Rule2026-04276
Fair Housing Home Loan Data System
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
March 4, 2026
Effective
April 3, 2026
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentComptroller of the Currency
Abstract
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is rescinding its Fair Housing Home Loan Data System regulation. The OCC has determined that the regulation is obsolete and largely duplicative of and inconsistent with other legal authorities that require national banks to collect and retain certain information on applications for home loans. Moreover, it imposed asymmetrical data collection requirements on national banks compared to their other depository institution counterparts, and the data collected had limited utility. For these reasons, rescinding the regulation eliminates the regulatory burden for national banks without having a material impact on the availability of data necessary for the OCC to conduct its fair housing- related supervisory activities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10499-10503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04276]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 27
[Docket ID OCC-2025-0405]
RIN 1557-AF42
Fair Housing Home Loan Data System
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is
rescinding its Fair Housing Home Loan Data System regulation. The OCC
has determined that the regulation is obsolete and largely duplicative
of and inconsistent with other legal authorities that require national
banks to collect and retain certain information on applications for
home loans. Moreover, it imposed asymmetrical data collection
requirements on national banks compared to their other depository
institution counterparts, and the data collected had limited utility.
For these reasons, rescinding the regulation eliminates the regulatory
burden for national banks without having a material impact on the
availability of data necessary for the OCC to conduct its fair housing-
related supervisory activities.
DATES: The final rule is effective April 3, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Small, Counsel, (202) 649-
5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf,
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to
access telecommunications relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The OCC is rescinding its Fair Housing Home Loan Data System
regulation codified at 12 CFR part 27.\1\ The OCC issued part 27 in
1979 to provide a basis for a more effective fair housing monitoring
program for home loans.\2\ The OCC's issuance of part 27 also assisted
with implementation of certain parts of the settlement reached in
National Urban League et al., v. Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency et al.\3\ Part 27 established recordkeeping requirements and a
data collection system for monitoring national banks and any of their
subsidiaries \4\ (national banks) \5\ for compliance with the Fair
Housing Act \6\ and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.\7\ Specifically,
part 27 required national banks to (i) engage in quarterly
recordkeeping of certain home loan data if the national bank is
required to report
[[Page 10500]]
loans under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act \8\ (HMDA reporters) or if
the national bank is a non-HMDA reporter that receives 50 or more home
loan \9\ applications a year, as applicable; \10\ (ii) attempt to
obtain all of the prescribed information for applications for home
loans; \11\ (iii) maintain certain additional information in loan
files; \12\ and (iv) collect and maintain certain information on a log,
if the OCC orders the national bank to maintain a log of inquiries and
applications.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 44 FR 63084 (Nov. 2, 1979) as amended at 49 FR 11825 (Mar.
28, 1984), 59 FR 26415 (May 20, 1994), 73 FR 22251 (Apr. 24, 2008).
\2\ 44 FR 63084 (Nov. 2, 1979).
\3\ See National Urban League, et al. v. Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, et al., 78 FRD. 543, 544 (D.D.C. May 3,
1978); 44 FR 63084 (Nov. 2, 1979). The settlement agreement
expressly provides that the terms expired in three years, and do not
currently obligate the OCC to maintain part 27. See National Urban
League, et al. v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, et al.,
Settlement Agreement at 531, No. 76-0718 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 1977).
\4\ As originally promulgated, the regulation also applied to
banks located in the District of Columbia. The OCC amended part 27
in 2008 to remove banks chartered in Washington, DC from the scope
of the regulation since those entities are no longer national banks.
See 73 FR 22216, 22232 (Apr. 24, 2008).
\5\ The regulation defines the term ``bank'' as ``a national
bank and any subsidiaries of a national bank.'' See 12 CFR 27.2(c).
However, this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION uses the term ``national
bank'' in place of the defined term ``bank'' to improve readability
and distinguish the relevant data requirements applicable to
national banks from those applicable to other types of depository
institutions.
\6\ 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.
\8\ 12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.
\9\ A home loan, as defined in part 27, is ``a real estate loan
for the purchase, permanent financing for construction, or the
refinancing of residential real property which the applicant intends
to occupy as a principal residence.'' 12 CFR 27.2(f).
\10\ 12 CFR 27.3.
\11\ 12 CFR 27.3.
\12\ 12 CFR 27.5.
\13\ 12 CFR 27.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When part 27 was promulgated in 1979, the principal purpose of the
regulation was to provide for the collection and retention of
information necessary to establish a valid statistical analysis of
national banks' home lending decisions without placing an undue burden
upon the national banks subject to the rule.\14\ At the time the rule
was promulgated, the OCC stated that it would engage in reviews of the
efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory requirements.\15\
Recently, the OCC has undertaken such a review as part of its ongoing
efforts to tailor bank supervision and regulation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 44 FR 63084, 63085 (Nov. 2, 1979).
\15\ 44 FR 63084, 63085 (Nov. 2, 1979). Specifically, in
response to comments that the OCC should include more data
collection requirements under part 27, the agency explained its
reasoning for limiting the data collection requirements and stated
that ``the Comptroller will regularly review the efficiency and
effectiveness of [the data collection] requirements, as well as the
value of statistical analysis through the use of electronic data
processing, to determine whether the regulatory scope should be
reexamined in the future.'' While this statement was made in
contemplation of a future review of the regulatory scope of the
regulation to determine whether more data should be collected under
part 27, the conclusions drawn from the OCC's review of the
efficiency and effectiveness of a regulation will depend on the
particular facts, which the OCC believes weigh in favor of
rescission in this instance.
\16\ See Executive Order 14192, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025). The
OCC also regularly conducts reviews under the Economic Growth and
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208
(1996) (EGRPRA). The OCC received a public comment pursuant to its
2014-17 EGRPRA review suggesting that the OCC could reduce
regulatory burden by removing part 27. See Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council Joint Report to Congress, Economic
Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, (March 2017)
(commenter noting that the regulation has not been updated since
1994, that the regulation is duplicative of the HMDA and Fair
Housing Act, and that the regulation is outdated because it refers
to the Board's Regulation C and not the CFPB's HMDA rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCC has determined that part 27 is obsolete because it is
largely duplicative of and inconsistent with revisions to other legal
authorities that require national banks to collect and retain certain
information on applications for home loans. In addition, because part
27 only applied to national banks, national banks had more home loan
data collection requirements than other depository institutions.
Moreover, the burden the rule imposed on national banks was not
justified by the limited utility of data collected under part 27. Also,
when part 27 was promulgated, the OCC stated that the regulation's
requirements were designed to assist agency examiners in performing
full and complete fair housing examinations. However, since then, the
OCC has found that agency examiners generally base their fair lending
supervisory activities on data collected under other legal authorities
that require national banks to collect and maintain information on
applications for home loans. The OCC believes that the rescission of
part 27, therefore, will not have a material impact on the availability
of data necessary for the OCC to conduct its fair housing supervisory
activities. For these reasons, as explained in greater detail below,
the OCC is rescinding the regulation--thereby eliminating the
regulatory burden attributable to part 27 for national banks.
Duplicative Requirements. Part 27 was largely duplicative of the
HMDA and its implementing regulation, Regulation C,\17\ and Regulation
B,\18\ which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).\19\
For example, under part 27, HMDA reporters were required to maintain
reasons for denial of a loan application, but HMDA reporters are
already required to provide this information pursuant to Regulation
C.\20\ Additionally, many of the categories of information that all
national banks were required to collect and maintain under 12 CFR
27.3(b) are already collected and reported by HMDA reporters under
Regulation C.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 12 CFR part 1003.
\18\ 12 CFR part 1002.
\19\ As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), rulemaking authority pursuant to HMDA
and ECOA shifted from the Federal Reserve Board (Board) to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Public Law 111-203, 124
Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010). Dodd-Frank also required the CFPB to
amend Regulation C. The CFPB amended Regulation C, and subsequently
Regulation B to conform to revised Regulation C. See 80 FR 66128
(Oct. 28, 2015); 82 FR 43088 (Sept. 13, 2017).
\20\ See 12 CFR 27.3(a)(1)(i); See also 12 CFR 1003.4(a)(16).
\21\ Compare data points required by 12 CFR 27.3(b) with data
points required under 12 CFR 1003.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Inconsistencies. There were several inconsistencies
between part 27 and Regulations B and C, particularly concerning the
available categories for the collection of ethnicity and race data.
These inconsistencies stem from the fact that the OCC has not
materially updated part 27 since 1994,\22\ despite substantive and
jurisdictional changes to Regulations B and C in the intervening years.
Specifically, Regulations B and C provide two aggregate categories for
ethnicity data: Hispanic or Latino; and Not Hispanic or Latino.
Regulations B and C also include the following five aggregate
categories for race data: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian;
Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;
and White. In contrast, part 27 required the collection of race and
national origin under the following six categories: American Indian or
Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic
origin; White, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; Other. Because part 27
did not separate race from ethnicity, its collection and recordkeeping
requirements were inconsistent with the requirements of Regulations B
and C. Further, part 27 also required less granular information
collection than allowed under Regulation C, which allows for more
specific categories for ethnicity and race.\23\ Specifically, under
Regulation C, within the Hispanic or Latino category an applicant may
also select among one or more of the following four subcategories:
Mexican; Puerto Rican; Cuban; and Other Hispanic or Latino. In
addition, within the Asian and the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander aggregate categories an applicant may select one or more of
seven and four subcategories, respectively. The Asian race
subcategories are: Asian Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Japanese; Korean;
Vietnamese; and Other Asian. The Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander race subcategories are: Native Hawaiian; Guamanian or
Chamorro; Samoan; and Other Pacific Islander. Under Regulation B, a
national bank that is a non-HMDA reporter may
[[Page 10501]]
generally collect ethnicity and race data using either the aggregate
race and ethnicity categories described in Regulations B or using the
more detailed subcategories set forth in Regulation C.\24\ Therefore,
the requirement in part 27 to collect aggregate data was inconsistent
with the requirements imposed by Regulations B and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In 2008, the OCC amended part 27 to remove banks chartered
in Washington, DC from the scope of the regulation since those
entities are no longer national banks. See 73 FR 22216, 22232 (Apr.
24, 2008).
\23\ Compare for example, the data collection requirements under
12 CFR 27.3(b)(1) with the data collection requirements under
Regulation C (12 CFR 1003.4).
\24\ See 12 CFR 1002.13(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asymmetric Data Requirements. Despite the duplication and
inconsistencies with Regulations B and C, part 27 required national
banks to collect and maintain certain unique data. However, not all
depository institutions were required to collect this information. With
respect to OCC-regulated institutions, part 27 did not apply to Federal
savings associations, nor is there a comparable regulation applicable
to Federal savings associations. In addition, the other Federal
prudential regulators--the Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC)--do not have regulations that require the separate
collection of home loan data from their supervised institutions and
rely largely on the data collected pursuant to Regulations B and C to
conduct fair lending analyses. Therefore, because part 27 only applied
to national banks, national banks had more home loan data collection
requirements than other depository institutions.
Limited Utility. The OCC considered whether, notwithstanding the
issues discussed above, the unique data collection and maintenance
requirements of part 27 offered a sufficient countervailing benefit
when compared to the regulatory burden imposed on national banks by the
regulation. After considering how the OCC uses home loan data in its
supervisory activities, the OCC believes that any burden imposed on
national banks is not justified by the limited utility of data
collection under part 27. Specifically, the OCC largely utilizes
information collected pursuant to the HMDA and ECOA to conduct its
supervisory activities. The OCC only considered part 27 data in limited
circumstances where the data requirements did not overlap. Further, as
noted above, part 27 data was most useful in helping to assess fair
lending risk, and any resulting fair lending examinations would have
required the OCC to engage in sampling to obtain necessary home loan
data.
Specifically, with regard to the subset of national banks that are
non-HMDA reporters and originate more than 50 loans annually, the OCC
may obtain the information that part 27 required these national banks
to collect pursuant to the agency's general supervisory authority and
its supervisory authority under the Fair Housing Act and ECOA.\25\
Therefore, national banks' collection and maintenance of home loan data
under part 27 had limited utility for the OCC when considering the
related burden on national banks. Moreover, while the removal of part
27 will reduce regulatory burden for all national banks, the main
benefactors of this burden reduction will be non-HMDA reporters that
originate more than 50 loans annually, which are typically smaller
national banks. This is because HMDA-reporters will continue to collect
and maintain required home loan data in accordance with Regulations B
and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 12 U.S.C. 481; 12 CFR part 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 27 data also had limited utility for external stakeholders.
Specifically, the part 27 data requirements were collection and
maintenance requirements. Unlike the HMDA data, part 27 data was not
publicly available. Therefore, removal of part 27 will not result in a
reduction in the data available for external stakeholders' home loan
data analysis.
Alternatives Considered. The OCC considered, as an alternative,
revising part 27 to bring it into conformity with Regulations B and C.
However, the OCC believes rescission is the better approach because,
even if the OCC updated the regulation to conform with Regulations B
and C, part 27 would still be largely duplicative of those other
regulations and the utility of the non-duplicative data does not
outweigh the regulatory burden on national banks to collect and
maintain that data.
Proposal and Comments. Consistent with these reasons, the OCC
proposed rescinding part 27.\26\ The OCC received six substantive
comments on its proposal. Most comments generally opposed the
rescission of part 27, expressing concern that rescinding its data
collection requirements would negatively affect the OCC's ability to
identify and prevent lending discrimination. Two comments also stated
that the proposal did not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act
because it would diminish fair lending enforcement without a reasoned
explanation. One comment also critiqued several elements of the
proposal's regulatory impact analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 90 FR 51583 (Nov. 18, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the proposal, the data collected pursuant to part 27
was largely duplicative of the information collection requirements
under Regulation C and Regulation B. Furthermore, the OCC's fair
lending supervision relies almost exclusively on information collected
pursuant to Regulation C and Regulation B. The rescission of part 27,
therefore, will not have a material impact on the availability of data
necessary for the OCC to conduct its fair housing supervisory
activities. Further, rescinding part 27 enhances regulatory consistency
by applying the same information collection requirements to national
banks. The OCC is finalizing the rescission of part 27 as proposed.
II. Regulatory Analysis
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),\27\ the OCC may
not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to,
an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC has reviewed
this rulemaking and determined that it will not create any new or
revise any existing, collections of information under the PRA and
therefore, require no PRA filings, other than a discontinuance request
to OMB for the currently approved ``Fair Housing Home Loan Data System
Regulation (1557-0159)'' information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of Information Collection: Fair Housing Home Loan Data System
Regulation.
OMB Control Number: 1557-0159.
Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.
Description: Under the current 12 CFR part 27 certain national
banks are required to record certain home loan data home loan data if
they: (1) are otherwise required to maintain and report data pursuant
to Regulation C,\28\ which implements HMDA,\29\ in which case they are
HMDA reporters or (2) receive more than 50 home loan applications
annually. Specifically, national banks that are HMDA reporters meet the
part 27 requirement by recording HMDA data along with the reasons for
denying any loan application on the HMDA Loan Application/Register
(LAR).\30\ A national bank that is not a HMDA reporter but that
receives more than 50 home loan applications annually must comply with
part 27 by either: (1) recording and reporting HMDA data and denial
reasons on the LAR as if they were a HMDA reporter \31\ or (2)
[[Page 10502]]
recording and maintaining part 27-specified activity data relating to
aggregate numbers of certain types of loans by geography and action
taken.\32\ Part 27 also requires that all national banks, including
those not subject to the recording requirements, to maintain certain
application and loan information in loan files. Part 27 further
provides that the OCC may require national banks to maintain and submit
additional information if there is reason to believe that the bank
engaged in discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 12 CFR part 1003.
\29\ 12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.
\30\ 12 CFR 27.3(a)(1)(i).
\31\ 12 CFR 27.3(a)(5).
\32\ 12 CFR 27.3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Burden
Number of Respondents: 702.
Total Annual Burden: 12,632 hours.
The OCC received one comment criticizing the proposal's PRA
analysis and lack of PRA materials. However, because the final rule
eliminates information collection requirements, no PRA filings are
required, other than the discontinuance request to OMB discussed above.
Accordingly, the OCC did not make any changes to its PRA analysis based
on the comments it received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare and
make public a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of
the rule on small entities (defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) for purposes of the RFA to include commercial
banks and savings institutions with total assets of $850 million or
less and trust companies with total assets of $47 million or less) or
to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The OCC currently supervises
approximately 609 small entities \33\ of which 218 will be impacted by
the final rule. Although the final rule will apply to the 399 small
national banks that make at least 50 home loans per year,\34\ only 218
small national banks will be impacted because only institutions that
are not required to report under HMDA needed to collect any additional
information under part 27. The OCC estimates the yearly savings for
non-HMDA reporters from not calculating the statistics required by part
27 to be up to $6,798 per institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The OCC bases its estimate of the number of small entities
on the Small Business Administration's size thresholds, which are
$850 million or less in total assets for commercial banks and
savings institutions, and $47 million, or less in total assets for
trust companies. Consistent with the General Principles of
Affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103(a), the OCC counts the assets of
affiliated financial institutions when determining whether to
classify an OCC-supervised institution as a small entity. The OCC
uses December 31, 2024, to determine size because a ``financial
institution's assets are determined by averaging the assets reported
on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.''
See footnote 8 of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Table of
Size Standards.
\34\ As noted above, part 27 only applied to national banks not
Federal savings associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised
small entities to be a substantial number. At present, 31 OCC-
supervised small entities constitute a substantial number. However, the
OCC classifies the economic impact on an individual small entity as
significant if the total estimated impact in one year is greater than 5
percent of the small entity's total annual salaries and benefits or
greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity's total non-interest
expense. Therefore, although the final rule will affect a substantial
number of small entities, it will not have a significant economic
impact on those small entities in any given year. Accordingly, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and the OCC certifies
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The OCC received one comment criticizing the proposal's lack of
detailed RFA analysis of the costs to small entities associated with
the proposal. However, because the final rule eliminates information
collection requirements, it eliminates the costs associated with those
requirements and does not impose any additional costs or burdens on
small entities. Accordingly, the OCC did not make any changes to its
RFA analysis based on the comments it received.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The OCC analyzed the final rule under the factors set forth in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this
analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a Federal
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year ($187 million as adjusted annually for
inflation). Pursuant to section 202 of the UMRA,\35\ if a final rule
meets this UMRA threshold the OCC would need to prepare a written
statement that includes, among other things, a cost-benefit analysis of
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 2 U.S.C. 1532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the final rule rescinds existing regulations and does not
contain any new mandates, the OCC's estimated UMRA cost is zero.
Therefore, the OCC finds that this final rule does not trigger the UMRA
cost threshold. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written
statement described in section 202 of UMRA.
The OCC received one comment criticizing the proposal's lack of an
UMRA written statement. However, the final rule does not impose any
mandates that will result in any expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments. Accordingly, the OCC did not make any changes to
its UMRA analysis based on the comments it received.
Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that, with certain
exceptions, a substantive rule must be published not less than 30 days
before its effective date.\36\ The April 3, 2026 effective date of this
final rule meets the APA effective date requirement, as it will take
effect at least 30 days after its publication date of March 4, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA) of 1994 \37\ in determining the
effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new
regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other
requirements on insured depository institutions, the OCC must consider,
consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public
interest (1) any administrative burdens that the final rule would place
on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and
customers of depository institutions, and (2) the benefits of the final
rule. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new regulations
and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting,
disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository
institutions generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar
quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are
published in final form.\38\ This final rule does not impose additional
reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on an insured depository
institution. Therefore, section 302 of the Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 does not apply to this final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
\38\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCC received one comment suggesting that the OCC stay
enforcement of this provision for at least
[[Page 10503]]
12 months.\39\ However, this final rule removes data collection and
recordkeeping requirements and does not have any enforcement
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ This comment also suggested the OCC's proposal had several
other deficiencies including its invocation of the ``good cause''
exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) or 553(d)(3) and the lack of a
Systems of Records Notice (SORN) or a Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA). The OCC's proposal did not propose additional data collection
requirements, so a SORN or PIA are not required. Further the
proposal did not invoke the ``good cause'' exception under the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders 12866 and 14192
Executive Order 12866, as amended, provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) will review all ``significant regulatory
actions'' as defined therein. OIRA has determined that this final rule
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' for purposes of Executive
Order 12866, as amended. Executive Order 14192, titled ``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' separately requires that an agency,
unless prohibited by law, identify at least ten existing regulations to
be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or
otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than
zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that 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
ten prior regulations. The OCC has determined that the final rule will
be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because it will
result in costs savings for affected OCC-supervised institutions.
Congressional Review Act
Before a rule can take effect, the Congressional Review Act (CRA),
5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., provides that the OCC must submit to Congress and
to the Comptroller General the rule along with a report indicating
whether it is a ``major rule.'' In general, if a rule is a ``major
rule,'' the CRA provides that unless Congress enacts a joint resolution
of disapproval the rule takes effect the later of: (1) 60 days after
Congress receives the required report or publication of the rule in the
Federal Register, whichever is later; or (2) the date the rule would
otherwise take effect.\40\ The CRA defines a ``major rule'' as any rule
that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget finds has
resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies or geographic regions, or (3) a significant adverse
effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
markets.\41\ OIRA has determined that this final rule is not a major
rule. As required by the CRA, the OCC will submit the final rule and
other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).
\41\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 27
Civil rights, Credit, Fair housing, Mortgages, National banks,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
PART 27--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 12
U.S.C. 93a, the OCC removes and reserves 12 CFR part 27.
Jonathan V. Gould,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2026-04276 Filed 3-3-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 4, 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.