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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

79785 

Vol. 89, No. 190 

Tuesday, October 1, 2024 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

12 CFR Part 1227 

RIN 2590–AB23 

Suspended Counterparty Program 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 21, 2023, the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) 

published a proposed rule to amend its 

Suspended Counterparty Program (SCP) 

regulation by expanding the categories 

of covered misconduct on which a 

suspension could be based to include 

sanctions arising from certain forms of 

civil enforcement. After reviewing the 

comments and reconsidering the 

proposed rule’s substantive and 

procedural amendments, FHFA has 

determined that a number of material 

changes to the rule are necessary. 

Therefore, it is publishing this second 

proposed rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by regulatory 

information number (RIN) 2590–AB23, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Agency Website: https://

www.fhfa.gov/regulation/federalregister?comments=open. 

• 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: 

Karen Heidel, Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 

Karen.Heidel@fhfa.gov, (202) 738–7753; 

or Joseph Germany, Honors Counsel, 

Office of General Counsel, 

Joseph.Germany@fhfa.gov, (202) 649– 

3643. These are not toll-free numbers. 

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. Comments 

FHFA invites comments on all aspects 

of this second proposed rule, and will 

take all comments into consideration 

before issuing a final rule. Comments 

will be posted to the electronic 

rulemaking docket on the FHFA public 

website at http://www.fhfa.gov, except 

as described below. Commenters should 

submit only information that the 

commenter wishes to make available 

publicly. FHFA may post only a single 

representative example of identical or 

substantially identical comments, and 

in such cases will generally identify the 

number of identical or substantially 

identical comments represented by the 

posted example. FHFA may, in its 

discretion, redact or refrain from posting 

all or any portion of any comment that 

contains content that is obscene, vulgar, 

profane, or threatens harm. All 

comments, including those that are 

redacted or not posted, will be retained 

in their original form in FHFA’s internal 

rulemaking file and considered as 

required by all applicable laws. 

Commenters that would like FHFA to 

consider any portion of their comment 

exempt from disclosure on the basis that 

it contains trade secrets, or financial, 

confidential or proprietary data or 

information, should follow the 

procedures in section IV.D. of FHFA’s 

Policy on Communications with Outside 

Parties in Connection with FHFA 

Rulemakings, see https://www.fhfa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/Ex-ParteCommunications-Public-Policy_3-5- 

19.pdf. FHFA cannot guarantee that 

such data or information, or the identity 

of the commenter, will remain 

confidential if disclosure is sought 

pursuant to an applicable statute or 

regulation. See 12 CFR 1202.8, 12 CFR 

1214.2, and FHFA’s FOIA Reference 

Guide https://www.fhfa.gov/about/foiareference-guide for additional 

information. 

II. Background 

A. The SCP Regulation 

The SCP requires a regulated entity— 

the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation (Freddie Mac) and any 

affiliate thereof, the Federal National 

Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and 

any affiliate thereof (individually, an 

Enterprise and together, the 

Enterprises), and any Federal Home 

Loan Bank (Bank) (hereinafter the 

Enterprises and Banks are collectively 

referred to as the regulated entities)—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 regulation is authorized by 

sections 1313, 1313B, and 1314 of the 

Federal Housing Enterprises Financial 

Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as 

amended (Safety and Soundness Act). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
79786 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 78 FR 63007 (Oct. 23, 2013). 

2 80 FR 79675 (Dec. 23, 2015). 

3See 78 FR 63007, 63008 (2013). 4See 88 FR 47077 (July 21, 2023). 

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. 4513, 4514b, 

and 4514(a). 

The orders issued under the SCP 

regulation fall within FHFA’s general 

supervisory authority over the regulated 

entities, 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 regulation 

in June 2012 by letter to the regulated 

entities. The requirements and 

procedures for the SCP regulation were 

generally codified at 12 CFR part 1227 

by the interim final rule.1 FHFA 

amended the SCP regulation via final 

rule.2 The SCP does not replace or 

relieve the regulated entities’ duties and 

responsibilities to manage their 

operations in a safe and sound manner. 

Each regulated entity must adopt and 

implement prudent measures to identify 

areas where fraud or financial 

misconduct may present a risk to the 

regulated entity and take all appropriate 

measures to address any such risks.3

These measures include establishing 

third-party provider contractual 

relationships which can be terminated 

by the regulated entity for cause. 

B. The First Proposed Rule 

On July 21, 2023, FHFA published in 

the Federal Register a proposed rule 

(first proposed rule) to amend the SCP 

regulation by including certain orders or 

judgments in civil matters under the 

definition of ‘‘conviction’’ at § 1227.2 

and by adding new §§ 1227.11 and 

1227.12, which would have created a 

process for imposing immediate 

suspensions and a procedure for 

requesting their vacation. The first 

proposed rule would have expanded the 

categories of covered misconduct on 

which a suspension could be based to 

include sanctions arising from certain 

forms of civil enforcement. 

Additionally, the first proposed rule 

would have added ‘‘knowingly 

committed a material breach of 

contract’’ to the definition of 

‘‘conviction’’ in addition to the offenses 

enumerated in the definition of 

‘‘covered misconduct.’’ Finally, where a 

suspension was based on an 

administrative sanction, the first 

proposed rule also would have 

eliminated the requirement that a final 

suspension order be preceded by a 

proposed suspension order. The 60-day 

comment period closed on September 

19, 2023.4

FHFA received eleven unique 

comment letters in response to the first 

proposed rule. Seven of the comment 

letters expressed strong opposition to 

the proposed rule. Six of these 

commenters expressed concern with the 

substantive changes in the first 

proposed rule: that it was overly broad; 

granted FHFA with undue discretion; 

and risked capture of relatively minor 

misconduct that would not pose a risk 

to the regulated entities’ safety and 

soundness. Six commenters expressed 

concern with the due process 

implications of the proposed rule’s 

authorization of immediate suspension 

in certain circumstances. 

Four commenters expressed support 

for the first proposed rule. These 

commenters supported the expansion of 

the definition of covered misconduct. 

Commenters in support of the rule 

viewed the expanded definition as 

increasing accountability and suggested 

that further expansion would be 

beneficial. However, two of these 

commenters still urged FHFA to clarify 

what types of misconduct would give 

rise to suspension under the first 

proposed rule. One commenter 

supported the first proposed rule’s 

elimination of the requirement for a 

proposed suspension where the 

suspension was based upon 

administrative sanctions, due to the 

administrative burden imposed by the 

proposed suspension requirement. 

III. The Second Proposed Rule 

Following the close of the comment 

period on the first proposed rule, FHFA 

reviewed all of the comments received 

and considered the issues raised by the 

commenters, including how to capture 

misconduct posing a risk to the 

regulated entities’ safety and soundness 

while excluding relatively de minimis 

actions. As a result, FHFA concluded 

that the current requirement for a 

proposed suspension should be retained 

in all cases instead of authorizing 

immediate suspension in certain cases. 

FHFA also determined that the 

substantive changes to the rule should 

be more narrowly tailored, both to 

provide greater clarity and to avoid 

capture of relatively minor misconduct 

that does not pose a risk to the safety 

and soundness of the regulated entities. 

FHFA believes that these changes 

represent a significant enough departure 

from the approach taken in the first 

proposed rule to warrant the publication 

of this second proposed rule, which 

supersedes the first proposed rule. 

In this second proposed rule, no 

changes would be made to the current 

regulation’s procedural requirement that 

a proposed suspension is first issued, 

maintaining counterparties’ ability to 

respond prior to the issuance of a final 

suspension. Substantively, under the 

second proposed rule, covered 

misconduct would include prohibition 

orders and civil monetary penalty 

orders as defined. However, the scope of 

those additions would be limited to 

capture only orders from certain Federal 

agencies and, where applicable, above a 

numerical threshold. Specific 

comments, FHFA’s responses, and 

differences between the first and second 

proposed rules are described in greater 

detail below in the sections describing 

the relevant rule provisions. 

As a result of these changes, the 

second proposed rule is organized 

differently. Under the second proposed 

rule, the definition of ‘‘conviction’’ 

remains unchanged. Instead, the 

definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ 

would be amended to include the 

additional bases of ‘‘prohibition order’’ 

and ‘‘civil monetary penalty order.’’ 

Separate definitions for both of those 

terms are provided under the proposed 

amendments to § 1227.2. The definition 

of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ would also be 

amended to include breach of contract 

actions in civil monetary penalty orders, 

unlike the first proposed rule in which 

it would have appeared under the 

definition of ‘‘conviction.’’ FHFA 

believes that these organizational 

changes and definitions will better 

fulfill the purposes of the SCP 

regulation by tailoring the scope of 

captured misconduct more narrowly to 

the SCP’s safety and soundness purpose. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 79787 

5The enumerated Federal agencies are the Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal 

Reserve), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

(OCC), National Credit Union Administration 

(NCUA), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB), Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC). 

A. Covered Misconduct 

The first proposed rule would have 

amended the definition of ‘‘conviction’’ 

in § 1227.2 to include ‘‘[a]n 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.’’ 

Six commenters specifically opposed 

these proposed substantive changes, 

while four either supported the 

substantive changes or encouraged 

greater expansion. Commenters in 

opposition to the proposed substantive 

changes expressed concern that 

relatively minor misconduct would be 

captured under the first proposed rule. 

Four commenters opposed the amount 

of discretion that would be given to 

FHFA in determining what forms of 

misconduct fell within the scope of the 

first proposed rule. Commenters also 

expressed concern that the first 

proposed rule’s substantive changes 

were overly broad. 

Based upon the comments received 

and internal discussion, FHFA 

reconsidered the changes to the 

definition of ‘‘conviction’’ in the first 

proposed rule, and determined that the 

changes in the second proposed rule 

would achieve FHFA’s goal of capturing 

misconduct that poses a risk to the 

safety and soundness of the regulated 

entities, while avoiding capture of 

relatively minor misconduct. 

Commenters also expressed a desire for 

greater clarity as to what misconduct 

would be captured under the first 

proposed rule. Under the new approach, 

rather than amending the definition of 

‘‘conviction,’’ the definition of ‘‘covered 

misconduct’’ would be amended to 

include new terms ‘‘prohibition order’’ 

and ‘‘civil monetary penalty order.’’ In 

response to the comments requesting 

greater clarity, definitions for each new 

term would be provided under § 1227.2. 

Under this second proposed rule, a 

‘‘prohibition order’’ would be defined to 

include only orders issued by the 

enumerated Federal agencies having the 

effect of prohibiting a person from 

participating in the affairs of an 

institution or market or in mortgage- or 

real estate-related activities, as 

applicable, overseen by such agencies.5

Likewise, ‘‘civil monetary penalty 

order’’ would refer only to an order by 

one of three Federal agencies, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, or U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, where the agency had 

imposed a civil monetary penalty of at 

least $1,000,000. 

Similarly, the first proposed rule’s 

amendment to the definition of 

‘‘conviction’’ to include knowing, 

material, breach of contract actions has 

been removed. Instead, the second 

proposed rule would amend the 

definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ to 

include breach of contract actions, but 

only with respect to civil monetary 

penalty orders. Additionally, the first 

proposed rule would have amended the 

definition of ‘‘covered misconduct’’ to 

include misconduct in connection with 

the management or ownership of real 

property. This second proposed rule 

retains this amendment. As discussed in 

the preamble to the first rule, real 

property management and real property 

ownership both demonstrate potential 

risk to the regulated entities and are 

significant functions performed by 

certain regulated entity counterparties, 

especially those participating in 

Enterprise multifamily loan 

transactions. 

One commenter expressed support for 

this amendment, reasoning that failing 

to suspend beneficiaries of financing 

who commit fraud related to property 

management or ownership would pose 

a major risk to the safety and soundness 

of the Enterprises. Two commenters 

expressed specific opposition to this 

amendment in the first proposed rule, 

with one stating that the proposed 

amendment lacked any limiting 

standard. FHFA believes that the 

proposed amendments elsewhere in the 

second proposed rule are responsive in 

providing sufficient limiting standards, 

such as the $1,000,000 threshold set 

forth in the definition of ‘‘civil monetary 

penalty order.’’ 

B. Immediate Suspension Orders 

The current SCP regulation 

establishes a series of procedures 

governing the issuance of a final order 

of suspension. Under the current SCP 

regulation, FHFA must first issue a 

proposed order of suspension and 

provide the relevant counterparty and 

each regulated entity an opportunity to 

respond. Only after the response period 

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. 

Under the first proposed rule, the SCP 

regulation would have been amended to 

add § 1227.11, giving FHFA the ability 

to issue immediate suspension orders 

where the basis of the covered 

misconduct was an administrative 

sanction. Additionally, the proposed 

rule would have created § 1227.12, 

granting counterparties the 

corresponding right to request FHFA to 

vacate such an order. In the first 

proposed rule, FHFA reasoned that 

another Federal agency’s conclusion to 

limit a counterparty’s right to do 

business with the government 

warranted particular deference, and that 

issuance of immediate suspension 

efforts in such situations would avoid 

excessive delay. 

FHFA received seven comments 

specifically opposing the proposed 

addition of immediate suspension 

orders. Several of those comments 

emphasized the due process concerns 

implicated by immediate suspension 

orders. One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule was unclear as to how 

immediate suspensions would be 

applied to a counterparty’s affiliates. 

Other commenters stated that 

admissions of guilt could be absent from 

an administrative action, creating 

additional due process concerns. Only 

one commenter expressed support for 

elimination of the requirement for a 

proposed suspension order where 

suspension is based on an 

administrative sanction, reasoning that 

it would be a reasonable and efficient 

way to streamline the suspension 

process. 

In the process of developing a final 

rule, FHFA considered the objections 

raised to the procedural changes 

contemplated in the first proposed rule 

and ultimately decided to retain the 

current procedure. Accordingly, the first 

proposed rule’s addition of §§ 1227.11 

and 1227.12 are not included as part of 

this second proposed rule. 

C. Section-by-Section Analysis 

1. § 1227.2 Definitions 

As in the first proposed rule, § 1227.2 

of this second proposed rule sets forth 

a definition for ‘‘covered misconduct.’’ 

As noted, the first proposed rule would 

have amended the definition of 

‘‘conviction’’ to include an order or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
79788 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6See 12 U.S.C. 4513(f). 

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. It would 

also have amended the definition of 

‘‘covered misconduct’’ to include 

misconduct in connection with the 

management or ownership of real 

property. 

For the reasons discussed above in 

section III.A, this second proposed rule 

would not amend the definition of 

‘‘conviction.’’ Instead, this second 

proposed rule would amend paragraph 

(1) of the definition of ‘‘covered 

misconduct’’ to read ‘‘[a]ny conviction, 

prohibition order, civil monetary 

penalty order, 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, or, with respect to a civil 

monetary penalty order only, breach of 

contract, in each case in connection 

with a mortgage, mortgage business, 

mortgage securities or other lending 

product, or ownership or management 

of real property.’’ 

Additionally, the second proposed 

rule would amend § 1227.2 to add ‘‘civil 

monetary penalty order,’’ defined as 

‘‘[a]ny order issued by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, or U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, pursuant to the 

relevant Federal agency’s authority to 

impose civil monetary penalties, that 

requires a person to pay an amount no 

less than $1,000,000.’’ 

Finally, the second proposed rule 

would amend § 1227.2 to add 

‘‘prohibition order,’’ defined as any 

order issued by: 

1. The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, or the National Credit Union 

Administration that has the effect of 

prohibiting a person from participating 

in the affairs of any institution for 

which the Federal agency has 

supervisory authority; 

2. The Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau that has the effect of prohibiting 

a person from participating in mortgageor real estate-related activities; or 

3. The Securities and Exchange 

Commission or the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, or a judicial 

authority, that has the effect of 

prohibiting a person from participating 

in the relevant regulated market 

overseen by the Federal agency. 

2. § 1227.11 Immediate Suspension 

Order and § 1227.12 Request To Vacate 

The first proposed rule would have 

amended the SCP regulation to create 

§ 1227.11, allowing for immediate 

suspensions under certain 

circumstances, and § 1227.12, creating 

procedures to provide respondents the 

opportunity to request vacation of an 

immediate suspension. For the reasons 

described above, the second proposed 

rule makes no changes to the current 

procedure for requiring proposed 

suspensions prior to issuance of a final 

suspension. Accordingly, neither 

amendment is included in the second 

proposed rule. 

3. Miscellaneous Provisions 

The first proposed rule would have 

amended § 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. Despite this 

requirement already being implicit 

within the SCP regulation, FHFA 

believed that amendment was 

appropriate in light of the proposed 

addition of immediate suspensions. 

Further, the first proposed rule would 

have made a series of revisions to 

include reference to immediate 

suspension orders. However, as this 

second proposed rule would not add 

immediate suspension orders, these 

amendments are no longer warranted 

and thus are not proposed. 

IV. 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.6 In preparing this second 

proposed rule, FHFA considered the 

differences between the Banks and the 

Enterprises as they relate to the above 

factors, and determined that the second 

proposed rule is appropriate. No 

commenters raised any issues relating to 

this statutory requirement as applied to 

the first proposed rule. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The second 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. 

VI. 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 second proposed rule 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

FHFA certifies that the second proposed 

rule, if adopted as a final rule, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because the second proposed rule is 

applicable only to the regulated entities, 

which are not small entities for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

VII. Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act of 2023 

The Providing Accountability 

Through Transparency Act of 2023 (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice 

of proposed rulemaking include the 

internet address of a summary of not 

more than 100 words in length of a 

proposed rule, in plain language, that 

shall be posted on the internet website 

under section 206(d) of the EGovernment Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

note) (commonly known as 

regulations.gov). The proposal and the 

required summary can be found at 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 79789 

part 1227 of chapter XII of title 12 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1227—SUSPENDED 

COUNTERPARTY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1227 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4513b, 4514, 

4526. 

■ 2. Amend § 1227.2 by: 

■ a. Adding the definition of ‘‘Civil 

monetary penalty’’ in alphabetical 

order; 

■ b. Revising the definition of ‘‘Covered 

misconduct’’; 

■ c. Adding the definition of 

‘‘Prohibition order’’ in alphabetical 

order. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 1227.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Civil monetary penalty order means 

any order issued by the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, or U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

pursuant to the relevant Federal 

agency’s authority to impose civil 

monetary penalties, that requires a 

person to pay an amount no less than 

$1,000,000. 

* * * * * 

Covered misconduct means: 

(1) Any conviction, prohibition order, 

civil monetary penalty order, 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, or, with respect to a 

civil monetary penalty order only, 

breach of contract, in each case in 

connection with a mortgage, mortgage 

business, mortgage securities or other 

lending product, or ownership or 

management of real property. 

* * * * * 

Prohibition order means any order 

issued by: 

(1) The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, or the National Credit Union 

Administration that has the effect of 

prohibiting a person from participating 

in the affairs of any institution for 

which the Federal agency has 

supervisory authority; 

(2) The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau that has the effect of 

prohibiting a person from participating 

in mortgage- or real estate-related 

activities; or 

(3) The Securities and Exchange 

Commission or the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, or a judicial 

authority, that has the effect of 

prohibiting a person from participating 

in the relevant regulated market 

overseen by the Federal agency. 

* * * * * 

Sandra L. Thompson, 

Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22393 Filed 9–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–2323; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2024–00171–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2022–22–10, which applies to certain 

Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, 

and A321 series airplanes. AD 2022–22– 

10 requires revising the existing 

maintenance or inspection program, as 

applicable, to incorporate new or more 

restrictive airworthiness limitations. 

Since the FAA issued AD 2022–22–10, 

the FAA has determined that new or 

more restrictive airworthiness 

limitations are necessary. This proposed 

AD would continue to require certain 

actions in AD 2022–22–10 and would 

require revising the existing 

maintenance or inspection program, as 

applicable, to incorporate new or more 

restrictive airworthiness limitations, as 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

(IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by November 15, 

2024. 

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 under Docket 

No. FAA–2024–2323; 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, the mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI), any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For EASA material identified in this 

proposed AD, contact EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, 

Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; 

email ADs@easa.europa.eu; website 

easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

material on the EASA website at 

ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at 

regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA– 

2024–2323. 

• You may view this material at the 

FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone 

206–231–3367; email: 

timothy.p.dowling@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 the ADDRESSES section. Include 

‘‘Docket No. FAA–2024–2323; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2024–00171–T’’ 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 date and may amend this 

proposal because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to 

regulations.gov, including any personal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS