Rule2026-02325
Fair Lending, Fair Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 6, 2026
Effective
March 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Abstract
The Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA" or the "Agency") is issuing this final rule to repeal the Fair Lending, Fair Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans regulation ("part 1293"). After considering public comments received in response to the proposed rule FHFA published on July 28, 2025, this final rule adopts the proposed rule without change.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 25 (Friday, February 6, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5278-5283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1293
RIN 2590-AB53
Fair Lending, Fair Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans
AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; repeal of 12 CFR part 1293.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (``FHFA'' or the
``Agency'') is issuing this final rule to repeal the Fair Lending, Fair
Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans regulation (``part
1293''). After considering public comments received in response to the
proposed rule FHFA published on July
[[Page 5279]]
28, 2025, this final rule adopts the proposed rule without change.
DATES: The rule is effective March 9, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions, please
contact Leda Bloomfield, Senior Associate Director, Office of
Affordable Housing and Community Investment, (202) 649-3415,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#125e7776733c507e7d7d7f747b777e7652747a74733c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e725b5a5f107c5251515358575b525a7e5856585f10595148">[email protected]</span></a>; for general questions, please contact
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662b03020f072f0817130f140f031526202e202748010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c012928252d05223d39253e25293f0c0a040a0d622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>. This is not a toll-free number. The mailing
address is: Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20219. 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
FHFA adopted part 1293 in May 2024 \1\ to codify the Agency's fair
housing and fair lending oversight of the regulated entities, the
Enterprise Equitable Housing Finance Plan (EHFP or Plan) program,\2\
and requirements for the Enterprise to collect a borrower's language
preference and housing counseling and homeownership education
information. After setting forth the purpose of part 1293, definitions,
and FHFA enforcement authority in subpart A, subpart B requires the
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the Federal Home Loan
Banks (Banks) (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collectively, the
``Enterprises''; the Enterprises and the Banks collectively, the
``regulated entities'') to comply with fair housing and fair lending
laws and with federal prohibitions against unfair or deceptive acts or
practices; imposes on the board of directors of each regulated entity a
duty to direct operations in conformity with such requirements and
prohibitions by appropriately considering compliance with such
requirements and prohibitions; reserves FHFA's right to require reports
from each regulated entity; and imposes a certification obligation on
the reporting regulated entity. Subpart C requires each Enterprise to
adopt a triennial EHFP; addresses the contents of such Plans (including
actions the Enterprise plans to take to address barriers to sustainable
housing opportunities faced by one or more underserved communities),
optional Enterprise annual Plan updates, and publication of Plans and
updates on an Enterprise's website; addresses FHFA review of Plans once
submitted; requires each Enterprise to develop and publish annual
performance reports and sets forth the contents of such reports;
addresses public engagement on Enterprise Plans and performance
assessments; provides for FHFA publication of its annual evaluation
assessing Enterprise performance; and imposes obligations related to
developing and implementing Plans on Enterprise boards of directors.
Subpart D obligates the Banks, beginning in February 2026, to report to
FHFA on activities voluntarily undertaken to support underserved
communities, and to publicly report if they had taken no such
activities and do not plan to take such activities in the future.
Subpart E establishes requirements for Enterprise collection of
applicant and borrower language preference and whether applicants and
borrowers have completed housing counseling or homeownership education
and related information. FHFA was not statutorily required to adopt any
provision of part 1293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 89 FR 42768 (May 16, 2024) (Final Rule) and 88 FR 25293
(Apr. 26, 2023) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
\2\ The Equitable Housing Finance Plan program was created by
FHFA, as conservator, in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) in
July 2025 to repeal part 1293 \3\ after reviewing it in accordance with
Executive Order (``Executive Order'' or ``E.O.'') 14219.\4\ That E.O.
directed federal agencies to rescind, as appropriate, regulations
determined to be inconsistent with law or certain Administration
policies on how statutory authority should be administered.\5\ As FHFA
stated in its proposed rule, Administration policy as expressed in
various EOs includes ``the policy to be `prudent and financially
responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private
sources, and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens;' '' \6\
protect the civil rights of all Americans; \7\ terminate discriminatory
and illegal preferences, programs, and activities and combat illegal
private-sector diversity, equity, and inclusion preferences, policies,
programs, and activities; \8\ terminate to the maximum extent allowed
by law, all equity programs or action plans; \9\ and ``focus
enforcement resources on regulations that are squarely authorized by
constitutional Federal statutes and . . . reduce regulatory burden.''
\10\ Administration priorities also include ``lowering the cost of
housing and expanding housing supply.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 90 FR 35475 (July 28, 2025).
\4\ E.O. 14219 Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the
President's ``Department of Government Efficiency'' Deregulatory
Initiative (February 19, 2025), at 90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).
\5\ Id., section 2(a).
\6\ 90 FR at 35476, citing E.O. 14192 (January 31, 2025),
section 2, at 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025).
\7\ 90 FR at 35476, citing E.O. 14173 (January 21, 2025),
section 2, at 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025).
\8\ Id.
\9\ 90 FR at 35476, citing E.O. 14151 (January 20, 2025),
section 2(b)(i), at 90 FR 8339 (Jan. 29, 2025).
\10\ 90 FR at 35476, citing E.O. 14219 (February 19, 2025),
section 1, at 90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).
\11\ 90 FR at 35476, citing Presidential Memorandum of January
20, 2025, at 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress provided express authorities and duties for FHFA, the
Banks, and the Enterprises to fulfill their public purposes in
promoting access to credit throughout the nation. These include the
statutory requirement to meet housing goals to serve low-income and
very low-income families at 12 U.S.C. 4561 to 4564 for the Enterprises
and 12 U.S.C. 1430c (implemented at 12 CFR 1281.11) for the Banks
(affordable housing goals), a statutory duty imposed on the Enterprises
to serve underserved markets at 12 U.S.C. 4565, and statutorily
required Enterprise financial support for the Housing Trust Fund and
Capital Magnet Fund at 12 U.S.C. 4567 to 4569. Upon review, FHFA
believes that the regulated entities' public purpose to support access
to credit in underserved markets can be accomplished effectively
through administration of these statutory mandates.\12\ As a result,
FHFA determined that part 1293 is not legally necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Members of Congress, the Regulated Entities, and industry
groups also agreed with this approach during rulemaking for subpart
C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA also determined that, as a matter of policy, part 1293 could
be inconsistent with Administration policies and, further, repeal would
enhance the prudent and financially responsible expenditure of funds
from both public and private sources; alleviate unnecessary regulatory
burdens; avoid confusion about roles and responsibilities relative to
other agencies with primary statutory jurisdiction; avoid redundant
statements about FHFA authority; and align with Administration policy.
On the bases that part 1293 is unnecessary and could be inconsistent
with Administration policies, and that repeal of part 1293 would
further Administration policies, FHFA published the proposed rule to
repeal part 1293.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In the preamble to the NPRM, FHFA considered each
substantive provision of part 1293 to assess its legal necessity or
consistence with Administration policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5280]]
II. Final Rule
After considering the comments received in light of the bases for
FHFA's decision to repeal part 1293, FHFA has determined to adopt the
proposed rule without change: that is to say, this final rule repeals
part 1293 in its entirety. Repeal does not change statutory
requirements for the regulated entities to comply with applicable fair
lending and fair housing laws, such as the Fair Housing Act,\14\ Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (``ECOA''),\15\ the fair housing provisions of
the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of
1992, as amended (Safety and Soundness Act),\16\ and the prohibitions
on Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (``UDAP'') under the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') Act; \17\ and does not change Enterprise or
Bank obligations to meet statutory and regulatory affordable housing
goals, the Enterprises' statutory duty to serve underserved
communities, or the Enterprises' statutory obligations to provide
funding to the affordable housing funds. Likewise, repeal does not
diminish FHFA's duty, or its commitment, to ensure by appropriate means
that the Enterprises and the Banks carry out their statutory missions
through activities that are consistent with the Safety and Soundness
Act, the authorizing statutes, and the public interest.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.
\16\ 12 U.S.C. 4545.
\17\ 15 U.S.C. 45.
\18\ 12 U.S.C. 4513(a)(1)(B)(iv) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Review of Comments Received
Comments on the proposed rule were accepted between July 28, 2025,
and September 26, 2025. FHFA received 26 comments, which were published
on FHFA's website. Of these, 25 provided substantive comments about
topics in the proposed rule. FHFA received comments from members of the
public, trade associations, industry participants, the Council of
Federal Home Loan Banks, consumer advocacy organizations, research
organizations, and a Congressional representative. Several comment
letters were signed by coalitions of organizations. Almost all comments
that were opposed to repeal addressed the desirability of part 1293,
but did not address the FHFA's reasons for repeal, including that part
1293 is not necessary and that it is inconsistent with the
Administration's priorities. Comments to the proposed repeal of part
1293 are discussed below.
A. Support for Proposed Repeal
Several individual commenters and trade associations supported
FHFA's proposal to repeal part 1293, stating that repeal would align
FHFA's regulations with the Administration's priorities, alleviate
unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens, avoid confusion in
roles and responsibilities with other agencies having primary
jurisdiction for fair lending and fair housing laws and UDAP provisions
of the Federal Trade Act. Commenters also agreed that repeal would
avoid duplicative statements of FHFA authorities and improve prudence
and financial responsibility in the expenditure of funds.
FHFA appreciates commenters' recognition that the repeal would
advance several important policy objectives, including aligning FHFA's
rulemaking with the Administration's broader deregulatory priorities,
reducing unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens, and
clarifying the Agency's role relative to other federal entities with
primary jurisdiction over fair lending enforcement. FHFA agrees that
these considerations are consistent with sound regulatory practice and
prudent stewardship of public resources.
Specifically, commenters noted that part 1293 introduced a
framework for fair lending and equitable housing oversight that risked
duplicating existing statutory mandates and creating confusion
regarding enforcement authority. Commenters noted that the Fair Housing
Act and ECOA are primarily enforced by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), respectively, where FHFA's supervisory authority is distinct
and focused on ensuring that the Enterprises and the Banks operate in a
safe and sound manner and comply with the Safety and Soundness Act and
the applicable regulated entity charter act. These commenters opined
that maintaining a separate regulatory structure under part 1293 that
overlaps with the jurisdiction of HUD and CFPB could lead to
conflicting expectations, fragmented oversight, and diminished
regulatory clarity.
Supporters of the repeal also highlighted that part 1293 imposed
administrative complexity without enforceable standards, particularly
for the Banks. FHFA acknowledges that the voluntary nature of the
Banks' participation in the EHFP program could create ambiguity in both
scope and accountability, and ultimately, could limit the utility of
part 1293 as a supervisory tool for these regulated entities.
In addition, commenters urged FHFA to clarify the scope of its fair
lending oversight and to continue exercising its broad supervisory
authority to request targeted reports and conduct reviews as needed.
FHFA affirms its commitment to fair lending compliance and will
continue to monitor the regulated entities through supervisory
examinations, data analysis, and interagency coordination. The repeal
of part 1293 does not diminish FHFA's ability to oversee fair lending
practices, but it streamlines the regulatory framework and reinforces
the Agency's focus on effective, risk-based oversight consistent with
its statutory mandate.
FHFA also agrees with commenters that prudent regulation should not
result in duplicative or non-essential requirements. The repeal of part
1293 supports this goal by reducing administrative costs for both the
Agency and the regulated entities, allowing resources to be directed
toward core mission activities and statutory obligations. FHFA remains
committed to promoting access to housing finance nationwide through
targeted, enforceable programs and supervisory tools that are aligned
with its legal authority and policy priorities.
B. Opposition to Proposed Repeal
Most commenters opposed FHFA's proposal to repeal part 1293 and
focused on the potential loss of societal benefits made available
through the EHFPs. Commenters criticized part 1293 for not having more
rigorous requirements, particularly for the Banks. Some commenters
opposed the repeal based on the EHFPs' capability to reduce ongoing
homeownership disparities and impact a multitude of underserved
communities, unlike the statutorily mandated affordable housing goals
and Duty to Serve programs that specify, and thereby limit, the
underserved markets eligible for support.
FHFA appreciates the thoughtful input provided by commenters who
opposed the proposed repeal of part 1293, particularly those who
emphasized the societal benefits attributed to the EHFPs. The Agency
remains committed to promoting fair access to credit and the housing
finance system, but maintains that repeal of part 1293 aligns with
Administration policies to restore regulatory clarity, reinforce
statutory alignment, and strengthen the effectiveness of its
supervisory framework.
FHFA finds that although the EHFPs may offer a broader reach than
the
[[Page 5281]]
affordable housing goals and Duty to Serve programs, these programs are
grounded in statute and subject to rigorous performance evaluation and
enforcement mechanisms. As such, these programs are designed to address
persistent disparities in access to mortgage credit and housing
finance, including those affecting rural, manufactured housing, and
other underserved markets. The programmatic structure provides a
durable and enforceable framework for advancing access to the housing
finance system.
FHFA also notes that the regulated entities remain subject to
comprehensive obligations under federal fair lending laws, including
the Fair Housing Act and ECOA administered by HUD and CFPB,
respectively. The Agency's broad supervisory authority complements
these rulemaking and enforcement authorities by ensuring that regulated
entities operate in a safe and sound manner and comply with applicable
legal standards. FHFA acknowledges that fair lending supervisory
oversight is often overlapping amongst the other federal regulators and
will continue to coordinate closely with HUD, CFPB, and the Department
of Justice, as appropriate. Repeal will eliminate duplicative
statements of FHFA's authority and avoids duplicating oversight and
confusion regarding jurisdiction and the scope of the Agency's
authority.
With respect to the Banks, FHFA acknowledges that some commenters
viewed part 1293 as a mechanism to impose more rigorous requirements.
However, the voluntary nature of the Banks' participation in the EHFP
framework created ambiguity regarding enforceability and supervisory
expectations. To strengthen oversight of Bank community support
activities, the Agency is considering revisions to the existing
Community Support Program framework, which allows FHFA to evaluate the
Banks' contributions to affordable housing and community development in
a manner that is consistent, transparent, and enforceable.
FHFA acknowledges that the repeal of part 1293 does not preclude
the regulated entities from pursuing initiatives such as cash flow
underwriting, expanding access to affordable rental housing, Special
Purpose Credit Programs, or supporting natural disaster rebuilding. The
Agency remains committed to supporting innovation and fairness in the
housing finance system through tools that are operationally sound and
responsive to evolving market needs and conditions.
Although most comments that were opposed to the proposed rule
failed to address FHFA's reasons for repeal, a few comments could be
interpreted as assertions that part 1293 is necessary. Those comments
focused on FHFA's authority, in the absence of part 1293, to take fair
lending compliance into account in supervisory ratings and to assess
civil money penalties against a regulated entity for a violation of
fair lending and consumer protection laws.
Specifically, one commenter asserted that FHFA is abdicating its
ability to embed fair lending compliance into its risk-focused rating
structure. The Agency's examiners use a risk-focused rating system to
assign each regulated entity a composite rating based on an evaluation
of various aspects of its operations. The Agency, however, notes that
its authority to incorporate fair lending performance into supervisory
ratings is derived directly from the Safety and Soundness Act that
confer broad supervisory powers on FHFA.\19\ FHFA's ability to
incorporate fair lending compliance performance into ratings is an
inherent supervisory power that continues to exist independently of
part 1293. Part 1293 was promulgated as a means of publicly asserting
this authority, but it is not the sole source of or a prerequisite for
the exercise of that authority. Prior to its adoption of part 1293,
FHFA incorporated fair lending compliance performance into the
management component of its rating system. FHFA will retain the
authority to do so, as appropriate, even after part 1293 is repealed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See generally, 12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter objected that repealing part 1293 will make it
impossible for FHFA to impose a civil money penalty against a regulated
entity for a violation of fair lending and consumer protection laws.
The commenter pointed out the FHFA Director's statutory obligation to
exercise general regulatory authority to ensure that ``the purposes of
. . . any other applicable act are carried out'' but also noted that
FHFA's authority to assess a civil money penalty does not extend to
violations of ``any other applicable act'' but is limited to violations
of the Safety and Soundness Act, the authorizing statutes (which are
charter acts relevant to each regulated entity), and any ``order,
condition, rule, or regulation under [the Safety and Soundness Act] or
any authorizing statute.'' Working from those observations, the
commenter then asserted that FHFA must establish a rule such as part
1293; otherwise, there is no rule ``under the Safety and Soundness
Act'' on compliance with fair housing, fair lending, and consumer
protection acts, the violation of which would support imposition of a
civil money penalty.
Even assuming the correctness of the commenter's legal assertions,
it does not follow that the inability to impose a civil money penalty
unless a certain condition is met (in this case, the presence of a rule
such as part 1293) requires FHFA to establish the condition. It is
possible that FHFA's narrower grant of authority to impose civil money
penalties was intended to be instructive, or at least a consideration,
as to the types of violations for which FHFA should assess a monetary
penalty. As the commenter also pointed out, FHFA's authority to bring a
cease-and-desist proceeding is not similarly limited but could be
exercised if FHFA determined there was a violation of ``a law'' by a
regulated entity. FHFA is not without a remedy if it determines that a
regulated entity has violated a fair lending or consumer protection
law; it may merely be limited in its choice of enforcement action.
FHFA has also carefully considered a comment that repealing part
1293 would unlawfully disregard reliance interests of participants in
the housing finance system and that FHFA's analysis of stakeholder
investments and expectations was insufficient, considering requirements
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Agency acknowledges that
the APA requires agencies to consider reliance interests when changing
a rule.\20\ However, the APA does not require an agency to retain a
regulation or provision solely because stakeholders have invested in
its implementation.\21\ In accordance with the APA, a reasoned
analysis, including a consideration of reliance interests that may have
developed under the prior regulation, is required for a change in
policy. The proposed rule as adopted as final includes a comprehensive
justification
[[Page 5282]]
that addresses the costs of the rule, the reasons for the proposed
change in policy, and the potential reliance interests that are
impacted by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, generally, Kate R. Bowers & Daniel J. Sheffner, Agency
Rescissions of Legislative Rules, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46673 (Feb. 8,
2021), available at: <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46673">https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46673</a>;
Todd Garvey, A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review,
Cong. Rsch. Serv., R41546 (Mar. 27, 2017), available at: <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41546">https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41546</a>; Perez v. Mortgage Bankers
Ass'n, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 102 (2015), available at: <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/291-300-Online.pdf">https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/291-300-Online.pdf</a>;
and Mortg. Bank., 135 S. Ct. at 1209 (an agency's change in policy
may be ``arbitrary and capricious'' where it ``rests upon factual
findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy; or
when its prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests that
must be taken into account'').
\21\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA's analysis determined that while investments were made, repeal
of part 1293 would not render these investments entirely moot or
without future value. Many of the investments and innovative concepts,
particularly in information technology systems, automated underwriting
systems, and staff training, provide broader benefits beyond mere
compliance with part 1293. Systems and concepts developed in response
to part 1293 can continue to be used for a variety of business and
regulatory purposes, such as compliance with other housing finance
laws, internal risk management, and market analysis. In addition, the
knowledge and skills acquired by training staff are transferable and
the relationships and partnerships built with community organizations
are valuable to ensure the regulated entities operate in the public
interest. The repeal of part 1293 does not dissolve these partnerships.
FHFA also considered a commenter's concern about the proposed
rule's Cost Analysis--that FHFA did not correctly apply OMB Circular A-
4 and did not provide a detailed forward-looking cost-benefit analysis
for the years 2025-2027. OMB Circular A-4 requires agencies to compare
the proposed action to a baseline that reflects the state of the world
without the proposed action. In this case, the proposed action is the
repeal of part 1293, under which the regulated entities will be
relieved of the obligations of part 1293, thereby eliminating the
future costs of compliance and redirecting resources to other
activities. The ``no-action'' baseline, therefore, is the continuation
of part 1293 in its current form, under which the regulated entities
would continue to comply with the obligations of part 1293, incurring
ongoing costs for reporting, compliance, and equitable housing finance
planning. As such, FHFA's economic analysis is fully consistent with
these instructions.
When evaluating FHFA's cost-benefit analysis, the commenter
incorrectly characterized the historical investments from 2022-2024 as
costs that should be analyzed in a forward-looking baseline. In
economic terms, expenditures that have already occurred and cannot be
recovered are considered ``sunk costs.'' FHFA's analysis correctly
identified that the costs incurred by stakeholders to implement part
1293 from 2022-2024 have already been obligated and expended for the
purpose of determining the costs associated with repealing part 1293.
The relevant question is not whether those past investments were
worthwhile, but whether the future costs of continuing part 1293
outweigh its future benefits.
In sum, FHFA finds that the comments submitted were thorough and
comprehensive, addressing key aspects of the proposed recission.
However, none of the commenters demonstrated that part 1293 was legally
required or otherwise necessary or established that repeal would be
inconsistent with the current Administration's policies as discussed
above and in the preamble to the proposed rule. Likewise, commenters
also did not demonstrate how retaining part 1293 in its current form
would promote the Administration's priorities. This indicates a general
consensus or at least an absence of significant disagreement that
recission of part 1293 aligns with the Administration's objectives.
Accordingly, FHFA concludes that the repeal of part 1293 is warranted
and will not diminish the Agency's commitment to promoting fair
lending, affordable housing, and equitable access to credit. The Agency
will continue to evaluate and strengthen its regulatory and supervisory
tools to ensure that the housing finance system serves all communities
in a safe, sound, and sustainable manner.
IV. Reservation of Authority
Notwithstanding any repeal of 12 CFR part 1293, FHFA retains all
authority, and continues to exercise general regulatory, examination,
and enforcement authorities over its regulated entities to ensure that
they are operated and managed in a safe and sound manner, comply with
applicable law, and fulfill their public purposes. FHFA exercise of
these authorities may be reflected in its supervision and enforcement
program and activities, including appropriate rulemaking, examination,
and enforcement to address safety and soundness and compliance with
applicable law. FHFA exercise of these authorities may also be
reflected in coordination and cooperation with other federal agencies
generally or on specific matters to ensure that the purposes of the
Safety and Soundness Act, the authorizing statutes, and any other
applicable law are carried out. The repeal of unnecessary FHFA
requirements for the regulated entities to comply with specified laws
administered by other agencies is not intended to affect the
applicability, effectiveness, or enforcement of those laws with respect
to the regulated entities.
V. Regulatory Impacts
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 14215--Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 14215 Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
(February 18, 2025) \22\ (Independent Agency Accountability) amends
Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30,
1993) \23\ to include in its definition of ``agency,'' those agencies
under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) including any ``independent regulatory
agency.'' Accordingly, pursuant to Executive Order 12866 as amended,
FHFA must determine whether its regulatory action to repeal is
``significant'' and subject to review by OMB. Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 90 FR 10447 (Feb. 24, 2025).
\23\ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHFA has determined the final rule not to be a significant
regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866. OMB has reviewed FHFA's
economic impact analysis and has concurred in the determination that
the final rule to repeal part 1293 is not a significant regulatory
action and does not require OMB coordination and review under E.O.
12866. Further, as a deregulatory action, FHFA does not expect the
action to interfere with the actions of another agency, materially
alter the budgetary impact of programs, nor raise novel issues relating
to legal mandates or the President's priorities.
B. Executive Order 13563--Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Executive Order 13563 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
(January 18, 2011) \24\ directs agencies to analyze regulations that
are ``outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,
and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance
[[Page 5283]]
with what has been learned.'' Executive Order 13563 also directs that,
where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives,
and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and
consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. FHFA has developed
this final rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Executive Order 14192--Regulatory Costs
Executive Order 14192 Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
(January 31, 2025) \25\ requires that for each new regulation issued,
at least 10 existing regulations be identified for elimination.
Executive Order 14192 also directs that any new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law,
be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least
10 prior regulations. FHFA's implementation of these requirements will
be informed by M-25-20, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive
Order 14192, Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation''
(March 26, 2025). This final rule is expected to be an Executive Order
14192 deregulatory action given the associated cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. 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. Such an analysis need not be
undertaken if the agency has certified that the regulation will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). FHFA has considered the impact of the final
rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule will help
align FHFA's regulations with the Administration's priorities,
alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens, avoid confusion in roles and
responsibilities with other agencies having primary jurisdiction, avoid
duplicative statements of FHFA authorities, and improve prudence and
financial responsibility in the expenditure of funds, from both public
and private sources. When promulgated in 2023, the final rule
establishing part 1293 was not subject to OMB review. FHFA certifies
that this final rule repealing part 1293 will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
rule applies to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan
Banks, which are not small entities for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule would not contain any information collection
requirement that would require the approval of the OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, FHFA has
not submitted the final rule to OMB for review for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
F. Congressional Review Act
The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined the final rule does not meet
the definition of ``major rule'' in the Congressional Review Act at 5
U.S.C. 804(2). OIRA also has determined that this rule is not
economically significant under subsection 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1293
Fair housing, Federal home loan banks, Government-sponsored
enterprises, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
PART 1293--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 12
U.S.C. 4511, 4513, 4513b, and 4526, FHFA removes and reserves 12 CFR
part 1293.
Clinton Jones,
General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2026-02325 Filed 2-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 6, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.