[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55487-55491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27023]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55487]]
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
12 CFR Part 960
[No. 95-37]
Amendment of Affordable Housing Program Regulation; Affordable
Housing Program Application Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Board (Board) is proposing to
amend its regulation governing the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) to
provide the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) with the authority to limit
the maximum amount of AHP subsidy that may be requested for a given AHP
funding period in the following ways: a uniform limit per member; a
limit per project application; a limit per project unit; or a limit per
amount of AHP direct subsidy per project application. A Bank would have
the authority to establish any other subsidy limit or substantive AHP
application requirement not specifically provided for in the AHP
regulation, only if such subsidy limit or substantive AHP application
requirement has received the prior approval of the Board. A Bank would
have to consult with its Advisory Council in establishing its subsidy
limits or substantive AHP application requirements. Any subsidy limit
or AHP application requirement established by a Bank would have to
apply equally to all members.
The Board requests comments on this proposal. In addition, the
Board requests comments on whether the AHP regulation also should be
amended to authorize the Banks in their discretion to: Establish AHP
subsidy limits based on the level of a member's mortgage-related assets
or its use of Bank credit products; establish other specified types of
AHP subsidy limits that would promote AHP goals; limit or prohibit AHP
applications from out-of-district projects; or require involvement by
members in an AHP project as a threshold criterion in order to be
considered for scoring and approval of AHP funding.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing on or
before December 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Elaine L. Baker, Executive Secretary,
Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20006. Comments will be available for public inspection at this
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane E. Dorius, Deputy Director,
Community Investment Program & Policy Division, Office of Housing
Finance, (202) 408-2576; Sharon B. Like, Attorney-Adviser, Office of
General Counsel, (202) 408-2930, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
A. AHP Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 10(j)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act)
requires each Bank to establish a program to subsidize the interest
rate on advances to members engaged in lending for long term, low- and
moderate-income, owner-occupied and affordable rental housing at
subsidized interest rates. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(1). While requiring
the Banks to make subsidized advances to their members, section 10(j)
of the Bank Act is silent as to whether a Bank may impose limits on the
amount of AHP subsidy a member may obtain. The Board is required to
promulgate regulations governing the AHP. See id. sec. 1430(j)(9); 12
CFR part 960.
Under the Bank Act and the Board's AHP regulation, each Bank must
make a specified annual contribution to fund its AHP. See 12 U.S.C.
1430(j)(5); 12 CFR 960.10. While the Bank Act does not specifically
address the method by which the Banks' required annual contribution to
the AHP is to be allocated among potential recipients, the AHP
regulation establishes threshold criteria that applications must
satisfy and a competitive application scoring process to be used to
determine the distribution of AHP funds. See 12 CFR 960.5.
Under the AHP regulation, during each calendar year, each Bank
accepts applications for funds from its members by specific application
due dates during two of four quarterly funding periods. See id.
Sec. 960.4(a). Each Bank must notify its members of the approximate
amount of annual AHP funds available and the approximate amount to be
offered in each funding period. See id. Sec. 960.4(b). Applications
must contain detailed information described in the AHP regulation. See
id. Sec. 960.4(c). AHP funds are awarded to the applicants whose
applications score the highest, pursuant to the scoring criteria set
forth in the AHP regulation, among all the applications received by the
Bank in that funding period. See id. Sec. 960.5(f). It was anticipated
that, in this way, the best, most competitive projects would be funded
with AHP subsidies.
B. Current Bank Policies on AHP Subsidy Limits, Member Involvement, and
Out-of-District AHP Projects
1. Current Bank Policies
Pursuant to prior legal advice that, absent guidance from or
definitive action by the Board on specific policies and statutory
interpretations, the Banks had to determine for themselves whether
their actions were consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the
AHP provisions of the Bank Act and AHP regulation, a number of Banks
adopted AHP policies that impose requirements in addition to, or
different from, the comprehensive AHP application requirements
contained in the Board's AHP regulation.
More specifically, several Banks unilaterally have imposed maximum
limits on the amount of AHP subsidy that may be requested in a given
AHP funding period, including limits applicable: per member; per
project application; per project unit; and per amount of AHP direct
subsidy per project application. One Bank has adopted member subsidy
limits that are based on the level of a member's use of Bank credit
products in the preceding year. Another Bank has established a policy
prohibiting members from submitting AHP applications for projects
located outside of the Bank's district.
Yet another Bank has adopted a threshold criterion that a project
must include member involvement in order to be scored and approved for
AHP funding, through: financing other than through an AHP direct
subsidy;
[[Page 55488]]
servicing project loans at no cost to the project sponsor; making cash
contributions of $500 per project unit; providing a minimum 100 hours
of volunteer labor per unit provided by employees of the member; or
contributing land or real estate owned by the member to be used in the
project.
2. Reasons Provided for Policies
None of the Bank policies discussed above has been acted upon by
the Board prior to issuance of this proposed rule. All of the policies
presumably have been adopted pursuant to determinations by the Banks
that these policies were consistent with a reasonable interpretation of
the Bank Act and AHP regulation.
One reason that has been expressed for permitting various AHP
subsidy limits is that they encourage greater participation by members
in the AHP. Section 10(j) does not explicitly require or encourage
widespread member participation as a goal of the AHP. On the other
hand, the legislative history of the AHP statutory provisions does
indicate that Congress was aware of ``uneven use of similar special
advance programs maintained by the [Banks] in the past and the
reluctance of some of the [Banks] to actively encourage their member
institutions to address critical community investment and affordable
housing needs.'' See Conference Report accompanying Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 101-222, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (Aug. 4, 1989) at 429. The
principle of encouraging even administration of special advances
programs among the Banks arguably also could be applied within each
Bank, i.e., to encouraging the use of AHP programs by all members
within the Bank, on a broad basis, in order to meet community
investment and affordable housing needs.
3. Reasons for Change
In light of the level of detail set forth in the AHP regulation,
which includes particularized filing requirements (down to specifying
the dates by which applications must be filed), details of the required
contents of applications, and explicit procedures for applications
review, see 12 CFR 960.4, 960.5, the Board is concerned that some forms
of additional substantive AHP application requirements may tend to
undermine the regulatory scheme. The Board would prefer that the
regulation provide flexibility through the establishment of clear
standards under which the Banks must operate. The Board also is mindful
of the importance of ensuring that the AHP remain responsive to the
unique circumstances within each Bank District, and that program
standards not hamper responsive local administration of the AHP.
The proposed rule would allow the Banks to establish the listed AHP
application requirements, as well as any other subsidy limit or
substantive AHP application requirement not specifically provided for
in the AHP regulation, only if such other subsidy limit or substantive
application requirement has received the prior approval of the Board.
The Board requests comment on whether this or some other approach would
best maintain the appropriate balance between clear regulatory
standards and responsiveness and flexibility for the program.
The Board wishes to emphasize that the proposed rule is meant to
clarify the regulatory scheme and should not be construed as
representing a retreat by the Board from its consideration of the
decentralization of the AHP by giving the Banks greater flexibility and
control in implementing their AHP programs.
None of the Bank policies discussed above was addressed or noticed
for comment in the Board's proposed AHP regulation issued in January
1994. See 59 Fed. Reg. 1323 (Jan. 10, 1994). In order to ensure that
full consideration is given to the consequences of the proposed rule,
the Board is requesting comments on any provisions that should be added
to the regulation for any currently existing Bank AHP application
policies or any other substantive AHP application requirements a Bank
may wish to impose that are not specifically provided for in the AHP
regulation.
II. Analysis of the Proposed Rule
A. Notice to Members of Subsidy Limits
Section 960.4(b)(1) of the proposed rule requires each Bank to
notify members of the applicability of any subsidy limits or other
application requirements established pursuant to section 960.4(b) of
the proposed rule.
B. Per Member Limits
Section 960.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule provides that a Bank may
establish a uniform maximum dollar limit on the amount of AHP subsidy,
or a uniform maximum limit on the percentage of total available AHP
subsidy, that may be requested by a member in a given AHP funding
period.
Limiting the amount of subsidy that may be requested by a member
may prevent a small number of members from receiving all of the
subsidy, thereby encouraging participation by a greater number of
members in the AHP. While there may be an effect on the AHP regulatory
program goal of promoting competition if highly competitive projects
have difficulty finding available members that have not exceeded their
limits to submit applications for them, sufficient numbers of members
should be available to handle applications for AHP funds. Accordingly,
any noncompetitive effect of per member subsidy limits likely would be
minimal in comparison to the benefit of greater member participation in
the AHP.
The proposed rule does not authorize a Bank to establish AHP
subsidy limits that are based on the level of a member's mortgage-
related assets or its use of Bank credit products. See further
discussion in III.D. below.
C. Per Project Application Direct Subsidy Limits
Section 960.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule provides that a Bank may
limit the maximum amount of AHP direct subsidy that may be requested
per project application, in a given AHP funding period.
Such a limit may promote greater member involvement in the AHP by
encouraging more members to borrow AHP subsidized advances and, in
turn, lend their own funds to borrowers, thereby building greater
member affordable housing lending capacity and expertise. If members'
own funds were at risk as a result of such a limit, members would have
greater incentive to underwrite and monitor projects for AHP compliance
and financial feasibility. Direct subsidies, which, in some cases, are
passed on by members to borrowers without members putting any of their
own funds at risk, do not promote these goals.
A direct subsidy limit would not prevent competitive projects
seeking direct subsidies from being funded; it merely would cause those
projects to be funded at lower levels, with the gaps in funding made up
from other funding sources. There may be an effect on the AHP
regulatory program goal of promoting competition if otherwise highly
competitive projects that need a large amount of direct subsidy have
difficulty finding other available sources for such funding, and
therefore remain financially unfeasible. However, any noncompetitive
effect of direct subsidy limits may be outweighed by the benefit of
greater member involvement in the AHP.
D. Per Project Application or Per Project Unit Limits
Section 960.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule provides that a Bank may
limit the
[[Page 55489]]
maximum amount of AHP subsidy that may be requested per project
application or per project unit, in a given AHP funding period.
Per project application or per project unit limits may prevent a
small number of projects from receiving all or most of the available
AHP funds in a given funding period, thereby encouraging funding of a
greater number of AHP projects, which also may benefit housing needs in
more areas of the district. Such limits would not prevent competitive
projects from being funded; they would merely cause those projects to
be funded at lower levels, with the gaps in funding made up from other
funding sources, thereby enabling the funding of additional AHP
projects. Again, there may be an effect on the AHP regulatory program
goal of promoting competition if otherwise highly competitive projects
that need a large amount of subsidy have difficulty finding other
available sources for funding, and therefore remain financially
unfeasible. However, any noncompetitive effect of such limits may be
outweighed by the benefit of funding a greater number of AHP projects
in the district.
Per project unit limits also conform with the goal of the
effectiveness scoring criterion in the AHP regulation to encourage
lower levels of AHP subsidy per unit by giving additional scoring
points for projects with lower ratios. See 12 CFR 960.5(d)(3).
Per project unit limits could have an impact on the AHP statutory
and regulatory program goal of promoting funding of units for very low-
income households which often need larger subsidies to make the
projects financially feasible. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(2)(B); 12 CFR
960.3(b), 960.5(b)(1), (2), (d)(1). However, the ability to receive
additional scoring points under the AHP regulatory scoring criterion
for targeting units for occupancy by very low-income households, see 12
CFR 960.5(d)(1), the importance of encouraging efforts to find other
available sources of funding and the goal of promoting the funding of a
greater number of projects together may outweigh any effect on funding
of units for very low-income households.
E. Board Waiver Authority
Section 960.4(b)(3) of the proposed rule provides that a Bank may
establish any other subsidy limit or substantive AHP application
requirement not specifically provided for in sections 960.4(b) or
960.5(a)(2) of the AHP regulation, only if such subsidy limit or
substantive AHP application requirement has received the prior approval
of the Board. The Board requests comments on whether such additional
subsidy limits or substantive AHP application requirements should
depend on whether application of the limit or requirement would
adversely affect achievement of the purposes of the AHP provisions of
the Bank Act, or upon a showing of good cause.
F. Subsidy Limits Applied Equally to All Members
Section 960.4(b)(4) of the proposed rule provides that any subsidy
limits or AHP application requirements established by a Bank pursuant
to section 960.4(b) must be applied equally to all members. See further
discussion in III.D. below.
G. Bank Consultation With Advisory Council
Sections 960.4(b)(2) and (3) of the proposed rule require that a
Bank have consulted with its Advisory Council in establishing any
subsidy limits or other substantive AHP application requirements
pursuant to section 960.4(b). Advisory Council members typically have
affordable housing expertise that may be very useful to the Banks in
determining the affordable housing needs of the Bank district and how
any subsidy limit or other substantive AHP application requirement
would promote those needs.
III. Related Request for Comments
A. Other Types of Subsidy Limits
The Board requests comments on any other types of subsidy limits
that would promote AHP goals that should be considered appropriate for
establishment by a Bank. For example, a maximum limit on the amount of
AHP subsidy that may be requested per sponsor arguably might be
appropriate to encourage greater participation by sponsors in the AHP,
increase the affordable housing development capacity of more sponsors,
and encourage the creation of more sponsors, especially where one large
or particularly active sponsor in a district is winning a large portion
of the Bank's AHP funds.
B. Limiting or Prohibiting AHP Applications From Out-of-District
Projects
The Board requests comments on whether the Banks should have
authority to limit or prohibit members from submitting AHP applications
from projects located outside of the Bank's district, and the reasons
for or against such authority.
One reason expressed for imposing such a restriction is that the
Bank's Advisory Council, whose members are drawn from the Bank's
district and who are required to advise on the low- and moderate-income
housing programs and needs of the district, do not have the familiarity
and expertise to provide guidance on projects located outside the
district. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11). However, it also is noted that
Advisory Council members, while most familiar with the housing needs of
their local communities, often are very familiar with the network of
affordable housing providers that are active across the country and
could advise the Banks on affordable housing issues of general
applicability.
Another reason given for imposing an out-of-district restriction is
that such a restriction is warranted when there is an overwhelming
demand for AHP funds within the district.
In addition, it is argued that the administrative costs incurred by
the Bank to monitor out-of-district projects for compliance with the
AHP statutory and regulatory requirements would be significantly
greater than those for in-district projects. However, particularly in
Bank districts that cover large geographical areas, it is possible that
the cost of monitoring and conducting on-site visits of out-of-district
projects would be no greater than the cost of conducting such
activities in-district.
Another argument made in support of an out-of-district restriction
is that sponsors of out-of-district projects would not be precluded
from participating in the AHP, as they could apply for AHP funds
through a member of another Bank.
It also is argued that an out-of-district restriction will have
only a limited effect on the desirability of Bank membership, since
there are other benefits to membership besides access to the AHP.
Another argument made is that out-of-district projects located in
lower-cost districts may be able to compete more successfully for AHP
funds against higher-cost projects located in the district.
It also is noted that one or a few large multistate members have
the ability to win a substantial portion of AHP funds for out-of-
district projects, thereby resulting in significantly less AHP funds
for use by other members and sponsors within the district.
The Bank Act and Board regulations provide that an eligible
institution may only be a member of and obtain advances from one Bank,
even though members may do business through branch offices outside that
Bank district.
[[Page 55490]]
See id. sec. 1424(b); 12 CFR 933.5(a). The Bank Act does not
specifically prohibit advances for AHP or other purposes from being
used out of district. See 12 U.S.C. 1424(b); 1430(a), (j). A Bank's
required annual contribution to the AHP is based on a percentage of the
Bank's net earnings in the previous year. See id. sec. 1430(j)(5).
Those net earnings are derived, in part, from advances made to members
that have branches outside the Bank district in which they are a
member. Preventing access to AHP funds by a member's out-of-district
branches would deny that member the opportunity to take advantage of a
source of funds it was, in part, responsible for generating.
In addition, it would preclude a member that does business outside
the Bank district where it is a member from applying for AHP funds on
behalf of its out-of-district customers or using AHP funds to meet its
Community Reinvestment Act obligations in those out-of-district areas.
It is noted that, due to recent legislative and regulatory changes,
interstate banking is increasing throughout the country and it is
likely that more and more Bank members will be operating across state
lines. To access the AHP, out-of-district customers would have to seek
out a member of the Bank in whose district their state is located.
It also is argued that out-of-district restrictions, even if
desirable, are not warranted at this time because the number of current
members with out-of-district branches and the number of applications
for out-of-district projects are minimal.
Further, to address the situation where one large multistate member
is winning a substantial portion of AHP funds for out-of-district
projects, uniform limits on the amount of AHP subsidy for which each
member may apply, such as those currently imposed by a number of Banks
(see discussion in I.B.1. above), may have a greater likelihood of
broadening member participation in the AHP.
It also is noted that out-of-district restrictions may result in
the selection of less competitive in-district projects, i.e., projects
that would have scored lower than projects that could not be submitted
because they are located outside the district. This could undermine the
Board's AHP regulatory program goal of promoting competition in the AHP
selection process such that only the best, most competitive projects
are selected for funding. See 12 CFR 960.4, 960.5.
C. Member Involvement as Threshold Criterion
The Board requests comments on whether the Banks should have
authority to require certain types of member involvement in a project
as a threshold criterion the project must satisfy in order to be
considered for scoring and approval for AHP funding. Member involvement
could include, for example: providing financing other than a direct
subsidy to the project; servicing project loans at no cost to the
sponsor of the project; contributing a minimum cash amount per unit to
the project; providing a minimum number of hours of volunteer labor per
project unit from its employees; or contributing land or real estate
owned by the member to be used in the project.
Where members' own funds and contributions are at risk, members
would be more likely to be involved in individual AHP projects, thereby
building member affordable housing lending capacity and expertise, and
creating greater incentives for members to underwrite and monitor
projects for AHP compliance and financial feasibility. In the Board's
proposed AHP regulation issued for comment in January, 1994, the Board
proposed including the extent of member involvement in a project as a
separate scoring criterion, rather than as a threshold requirement that
members must meet in order for projects even to be considered for
scoring and approval of AHP funding. See 59 Fed. Reg. 1323, 1335, 1354
(Jan. 10, 1994). The Board requests comments on whether the extent of
member involvement in a project should be included as a threshold
criterion, scoring criterion or not at all in the final AHP regulation
and, if it should be included, how it should be implemented.
D. Limits Based on the Level of a Member's Mortgage-Related Assets or
Its Use of Bank Credit Products
The proposed rule does not authorize a Bank to establish AHP
subsidy limits based on the level of a member's mortgage-related assets
or its use of Bank credit products. The Board requests comments on
whether the Banks should have authority to impose AHP subsidy limits
based on the level of a member's mortgage-related assets or its use of
Bank credit products. Commenters should address how such subsidy limits
would advance the overall goals of the AHP, the reasons for or against
such linkage, whether any such limits are compatible with the
requirement in proposed section 960.4(b)(4) that subsidy limits be
applied equally to all members, and whether any such limits are
permissible under section 7(j) of the Bank Act, which requires the
Banks to administer their affairs fairly and impartially and without
discrimination in favor of or against any member borrower. See 12
U.S.C. 1427(j).
One reason that has been expressed for imposing such limits is that
they would encourage broader participation by members in the AHP.
Involving more members in the AHP could give project sponsors more
options for financing AHP projects, and provide experience and
education to more members that could help them develop additional
capacity to engage in affordable housing lending.
However, imposing limits based on levels of member mortgage-related
assets or borrowings may not achieve this goal if members with high
levels of mortgage-related assets or borrowings who already participate
in the AHP would be allowed to apply for and win the additional AHP
subsidies no longer available to those members subject to the limits.
Uniform limits on the amount of AHP subsidy for which each member may
apply, such as those currently imposed by a number of Banks (see
discussion in I.B.1. above), may have a greater likelihood of
increasing member participation in the AHP.
Another objective expressed for imposing subsidy limits based on
member use of Bank credit products is that they would increase the pool
of available AHP funds by encouraging greater borrowing from the Bank
and therefore increasing Bank earnings, from which AHP funds are
derived. Increased AHP funds could be used by the Bank to finance more
AHP projects, thereby benefiting more low- and moderate-income
households and furthering the housing finance mission of the Bank
System. See id. sec. 1422a(a)(3)(ii). The argument also is made that
members that contribute to Bank earnings by borrowing should have
greater access than non-borrowing members to AHP funds derived from
such earnings.
The Bank Act does not restrict availability of AHP subsidies to
``borrowing'' members. Nor does it specify any correlation between the
member's contribution to Bank earnings and its access to AHP funds.
Bank earnings are affected by economic factors other than the amount of
outstanding advances of members participating in the AHP. Thus, even
non-borrowing members contribute to Bank earnings and, therefore, to
the AHP fund. The limits also may not enlarge the AHP fund by
increasing member borrowing because small
[[Page 55491]]
member institutions, by virtue of their limited asset size, would be
incapable of increasing or unwilling to increase their borrowings (due
to the increased cost of borrowing resulting from investing in
additional Bank stock) just to receive ``preferred treatment'' under an
AHP subsidy limits policy.
Another possible reason for limiting access to AHP subsidies based
on a member's level of mortgage-related assets may be to encourage
members to do more home financing, consistent with the provisions of
the Bank Act that impose less burdensome advances and stock
requirements on institutions that devote a greater percentage of their
assets to housing finance (qualified thrift lenders). See id. sec.
1430(e)(1), (2); 12 CFR 935.13. However, such a limit may defeat this
goal since members with lower levels of mortgage-related assets would
have limited access to AHP subsidies which they could use for such
housing finance purposes.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule applies only to the Banks, which do not come
within the meaning of ``small entities,'' as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore, in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Board hereby certifies that this proposed rule, if
promulgated as a final rule, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects for 12 CFR Part 960
Banks, banking, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing.
Accordingly, part 960 of title 12 of its Code of Federal
Regulations is hereby proposed to be amended as follows:
SUBCHAPTER E--AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PART 960--AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 960 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1422a, 1422b, 1430(j).
2. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 960.4 is revised to read as follows:
960.4 Applications for funding.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Each Bank shall notify its members of the approximate amount
of annual program funds available for the District, the approximate
amount to be offered in each funding period, and the applicability of
any subsidy limits or other application requirements established
pursuant to this paragraph (b). The amount of funds made available in
each offering should be comparable.
(2) A Bank, after consultation with its Advisory Council, may limit
the maximum dollar amount of subsidy, or the maximum percentage of
total available subsidy, that may be requested in a given funding
period in the following ways:
(i) A uniform limit per member;
(ii) A limit per project application, including limits varying
according to project size;
(iii) A limit per project unit; or
(iv) A limit on the amount of direct subsidy per project
application.
(3) A Bank, after consultation with its Advisory Council, may
establish any other subsidy limit or substantive application
requirement not specifically provided for in this paragraph (b) or
Sec. 960.5(a)(2), only if such subsidy limit or substantive application
requirement has received the prior approval of the Board.
(4) Any subsidy limit or application requirement established by a
Bank pursuant to this paragraph (b) must apply equally to all members.
* * * * *
Dated: October 25, 1995.
By the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Bruce A. Morrison,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 95-27023 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-U
