Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Fair Housing Act

Moving to Address Appraisal Bias, Agencies and the Appraisal Foundation Issue Updates

By , ,

A&B ABstract:

 A year and a half after President Biden’s announcement of the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (“PAVE”), the past weeks have seen a flurry of activity from federal agencies and the Appraisal Foundation to address issues of bias in residential property appraisal.  What should lenders, servicers, and appraisers know?

Background:

In June 2021, President Biden announced the formation of the PAVE Task Force, comprising 13 federal agencies, including the White House Domestic Policy Council.  He tasked the group with identifying and evaluating “the causes, extent, and consequences of appraisal bias and to establish a transformative set of recommendations to root out racial and ethnic bias in home valuations.”

In March 2022, the member agencies of the PAVE Task Force published an action plan, announcing a series of concrete commitments to address appraisal bias in five broad categories:

  • strengthening guardrails against discrimination in all stages of residential valuation;
  • enhancing fair housing and fair lending enforcement, and driving accountability in the appraisal industry;
  • building a diverse, well-trained, and accessible appraiser workforce;
  • empowering consumers to take action against bias; and
  • giving researchers and enforcement agencies better data to study and monitor valuation bias.

While the Task Force’s activity is ongoing, federal agencies in the past few weeks have announced a series of steps that are in line with the PAVE goal of addressing real property appraisal bias.

FHA: Draft Mortgagee Letter on Reconsiderations of Value and Appraisal Review

On January 3, 2023, the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) published for public comment a draft mortgagee letter, Borrower Request for Review of Appraisal Results, that would permit a second appraisal to be ordered if a Direct Endorsement underwriter determines that an original appraisal contains a material deficiency.  The letter would expressly identify as a material deficiency – one that would directly impact value and marketability of the underlying property – either indications of unlawful bias in the appraisal or of a violation of applicable federal, state, or local fair housing and non-discrimination laws.

Further, the draft mortgagee letter would require the underwriter in a transaction involving an FHA-insured loan to “review the appraisal and determine that it is complete, accurate, and provides a credible analysis of the marketability and value of the Property.”  Among other criteria, this would require the underwriter to make a determination of whether the appraisal is materially deficient – that is, whether the appraisal contains indications of unlawful bias or of a violation of applicable fair housing and non-discrimination laws.  Providing a “credible analysis” exceeds the scope of a quality control review.  If included in a finalized mortgagee letter, it would require lenders to determine whether underwriters must be state-licensed or -certified appraisers.

The draft mortgagee letter also sets forth standards for the submission and consideration of a borrower’s request for a review of appraisal results, including the submission of a reconsideration of value request to the appraiser.

VA: Enhanced Oversight Procedures to Combat Appraisal Bias

On January 18, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) issued Circular 26-23-05, detailing the enhanced oversight procedures that the VA has adopted “to identify discriminatory bias in home loan appraisals and act against participants who illegally discriminate based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), age, familial status, or disability.”

In the Circular, the VA indicated that it will review all appraisal reports submitted in connection with VA-guaranteed home loans to identify any potential discriminatory bias.  The VA will: (a) conduct an escalated review of any suspected incidents of bias; and (b) remove from its panel of approved appraisers any individual who is confirmed to have provided a biased appraisal as the result of such a review.

The VA also reminded panel appraisers that in submitting a Fannie Mae Form 1004 (Uniform Residential Appraisal Report), they certify that they have not based the opinion communicated in an appraisal report on discriminatory factors (e.g., the race) of either the property applicants or the residents of the area in which the property is located.

Appraisal Foundation: Proposed Revision of Appraisal Standards

In mid-December, the Appraisal Standards Board (“ASB”) of the Appraisal Foundation released its fourth exposure draft of proposed changes to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”), the operational standards that govern real property appraisal practice.

In response to comments received in response to the last draft, the ASB proposes to add to the USPAP Ethics Rule a section expressly discussing non-discrimination.  The proposed section would prohibit appraisers from engaging in both unethical discrimination and illegal discrimination, and would provide guidance as to the type of conduct constituting each form.

Unethical Discrimination:

First, the ASB proposes to include an express statement that an appraiser must not engage in unethical discrimination.  First, that prohibition would preclude an appraiser from developing and/or reporting an opinion or value that is based, in whole or in part, on the actual or perceived protected characteristics of any person.

Second, the rule would prohibit an appraiser from performing an assignment with bias with respect to the actual or perceived protected characteristics of any person – meaning that the appraiser may not engage in any discriminatory conduct (regardless of whether it arises in the course of developing and/or reporting an opinion of value). For purposes of this prohibition, the rule would utilize the USPAP definition of bias: “a preference or inclination that precludes an appraiser’s impartiality, independence, or objectivity in an assignment.”

The rule would make a limited exception for activity that qualifies with “limited permissive language,” permitting an appraiser to use or rely upon a protected characteristic in an assignment only where:

  • laws and regulations expressly permit or otherwise allow the consideration of a protected characteristic;
  • use of or reliance on that characteristic is essential to the assignment and necessary for credible assignment results; and
  • consideration of the characteristic is not based upon bias, prejudice, or stereotype.

The exposure draft provides as an example of activity that might qualify for the exception the completion of an appraisal review in order to determine whether the initial appraisal was discriminatory.

The ASB proposal makes clear that because “an appraiser’s ethical duties are broader than the law’s prohibitions,” an appraiser may commit unethical discrimination without violating any applicable law; however, an act that “constitutes illegal discrimination … will also constitute unethical discrimination.”

Illegal Discrimination:

Complementing the prohibitions discussed above, the ASB proposes to include an express statement that an appraiser must not engage in illegal discrimination – conduct that violates the minimum standards of anti-discrimination set forth in the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (“Section 1981”).  The rule would impose on appraisers a duty to understand and comply with such laws as they apply to the appraiser and the appraiser’s assignments, including the concepts of disparate treatment and disparate impact.  Further, the rule would prohibit an appraiser from using or relying on a non-protected characteristic as a pretext to conceal the use of or reliance upon protected characteristics when performing an assignment.

Further Guidance:

 The exposure draft indicates that the ASB would follow the adoption of the new non-discrimination section of the ethics rule with detailed guidance on the scope of these prohibitions, including:

  • Background on federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws;
  • Guidance on the application of FHA, ECOA, and Section 1981 to appraisals of residential real property;
  • Explanation of the disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of discrimination, including examples relating to appraisal practice;
  • Guidance on neighborhood discrimination in real property appraisals; and
  • Clarification on acceptable uses of protected characteristics, in connection with the “limited permissive language” exception for the prohibition against unethical discrimination.

OMB: AVM Rule on Regulatory Agenda

 Automated valuation models  (“AVMs”) are considered a useful tool to help mitigate appraisal discrimination.  On January 4, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) released its Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda.  Among other topics, OMB indicated that an interagency proposed rule addressing quality control standards for AVMs is expected in March 2023. The Dodd-Frank Act’s amendments to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) require the federal banking regulatory agencies to undertake this rulemaking.

 ASC: Hearing on Appraisal Bias

 On January 24, the Appraisal Subcommittee (“ASC”) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council held a hearing on appraisal bias.  Of note, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra ended the hearing by articulating the objective that the “lodestar” of appraisals is an appraisal that neither too high nor too low, but rather is accurate.    Director Chopra then questioned the regulatory structure governing appraisals, calling it “byzantine.”  His remarks focused on the funding mechanism between the Appraisal Institute and the Appraisal Foundation, implying that there may be a conflict of interest.

To understand Director Chopra’s comment requires knowledge of the current regulatory framework, which Title XI of FIRREA established in 1989.   It includes three principal parties: the ASC, the Appraisal Foundation, and the Appraisal Institute:

  • The ASC is a federal agency with oversight responsibility of the state appraisal regulatory structure for real property appraisers as well as to monitor activities of the Appraisal Foundation.
  • The Appraisal Foundation is a private non-profit educational organization. Through the ASB and the Appraiser Qualifications Board (“AQB”), the Appraisal Foundation sets the ethical and performance standards of appraisers in the USPAP.  The AQB establishes the minimum education, experience, and examination requirements for real property appraisers, which are then enforced by state regulatory agencies.  The Appraisal Foundation is funded through sales of publications and services, as well as by its sponsoring organizations.
  • The Appraisal Institute is a private professional organization of appraisal professionals, and is one of the sponsoring organizations of the Appraisal Foundation.

Takeaway

 Viewed through the lens of the overall PAVE Task Force efforts, actions by the FHA and the VA show early and concrete action to address residential appraisal bias.  Because they implicate government insurance and guarantee programs, the focus is particularly important for lenders and appraisers to take heed of – such that documentation submitted to the agencies is accurate.

Appraisers should also take note of the updated USPAP exposure draft as it moves toward final adoption, so that they are aware of their responsibilities with respect to avoiding bias in appraisal reports. Finally, with regulators scrutinizing the appraisal framework – as seen in the OMB and ASC announcements – more significant changes are expected.

Is the DOJ (De Facto) Enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act?

By

A&B Abstract:

Furthering the Justice Department’s Combating Redlining Initiative, the Department of Justice has announced another redlining settlement.  But this settlement is different – this one involves a bank that has received top marks by its prudential regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for its compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a statute enacted to reduce redlining, for the same years that the DOJ alleged the bank engaged in redlining.

The DOJ’s Allegations

Lakeland Bank is a northern New Jersey-based, state chartered bank with more than $10 billion in assets.  The DOJ alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)/Regulation B, and specifically “that Lakeland engaged in illegal redlining by avoiding providing home loans and other mortgage services, and engaged in discrimination and conduct that would discourage mortgage applications from prospective applicants who are residents of or seeking credit in majority Black and Hispanic census tracts” located in its northern New Jersey assessment area.  In entering the more than $13 million settlement, the Bank did not admit to any of the DOJ’s allegations.  It agreed to various requirements to strengthen its fair lending compliance program, including investing in a loan subsidy fund, opening additional branches, and expanding its CRA assessment area.

The FDIC’s Findings

What is curious, however, is that in its latest CRA performance evaluation, the FDIC determined that Lakeland “exhibits a good record of serving the credit needs of the most economically disadvantaged areas of its assessment area, low-income individuals, and/or very small businesses, consistent with safe and sound banking practices.”  It determined that there is in fact strong competition for lending in the area, but that the bank nonetheless showed good penetration to borrowers of low- and moderate-income levels and in low- and moderate-income areas.  Further, the FDIC determined that the bank “makes extensive use of innovative and/or flexible lending practices in order to serve assessment area credit needs,” noting that the bank’s programs provide lower down payments, lower interest rates, down payment assistance, first-time homebuyer programs, and unsecured small dollar loan programs, for lower-income individuals and small businesses.  The FDIC also called Lakeland “a leader in making community development loans.”  In fact, Lakeland received a rating of “Outstanding,” the highest rating which only a small number of banks achieve, in each of its CRA exams for more than a decade.

CRA versus Fair Lending Laws

The rub is that the CRA is not a fair lending statute, as it focuses on income disparity and not racial disparity, though it often goes hand in glove with the fair lending laws.  For example, a failure to comply with fair lending laws (e.g., the Fair Housing Act, ECOA/Regulation B) can result in a downgrade of a bank’s CRA rating, despite its satisfactory or better performance in its CRA evaluation.  The CRA is enforced by the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve Board.  The fair lending laws are typically enforced by the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, CFPB, NCUA, FTC, and HUD (along with state regulators).  The threshold for an agency’s referral to DOJ for enforcement proceedings is low, requiring reason to believe there is a pattern or practice of discrimination.

Takeaway

In practice, the Lakeland settlement shows how a bank can be susceptible to fair lending risk with respect to redlining, and yet still pass its (anti-redlining) CRA examination with flying colors.  Maybe that is a reason to revise the CRA regulations (spoiler alert: that’s already in the works).  Or maybe it is a reminder to banks to mind the forest and the trees.  Focusing on CRA is necessary but not sufficient, and a bank needs to ensure it is regularly monitoring its lending activity for potential redlining.

CFPB and DOJ Announce Redlining Settlement Against Non-Bank Mortgage Lender

By

A&B Abstract:

On July 27, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) entered into a settlement with Trident Mortgage Company (“Trident”), resolving allegations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and the Fair Housing Act that the non-bank mortgage lender intentionally discriminated against majority-minority neighborhoods in the greater Philadelphia area. This settlement is the first redlining enforcement action against a non-bank mortgage lender and evidences the government’s continued focus on “modern-day redlining.”

The Settlement Terms

The Trident settlement, which requires the lender to pay over $22 million, resolves allegations that Trident, through its marketing, sales, and hiring actions, “discouraged” prospective applicants in the greater Philadelphia area’s majority-minority neighborhoods from applying for mortgage and refinance loans. However, much like the CFPB’s lawsuit against Townstone Financial, Inc. (“Townstone”), the settlement does not indicate that Trident treated neighborhoods or applicants differently based on race or ethnicity. Instead, the crux of the settlement is that Trident did not take sufficient affirmative action to target majority-minority neighborhoods. This, coupled with Trident’s mortgage lending reporting under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), ultimately subjected the lender to enforcement.

Specifically, the CFPB’s press release notes that: (1) only 12% of Trident’s mortgage loan applications came from majority-minority neighborhoods, even though “more than a quarter” of neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA are majority-minority; (2) 51 out of Trident’s 53 offices in the Philadelphia area were located in majority-white neighborhoods; and (3) all models displayed in Trident’s direct mail marketing campaigns “appeared to be white;” (4) Trident’s open house flyers were “overwhelmingly concentrated” in majority-white neighborhoods; and (5) Trident’s online advertisements appeared to be for home listings “overwhelmingly located” in majority-white neighborhoods.

Similar to the Townstone lawsuit, the settlement does not indicate that Trident explicitly excluded certain neighborhoods or prospective applicants or actually discouraged applicants from majority-minority neighborhoods, only that such applicants “would have been discouraged.” While both the Townstone lawsuit and the Trident settlement reference remarks made by employees in their internal communications, there is no indication that employees ever made offensive or discouraging statements to prospective applicants of any neighborhood. Nevertheless, the CFPB settlement requires Trident to pay $18.4 million into a loan subsidy program to increase the credit extended in majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA; $4 million in civil money penalties; $875,000 toward advertising in majority-minority neighborhoods in the Philadelphia MSA; $750,000 toward partnerships with community-based organizations; and $375,000 toward consumer financial education. The settlement also requires Trident to open and maintain four (4) branch offices in majority-minority neighborhoods of the MSA.

Takeaways

The Trident settlement is noteworthy for various reasons. In addition to being the first government redlining settlement with a non-bank mortgage lender, the resolution involves a variety of parties, including the CFPB, DOJ, and the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Further, the settlement once again highlights that insufficient marketing and outreach in minority neighborhoods may be considered sufficient  actionable under ECOA and the Fair Housing Act. Indeed, it appears that a lender’s failure to precisely align its lending patterns with the geography’s demographics may serve as the basis of a redlining claim, even absent specific allegations of intentional exclusion or other discrimination. Finally, the settlement demonstrates that even a lender no longer in operation (Trident stopped accepting loan applications in 2021) is still a worthy defendant in the government’s eyes.

Key Provisions of the CARES Act Affecting Mortgage Servicers

By ,

A&B ABstract:

In response to COVID-19, on Friday March 28, 2020, President Trump signed into law the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (the “CARES Act”).  This is a monumental $2 trillion stimulus package intended to provide financial relief to businesses, individuals and public institutions affected by the coronavirus.  The CARES Act addresses sweeping economic stabilization, small business lending and other direct financial support, tax provisions, healthcare, or other provisions. Below, we summarize the key provisions of the CARES Act affecting residential mortgage servicers.

Section 4021: Credit Protection During COVID-19

Section 4021 of the CARES Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(1)) by adding a new section providing special instruction for reporting consumer credit information to credit reporting agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Specifically, this section provides that if a creditor or other furnisher offers an “accommodation” to a consumer affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in connection with a credit obligation or account, and the consumer satisfies the conditions of such accommodation, the furnisher must report the credit obligation or account as “current.” An “accommodation” as defined in this section includes relief granted to impacted consumers such as an agreement to defer a payment, make a partial payment, grant forbearance, or modify a loan or contract.

In the event that the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the accommodation, the furnisher is required to maintain the delinquent status during the effective period of the accommodation, or, if the consumer brings the account current during such period, then to report the account as current. The reporting requirements set forth in Section 4021 do not apply to charged-off accounts.

This section applies from January 31, 2020 through the later of 120 days after: (i) enactment of this section, or (ii) termination of the national emergency declaration.[1]

A&B Takeaway: It is important to recognize that this provision applies to borrower’s payment history starting on January 31, 2020.  It also is important to recognize that state laws may also address the furnishing of credit information.  To the extent the state law is inconsistent, it is generally preempted pursuant to section 1681t(b)(1)(C) of FCRA, with specific carve outs for California and Massachusetts law that may require specific attention.

Section 4022:  Foreclosure Moratorium and Consumer Right to Request Forbearance

Section 4022 of the CARES Act grants forbearance rights and protection against foreclosure[2] to borrowers with a “federally backed mortgage loan”[3] including certain first or subordinate lien loans designed principally for the occupancy of from 1- to 4- families.  Loans secured by greater than 4 families are addressed separately in Section 4023 of the CARES Act.

During the covered period, a borrower with a federally backed mortgage loan who is experiencing a financial hardship that is due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency, may request forbearance on their loan, regardless of delinquency status, by submitting a request to their servicer and affirming that they are experiencing a financial hardship during the COVID-19 emergency.

Upon receiving a request for forbearance, a servicer must provide forbearance for up to 180 days, with no additional documentation required, other than the borrower’s attestation to a financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 emergency, and with no fees, penalties, or interest (beyond the amounts scheduled or calculated as if the borrower made all contractual payments on time and in full under the terms of the mortgage contract) charged to the borrower in connection therewith.  The forbearance period may be extended for up to an additional 180 days, at the request of the borrower, provided that the borrower’s request is made during the covered period.  The initial or extended period may also be shortened at the borrower’s request.

Additionally, except with respect to vacant or abandoned properties, a servicer of a federally backed mortgage loan may not initiate any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process, move for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or execute a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure sale for at least 60 days from March 18, 2020.

A&B Takeaway: While the law provides much needed relief for borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it leaves a number of questions unanswered.  First, the law does not appear to cover mortgage loans that are not federally insured or guaranteed or otherwise purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.  Thus, it is unclear whether a servicer of a non-federally backed mortgage loan would need to comply.  Second, the law is silent as to whether borrower requests must be in writing, suggesting that oral requests for forbearance must be considered.[4] Third, while Section 4022 does not expressly define the “covered period,” Subsection (b)(1)(B) does provide that the borrower must attest to a financial hardship during the “COVID-19 emergency,” suggesting that borrower requests received outside of the “COVID-19 emergency” would not require the granting of forbearance.  Subsection (a)(1) defines “COVID-19 emergency” as the national emergency declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020 by Executive Order pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (“NEA”). Under the NEA, unless the President requests an extension, an emergency declaration terminates if: (1) the President issues a proclamation rescinding it, (2) Congress, having met no later than six months after date of issuance to consider a joint resolution of termination, passes such joint resolution, or (3) automatically one year following date of issuance.[5] Note that the national emergency declared by President Trump was made retroactive to March 1, 2020.  Accordingly, there appears to be an implied covered period associated with this section, namely, March 1, 2020 until the earlier of February 28, 2021 or action by either the President or Congress to terminate the emergency declaration, unless the President requests an extension in accordance with the NEA.  Fourth, while Section 4022 provides that a servicer must grant forbearance for “up to 180 days,” it does not specify how a servicer is to determine the length of the forbearance period.  Thus, it is unclear whether a servicer must simply rely on a borrower’s attestation to determine the length of the initial forbearance (and any extensions thereto) or whether the servicer has some discretion to provide an initial (or extended) forbearance period of less than 180 days.  Finally, we note that the FHA, VA, USDA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the “Federal Agencies/GSEs”) all issued earlier guidance imposing a 60-day foreclosure moratoria in addition to guidance encouraging mortgage servicers to consider forbearance and other relief for borrowers affected by COVID-19.  While the CARES Act appears to provide similar foreclosure protections to those mandated by the Federal Agencies/GSEs, mortgage servicers should carefully review and compare the existing guidance to the protections under the CARES Act to determine their obligations with respect to impacted borrowers.

Section 4024: Temporary Moratorium on Eviction Filings

Section 4024 provides for a temporary moratorium on eviction filings for tenants of certain single- and multi-family properties.  Specifically, during the 120-day period following the enactment of the CARES Act (the “Moratorium Period”), the lessor of a “covered dwelling”[6] may not: (1) make, or cause to be made, any filing with the court of jurisdiction to initiate a legal action to recover possession of the covered dwelling from the tenant for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges; or (2) charge fees, penalties, or other charges to the tenant related to such nonpayment of rent.

The lessor of a covered dwelling unit (1) may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit until 30 days have passed from the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate; and (2) may not issue a notice to vacate until after the expiration of the Moratorium Period.

A&B Takeaway:

Numerous states and localities also have issued temporary moratoriums on eviction files that provide greater protections to tenants.

[1] We note that this raises some unique questions regarding preemption of certain state consumer laws regarding consumer credit reporting.

[2] Note that, while outside the scope of this summary, Section 4023 of the CARES Act addresses foreclosure moratoria for certain multifamily loans.

[3] “Federally backed mortgage loan” means any loan which is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property (including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives) designed principally for the occupancy of from 1- to 4- families that is (A) insured by the Federal Housing Administration under title II of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.); (B) insured under section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20); (C) guaranteed under section 184 or 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13, 1715z-13b); (D) guaranteed or insured by the Department of Veterans Affairs; (E) guaranteed or insured by the Department of Agriculture; (F) made by the Department of Agriculture; or (G) purchased or securitized by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (i.e., Freddie Mac) or the Federal National Mortgage Association (i.e., Fannie Mae).

[4] Note that Section 4023 of the CARES Act provides that “a multifamily borrower…may submit an oral or written request for forbearance,” further suggesting that oral requests must be considered under Section 4022.

[5] See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1622(a)-(b), (d).

[6] The term “covered dwelling” means a dwelling that (A) is occupied by a tenant (i) pursuant to a residential lease; or (ii) without a lease or with a lease terminable under State law; and (B) is on or in a covered property.  The term “dwelling” (A) has the meaning given the term in 42 U.S.C. 3602; and (B) includes houses and dwellings described in 42 U.S.C. 3603(b).  The term “covered property” means any property that (A) participates in (i) a covered housing program (as defined in 34 U.S.C. 12491(a)); or (ii) the rural housing voucher program under 42 U.S.C. 1490r; or (B) has a (i) Federally backed mortgage loan; or (ii) Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.