Regulation O Recordkeeping: The FR O Revisions and Who Would File

Regulation O recordkeeping would be renumbered, widened in one place and narrowed in another under a Federal Reserve proposal now out for comment. On 4 August 2026 the Federal Reserve Board published a proposed restatement of Regulation O, its rule on loans by banks to their insiders, at 91 FR 49526 (Docket No. R-1896, RIN 7100-AH27). The Paperwork Reduction Act section of that notice proposes to extend the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation O, collection identifier FR O (OMB No. 7100-0382), for three years with revision. A second notice, published on 7 October 2026 at 91 FR 64121, extended the comment period by 30 days. Comments are now due by 4 November 2026.

FR O is the paperwork Regulation O already demands, with no form and no filing calendar: the annual insider survey and the loan-level records behind it, and the names a bank must release when a member of the public asks in writing. The proposal would move those duties into sections 215.30 and 215.31 of a new Subpart D (section 215.32 would take the officer and director stock-secured board disclosures, which the FR O burden estimates do not cover), add a records duty for the correspondent-bank lending restrictions in 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), lift the public-disclosure trigger from $500,000 to $2,000,000 with indexing to follow, and change who appears on the insider lists that every record starts from.

For compliance and regulatory reporting teams at insured banks, the work is mapping each change to the survey, the records and the request log, and deciding what to say in a comment before 4 November.

Related reading: FFIEC Call Report: Who Files 031, 041 or 051 for 30 September 2026

FR O dates, docket and status at a glance

Every row after the first tracks the 2026 proposal, which has not been finalised. The current FR O clearance and the current text of 12 CFR part 215 continue to apply until a final rule says otherwise.

The Board’s page of information collections out for public comment lists FR O against identifier R-1896 with two press releases and two Federal Register links, and shows no draft reporting form, no draft instructions and no OMB Supporting Statement. FR O is described as a recordkeeping and disclosure information collection rather than a periodic reporting return. The absence of a draft form on the Board’s collection-review page should not be interpreted as removing the underlying recordkeeping and disclosure obligations.

What the FR O collection covers under today’s Regulation O

Regulation O implements sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 375a and 375b). Section 22(h) limits the amount and terms of credit a member bank extends to its executive officers, directors and principal shareholders and to companies or political committees they control, collectively insiders. Section 22(g) adds further limits for executive officers. The paperwork attached to those limits sits in three places in the current rule. The current FR O clearance (OMB No. 7100-0382) covers only the first two listed below, as recordkeeping under sections 215.8 and 215.9 and disclosure under section 215.9; the stock-secured board disclosures in the third are not among its listed information collections.

• Section 215.8, records. A member bank keeps the records needed to show compliance. For its own insiders, the method must identify them through an annual survey and record the amount and terms of each extension of credit to them. For insiders of affiliates, the bank may use a survey method or a borrower inquiry method, or another method its federal banking agency accepts as at least as effective.
• Section 215.9, public disclosure. On a written request from the public, the bank names each executive officer and principal shareholder whose credit, aggregated with related interests, equaled or exceeded the lesser of 5 percent of capital and unimpaired surplus or $500,000 at the end of the latest previous quarter. Amounts are not disclosed, and the bank keeps a record of each request and its disposition for two years.
• Section 215.10, with section 225.4(e) of Regulation Y for holding companies. Executive officers and directors report annually to their board the outstanding amount of credit secured by shares of the bank or holding company, where those shares are not publicly traded.

The February 2024 notice that set the current clearance describes FR O as event-generated, with insured depository institutions and uninsured member banks as respondents, 6,099 respondents in total and an estimated 21,932 burden hours a year. That notice also explains the change in the respondent description. The earlier clearance had listed only member banks. The Board revised it to reflect that the Regulation O collections apply in practice to all insured depository institutions by operation of statute, and said the change was solely an administrative law matter that imposed no new requirements. The larger burden figure came from counting institutions that were already covered.

The label “reporting form” sits awkwardly on all of this, because the three components go to the bank’s own files, to a member of the public who asks, and to the bank’s or holding company’s board, with nothing transmitted to the Board.

Who would file: the FR O respondent panel and burden estimate

The August 2026 PRA section keeps the respondent description unchanged: insured depository institutions and uninsured member banks. The reason the panel reaches beyond Federal Reserve members is statutory. Regulation O applies by its terms to member banks, while 12 U.S.C. 1828(j) applies sections 22(g) and 22(h) to insured state nonmember banks and insured branches of foreign banks as if they were member banks, and the Home Owners’ Loan Act does the same for insured savings associations. Proposed section 215.1(b)(2) restates both routes.

Foreign banking organisations, whose U.S. reporting we cover in our FR Y-7Q reporting guide for FBOs, will notice a wording change. The current definition of “member bank” states that it does not include a foreign bank that maintains a branch in the United States, whether or not the branch is insured. The Board says that sentence has been misread as settling whether Regulation O reaches foreign branches. The proposed definition says the term includes insured branches of foreign banks, while still excluding a foreign bank solely because it has an insured branch. Regulation O already applied to insured branches by statute, so the edit clarifies scope.

The burden figures moved more than the respondent description did.

The 2026 lines multiply out to the stated total: 13,392 hours for section 215.30, plus 608 and 1,216 hours for section 215.31. The notice does not reconcile the new respondent count with the 6,099 in the 2024 clearance. Its PRA description and burden table cover only sections 215.30 and 215.31, so the officer and director disclosures in proposed section 215.32 carry no burden line. The Board’s collection-review page shows no OMB Supporting Statement for this revision, and the PRA section publishes only respondent counts, hours per response and totals.

The bank is the respondent, yet several of the proposed duties depend on other parties supplying information. The PRA section says so directly for the correspondent records: each permitted method requires the member bank to request disclosure of certain information by third parties. Borrowers answer an inquiry, correspondent and respondent banks answer a survey, and officers and directors make their own stock-secured disclosures to the board. Enforcement stays with each institution’s appropriate federal banking agency, a term the proposal would now define by reference to 12 U.S.C. 1813: the OCC for national banks and federal savings associations, the FDIC for state nonmember banks and state savings associations, and the Board for state member banks.

Regulation O recordkeeping under section 215.30, including correspondent banks

Proposed section 215.30 would keep the general duty (records necessary for compliance) and then set out four record streams.

• Insiders of the bank itself: identify all of them through an annual survey, and keep records of all extensions of credit to them, including amount and terms. This carries forward the current section 215.8 requirement.
• Insiders of affiliates: the survey method (annual survey plus records of amount and terms) or the borrower inquiry method (each borrower states whether it is an insider of an affiliate, and the bank records the credit to those who say yes). A different method needs the appropriate federal banking agency to determine it is at least as effective.
• Insiders of correspondent or respondent banks: the same two methods, run against each correspondent or respondent bank, with the same alternative-method route. This stream is new.
• Non-commercial lenders: a bank barred by law or by express board resolution from lending to companies covered by the rule need not keep records of related interests or ask borrowers about them.

The proposal also writes in a safe harbor. A bank using either named method for affiliates, or either named method for correspondents, satisfies the corresponding paragraph. The Board adopted the two affiliate methods in 1994 and said then that an implicit safe harbor existed; the proposal makes it explicit and extends it to the correspondent stream. The stated rationale is that a bank has easy access to its own insiders through shareholder and employment records but limited access to information about insiders of other institutions.

The correspondent restrictions themselves are old law. Section 106(b)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), already requires credit to an insider of a correspondent or respondent bank to be made on substantially the same terms as comparable transactions with other persons and without more than the normal risk of repayment, and bars a bank from opening a correspondent account at another bank while either bank has non-conforming credit outstanding to the other’s insiders (12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(B) and (D)). Proposed section 215.22(c) restates that account-opening bar in a single paragraph. Current section 215.1(b)(4) only points to the statute. Proposed section 215.22 would put the restrictions into the regulation, and proposed section 215.30(e) would attach the records requirement.

Two definitions in proposed section 215.22 decide how wide the survey runs. A “bank” takes its meaning from 12 U.S.C. 1841(c) and also includes mutual savings banks, savings banks, savings associations and any subsidiary of those entities. A “correspondent account” is any account a bank maintains with another bank for the deposit or placement of funds. The Board describes that as a broad definition intended to capture most, if not all, accounts a bank could use to enhance credit made by the correspondent, and Question 69 asks whether it should be narrowed to accounts used for particular purposes, such as payment services. For a bank with dozens of due-from and due-to relationships, that definition sets the number of annual surveys under the survey method.

Bankers’ banks get their own discussion. Holding companies are generally treated as insiders for the correspondent restrictions, and bankers’ banks lend to the holding companies of their respondent banks, so a large share of their lending can fall under the restriction. The Board’s position is that a bankers’ bank could demonstrate compliance by comparing such loans with loans it makes to institutions outside the restriction. Questions 68 to 72 ask about the value of codifying 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), the definitions, how bankers’ banks manage these requirements today, other ways to identify correspondent insiders, and whether some institutions should be exempt from the correspondent recordkeeping.

Who lands in the annual insider survey

Every FR O record starts from the list of insiders. Several proposed definition changes would alter that list without touching any recordkeeping section directly.

Executive officer titles. The current definition presumes that the chairman, president, every vice president, cashier, secretary and treasurer are executive officers. The proposal removes every vice president, the cashier and the secretary from the presumption and adds the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief lending officer and chief investment officer. The functional test stays: anyone who participates or has authority to participate in major policymaking functions is an executive officer whatever the title, and a board resolution excluding a person does not help if that person in fact participates. A vice president with genuine policymaking authority stays on the list; the presumption is the only thing that goes.

Spouses, trusts and estates. The proposal codifies the tangible economic benefit rule so that credit to an insider’s spouse, or to a spouse’s related interest, is treated as credit to the insider unless the spouse is independently creditworthy and repayment does not depend on the insider’s income or assets. For a spouse’s company there are two further conditions: the insider has no financial or ownership interest in it and takes no part in its management. Credit to a trust or estate counts as credit to an insider holding a 25 percent or greater present or contingent beneficial interest. New rebuttable presumptions treat a trustee as controlling the trust, along with a settlor, appointer or beneficiary who can remove or replace a trustee and limit the trustee’s power over trust assets, and treat an executor as controlling companies and bank shares controlled by the estate.

Principal shareholders and subsidiaries. A company of which the bank is a subsidiary would not be a principal shareholder of the bank or of any of its affiliates, and a member bank would not be a principal shareholder of its own subsidiaries. Operating subsidiaries would fall outside the affiliate definition, while insiders of financial subsidiaries, identified using the Regulation W definition, would be treated like insiders of affiliates.

Fund complexes. Under the current rule, a fund complex holding more than 10 percent of any class of a bank’s voting securities is a principal shareholder, and under the presumption of control a portfolio company becomes its related interest where the complex owns more than 10 percent of a class of the portfolio company’s voting securities and is its largest shareholder. The proposal would switch that presumption off for a “qualified fund complex”. The proposed definition requires that the complex is not, and is not affiliated with, a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company; does not meet any Regulation Y presumption of control over a regulated company; sponsors, manages or advises no fund owning more than 10 percent of a class of a regulated company’s voting securities; and has non-index funds that in aggregate hold no more than 10 percent. The Board’s economic analysis counts fund complexes as principal shareholders of about 66 banks as of the fourth quarter of 2025, and estimates that the complexes might be presumed to control about 2,047 portfolio companies.

Under the exception, the fund complex stays on the insider list, because “principal shareholder” is a statutory definition and a complex holding more than 10 percent remains one. A portfolio company also stays a related interest where the complex owns, controls or has the power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of its voting securities, controls the election of a majority of its directors, or has the power to exercise a controlling influence over its management or policies. What disappears is the presumption-driven tracking of thousands of portfolio companies. The interim position is the interagency relief first issued in December 2019 and most recently extended in December 2025, which the Board’s analysis describes as running through 2026. Question 13 asks who should keep the records verifying qualified status, whether the fund complex is the right party to support that status, and whether it should supply the supporting information to the banks in its portfolio or to the agencies.

Public disclosure under section 215.31: the $2 million trigger and a narrower list

Proposed section 215.31 restates the current section 215.9 duty with three changes.

The threshold rises. A bank receiving a written public request would name each executive officer and principal shareholder whose aggregated credit, including credit to related interests, equaled or exceeded the lesser of 5 percent of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus or $2,000,000 multiplied by the GDP growth adjustment, as of the end of the latest previous quarter. The existing $25,000 exclusion would remain: no disclosure is required where the aggregate outstanding credit to the executive officer or principal shareholder and their related interests does not exceed $25,000. The bank would still not be required to disclose the amounts of individual extensions of credit.

The disclosure population changes. The current section 215.9 carries its own definitions of “principal shareholder” and “related interest”. Its principal shareholder definition does not exclude a company of which the bank is a subsidiary, and both definitions exclude foreign banks. The proposal deletes those special definitions so that section 215.31 uses the rule’s general definitions. A bank’s holding company would no longer be a disclosable principal shareholder, and a foreign bank would no longer be excluded.

The Board’s reasoning is that the disclosure requirement may only be used rarely and that naming a holding company likely reveals little new information, and that the foreign-bank carve-out dates from 1979, when the reporting requirements it shielded were more complex. The PRA section’s conclusion is that the list of persons a bank must disclose will likely be smaller.

The request log stays. Records of every request and its disposition, disposable two years after the request date, remain in proposed section 215.31(b).

Public disclosure and the Call Report insider memoranda share the same $500,000 figure today, but they are separate mechanisms. Section 215.31 operates only on request, produces names, and keeps the current treatment under the civil penalty section: the proposed section 215.40, like current section 215.11, excludes the disclosure section from the section 29 Federal Reserve Act penalty cross-reference.

Stock-secured credit: section 215.32 replaces two separate rules

Section 306(o) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 requires executive officers and directors to report annually to their board the outstanding amount of credit secured by shares of the bank and its holding company, where the shares are not publicly traded. The Board implemented that in two places: section 215.10 of Regulation O for bank stock, and section 225.4(e) of Regulation Y for holding company stock. The proposal deletes section 225.4(e) and consolidates the requirement in proposed section 215.32.

Three operational points come out of the proposed text.

• Vocabulary. The obligation would be a disclosure, matching the label used for information given to third parties such as a board, in place of the statutory word “report”, which the Board says is usually used for information given to regulators.
• Test for “publicly traded”. The proposed text keys each disclosure to whether the relevant bank or company has any class of equity securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The current section 215.10 uses “not publicly traded” without defining it; the Board describes the section 12 test as consistent with Regulation Y and past staff interpretations.
• Three directions of disclosure. Executive officers and directors of a member bank with no class of equity securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 would disclose annually to the bank’s board the outstanding amount of credit to them secured by shares of the bank or of a company of which the bank is a subsidiary. Officers and directors of an unregistered holding company disclose to the holding company’s board credit secured by shares of the company or of its subsidiary bank. Officers and directors of a member bank also disclose to the bank’s board credit secured by shares of an unregistered holding company.

Question 97 asks whether each person should disclose credit secured by shares of either the bank or the holding company, or whether bank insiders should disclose only bank-stock credit and holding company insiders only holding-company-stock credit. Anyone mapping the board-disclosure calendar should read the final text closely, because the answer to that question decides which board receives which disclosure.

The dollar thresholds behind the records, and the GDP index

Several FR O records exist to evidence compliance with a dollar threshold: the board approval for a large extension of credit, the executive officer “other purpose” limit, and the overdraft exceptions. The proposal raises six thresholds, using changes in seasonally adjusted US nominal GDP between the fourth quarter of 1994 and the fourth quarter of 2025, with the initial revised amounts rounded down to simple multiples of the existing thresholds.

The structure of two limits changes as well. Prior approval today applies above the higher of $25,000 or 5 percent of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus, and always above $500,000. Proposed section 215.12 would require approval by a majority of the entire board, with any interested party abstaining, where aggregated credit to an insider exceeds the lower of 5 percent or $2,000,000 multiplied by the GDP growth adjustment. The executive officer “other purpose” limit would become the lower of 2.5 percent or $400,000, multiplied by the same adjustment. The proposal would also clarify that every interested director must abstain from a prior approval vote and that participating in the discussion counts as indirect participation in the vote.

Those two dollar limits are set by each federal banking agency for the institutions it supervises, as footnotes to the Board’s proposal point out. The OCC’s rule at 12 CFR 31.2(a) requires national banks and federal savings associations to comply with Regulation O, so the Board’s figures would carry through to them. For FDIC-supervised institutions (insured state nonmember banks, foreign banks with an insured branch and state savings associations), the two limits sit in the FDIC’s own rule at 12 CFR 337.3. On 6 August 2026 the FDIC proposed moving them to the same $2,000,000 and $400,000 figures, each multiplied by a GDP growth adjustment that the FDIC would publish itself (91 FR 50730, RIN 3064-AG26). A notice of 9 October 2026 extended that comment period to 4 November 2026, matching the Board’s deadline (91 FR 64629).

Going forward, proposed section 215.6 would have the Board publish a GDP growth adjustment and adjusted thresholds every five years. The adjustment is the ratio of fourth-quarter nominal GDP in the year before publication to fourth-quarter nominal GDP in the year before the final rule’s effective date, using Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates published by 30 September of the publication year. Thresholds in the thousands round to one significant digit and thresholds in the millions to two. No adjustment is published if five-year cumulative nominal GDP growth is negative. The Board expects the initial scalar to be 1, and its worked example has a 2027 effective date followed by the first recalculation in 2032. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority has consulted on a similar mechanism, covered in our article on PRA threshold indexation under CP13/26; both use a five-year cycle, and the Fed’s version moves Regulation O’s dollar figures only.

One change affects lines of credit. Today the whole line, drawn and undrawn, counts toward the lending limit, and where an insider’s total credit exceeds 15 percent of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus the bank must obtain collateral for the excess, undrawn portion included, as soon as the line is granted. The proposed text would treat the unused portion as collateralised if the bank has no legal obligation to advance until the insider posts the required collateral. The unused portion would still count toward the 15 percent and 25 percent limits, so the records still need the full line amount.

The capital base for the percentage tests also gets its own definition. For a bank using the community bank leverage ratio framework, unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus would mean tier 1 capital plus the allowance for loan and lease losses or adjusted allowance for credit losses, the same CBLR measure that current section 215.2(i)(3) already applies. That capital base matters for banks working through the 2026 CBLR changes discussed in our FR Y-9C CBLR reporting article. The preamble describes the reorganisation of the capital definitions as not substantively changing their meaning.

Call Report Schedule RC-M and the separate FFIEC process

The PRA section states that the proposed amendments relate to existing data items in the FFIEC Call Reports (FFIEC 031, 041 and 051) and that any Call Report amendments would be proposed separately by the FFIEC. It does not name the items.

The obvious candidates are the Schedule RC-M insider memoranda, which take their definitions from Regulation O. Item 1.a reports the aggregate amount of all extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, principal shareholders and their related interests, counting each extension once. Item 1.b reports the number of those insiders whose credit, including credit to related interests, equals or exceeds the lesser of $500,000 or 5 percent of total capital as defined in agency regulations. The RC-M instructions also say a line of credit is normally reported at the total line amount, not the drawn balance, and that the definitions follow Regulation O and 12 U.S.C. 375b(9)(D). Which Call Report form a bank files for the 30 September 2026 report date is covered in our FFIEC Call Report filing guide.

Schedule RC-M Memorandum item 1.b is a potential area for consequential reporting changes, subject to the FFIEC’s separate rulemaking and instructions. The Regulation O proposal would increase the public-disclosure dollar threshold to $2,000,000, but that proposal does not itself amend the Call Report reporting threshold. Until the FFIEC proposes and adopts a change, the Call Report instructions keep their own figure. A bank applying a final Regulation O rule before any FFIEC change would be counting insiders against $500,000 for RC-M and against the new trigger for public disclosure. The instructions’ reference to definitions in Regulation O also means that the proposed definition changes (executive officer titles and fund complex portfolio companies) could change who is counted in items 1.a and 1.b without any change to the Call Report itself. Neither point is stated in the proposal; both follow from the cross-references.

Effective date, transition and the comment questions that touch FR O

The proposed text has no effective date. The GDP growth adjustment definition and section 215.6 both contain a placeholder for the effective date of a final rule. Section 302(b) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, which the proposal discusses, generally requires new regulations imposing additional reporting, disclosure or other requirements on insured depository institutions to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter beginning on or after final publication, subject to exceptions including good cause. The Board’s own assessment is that the disclosure changes would likely reduce what most banks must disclose and that the new correspondent recordkeeping methods are nearly identical to the existing affiliate methods.

Comments go to Docket No. R-1896 and RIN 7100-AH27 through the Board’s proposals website, by email to publiccomments@frb.gov with the docket number in the subject line, or by mail or hand delivery to the Secretary of the Board. A copy of comments on the PRA aspects may also be sent to the OMB desk officer for the Board at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. The PRA section invites comment on necessity and practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to improve quality and clarity, ways to reduce burden, and capital, startup and operating costs.

Most of the proposal’s 102 numbered questions concern lending substance. The ones that bear directly on FR O are a shorter list.

• Question 13: who maintains the records that verify qualified fund complex status, and whether principal shareholders should supply supporting information to banks or agencies.
• Question 14: whether a grace period, for example 90 days, should apply when a principal shareholder temporarily trips the presumption of control.
• Questions 68 to 72: codification of 12 U.S.C. 1972(2), the “bank” and “correspondent account” definitions, bankers’ banks, other identification methods, and exemptions from the correspondent recordkeeping.
• Question 73: the simplified disclosure definitions in section 215.31.
• Question 76: whether banks should keep records of transition loans before those loans lose transition status.
• Questions 93 and 94: the codified safe harbor and other circumstances where a safe harbor might fit.
• Question 97: the scope of the stock-secured disclosures.

The correspondent recordkeeping is where a burden comment would be most useful. The PRA table gives 3 hours per response for all of section 215.30, and the notice does not show how much of that is attributed to the new correspondent stream.

Frequently Asked Questions

Our bank’s parent holding company owns more than 10 percent of our shares. Is it an insider for the correspondent restrictions even though the proposal says it is not our principal shareholder?

On the proposed text, yes, for that purpose only. Proposed section 215.22 defines “insider” for the correspondent restrictions as an executive officer or director, any person owning, controlling or holding the power to vote more than 10 percent of a class of the bank’s voting securities, and their related interests. It does not use the narrower “principal shareholder” definition, and the preamble states that holding companies are generally treated as insiders for the correspondent lending restrictions. A correspondent that lends to your holding company would be within scope, which is why the Board singles out bankers’ banks.

Our bank has no registered securities but its parent is listed. Which stock-secured disclosures would our directors make?

On the proposed text, the bank-level duty in section 215.32(a) depends on whether the member bank has any class of equity securities registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act, and it covers credit secured by shares of the bank or of its parent. The holding-company-level duties in section 215.32(b) apply only where the holding company has no registered class. Question 97 signals the Board may narrow the scope, so treat any mapping as provisional until the final rule.

If a fund complex briefly fails one qualified fund complex condition, do its portfolio companies immediately become related interests?

The proposed text contains no grace period. The preamble says that if a qualified fund complex attempts to influence a bank’s lending in favour of a portfolio company, the Board could find it no longer qualifies, at which point all its portfolio companies would become related interests, outstanding credit would count toward the limits, and the bank would need records of future extensions of credit to them. Question 14 asks whether a grace period, for example 90 days, should apply to temporary trips of the presumption.

Which numbers in the FR O sections would not move with the GDP growth adjustment?

In proposed section 215.31 the $2,000,000 figure carries the adjustment but the $25,000 floor does not. The percentage tests (5 percent and 2.5 percent of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus), the 10 percent and 25 percent ownership tests, the two-year retention period for disclosure requests and the 14-month window for lines of credit are not dollar amounts and are not indexed.

Does an advisory director belong in the annual insider survey?

The proposed definition keeps the advisory director carve-out. An advisory director is not a director if the person is not elected by shareholders, is not authorised to vote on matters before the board, and provides solely general policy advice. Failing any one of the three puts the person back in the director definition. Separately, a person is not a director of a member bank solely because they are a director of one of its subsidiaries.

A new director has a mortgage with us that was made before they joined the board. Does it have to be unwound?

Under proposed section 215.4(b), credit made to a noninsider who later becomes an insider is not subject to the rule if the bank counts it toward every quantitative limit and did not make the loan in contemplation of the person becoming an insider. A renewal is treated as a new extension of credit. For lines of credit the transition treatment ends 14 months after the person becomes an insider. Question 76 asks whether banks should keep records of transition loans while they hold that status.

We are barred by our charter from commercial lending. Do we still need to survey related interests?

Proposed section 215.30(f) carries forward the special rule: a bank prohibited by law or by express board resolution from extending credit to any company or other entity covered by the rule need not keep records of the related interests of insiders of the bank or its affiliates, or ask borrowers whether they are related interests. The duty to identify individual insiders and record credit to them is unaffected.

Related Articles

• FFIEC Call Report: Who Files 031, 041 or 051 for 30 September 2026: which Call Report form a bank files for the 30 September 2026 report date and the CBLR, brokered deposit and CDR submission changes around it.
• FR Y-9C Reporting: An 8% CBLR and a Four-Quarter Grace Period: how the September 2026 FR Y-9C instructions reflect the amended community bank leverage ratio rule.
• FR Y-7Q Reporting: The Fed’s Capital and Asset Report for FBOs: who files the FR Y-7Q, what each section requires and the submission and validation steps.
• PRA Threshold Indexation: How CP13/26 Moves 128 Thresholds: the UK PRA consultation tying fixed monetary thresholds in its Rulebook to nominal GDP.

Key Takeaways

• Comment deadline: 4 November 2026, Docket No. R-1896, RIN 7100-AH27. PRA comments can be copied to the OMB desk officer for the Board. The FDIC’s proposal to align its prior-approval and executive officer limits in 12 CFR 337.3 with the Board’s (RIN 3064-AG26) closes the same day.
• Correspondent survey scope: under the survey method, proposed section 215.30(e) runs one annual survey per correspondent or respondent bank, so the correspondent-account list sets the workload.
• Insider survey population: the title presumption would no longer cover vice presidents, cashiers and secretaries, would add the CEO, CFO, chief lending officer and chief investment officer, and would sit alongside the unchanged functional policymaking test.
• Public request log: proposed section 215.31 names executive officers and principal shareholders whose aggregated credit is at or above the lesser of 5 percent or $2,000,000 (indexed), excludes the holding company, includes foreign banks, and keeps the two-year request record.
• Board disclosures: proposed section 215.32 absorbs Regulation Y section 225.4(e), and section 12 Exchange Act registration becomes the publicly traded test.
• Call Report RC-M item 1.b keeps its $500,000 figure unless and until the FFIEC adopts its own change; the Regulation O proposal does not amend it.
• No effective date yet: current sections 215.8 and 215.9 govern the FR O records and public disclosures, and section 215.10 with Regulation Y section 225.4(e) governs the stock-secured board disclosures, until a final rule takes effect.

Sources and References

• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Loans to Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders of Member Banks; Bank Holding Companies, proposed rule, 91 FR 49526 (4 August 2026), FR Doc. 2026-15777: govinfo PDF and Federal Register entry
• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, extension of comment period, 91 FR 64121 (7 October 2026), FR Doc. 2026-20509: govinfo PDF and Federal Register entry
• Federal Reserve Board press release, proposal to modernize Regulation O (31 July 2026): federalreserve.gov
• Federal Reserve Board press release, extension of the Regulation O comment period (2 October 2026): federalreserve.gov
• Federal Reserve Board, Data Collections Currently under Review (FR O, R-1896): federalreserve.gov
• Federal Reserve Board, Reporting Forms recent updates (FR O entries of 4 August, 5 October and 8 October 2026): federalreserve.gov
• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB (FR O), 89 FR 12340 (16 February 2024), FR Doc. 2024-03214: govinfo PDF
• 12 CFR part 215 (Regulation O), current text including sections 215.1, 215.8, 215.9, 215.10 and 215.11: eCFR
• 12 CFR 225.4 (Regulation Y, corporate practices), including paragraph (e): eCFR
• FFIEC 031 and 041 Call Report instructions, Schedule RC-M Memoranda (December 2025): FDIC PDF
• FFIEC 051 Call Report instructions, Schedule RC-M Memoranda (December 2025): FDIC PDF
• Federal Reserve Board proposals and comment submission site: federalreserve.gov
• 12 U.S.C. 375a (section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act) and 12 U.S.C. 375b (section 22(h)): 375a and 375b
• 12 U.S.C. 1828(j) (application of sections 22(g) and 22(h) to insured nonmember banks) and 12 U.S.C. 1972(2) (correspondent account restrictions): 1828 and 1972
• 12 U.S.C. 1468(b) (Home Owners’ Loan Act; application of sections 22(g) and 22(h) to savings associations): 1468
• Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection Request 202403-7100-008, Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation O (OMB No. 7100-0382), including its list of information collections: reginfo.gov
• Prudential Regulation Authority, CP13/26 Updating regulatory thresholds: An autopilot approach (7 October 2026): bankofengland.co.uk
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Extensions of Credit to Insiders, proposed rule, 91 FR 50730 (6 August 2026), FR Doc. 2026-15995, RIN 3064-AG26: govinfo PDF
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Extensions of Credit to Insiders, extension of comment period, 91 FR 64629 (9 October 2026), FR Doc. 2026-20735: govinfo PDF
• 12 CFR 337.3 (FDIC limits on extensions of credit to executive officers, directors and principal shareholders of FDIC-supervised institutions) and 12 CFR 31.2 (OCC rule applying Regulation O to national banks and federal savings associations): 337.3 and 31.2

Mapping FR O before the 4 November Regulation O deadline

The FR O duties themselves change only when a final rule takes effect; 4 November 2026 closes the window to influence how the correspondent records, the disclosure definitions and the stock-secured disclosures are finalised. The artifacts worth producing before then are a list of every correspondent and respondent bank account that proposed section 215.22 would capture, a re-run of the current insider list against the proposed executive officer, trust, spouse and fund complex definitions, and an estimate of the hours the correspondent survey or borrower inquiry would add, which the Board’s notice does not break out. If those numbers differ from the Board’s 3 hours per response for section 215.30, Docket R-1896 is where they belong by 4 November 2026.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.