Rule2026-06281
Rescission of OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches
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
April 1, 2026
Effective
May 1, 2026
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentComptroller of the Currency
Abstract
The OCC is amending its regulations by rescinding "OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches."
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16156-16160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06281]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 30
[Docket ID OCC-2025-0339]
RIN 1557-AF40
Rescission of OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery
Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal
Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The OCC is amending its regulations by rescinding ``OCC
Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain
Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and
Insured Federal Branches.''
DATES: This rule is effective May 1, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Young, Chief Counsel's Office,
(202) 649-5490; 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. Introduction
As a part of the OCC's ongoing assessment of its supervisory
framework to identify and eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden, the
agency is amending 12 CFR part 30 by rescinding the OCC Guidelines
Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured
National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured
Federal Branches contained in appendix E.
II. Background
In September 2016, the OCC issued the OCC Guidelines Establishing
[[Page 16157]]
Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National
Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal
Branches (Guidelines).\1\ Under the Guidelines, an insured national
bank, insured Federal savings association, or insured Federal branch
subject to the standards (covered banks) should have a recovery plan
that includes (1) quantitative or qualitative indicators of the risk or
existence of severe stress that reflect its particular vulnerabilities;
(2) a wide range of credible options that it could undertake in
response to the stress to restore its financial strength and viability;
and (3) an assessment and description of how these options would affect
it. The Guidelines provide that a recovery plan should also address (1)
the covered bank's overall organizational and legal entity structure
and its interconnections and interdependencies; (2) procedures for
escalating decision making to senior management or the board of
directors or an appropriate committee thereof (board); (3) management
reports; (4) communication procedures; and (5) any other information
the OCC communicates in writing. The Guidelines also set forth the
responsibilities of management and the board with respect to the
covered bank's recovery plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 81 FR 66791 (Sept. 29, 2016). The Guidelines are codified at
12 CFR part 30, appendix E. They were issued pursuant to section 39
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1, which
authorizes the OCC to prescribe enforceable safety and soundness
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Guidelines applied to banks with total consolidated assets
of $50 billion or more. In 2018, the OCC amended the Guidelines to
raise the threshold to $250 billion based on its view, at that time,
that these larger, more complex, and potentially more interconnected
banks presented greater systemic risk to the financial system and would
benefit most from recovery planning.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 83 FR 66604 (Dec. 27, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2024, the OCC amended the Guidelines to apply to banks
with average total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more;
incorporate a testing standard; and clarify the role of non-financial
(including operational and strategic) risk in recovery planning.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 89 FR 84255 (Oct. 22, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2025, the OCC, as a part of the agency's ongoing
assessment of its supervisory framework to identify and eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burden, proposed to amend 12 CFR part 30 by
rescinding the Guidelines contained in appendix E.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 90 FR 51587 (Nov. 18, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The OCC received eight comments on the proposal, representing a
range of viewpoints, including two trade associations, a state
government official, a consumer advocacy group, and several
individuals. Some commenters expressed support for the proposed
recission of the Guidelines while other commenters expressed opposition
to the proposal. Two commenters expressed support for rescinding the
Guidelines. One commenter claimed that rescinding the Guidelines would
reduce regulatory burden and inefficiencies without compromising the
safety and soundness of the covered banks. Another commenter supported
rescinding the Guidelines on the grounds that they are unnecessary,
lack cost-benefit justification, and rescinding them would eliminate
duplicative requirements because they overlap with other contingency
planning and risk management practices.
Risk Management Function. Several commenters stated that the
Guidelines should be maintained because they serve an important risk
management function. Two commenters claimed that institutions should be
planning for as many scenarios as possible and that planning and
preparation are appropriate steps to address stress events. Another
commenter stated that removing the Guidelines would eliminate an
important risk assessment process, and the resulting written recovery
plans serve as valuable references and resources for banks during
periods of financial and non-financial stress. The same commenter
further stated that without recovery plans, an institution may panic
during periods of stress resulting in poor decision making that could
destroy value rapidly and undermine confidence in banks and the banking
system. Another commenter stated that recovery planning is a
preparedness exercise that improves an institution's reaction to
unexpected situations, that an institution will be better prepared to
react having gone through the recovery planning process, and that
recovery planning ensures that each group within an organization
understands its role and the available options during stress events.
The OCC agrees with commenters that institutions should proactively
engage in risk management to develop the skills and strategies
necessary to navigate periods of operational and market stress.
However, as discussed in the proposal, the OCC has determined that the
Guidelines do not materially improve risk management at covered banks
because much of the recovery planning documentation is, by its nature,
scenario-dependent or otherwise conjectural and, therefore, is likely
to be irrelevant or of limited utility when a covered bank faces
stress.\5\ The OCC further believes that proper risk management should
be a dynamic process that involves real-time responses to the facts and
circumstances of a stress event or periods of stress.\6\ When periods
of stress arise, the OCC believes that bank management is best
positioned to assess the risks unique to their institution and should
have the freedom to pursue the risk management strategy that best suits
their bank's business model, complexities, and risks under the facts
and circumstances. The recission of the Guidelines restores bank
management's ability to determine the optimal risk management strategy,
without limiting appropriate supervisory oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 51588.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of Data in Support of Proposal. Two commenters asserted that
the data analysis in support of the proposal was insufficient. One
commenter stated that the proposal lacks evidence of the proposal's
effect on supervisory outcomes or how recission of the Guidelines
interacts with and does not degrade other frameworks (e.g., resolution
planning, long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity, and
liquidity and contingency funding planning). Another commenter stated
that the agency offered no evidence for certain statements in the
proposal. Specifically, the commenter stated that the agency did not
provide any evidence for the statement that recovery planning
documentation is ``scenario dependent or otherwise conjectural and,
therefore, is likely to be irrelevant or of limited utility when a
covered bank faces stress'' and ``that covered banks are well attuned
to indicia of stress without regard to the presence of the recovery
planning triggers and escalation procedure expectation of the
Guidelines.''
Consistent with the earlier iterations of the Guidelines and other
rulemakings, the OCC relies on its supervisory observations and expert
judgments to establish and revise supervisory policy. Since the
Guidelines were last amended in 2024, the OCC has undertaken a new
initiative to review and refresh its supervisory approach to restore
balance, reset the agency's tolerance for risk, focus supervision on
material financial risks, and free banks to lend, invest, innovate, and
grow
[[Page 16158]]
responsibly. As stated in the proposal, the OCC has observed through
this process that the significant expenditure of resources incurred by
covered banks to establish and maintain recovery planning documentation
is not justified because the documentation the agency has reviewed as
part of its supervisory activities is, by its nature, scenario-
dependent or otherwise conjectural and, therefore, is likely to be
irrelevant or of limited utility when a covered bank faces stress.\7\
The OCC, consistent with other agency proposed supervisory reforms,\8\
has also observed that this expenditure of resources on the development
of recovery planning documentation forces covered banks to prioritize
policies, process, documentation, and other non-financial risks over
material financial risks that pose a threat to an institution's
financial condition. The agency believes that relief from the
Guidelines will allow bank management at the covered banks to dedicate
more resources to addressing those material financial risks that pose a
threat to their institution's financial condition. Further, the OCC has
also determined that banks do not need a prescriptive framework for
coordinating their risk management functions. As the agency observed
over a decade ago, banks already engage in the type of risk management
activities necessary to respond to operational and market stress
events.\9\ The OCC continues to expect covered banks to engage in
prudent risk management, including preparing for operational and market
stresses. The recission of the Guidelines merely restores bank
management's ability to determine what risk management strategies are
most appropriate for their bank's respective business models,
management structures, complexities, and risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 90 FR 51588.
\8\ See, e.g., 90 FR 48835 (Oct. 30, 2025) (Unsafe or Unsound
Practices, Matters Requiring Attention).
\9\ See 81 FR 66797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Stress Events Support Maintaining the Guidelines. Several
commenters claimed that the market stress and bank failures of 2023
demonstrate that the agency should not rescind the Guidelines and
either maintain or strengthen them.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The commenters did not specify which bank failures they
were referring to, but for purposes of discussion, the agency
assumes the commenters were referring to the failures of Silicon
Valley Bank on March 10, 2023, Signature Bank on March 10, 2023, and
First Republic Bank on May 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the OCC's experience, recovery plans required under the
Guidelines have not been useful risk management tools for banks.
Likewise, for the reasons described in the proposal, the OCC does not
expect the Guidelines to yield useful recovery plans in the future
because much of the recovery planning documentation is, by its nature,
scenario-dependent or otherwise conjectural and, therefore, is likely
to be irrelevant or of limited utility when a covered bank faces
stress.\11\ Moreover, following the bank failures of 2023, the agency
did not rely upon any observations that recovery planning documentation
was utilized at covered banks during this period of market stress, nor
did the OCC determine that prescriptive recovery planning guidelines
would have been effective at addressing stress at the covered banks as
justification for reducing the Guidelines' threshold.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 90 FR 51588.
\12\ Rather, the agency relied upon the observation that
institutions with more than $100 billion in assets ``generally have
a level of risk, complexity, and interconnectedness at which
recovery planning is most beneficial.'' See 89 FR 84256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After carefully reviewing and considering all of the comments
received, the OCC is adopting the final rule as proposed. Although some
commenters disagreed with the proposal, the OCC believes recission of
the Guidelines is necessary to achieve the agency's goal of identifying
and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden that has been imposed on
banks. Further, the agency believes that the Guidelines can be
eliminated without creating additional risk to the safety and soundness
of the covered banks or the banking system.
IV. Contingency Funding Planning
As a part of the proposal, the OCC also invited public comment on
whether the contingency funding plan expectations set forth in the
Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management
and the Addendum to the Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and
Liquidity Risk Management: Importance of Contingency Funding Plans
(collectively, the Contingency Funding Guidelines) should be
codified.\13\ One commenter expressed support for codification of the
Contingency Funding Guidelines on the grounds that contingency funding
plans consider a range of stress scenarios, ensure that an institution
can continue to operate during periods of stress, help maintain public
trust, protect an institution's reputation, and ensure the stability of
the financial system. Two commenters opposed codification of the
Contingency Funding Guidelines for various reasons. One commenter
stated that codification of a contingency funding requirement would be
inconsistent with the agency's goal of reducing regulatory burden.
Another commenter acknowledged that having reliable contingency funding
sources was important to bank safety and soundness but still expressed
opposition to codification. The commenter observed that the OCC has
ample supervisory tools at its disposal to address concerns related to
funding and liquidity risk management. The commenter further stated
that there would not be any benefit to codifying a contingency funding
requirement and codification of such a requirement could impose
incremental cost burdens on institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 90 FR 51589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon consideration of the comments received concerning codification
of the Contingency Funding Guidelines, the OCC has declined to pursue
codification at this time. The OCC will continue to review the
Contingency Funding Guidelines for opportunities to refine and improve
the agency's supervision of contingency funding planning activities. As
discussed in the proposal, the OCC expects that all banks have a formal
contingency funding plan that considers a range of possible stress
scenarios, assesses the stability of funding during periods of stress,
and provides for a broad range of funding sources under adverse
conditions.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.; see also Addendum to the Interagency Policy Statement
on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management: Importance of Contingency
Funding Plans, OCC Bulletin 2023-25, which can be accessed here:
<a href="https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-ia-2023-82a.pdf">https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-ia-2023-82a.pdf</a>; Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk
Management, Federal Reserve SR 10-6 (Mar. 17, 2010), FDIC FIL-13-
2010 (Apr. 10, 2010), and OCC Bulletin 2010-13 (Mar. 22, 2010).
These individual agency issuances released the 2010 Interagency
Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management, which can
be accessed here: <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-03-22/pdf/2010-6137.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-03-22/pdf/2010-6137.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Rule
The final rule adopts as final the proposed recission of the OCC
Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain
Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and
Insured Federal Branches contained at 12 CFR part 30, appendix E. The
OCC believes the recission of the Guidelines achieves the OCC's goal of
identifying and eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden without
compromising the safety and soundness of the covered banks or the
banking system. Covered banks will no longer be required to develop and
maintain formal recovery planning documentation and the OCC will no
longer examine for recovery planning documentation. Recission of the
Guidelines does not restrict banks
[[Page 16159]]
from continuing to engage in recovery planning activities but rather
provides bank management with increased freedom to allocate resources
more efficiently and pursue those risk management activities best
suited to a bank's business model, management structure, complexities,
and risks. While the Guidelines may no longer impose unnecessary
regulatory burden on the covered banks, these institutions remain
responsible for managing the risks to their business models.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),\15\ 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 the
final rule and determined that it would not create any new, or revise
any existing, collections of information under the PRA and therefore,
requires no PRA filings, other than a discontinuance request to the OMB
for the currently approved ``Guidelines Establishing Standards for
Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured
Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches (1557-
0333)'' information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of Information Collection: Guidelines Establishing Standards
for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured
Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches.
OMB Control Number: 1557-0333.
Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
Description: Twelve CFR part 30, appendix E, current Guidelines
apply to national banks, insured Federal savings associations, and
insured Federal branches of foreign banks with total consolidated
assets of $100 billion or more. The OMB previously approved the
collection of information in the current Guidelines, which are found at
paragraphs II.B., II.C., and III. Specifically, paragraph II.B. lists
the elements of the recovery plan, which are an overview of the covered
bank; triggers; options for recovery; impact assessments; escalation
procedures; management reports; communication procedures; and other
information. Paragraph II.C. addresses the relationship of the plan to
other covered bank processes and coordination with other plans,
including the processes and plans of its bank holding company.
Paragraph III. outlines management and the board's responsibilities.
The current Guidelines also include a testing standard, which provides
that a covered bank should test its recovery plan.
Additionally, the current Guidelines clarify the role of non-
financial risk (including operational and strategic risk) in recovery
planning.
Current Burden
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Total Number of Respondents: 21.
Total Burden per Respondent: 32,017 hours.
Total Burden for Collection: 672,360 hours.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) \16\ requires an agency, in
connection with a final rule, to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities
(defined by the Small Business Administration 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). Under section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not
required if an agency certifies that the rulemaking would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in
the Federal Register along with its rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCC certifies that the recission of Guidelines contained in
appendix E of 12 CFR part 30, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Guidelines only apply to
those insured national banks, insured Federal savings associations, or
insured Federal branches with average total consolidated assets of $100
billion or more. Therefore, the recission of the Guidelines would
impact no small entities supervised by the OCC. Accordingly, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
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.\17\ 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
(currently $187 million, as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. The OCC has determined that the cost savings associated with the
rescission of the Guidelines' mandates will be approximately $20
million annually. Therefore, the OCC concludes that the recission of
the Guidelines contained in 12 CFR part 30, appendix E, will not result
in an expenditure of $187 million or more annually by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any
one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994,\18\ 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
the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest: (1) any
administrative burdens that the rule would place on depository
institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of
depository institutions; and (2) the benefits of the rulemaking. This
rulemaking would not impose any additional reporting, disclosure, or
other requirements on insured depository institutions. Therefore,
section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 does not apply to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders 12866 and 14192
Executive Order 12866, titled ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
as amended, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), 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. 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 final rule will result in approximately
[[Page 16160]]
$20 million of annual cost savings to covered banks and is a
deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.
Congressional Review Act
Before a rule can take effect, the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
\19\ 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
\20\ 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRA defines a ``major rule'' as any rule that the Administrator
of OIRA of the OMB 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 30
Administrative practice and procedure, National banks, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of
12 U.S.C. 93a and 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1, the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency amends 12 CFR part 30 as follows:
PART 30--SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a,
1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1881-1884, 3102(b) and 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C.
1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805(b)(1).
Appendix E to Part 30 [Removed]
0
2. Removes appendix E to part 30.
Jonathan V. Gould,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2026-06281 Filed 3-31-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 1, 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.