Proposed Rule2026-09009
Thresholds Increase for the Major Assets Prohibition of the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act Rule
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
May 7, 2026
Issuing agencies
National Credit Union Administration
Abstract
The NCUA Board (Board) is seeking comment on a proposed rule that would increase two thresholds in its regulation implementing management official interlocks for purposes of the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA). DIMIA provides that the NCUA may adjust, by regulation, the major assets prohibition thresholds to allow for inflation or market changes. This proposal would increase both major assets prohibition thresholds to $10 billion to account for changes in the United States banking market since 1996. Additionally, the proposal would remove a presumption related to depository institutions controlled or managed by persons who are members of a minority group or women.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24748-24752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09009]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 711
RIN 3133-AF89
Thresholds Increase for the Major Assets Prohibition of the
Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act Rule
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NCUA Board (Board) is seeking comment on a proposed rule
that would increase two thresholds in its regulation implementing
management official interlocks for purposes of the Depository
Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA). DIMIA provides that the
NCUA may adjust, by regulation, the major assets prohibition thresholds
to allow for inflation or market changes. This proposal would increase
both major assets prohibition thresholds to $10 billion to account for
changes in the United States banking market since 1996. Additionally,
the proposal would remove a presumption related to depository
institutions controlled or managed by persons who are members of a
minority group or women.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 6, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in one of the following ways.
(Please send comments by one method only):
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
The docket number for this proposed rule is NCUA-2026-0992. Follow the
``Submit a comment'' instructions. If you are reading this document on
<a href="http://federalregister.gov">federalregister.gov</a>, you may use the green ``SUBMIT A PUBLIC COMMENT''
button beneath this rulemaking's title to submit a comment to the
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> docket. A plain language summary of the proposed rule
is also available on the docket website.
<bullet> Mail: Address to Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of
the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
<bullet> Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mailing address.
Mailed and hand-delivered comments must be received by the close of
the comment period.
Public inspection: Please follow the search instructions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> to view the public comments. Do not include any
personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other
contact information) or confidential business information that you do
not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are
publicly displayed exactly as received and will not be deleted,
modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously. If you
are unable to access public comments on the internet, you may contact
the NCUA for alternative access by calling (703) 518-6540 or emailing
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79363e3a3418101539171a0c18571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d525a5e507c74715d737e687c337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John H. Brolin, Senior Staff Attorney,
Office of General Counsel, at (703) 518-6540 or at 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Background
Under the authorities established in DIMIA, the Board is issuing a
proposed
[[Page 24749]]
rule to increase the major assets prohibition thresholds for management
interlocks.\1\ This increase the thresholds is proposed to reflect the
changes in the United States banking market since Congress established
the current thresholds in 1996. Under current part 711, an exemption is
required for a management official \2\ of a depository organization \3\
(or any affiliate of such organization) with assets exceeding $2.5
billion to serve as a management official of an unaffiliated depository
organization (or any affiliate of such organization) with assets
exceeding $1.5 billion. The proposal would increase both thresholds to
$10 billion. Section 711.4(c) of the NCUA's regulations exempts a
management official of a credit union from the prohibition when the
individual serves as a management official of another credit union.
Thus, the Interlocks Act prohibitions contained in part 711 apply to
only a management official of a credit union when that individual also
serves as a management official of another type of depository
organization (usually a bank or a thrift).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 12 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.
\2\ See 12 CFR 711.2(k).
\3\ See 12 CFR 711.2(h); Sec. 711.2(f); and Sec. 711.2(e).
\4\ Sec. 711.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By increasing the major assets prohibition thresholds, the proposal
would reduce the number of depository organizations subject to the
major assets prohibition. This reduces regulatory burden by raising the
threshold at which depository organizations must ask the NCUA for
exemptions from the major assets prohibition. The NCUA anticipates that
raising the asset thresholds would assist credit unions with less than
$10 billion in total assets in finding qualified directors by
eliminating the need to file requests for exemptions. Additionally, the
removal of the rebuttable presumption that an interlock will not result
in a monopoly or substantially lessen competition if the depository
institution seeking to add a management official is controlled or
managed by persons who are members of a minority group or women will
help ensure Equal Protection issues don't arise under Sec. 711.6.
DIMIA--implemented in the NCUA's regulations at 12 CFR part 711--
fosters competition by prohibiting a management official from serving
at multiple, unaffiliated depository organizations simultaneously when
such multiple roles may have an anticompetitive effect.\5\ DIMIA
achieves this purpose through three statutory prohibitions, which are
implemented in Sec. 711.3 of the NCUA's regulations. In their current
form, the three prohibitions are as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sec. 711.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The community prohibition \6\ precludes a management official of a
depository organization from serving concurrently as a management
official of an unaffiliated depository organization if the depository
organizations in question (or any depository institution affiliate
thereof) have offices in the same community.\7\ The second prohibition,
the relevant metropolitan statistical area (RMSA) prohibition,\8\
precludes a management official of a depository organization from
serving concurrently as a management official of an unaffiliated
depository organization if the depository organizations in question (or
any depository institution affiliate thereof) have offices in the same
RMSA \9\ and each depository organization has total assets of $50
million or more. The third prohibition, the major assets
prohibition,\10\ precludes a management official of a depository
organization with total assets exceeding $2.5 billion (or any affiliate
of such an organization) from serving concurrently as a management
official of an unaffiliated depository organization with total assets
exceeding $1.5 billion (or any affiliate of such an organization),
regardless of the location of the two depository organizations. While
the first two prohibitions capture the risk of anticompetitive effects
from management interlocks between depository organizations that
operate within overlapping geographical areas, the major assets
prohibition addresses management interlocks between depository
organizations that are large enough that a management interlock may
present anticompetitive concerns even though the involved organizations
may not have offices in the same community or RMSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Sec. 711.3(a).
\7\ The NCUA's regulation defines ``community'' to mean a city,
town, or village, and contiguous and adjacent cities, towns, or
villages. Sec. 711.2(c).
\8\ Sec. 711.3(b).
\9\ The NCUA's regulation defines ``RMSA'' to mean an
[metropolitan statistical area (MSA)], a primary MSA, or a
consolidated MSA that is not comprised of designated Primary MSAs to
the extent that these terms are defined and applied by the Office of
Management and Budget. Sec. 711.2(n).
\10\ Sec. 711.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion thresholds in the major assets
prohibition were enacted through amendments to DIMIA in the Economic
Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA).\11\
During hearings on EGRPRA, it was noted that the increase of the asset
thresholds to $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion was made because the
previous asset threshold numbers did not ``realistically reflect the
size of large institutions in today's market.'' \12\ DIMIA, as amended,
also provides that the agencies may adjust the thresholds as necessary
``to allow for inflation or market changes.'' \13\ The major assets
prohibition thresholds set forth in EGRPRA do not reflect the growth
and consolidation among U.S. depository organizations that has occurred
since 1996 and do not reflect the size of today's large institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1996, Public Law 104-208, Title II, 110 Stat. 3009-9, Sec.
2210(a).
\12\ The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction
Act--S. 650: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Fin. Insts. &
Regulatory Relief of the S. Comm. on Banking, Hous., & Urban
Affairs, 104 Cong. 90 (1995) (statement of Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency). Initially, the thresholds were set at
$500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000. See Financial Institutions
Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978, Public Law 95-630,
Title II, Depository Institutions Management Interlocks Act, 92
Stat. 3641, 3672 (Nov. 10, 1978).
\13\ 12 U.S.C. 3203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on regulatory reporting, total assets at depository
organizations have grown by more than 341 percent in the 29 years
between the fourth quarter of 1996 and the fourth quarter of 2024.
Moreover, in an October 2019 final rule, the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
collectively referred to as the Other Banking Agencies, reduced
regulatory burden by adjusting the major assets thresholds to $10
billion in their respective DIMIA regulations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 84 FR 54465 (Oct. 10, 2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DIMIA allows agencies to prescribe regulations that
permit otherwise prohibited interlocks under certain circumstances.\15\
Pursuant to Sec. 711.6, the NCUA may exempt a prohibited interlock in
response to an application by a depository organization if the NCUA
finds that the interlock would not result in a monopoly or substantial
lessening of competition and would not present safety and soundness
concerns. In reviewing applications for an exemption under Sec. 711.6,
the NCUA applies a rebuttable presumption that an interlock will not
result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition if the
depository organization seeking to add a management official, among
other things, is controlled or managed by persons who are members of a
minority or group of women. The proposed rule would eliminate this
presumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 12 U.S.C. 3207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24750]]
The NCUA welcomes comments on all changes that would be made under
this proposal.
Legal Authority
The Board has the legal authority to issue this final rule pursuant
to its plenary rulemaking authority under the Federal Credit Union Act
and its specific rulemaking authority under the various provisions the
Board administers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposed Rule
A. Sec. 711.3(c) Major Assets
The proposal would amend current Sec. 711.3(c) of the NCUA's
regulations to increase the major assets prohibition thresholds from
$1.5 billion and $2.5 billion to $10 billion each. Under the proposal,
the major assets prohibition would still prohibit management interlocks
between unaffiliated depository organizations each with total assets
exceeding $10 billion (or any affiliates of such organizations).
The proposed increase to the major assets prohibition thresholds,
and the application of the major assets prohibition to larger
depository organizations rather than depository organizations with $10
billion or less in total assets, is consistent with the purpose of the
major assets prohibition of DIMIA.\17\ Adjusting the major assets
prohibition to reflect a $10 billion asset threshold prohibits
interlocks between larger depository organizations, which could present
a risk of anticompetitive conduct at the level of the U.S. banking
market, while exempting smaller depository organizations, which
generally operate in regional markets and do not present the same
competitive risks.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Legislative history indicates that Congress intended for
the major assets prohibition to apply to ``larger'' organizations.
See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1383, at 5 (1978); S. Rep. No. 95-323, at 13
(1977).
\18\ While depository organizations with $10 billion or less in
total assets will not be covered by the major assets prohibition
against management interlocks, those depository organizations are
still subject to the community and RMSA prohibitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the proposed rule is consistent with the current
thresholds that Congress, the NCUA, and the Other Banking Agencies have
used to distinguish between small institutions and larger institutions.
For example, sections 201 and 203 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 provide burden relief for
institutions with less than $10 billion in total consolidated
assets.\19\ Further, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act uses a $10 billion threshold to distinguish between
large banks subject to supervision by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and small banks subject to prudential regulator supervision.\20\
A $10 billion threshold is also consistent with the asset threshold for
``covered credit unions,'' which are subject to capital planning and
stress testing requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection
Act of 2018, Public Law 115-174, 201, 203, 132 Stat. 1296, 1306,
1309 (2018) (enacting a ``Community Bank Leverage Ratio'' capital
simplification framework that is generally available to depository
institutions and depository institution holding companies with $10
billion or less in total consolidated assets and exempting generally
from the prohibitions of section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act
of 1956, also known as the ``Volcker Rule,'' certain entities with
$10 billion or less in total consolidated assets).
\20\ Public Law 111-203, 1025 & 1026, 124 Stat. 1376, 1990-95
(2010).
\21\ See 12 CFR part 702, subpart C--Capital Planning and Stress
Testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $10 billion asset size threshold is also consistent with the
threshold the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System uses to
distinguish between community banking organizations and larger banking
organizations for supervisory and regulatory purposes.\22\ The FDIC
uses the same threshold to distinguish between ``small'' and ``large''
institutions for purposes of its deposit insurance assessment
regulations.\23\ Finally, $10 billion is the asset threshold the OCC
uses to distinguish community banks from midsize and large banks for
supervisory purposes.\24\ Finally, setting the NCUA's two thresholds at
the same level will simplify the NCUA's DIMIA regulations and enable
depository organizations to more easily determine whether they are
subject to the major assets prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Commercial Bank
Examination Manual (rev. Jan. 2018), <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/cbem.pdf">https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/cbem.pdf</a>.
\23\ See 12 CFR 327.8(e) and (f). For the purposes of the FDIC's
assessment regulations, a ``small institution'' generally is an
insured depository institution with less than $10 billion in total
assets. Generally, a ``large institution'' is an insured depository
institution with $10 billion or more in total assets or that is
treated as a large institution for assessment purposes under section
327.16(f).
\24\ Comptroller's Handbook, ``OCC Community Bank Supervision''
(June 2018), <a href="https://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/comptrollers-handbook/community-bank-supervision/pub-ch-community-bank-supervision.pdf">https://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/comptrollers-handbook/community-bank-supervision/pub-ch-community-bank-supervision.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal would increase the number of depository organizations
that would no longer be subject to the major assets prohibition and
therefore would reduce the number of institutions that need to seek an
exemption from the NCUA.
As of December 31, 2024, 309 credit unions had total assets of more
than $1.5 billion and were subject to the major assets prohibition. In
addition, 190 credit unions with total assets of more than the $2.5
billion threshold were subject to restrictions on management interlocks
with unaffiliated depository organizations with total assets exceeding
the $1.5 billion threshold. Raising the $1.5 billion asset threshold to
$10 billion would exempt 289 credit unions from the major assets
prohibition as of December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, only 20
credit unions reported total assets greater than $10 billion and would
remain subject to the major assets prohibition.
B. Sec. 711.6(b) Presumptions
The proposal would amend current Sec. 711.6(b)(2) of the NCUA's
regulations to remove the presumption for institutions controlled or
managed by persons who are members of a minority group or women and
seeking to add a management official. In 1979, the NCUA, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, and the Federal Home Loan
Banks jointly adopted regulations setting forth exceptions to the
prohibitions contained in DIMIA.\25\ The exceptions were for
organizations located in low-income areas, minority and women's
organizations, newly chartered organizations, organizations facing
conditions endangering safety or soundness, and organizations
sponsoring credit unions. The exceptions were subsequently revised in
1996 \26\ and again in 1999 \27\ due to amendments to the DIMIA.
Current Sec. 711.6(b), which was adopted in 1999,\28\ creates a
rebuttable presumption that an interlock will not result in a monopoly
or substantial lessening of competition if the depository organization
seeking to add a management official ``is controlled or managed by
persons who are members of a minority group or women; . . .'' The NCUA
believes this presumption is overly broad and raises Equal Protection
issues under the U.S. Constitution.\29\
[[Page 24751]]
Accordingly, the Board proposes removing Sec. 711.6(b)(2) and
renumbering paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 44 FR 42152, 42155 (Jul. 19, 1979).
\26\ 61 FR 50698 (Sep. 27, 1996).
\27\ 64 FR 51673 (Sep. 24, 1999).
\28\ Id.
\29\ Amend. XIV, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment provides, ``No State shall . . . deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''
Generally, the same equal protection obligations apply to the
Federal Government through the Fifth Amendment. When federal agency
action targets benefits to groups based, in whole or in part, on
race or sex, it can trigger equal protection scrutiny. While the
federal government can consider race or sex in narrow circumstances,
the Constitution's equal protection guarantees require that the
government have sufficient justification for doing so. See, e.g.,
Students for Fair Admin., Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard
College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (holding that because Harvard's and
University of North Carolina's admissions programs lacked
sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of
race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial
stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions
programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal
Protection Clause.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is providing a 60-day comment period for this proposed
rule to account for the volume of proposed rules the Board is issuing.
The longer comment period will avoid placing undue burden on commenters
who are trying to review all of the rulemakings.
II. Regulatory Procedure
A. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 \30\)
(Act) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the
internet address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of a
proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet
website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 \31\
(commonly known as <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>). The Act, under its terms, applies
to notices of proposed rulemaking and does not expressly include other
types of documents that the Board publishes voluntarily for public
comment, such as notices and interim-final rules that request comment
despite invoking ``good cause'' to forgo such notice and public
procedure. The Board, however, has elected to address the Act's
requirement in these types of documents in the interests of
administrative consistency and transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4).
\31\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the Board is seeking comment on a proposed rule that
would increase two thresholds in its regulation implementing management
official interlocks for purposes of the DIMIA. DIMIA provides that the
NCUA may adjust, by regulation, the major assets prohibition thresholds
to allow for inflation or market changes. This proposal would increase
both major assets prohibition thresholds to $10 billion to account for
changes in the United States banking market since 1996. Additionally,
the proposal would remove a presumption related to depository
institutions controlled or managed by persons who are members of a
minority group or women.
The proposal and the required summary can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14192
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and
Review''), as amended by Executive Order 14215, a determination must be
made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance
with the requirements of the Executive Order.\32\ Executive Order 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') supplements and
reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing
contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order
12866.\33\ This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. OMB has
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
\33\ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 14192 (``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation'') requires that any new incremental costs associated with
new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the
elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.\34\ This proposed rule is expected to be a deregulatory
action for purposes of Executive Order 14192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act \35\ generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, it
shall publish the certification at the time of publication of either
the proposed rule or the final rule, along with a statement providing
the factual basis for such certification.\36\ For purposes of this
analysis, the NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having
under $100 million in assets.\37\ The Board fully considered the
potential economic impacts of the regulatory amendments on small credit
unions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\36\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\37\ 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal would increase both major assets prohibition
thresholds under part 711 to $10 billion to account for changes in the
United States banking market since 1996. Additionally, the proposal
would remove a presumption related to depository institutions
controlled or managed by persons who are members of a minority group or
women. Neither of these changes would impose new requirements on small
credit unions.
Accordingly, the NCUA certifies the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit
unions.
D. The Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) generally provides that
an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and not withstanding any other
provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information, unless it displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget control number. The PRA applies to rulemakings in
which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection
requirements. For purposes of the PRA, an information-collection
requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a
third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA has determined that the
changes addressed in this notice do not create a new information
collection or revise an existing information collection as defined by
the PRA.
E. Executive Order 13132 on Federalism
Executive Order 13132 encourages certain agencies to consider the
impact of their actions on state and local interests.\38\ The proposed
rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The rule would not create or alter existing rights or
requirements that apply to federally insured, state-chartered credit
unions or affect the ability of state regulatory agencies to examine,
supervise, or regulate such credit unions. The NCUA has therefore
determined that this rule would not constitute a policy that has
federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ``Federalism,'' E.O. 13,132 (Aug. 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The NCUA has determined that this rule would not affect family
well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government
[[Page 24752]]
Appropriations Act.\39\ The proposed rule would provide regulatory
relief for some credit unions that might otherwise have applied for an
exemption. Any effect on family well-being will be indirect and likely
insubstantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Public Law 105-277, sec. 654, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-528
(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 711
Antitrust, Credit unions, Holding companies.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board, this 1st day
of May, 2026.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
For the reasons discussed above, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR
part 711 as follows:
PART 711--MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS INTERLOCKS
0
1. The authority section continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1757 and 3201-3208.
0
2. Section 711.3 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 711.3 Prohibitions
* * * * *
(c) Major assets. A management official of a depository
organization with total assets exceeding $10 billion (or any affiliate
of such an organization) may not serve at the same time as a management
official of an unaffiliated depository organization with total assets
exceeding $10 billion (or any affiliate of such an organization),
regardless of the location of the two depository organizations. * * *
Sec. 711.6 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 711.6 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (b)(2); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (b)(2) and
(3).
[FR Doc. 2026-09009 Filed 5-6-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 7, 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.