the
regulated entities, even in the absence of a close nexus between the
misconduct and financing (e.g., mortgage origination fraud).
Accordingly, the proposed rule would amend paragraph (1) of the
definition of ``covered misconduct'' to read ``[a]ny conviction or
administrative sanction within the past three (3) years if the basis of
such action involved fraud, embezzlement, theft, conversion, forgery,
bribery, perjury, making false statements or claims, tax evasion,
obstruction of justice, or any similar offense, in each case in
connection with a mortgage, mortgage business, mortgage securities or
other lending product, or in connection with the management or
ownership of real property.''
2. Sec. 1227.11 Immediate Suspension Order
For the reasons provided above in section II B, the proposed rule
would establish a new Sec. 1227.11 governing the issuance of immediate
suspension orders. Paragraph (a) would establish the grounds under
which such an order could be issued; specifically, such an order would
be issued where the subject counterparty committed covered misconduct,
the basis of which is an administrative sanction, and where the covered
misconduct is of a type that would be likely to cause significant
financial or reputational harm to a regulated entity or otherwise
threaten the safe and sound operation of a regulated entity. This
second requirement mirrors the corresponding standard, found in
Sec. Sec. 1227.5(b)(2) and 1227.6(a)(2), authorizing issuance of
proposed and final suspension orders, respectively.
Paragraph (b) would establish the factors that FHFA may consider
when determining whether to issue an immediate suspension order. It
incorporates, by reference, the factors that FHFA may consider when
determining whether to issue a final suspension order enumerated at
Sec. 1227.6(c).
Paragraph (c) would establish procedures governing issuance of an
immediate suspension order, which generally correspond to those
currently governing issuance of proposed and final suspension orders.
It would provide that, where the suspending official makes a
determination to suspend a person under Sec. 1227.11, the suspending
official must issue an immediate suspension order to each regulated
entity, mirroring similar requirements provided with respect to final
suspension orders at Sec. 1227.6(f)(1). It would establish
requirements for the content of the required order, incorporating by
reference the content requirements for a final suspension order at
Sec. 1227.6(f)(2); however, whereas a final suspension order must
include a discussion of any relevant information submitted by the
respondent or regulated entities, because an immediate suspension order
is not preceded by a notice of proposed suspension that would provide
the respondent or regulated entities with the opportunity to provide
such information prior to issuance, reference to this information would
be omitted in Sec. 1227.11(c).
Paragraph (c) would also require that FHFA provide each respondent
and regulated entity with a notice of the immediate suspension order
and establish requirements for the content of the notice, incorporating
by reference analogous requirements governing issuance of proposed
suspension orders at Sec. 1227.5(d) and (e). These elements include,
but are not limited to, information instructing the subject
counterparty on how to provide a response.
Paragraph (d) would provide that the effective date of the
immediate suspension order be included in the order, as is the case
with respect to final suspension orders. However, whereas final
suspension orders may be effective no sooner than 45 days after
signature by the suspending official, immediate suspension orders may
be effective immediately upon signature.
Paragraph (e) would establish requirements for the written record
and would provide for FHFA's evaluation of information provided by
respondents and regulated entities following issuance of an immediate
suspension order. The proposed rule would require that the written
record include any material submitted by the respondent and any
material submitted by the regulated entities, as well as any other
material that was considered by the suspending official in making the
determination, including any information related to the factors in
paragraph (b) of this section. It would specify that FHFA may
independently obtain information relevant to the suspension
determination for inclusion in the written record.
As discussed above in section II.B, in contrast to a proposed
suspension order, which is issued in anticipation of the issuance of a
final suspension order and which will not be effective until after the
deadline for response has passed, an immediate suspension order may be
effective before such a deadline, and is not issued in anticipation of
a subsequent order. Nevertheless, FHFA welcomes input from respondent
and regulated entities in response to an immediate suspension order.
Accordingly, paragraph (e) would provide that FHFA will consider any
material submitted by the respondent and regulated entities by the
deadline provided in the notice and document its determination whether
or not to vacate or modify the terms of the immediate suspension order.
The rule would provide that if FHFA elects to vacate or modify the
terms of an immediate suspension order, notice will be provided to the
respondent and regulated entities, and a modified order, as applicable,
will replace the immediate suspension order on FHFA's website. However,
if FHFA declines to vacate or modify the terms of the immediate
suspension order, no notice of this determination would be provided,
and the immediate suspension order would persist until it is later
modified or vacated, or expires per the terms of the order.
Finally, paragraph (f) would specify, as is noted above, that an
immediate suspension order has the full force and effect of a final
suspension order. FHFA acknowledges that the addition of a new category
of order might create confusion among certain members of the public,
but expects that this can be addressed through the text of the
immediate suspension order itself and accompanying notice--e.g., in
contrast to a notice of proposed suspension, which by historical
practice notes that the referenced proposed order is only proposed and
will not go into effect unless finalized, a notice of immediate
suspension would read that the referenced order will go into effect on
the identified effective date. Nevertheless, to more explicitly clarify
what might otherwise be unclear, paragraph (f) distinguishes immediate
from proposed suspension orders, providing that the former has the full
force and effect of a final suspension order.
3. Sec. 1227.12 Request To Vacate
The proposed rule would add new Sec. 1227.12 to provide
respondents subject to an immediate suspension order with the
opportunity to request that FHFA vacate the order under certain
circumstances. Paragraph (a) would provide the general grounds that
[[Page 47082]]
must be satisfied in order for FHFA to grant the request. These include
that: (i) the covered misconduct on which the suspension order was
based does not include a conviction; (ii) each administrative sanction
on which the order was based was imposed pursuant to authority that
does not guarantee prior notice and a prior opportunity to present an
opposition; and (iii) each administrative sanction on which the order
was based is no longer in effect.
Paragraph (b) would establish requirements for the content of a
request to vacate. A request must include: (i) a copy of the final
order of suspension for which the request to vacate applies; (ii)
documentation from the agency imposing the administrative sanction
citing the authority under which the sanction was imposed; (iii)
documentation from the agency imposing the administrative sanction
demonstrating that the sanction is no longer in effect; and (iv) all
existing, proposed, or prior exclusions under regulations implementing
Executive Order 12549 and all similar actions taken by Federal, state,
or local agencies, including administrative agreements that affect only
those agencies. This information would allow FHFA to determine whether
the preconditions that would be established in paragraph (a) are
satisfied.
Paragraph (c) would establish requirements for FHFA's review of the
request and any response. It would provide that FHFA must approve a
request to vacate if it has been presented with evidence sufficient to
demonstrate that the preconditions in paragraph (a) have been
satisfied, unless FHFA discovers covered misconduct that has not formed
the basis for a previously issued order of suspension, provided that
the covered misconduct is of a type that would be likely to cause
significant financial or reputational harm to a regulated entity or
otherwise threaten the safe and sound operation of a regulated entity.
Discovery of this additional covered misconduct may justify denial of
the request, and any denial of a request to vacate would be regarded as
final agency action and would not be appealable to the Director. Under
these circumstances--i.e., where the administrative sanction initially
justifying the suspension is no longer in effect but where continuation
of the suspension is justified by discovery of additional covered
misconduct--the public suspension order would not reflect all of the
grounds on which the suspension's continuation is based. FHFA regards
this as a negligible concern, however. By necessity, the immediate
suspension order would have satisfied the appropriate regulatory
requirements upon issuance, and both the respondent and regulated
entities would have had an opportunity to respond to the order. In
addition, the proposed rule would require that FHFA timely notify the
respondent of its decision and that a denial of the vacation request
specify the reasons for the denial, which would include identification
of the additional covered misconduct.
Paragraph (d) would specify that a request to vacate under Sec.
1227.12 is distinct from a request for reconsideration under Sec.
1227.9. A respondent may, for example, submit a request to vacate an
immediate suspension order concurrently with a request for
consideration, in which case FHFA would evaluate each independently. If
FHFA were to determine that the request to vacate should be granted,
then the request for reconsideration would be rendered moot. If,
however, FHFA were to determine that the request to vacate should be
denied, because the necessary preconditions have not been satisfied, it
may still grant a request for reconsideration based on the standard
provided in Sec. 1227.9(c). The time constraints governing requests
for reconsideration would not apply to requests to vacate.
4. Miscellaneous Provisions
The proposed rule would amend Sec. 1227.6(a) to specify that a
final suspension order may be issued only if preceded by a proposed
suspension order, pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 1227.5.
Although this is implicitly apparent under the current regulation, it
would be appropriate, in light of the proposed addition of immediate
suspension order authority, to explicitly provide the circumstances
under which a final suspension order may be issued. Finally, the
proposed rule would make a series of conforming revisions throughout
part 1227 to include a reference to immediate suspension orders, where
the SCP regulation currently only references final suspension orders--
e.g., the requirement, found at Sec. 1227.8(a), that FHFA publish
final suspension orders on its website. These amended provisions are:
Sec. Sec. 1227.1(c); 1227.2 (definitions of ``respondent,''
``suspending official'' and ``suspension''); 1227.3(a); and 1227.8
section heading, paragraphs (a) and (b)(3).
D. Solicitation of Comments
FHFA solicits comments on every aspect of this proposed rule.
However, FHFA solicits input in particular with respect to the
following questions:
1. Should the scope of misconduct included in the definition of
``covered misconduct'' be expanded beyond what is being proposed? If
so, what additional forms of misconduct should be included?
2. Should the illustrative list of forms of misconduct--e.g.,
fraud, embezzlement, etc.--provided in the definition of ``covered
misconduct'' be otherwise changed? If so, what should be added or
removed?
3. Should the regulation be amended to allow for suspension based
on specific additional sanctions imposed by other Federal agencies,
including but not limited to sanctions that restrict a counterparty's
rights to participate in federally insured mortgage programs--e.g., the
Federal Housing Administration's revocation of a mortgagee's right to
participate in mortgage insurance programs under Title I or Title II of
the National Housing Act--regardless of whether the underlying
misconduct was related to fraud, embezzlement, etc.?
4. Should FHFA be authorized to issue immediate suspension orders
only with a prospective effective date (e.g., ten days after signature
by the suspending official)? If so, how long after signature by the
suspending official?
III. Consideration of Differences Between the Banks and the Enterprises
Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA, when
promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the
differences between the Enterprises and the Banks with respect to the
Banks': cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity
to members; affordable housing and community development mission;
capital structure; joint and several liability; and any other
differences FHFA considers appropriate. See 12 U.S.C. 4513(f). In
preparing this proposed rule, FHFA considered the differences between
the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors and
determined that the Banks should not be treated differently from the
Enterprises for purposes of the proposed rule.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection
requirement that requires the approval of OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not
submitted any information to OMB for review.
[[Page 47083]]
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that
a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, small businesses, or small organizations must
include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the
regulation's impact on small entities. FHFA need not undertake such an
analysis if the agency has certified that the regulation will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)). FHFA has considered the impact of the proposed rule
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. FHFA certifies that the proposed
rule, if adopted as a final rule, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed
rule is applicable only to the regulated entities, which are not small
entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1227
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal home loan banks,
Government-sponsored enterprises, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Preamble, FHFA proposes
to amend part 1227 of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1227--SUSPENDED COUNTERPARTY PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 1227 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4513b, 4514, 4526.
Sec. 1227.1 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 1227.1(c) by adding the words ``or immediate'' after
``Request for an exception to a final''.
0
3. Amend Sec. 1227.2 as follows:
0
a. In the definition of ``Conviction'':
0
i. In paragraph (1), by removing the word ``or'' after the ``;'';
0
ii. In paragraph (2), by removing the ``.'' and adding the word ``;
or'' after the words ``admission of guilt''; and
0
iii. by adding paragraph (3).
0
b. In the definition of ``Covered misconduct'' by revising paragraph
(1).
0
c. In the definition of ``Respondent'' by adding ``, immediate,'' after
the words ``subject of a proposed'';
0
d. In the definition of ``Suspending official'' by adding ``,
immediate'' after the words ``sign proposed'';
0
e. In the definition of ``Suspension'' by removing the word ``a'' after
the term ``pursuant to'' and adding in its place the words ``an
immediate or''.
The addition and revision read as follows:
Sec. 1227.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Conviction * * *
(3) An order or judgment by a Federal or state agency or court in a
civil matter to which a Federal or state agency or government, or
private citizen asserting claims on behalf of the government, is a
party, constituting or including a finding that the respondent
committed one of the offenses enumerated in the definition of ``covered
misconduct'' or knowingly committed a material breach of contract, or
any other resolution that is the functional equivalent of such a
judgment or order, such as a consent order, regardless of whether it
includes any admission of misconduct.
Covered misconduct * * *
(1) Any conviction or administrative sanction within the past three
(3) years if the basis of such action involved fraud, embezzlement,
theft, conversion, forgery, bribery, perjury, making false statements
or claims, tax evasion, obstruction of justice, or any similar offense,
in each case in connection with a mortgage, mortgage business, mortgage
securities or other lending product, or in connection with the
management or ownership of real property.
* * * * *
Sec. 1227.3 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 1227.3(a) by removing the word ``a'' after the word
``issue'' and adding, in its place, the words ``an immediate or''.
0
4. Amend Sec. 1227.6(a) by adding a new first sentence in the
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1227.6 Final suspension order.
(a) Grounds for issuance. A final suspension order may be issued
only if preceded by a proposed suspension order, pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 1227.5. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 1227.8 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 1227.8 by:
0
a. Adding the words ``and immediate'' after the word ``final'' in the
section heading and paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding the words ``or immediate'' after the word ``final'' in
paragraph (b)(3).
0
6. Add Sec. 1227.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 1227.11 Immediate suspension order.
(a) Grounds for issuance. A suspending official may issue an
immediate suspension order with respect to a person if, based solely on
the written record, the suspending official determines that there is
adequate evidence that:
(1) The person engaged in covered misconduct, the basis for which
is an administrative sanction; and
(2) The covered misconduct is of a type that would be likely to
cause significant financial or reputational harm to a regulated entity
or otherwise threaten the safe and sound operation of a regulated
entity.
(b) Factors that may be considered by the suspending official. In
determining whether or not to issue an immediate suspension order with
respect to a person where the grounds for suspension are satisfied, the
suspending official may also consider any factors that the suspending
official determines may be relevant in light of the circumstances of
the particular case, including but not limited to any of the applicable
factors enumerated in Sec. 1227.6(c).
(c) Issuance of an immediate suspension order--(1) General. If the
suspending official makes a determination to suspend a person under
this section, the suspending official shall issue an immediate
suspension order to each regulated entity regarding the respondent.
(2) Content of immediate suspension order. The immediate suspension
order must include a statement of the suspension determination and
supporting grounds and each of the elements described in Sec.
1227.6(f)(2)(ii) through (iv).
(3) Notice to respondent required. The suspending official shall
provide prompt written notice to the respondent of the immediate
suspension order issued to the regulated entities with respect to such
respondent. It must be delivered pursuant to the requirements provided
in Sec. 1227.5(e).
(4) Content of notice. The notice of an immediate suspension order
shall include the elements prescribed for notice of a proposed
suspension order established in Sec. 1227.5(d), except that wherever
the term ``proposed'' appears in Sec. 1227.5(d), it shall be construed
to mean ``immediate.''
(d) Effective date. An immediate suspension order shall take effect
on the date specified in the order, which may be as early as the date
that the order is signed.
(e) Written record and post-issuance evaluation. The written record
shall include any material submitted by the respondent and any material
submitted by the regulated entities, as well as any other material that
was considered by the suspending official in making the determination,
including any information related to the factors in
[[Page 47084]]
paragraph (b) of this section. FHFA may independently obtain
information relevant to the suspension determination for inclusion in
the written record. FHFA will consider any material submitted by the
respondent and regulated entities by the deadline provided in the
notice and document its determination whether or not to vacate or
modify the terms of the immediate suspension order. If FHFA elects to
vacate or modify the terms of an immediate suspension order, notice
will be provided to the respondent and regulated entities, and a
modified order, as applicable, will replace the immediate suspension
order on FHFA's website. If FHFA declines to vacate or modify the terms
of the immediate suspension order, no notice of this determination will
be provided, and the immediate suspension order will persist until it
is later modified or vacated, or expires per the terms of the order.
(f) Relationship to final suspension order. An immediate suspension
order has the same force and effect of a final suspension order,
subject to the terms and conditions presented in the order.
0
7. Add Sec. 1227.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 1227.12 Request to vacate.
(a) Grounds. A respondent subject to an immediate suspension order
may petition FHFA for a request to vacate the order if each of the
following conditions is met:
(1) The covered misconduct on which the order was based does not
include a conviction;
(2) Each administrative sanction on which the order was based was
imposed pursuant to authority that does not guarantee prior notice and
a prior opportunity to present an opposition; and
(3) Each administrative sanction on which the order was based is no
longer in effect.
(b) Content of request. A request to vacate a final suspension
order that satisfies each of the conditions provided in this paragraph
(b) does not preclude FHFA from requesting additional information from
the respondent. The request must include:
(1) A copy of the final order of suspension for which the request
to vacate applies;
(2) Documentation from the agency imposing the administrative
sanction citing the authority under which the sanction was imposed;
(3) Documentation from the agency imposing the administrative
sanction demonstrating that the sanction is no longer in effect; and
(4) All existing, proposed, or prior exclusions under regulations
implementing Executive Order 12549 and all similar actions taken by
Federal, state, or local agencies, including administrative agreements
that affect only those agencies.
(c) Decision and response. FHFA will vacate the final order of
suspension if it has been presented with documentation demonstrating
that each of the conditions in paragraph (a) of this section has been
satisfied, unless FHFA is aware of any other covered misconduct that
has not formed the basis for a previously issued order of suspension,
which may justify denying the request to vacate if the covered
misconduct is of a type that would be likely to cause significant
financial or reputational harm to a regulated entity or otherwise
threaten the safe and sound operation of a regulated entity. FHFA will
notify the respondent of its decision in a timely manner. If FHFA
denies the request, its response will specify the reasons for the
denial. Any such rejection shall not be appealable to the Director and
shall constitute final agency action.
(d) Relationship to requests for reconsideration. A request to
vacate a final suspension order issued under this section is distinct
from a request for reconsideration issued under Sec. 1227.9.
Sandra L. Thompson,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-14723 Filed 7-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P